Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning Commission-Minutes-12/10/2001PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes -December 10, 2001 Chairman Gasper called the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order at 7:00 P.M. on December 10, 2001. Roll Call: Present: Jeffrey Wall, Bob Culley, Earl Swift, Mark Jones, Bud Sellers, Mark Hollis, Jo Ann Gasper Staff: Barry LeBaron, Clayton Husband, and Jan Levy Invocation: Commissioner Wall Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Minutes: November 26, 2001 Commissioner Wall moved to approve the minutes of November 26, 2001 as corrected to eliminate Commissioner Sellers from the vote on item #1. Commissioner Swift seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: None A Minor Plat of Lot 2, Block 1, Cochran Addition requested by Scott Flynn, 0.6541 acres located at 5512 Montclair Drive, Case P-01-0035 Clayton Husband presented the case to the commissioners. He told them this is a minor plat of the property and will create one single-family lot. He explained about the property being a lot of record and the zoning is AG Agricultural so the applicant will have to meet the side yard requirements for the district, however, the Commission can waive the requirement for the front building line and grant a waiver as recommended by the DRC to allow a 30-foot front building line. Clayton told the commissioners that the owner's surveyor has addressed all the DRC comments and staff recommends approval. Commissioner Hollis moved to approve the minor plat of the Cochran Addition with a 30- foot front building line. Commissioner Wall seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: None 2. A Preliminary Plat of Westgate Villas requested by Raman Chandler, 14.761 acres located on the south side of McDonwell School Road, west of Remington Parkway, Case P-01-036 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes -December 10, 2001 Page 1 of 12- Approved on January 74, 2002 Clayton Husband presented the case to the commissioners. He told them about the current zoning on the property and how the plat meets the requirements of the PUD-R ordinance. He said the open space on the plat exceeds the required 20%, as it is 3.20 acres and that is 22%. Mr. Husband informed the commissioners that Mr. Chandler is responsible for constructing an 8- foot tall screening wall adjacent to the Remington Park subdivision and along the west boundary line of the project. He said Mr. Chandler claims that statement was incorrect and the wall was supposed to be 6-foot tall. Clayton said staff researched this issue and found that the Planning and Zoning Commission, through its previous discussion on the issue during the zoning change, recommended that the 8-foot tall wall be built on both sides of the property. Mr. Husband said a detention pond is proposed in the greenbelt on the southern end of the property, and the pond shows an outlet for the water that concentrates the release of the water on to the adjacent property. He said the developer must obtain an easement from the adjacent property owner to allow the release of water on the next lot, and the developer's engineer has stated that the easement is not needed since the water flow out of the pond is not concentrated. He said the City's Engineering Department has stated that the preliminary design provided by the developer's engineer does concentrate the flow at one point, and that an off-site easement is required. Clayton told the commissioners the owner's surveyor has addressed all Development Review Committee comments related to the plat, and since the plat contains more than four lots, the plat also requires approval by the City Council. He said staff recommends denial due to the technical non-compliance with the Land Development Code drainage standards. The applicant, Raman Chandler, distributed a letter from the Remington Park Homeowners' Association and introduced Chuck Watson, 3528 Meadowside, Bedford, as his representative to speak with the Commission. Mr. Watson gave the history of the project and related the similarities of Westgate Villas to the Villas at Caldwell's Creek. He spoke about the advantages of the projects and how they are a source of pride. Mr. Watson said the preliminary plat is identical to the zoning exhibit with one exception, as they eliminated the arches over the gated area. He also showed the commissioners pictures of the Villas at Caldwell's Creek, and requested that the Commission grant approval of the Westgate Villas Preliminary Plat. Chairman Gasper asked if there were any questions for staff. Discussion ensued about how many homes will be constructed in the subdivision, the 8' screening fence, and the construction materials of the screening wall. Staff informed the Commission that the fence would be constructed with concrete panels that look like brick or wood. They discussed that Westgate Villas would be a gated subdivision and meet the criteria set forth by the City. Commissioner Cully asked if the Remington Park Homeowners' Association was represented in the discussion regarding the fence height. Mr. Husband responded that he was not sure if they were involved. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes -December 10, 2001 Page 2 of 12- Approved on January 74, 2002 Chairman Gasper said the drainage issue is of great concern. There was lengthy discussion about an existing storm drain being part of the former Nine Acres property and how the developer is not proposing to build another storm drain because there is already one there. Raman Chandler said they will be reducing the rate of outflow onto adjacent properties and they are designing a system where the property reverts back to the flow for pastureland and could easily convert if the property to the south wants water to be put into a pipe. He said they were well incompliance with the existing regulations. Mr. Chandler introduced his engineer Tony Krauska. Mr. Krauska went to the drawing board in the Council Chambers and drew an explanation for the proposed drainage system. Commissioner Wall asked why the difference between the developer's proposal and staff's recommendation. Mr. Krauska said the engineering department is opposed to concentrating the drainage to one area. Commissioner Wall and Mr. Krauska discussed sheet flow versus point flow. Commissioner Culley said it seems to him as if the developer has a good explanation and has made a good case for his proposed system. Mr. Husband responded that the issue of how the water leaves the property is the problem and it is an issue of the release of water. Raman Chandler proposed that the Commission approve the preliminary plat subject to an agreement and resolution with City staff at the final plat stage. Barry LeBaron said that as of the afternoon of the meeting date, December 10, 2001, engineering staff recommended denial of the preliminary plat. Mr. Krauska said the engineering staff is asking for a full design and that is normally done when the final plat is applied for. Mr. Chandler also said this was a normal procedure. He also said that the screening wall design does not factor into preliminary plat approval. Commissioner Wall said he would recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission would not consider the final plat unless the drainage issue was resolved with staff and Council. He said if they move and vote to send the preliminary plat to Council, it would be up to the Council and staff to deal with the fencing issue. He asked staff if the Commission could make a motion as such. Clayton Husband said that the technical compliance for staff is what is in the code and it is not a value judgment based on who a developer is and the plat either meets the regulations or it doesn't. Commissioner Hollis said before they pass something on to Council that is in technical non- compliance shouldn't they at least ask the adjacent property owners what their position is regarding granting an easement? Chairman Gasper said it seems to her that they have a letter from Remington Park. Commissioner Hollis said Remington Park is not involved in the drainage issue. He said they are talking about the property owners to the south and southwest for drainage. Commissioner Wall said that is not an issue if the flow is less and the only technical Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes -December 10, 2001 Page 3 of 12- Approved on January 74, 2002 non-compliance is if there is sheet flow or point flow and whether the engineers can agree. He said he doesn't see why they can't pass the plat onto Council with the engineers working it out. Commissioner Wall said if it isn't worked out before it goes to Council, they will see the Commission's motion and if it comes back to the Commission, they will sit on it until it is resolved. Commissioner Swift said he does not have a complaint with Mr. Chandler's proposal, but he wants to offer his comments about his great concern about the traffic problems in the general area and the whole corridor on John McCain. He said it is not a basis for agreement or disagreement with Mr. Chandler and Mr. Chandler has done a good job on the Villas at Caldwell's Creek. He said that anyone who travels on McDonwell School Road and on John McCain would notice that it is getting very constipated with all the developments being made. Commissioner Swift said it is only going to get worse before it gets better. He said staff is in the process of developing an amendment to the Master Plan and the Northeast Tarrant Parkway that he originally opposed has to be addressed because the City cannot support Mr. Chandler's type of additions without some recognition of the huge traffic problem that is being built in. He said his comments are more addressed to the authors of the Master Plan than to Mr. Chandler. Commissioner Culley moved to approve the preliminary plat of Westgate Villas provided that the developer and city staff are able to agree on a suitable plan that does meet the codes and restrictions that the city would apply to the situation regarding the drainage off of the property. Commissioner Sellers seconded the motion. Commissioner Wall said Commissioner Culley said nothing about what would happen if the plat came back to the Commission unresolved. He said he assumes that Commissioner Culley means they would not deal with it unless it is resolved. Commissioner Wall asked Commissioner Culley to consider adding a statement at the end of his motion by adding a friendly amendment that Planning and Zoning will not deal with a final plat for Westgate Villas until and unless the drainage issue is resolved. Commissioner Culley said he would accept that as a friendly amendment and Commissioner Sellers said he would second the friendly amendment. Commissioner Culley said they believe the developer has a reasonable plan and his engineer seems to make sense and he doesn't see the Commission fighting this too much as it is just a matter of getting the plan right and he advised Mr. Chandler to spend the money on a final engineering plan so they can look at a final plat. Commissioner Hollis requested to have a comment on the record. He said he also opposes the development because of the density and he is still in opposition to it. He said he does not want his vote to be misconstrued that what they are voting on is simply a preliminary plat and it needs to be considered after the fact that the PUD has been approved by City Council and he respects that. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes -December 10, 2001 Page 4 of 12- Approved on January 74, 2002 Chairman Gasper said that supposedly if Mr. Chandler takes the water along the side of the property that is to the west out to the street it would be one way to resolve the technical problem. Discussion ensued about possible alternatives and how the water may need to go down to Lavaca Trail. Chairman Gasper restated the motion that the proposal is approved with the condition that the developer work with city staff to resolve the drainage issue so that it is in compliance with City ordinance. Commissioner Wall said it is with the further understanding that if the issue comes back to the Commission still unresolved, irregardless of the fact that if it is a final plat, the Commission will not deal with the issue until it is resolved. Chairman Gasper called for the question. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: None 3. PUBLIC HEARING - A Special Use Permit for a detached accessory building requested by Craig Gandy located at 1117 W L.D. Lockett Road, Case Z-01-030 Clayton Husband presented the case to the commissioners. He explained that the request for a special use permit is for a 12,000 square foot horse barn in the southeast portion of the property. He said that will bring the number of buildings on the property to five and the current accessory building only allows 3 buildings and a maximum size of all buildings is allowed to be a combined total of 2,500 square feet. He said the ordinance does not take into account a property as large as Mr. Gandy's property, which is approximately 8'/z acres. He said the applicant has requested a waiver from the requirements, as allowed by the Code. The applicant, Craig Gandy, was present to represent his case. He said that he was willing to answer any questions that the Commission may have. He said he is planning for the building to have 22 to 28 stalls that are 12' x 12' and will have approximately 12 turnouts on the property. Mr. Gandy said that he plans on purchasing additional property to the east. The applicant and commissioners discussed the location of the property and the uses in the area. They discussed how the property has been used for stabling horses that belong to people in the area for a very long time, and the nature of the business being a boarding and training facility for Colleyville residents versus a show place or for rodeos or other commercial ventures. Chairman Gasper opened the public hearing. There was no one present wishing to speak. Chairman Gasper closed the public hearing. The applicant, Craig Gandy, and the commissioners discussed the possibility of authorizing conditions that owners of the horses have their own trainers. Mr. Gandy said that he uses Trinity Waste Disposal to dispose of the manure twice a week. There was discussion about the current requirements and regulations regarding the number of large animals allowed per acre of property. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes -December 10, 2001 Page 5 of 12- Approved on January 74, 2002 Chairman Gasper said the second issue that needed to be discussed by the commissioners was the use of the property as it relates to the Master Plan. It was said that it seems to be like an equestrian center and the current zoning does not allow for commercial uses. Commissioner Sellers recommended that the Commission limit the number of horses and describe the facility in the Special Use Permit ordinance as a boarding/training facility. Chairman Gasper said the area where the facility is located has a rural atmosphere and there are no housing additions located near it. She said the applicant is not requesting a zoning change, only a special use permit for the accessory building. Commissioner Wall said that this is a commercial use operation on a property zoned R40 with a future zoning for commercial/office and there is a minor inconsistency in his mind with what they are asked to approve. Clayton Husband said R40 is somewhat an agricultural/residential combination district and if they looked at most agricultural operations, 90% of them inherently are commercial types of operations. He said R40 allows for horses with the number allowed being what the Code allows. Mr. Husband said the primary issue being looked at is the size of the building and to some degree what the allowable use might be and they can clarify that in their motion. Chairman Gasper said that she has been to countless City Council meetings and a number of times it is expressed that the citizens like the rural atmosphere in Colleyville and she doesn't think anyone can get a more rural feel than from this piece of property. She said she thinks what the gentleman is asking for is consistent with what the people in Colleyville want to happen as far as maintaining some rural space within the City limits. Commissioner Wall said he is familiar with riding lesson facilities and if there are 28 horses on this property and half the people show up with their trucks, families, and friends, there could possibly be 100 people at any one time. He asked Mr. Gandy if he proposes to have riding trails so the children can get on their horses and ride around the pasture and the paddocks. Mr. Gandy said there would be riding areas on the additional property he intends to purchase adjacent to the east, and there is currently riding areas on the existing property. Commissioner Wall said there would be safety and other types of concerns and he brings up the points because he goes to that type of facility in Keller and there are all kinds of problems that pop up. He said on a sunny weekend in the fall everybody wants to ride their horses, with kids running all over the place, hopefully, no dogs running around, but it is going to be a huge, huge operation with 28 horses. Barry LeBaron said it could be possible that the property owner could be in non-compliance with the proposed ordinance if the Commission puts in limitations. He informed the Commission as to why they are considering the accessory building and how and why Council changed the regulations for accessory buildings. Chairman Gasper said this is a unique situation because in the area, there is a filling station at the corner, a couple of churches, the FAA tower and it's not the typical residential area. She said if Mr. Gandy was proposing to do this operation on Glade Road she would be up in arms, but this is not in the middle of a developed residential area. She said it is in the middle of a very rural Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes -December 10, 2001 Page 6 of 12- Approved on January 74, ZOOZ agricultural type setting. Commissioner Cully said the point Commissioner Wall is making is valid only to the point that he is pointing out the differences they should be dealing with. He said they could consider the fact that in this eight acres there could potentially be 60 residential homes located on that property, so 28 horse owners would necessarily not create anymore of a traffic problem than if you would throw a subdivision in there and have 60 homes. He said it is right that they deal with all the issues on how it makes a difference because they will be facing them again when someone wants to do something in the future. Chairman Gasper said the commissioners need to clearly delineate what they want to happen. Commissioner Sellers asked Mr. Gandy why heestablished atwo-year time frame for taking down the other two buildings. Mr. Gandy said his goal is to improve the current property as far as the cosmetics, landscaping, the existing buildings, and everything else associated with it. He said there is no real magic behind the two years, but that is a goal he wants in order to keep up with the progress in the community. He said after the barn is completed he can begin to disassemble the two buildings. Chairman Gasper said that would not bring the property into compliance with the accessory building regulations because they still have a size that is too large. She said it would greatly improve the appearance to remove the two buildings because right now they appear to be metal lean-tos. Commissioner Hollis said he thinks they should clearly identify the two buildings needing to be removed and then put a date on it. Commissioner Cully said it is his understanding that Mr. Gandy has a contract on the property to the east that is conditional upon him getting the building approved. Mr. Gandy said he has a signed contract and it has one condition of receiving approval for the new accessory building. He said he would be adding to the existing property for a total of approximately 20 acres. Chairman Gasper said she thinks there is already an ordinance in place that covers the amount of horses allowed on the property and they need to be more focused on the accessory building and what needs to happen on the property. Commissioner Culley suggested they resolve the issue that no person other than members of the family residing on the property shall be engaged in such occupation. Chairman Gasper interjected that Commissioner Culley is reading from the "home based business" regulations. She said it probably would make more sense than going through that ordinance section by section to say what it is they would like to have happen. Commissioner Culley said that is where he was headed. He said Commissioner Sellers raised the question whether or not Mr. Gandy would be able to maintain the operation once it is 100% functioning by himself. He said they should allow Mr. Gandy to do that without putting him out of compliance on that issue. Commissioner Sellers asked Mr. Gandy if he planned on building a home on the property for his hired help. Mr. Gandy said he would not and he would only have employees that are strictly hourly employees who show up in the morning and leave in the evening. Mr. Gandy said he Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes -December 10, 2001 Page 7 of 12- Approved on January 74, 2002 personally does not show horses. Chairman Gasper said the ordinance is currently written that there could be five buildings and by January 31, 2004 the number has to be down to three. Commissioner Sellers said he'd like to see those buildings removed before two years. Mr. Gandy said those buildings are currently horse barns and he showed them where they were located on the property. Mr. Gandy said nothing would prevent him from taking the barns down within atwo-year period and the Commission could establish a quicker time frame. Chairman Gasper responded that the Commission needs to be careful not to establish too quick of a time frame because the ordinance has to go to the Council for two hearings. Commissioner Sellers said his time frame would be after the completion of the main facility that Mr. Gandy is asking for a special use permit for. He said he'd rather have that than a certain established date. Mr. Gandy said he would be comfortable with six months from date of completion of the barn. Commissioner Culley said he doesn't want to be in a position of having to rule on when the barn is actually completed. He suggested giving the applicant a little leeway and say four to six months after the date of completion or upon a specific date that falls somewhere past that. Commissioner Sellers said Mr. Gandy would get a Certificate of Occupancy from the City when the barn is completed. Chairman Gasper suggested that they add in the six months following completion of the barn but no latter than January 31, of 2004 so they have both a completion date and a certain date. Commissioner Swift asked why they would want to do that because it doesn't make sense to him. He said this is the first domino that the man has to get the barn built first and they can't lock him into a specific date. He suggested just giving him six months after the completion of the barn and a date should not be included in the ordinance because they can't control the date. Chairman Gasper said since there is not a consensus as to whether or not there is a date certain included in the ordinance, and there is consensus as to the six months following completion, they should vote on whether or not they have the date certain included. Commissioner Hollis recommended that the buildings as specified would be removed within six months of completion of the barn, but no later than two years from today's date. He said if the barn is completed in ninety days, he would have six months to do it, and if it takes one year, he has one year and six months, but in no case it will be more than two years. Commissioner Swift said to put themselves into Mr. Gandy's place and what does Commissioner Hollis' recommendation mean? He asked if it would be triggered by six months after the completion of the barn or two years from this date and what does it really mean? Commissioner Hollis said if the barn is not completed in the next two years the other buildings will still need to come down. Commissioner Swift asked, "Why?" He asked why the applicant is even before them if they are going to do that to him. Commissioner Hollis said that would be the condition of the special use permit and Commissioner Swift said that is not fair to the applicant. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes -December 10, 2001 Page 8 of 12- Approved on January 74, 2002 The applicant, Mr. Gandy, said he has several more events before he gets approval, and if he has all of the approvals needed from the City, he could begin construction tomorrow. Chairman Gasper asked Commissioner Wall if he wanted to make a motion about a date certain, because if they have a motion, they can either deal with this issue or not and move on. She reminded the Commission that if there is a motion with no second then the motion fails. Commissioner Wall responded he did not want to make a motion. Clayton Husband told the commissioners that it would be easier for staff to tie the removal of the other buildings within a certain amount of time when the proposed barn is finished. He said if they add a certain date to the ordinance, what could happen is if Mr. Gandy goes off to do something else and the two years pass with no building being built? He said it would put staff in a position of telling Mr. Gandy he has to remove the other buildings. Mr. Husband said it is like a back door to go into an eminent domain situation. He recommended their motion should be based on the completion and occupancy of the building. Commissioner Swift said he agreed and they should tie the date onto the completion of the barn. Commissioner Culley asked staff what is their definition of the completion of the building. Mr. Husband said when the Building Inspections Department does a final inspection and then turns it over to Mr. Gandy. Mr. Gandy said he is o.k. with that. Chairman Gasper said they all seem to be in agreement that the two buildings will need to be torn down upon six months from the date of completion and they also need to resolve the issue of the use so that Mr. Gandy is not out of compliance with the home based business rules. She said it seems as if they need some sort of language in the special use permit that would permit the property to be used in the manner in which it is intended and she asked if staff had any recommendations. Mr. Husband said calling the operation aboarding/training facility would establish the use. Commissioner Sellers said staff told him that no pigs were allowed when he built his barn. Mr. Husband said the home business regulations are somewhat appropriate, but sort of out of the focus of what the commissioners are looking at. He said as long as they are clear as to what Mr. Gandy can do or can't do is the important thing they need to address. Commissioner Wall said that boarding/training classification would exclude any types of commercial or non-commercial riding shows. Chairman Gasper said it would exclude horse shows or rodeos. She said aboarding/training facility will let Mr. Gandy do whatever is necessary to have a facility and therefore he would be able to have someone come and muck out the stalls and work on the property. Mr. Husband said with agricultural uses, normally the property owners would have someone come in and maintain the tractor or help with the crops or property. Chairman Gasper said she would suspect that staff follows the three "C's": Commercial, Conspicuous, and Complaint and if the Commission deals with the commercial aspect of the property, unless there is a complaint only then would the enforcement staff have to deal with whatever the complaint is. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes -December 10, 2001 Page 9 of 12- Approved on January 74, 2002 Commissioner Hollis moved that item Z-01-030 is recommended for approval with the following changes to the draft ordinance: 1) This property will have an allowed use as a boarding and training facility as an equestrian center by the present owner; 2) There is an imposed limit of 28 horses on this property at it's present 8'/2 acres size until such time that additional adjacent acreage is added; and 3) The two specified buildings would be removed within six months after the City turns over the new building to the owner. Commissioner Sellers seconded the motion. Commissioner Swift asked about point number two. Commissioner Hollis said that when Mr. Gandy purchases the adjacent property, item number two would go away. Clayton Husband said that the 28 horses only apply to the current property and Mr. Gandy may have whatever the number of horses is allowed by the existing general rules that relate to horses. He said it restricts the number of horses that can be kept in the barn on this eight acre piece and not on the next ten acre piece and keeps the condition tied to the building rather than to the adjacent property. Commissioner Swift asked if the adjacent property would support 20 more horses, does this regulation inhibit it. Clayton Husband said it would inhibit those horses from being on the existing property. Commissioner Swift said it all becomes one property when he buys the additional property. Clayton Husband said the special use permit only covers the existing property. He said if Mr. Gandy wanted to do something on the adjacent property, he would most likely have to come back to the Commission. Chairman Gasper asked staff if she had twenty acres made up of two tracts and had 28 horses stabled in or about the barn and she has other horses running loose on the eleven acres, if she rides one of those horses onto the eight acre tract, would she be out of compliance? Mr. Husband said that technically she would be out of compliance. Commissioner Hollis said that is why he would recommend that when additional property is added to the 8-'/z acres condition number two should just go away. Commissioner Swift said if that language were included, he would not have trouble with the condition because it is just not fair and they are making it difficult to do business in Colleyville with these kinds of things. Commissioner Sellers said the condition goes away but the limit of horses just goes up to comply with the regulations for large animals. Chairman Gasper restated the condition for item #2 saying, "28 horses stabled on the premise only until such time as additional adjacent property is purchased and then at that point, it goes away and the only enforcement is whatever is permitted under current City ordinances." Chairman Gasper moved to modify item #2 to say: "Only 28 horses may stabled on the 8'/z acres until such time as additional adjacent property is purchased at which time," then, Chairman Gasper said Mr. LeBaron is saying, "No." Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes -December 10, 2001 Page 10 of 12- Approved on January 74, 2002 Barry LeBaron said he thinks he knows where the Commission is trying to go with this line of thinking with trying to put an equation in the ordinance that if this happens then that will happen. He said with so much uncertainty, he believes that they may want to stay with their original motion with the limit of 28 horses on this acreage and if five years or ten years down the road he gets more acreage, the owner would come back to them. He said it is hard to preclude how much acreage will be purchased. Chairman Gasper said she would not make a motion to amend the original motion. Jan Levy, Recording Secretary, said that the original motion states that when Mr. Gandy buys additional property then the provision goes away. Commissioner Hollis changed item #2 to state that 28 horses will be the limit on this 8.5-acre tract until such time the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission changes or removes that segment of the ordinance. Chairman Gasper said that they needed to get rid of the "until such time" portion of item #2. Commissioner Hollis said item # 2 would state that 28 horses would be the limit on this 8.5- acre tract. Commissioner Sellers seconded the amended motion. The vote being: Ayes: Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: Wall 4. Citizens' comments regarding items not on the agenda: There were none. 5. Staff comments, reports and discussion items: Clayton Husband distributed planning articles that he said he finds interesting and hoped the commissioners also found them interesting. He told them about the updated Colleyville Development Journal that he is forwarding to them on the Internet. Barry LeBaron said he wanted to make sure there was not a legal problem with the Commissioner's recommendation on the preliminary plat for Westgate Villas. He said as long as the commissioners' decisions are based on the fact that the applicant met the requirements in the Development Code there is no problem because that's what the State Law requires. He said they are not supposed to add on something that is not in the Development Code as a new condition for a plat. He said that he listened very carefully to the condition placed on the preliminary plat approval. He said that the bottom line is saying that when the developer comes back with the final plat, he needs to meet the requirements in the Development Code. Mr. LeBaron said that he hates to see someone move forward with a final plat and pay all of the engineering costs if there is a biggie out there that they don't have the answer to. He said it is one thing to move a lot line, or a building line, or an easement, or the right-of-way over, but the reason staff recommended against is because of the possibility the applicant would have to totally reconfiguring the layout if Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes -December 10, 2001 Page 11 of 12- Approved on January 74, 2002 the drainage is not resolved. He said the condition the Commission put on the plat approval was just fine. Barry told the Commission that related to the case for the special use permit, zoning has always been and seems to have been designed and developed to protect single-family residential so it's very easy to write those regulations that deal with separating commercial uses and residential uses. He said what has been really difficult to deal with are uses like agricultural uses. He said so many people have grown up in the city and to them a farm is a farm with a cow and horse and a tractor. He said the question is when does the farm become a dairy, and not only can it become more intense, it becomes a commercial business use. He said it is difficult to come across zoning ordinances anywhere that have good, clear regulations for agricultural uses. 6. Commissioners' comments and reports: Commissioner Wall said he believes they left themselves wide open by their recommendation on the last case. He said that growing up on a farm himself, he loves horses and takes his son to ride horses in Keller. He said that having horses to ride is a great idea, but they don't have the faintest idea what Mr. Gandy is going to have here and there are so many things that can happen. He said he is glad they said the operation is strictly a boarding and training facility, but that still leaves them wide open without knowing how many people will be on the property at one time creating safety and health issues resulting from a barn holding 28 horses. He said Mr. Gandy would be lucky to get those people out there one day to service it. He said what he read was that this area was to be commercial and office in the future and this is going to be twenty acres and that is 10% of the area set aside on Precinct Line that will not be used as intended. Chairman Gasper said the property could always be used as commercial in the sense Commissioner Wall is talking about in the future. She said the horse farm might not stay there forever. Commissioner Swift said he would not be able to attend the January 14, 2002 meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The Commission moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. The motion was seconded and passed by acclamation. Respectfully Submitted, Jan Levy Planning & Zoning Assistant Approved on: January 14, 2002 as submitted. NOTE: As a matter of public record, an audio recording of the above Planning and Zoning Commission meeting is available upon request. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes -December 10, 2001 Page 12 of 12- Approved on Janaary 74, 2002