Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning Commission-Agenda Packets-1/28/2013City of Colleyville Page 1 City of Colleyville Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 817. 503.1000 www.colleyville.com Monday, January 28, 2013 City Council Chambers PRE COMMISSION MEETING 6:15 P.M. EXECUTIVE CONFERENCE ROOM THIRD FLOOR LEGAL BRIEFING BY CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING PLANNING, ZONING, PLATTING, AND LAND USE REVIEW OF REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS AND DISCUSSION OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES DISCUSSION OF ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS AND UPDATES ON DEVELOPMENT TRENDS, PROGRESS AND CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS ON PAST AGENDA ITEMS EXECUTIVE SESSION – In accordance with Texas Government Code Chapter 551, Subchapter D, Section 551.071 – Legal – Consultation with attorney on legal issues raised by public hearing or action items on the agenda 7:00 P.M. - REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL INVOCATION: Commissioner Gotcher PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 14, 2013 2. CITIZEN COMMENTS/PRESENTATIONS REGARDING ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 3a Approval of a final plat for 16.8 acres on Lot 1A, Block 1, of the River Valley Ranch Addition and Lot 1B1, Block 1, of the Tate Addition located in the 1200 block of Murphy Road, Case PC12-022 Planning and Zoning Commission Commission Agenda January 28, 2013 City of Colleyville Page 2 4. CONTINUED REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 4a Consideration of a waiver request to the sidewalk requirements on Lot N, Block 5, of the Chelsea Park Addition located at 1716 Glade Road, Case GC12-026 5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS 5a Request for a zoning change from AG-Agricultural to PUDR on Tract 1A, Abstract 1732 of the S.C.H. Wilton Survey and Tract 4A1, Abstract 1518, of the D.R. Teeter Survey located at 2501 Cheek-Sparger Road, Case ZC12- 029 6. ADJOURNMENT I hereby certify this agenda was posted on City Hall bulletin boards January 25, 2013 by 5:00 p.m. Taci Wrisley Planning and Zoning Assistant Any matter on this agenda may, at the discretion of the governing body, be opened for public comment and discussion. If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disability that requires special accommodations, please advise the City Secretary at least 48 hours in advance at 817.503.1133, and reasonable accommodations will be made to assist you. City of Colleyville Page 1 City of Colleyville Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Briefing City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 www.colleyville.com Agenda Number Agenda Date 01/28/2013 Number Type Approval of Minutes Department Community Development Title January 14, 2013 Explanation Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - January 14, 2013 Recommendation Attachments 1.Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - January 14, 2013 City of Colleyville Page 1 City of Colleyville Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 817. 503.1000 www.colleyville.com Monday, January 14, 2013 City Council Chambers Call Meeting to Order The Planning and Zoning Commission of the city of Colleyville was called to order by Chairman Byerly on January 14, 2013 at 7:15 p.m. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Larry Knox, Dave Dudziak, Jim Gotcher, Don Davis, David Phelps, and Jeff Byerly Absent: Commissioner David Wheelwright Staff Present: Ron Ruthven, Darren Cain, Amy Shelley, Rob McKeown, Marty Weider, Ky Roby, Jeremy Hutt, and Dale Crown Invocation The invocation was given by Commissioner Byerly. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Phelps moved to approve the December 10, 2012 meeting minutes. Commissioner Davis seconded. The motion to approve carried with the following vote: Aye: 6 – Knox, Dudziak, Gotcher, Phelps, Davis, and Byerly 2. CITIZEN COMMENTS/PRESENTATIONS REGARDING ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA There were no citizen comments/presentations regarding items not on the agenda. 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 3a Consideration of a waiver request to the sidewalk requirements on Lot 1, Block 1, of the Bransford Pointe Addition located at 5016 Bransford Road, Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 14, 2013 City of Colleyville Page 2 Case GC12-023 Ron Ruthven presented the case and briefed the Commission. Susan Quinn, the property owner, came forward to present the case and brief the Commission. Jeff Ground, P.E. also came forward to brief the Commission on the lot and the flood plain. Commissioner Dudziak made a motion to approve case GC12-023 with the option to escrow. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion. The motion to approve with the escrow option carried with the following vote: Aye: 6 – Knox, Dudziak, Gotcher, Davis, Phelps, and Byerly 3b Consideration of a waiver request to the sidewalk requirements on Lot 1, Block 1, of the Renaissance Estates Addition located at 412 Glade Road, Case GC12-024 Ron Ruthven presented the case and briefed the Commission. Commissioner Byerly questioned staff if the applicant was requesting a full waiver, with no option to escrow. Ron Ruthven replied that is correct. Stan Jordan, the property owner, came forward to present the case and brief the Commission. Commissioner Byerly questioned Mr. Jordan if he was asking to escrow. Mr Jordan replied yes. Commissioner Davis made a motion to approve case GC12-024 with the option to escrow. Commissioner Gotcher seconded the motion. The motion to approve with the escrow option carried with the following vote: Aye: 6 – Knox, Dudziak, Gotcher, Davis, Phelps, and Byerly 3c Consideration of a waiver request to the sidewalk requirements on Lot N, Block 5, of the Chelsea Park Addition located at 1716 Glade Road, Case GC12- 026 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 14, 2013 City of Colleyville Page 3 Ron Ruthven presented the case and briefed the Commission. Commissioner Byerly questioned staff if the applicant was requesting to escrow. Ron Ruthven replied that is correct. Larry Chappell, the property owner, came forward to present the case and brief the Commission. Commissioner Phelps questioned staff regarding the ten foot sidewalk requirement along Glade Road and the shallow lot sizes and stated that this large of a sidewalk has potential to be disruptive. Ron Ruthven replied that is correct. Commissioner Phelps questioned staff about the location of the sidewalk and the reason it was decided to be placed on this specific side of the roadway. Ron Ruthven stated that it possibly stemmed from the Colleyville Pathways Plan, which is part of a larger community grassroots effort. Commissioner Phelps stated that he thought there were approximately eight to ten lots that this would be an impractical application for. Ron Ruthven stated that if these size lots were to be proposed today they would not be approved. He further stated that this was also due to the residences having sole frontage on a collector. Commissioner Phelps reiterated his question about having a ten foot sidewalk, the easement, the encroachment upon the property line and asked if this was practical. Ron Ruthven replied no, it is not practical. He explained that the applicant has stated he intends to install a circular driveway as others have on neighboring properties. He further explained that smaller lots, on this road, create the need for circular driveways so that vehicles don’t have to back out into a major collector. Commissioner Gotcher questioned staff if the waiver was granted what actions would the City take if the sidewalk was constructed at a later date. Ron Ruthven replied additional right of way would be taken or an easement could be put in place to allow for construction. Discussion continued between Commissioner Gotcher and staff regarding acquisition of the property, for the sidewalk, if the waiver was granted. Commissioner Knox questioned staff about the lack of an easement on this property. Ron Ruthven replied that there is very little room for widening the road or putting in a ten foot trail with the lot sizes in this area. Commissioner Dudziak questioned staff if the road was realigned, would this allow for additional square footage on the north side of road. Jeremy Hutt replied this option would be looked at when the time came regarding whether or not the road could be widened using the existing center line. Commissioner Dudziak question staff if the ten foot trail was the safest Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 14, 2013 City of Colleyville Page 4 pedestrian access for this location. Jeremy Hutt stated he did not think there were any safety considerations for a sidewalk versus a trail. He further explained that trails are typically used for regional trails, which Glade Road is, or to accommodate multiple bicycles where a five foot sidewalk would not. Commissioner Dudziak stated that, in his opinion, it was a safety issue. He further stated that he would like to see this sidewalk escrowed. Commissioner Byerly asked staff to clarify that the Supplemental Sidewalk Map was recommended by the Sidewalk Committee and approved by City Council. Ron Ruthven replied that is correct. Commissioner Byerly asked if this is what the new construction of sidewalks and escrow requirements was based on. Ron Ruthven explained that it is used a guiding policy for new sidewalk construction in the City. Commissioner Byerly made a motion to require escrow on Case GC12-026. Commissioner Dudziak seconded. The motion to require escrow carried with the following vote: Aye: 3 – Knox, Dudziak, and Byerly Nay: 3 – Gotcher, Davis, and Phelps Due to a dead locked vote the motion failed. Commissioner Phelps stated that he is normally for the escrow option but due to the nature of the redevelopment, he did not want the new owner to be penalized more than the surrounding neighbors. He further explained that he did not feel that a ten foot trail was feasible in this location. Commissioner Knox questioned staff if it was noted on the building permit that a ten foot trail would be required. Ron Ruthven replied yes. Commissioner Byerly stated that he disagreed with Commissioner Phelps and he felt that an escrow option was necessary. Commissioner Byerly made a motion to continue this item on the January 28th agenda. Commissioner Phelps seconded. The motion to continue this item on the January 28th agenda carried with the following vote: Aye: 6 – Knox, Dudziak, Gotcher, Davis, Phelps, and Byerly Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 14, 2013 City of Colleyville Page 5 4. PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS 4a Request for a zoning change from AG-Agricultural to PUDR on Tract 1A, Abstract 1732 of the S.C.H. Wilton Survey and Tract 4A1, Abstract 1518, of the D.R. Teeter Survey located at 2501 Cheek-Sparger Road, Case ZC12-029 Ron Ruthven presented the case and briefed the Commission. Commissioner Dudziak questioned staff regarding lots one through 6 having no windows on the second story. Ron Ruthven replied that is correct. Commissioner Dudziak asked if there would be limits on the first floor. Ron Ruthven replied no. Commissioner Byerly opened the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. Dennis Lang, the applicant, came forward to present the case and brief the Commission along with Gary Panno, Bryan Adams, Jimmy Fechter. Commissioner Dudziak question Mr. Lang if they would be putting in a detention pond. Mr. Lang replied yes. Commissioner Dudziak asked if this pond would be permanent. Mr. Lang replied no, it would not have water in it all the time and would only be used for storm water. Commissioner Dudziak explained to Mr. Lang what open space was interpreted as in the City of Colleyville. He further stated an empty pond did not seem to meet the requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Lang replied that it was not in their concept to have a wet pond with a feature. He further stated they would be submitting a preliminary and final plat that would meet the city requirements. Commissioner Dudziak stated that in the PUD they would need to add the open space requirements and would they be okay with writing this in the ordinance. Mr. Lang replied it would be up to their developers. Mr. Fechter stated they planned on having a functional and useful open space; however, it would be a small one because this was not a very large development. Discussion continued between Commissioner Dudziak and Mr. Fechter regarding the requirements and the plans for the open space. Commissioner Byerly questioned Mr. Fechter if the open space was required to be in this location because of retention purposes or could it be moved across the street. Mr. Fechter replied that the concept plan was originally set up that way but once survey was done it was determined that the detention would need to be done in the proposed location. He further stated that they have met with the surrounding Homeowner Associations and have made changes to their layout to accommodate their wishes regarding lot sizes and number of stories on specific lots. Commissioner Phelps questioned Mr. Adams if a lower density was considered Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 14, 2013 City of Colleyville Page 6 for the development. Mr. Adams replied that they felt this was a good location for this type of development in comparison to the surrounding neighborhoods. Commissioner Phelps stated he understood the nature of the transition but the density was high and wasn’t much of a transition. Mr. Fechter stated that when meeting with staff they were encouraged that this was a good use for this site. Commissioner Gotcher stated that he agreed that this was an extremely high density for the area and doesn’t meet the criteria for transition. Commissioner Gotcher questioned the applicants what their response was to the traffic on Glade Road, especially during rush hour. Mr. Fechter replied that they were not required to have a traffic impact analysis done because this is a small development. Mr. Fechter further stated he didn’t believe they would be creating that much more of an issue. Discussion continued between Commissioner Gotcher and Mr. Fechter concerning the volume of traffic and the increase that this new development would bring to Glade Road. Jeff Ground, 4108 Dundee Court, came forward and expressed that he was opposed to this development with regard to high density. Sheri Kimble, 3986 Whitten Drive, came forward and expressed that she and her husband were opposed to this development with regard to drainage and the problems this development would create problems for their neighborhood. She stated that they would like for this case to be deferred until more specific information was presented regarding the development. Bill Marrin, 3960 Holiday Drive, came forward and expressed that he was in favor of this development. He stated that he felt this development would add value to the surrounding properties. Gary Boeckenstedt, 3964 Holiday Drive, came forward and expressed his concern for this development with regard to the drainage issues this would create for their community. There being no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:15 p.m. The public hearing was reopened at 8:16 p.m. Michael Wang, 4110 Buckingham Place, came forward and expressed that he was opposed to this development with regard to traffic and density. Bob Hassett, 2500 Kensington Place, came forward and expressed that he Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 14, 2013 City of Colleyville Page 7 was opposed to this development with regard to the density and the proximity to his home. Keith Squires, 3902 St. James Court, came forward and expressed that he was opposed to this development with regard to his privacy because of the elevations of both properties. He further stated he did not feel that the developers have listened to the current homeowner’s concerns. Ted Smith, 3900 St James Court, came forward and expressed that he was opposed to this development with regard to privacy and noise. There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:25 p.m. Mr. Fechter came forward with Mr. Adams and Mr. Lang to address comments from the citizens. Mr. Fechter stated that originally there was an eight foot wood fence proposed, however, after discussions with the two adjacent homeowner’s associations they have offered to take on a replacement on one side and repairs on the other. Mr. Fechter also addresses the comments on drainage of the proposed development and the adjacent properties. Mr. Fechter stated that he felt that the developers have made appropriate changes to accommodate the wishes of the homeowner’s. Commissioner Davis questioned Mr. Fechter regarding the comment made on the subdivision to the west getting three hundred percent more water. Mr. Fechter stated that there would be more area to drain in that direction but it would not be a sheet flow, it would be directed to the detention pond and metered out at a slower rate. He further explained why drainage toward Cheek-Sparger Road was not an option. Commissioner Dudziak questioned the applicants on whether or not they stated they would be replacing a section of the wall. Mr. Adams replied yes, between the proposed development and the Spring Garden Addition. Commissioner Phelps questioned the applicants on the omission of sidewalks in this development. Mr. Fechter stated they were looking at putting sidewalks in and around the development but would possibly seek escrow for the one on Cheek-Sparger Road. Commissioner Phelps questioned the applicants on the placement of the detention pond and open space. Mr. Fechter stated it was designed so that residence could go behind the three lots and get back out on the sidewalk system. Discussion continued regarding the location of the detention pond and the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 14, 2013 City of Colleyville Page 8 open space between Commissioner Phelps and Mr. Fechter. Commissioner Knox stated that he felt the density was too high. He further explained that he did not understand why the size of the detention pond could not be determined, with all the engineering that has already been done, so that it could be known how much free space there would be. He further stated he could not support this plan. Commissioner Davis stated that the plan was too preliminary. Commissioner Gotcher stated he knew the property would need to be rezoned but did not feel that this was the appropriate transition – the density was not appropriate. He also stated that he could not support this development. Commissioner Byerly stated that he disagreed and that this transition was ideal for this area, townhomes on one side and R-30 on the other. He further explained that he felt the development needed to be less dense. Commissioner Dudziak stated he wanted to see more detail and would be okay with tabling. Commissioner Phelps stated he would like to see R-20 on the west side of the development and questioned if R-15 was an option. Discussion continued between Commissioners regarding possible options for zoning and lot sizes. Commissioner Phelps stated he would like to see more detail on the fence along Cheek-Sparger Road. Commissioner Phelps asked Mr. Adams if it would be possible to come back with more detail and what his thoughts were on the treatment for the front of the property along Cheek-Sparger Road. Mr. Adams replied that they could come back with more details and that the fence would be decorative iron. Commissioner Phelps made a motion to reopen the public hearing and continue this item on January 28th agenda. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion. Commissioner Knox added that this should be brought back with more detail. Commissioner Gotcher concurred. The motion to reopen the public hearing continue this item on January 28th agenda on January 28th agenda carried with the following vote: Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 14, 2013 City of Colleyville Page 9 Aye: 6 – Knox, Dudziak, Gotcher, Davis, Phelps, and Byerly 4b Request for a Special Use Permit for a carport on Lot 19, Block 2, of the Briarwood-Colleyville Addition located at 5804 Quails Path, Case ZC12-032 Ron Ruthven presented the case and briefed the Commission. The public hearing was opened at 8:52 p.m. Tim Coltart, the property owner, came forward to present the case and brief the Commission. Commissioner Phelps questioned Mr. Coltart in which direction does the slope lean to. Mr. Coltart replied away from the house toward the street. Discussion regarding drainage and elevations continued between Commissioner Phelps and Mr. Coltart. Commissioner Dudziak questioned asked what Mr. Coltart meant by a solid cedar gate. Mr. Coltart replied it would be a six foot sliding gate made of galvanized metal and stained cedar boards. Discussion continued between Commissioner Dudziak and Mr. Coltart about location and dimensions of the proposed gate. Commissioner Dudziak questioned Mr. Coltart if the idea was to have a lean- to from his house to the edge of the property. Mr. Coltart replied that is correct. Commissioner Knox questioned Mr. Coltart regarding the construction of the roof and whether or not it would have steel supports. Mr. Coltart replied yes, it would have steel supports but would not appear to be steel – it would appear to be cedar. Commissioner Gotcher questioned Mr. Coltart if he had contacted his neighbors to the north about their feelings on the addition being so close to the property line. Mr. Coltart replied they had no problem with his proposed plans. Commissioner Phelps questioned Mr. Coltart regarding the distance from the structural posts and the property line. Mr. Coltart stated that he did not have that dimension available. Commissioner Phelps stated he was concerned about taking advantage of considerably more than the ten foot setback and any how future property owners might be affected by this encroachment. Mr. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 14, 2013 City of Colleyville Page 10 Coltart replied the structural posts would be approximately at five foot in the ten foot setback and two and half feet overhang. Commissioner Phelps replied his biggest reservation was with the proximity to the property line. Mr. Coltart replied he did not think he could go any closer to the home with the structural posts without losing the practicality. There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 9:08 p.m. Commissioner Dudziak questioned staff about the location of the fence and whether or not it was required to stay within the build line. Ron Ruthven replied that gates were allowed to encroach up to ten feet into the front setback. Commissioner Dudziak stated that this was essentially twice the standard that was in our code. Ron Ruthven replied that is correct. Commissioner Dudziak stated that he appreciated the need for storage but did not feel that the proposed design was not asymmetrical with the house. Commissioner Knox stated he could not support constructing a structure built this close to the property line. Commissioner Dudziak made a motion to deny Case ZC12-032. Commissioner Knox seconded the motion. The motion to deny carried with the following vote: Aye: 6 – Knox, Dudziak, Gotcher, Davis, Phelps, and Byerly 4c Consideration of amendments to Chapter 3 - Land Use, Section 3.24 – Schedule of Permitted Principle Uses of the Land Development Code, Case GC13-001 Ron Ruthven presented the case and briefed the Commission. The public hearing was opened at 9:13 p.m. There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 9:13 p.m. Commissioner Knox made a motion to Case GC13-001. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried with the following vote: Aye: 6 – Knox, Dudziak, Gotcher, Davis, Phelps, and Byerly Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 14, 2013 City of Colleyville Page 11 The Commission recessed at 9:14 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 9:27 p.m. 5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 5a Consideration of a request to rezone from R20-Single Family Residential to PUD-R-Planned Unit Development Residential on 12.0 acres on Tracts 3, 3E and 3F, of Abstract 936 of the Joseph M Looney Survey and Lot 1, Block 1, of the Bone Addition, located at 5008 and 5100 Bluebonnet Drive, Case ZC12- 025 Ron Ruthven presented the case and briefed the Commission on the updated information provided by the developers. The public hearing was opened at 9:30 p.m. Paul Spain, the applicant, came forward and briefed the Commission. Curtis Young, 8003 Jefferson Circle, came forward and briefed the Commission on the changes that had been made to the development plans. Commissioner Gotcher stated that the Commission never requested for the Developer to get the density below four lots per acre. He further stated that the Commission advised the density be made lower. Commissioner Byerly stated he believed the idea came from his comment that he could not support the development if it were above four. It was concurred by all that Commissioner Byerly’s statement was misinterpreted by the developers. Commissioner Byerly questioned Mr. Spain regarding windows on the second floor of the homes. Mr. Spain replied that this was a suggestion from the homeowners in the adjacent subdivision because of their concerns for privacy. He further stated that the developers came up with the idea to restrict windows on the west facing lots to accommodate this concern as well. Discussion continued between the Commission and Mr. Spain regarding window restrictions. Commissioner Dudziak questioned Mr. Spain about what tree size they would be placing on the lots that were up against the neighboring properties. Mr. Young replied they would be planting four inch caliper trees. Commissioner Dudziak questioned Mr. Young regarding the lack piping to carry the water off of this property to the creek. Mr. Young replied there are two locations. Commissioner Dudziak asked if the two options would be used. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 14, 2013 City of Colleyville Page 12 Mr. Young replied they would use the pipe that was tied into the pond. Commissioner Knox suggested that Mr. Spain share the drawing of the drainage analysis that had been done for this development. Commissioner Dudziak questioned Mr. Spain regarding traffic at Bluebonnet Road and Glade Road and if they had worked with the City in trying to reduce traffic in at this location. Mr. Spain replied that they had worked with the City. He further explained that a car every two and a half minutes was not that much of an increase in traffic. He also stated that the traffic study that was performed showed a decrease in traffic with the addition of a right hand turn lanes. Discussion continued between Commissioner Dudziak, Mr. Spain, and Mr. Young regarding traffic at Bluebonnet Road and Glade Road Commissioner Gotcher questioned Mr. Spain regarding their development in Southlake and the size of it. Mr. Spain replied the three developments that are over one hundred acres. Commissioner Gotcher question Mr. Spain specifically about the development that was going through Planning and Zoning the following night and if it were sixteen acres. Mr. Spain replied that development is sixteen acres and has twelve homes. Mr. Spain further explained the situation with property being re-platted to include more residences which would bring the density to approximately 1.6% density. Linda Baker, 4900 Behrens Road, came forward and express that she was opposed to the development with regard to traffic and drainage. Jesse Cobb, 1508 Cherry Lane, came forward and express that she was opposed to the development with regard to density. Ray Dameron, 1600 Cherry Lane, came forward and express that she was opposed to the development with regard to density and drainage. Stan Perry, 1511 Rose Street, came forward and express that she was opposed to the development with regard to traffic, density, and drainage. Jackie Gardner, 5013 & 5017 Bluebonnet Drive, came forward and express that she was opposed to the development with regard to traffic and density. Dan Winters, 5013 Rose Street, came forward and express that she was opposed to the development with regard to density and traffic. Lisa Pomroy, 4712 Behrens Road, came forward and express that she was opposed to the development with regard to density, drainage, traffic, trees, Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 14, 2013 City of Colleyville Page 13 and privacy. Matt Quinn, 5020 Stonebridge Drive, came forward and express that she was opposed to the development with regard to value of the residences, property values, and drainage. Kelly Miller was called to speak but was not present. Kathleen Hennessey, 5013 Stonebridge Drive , came forward and express that she was opposed to the development with regard to drainage, run off on to her property, property maintenance, and traffic. Brian Berry, 5000 Stonebridge Drive, came forward and express that he was opposed to the development with regard to traffic, value of the residences, and density. Lola Cobb, 1508 Cherry Lane, came forward on behalf of her neighbor, Beth Williams who resides at 5108 Rose Street, to express that she was opposed to the development with regard to traffic. Sam Hatton, 5024 Stonebridge Drive, came forward and express that he was opposed to the development with regard to drainage and traffic. Commissioner Byerly read names of attendees who wanted to record their vote but did not wish to speak: The following were opposed: Ellen and Ramon Lopez Ava Fryer Pam and Troy Marshall Beth Williams Kevin Wi Angela Caylee Debbie Free Lloyd Wensworth Phil Clark Sarah Huggins Pauline Roverson Carol Perry Martha Dameron David Gardner James Callahan Mary Callahan Mark Seabeck Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 14, 2013 City of Colleyville Page 14 Paul Pomroy W. S. Huggins Sally Coleman Don Black Nancy Rodgers The following were in support: Connie Fag The following did not indicate support or opposition: Ida Wensworth There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 10:50 p.m. Mr. Spain came forward to address comments made by the citizens. Commissioner Dudziak questioned staff regarding the City’s opinion on proposed drainage plan. Jeremy Hutt replied that the drainage plan does meet the City’s requirements and was above the minimum requirements. Commissioner Dudziak questioned Jeremy Hutt if this drainage plan would solve the existing issues. Jeremy Hutt replied that the current issues would be address with the proposed plan. Commissioner Byerly questioned Jeremy Hutt if he was involved in the drainage study with the Bridge of Riverwalk’s engineer. Jeremy Hutt replied no he was not involved. Commissioner Dudziak questioned staff regarding the status of changes being made to Bluebonnet Road and Glade Road. Jeremy Hutt said a study had been done on Glade Road, from city limit to city limit, but the project was only in the preliminary stages. Commissioner Dudziak asked if Glade Road was part of the new TIF concept that we could use to finance some of those roads. Jeremy Hutt replied yes it is. Commissioner Dudziak questioned staff regarding the condition of Bluebonnet Road and if it would be able to sustain construction traffic. He further asked if there would be an agreement with the developer to make repairs. Jeremy Hutt replied the developer would pay perimeter street fees and roadway impact fees to cover the impact on the roadway system. He further explained if there were direct damage the City would work this out with the developer at that time. Commissioner Dudziak asked if the developer would pay both the perimeter street fees and roadway impact fees. Jeremy Hutt replied the developer would pay the higher of the two. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 14, 2013 City of Colleyville Page 15 Commissioner Dudziak questioned staff if they felt that there would be an additional impact downstream due to changing the direction of drainage. Jeremy Hutt replied no there would be no additional impacts downstream. Commissioner Dudziak asked if the Lake of Somerset would be affected by additional drainage. Jeremy Hutt replied no. Commissioner Byerly questioned staff if the two trees per lot and the window requirements were in the draft ordinance. Ron Ruthven replied the window requirement was not in the draft ordinance. He further explained that he had not received this requirement in writing from the developer, however, if the Commission so chose to add this as a condition it could be added. He further explained the tree requirements were listed in the draft ordinance. Commissioner Phelps questioned Mr. Spain about the size of drainage pipe and the design of the drainage. Mr. Spain replied they were the eighteen inch reinforced concrete, the City’s standard. He further explained they would be an inlet, at the rear of each property, which would then be connected to the drainage pipe. Commissioner Phelps asked if the inlets would be maintained by the Homeowner’s Association or would they be private. Mr. Spain replied they would be private and the streets would be public. Discussion continued between Commissioner Phelps and Mr. Spain regarding the drainage system and the responsibility of maintenance. Commissioner Phelps questioned Mr. Spain regarding the price point of the development and was this a desirable price point. Mr. Spain replied this was a very desirable price point. Commissioner Davis questioned staff regarding the density and why would we allow the density requirement to be doubled. He further questioned if there were any other developments with this density. Ron Ruthven replied that there was one, Spring Garden. Discussion continued between the Commission and staff regarding other developments and their densities. Commissioner Dudziak stated density has always been a delicate issue in Colleyville. He further stated that the City needed Economic Development and larger density. He suggested to the developer to talk to City Council about Glade Road improvements. Commissioner Dudziak made a motion to approve with the addition of two - four inch caliper trees per lot along the western portion and no western facing windows on the second floor. Commissioner Byerly seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 14, 2013 City of Colleyville Page 16 Commissioner Gotcher stated that he felt the justification for 1.8 units per acre was there in proximity to Highway 26 but the justification for the transition to Bluebonnet was not there. Commissioner Byerly stated that he respectfully disagreed with this statement. He further explained that he thought the lot sizes were comparable to those in the surrounding developments, possibly bigger. Discussion continued between the Commissioners regarding lot sizes. The motion to approve with the addition of two - four inch caliper trees per lot along the western portion and no western facing windows on the second floor carried with the following vote: Aye: 3 – Dudziak, Phelps, and Byerly Nay: 3 – Knox, Gotcher, and Davis Commissioner Byerly questioned staff if the super majority had already been reached. Ron Ruthven replied yes. Commissioner Byerly questioned Mr. Spain if he wanted to move on to City Council or would he like to wait until they had a full Commission. Mr. Spain replied they had contractual obligations that they were required to meet and thought they were running out of time. He further stated they would like to move on to City Council. Discussion continued between the Commission, staff, and Mr. Spain regarding procedure. Commissioner Gotcher questioned Mr. Spain regarding whether or not he would consider a lesser density of twenty-eight or twenty-nine houses. Mr. Spain replied no. He further explained that this was not an option due to the drainage system that would have to be put in. Commissioner Gotcher asked why Mr. Spain was able to do a lesser density in Southlake but not Colleyville. Mr. Spain replied that it was because of a different market in Southlake. Commissioner Knox stated that he felt that, especially in this case, it was important to support the citizen’s option. Mr. Spain came forward and said they chose to go forward to City Council. Commissioner Gotcher made a motion to deny case ZC12-025. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion. Commissioner Byerly stated that he would like to add an amendment that Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 14, 2013 City of Colleyville Page 17 they inform Council that a second motion was made to try to accommodate a three to three deadlock. The motion to deny carried with the following vote: Aye: 3 – Knox, Gotcher, Davis, and Byerly Nay: 3 – Dudziak, and Phelps 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:23 p.m. Minutes were written and prepared by: Taci Wrisley Planning and Zoning Assistant The meeting minutes were approved on January 28, 2013 by a vote of __________. City of Colleyville Page 1 City of Colleyville Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Briefing City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 www.colleyville.com Agenda Number 3a Agenda Date 01/28/2013 Number PC12-022 Type Regular Agenda Items Department Community Development Title Approval of a final plat for 16.8 acres on Lot 1A, Block 1, of the River Valley Ranch Addition and Lot 1B1, Block 1, of the Tate Addition located in the 1200 block of Murphy Road, Case PC12-022 Explanation Reading and Public Hearing David Aughinbaugh, with Lennar Homes, is the developer of 18.98 acres located near the northeast intersection of Precinct Line and Murphy Roads. The developer has submitted a final plat, which will subdivide the property into 60 residential lots and four open space lots (including all subdivision streets), for the construction of single family residential detached dwelling units. The following is an analysis of the issues associated with this final plat. Zoning. A rezoning request for PUD-R-Planned Unit Development Residential zoning district was approved on May 6, 2008 by Ordinance O-08-1672 (attached). The zoning requirements stated in Ordinance O-08-1672 include single family detached residential as the primary use with a maximum density of 4.0 dwelling units per acre. The minimum lot sizes are 5,000 and 6,600 square feet, dependent on lot widths. The minimum lot widths are 50 and 60 feet. The proposed density shown on the preliminary plat is approximately 3.7 dwelling units per acre. Open Space. The PUD-R ordinance requires a minimum of 20.3 percent of the total development as open space. The open space areas, denoted on the plat as public use areas, include one pond with a meandering trail system that circumnavigates the water feature. All open spaces will be landscaped and maintained by the homeowner's association. Private Streets/Access. The development will have access from both Precinct Line and Murphy Roads; the Murphy Road entrance will only be accessible to residents of this subdivision. All streets serving the development will contain a minimum of 50 feet of right-of-way width and a minimum of 31 feet of pavement width, measured from curb-back to curb-back. All streets within the subdivision will also be private and maintained by the homeowner's association. Homes to be constructed along Benjamin Way and Guthrie Court, to the north of Rhett Drive, will be installed with a fire Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Briefing 3a City of Colleyville Page 2 suppression sprinkler system approved by the Fire Marshal. Sidewalks and Trails. The Land Development Code requires sidewalks on all newly constructed public streets. A minimum eight (8) foot wide sidewalk will be located along Murphy Road. Sidewalks five (5) feet in width will also be required along all streets within the subdivision, and must be installed when any new structures are built on the property. The developer will also construct concrete walking paths throughout the public use areas. Drainage. The developer has submitted a drainage analysis of the site, which has been reviewed and accepted by the Engineering Division. According to the drainage analysis, the development will provide on-site retention. Parkland Dedication Fees. Parkland dedication fees are required, in the amount of $1,802 per residential lot, for the 60 lots where new homes are proposed. Parkland dedication fees are due at the time of final plat and must be paid before the plat is recorded with the County Clerk's office. Perimeter Street Improvement Requirements. Perimeter street improvement fees are due at the time of approval of the final plat for Murphy Road, since Murphy Road is considered an unimproved street. In lieu of paying perimeter street fees, the applicant may enter into a city/developer agreement (CDA) whereby all or a portion of Murphy Road, adjacent to the development, is improved at the time the property is developed. Any CDA would be brought to the City Council for consideration concurrent with the final plat. Screening. All lots backing to the east of the development shall contain an eight (8) foot cedar board on board fence. A six (6) foot wood fence will also be constructed along the entire northern property line of the development. A living screen, split rail fence will be constructed along much of the western property line. A six (6) foot wrought iron fence will be constructed along Murphy Road. Trees with a minimum of three caliper inches will also be planted at ten (10) foot intervals along the street frontage of Murphy Road. Landscaping and Tree Preservation. Landscaping and tree preservation along Murphy Road will conform to the specifications and depictions as shown in the PUD-R ordinance which includes planting trees with a minimum width of three caliper inches at ten (10) foot intervals. Trees not located within the right-of-way, easements, or within the pad site must be preserved during construction. Before construction begins on the site, protective fencing must be installed around the drip line of all developer identified preserved trees located outside the right-of-way. A final tree survey has been submitted with the preliminary plat; however, approval of a tree survey and mitigation plan shall be required prior to the issuance of a Notice to Proceed letter from the Engineering Division. Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Briefing 3a City of Colleyville Page 3 Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the final plat at the November 26, 2012 meeting by a vote of 7-0. Summary. The proposed development satisfies the requirements of the PUD-R ordinance and the Land Development Code. Since the plat contains more than four lots, this final plat will require additional approval by City Council. Recommendation Approve Attachments 1.Location and Zoning Map 2.Final Plat Location and Zoning Map PUDC AG AG Site PUDR R20 PUDR City of Colleyville Page 1 City of Colleyville Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Briefing City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 www.colleyville.com Agenda Number 4a Agenda Date 01/28/2013 Number GC12-026 Type Regular Agenda Items Department Community Development Title Consideration of a waiver request to the sidewalk requirements on Lot N, Block 5, of the Chelsea Park Addition located at 1716 Glade Road, Case GC12-026 Explanation Update. At the January 14, 2013 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to continue this item to the January 28, 2013 meeting. Larry Chappell is requesting a waiver to the construction of a trail for a new home located at 1716 Glade. Requirements. The newly constructed single family home triggered the trail requirements. According to the Supplemental Sidewalk System Map approved by the City Council on November 18, 2008 and March 3, 2009, respectively, for lots located along Glade Rd., construction of a 10 foot wide trail is recommended. The Land Development Code gives the Planning and Zoning Commission authority to review and consider all requests for waivers to the Supplemental Sidewalk System Map. The Planning and Zoning Commission options in this case are as follows: (1) Approve the waiver - This action would waive sidewalk and trail construction, which is required by the Supplemental Sidewalk System Map. (2) Deny the waiver - The applicant would be required to build a sidewalk and trail on the property. This option adheres to the Supplemental Sidewalk System Map recommendations. (3) Require Escrow - The Planning and Zoning Commission may require payment into escrow in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer. District Neighborhood. If the Planning and Zoning Commission gives the applicant the option for paying into escrow versus constructing the sidewalk, the funds received will be available for any future sidewalks and/or trails located within District Neighborhood #3. Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Briefing 4a City of Colleyville Page 2 Recommendation Attachments 1.Location and Zoning Map 2.Aerial 3.Supplemental Sidewalk Map 4.Colleyville Sidewalk Escrow Neighborhoods Location and Zoning Map SITE SITE AERIAL Supplemental Sidewalk System Map Site City of Colleyville Page 1 City of Colleyville Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Briefing City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 www.colleyville.com Agenda Number 5a Agenda Date 01/28/2013 Number ZC12-029 Type Public Hearing Agenda Items Department Community Development Title Request for a zoning change from AG-Agricultural to PUDR on Tract 1A, Abstract 1732 of the S.C.H. Wilton Survey and Tract 4A1, Abstract 1518, of the D.R. Teeter Survey located at 2501 Cheek-Sparger Road, Case ZC12-029 Explanation Update At the January 14, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, this item was continued to the January 28, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in order to allow the applicant to address the concerns voiced at the meeting from speakers. There was one person who spoke in support of this request and 6 persons who spoke in opposition to this request at the January 14, 2013 meeting. There was one person who voiced concerns, but no formal opposition. The applicant has submitted a new conceptual site plan and statement of planning objectives, which are attached to the briefing. The changes from the original submittal are as follows: (1) The total number of lots has been reduced from 12 to 10 yielding a lower residential density of 3.34 dwelling units per acre (dua), down from 4.1 dua. (2) The open space has decreased to 20.1 percent, down from 21.3 percent. The open space has flipped from the western side of the property to the eastern side of the property. (3) Minimum lot size has decreased to 5,890 square feet from 6,050 square feet. (4) Minimum lot depth has increased to 110 feet from 105 feet. (5) The side setback lines have changed from 5 feet for each lot to 5 feet on lots 1-5; 5 feet and 11 feet on lot 6; 7 feet and 11 feet on lot 7; 7 feet and 9 feet on lot 8; 5 feet and 10 feet on lots 9 and 10. (6) The rear setback lines have changed to 10 feet on lots 1-5 and 9-10 and 25 feet on Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Briefing 5a City of Colleyville Page 2 lots 6-8. (7) There will no longer be retention or detention within the open space. (8) The specifics of the screening elements have changed and are reflected in the ordinance. (9) Only lot 9 is required to be a single story home. (10) Additional tree plantings will occur along the north, east and west property lines to provide buffering. (11) A 3 foot maintenance easement will run along the entire length of the north and east boundaries of the development. The briefing and proposed ordinance have been updated to reflect the changes noted above. Gary Panno and Bryan Adams have submitted a request to change the zoning on 2.99 acres, located at 2501 Cheek-Sparger Road. The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from AG – Agricultural to PUD-R-Planned Unit Development Residential zoning district. The applicant is seeking a zoning change in order to develop the property for 10 new residential lots and open space. Existing Conditions. The subject property currently consists of a single family residence however, the plan is to demolish the single family residence. Additional approval of a preliminary and final plat will be required upon approval of the rezoning request. Statement of Planning Objectives. The applicant has submitted a Statement of Planning Objectives (attached) which contains a detailed description of the proposed development. Lot Dimensions and Setbacks. The PUD-R regulations require a minimum lot size of 13,000 square feet with a minimum lot width of 100 feet and lot depth of 120 feet. Per the details of the Statement of Planning Objectives and the Conceptual Site Plan (attached), the applicant proposes the following lot widths: Four (4) lots (Lots 1-4) are proposed at 55 feet measured at the building setback line. Two (2) lots are proposed at 65 feet as measured at the building setback line. The four (4) other lots are to be aligned along the cul-de-sac and have variable lots widths as measured at the front building setback line. Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Briefing 5a City of Colleyville Page 3 Lot area is proposed as follows: The minimum lot size is proposed at 5,890 square feet (Lot 4) and increasing to 13,285 square feet (Lot 6). The average lot size is 8,200 square feet. Per the Conceptual Site Plan, the minimum lot depth is proposed to be 102 feet (lots which front the cul-de-sac) Setbacks are proposed as follows: Front Yard Setbacks: For lots with a J-Swing Garage: 10 feet For lots with a front entry: 20 feet Rear Yard Setbacks: For lots 1-5 and 9-10: 10 feet For lots 6-8: 15 feet Side Yard Setbacks: 5 feet and 5 feet on lots 1-5; 5 feet and 11 feet on lot 6; 7 feet and 11 feet on lot 7; 7 feet and 9 feet on lot 8; 5 feet and 10 feet on lots 9 and 10 Maximum Lot coverage: 80 percent Maximum Height: 35 feet Residential Design Requirements. Homes will be both single and two story construction. Lot 9 is required to be a single story home. For two story homes, there will be no windows, balconies or verandas on the second floor of the rear elevation. Surrounding Development Trends. The site is located between a large lot residential subdivision to the north and east, zoned R-30 and a denser townhome project to the west, zoned PUD-R. Screening and Trees. A new 6 foot decorative masonry fence will be constructed along the western boundary to replace the existing masonry wall. The developer will provide demolition of the existing wall along the western boundary. The existing masonry wall along the northern and eastern boundaries will remain. A variable height screening fence, constructed of a combination of brick, stone and wrought iron will be constructed along the south portion of the property adjacent to Cheek-Sparger Road. The screening will be continuous along the boundary with the exception of entry road right-of-way. Landscaping will be installed along the front of the new screening wall. Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Briefing 5a City of Colleyville Page 4 Maintenance of the concrete panel fence and landscaping shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association. Additional tree plantings will occur along the north, east and west property lines to provide buffering. Trees will be a 3” caliper minimum and generally placed with 30 feet of spacing. Open Space. The PUD-R regulations require a minimum 20 percent of the development be reserved for open space for use by the residents of the development. The Statement of Planning Objectives acknowledges the requirement of code and states the development shall provide 20.1 percent, which is compliant with code. All open space shall be landscaped and maintained by the Homeowners Association. No detention or retention ponds are proposed per the Conceptual Plan. The proposed common space area is confined to the eastern portion and southern frontage of the development, with most of the space located between Lots 8 and 9. Preliminary Drainage Analysis. The developer has submitted a Preliminary Drainage Analysis of the site, which is to be reviewed by the City of Colleyville Engineering Division. Conditions associated with drainage and storm water runoff shall be set and enforced at the time of platting. Sidewalks and Trails. The Statement of Planning Objectives notes that sidewalks are to be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Colleyville Land Development Code. If a sidewalk is to be installed along Cheek-Sparger Road, it must connect to Spring Garden Drive. The 2008 Supplemental Sidewalk System Map does not indicate the requirement of sidewalks. However, according to the Colleyville Pathways Plan, a 10 foot wide trail along the north side of Cheek-Sparger Road, extending from Jackson Road to Heritage Avenue, is required. The trail must be installed prior to the issuance of a final inspection. Development Schedule. The applicant provided the following preliminary schedule of key development dates: • Zoning approval: February 2013 • Preliminary Plat Approval: March 2013 • Final Plat Approval: June 2013 • Infrastructure construction Start: July 2013 • Infrastructure Construction Completion: October 2013 • Initial Homes Complete: February 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Briefing 5a City of Colleyville Page 5 • Grand opening: April 2014 Traffic Generation and Access. The developer is not required to provide a Traffic Impact Analysis, since the development is not projected to generate in excess of 1,000 vehicle trips per day. The Institute of Transportation Engineers publication Trip Generation provides estimates of expected traffic generation based on land use. Data has been collected in the United States and Canada since the 1960's, primarily in suburban locations. Single-family residences are expected to generate 9.57 trips per day, on average. Based on this average, a 12 lot development would add approximately 115 vehicle trips per day to the surrounding roadways. Only one means of ingress and egress access is required for subdivisions with 12 lots or less. Infrastructure. Water and sanitary sewer services are available along adjacent rights-of-way. The developer is responsible for the extension of water and sewer service lines to the individual lots. Residential Density. The Master Plan suggests a maximum residential density of 1.8 dwelling units per acre in most situations. The 2004 Colleyville Master Plan states that densities higher that 1.8 units per acre would be acceptable in those areas deemed consistent with sound land use planning principles. The proposed development would be situated between an existing residential uses. The proposed development of 10 residential units on the 2.99 acre property will produce a residential density of 3.34 dwelling units per acre. The proposed residential density is comparable to other approved small lot PUD-R developments within the City of Colleyville. The Small Lot Development Comparison, attached to this briefing, provides a comprehensive listing of recently approved developments with residential densities that exceed 1.8 dwelling units per acre. Master Plan. The Future Land Use Plan designates the entire subject property for single family residential and is consistent with the proposed use of this development. Public Notification. Staff mailed notices to 33 adjacent property owners as well as all Homeowners Associations within 500 feet of the subject property regarding this request. Notice was published in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram as required by state law and the Land Development Code. Staff has received five letters in opposition to this request. Summary. The proposed zoning change is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan, which designates the subject property as single family residential uses. While the proposed development exceeds the residential density of 1.8 dwelling units per acre, the proposed density is in line with other small lot subdivisions approved throughout the City of Colleyville, as referenced in the attached “Small Lot Subdivision Comparison” chart. The location of the proposed development will provide a viable Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Briefing 5a City of Colleyville Page 6 transitional element between the higher density PUD-R townhome subdivision to the west, and the collection of R-30 single family properties to the east. Furthermore, the proposed open space, at the front of the development, will provide a buffer to the effect and aesthetic of the density rate proposed. Given the proposed use compliments surrounding developments, and is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan, staff recommends approval of the development with the conditions outlined in the proposed ordinance. Recommendation Approval with the following conditions: 1. GENERAL a. The purpose of this PUDR is for a single-family residential development of detached dwelling units, constructed at a gross maximum density of 3.34 dwelling units per acre. b. This development shall be generally consistent with the attached Statement of Planning Objectives. c. The proposed development is subject to all the regulations contained in the Land Development Code, except where amended by this Ordinance. 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLATTING a. The development shall be generally consistent with the attached conceptual site plan, which shall not be considered the preliminary plat. The actual street and lot arrangement may differ from that shown on the conceptual site plan to accommodate topographic, drainage or other conditions. b. The developer shall submit and receive approval from the City, a Preliminary and Final Plat, approved as a single phase, in accordance with the requirements of the Land Development Code prior to development of this PUD-R. 3. PERMITTED USES a. Single-family residences, detached b. Common open space areas 4. RESIDENTIAL LOT REQUIREMENTS AND SETBACKS Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Briefing 5a City of Colleyville Page 7 Residential lot requirements and setbacks shall comply with the following provisions: a. 4 lots (Lots 1-4) shall be 55 feet wide as measured at the building setback line. Lots 9 and 10 shall be 65 feet wide as measured at the building setback line. The 4 other lots (Lots 5-8) aligned along the cul-de-sac shall have variable lots widths as measured at the front building setback line. Lot area shall be required as follows: a. The minimum lot size shall be 5,980 square feet (Lot 4), increasing to 13,285 square feet (Lot 6). b. Per the Conceptual Site Plan, the minimum lot depth shall be a minimum of 102 feet (Lot 5 that fronts the cul-de-sac) Setbacks shall be as follows: a. Front Yard Setbacks: 1. For lots that have a J-Swing Garage: 10 feet 2. For lots that have a front entry: 20 feet b. Rear Yard Setbacks: 1. For lots 1-5 and 9-10: 10 feet 2. For lots 6-8: 25 feet c. Side Yard Setbacks: 5 feet minimum (5 feet and 5 feet on lots 1-5; 5 feet and 11 feet on lot 6; 7 feet and 11 feet on lot 7; 7 feet and 9 feet on lot 8; 5 feet and 10 feet on lot 10) Maximum Lot coverage: 80 percent Maximum Height: 35 feet 5. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS The following requirements shall apply to all homes constructed in this development: a. Homes will be both single and two story construction. Lot 9 is required to be a single story home. For two story homes, there shall be no windows, balconies or verandas on the second floor of the rear elevation. b. Masonry: The exterior wall of all homes shall be composed of 100% masonry Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Briefing 5a City of Colleyville Page 8 materials. Approved masonry materials shall adhere to the masonry materials allowed in Chapter 6 of the Land Development Code. 6. OPEN SPACE a. This development shall provide a minimum of 20.1% common open space, as shown on the conceptual site plan, which shall be 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. All open space areas shall be landscaped. b. There shall be no detention or retention within the open space. 7. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY REQUIREMENTS a. Residential density shall not exceed 3.34 dwelling units per acre 8. SCREENING AND TREES a. A new 6 foot decorative masonry fence shall be constructed along the western boundary to replace the existing masonry wall. The developer shall provide demolition of the existing wall along the western boundary. Existing masonry wall along the northern and eastern boundaries shall remain. b. A variable height screening fence, constructed of a combination of brick, stone and wrought iron shall be constructed along the south portion of the property adjacent to Cheek-Sparger Road. The screening will be continuous along the boundary with the exception of entry road right-of-way. Landscaping shall be installed along the front of the new screening wall. Maintenance of the decorative masonry fence and landscaping shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association. c. Additional tree plantings shall occur along the north and east property lines to provide buffering. Trees will be a 3” caliper minimum and generally placed with 30 feet of spacing. 9. Drainage An approved drainage analysis shall conform to the conditions set by the City of Colleyville Engineering Division. 10. Colleyville Pathways Plan A 10 foot wide trail shall be constructed in accordance with the conditions and timing of the Colleyville Pathways Plan as set forth by the City of Colleyville Parks Department and the Supplemental Sidewalks Map. Attachments Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Briefing 5a City of Colleyville Page 9 1.Location and Zoning Map 2.Notification List 3.Buffer Map 4.Letters of Opposition 5.Letters of Support 6.Aerial 7.Revised Statement of Planning Objectives 8.Revised Illustrative Plan 9.Revised Conceptual Site Plan 10.Small Lot Subdivision Comparison 11.Revised Ordinance 3929 3903 4108 4110 2601 2504 2507 3902 2501 3900 3901 2503 2501 2502 25004001399539933991 3978 3 9 7 6 3 9 7 4 3970 3 9 8 6 3 9 8 4 3 9 8 03982 39 7 9 3977 3975 39663964396239603930 3932 3934 3961 3933 3931 3927 3925 3923 3921 2400 396339653967 CHEEK SPARGER RD JACKSON RD ST JAMES CT /1 inch = 150 feet0 300 Feet Location and Zoning Map Subject Property Legend AG Agricultural PUD-R Planned Unit Development, Residential R-30 Single Family Residential (30,000 sq. ft. min) R-40 Single Family Residential (40,000 sq. ft. min) Owner Name Owner Address Owner City Owner State Owner Zip Situs Address USHER, DAVID R ETUX LEIGH 5110 INVERNESS DR BRYAN TX 77802 3927 SPRING GARDEN DR WINSTEAD, DEBRA 717 CREEKVIEW LN COLLEYVILLE TX 76034 3921 SPRING GARDEN DR BROWN, ARLYN J & DOLORES A 3995 SPRING GARDEN DR COLLEYVILLE TX 76034 3995 SPRING GARDEN DR SPALDING, DAVID L 3993 SPRING GARDEN DR COLLEYVILLE TX 76034 3993 SPRING GARDEN DR KIMBELL, ISHAM M IV ETUX CHERE 3986 WITTEN DR COLLEYVILLE TX 76034 3986 WITTEN DR SWARTZ, JAMES ETUX PATRICIA 3991 SPRING GARDEN DR COLLEYVILLE TX 76034 3991 SPRING GARDEN DR WILSON, WILLIAM W ETUX SANDRA 3982 WITTEN DR COLLEYVILLE TX 76034 3982 WITTEN DR MURLEY, PAULA H 3967 HOLIDAY DR COLLEYVILLE TX 76034 3967 HOLIDAY DR SEARFOSS, JOHN 3965 HOLIDAY DR COLLEYVILLE TX 76034 3965 HOLIDAY DR BOECKENSTEDT, G L ETUX PATRICI 3964 HOLIDAY DR COLLEYVILLE TX 76034 3964 HOLIDAY DR KAVANAUGH, GAY TR PO BOX 188 COLLEYVILLE TX 76034 3963 HOLIDAY DR KOHLRUSS, JANIS L 3962 HOLIDAY DR COLLEYVILLE TX 76034 3962 HOLIDAY DR ROBERTSON, BILL ETUX MARY 3961 HOLIDAY DR COLLEYVILLE TX 76034 3961 HOLIDAY DR MARRIN, WILLIAM ETUX MARGARET 3960 HOLIDAY DR COLLEYVILLE TX 76034 3960 HOLIDAY DR HINSON, RUTH B (TRUSTEE)3966 HOLIDAY DR COLLEYVILLE TX 76034 3966 HOLIDAY DR DELCASTILLO, HENRY 3980 WITTEN DR COLLEYVILLE TX 76034 3980 WITTEN DR KURUVALLI, BHARATH ETUX HARIC 3925 SPRING GARDEN DR COLLEYVILLE TX 76034 3925 SPRING GARDEN DR LINK, DAVID J ETUX MYONA 3923 SPRING GARDEN DR COLLEYVILLE TX 76034 3923 SPRING GARDEN DR HASSETT, ROBERT G ETUX PHYLLIS 2500 KENSINGTON PL COLLEYVILLE TX 76034 2500 KENSINGTON PL HASHEM, ROBBIE A 2501 KENSINGTON PL COLLEYVILLE TX 76034 2501 KENSINGTON PL EVANS, MICHAEL D ETUX CAROLYN 2502 KENSINGTON PL COLLEYVILLE TX 76034 2502 KENSINGTON PL MCAFEE, THOMAS DEAN 2504 KENSINGTON PL COLLEYVILLE TX 76034 2504 KENSINGTON PL SQUIRES, KEITH ETUX KATHY 3902 ST JAMES CT COLLEYVILLE TX 76034 3902 ST JAMES CT SMITH, TED W & ANDREA 3900 ST JAMES CT COLLEYVILLE TX 76034 3900 ST JAMES CT SEARFOSS, RALPH P JR ETUX P A 3901 ST JAMES CT COLLEYVILLE TX 76034 3901 ST JAMES CT STATEPARK COLLEYVILLE LTD 4111 N CENTRAL EXPY STE 100 DALLAS TX 75204 3970 WITTEN DR STATEPARK COLLEYVILLE LTD 4111 N CENTRAL EXPY STE 100 DALLAS TX 75204 3970 WITTEN DR STATEPARK COLLEYVILLE LTD 4111 N CENTRAL EXPY STE 100 DALLAS TX 75204 3970 WITTEN DR MCKETHAN, HALLIE EST 5632 WILLS CREEK LN FORT WORTH TX 76179 2501 CHEEK SPARGER RD COLLINS, RICHARD D 7401 CABOT ESTATES DR MANSFIELD TX 76063 3984 WITTEN DR COLLEYVILLE SPRING GARDEN TNHM 1000 CENTRAL PKWY N STE 270 SAN ANTONIO TX 78232 OPEN SPACE SPRING GARDEN DR Hills of Central Park, HOA courtesy notice City of Bedford, Planning 2000 Forest Ridge Bedford TX 76021 courtesy notice Public hearing notices were mailed on Wed. Jan. 2, 2013 by Taci Wrisley. Buffer Map City of Bedford GEORGE B. NAFTIS 4101 BUCKINGHAM PLACE COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS 76034 (972) 385-6227 (Office) (817) 267-0120 (Residence) January 10, 2013 Mr. Ron Ruthven Community Development Department City of Colleyville 100 Main Street Colleyville, TX 76034 Re: Comments regarding proposed re-zoning of 2501 Cheek-Sparger Road Dear Mr. Ruthven, As a concerned homeowner in The Hills of Central Park, I do not support the proposed re-zoning request based on the current plan. The proposed housing density does match or even appropriately transition from our neighborhood where most homes are on one acre tracts with values over $1m. While the proposed sub-division may appear to be transitional from the town home development at the Northeast corner of Cheek Sparger Road and Jackson Roads, it is not at all transitional to the Hills of Central Park which borders the proposed development to the East and to the North. Neither is it transitional with the homes on the South side of Cheek Sparger Road that lie in the City of Bedford. The gross deviations required from the published standards in order to make this development economically viable, should be bell-weather to the developer, the Planning and Zoning Commissioners, and the community at large that this development simply does not fit well into the land area provided for it or the community in which it is planned. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, George B. Naftis Letters of Opposition January 10, 2013 Robbie A. Hashem 2501 Kensington Place Colleyville, TX 76034 To: Ron Ruthven Community Development Department City of Colleyville 100 Main Street Colleyville, TX 76034 Re: Proposed re-zoning of 2501 Cheek-Sparger Road Dear Mr. Ruthven, I’m a resident of the “Hills of Central Park”, and I’m concerned about the proposed re-zoning request based on the current plan. I would like to voice my opposition to such plan. The proposed housing will create significant traffic & safety issues as well as additional traffic delays that are already troubling. The housing density, as proposed, does not come close to matching our neighboring community at the Hills of Central Park, especially when it comes to home values. Also, because of the natural elevation change of the subject property, homes built in such close proximity to our neighborhood border, as currently proposed, will create significant privacy issues even from first floor windows. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, Robbie A. Hashem Letters of Opposition January 10, 2013 Wen-Chiang Wu 2507 Kensington Place Colleyville, TX 76034 (h) 817-329-3293 Ron Ruthven Community Development Department City of Colleyville 100 Main Street Colleyville, TX 76034 Re: Comments regarding proposed re-zoning of 2501 Cheek-Sparger Road Mr. Ruthven, As a concerned homeowner in The Hills of Central Park, I do not support the proposed re-zoning request based on the current plan. My point as following pages Letters of Opposition A. Base on city district regulations document ( http://www.colleyville.com/dmdocuments/Ch.%2003%20Land%20Use%205-9- 10.pd ), the table on page 3-46 as next figure The PUD-R min size is 100’ X 120’, this purpose plan is 55’ X 110; it not even qualifies for PUD-C (70’X115’) or PUD-I (70’X115’). City may have some special rule can make this purpose plan to fit into PUD-R, but the Res. density change from 0.3 (AG max Density) to 4.2 (this purpose plan Density) is a huge jump, I think current environment not ready for that, in term of the traffic of Cheek-Sparger Road, neighborhood feeling and water runoff Letters of Opposition B. The Hills of Central Park community is the one of the best/biggest R-30 Zone community in the Colleyville, see following figure which I grab from http://colleyville.dfwmaps.com/ Not only that, it surround by huge R-20 and R-40 area, and this big area strongly present Colleyville life style (classic and elegant country type). Adding more PUD zone around it will slowly spread its damage; we don’t want to see after decade, homeowners keep moving out since our Colleyville style is ended. Stop this re-zoning plan is not only for those 200 foot surrounded neighborhood, it really for the spirit of Colleyville Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Wen-chiang Wu Letters of Opposition January 9, 2013 Keith and Kathy Squires 3902 Saint James Ct. Colleyville, TX 76034 817-233-7008 Ron Ruthven Community Development Department City of Colleyville 100 Main Street Colleyville, TX 76034 Subject: Comments regarding the proposed re-zoning of 2501 Cheek-Sparger Road Mr. Ruthven, Our family lives in The Hills of Central Park and our property directly borders the subject property at 2501 Cheek- Sparger Road. I also own and operate an IT services business with offices at 4209 Gateway Drive in Colleyville. I am also an owner of this commercial building. I would like to formally go on record as opposing the proposed zoning. Please allow me to highlight three key points for the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider: First, I understand that the property will be developed for some type of residential use and am not opposed to something reasonable being built. However the proposed density does not fit the area of town. Although there is a townhome community bordering the subject property to the west, I believe the development of that property was an anomoly that would likely never be repeated. Please consider that the larger surrounding area is comprised of almost exclusively R-40, R-30 and R-20 homes. Even a transitional property should fit more in line with the larger surrounding area and not just the immediate bordering property. Second, since the development will be right up against my backyard, I am keenly aware of the specific privacy issues that homes being built 15 feet away from my back wall will introduce. Even if the developer eliminates the windows/patios on a second floor, because of the elevation change of the subject property, even first floor windows will have a close and direct view into my backyard (please refer to the sample illustration). The reason we purchased a home in Colleyville on a .75 acre tract was to avoid this scenario. For any homes built on the north or east border, the developer should propose a plan with setbacks more in line with our neighborhood standards. Third, the developer spoke extensively with our HOA president and also hosted an informational meeting with our homeowners to present his plan and solicit feedback. Our home owners took the time to attend and provided extensive feedback and recommendations that would make a development something we could more easily support. Ideas included maintaining our current brick wall, changing the location of the greenspaces to create a buffer with our neighborhood, regrading the property to improve drainage, limiting homes on the east border to single story, reducing the number of homes, enlarging the minimum lot size, changing setbacks. Unfortunately, we do not believe the developer has acted in good faith as none of the recommendations we made to the developer have been incorporated into his proposed plan. Our family takes pride in living in Colleyville. We appreciate the high standards that our city officials have maintained that prioritize quality of life for our citizens. Respectfully yours, Keith and Kathy Squires Letters of Opposition Letters of Opposition January 12, 2013 Home owner name Robert and Phyllis Hassett Address 2500 Kensington Pl Phone number (817) 267-0795 Ron Ruthven Community Development Department City of Colleyville 100 Main Street Colleyville, TX 76034 Re: Comments regarding proposed re-zoning of 2501 Cheek-Sparger Road Mr. Ruthven, As a concerned homeowner in The Hills of Central Park, I do not support the proposed re-zoning request based on the current plan. While the proposed sub-division may appear to be transitional from the town home development at the Northeast corner of Cheek Sparger Road and Jackson Roads, it is not at all transitional to the Hills of Central Park which borders the proposed development to the East and to the North. Neither is it transitional with the homes on the South side of Cheek Sparger Road that lie in the City of Bedford. The gross deviations required from the published standards in order to make this development economically viable, should be bell-weather to the developer, the Planning and Zoning Commissioners, and the community at large that this development simply does not fit well into the land area provided for it or the community in which it is planned. Ours us one of the properties that directly borders this land parcel and with the density proposed, would have a dwelling perhaps as close to 5 feet to our backyard fence, as well as possible windows looking into our yard and the rear elevation of our house. Our concern is that not only will this be unsightly and intrusive, but will lower our property value. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, R G Hassett DO, MPH Phyllis Hassett Letters of Opposition January 12, 2013 Ted and Andrea Smith 3900 St. James Ct. Colleyville, Texas 76034 817-233-0073 Ron Ruthven Community Development Department City of Colleyville 100 Main Street Colleyville, TX 76034 Re: Comments regarding proposed re-zoning of 2501 Cheek-Sparger Road Mr. Ruthven, As a concerned homeowner in The Hills of Central Park, I do not support the proposed re-zoning request based on the current plan. I initially moved to Colleyville in 1983, subsequently moved to Southlake for ten years, and made the move back to our current residence in Colleyville seven years ago. We have always been sold on the quality of life, small town charm, excellent governance, enforcement, and safety that Colleyville has to offer its homeowners, it truly is a remarkable community and with a newborn we plan on remaining in this home for at least the next twenty years. We bought our current residence with the understanding that a single estate home would inevitably be built on the adjacent estate lot behind us and we were understanding and accepting of that. Our home is designed such that a forty foot two story deck completely over looks our back yard and the neighboring lot and the ground floor is a totally open design plan so that the view from the first floor overlooks the entire back yard and neighboring adjacent lot as well. The current proposed rezoning and design plan will most negatively Impact the privacy and quality of living on my lot as there will be four of the proposed twelve homes where their rear yard will directly overlook my lot and home and a fifth will be visible from my back yard. Additionally, our nursery for our one year old son directly faces the proposed construction site, please consider the noise, debris, dust, and hazards that the construction activity will create for my home for a very extended period of time. The current traffic situation at rush hour has traffic backed up on Cheeksparger well beyond The Hills of Central Park’s gated entry creating traffic and severe safety issues. The proposed plat with an additional twelve homes, their family, friends, contactors, vendors, etc. will significantly increase the traffic and safety issues along Cheeksparger. My home also currently has severe drainage issues during a hard rain creating substantial runoff to my adjacent neighbor to my east. Additional construction will only increase these drainage problems The proposed housing density does match or even appropriately transition from our neighborhood where most homes are on one acre tracts with values over $1m. Letters of Opposition While the proposed sub-division may appear to be transitional from the town home development at the Northeast corner of Cheek Sparger Road and Jackson Roads, it is not at all transitional to the Hills of Central Park which borders the proposed development to the East and to the North. Neither is it transitional with the homes on the South side of Cheek Sparger Road that lie in the City of Bedford. The gross deviations required from the published standards in order to make this development economically viable, should be bell-weather to the developer, the Planning and Zoning Commissioners, and the community at large that this development simply does not fit well into the land area provided for it or the community in which it is planned. Because of the natural elevation change of the subject property, homes built in such close proximity to our neighborhood border, as currently proposed, will create significant privacy issues even from first floor windows. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ted and Andrea Smith Letters of Opposition January 13, 2013 Steve and Pam Morin 4003 Buckingham Place Colleyville, TX 76034 817-267-9919 Ron Ruthven Community Development Department City of Colleyville 100 Main Street Colleyville, TX 76034 Re: Comments regarding proposed re-zoning of 2501 Cheek-Sparger Road Mr. Ruthven, As a homeowner for 17 years in The Hills of Central Park, we are very hesitant to support the proposed re-zoning request based on the current plan that was presented. We are extremely concerned about the proposed sub-division that the developers seem to suggest are transitional from the town home development at the Northeast corner of Cheek-Sparger Road and Jackson Road. It is not transitional on the other three sides which consist of The Hills of Central Park, which borders the proposed development to the East and to the North, as well as the homes on the South side of Cheek-Sparger Road. The proposed housing density does not fit or suitably transition from our neighborhood where virtually all the homes are on tracts of one acre or more. We are not opposed to a future development on this property, but it should be obvious that this particular proposal just does not fit well into the land area provided for it or for the community in which is planned. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Steve and Pam Morin Letters of Opposition From:                              Carolyn  Sent:                               Monday, January 14, 2013 1:46 PM To:                                   Ron Ruthven Subject:                          FW: zoning protest for new Land Use Plan for Property on Western Border of  The Hills of Central Park   Importance:                   High Dear Mr. Ruthven,   Mike’s secretary sent you the email/letter below while he was out of town.   Mike & I would like to add a couple of points since we are out of town and can’t be at tonight’s meeting.   As  residences of the property directly to the north of the Cheek Sparger property asking for zoning change,  their  present layout of their lots, would put the sides of the two houses at the end of the cul‐de‐sac  just a few feet  from our back property line and the neighbors’ on each side of us.    Also, because 2 sections of the brick wall fell down behind our house, and we did not know who to ask to fix it,  and because we were fixing to get a new puppy, we put up a small section of a wood fence on our side of the  brick wall (inside our yard) to keep our dog inside our yard.   This action done solely independent of the other  homeowners, has caused the new owners of the Cheek Sparker property to mistakenly think that the  homeowners of the Hills of Central Park would want a wood fence but that would not be further from the truth.  This was explained to them at a recent meeting between the new owners and the Hills homeowners meeting.    The homeowners of the Hills of Central Park want the Brick wall to remain as the brick fence which separates  the Hills of Central Park and the said property facing Cheek Sparger.   Please do not let them change the brick  fence to a wood fence just because we put up a small section of a wood fence to keep our puppy in our yard due  to a small section of the brick wall falling down while the Cheek Sparger property was vacate.      The Homeowners of the Hills of Central Park have gone to a lot of expense to keep the brick wall, lawn, and  plants looking very nice and in excellent condition for many years which  face Cheek Sparger.  All along this  frontage area of The Hills looks like a “park” area.  It is so very nice and adds so much value to this main road  running through Colleyville.  I hope this will count in  favor of the “Hills of Central Park” because we value the  prestigious standing that the City of Colleyville has maintained since we moved to Colleyville in 1980 (though not  at this present house until 1993) (Our daughter that was only a baby when we moved to Colleyville, now has her  own little family, living in a gated community in Colleyville also.)   I wish Mike and I could be at the meeting tonight.  However, another one of our daughters who lives in  California, just had her first baby, so we are here in California celebrating the joy and blessings of being  grandparents.   But we stand in protest with our fellow homeowners of the Hills of Central Park and we are  deeply concerned at the request for the new zoning and their lack of consideration for the homeowners of the  Hills of Central Park.   Thanks you so much for hearing our concerns. Sincerely,   Mike & Carolyn Evans 2502 Kensington Place Colleyville, TX 76034 Carolyn’s Cell 817 929 7830    Page 1of 3 1/14/2013file://M:\Briefings\Active Briefings\ZC12-029 AG to PUDR 2501 Cheek Sparger Rd\FW ... Letters of Opposition   From: Julie - LaDonna Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:08 PM To: 'Carolyn' Subject: FW: zoning protest for new Land Use Plan for Property on Western Border of The Hills of Central Park Importance: High From: Julie - LaDonna Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 10:15 AM To: 'rruthven@colleyville.com' Subject: zoning protest for new Land Use Plan for Property on Western Border of The Hills of Central Park Importance: High January 9, 2013     Mike/Carolyn Evans  2502 Kensington Pl  Colleyville, TX 76034  817‐267‐6539        Ron Ruthven  Community Development Department  City of Colleyville  100 Main Street  Colleyville, TX 76034     Re: Comments regarding proposed re‐zoning of 2501 Cheek‐Sparger Road     Mr. Ruthven,     As a concerned homeowner in The Hills of Central Park, I do not support the proposed re‐zoning request based  on the current plan.     The proposed housing density does match or even appropriately transition from our neighborhood where most  homes are on one acre tracts with values over $1m.     While the proposed sub‐division may appear to be transitional from the town home development at the  Northeast corner of Cheek Sparger Road and Jackson Roads, it is not at all transitional to the Hills of Central Park  which borders the proposed development to the East and to the North. Neither is it transitional with the homes  on the South side of Cheek Sparger Road that lie in the City of Bedford.     The gross deviations required from the published standards in order to make this development economically  viable, should be bell‐weather to the developer, the Planning and Zoning Commissioners, and the community at  large that this development simply does not fit well into the land area provided for it or the community in which  it is planned.     Because of the natural elevation change of the subject property, homes built in such close proximity to our  neighborhood border, as currently proposed, will create significant privacy issues even from first floor windows.     Page 2of 3 1/14/2013file://M:\Briefings\Active Briefings\ZC12-029 AG to PUDR 2501 Cheek Sparger Rd\FW ... Letters of Opposition Thanks for your consideration.     Sincerely,     Mike Evans  Page 3of 3 1/14/2013file://M:\Briefings\Active Briefings\ZC12-029 AG to PUDR 2501 Cheek Sparger Rd\FW ... Letters of Opposition From:                                         Corwin,Thomas  Sent:                                           Friday, January 11, 2013 4:01 PM  To:                                               Ron Ruthven  Subject:                                     Comments re: Proposed Re‐Zoning of 2501 Cheek‐Sparger Road     Dear Mr. Ruthven:     I am contacting you about the proposed re‐zoning of 2501 Cheek‐Sparger Road.  I am a homeowner in The Hills  of Central Park, the neighborhood bordering the affected property.       While I am fully supportive of the responsible development of the 2501 Cheek‐Sparger property, I do not  support the proposed re‐zoning based on the current plan.    The proposed housing density is entirely  inconsistent with our neighborhood, where most homes are on one acre tracts with values over $1 million.   Please note that our neighborhood borders the proposed development to the East and the North.   The housing  density is also inconsistent with the homes and neighborhoods which border the property on the South side of  Cheek‐Sparger Road in the City of Bedford.       In addition to not matching the density of the immediately surrounding community in even the remotest sense,  the proposed development does not represent a reasonable “transition” from our neighborhood.     I respectfully ask that the re‐zoning request be denied until such time as a far more reasonable proposal is  submitted by the developer to ensure that the housing density matches or legitimately transitions from the  neighborhoods which immediately border 2501 Cheek Sparger to the South, North and East.     Thank you in advance for your consideration.     Thomas Corwin  3903 Buckingham Place  Colleyville, TX 76034  Tel. 817.684.1004  Page 1of 1 1/14/2013file://M:\Briefings\Active Briefings\ZC12-029 AG to PUDR 2501 Cheek Sparger Rd\Com... Letters of Opposition Letters of Opposition Letters of Opposition January 14, 2013 Colleyville Planning and Zoning Commission 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 The Homeowners of Spring Garden are pleased that Adams and Ryan Home builders are interested in developing the lot that is located east of our community on Cheeks Sparger. Our preference is to see either townhomes similar to our community or patio homes of the size and quality proposed by the prospective builders. Representatives from Spring Garden have spoken with the builders and have offered to consider joining their development to our community if there was such an interest by the builders. The Homeowners and HOA board has received various documents from the builder and the town through the rezoning process. At this time we believe the site engineering information is too preliminary for us to make a decision to embrace or reject the project. Of particular concern is the drainage plan. A number of residents have deep reservations which need to be addressed. As you may be aware tonight, Monday January 14, 2013, is Spring Garden’s annual HOA meeting. This conflict will deny a number of interested homeowners the opportunity to attend both of these important meetings. As the President of the Spring Garden HOA I would like to request that the committee table discussion and/or any decision on this project to a future meeting until more detailed engineering information is available. By delaying discussion this would also provide an opportunity for more of our homeowners to participate in the process. Respectfully, Edward M. Mackiewicz Edward M. Mackiewicz President Spring Garden Home Owners Association Letter of Support From:Swartz, Jim To:Taci Wrisley Cc:Edward Mackiewicz; Lynn Swartz Subject:Ivy Glen Project Date:Friday, January 25, 2013 7:15:48 AM Ms. Traci Wrisley City of Colleyville My wife and I are residents of Spring Garden and we want you to know that we support the Ivy Glen Project on the property to the east of our community. Good development is an asset to all of us who live in Colleyville. The proposal is a good one. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, James C. Swartz 3991 Spring Garden Drive Colleyville, Texas 75052 (682) 429-0700 Cellular Letter of Support From:Sherry Pipkin To:Taci Wrisley Cc:Ed Mackiewicz Subject:Ivy Glen Development Project Date:Friday, January 25, 2013 11:06:20 AM Taci - I am a resident of Spring Garden, and would like to express my support and endorsement of the Ivy Glen Development project. I've met the builders and have seen their plans and proposals. Ivy Glen will be a great addition to our neighborhood and the City of Colleyville. I sincerely hope the Zoning Commission and City of Colleyville the development. Regards, Sherry Pipkin 3947 Spring Garden Dr. Colleyville, TX 76034 214-684-3490 Letter of Support From:William Marrin To:Taci Wrisley Subject:Ivy Glen Project Support Date:Friday, January 25, 2013 8:57:01 AM Traci, As a homeowner in the Spring Garden Community adjacent to this project, we support this project as the highest and best use for this parcel. Bill Marrin Cell 469-358-7383 3960 Holiday Drive Colleyville, Texas 76034 Letter of Support From:Edward M Mackiewicz To:Taci Wrisley Subject:501 Cheek Sparger RD or Ivy Glen Devlopement Project Date:Friday, January 25, 2013 1:02:21 PM Traci,   As an  owner  of a  townhome in  the  Spring  Garden  subdivision  I fully  support  the  development  of the  Ivy  Glen  development  as  proposed  in  builders   1/24/13 plan. I believe the  development  of  the  property  will  benefit Colleyville by removing an  eye sore  and increasing tax revenues.  My preference would be  for more townhomes on the  site but the  proposed  10  homes  would work for me  too. The builders  have  briefed our  community  and we  feel that  we  can  depend on them  to build  a quality product  on the  site. We do have  a  few engineering  questions  that  need to be  resolved  and I believe the  city engineer will  need to be  involved. Nothing is  a  show  stopper  at  this  time.   Please  encourage  the  Zoning  Board  to allow the  project to proceed.   Edward  M Mackiewicz 3957  Spring  Garden  Drive Colleyville, Texas  76034-4689 817-656-7159   Letter of Support From:Gail Wheaton To:Taci Wrisley Subject:Proposed Ivy Glen Development on Cheek-Sparger Date:Friday, January 25, 2013 1:22:23 PM Dear Traci,I am a resident of Spring Garden TownHomes in Colleyville. Our development is tothe west of the proposed development of Ivy Glen. Our HOA had a very productivemeeting with Gary Panno and Brian Adams, the developers and builders of theproposed development. I whole-heartedly support the current proposal for Ivy Glen as an excellent transition from the higher density development of Spring Garden to the lower density lots in The Hills to the East. Gary Panno and Brian Adams have been very willing to make the adjustments we as an association felt were required - pertaining to the concernsover drainage and the wall separating our community from the proposedcommunity. When we asked about adding a sidewalk on Cheek-Sparger that would link to apossible sidewalk bordering our Spring Garden Community, they were quiteamenable to that suggestion. I recommend that you approve the proposed project of Ivy Glen on Cheek-Sparger. Sincerely,Gail Wheaton3979 Witten DriveColleyville, TX 76034 Gail Wheaton EarthLink Revolves Around You. Letter of Support From:Mike Kimbell To:Taci Wrisley Subject:Ivy Glen Development Project, 501 Cheek Sparger RD Date:Friday, January 25, 2013 1:26:32 PM Traci Wristley Colleyville Planning and Zoning Assistant, My name is Mike Kimbell residing at 3986 Witten Dr. in the Spring Garden community adjacent to the proposed Ivy Glen development. I am writing in support of the subject development for the following reasons. 1. The proposed development is excellent use of the land and will be an asset to the neighborhood and the city. 2. The size and cost of the homes is appropriate for the location and is a reasonable transition from low to high density residential housing. 3. The homes should be attractive to market demand which is trending to high quality smaller homes on smaller lots 4. The current vacant lot, near an important entrance to Colleyville, is very unattractive due to deteriorating structures and needs to be developed and sold out quickly. The proposed Ivy Glen development should accomplish that objective. Thank you for your consideration, Mike kimbell Letter of Support 2504 3902 2501 3900 2502 2500400139953986 3 9 8 4 3 9 8 03982 3966396439623960 3961 3923 3921 396339653967 CHEEK SPARGER RD Aerial of 2501 Cheek Sparger Ivy Glen Estates Colleyville, Texas PUD Single Family – 10 lots Zoning Re-submittal 1. GENERAL a. The purpose of PUDR is for a single-family residential development of detached dwelling units, constructed at a gross maximum density of 3.07 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. CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND PLATTING a. The street layout and arrangement of lots of the subdivision shall be generally consistent with the Conceptual Site Plan. b. The developer shall submit and receive approval from the City a Preliminary and Final Plat in accordance with the requirements of the Land Development Code prior to development of this PUDR. 3. PERMITTED USES a. Single-family residences, detached b. Common open space areas 4. RESIDENTIAL LOT REQUIREMENTS AND SETBACKS Single-family detached residential lot requirements and setbacks shall comply with the following provisions. Building line setbacks established by the Conceptual Site Plan shall control where such building line setback is different from the following requirements. a. Minimum Lot Size 5,890sf / Average 8,200sf b. Minimum Lot Width 55 feet c. Minimum Lot Depth 110 feet (exception for lot lines on cul-de-sac) d. Front Building Line 10 feet for J-Swing Garage (Lots 1-4 Only)/ 20 feet for Front Entry e. Side Building Line 5’ minimum (5’ & 5’ on lots 1-5; 5’ & 11’ on lot 6; 7’ & 11’ on lot 7; 7’ and 9’ on lot 8; 5’ & 10’ on lots 9-10) f. Rear Building Line 10 feet on lots 1-5, 9-10; 25’ on lots 6-8 g. Maximum Lot Coverage 80 percent h. Maximum Height 35 feet 5. OPEN SPACE a. This development shall provide not less that twenty (20%) percent common open space, which will generally be configured as shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. All open space areas shall be landscaped and maintained by the Homeowners Association. b. There will be no retention or detention within the open space. c. Amenity features such as a water fountain and pergola seating area will be provided by the developer and maintained by the HOA. Playground equipment will not be permitted in the common open space. 6. SCREENING a. A new 6’ concrete panel fence will constructed along the western boundary to replace the existing masonry wall. Developer will provide demolition of existing wall along western boundary. Existing masonry wall along the northern and eastern boundaries is to remain. b. A variable height screening fence, constructed of a combination of brick, stone and wrought iron will be constructed along the south portion of the property adjacent to Cheek Sparger Road. The screening will be continuous along the boundary with the exception of entry road right-of- way. Landscape will be installed along the front of the new screen wall. 7. SIDEWALKS Sidewalks will be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Colleyville Land Development Code. 8. OTHER a. Homes will be both single and two story construction. Lot 9 is required to be a single-story home. b. For two-story homes there will be no windows, balconies or verandas on the second floor of the rear elevation. c. Maintenance of the new screening walls along the western and southern boundaries, open space and landscaping will be the responsibility of the HOA governing the new sub-division. d. Construction times would be limited to City of Colleyville rules and regulations (Monday – Saturday 7:00am – 7:00pm). e. Additional tree plantings will occur along the north, east, and west property lines to provide buffering. Trees will be 3” caliper minimum and generally placed with 30’ spacing. f. If sidewalk is to be installed along Cheek Sparger Road at the time of construction the developer will connect to Spring Garden Drive. g. Any pools constructed on lots 1-4 will be limited to a maximum size of 9,000 gallons. h. A 3’ maintenance easement will run along the north boundary of lots 6-7 and along the north and east boundary of lot 8. IV Y G L E N C O U R T CHEEK SPARGER ROAD 8 12,378 sf 9 7,475 sf 10 7,475 sf1 6,050 sf 2 6,050 sf 3 6,050 sf 4 5,890 sf 5 7,302 sf 6 13,285 sf 7 10,078 sf 8 12,378 sf 9 7,475 sf 10 7,475 sf1 6,050 sf 2 6,050 sf 3 6,050 sf 4 5,890 sf 5 7,302 sf 6 13,285 sf 7 10,078 sf IVY GLEN JANUARY 24, 2013 Prepared By:Prepared For: ADAMS HOMES, INC. PO Box 202185 Arlington, TX 76006 Phone (817) 994-6555 ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN 910 S. Kimball Avenue Southlake, Texas 76092 (817) 328-3200 GRAPHIC SCALE FEET010050 1" = 50' Small Lot Subdivision Comparison Subdivision Lots Min. Width Min. Depth Min. Size Ave. Size Density Max. Lot Coverage Open Space Approval Date Villas of Caldwell Creek 43 59 115 6,594 7,408 3.7 d.u.a. 50% 18.3% O-97-1062 4.1.97 Bridges at Riverwalk 32 56 106 6,001 6,479 3.0 d.u.a. 50% 24% O-99-1192 12.21.99 Riverwalk at Colleyville 53 60 115 6,331 7,666 3.2 d.u.a. 50% 20% O-00-1210 4.4.00 Rosewood Villas 53 59 110 6,482 6,899 3.6 d.u.a. 60% 21.4% O-01-1286 8.8.01 Emerald Park 53 60 120 7,200 7,508 3.5 d.u.a. 50% 19.6% O-02-1366 10.1.02 Tiffany Park 72 60 100 7,200 7,580 3.5 d.u.a. 50% 20% O-04-1487 10.21.03 Tuscany 25 60 110 6,600 7,878 3.9 d.u.a. 50% 6.6% O-04-1442 2.17.04 Cambridge Place 35 50 58 4,500 5,300 4.2 d.u.a. 60% 22% O-04-1467 7.6.04 Villas at Oak Pointe 38 30/56 90/95 115 2,700 6,440 5,000 3.7 d.u.a. 90% 58% 22% O-06-1584 8.2.06 Copperglen 74 55 105 5,924 6,650 3.9 d.u.a. 65% 20% O-06-1595 10.17.06 Villas of Colleyville 22 59 115 6,655 8,936 3.4 d.u.a. 60% 21% O-07-1627 8.21.07 Enclave at Arbor Estates 67 65 120 8,700 9,350 2.9 d.u.a. 50% 19% O-07-1634 9.18.07 Creekside at Colleyville 16 50 105 5,000 7,257 2.4 d.u.a. 65% 20% O-07-1645 11.27.07 Somerset Manor 269 50/60 100 110 5,000 6,600 6,000 4.0 d.u.a. 50% 20.3% O-08-1672 5.6.08 The Preservation on Glade 50 50/55/6 0/75 100 6,000 9,000 7,204 4.15 d.u.a. 50% 15.7% n.a. Ivy glen Estates 12 55 105 6,050 6,325 4.01 d.u.a. 80% 21.3% n.a. d.u.a. = dwelling units per acre n.a. = not available ORDINANCE O-12-xxxx AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AND CHANGING THE ZONING ON 2.99 ACRES ON THE D.R. TEETER SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1518 AND THE S.C.H. WRITTEN SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1732, CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS LOCATED AT 2501 CHEEK-SPARGER RD FROM THE AG-AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT TO THE PUD-R-PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City of Colleyville has received an application for a rezoning under Case No. ZC11-029; and WHEREAS, the City of Colleyville deems it necessary, for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the City to enact a new zoning ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council has appointed a Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend the boundaries of the various original zoning districts and appropriate regulations be enforced therein and to recommend a new zoning ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has divided the City into districts and has prepared regulations pertaining to such districts in accordance with a comprehensive plan designed to lessen congestion in the streets; to secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers; to promote health, general welfare; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, has given reasonable consideration, among other things, to the character of the districts and their peculiar suitability for particular uses, with a view to conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Colleyville and the City of Colleyville City Council, in compliance with the Charter of the City of Colleyville, and State Law with reference Ordinance O-12-XXXX Page 2 of 7 to changes to zoning classifications under the Zoning Ordinance Regulations and Zoning Map, having given the requisite notices by publication and otherwise, and after holding due hearings and affording a full and fair hearing to all the property owners generally, and to the persons interested and situated in the affected area and in the vicinity thereof, the governing body of the City of Colleyville is of the opinion that said change in zoning should be made. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS: Sec. 1. THAT all the foregoing premises and findings are found to be true and correct and are incorporated into the body of this ordinance as if copied in their entirety. Sec. 2. THAT the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Colleyville, Texas, be, and the same is hereby amended by changing the zoning on 2.99 acres on the D.R. Teeter Survey, Abstract No. 1518 and the S.C.H. written survey, Abstract No. 1732 from the AG-Agricultural zoning district to the PUD-R- Planned Unit Development Residential zoning district, as depicted in the attached Exhibit “A” and as described in Exhibit “B”. Sec. 3. THAT the Official Zoning Map of the City of Colleyville be amended to incorporate the zoning change approved herein. Sec. 4. THAT the above described tract of land shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. GENERAL a. The purpose of this PUDR is for a single-family residential development of detached dwelling units, constructed at a gross maximum density of 3.34 dwelling units per acre. b. This development shall be generally consistent with the Statement of Planning Objectives, Exhibit “C”. c. The subject property is subject to all the regulations contained in the Land Development Code, except where amended by this Ordinance. Ordinance O-12-XXXX Page 3 of 7 2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLATTING a. The development shall be generally consistent with the Conceptual Site Plan, Exhibit “D”, which shall not be considered the preliminary plat. The actual street and lot arrangement may differ from that shown on the conceptual site plan to accommodate topographic, drainage or other conditions. b. The developer shall submit and receive approval from the City, a Preliminary and Final Plat, approved as a single phase, in accordance with the requirements of the Land Development Code prior to development of this PUD-R. 3. PERMITTED USES a. Single-family residences, detached b. Common open space areas 4. RESIDENTIAL LOT REQUIREMENTS AND SETBACKS Residential lot requirements and setbacks shall comply with the following provisions: a. 4 lots (Lots 1-4) shall be 55 feet wide as measured at the building setback line. Lots 9 and 10 shall be 65 feet wide as measured at the building setback line. The 4 other lots (Lots 5-8) aligned along the cul-de-sac shall have variable lot widths as measured at the front building setback line. Lot area shall be required as follows: a. The minimum lot size shall be 5,980 square feet, increasing to 13,285 square feet (Lot 6). The average lot size is 8,200 square feet. b. Per the Conceptual Site Plan, the minimum lot depth shall be a minimum of 102 feet (Lot 5 that fronts the cul-de- sac). Setbacks shall be as follows: a. Front Yard Setbacks: Ordinance O-12-XXXX Page 4 of 7 1. For lots that have a J-Swing Garage: 10 feet 2. For lots that have a front entry: 20 feet b. Rear Yard Setbacks: 1. For lots 1-5 and 9-10: 10 feet 2. For lots 6-8: 25 feet c. Side Yard Setbacks: 5 feet minimum (5 feet and 5 feet on lots 1-5; 5 feet and 11 feet on lot 6; 7 feet and 11 feet on lot 7; 7 feet and 9 feet on lot 8; 5 feet and 10 feet on lot 10) Maximum Lot coverage: 80 percent Maximum Height: 35 feet 5. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS The following requirements shall apply to all homes constructed in this development: a. Homes will be both single and two story construction. Lot 9 is required to be a single story home. For two story homes, there shall be no windows, balconies or verandas on the second floor of the rear elevation. b. Masonry: The exterior wall of all homes shall be composed of 100% masonry materials. Approved masonry materials shall adhere to the masonry materials allowed in Chapter 6 of the Land Development Code. 6. OPEN SPACE a. This development shall provide a minimum of 20.1% common open space, as shown on the conceptual site plan, which shall be 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. All open space areas shall be landscaped. b. There shall be no detention or retention within the open space. Ordinance O-12-XXXX Page 5 of 7 7. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY REQUIREMENTS a. Residential density shall not exceed 3.34 dwelling units per acre 8. SCREENING AND TREES a. A new 6 foot decorative masonry fence shall be constructed along the western boundary to replace the existing masonry wall. Developer shall provide demolition of existing wall along the western boundary. Existing masonry wall along the northern and eastern boundaries shall remain. b. A variable height screening fence, constructed of a combination of brick, stone and wrought iron shall be constructed along the south portion of the property adjacent to Cheek-Sparger Road. The screening will be continuous along the boundary with the exception of entry road right-of-way. Landscaping shall be installed along the front of the new screening wall. Maintenance of the decorative masonry fence and landscaping shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association. c. Additional tree plantings shall occur along the north, east and west property lines to provide buffering. Trees shall be a 3” caliper minimum and generally placed with 30 feet of spacing. 9. Drainage a. An approved drainage analysis shall conform to the conditions set by the City of Colleyville Engineering Department. 10. Colleyville Pathways Plan a. A 10 foot wide trail shall be constructed in accordance with the conditions and timing of the Colleyville Pathways Plan as set forth by the city of Colleyville Parks Department and the Supplemental Sidewalks Map. Ordinance O-12-XXXX Page 6 of 7 11. Other a. A 3 foot maintenance easement shall run along the entire length of the north and east boundaries of the development. Sec. 5. THAT the above described tract of land shall be used only in the manner and for the purposes provided by the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Colleyville as heretofore amended, and as amended herein. Sec. 6. THAT any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions or terms of this ordinance shall be subject to the same penalty as provided for in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Colleyville, and upon conviction shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed the sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Sec. 7. THAT if any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or provision of this ordinance shall be judged invalid or unconstitutional, the same shall not affect the validity of this ordinance as a whole or any portion thereof other than that portion so decided to be invalid or unconstitutional. Sec. 8. THAT in addition to and accumulative of all other penalties, the City shall have the right to seek injunctive relief for any and all violations of this ordinance. Sec. 9. THAT it has been found that there has been a change in conditions in the above described property, it is now necessary that it be given the above zoning classification in order to permit its proper development and in order to protect the public interest, comfort and general welfare, and requires that this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. The first reading and public hearing being conducted on the 19th day of February 2013. The second reading and public hearing being conducted on the 5th day of March 2013. Ordinance O-12-XXXX Page 7 of 7 PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Colleyville, Texas, on this the ________ day of _________________________ 2013. ATTEST: CITY OF COLLEYVILLE Amy Shelley David Kelly City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Matthew C. G. Boyle City Attorney Exhibit “A” Exhibit “B” – Legal Description Exhibit “C” – Statement of Planning Objectives Exhibit “C” - Continued Exhibit “D” – Conceptual Site Plan