Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council-Agenda Packets-9/19/2022
City of Colleyville Page 1 City of Colleyville City Council Special Meeting Agenda City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 817.503.1000 www.colleyville.com Council Chambers Monday, September 19, 2022 5:30 p.m. Third Floor, City Hall 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION 2a Presentation and discussion of a zoning change from AG Agricultural and RE Single Family 'Estate' Residential to PUD-R Planned Unit Development-Residential zoning district for Tract 1B, Abstract 1487, O C Sturm Survey, Tracts 2A01, 2A01B, 2A07A, and 2A07A1, Abstract 1748, James E. Weathers Survey, Lots 1 and 1A, Block 1, K Bar G Estates Addition, Lot 1A, Block 1, Westcoat Estates, and Lots 1A2, 1B, and 1C, Block 1, Hilley Addition, located at 6401, 6405, 6409, 6417, 6501, 6507, and 6605 Westcoat Drive, Case ZC22-020 3. ADJOURNMENT I hereby certify this agenda was posted on City Hall bulletin boards Thursday, September 15, 2022 by 5:00 p.m. Christine Loven, TRMC City Secretary A quorum of any Colleyville board, commission, or committee may be present at this meeting. 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 City Council Agenda Briefing City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 www.colleyville.com Agenda Number 2a Agenda Date 9/19/2022 Number Type Presentation and Discussion Department Community Development Title Presentation and discussion of a zoning change from AG Agricultural and RE Single Family 'Estate' Residential to PUD-R Planned Unit Development-Residential zoning district for Tract 1B, Abstract 1487, O C Sturm Survey, Tracts 2A01, 2A01B, 2A07A, and 2A07A1, Abstract 1748, James E. Weathers Survey, Lots 1 and 1A, Block 1, K Bar G Estates Addition, Lot 1A, Block 1, Westcoat Estates, and Lots 1A2, 1B, and 1C, Block 1, Hilley Addition, located at 6401, 6405, 6409, 6417, 6501, 6507, and 6605 Westcoat Drive, Case ZC22-020 Strategic Plan 4.1 Protect Colleyville's semi-rural residential character Explanation UPDATE: The purpose of this Spcial Meeting is to allow for the applicant to present changes proposed for the development, conduct discussion with the City Council, and provide the opportunity for citizens to speak. No action will be taken at this meeting. Revised plans were submitted to the City just before publication of the packet and are included. Second Reading and Public Hearing The applicant was present and answered questions regarding the project. Many citizens were present and spoke in favor and in opposition to the project. Topics of concern included drainage, traffic and connectivity, lack of open space, and density. The City Council indicated that the item will be tabled to allow for the applicant to adjust the project and to provide time to conduct a special meeting(s) to focus exclusively on this item. The special meeting will be open to the public and will include a public hearing. First Reading and Public Hearing Kosse Maykus, the applicant, has submitted a request to rezone the 59.47 acre property located at 6401, 6405, 6409, 6417, 6501, 6507, and 6605 Westcoat Drive from AG Agricultural and RE Single-Family ‘Estate’ Residential district to a PUD-R Planned Unit Development-Residential district. The purpose is to rezone in order to allow for the development of a new 56 lot single family residential subdivision. City Council Agenda Briefing 2a City of Colleyville Page 2 Existing Conditions/Background: The subject property is a combination of platted and unplatted lots. Proposed Zoning Change: Request – The request is to rezone from the AG Agricultural and RE Single Family ‘Estate” Residential to the PUD-R Planned Unit Development-Residential district. The request is to construct a new 56 lot detached single family subdivision to be known as Greystone Manor. Purpose - The purpose of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is to provide for greater flexibility and discretion in the approval of residential, non-residential, and mixed use developments by encouraging creative, efficient and aesthetically desirable residential and commercial projects that are superior to what could be accomplished in other zoning districts. This may be through the use of increased open spaces and greenbelts or by providing enhanced amenities or features within the development which will be of special benefit to the property owners or to the community. Analysis – Per proposed the PUD, this project is requesting to create a new 56 detached single family subdivision. The applicant is proposing private, gated streets which is required to be approved by the City Council. There are two proposed street connections along Westcoat Drive serving as the entrances and exits to the subdivision. The lots range from R-20 in size up to R-40. The average lot size is 38,000 s.f. The minimum home size will be 4,500 s.f. Along the northern border, a 15’ landscape easement with four inch shade trees on each lot is proposed to serve as a buffer. Adjacent to the eastern border of the subdivision will be a 30’ landscaping easement along with the planting of four inch shade trees. Plat Status: The subject property is a combination of unplatted and platted lots as Tract 1B, Abstract 1487, O C Sturm Survey, Tracts 2A01, 2A01B, 2A07A, and 2A07A1, Abstract 1748, James E. Weathers Survey, Lots 1 and 1A, Block 1, K Bar G Estates Addition, Lot 1A, Block 1, Westcoat Estates, And Lots 1A2, 1B, And 1C, Block 1, Hilley Addition. DRC Review: This request was reviewed during the May 23, 2022 DRC meeting and determined the application may be scheduled for the next available Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The DRC provided a number of comments, which included information related to the open space, net density per acre, providing a preliminary drainage plan using accurate C-factors, and providing more dimensions regarding the proposed streets and cul-de-sacs. Drainage: A Preliminary Drainage Plan has been provided and it is using incorrect C- factors of 0.35 pre-developed (existing) and 0.45 post-developed (proposed). The guidelines set in Chapter 14 of the Colleyville Land Development Code indicate the C- factors for pre-developed (existing) to be 0.30 and post-developed to be 0.60. Surrounding Development: Property to the north is zoned PUD-R Planned Unit Development-Residential and has developed with single family homes. Property to the City Council Agenda Briefing 2a City of Colleyville Page 3 south has R-20 Single Family Residential, R-40 Single Family Residential, and AG Agricultural zoning and has developed with single family homes. The property to the east has RE Single Family ‘Estate’ Residential, R-40 Single Family Residential, and AG Agricultural zoning and has been developed with single family homes. The property to the west has R-10 Single Family Residential, RE Single Family ‘Estate’ Residential, and PUD-R Planned Unit Development-Residential and has been developed with single family homes. Comprehensive Plan: The City’s Comprehensive Plan, Destination Colleyville, designates the subject property and most of the property near this location along Westcoat as planned for residential use. The proposed rezoning request does comply with the residential land use designation stated in the comprehensive plan. One of the goals for this area, as outlined in Destination Colleyville, is to preserve high-quality, established neighborhoods with an emphasis on large lots and natural settings with a “country feel”. As open space areas are encouraged to be provided, staff strongly encourages maintaining the density of the larger area. Fees: Impact Fees are required per Chapter 13 (Impact Fees) of the Land Development Code and are due prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, if applicable. Tree Preservation: The development must comply with Chapter 5 (Urban Forestry) of the Land Development Code. Where any tree is slated for removal, no site grading, dirt disturbance or new construction may occur on the property until a Tree Removal Permit has been issued that is associated with an approved Tree Preservation Plan. In addition to the requirements for submittal of a Tree Removal Permit and Tree Preservation Plan, future development on the site must maintain the minimum existing protected tree canopy coverage as required in Chapter 5. Public Notification: Staff mailed notices to all property owners within 500 feet as well as any Homeowners Associations and Independent School Districts within 1,000 feet of the subject property. Notice was published in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram as required by State law and the Land Development Code. Staff Recommendation: Staff is neutral on this request. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request at their June 13, 2022 meeting by a vote of 5-0. Financial Impact There is no financial impact to the City. Recommendation None City Council Agenda Briefing 2a City of Colleyville Page 4 Attachments 1. Aerial Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Future Land Use Map 4. Greystone Manor 5. Statement of Planning Objectives 6. Development Plan 7. Development Plan - Aerial 8. Cul De Sac Exhibit 9. Drainage and Utility Plan 10. Frontage Landscape Screening and Plantings 11. Landscape Easement Plantings - North 12. Landscape Easement Plantings - East 13. Notification Map 14. Notification Letter 15. Notification List 16. Letters from Surrounding Property Owners 17. Ordinance O-22-2211 THERESALANEPLEASANT RUN ROADM UI R L AN E MCD ONW ELL SC H OOL ROAD W BA R TR A M LANE POLO T R A I L FEGA NS PA TH BETTINGER DRIVEHUNTER LANEWESTCOAT DRIVEBRANS F ORDROA D L D LOCKETT ROADVAN O A K S D RIVE WESTMONTDRIVEBRIDGE STREET DERBYDRIVEM CD O N W E L L S C H O O L R O A D E WHITE DRIVE OLDENWOOD COURT STONINGTON LA NE HILLIER COURTOLD GROV E ROA D CUTTERRIDGECOURT Aerial Map DISCLAIMER:This map and information contained in it were developed exclusively for use by the City of Colleyville.Any use or reliance on this map by anyone else is at that party's risk and without liability to the City of Colleyville, its officials or employees for any discrepancies, errors, or variances which may exist. ZC22-020 K6605 Westcoat Drive Subject Property THERESALANEPLEASANT RUN ROADM UI R L AN E MCD ONW ELL SC H OOL ROAD W BA R TR A M LANE POLO T R A I L FEGA NS PA TH BETTINGER DRIVEHUNTER LANEWESTCOAT DRIVEBRANS F ORDROA D L D LOCKETT ROADVAN O A K S D RIVE WESTMONTDRIVEBRIDGE STREET DERBYDRIVEM CD O N W E L L S C H O O L R O A D E WHITE DRIVE OLDENWOOD COURT STONINGTON LA NE HILLIER COURTOLD GROV E ROA D CUTTERRIDGECOURT Zoning Map DISCLAIMER:This map and information contained in it were developed exclusively for use by the City of Colleyville.Any use or reliance on this map by anyone else is at that party's risk and without liability to the City of Colleyville, its officials or employees for any discrepancies, errors, or variances which may exist. ZC22-020 K6605 Westcoat Drive Subject Property THERESALANEPLEASANT RUN ROADM UI R L AN E MCD ONW ELL SC H OOL ROAD W BA R TR A M LANE POLO T R A I L FEGA NS PA TH BETTINGER DRIVEHUNTER LANEWESTCOAT DRIVEBRANS F ORDROA D L D LOCKETT ROADVAN O A K S D RIVE WESTMONTDRIVEBRIDGE STREET DERBYDRIVEM CD O N W E L L S C H O O L R O A D E WHITE DRIVE OLDENWOOD COURT STONINGTON LA NE HILLIER COURTOLD GROV E ROA D CUTTERRIDGECOURT Future Land Use Map DISCLAIMER:This map and information contained in it were developed exclusively for use by the City of Colleyville.Any use or reliance on this map by anyone else is at that party's risk and without liability to the City of Colleyville, its officials or employees for any discrepancies, errors, or variances which may exist. ZC22-020 K6605 Westcoat Drive Subject Property Residential Institutional Open Space; Parks Greystone Manor Colleyville, Texas Zoning Narrative –14 SEPT 2022 Hat Creek Development, Developer Sage Group, Inc., Land Planner Statement of Planning Objectives Greystone Manor is a proposed residential neighborhood to be developed by Hat Creek Development, under the PUD-R Residential District regulations for residential development in the City of Colleyville. The approximately 50 acre property is located on the east side of Westcoat Drive, just east of the new roundabout at the corner of Westcoat and McDonwell School Rd. Adjacencies: The property is west of the acre+ lot Cutter Ridge neighborhood, south of the adjacent Oakbrook Hills neighborhood (a PUD-R of 16,500+ sf lots) and across Westcoat from “Westmont,” (a PUD-R of 13,000-20,000+ sf lots)- north of McDonwell School Road, and multi acre lots south of McDonwell School Road. To the south of the property are also multi-acre lots. The property is currently designated AG (Agriculture), so this would be the initial “development” zoning requested. The intent here is to rezone the entire property to PUD- R, unifying the property into one cohesive, master planned residential development of the highest quality. There are currently two occupied single-family homes on the consolidated properties under this ownership. The main estate, to be contained within a newly defined lot, has been removed from the zoning proposal, but will need to be a part of the plat, for the creation of the new lot; the remaining structures will be removed. The proposed plan responds to, and in many ways reflects the neighborhoods and properties we are adjacent to. Where we are adjacent to the PUD-R’s to the north and northwest- composed primarily of 1/3 acre lots- we are proposing larger lots of 20,000 sf and up, and then transitioning, internally, to 30,000 sf lots, and then to 40,000 sf lots along the entire eastern and southern boundaries. In summary, we have designed the project to be compatible and in harmony with our adjacent neighbors and to be consistent with the city’s Future Land Use Plan. Overall density is 0.98 lots per acre. Quality and compatibility with the adjacent residential, as well as the rest of Colleyville is essential, and we have designed this proposal with those goals in mind. Access: To the east, the ROW of the existing McDonwell School Road extends to the edge of this property. In the past, McDonwell was shown on the Thoroughfare Plan as extending through this property to connect to where it currently intersects with Westcoat. Several years ago, the city removed this extension from the T-Plan, because of the sensitivity of nearby residents to through traffic. We intend to honor this decision, and- after speaking with some of those who would be affected- in fact are not even proposing a connection, on the east, to McDonwell. Fortunately, Westcoat Drive borders the property along the entire western edge, and we are proposing a main entry access point there- several hundred feet south of the fairly new roundabout built by the city at the Westcoat/ McDonwell School intersection. We feel that a more subdued project entry away from the hustle and bustle of the- at times- heavily trafficked roundabout will be more conducive to the high quality, luxury home atmosphere we are hoping to cr eate in Greystone Manor. In addition, we are proposing a bermed, heavily landscaped buffer along the Westcoat frontage. Internally, we are proposing a network of gently undulating streets, meant to invoke a peaceful, calming streetscap e, highlighted by landscaped medians at each intersection, and inside the cul-de-sac turnaround at the SE corner. The residences planned for Greystone Manor will be very upscale, with selling prices estimated to start at around $2.5 million. Each home will be required to be architecturally authentic, and go through a rigorous design review process. Greystone Manor will be proposed as a gated community with private streets. We propose to build the normal Colleyville street section of 31’ (back of curb to back of curb), in a 50’ R.O.W., throughout the project, except for the main divided entry road. The southern, gated entry will be the main resident, guest and delivery entry. The eastern entry will be for residents only. There will be a requirement of at least two street trees for every residential lot to be installed by the home builders, adjacent to the street rights of way, unless there are already existing trees there that are saved. We have worked with our closest neighboring homes, to the north, to provide a landscape buffer between the existing homes and the future home sites within Greystone Manor. We have included a detail of that buffer in our submittal. The existing and fully developed storm drainage has been carefully analyzed, and will be designed to meet all city regulations and not adversely affect any neighboring properties. The property generally drains to the north, and there will be two ponds constructed along the northern boundary- in a landscaped setting, each of which will double as a storm detention facility, to the extent it is necessary. The open space lots containing those ponds will also have usable open space, and the ponds will be fully maintained and landscaped to provide a visual amenity for the adjacent residents and the entire neighborhood. Total open space is over 13% of the site; a remarkably large amount considering the size of the lots and no flood plain. In addition to the open space areas and associated trail connections reserved for the northern buffer and pond areas, there will be a large, central open space and tree preservation set-aside near the main entry. We envision this as a passive park, with trails along the perimeter. To encourage pedestrian activity in the neighborhood, sidewalks will also be built along the front of each lot. The scale and orientation of the development has been designed to have an inviting visual flow with the existing neighborhoods and surrounding uses. The design criteria of the homes will create high quality designed homes in keeping with both the immediate neighborhood and Colleyville as a whole. Development Schedule Greystone Manor will most likely be developed in one phase, with development commencing upon the successful completion of the zoning and platting and the subsequent approval of the final plat and engineering plans. Construction of homes is anticipated to start immediately upon completion of the subdivisio n’s infrastructure. Economic Development Information Greystone Manor will have a total of forty-nine (49) homes, each with an estimated average value upon completion of $3,000,000, resulting in an overall tax base of over $147,000,000. At the current tax rate of 2.2221%, the total taxes generated from the development are projected to be $3,265,000, with over $450,000 generated directly for the City at buildout. Development Standards Permitted Land Use: Single Family Residential Detached Minimum House Size: 4,500 square feet. Minimum Lot Area: 20,174 s.f. (Average about 31,669 s.f.) Minimum Lot Width: One Hundred feet (100’) measured at the building setback line, except pie-shaped cul-de-sac lots 38-42, in which case the minimum shall be as shown on the Development Plan. Front Yard Setbacks: Thirty feet (30’) back of the property line Rear Yard Setbacks: Twenty-Five feet (25’) Side Yard Setbacks: Less than 30,000 sf lots: Ten feet (10’) Greater than 30,000 sf lots: Fifteen feet (15’) Street-facing Side Yard: Side yard setbacks on the street side of a corner lot, fronting on another street, shall be 20’, except for “key” lots which shall match the front setback of adjacent lots, as shown on the Development Plan. Street Standards: The streets within Greystone Manor are proposed to be private streets with restricted access (gated). All undivided sections will be built to the standard street section of 31’ b/b paving, in a 50’ Private Street ROW. The divided entry shall have a minimum width of 18’, on each side. Minimum Roof Pitch: Minimum of a 10:12 roof pitch, unless architecturally required to vary, based on home style. Garage Standard: Minimum of a three-car garage with wood-like, architecturally enhanced doors. Masonry Requirement: The dominant exterior vertical wall area of each structure, exclusive of doors and windows, shall be masonry (brick, stone, or stucco) or other material solely determined by the Committee. Dryvit systems or Styrofoam products are not acceptable. The exterior of chimney flues shall be of masonry material acceptable to the Committee. Installation of all types of exterior items and surfaces such as address numbers or external ornamentation, lights, mail chutes, mailboxes, roofing materials and exterior paint or stain, shall be subject to the approval of the Committee as to size, design, materials color, manufacturer and location. Additional Elevation Requirements: All plans will be reviewed by the Greystone Manor Architectural Review Committee, and will comply with a set of Design Guidelines which will be developed to ensure structures and site features of the highest quality. Elevations will have a hierarchy of plate dominance featuring custom front doors and entrances; balanced architectural features and interests with natural tones for paint and exterior finishes. The elevations on all “four sides” shall be addressed in the design to present a finished appearance. Roofing will match the architectural style. Slate, tile or standing seam metal are examples. Each elevation should add interest to the entire streetscape. Windows: No aluminum widows allowed in the subdivision, only windows of higher quality and energy efficiency will be allowed. All windows will be insulated glass with a “low-e” specification. Fencing: Wood fencing between lots is not permitted. All front elevation fences, from the front of the house to the side property line, shall be open style fencing of decorative metal, and/or masonry. All lots adjacent to a Common Open Space shall be open style fencing of decorative metal, and/or Masonry. Where lots back to existing residential lots with fences, the existing fence shall be kept, maintained or improved in coordination with each owner, as shown in the diagram on the Development Plan and associated detailed diagrams. Where open space lots border adjacent properties, either the existing fence will be maintained or improved, or a decorative masonry or metal fence will be installed, all in cooperation with the adjacent property owner, according to the detailed plans submitted with zoning. Streetscape Standards: Minimum of two (2) three-inch (3”) caliper trees per front yard, unless quality existing trees are present and saved. Fully landscaped and sprinklered front and rear yard within sixty days of completing a house. Open Space Maintenance: The open space lots within the subdivision shall be maintained in a consistent, uniform manner by the Greystone Manor Homeowners Association through dues collected from the individual homeowners. Membership in the Homeowner’s Association is mandatory. Street Design Standards: Right of Way: Fifty feet (50’) (Undivided), Thirty Two, one half feet (32.5’) (each side of divided entry road) Travel Lane Width: Thirty-one feet (31’), back of curb to back of curb (undivided) Nineteen feet (19’), back of curb to back of curb (divided) Turning Radii: Fifteen feet (15’) Open Space Standards: All Common Open Space shall be fully landscaped and irrigated with a combination of trees and shrubbery pursuant to an approved landscape plan. The Common Open Space shall be owned, operated and maintained by Greystone Manor Homeowners Association which shall have a mandatory membership of all homeowners and shall collect dues in amounts satisfactory to maintain the Common Open Space. The Association shall have fine and lien rights as permitted by law to enforce compliance with the rules of the association. Signage: A monument sign identifying the subdivision shall be built at the gated entries. 4 30,211 s.f. 5 21,260 s.f. 6 20,340 s.f. 7 20,990 s.f. 8 21,464 s.f. 32 40,797 s.f. 33 40,573 s.f. 34 43,202 s.f. 35 47,183 s.f. 36 42,373 s.f. 48 42,567 s.f. 1 31,407 s.f. 2 30,231 s.f. 47 41,796 s.f. 44 40,257 s.f. 45 40,603 s.f. 3 30,145 s.f. 49 41,337 s.f. 9 21,329 s.f. 10 20,584 s.f. 37 42,044 s.f. 43 41,647 s.f. 38 50,601 s.f. 39 47,118 s.f. 40 51,515 s.f. 20 20,860 s.f. 18 26,807 s.f. 17 20,869 s.f. 16 20,844 s.f. 15 20,690 s.f. 14 20,555 s.f. 13 20,522 s.f.12 26,430 s.f. 22 20,303 s.f. 23 20,350 s.f. 25 26,425 s.f. 29 32,149 s.f. 30 35,848 s.f. 26 31,405 s.f. 27 20,933 s.f. 24 20,490 s.f. 42 48,492 s.f. 41 44,916 s.f. 46 41,131 s.f. 50' R.O.W. 50' R.O. W .R70'R60' 31' B-B 30' 24' 30' 20,557 s.f.18,478 s.f.17,831 s.f.16,899 s.f.16,501 s.f.16,500 s.f.16,500 s.f.17,037 s.f.29,660 s.f. 18,145 s.f. 23,077 s.f. 29,117 s.f. 19,919 s.f. 14,448 s.f. LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3 13,050 s.f.13,050 s.f. LOT 4 13,050 s.f. 14,448 s.f. LOT 12LOT 11LOT 10 13,050 s.f.13,050 s.f. LOT 9 13,050 s.f. 16,482 s.f. LOT 24 13,875 s.f. LOT 23 18,137 s.f. LOT 1 19,040 s.f. LOT 2 LOT 17 14,344 s.f. LOT 16 12,368 s.f. 25' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT 25' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT18'16'Entry and Exit Gates L.U.D.=Public/Semi Public Existing Zoning: RE Existing Zoning: R-10 Existing Zoning: R-20 Existing Zoning: R-40 Existing Zoning: AG Existing Zoning: AG Existing Zoning: R-40 Existing Zoning: PUD-R Existing Zoning: PUD-R Existing Zoning: PUD-R L.U.D.=Public/Semi Public Existing Zoning: RE L.U.D.=Public/Semi Public L.U.D.=Public/Semi Public L.U.D.=Public/Semi Public L.U.D.=Public/Semi Public L.U.D.=Public/Semi Public L.U.D.=Public/Semi Public L.U.D.=Public/Semi PublicL.U.D.=Public/Semi PublicL.U.D.=Public/Semi Public 133.25'30' REAR SETBACK30' REAR SETBACK30' REAR SETBACK30' REAR SETBACK30' REAR SETBACK 30' REAR SETBACK30' REAR SETBACKR1 0 0 ' R100'C/L 565 .95 ' 30' 10' 10' R=5' R29'R141' OS-1 4,395 s.f. OS-4 383 s.f. OS-3 342 s.f. OS-2 18,877 s.f. OS-5 923 s.f. OS-7 2,969 s.f. OS-9 1,564 s.f. OS-10 2,935 s.f. 31 42,472 s.f. 21 20,791 s.f. OS-11 112,205 s.f. 19 24,775 s.f. 25' REAR SETBACK 25' REAR SETBACK 30' FRONT SETBACK 30' FRONT SETBACK 30' FRONT SETBACK 30' FRONT SE T B A C K 30' FRONT S E T B A C K 30' FRONT SETBACK 25' REAR SETBACK 25' REAR SETBACK 25' REAR SETBACK 25' REAR SETBACK 25' REAR SETBACK 25' REAR SETBACK 25' R E A R S E T B A C K 25' REAR SETBACK25' REAR SETBACK25' REAR SETBACK30' FRONT SETBACK 30' FRONT SETBACK30' FRONT SETBACK30' FRONT SETBACK10' SIDE SETBACK15' SIDE SETBACK15' SIDE SETBACK15' SIDE SETBACK15' SIDE SETBACK 15' SIDE SETBACK 15' SIDE SETBACK 25' REAR SETBACK 15' SIDE SETBACK 15' SIDE SETBACK 15' SI D E S E T B A C K 11 20,174 s.f. 25' REAR SETBACK 22'R=5' 30' FRONT SETBACK 30' FRONT SETBACK 25' REAR SETBACK 25' REAR SETBACK 15' SIDE S E T B A C K Open Space &Amenity 15' SIDE SETBACK28 20,722 s.f. OS-6 2,871 s.f. Entry and Exit Gates10' SIDE SETBACK10' SIDE SETBACK10' SIDE SETBACK10' SIDE SETBACK10' SIDE SETBACK10' SIDE SETBACK10' SIDE SETBACK10' SIDE SETBACK15' SIDE SETBACK10' SIDE SETBACKOS-8 6.692 s.f. 25' REAR SETBACK 30' FRONT SETBACK 6,692 s.f. 71.41% 13.23% 15.36% 100.00% Site Data Summary Chart Single Family Residential Lots Common Areas Residential Lots Open Space R.O.W. Res. Gross Acreage 49 11 35.59 ac. 6.59 ac. 7.66 ac. 49.84 ac. Site Data Gross Acreage Gross Density (lots / acre) Existing Zoning:AG / RE Proposed Zoning:PUD-R Existing Use:Residential / AG Proposed Use:S.F. Residential 49.84 ac. 0.98 lots/acre Lot Summary Residential Lots Minimum Building Lot Area Average Building Lot Area Common Areas 49 20,174 s.f. 31,643 s.f. 11 4 30,211 s.f. 5 21,260 s.f. 6 20,340 s.f. 7 20,990 s.f. 8 21,464 s.f. 32 40,797 s.f. 33 40,573 s.f. 34 43,202 s.f. 35 47,183 s.f. 36 42,373 s.f. 48 42,567 s.f. 1 31,407 s.f. 2 30,231 s.f. 47 41,796 s.f. 44 40,257 s.f. 45 40,603 s.f. 3 30,145 s.f. 49 41,337 s.f. 9 21,329 s.f. 10 20,584 s.f. 37 42,044 s.f. 43 41,647 s.f. 38 50,601 s.f. 39 47,118 s.f. 40 51,515 s.f. 20 20,860 s.f. 18 26,807 s.f. 17 20,869 s.f. 16 20,844 s.f. 15 20,690 s.f. 14 20,555 s.f. 13 20,522 s.f.12 26,430 s.f. 22 20,303 s.f. 23 20,350 s.f. 25 26,425 s.f. 29 32,149 s.f. 30 35,848 s.f. 26 31,405 s.f. 27 20,933 s.f. 24 20,490 s.f. 42 48,492 s.f. 41 44,916 s.f. 46 41,131 s.f. OS-1 4,395 s.f. OS-4 383 s.f. OS-3 342 s.f. OS-2 18,877 s.f. OS-5 923 s.f. OS-7 2,969 s.f. OS-9 1,564 s.f. OS-10 2,935 s.f. 31 42,472 s.f. 21 20,791 s.f. OS-11 112,205 s.f. 19 24,775 s.f. 25' R E A R S E T B A C K 11 20,174 s.f. Open Space &Amenity 28 20,722 s.f. OS-6 2,871 s.f. 6,692 s.f. Legend 6' Ornamental Iron Fence 6' Masonry Wall Notes: -Front Setbacks are 30' -Rear Setbacks are 25' -Side Setbacks are 10' and 15' -There will be no outside storage onsite -Open space lots & landscape easements will be maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA). Colleyville, Tarrant County, Texas 14 SEP 22 0 100'200'400' 1" = 100' Development Plan Owner: Julianna Garrison 6401 Westcoat Drive Colleyville, TX 76034 Phone:214-502-5606 Applicant: Hat Creek Development PO Box 92747 Southlake, TX 76092 817-329-3854 Contact: Kosse Maykus Planner:SAGE GROUP, INC. Master Planning Urban Design Architecture Landscape Architecture 1130 N. Carroll Ave., Ste. 200 Southlake, Texas 76092 817-424-2626 Greystone Manor Legend 85' x 85' Building Pad Lot - 20k 23 Lots Lot - 30k 7 Lots Lot - 40k 19 Lots Wall / Fence Diagram 4 30,211 s.f. 5 21,260 s.f. 6 20,340 s.f. 7 20,990 s.f. 8 21,464 s.f. 32 40,797 s.f. 33 40,573 s.f. 34 43,202 s.f. 35 47,183 s.f. 36 42,373 s.f. 48 42,567 s.f. 1 31,407 s.f. 2 30,231 s.f. 47 41,796 s.f. 44 40,257 s.f. 45 40,603 s.f. 3 30,145 s.f. 49 41,337 s.f. 9 21,329 s.f. 10 20,584 s.f. 37 42,044 s.f. 43 41,647 s.f. 38 50,601 s.f. 39 47,118 s.f. 40 51,515 s.f. 20 20,860 s.f. 18 26,807 s.f. 17 20,869 s.f. 16 20,844 s.f. 15 20,690 s.f. 14 20,555 s.f. 13 20,522 s.f.12 26,430 s.f. 22 20,303 s.f. 23 20,350 s.f. 25 26,425 s.f. 29 32,149 s.f. 30 35,848 s.f. 26 31,405 s.f. 27 20,933 s.f. 24 20,490 s.f. 42 48,492 s.f. 41 44,916 s.f. 46 41,131 s.f. OS-1 4,395 s.f. OS-4 383 s.f. OS-3 342 s.f. OS-2 18,877 s.f. OS-5 923 s.f. OS-7 2,969 s.f. OS-9 1,564 s.f. OS-10 2,935 s.f. 31 42,472 s.f. 21 20,791 s.f. OS-11 112,205 s.f. 19 24,775 s.f. 25' R E A R S E T B A C K 11 20,174 s.f. Open Space &Amenity 28 20,722 s.f. OS-6 2,871 s.f. OS-8 6.692 s.f. 6,692 s.f. Colleyville, Tarrant County, Texas 14 SEP 22 0 100'200'400' 1" = 100' Landscape Master Plan Planner:SAGE GROUP, INC. Master Planning Urban Design Architecture Landscape Architecture 1130 N. Carroll Ave., Ste. 200 Southlake, Texas 76092 817-424-2626 Greystone Manor 430,211 s.f.4842,567 s.f.131,407 s.f.230,231 s.f.330,145 s.f.4941,337 s.f.OS-14,395 s.f.OS-4383 s.f.OS-3342 s.f.OS-218,877 s.f.OS-5 923 s.f.24,77530' FRONT SETBACK25' REAR SETBACK25' REAR SETBACK 25' REAR SET B A C K 30' FRONT SETBACK15' SIDE SETBACK 15' SIDE SETBACK 15' SIDE SETBACK15' SIDE SETBACK25' REAR SETBACKGreystone Manor Colleyville, Tarrant County, Texas 14 SEP 22 0 40'80'160' 1" = 40' Frontage Landscape Screening & Plantings Planner:SAGE GROUP, INC. Master Planning Urban Design Architecture Landscape Architecture 1130 N. Carroll Ave., Ste. 200 Southlake, Texas 76092 817-424-2626 STONE WALL ON TOP OF RETAINING WALL STONE WALL ON TOP OF RETAINING WALL greystone manorentry column 3240,797 s.f.3340,573 s.f.3443,202 s.f.3547,183 s.f.3642,373 s.f.3742,044 s.f.4341,647 s.f.38 s.f. s.f.4248,492 s.f.4144,916 s.f.30' REAR SETBACK 30' REAR SETBACK 30' REAR SETBACK 30' REAR SETBACK 30' REAR SETBACK30' REAR SETBACK s.f.OS-9 1,564 s.f.OS-102,935 s.f.3142,472 s.f.30' FRONT SETBACK30' FRONT SETBACK15' SIDE SETBACK15' SIDE SETBACK25' REAR SETBACK15' SIDE SETBACK s.f.15' SIDE SETBACKOpen Space&AmenityEntry and ExitGates10' SIDE SETBACKOS-8 30' FRONT SETBACK 6,692 s.f.Greystone Manor Colleyville, Tarrant County, Texas 14 SEP 22 0 50'100'200' 1" = 50' Landscape Easement Plantings - EAST Planner:SAGE GROUP, INC. Master Planning Urban Design Architecture Landscape Architecture 1130 N. Carroll Ave., Ste. 200 Southlake, Texas 76092 817-424-2626 SHADE TREES SYMBOL PLANT NAME SIZE CONDITION / REMARKS single trunk clear to 6'; b & b; matching growth, 30' O.C. Live Oak Quercus virginiana QUANTITY 4" CAL. / 16'-18' HT. / 12'-14' SPREAD 13 Eastern Boundary Lots 35, 36 & 37 Landscape Specifications LANDSCAPE EASEMENT - 30' 4" CAL. SHADE TREES ON LOTS 35, 36 AND 37 - LIVE OAKS WITHIN REAR BUILDING SETBACK - 30' O.C. single trunk clear to 6'; b & b; matching growth, 30' O.C. Cedar Elm Ulmus crassifolia 4" CAL. / 16'-18' HT. / 12'-14' SPREAD 6 SHADE TREES SYMBOL PLANT NAME SIZE CONDITION / REMARKS single trunk clear to 6'; b & b; matching growth, 30' O.C. Live Oak Quercus virginiana QUANTITY 4" CAL. / 16'-18' HT. / 12'-14' SPREAD 15 Eastern Boundary Lots 39, 40 & 41 Landscape Specifications LANDSCAPE EASEMENT - 30' 4" CAL. SHADE TREES ON LOTS 39, 40 AND 41 - LIVE OAKS WITHIN REAR BUILDING SETBACK - 30' O.C. 521,260 s.f.620,340 s.f.720,990 s.f.821,464 s.f.921,329 s.f.1020,584 s.f.24'30' FRONT SETBACKOS-7 2,969 s.f.25' REAR SETBACK25' REAR SETBACK30' FRONT SETBACK10' SIDE SETBACK 1120,174 s.f.Open Space&AmenityOS-6 2,871 s.f.10' SIDE SETBACK 10' SIDE SETBACKGreystone ManorColleyville, Tarrant County, Texas14 SEP 22030'60'120'1" = 30'Landscape Easement Plantings - NorthPlanner:SAGE GROUP, INC.Master PlanningUrban DesignArchitectureLandscape Architecture1130 N. Carroll Ave., Ste. 200Southlake, Texas 76092817-424-2626SHADE TREESSYMBOLPLANT NAMESIZECONDITION / REMARKSsingle trunk clear to 6'; b & b;matching growthTBDTBDQUANTITY4" CAL. / 16'-18' HT. /12'-14' SPREAD28Northern Boundary Landscape Easement -Landscape Specifications40' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT4 SHADE TREES ON EACH LOT - WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE EASEMENT -SPECIES TO BE DETERMINED TO MATCH EXISTING TREESCONTIGUOUS HEDGE OF HOLLIES OR SPECIES TBD WITH NEIGHBORREPRESENTATIVES.SHRUBSSYMBOLPLANT NAMESIZECONDITION / REMARKSstraight growth; matching growth; fulland vigorousTBDTBDQUANTITY15 GAL. / 4'-6' HT. /3'-4' SPREAD164 Greystone Manor Colleyville, Texas Zoning Narrative –25 APR 2022 Hat Creek Development, Developer Sage Group, Inc., Land Planner Statement of Planning Objectives Greystone Manor is a proposed residential neighborhood to be developed by Hat Creek Development, under the PUD-R Residential District regulations for residential development in the City of Colleyville. The 59.47 acre property is located on the east side of Westcoat Drive, just east of the new roundabout at the corner of Westcoat and McDonwell School Rd. Adjacencies: The property is west of the acre+ lot Cutter Ridge neighborhood, south of the adjacent Oakbrook Hills neighborhood (a PUD-R of 16,500+ sf lots) and across Westcoat from “Westmont,” (a PUD-R of 13,000-20,000+ sf lots)- north of McDonwell School Road, and multi acre lots south of McDonwell School Road. To the south of the property are also multi-acre lots. The property is currently designated AG (Agriculture), so this would be the initial “development” zoning requested. The intent here is to rezone the entire property to PUD- R, unifying the property into one cohesive, master planned residential development of the highest quality. There are currently two occupied single-family homes on the consolidated properties that make up this proposal. The main home will be worked into the plan; the remaining structures will be removed. The proposed plan responds to, and in many ways reflects the neighborhoods and properties we are adjacent to. Where we are adjacent to the PUD-R’s to the north and northwest- composed primarily of 1/3 acre lots- we are proposing larger lots of 20,000 sf and up, and then transitioning, internally, to 30,000 sf lots, and then to 40,000 sf lots along the entire eastern and southern boundaries. The main home will be on a 9.6 acre lot, also along the southern boundary of the property. In summary, we have designed the project to be compatible and in harmony with our adjacent neighbors and to be consistent with the city’s Future Land Use Plan. Overall density is 0.94 lots per acre. Quality and compatibility with the adjacent residential, as well as the rest of Colleyville is essential, and we have designed this proposal with those goals in mind. Access: To the east, the ROW of the existing McDonwell School Road extends to the edge of this property. In the past, McDonwell was shown on the Thoroughfare Plan as extending through this property to connect to where it currently intersects with Westcoat. Several years ago, the city removed this extension from the T-Plan, because of the sensitivity of nearby residents to through traffic. We intend to honor this decision, and- after speaking with some of those who would be affected- in fact are not even proposing a connection, on the east, to McDonwell. Fortunately, Westcoat Drive borders the property along the entire western edge, and we are proposing two entry access points there- each several hundred feet to the north and the south of the fairly new roundabout built by the city at the Westcoat/ McDonwell School intersection. We feel that more subdued project entries away from the hustle and bustle of the- at times- heavily trafficked roundabout will be more conducive to the high quality, luxury home atmosphere we are hoping to create in Greystone Manor. In addition, we are proposing a bermed, heavily landscaped buffer along the Westcoat frontage. Internally, we are proposing a network of gently undulating streets, meant to invoke a peaceful, calming streetscape, highlighted by landscaped medians at each intersection, and inside the cul- de-sac turnaround at the SE corner. The residences planned for Greystone Manor will be very upscale, with selling prices estimated to start at around $2.5 million. Each home will be required to be architecturally authentic, and go through a rigorous design review process. Greystone Manor will be proposed as a gated community with private streets. We propose to build the normal Colleyville street section of 31’ (back of curb to back of curb), in a 50’ R.O.W., throughout the project, except for the main divided entry road. The southern, gated entry will be the main resident, guest and delivery entry. The northern entry will be for residents only, and- early on- for construction traffic. There will be a requirement of at least two street trees for every residential lot to be installed by the home builders, adjacent to the street rights of way, unless there are already existing trees there that are saved. We have worked with our closest neighboring homes, to the north, to provide a landscape buffer between the existing homes and the future home sites within Greystone Manor. We have included a detail of that buffer in our submittal. The existing and fully developed storm drainage has been carefully analyzed, and will be designed to meet all city regulations and not adversely affect any neighboring properties. The property generally drains to the north, and there will be two ponds constructed along the northern boundary- in a landscaped setting, each of which will double as a storm detention facility, to the extent it is necessary. To encourage pedestrian activity in the neighborhood, sidewalks will be built along the front of each lot. The scale and orientation of the development has been designed to have an inviting visual flow with the existing neighborhoods and surrounding uses. The design criteria of the homes will create high quality designed homes in keeping with both the immediate neighborhood and Colleyville as a whole. Development Schedule Greystone Manor will most likely be developed in one phase, with development commencing upon the successful completion of the zoning and platting and the subsequent approval of the final plat and engineering plans. Construction of homes is anticipated to start immediately upon completion of the subdivision’s infrastructure. Economic Development Information Greystone Manor will have a total of fifty-six (56) homes (55 new homes), each with an estimated average value upon completion of $3,000,000, resulting in an overall tax base of over $170,000,000. At the current tax rate of 2.2221%, the total taxes generated from the development are projected to be $3,775,700, with over $520,000 generated directly for the City at buildout. Development Standards Permitted Land Use: Single Family Residential Detached Minimum House Size: 4,500 square feet. Minimum Lot Area: 20,086 s.f. (Average about 38,781 s.f.) Minimum Lot Width: One Hundred feet (100’) measured at the building setback line, except pie-shaped cul-de-sac lots 43-46, in which case the minimum shall be as shown on the Development Plan. Front Yard Setbacks: Thirty feet (30’) back of the property line Rear Yard Setbacks: Twenty Five feet (25’) Side Yard Setbacks: Ten feet (10’). Street-facing Side Yard: Side yard setbacks on the street side of a corner lot, fronting on another street, shall be 20’, except for “key” lots which shall match the front setback of adjacent lots, as shown on the Development Plan. Street Standards: The streets within Greystone Manor are proposed to be private streets with restricted access (gated). All undivided sections will be built to the standard street section of 31’ b/b paving, in a 50’ Private Street ROW. The divided entry shall have a minimum width of 18’, on each side. Minimum Roof Pitch: Minimum of a 10:12 roof pitch, unless architecturally required to vary, based on home style. Garage Standard: Minimum of a three car garage with wood-like, architecturally enhanced doors. Masonry Requirement: The dominant exterior vertical wall area of each structure, exclusive of doors and windows, shall be masonry (brick, stone, or stucco over CMU block) or other material solely determined by the Committee. No more than 20% of the exterior vertical wall to be authentic lath and stucco application over wood framing. Dryvit systems or Styrofoam products are not acceptable. The exterior of chimney flues shall be of masonry material acceptable to the Committee. Installation of all types of exterior items and surfaces such as address numbers or external ornamentation, lights, mail chutes, mailboxes, roofing materials and exterior paint or stain, shall be subject to the approval of the Committee as to size, design, materials color, manufacturer and location. Additional Elevation Requirements: All plans will be reviewed by the Greystone Manor Architectural Review Committee, and will comply with a set of Design Guidelines which will be developed to ensure structures and site features of the highest quality. Elevations will have a hierarchy of plate dominance featuring custom front doors and entrances; balanced architectural features and interests with natural tones for paint and exterior finishes. The elevations on all “four sides” shall be addressed in the design to present a finished appearance. Roofing will match the architectural style. Slate, tile or standing seam metal are examples. Each elevation should add interest to the entire streetscape. Windows: No aluminum widows allowed in the subdivision, only windows of higher quality and energy efficiency will be allowed. All windows will be insulated glass with a “low-e” specification. Fencing: Wood fencing between lots is not permitted. All front elevation fences, from the front of the house to the side property line, shall be open style fencing of decorative metal, and/or masonry. All lots adjacent to a Common Open Space shall be open style fencing of decorative metal, and/or Masonry. Where lots back to existing residential lots with fences, the existing fence shall be kept, maintained or improved in coordination with each owner, as shown in the diagram on the Development Plan and associated detailed diagrams. Where open space lots border adjacent properties, either the existing fence will be maintained or improved, or a decorative masonry or metal fence will be installed, all in cooperation with the adjacent property owner, according to the detailed plans submitted with zoning. Streetscape Standards: Minimum of two (2) three-inch (3”) caliper trees per front yard, unless quality existing trees are present and saved. Fully landscaped and sprinklered front and rear yard within sixty days of completing a house. Open Space Maintenance: The open space lots within the subdivision shall be maintained in a consistent, uniform manner by the Greystone Manor Homeowners Association through dues collected from the individual homeowners. Membership in the Homeowner’s Association is mandatory. Street Design Standards: Right of Way: Fifty feet (50’) (Undivided), Thirty Two, one half feet (32.5’) (each side of divided entry road) Travel Lane Width: Thirty-one feet (31’), back of curb to back of curb (undivided) Nineteen feet (19’), back of curb to back of curb (divided) Turning Radii: Fifteen feet (15’) Open Space Standards: All Common Open Space shall be fully landscaped and irrigated with a combination of trees and shrubbery pursuant to an approved landscape plan. The Common Open Space shall be owned, operated and maintained by Greystone Manor Homeowners Association which shall have a mandatory membership of all homeowners and shall collect dues in amounts satisfactory to maintain the Common Open Space. The Association shall have fine and lien rights as permitted by law to enforce compliance with the rules of the association. Signage: A monument sign identifying the subdivision shall be built at the gated entries from Westcoat Drive. 5 23,982 s.f. 4 22,233 s.f. 6 21,161 s.f. 7 20,086 s.f. 8 20,277 s.f. 9 22,388 s.f. OS-3 28,163 s.f.OS-4 67,489 s.f. 12 20,224 s.f. 13 20,195 s.f. 37 40,273 s.f. 38 40,236 s.f. 39 42,949 s.f. 40 45,709 s.f. 41 42,098 s.f. 54 40,391 s.f. 1 31,312 s.f. 2 25,726 s.f. 53 40,499 s.f. 50 40,329 s.f. 51 40,011 s.f. 3 22,533 s.f. 55 40,672 s.f. 10 22,785 s.f. 11 21,531 s.f. 35 42,790 s.f. 42 42,032 s.f. 48 40,991 s.f. 43 50,601 s.f. 44 47,118 s.f. 45 51,515 s.f. 21 24,682 s.f. 20 28,363 s.f. 19 29,448 s.f.18 21,583 s.f.17 20,083 s.f. 16 20,089 s.f. 15 20,251 s.f. 14 30,084 s.f. 24 26,996 s.f. 25 26,380 s.f.26 21,415 s.f. 28 30,029 s.f. 31 26,616 s.f. 32 30,171 s.f. 29 30,396 s.f. 34 33,398 s.f.33 30,230 s.f. 30 25,144 s.f. 49 40,345 s.f. 22 30,329 s.f. 23 30,373 s.f. 27 21,234 s.f. 47 47,749 s.f. 46 44,916 s.f. 52 40,055 s.f. 50' R.O.W.50'R.O.W.50' R. O . W . 50' R.O. W .R70'R60' 31' B-B 30' 30' 24' 3 0 ' 24' 30'30'30'56 418,401 s.f. 20,557 s.f.18,478 s.f.17,831 s.f.16,899 s.f.16,501 s.f.16,500 s.f.16,500 s.f.17,037 s.f.29,660 s.f. 18,145 s.f. 23,077 s.f. 29,117 s.f. 19,919 s.f. 14,448 s.f. LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3 13,050 s.f.13,050 s.f. LOT 4 13,050 s.f. 14,448 s.f. LOT 12LOT 11LOT 10 13,050 s.f.13,050 s.f. LOT 9 13,050 s.f. 16,482 s.f. LOT 24 13,875 s.f. LOT 23 18,137 s.f. LOT 1 19,040 s.f. LOT 2 LOT 17 14,344 s.f. LOT 16 12,368 s.f. 25' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT 15' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT 25' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT 25' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT12'18'Resident's Only / Fire Entry Gate Entry and Exit Gates L.U.D.=Public/Semi Public Existing Zoning: RE Existing Zoning: R-10 Existing Zoning: R-20 Existing Zoning: R-40 Existing Zoning: AG Existing Zoning: AG Existing Zoning: R-40 Existing Zoning: PUD-R Existing Zoning: PUD-R Existing Zoning: PUD-R L.U.D.=Public/Semi Public Existing Zoning: RE L.U.D.=Public/Semi Public L.U.D.=Public/Semi Public L.U.D.=Public/Semi Public L.U.D.=Public/Semi Public L.U.D.=Public/Semi Public L.U.D.=Public/Semi Public L.U.D.=Public/Semi PublicL.U.D.=Public/Semi PublicL.U.D.=Public/Semi Public 129.72'36 40,317 s.f.30' REAR SETBACK30' REAR SETBACK30' REAR SETBACK30' REAR SETBACK30' REAR SETBACK 30' REAR SETBACK30' REAR SETBACKR1 0 0 ' R100'C/L 621 .37 ' R 1 9 0 'R260'R215'3 0 '30'30'R190'R220'R175'R240' 10' 10' R=5' R=5' R29'R141' OS-1 4,170 s.f. OS-6 524 s.f. OS-5 611 s.f. OS-2 19,542 s.f. OS-7 816 s.f. OS-9 3,418 s.f.OS-8 719 s.f. OS-10 1,465 s.f. OS-11 1,654 s.f. OS-12 2,935 s.f. 83.87% 5.08% 11.05% 100.00% Site Data Summary Chart Single Family Residential Lots Common Areas Residential Lots Open Space R.O.W. Res. Gross Acreage 56 12 49.856 ac. 3.02 ac. 6.59 ac. 59.47 ac. Site Data Gross Acreage Gross Density (lots / acre) Existing Zoning:AG / RE Proposed Zoning:PUD-R Existing Use:Residential / AG Proposed Use:S.F. Residential 59.47 ac. 0.94 Lot Summary Residential Lots Minimum Building Lot Area Average Building Lot Area Common Areas 55 20,086 s.f. 38,781 s.f. 12 5 23,982 s.f. 4 22,233 s.f. 6 21,161 s.f. 7 20,086 s.f. 8 20,277 s.f.9 22,388 s.f. OS-3 28,163 s.f.OS-4 67,489 s.f. 12 20,224 s.f. 13 20,195 s.f. 37 40,273 s.f. 38 40,236 s.f. 39 42,949 s.f. 40 45,709 s.f. 41 42,098 s.f. 54 40,391 s.f. 1 31,312 s.f. 2 25,726 s.f. 53 40,499 s.f. 50 40,329 s.f. 51 40,011 s.f. 3 22,533 s.f. 55 40,672 s.f. 10 22,785 s.f. 11 21,531 s.f. 35 42,790 s.f. 42 42,032 s.f. 48 40,991 s.f. 43 50,601 s.f. 44 47,118 s.f. 45 51,515 s.f. 21 24,682 s.f. 20 28,363 s.f. 19 29,448 s.f.18 21,583 s.f.17 20,083 s.f. 16 20,089 s.f. 15 20,251 s.f. 14 30,084 s.f. 24 26,996 s.f. 25 26,380 s.f.26 21,415 s.f.28 30,029 s.f. 31 26,616 s.f. 32 30,171 s.f. 29 30,396 s.f. 34 33,398 s.f.33 30,230 s.f. 30 25,144 s.f. 49 40,345 s.f. 22 30,329 s.f. 23 30,373 s.f. 27 21,234 s.f. 47 47,749 s.f. 46 44,916 s.f. 52 40,055 s.f. 56 418,401 s.f. 36 40,317 s.f. OS-1 4,170 s.f. OS-6 524 s.f. OS-5 611 s.f. OS-2 19,542 s.f. OS-7 816 s.f. OS-9 3,418 s.f.OS-8 719 s.f. OS-10 1,465 s.f. OS-11 1,654 s.f. OS-12 2,935 s.f. Legend 8' wood Fence with Cap 6' Ornamental Iron Fence 6' Masonry Wall Notes: -Front Setbacks are 30' -Rear Setbacks are 25' -Side Setbacks are 10', corner side setbacks are 15' -There will be no outside storage onsite -Open space lots & landscape easements will be maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA). Colleyville, Tarrant County, Texas 3 JUN 22 0 100'200'400' 1" = 100' Development Plan Owner: Julianna Garrison 6401 Westcoat Drive Colleyville, TX 76034 Phone:214-502-5606 Applicant: Hat Creek Development PO Box 92747 Southlake, TX 76092 817-329-3854 Contact: Kosse Maykus Planner:SAGE GROUP, INC. Master Planning Urban Design Architecture Landscape Architecture 1130 N. Carroll Ave., Ste. 200 Southlake, Texas 76092 817-424-2626 Greystone Manor Legend 80' x 80' Building Pad Lot - 20k 25 Lots Lot - 30k 9 lots Lot - 40k 22 lots Wall / Fence Diagram 83.87% 5.08% 11.05% 100.00% Site Data Summary Chart Single Family Residential Lots Common Areas Residential Lots Open Space R.O.W. Res. Gross Acreage 56 12 49.856 ac. 3.02 ac. 6.59 ac. 59.47 ac. Site Data Gross Acreage Gross Density (lots / acre) Existing Zoning:AG / RE Proposed Zoning:PUD-R Existing Use:Residential / AG Proposed Use:S.F. Residential 59.47 ac. 0.94 Lot Summary Residential Lots Minimum Building Lot Area Average Building Lot Area Common Areas 55 20,086 s.f. 38,781 s.f. 12 5 23,982 s.f. 4 22,233 s.f. 6 21,161 s.f. 7 20,086 s.f. 8 20,277 s.f. 9 22,388 s.f. OS-3 28,163 s.f.OS-4 67,489 s.f. 12 20,224 s.f. 13 20,195 s.f. 37 40,273 s.f. 38 40,236 s.f. 39 42,949 s.f. 40 45,709 s.f. 41 42,098 s.f. 54 40,391 s.f. 1 31,312 s.f. 2 25,726 s.f. 53 40,499 s.f. 50 40,329 s.f. 51 40,011 s.f. 3 22,533 s.f. 55 40,672 s.f. 10 22,785 s.f. 11 21,531 s.f. 35 42,790 s.f. 42 42,032 s.f. 48 40,991 s.f. 43 50,601 s.f. 44 47,118 s.f. 45 51,515 s.f. 21 24,682 s.f. 20 28,363 s.f. 19 29,448 s.f.18 21,583 s.f.17 20,083 s.f. 16 20,089 s.f. 15 20,251 s.f. 14 30,084 s.f. 24 26,996 s.f. 25 26,380 s.f.26 21,415 s.f. 28 30,029 s.f. 31 26,616 s.f. 32 30,171 s.f. 29 30,396 s.f. 34 33,398 s.f.33 30,230 s.f. 30 25,144 s.f. 49 40,345 s.f. 22 30,329 s.f. 23 30,373 s.f. 27 21,234 s.f. 47 47,749 s.f. 46 44,916 s.f. 52 40,055 s.f. 50' R.O.W.50'R.O.W.50' R. O . W . 50' R.O. W .R70'R60' 31' B-B 30' 30' 24' 3 0 ' 24' 30'30'30'56 418,401 s.f. 20,557 s.f.18,478 s.f.17,831 s.f.16,899 s.f.16,501 s.f.16,500 s.f.16,500 s.f.17,037 s.f.29,660 s.f. 18,145 s.f. 23,077 s.f. 29,117 s.f. 19,919 s.f. 14,448 s.f. LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3 13,050 s.f.13,050 s.f. LOT 4 13,050 s.f. 14,448 s.f. LOT 12LOT 11LOT 10 13,050 s.f.13,050 s.f. LOT 9 13,050 s.f. 16,482 s.f. LOT 24 13,875 s.f. LOT 23 18,137 s.f. LOT 1 19,040 s.f. LOT 2 LOT 17 14,344 s.f. LOT 16 12,368 s.f. 25' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT 15' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT 25' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT 25' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT12'18'Resident's Only / Fire Entry Gate Entry and Exit Gates L.U.D.=Public/Semi Public Existing Zoning: RE Existing Zoning: R-10 Existing Zoning: R-20 Existing Zoning: R-40 Existing Zoning: AG Existing Zoning: AG Existing Zoning: R-40 Existing Zoning: PUD-R Existing Zoning: PUD-R Existing Zoning: PUD-R L.U.D.=Public/Semi Public Existing Zoning: RE L.U.D.=Public/Semi Public L.U.D.=Public/Semi Public L.U.D.=Public/Semi Public L.U.D.=Public/Semi Public L.U.D.=Public/Semi Public L.U.D.=Public/Semi Public L.U.D.=Public/Semi PublicL.U.D.=Public/Semi PublicL.U.D.=Public/Semi Public 129.72'36 40,317 s.f.30' REAR SETBACK30' REAR SETBACK30' REAR SETBACK30' REAR SETBACK30' REAR SETBACK 30' REAR SETBACK30' REAR SETBACKR1 0 0 ' R100'C/L 621 .37 ' R 1 9 0 'R260'R215'3 0 '30'30'R190'R220'R175'R240' 10' 10' R=5' R=5' R29'R141' OS-1 4,170 s.f. OS-6 524 s.f. OS-5 611 s.f. OS-2 19,542 s.f. OS-7 816 s.f. OS-9 3,418 s.f.OS-8 719 s.f. OS-10 1,465 s.f. OS-11 1,654 s.f. OS-12 2,935 s.f. 5 23,982 s.f. 4 22,233 s.f. 6 21,161 s.f. 7 20,086 s.f. 8 20,277 s.f.9 22,388 s.f. OS-3 28,163 s.f.OS-4 67,489 s.f. 12 20,224 s.f. 13 20,195 s.f. 37 40,273 s.f. 38 40,236 s.f. 39 42,949 s.f. 40 45,709 s.f. 41 42,098 s.f. 54 40,391 s.f. 1 31,312 s.f. 2 25,726 s.f. 53 40,499 s.f. 50 40,329 s.f. 51 40,011 s.f. 3 22,533 s.f. 55 40,672 s.f. 10 22,785 s.f. 11 21,531 s.f. 35 42,790 s.f. 42 42,032 s.f. 48 40,991 s.f. 43 50,601 s.f. 44 47,118 s.f. 45 51,515 s.f. 21 24,682 s.f. 20 28,363 s.f. 19 29,448 s.f.18 21,583 s.f.17 20,083 s.f. 16 20,089 s.f. 15 20,251 s.f. 14 30,084 s.f. 24 26,996 s.f. 25 26,380 s.f.26 21,415 s.f.28 30,029 s.f. 31 26,616 s.f. 32 30,171 s.f. 29 30,396 s.f. 34 33,398 s.f.33 30,230 s.f. 30 25,144 s.f. 49 40,345 s.f. 22 30,329 s.f. 23 30,373 s.f. 27 21,234 s.f. 47 47,749 s.f. 46 44,916 s.f. 52 40,055 s.f. 56 418,401 s.f. 36 40,317 s.f. OS-1 4,170 s.f. OS-6 524 s.f. OS-5 611 s.f. OS-2 19,542 s.f. OS-7 816 s.f. OS-9 3,418 s.f.OS-8 719 s.f. OS-10 1,465 s.f. OS-11 1,654 s.f. OS-12 2,935 s.f. Legend 8' wood Fence with Cap 6' Ornamental Iron Fence 6' Masonry Wall Greystone Manor Colleyville, Tarrant County, Texas 3 JUN 22 0 100'200'400' 1" = 100' Development Plan w/ Aerial Owner: Julianna Garrison 6401 Westcoat Drive Colleyville, TX 76034 Phone:214-502-5606 Applicant: Hat Creek Development PO Box 92747 Southlake, TX 76092 817-329-3854 Contact: Kosse Maykus Planner:SAGE GROUP, INC. Master Planning Urban Design Architecture Landscape Architecture 1130 N. Carroll Ave., Ste. 200 Southlake, Texas 76092 817-424-2626 Wall / Fence Diagram 39 42,949 s.f. 40 45,709 s.f. 41 42,098 s.f. 42 42,032 s.f. 48 40,991 s.f. 43 50,601 s.f. 44 47,118 s.f. 45 51,515 s.f. 49 40,345 s.f. 47 47,749 s.f. 46 44,916 s.f. 50' R.O. W .R70'R60' 31' B-B 30' R1 0 0 ' R100'C/L 621 .37 ' R 1 9 0 'R260'R215'3 0 '30'30'R190'R220'R175'R240' 10' 10' R=5' R=5' R29'R141' OS-11 1,654 s.f. OS-12 2,935 s.f. 3 JUN 22 0 60'120'240' 1" = 60' A-36.431B-38.842OS-38.842OS-27.134OS-15.727A-47.134A-210.249A-17.938OS-47.938B-16.632B-26.431PROPOSEDDETENTION POND AAPPROX. 7.0 AC-FTPROPOSEDDETENTION POND BAPPROX. 5.0 AC-FTEX-B2665EX-A56.8143WESTCOAT DRIVEW McDONWELLSCHOOL ROADMcDONWELLSCHOOL ROADC I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G TBPE No. F-003116 DEOTTE, INC.DOI No. 202111100420 Johnson Road, Suite 303 Keller, Texas 76248 817-337-8899 (Office) 817-337-5133 (Fax) PREPARED FOR: DOI No. 202111100 - GARRISON PARK - PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS BENCHMARKS:BM1MAYKUS CUSTOM HOMESLOCATION MAPSCALE: 1"=6000'McDONWELL SCHOOL RDSITEL D LOCKE T T RD H W Y 2 6 DAVIS BLVDNAMEACQ100DRAINAGE AREA LABELFLOW ARROW (POST-PROJECT)PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIVIDEEXISTING CONTOUR MINOREXISTING CONTOUR MAJORLEGEND1PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE AREA MAP GARRISON PARK COLLEYVILLE, TX 010050100200NOTES:1.ULTIMATE CONFIGURATION AND SIZING OF PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTS MAY CHANGE SLIGHTLY IN FINALDESIGN.2.TOPOGRAPHY OBTAINED THROUGH TEXAS NATURALRESOURCE INFORMATION SERVICE (TNRIS), 2019,NAVD 88 VERTICAL DATUM.3.DETENTION CALCULATIONS ARE PRELIMINARY ANDWILL BE FINALIZED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION PLANSET.EXISTING DRAINAGE DIVIDE 523,982 s.f.422,233 s.f.621,161 s.f.720,086 s.f.820,277 s.f.922,388 s.f.OS28,163 s.f.OS67,489 s.f.1220,224 s.f.1320,195 s.f.3640,317 s.f.3740,273 s.f.3840,236 s.f.3942,949 s.f.4045,709 s.f.4142,098 s.f.5440,738 s.f.131,312 s.f.225,726 s.f.5340,552 s.f.5040,182 s.f.5140,475 s.f.322,533 s.f.5540,628 s.f.1022,785 s.f.1121,531 s.f.3542,790 s.f.4242,032 s.f.4840,337 s.f.4353,164 s.f.4446,751 s.f.4552,631 s.f.2124,682 s.f.2028,363 s.f.1929,448 s.f.1821,583 s.f.1720,083 s.f.1620,089 s.f.1520,251 s.f.1430,084 s.f.2426,996 s.f.2526,380 s.f.2621,415 s.f.2830,029 s.f.3126,616 s.f.3230,171 s.f.2930,396 s.f.3433,398 s.f.3330,230 s.f.3025,144 s.f.4940,001 s.f.2230,329 s.f.2330,373 s.f.2721,234 s.f.4748,875 s.f.4642,804 s.f.5240,197 s.f.56416,294s.f.PROP 8" WLPROP 8" SSPROP 8" SSPROP 8" SSPRO P 8 " S S PROP 8" SSPROP 8" WLPROP 8" WLPROP 8" WLPR O P 8 " W L PROP 8" WLPROP 8" WLPRO P 2 4 " S D PROP 24" SD PROP 36" SDPROP 36" SD PROP 42" SD PR O P 4 8 " S D PROP 2-36" SDPROP 36" SD PROP 4 8 " SD PROP 36" SDPROP 30" SDPROP 30" SDEX 6" WLEX 6" WLEX 8" WL EX 8" SSCONNECT TOEX SSMHCONNECT TO EXWATER LINEINSTALL:FIRE HYDRANTINSTALL:SSMHINSTALL:SSMHINSTALL:SSMHINSTALL:SSMHINSTALL:SSMHINSTALL:SSMHINSTALL:SSMHINSTALL:SSMHINSTALL:SSMHINSTALL:SSMHINSTALL:FIRE HYDRANTINSTALL:FIRE HYDRANTINSTALL:FIRE HYDRANTINSTALL:FIRE HYDRANTINSTALL:FIRE HYDRANTINSTALL:FIRE HYDRANTINSTALL:FIRE HYDRANTINSTALL:FIRE HYDRANTINSTALL:FIRE HYDRANTINSTALL:FIRE HYDRANTINSTALL:FIRE HYDRANTINSTALL:FIRE HYDRANTCONNECT TO EXWATER LINECONNECT TO EXWATER LINE15' UTILITYEASEMENT15' UTILITYEASEMENT15' UTILITYEASEMENT15' UTILITYEASEMENTPROPOSEDDETENTION PONDAPPROX. 8.5 AC-FTPROPOSEDDETENTION PONDAPPROX. 5.0 AC-FT2010050100200PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN GARRISON PARK COLLEYVILLE, TXNOTES:1.ALL SEWER LINE SHALL BE SDR-35 PVC.2.ALL WATER PIPE SHALL BE SDR-18 C-900.3.ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GOVERNINGBODY'S STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION.4.ALL SEWER SERVICES ARE PUBLIC UP TO THE LOT LINE.5.ALL WATER SERVICES ARE PRIVATE FROM THE BUILDING TO THE METERAND PUBLIC FROM THE METER TO THE WATER MAIN.6.ALL WATERLINE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM 2' VERTICAL CLEARANCE FROMDRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND SEWER SERVICES.7.ALL WATERLINE SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH A MINIMUM COVER OF 42"UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR EXPLICITLY APPROVED BY THE CITYENGINEER.8.THE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND FACILITIES INDICATED ON THE PLANS ISTAKEN FROM PUBLIC RECORDS. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITYTO CONFIRM THEIR EXACT LOCATION AND TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANYADDITIONAL FACILITIES OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN ON THE PLANS MAY BEPRESENT, DETERMINE IF ANY CONFLICTS EXIST AND NOTIFY THE ENGINEEROF ANY SUCH CONFLICTS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. THECONTRACTOR SHALL PRESERVE AND PROTECT ALL UNDERGROUNDFACILITIES. IF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE DAMAGED, THECONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COST OF REPAIRING THEUTILITY.C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G TBPE No. F-003116 DEOTTE, INC.DOI No. 202111100420 Johnson Road, Suite 303 Keller, Texas 76248 817-337-8899 (Office) 817-337-5133 (Fax) PREPARED FOR: DOI No. 202111100 - GARRISON PARK - PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS BENCHMARKS:BM1MAYKUS CUSTOM HOMESLOCATION MAPSCALE: 1"=6000'McDONWELL SCHOOL RDSITEL D LOCKE T T RD H W Y 2 6 DAVIS BLVD 523,982 s.f.422,233 s.f.OS-328,163 s.f.5440,391 s.f.131,312 s.f.225,726 s.f.322,533 s.f.5540,672 s.f.28,363X-SECTIONOS-14,170 s.f.OS-6524 s.f.OS-5611 s.f.OS-219,542 s.f.OS-7 816 s.f.OS-8719X-SECTIONWESTCOATDRIVE22'25'Varies Greystone Manor Colleyville, Tarrant County, Texas 3 JUN 22 0 40'80'160' 1" = 40' Frontage Landscape Screening & Plantings Planner:SAGE GROUP, INC. Master Planning Urban Design Architecture Landscape Architecture 1130 N. Carroll Ave., Ste. 200 Southlake, Texas 76092 817-424-2626 NOTE: PLANTINGS AND BERMS ALONG FRONTAGE FOR SCREENING PURPOSES STONE WALL ON TOP OF RETAINING WALL STONE WALL ON TOP OF RETAINING WALL 1" = 10' 6 21,161 s.f. 7 20,086 s.f. 8 20,277 s.f. 9 22,388 s.f. 12 20,224 s.f. 13 20,195 s.f.10 22,785 s.f. 11 21,531 s.f. 19 50'R.O.W.24' 30' 3 0 ' 15' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT 30' FRONT SETBACK OS-9 3,418 s.f.OS-8 719 s.f. Greystone Manor Colleyville, Tarrant County, Texas 3 JUN 22 0 30'60'120' 1" = 30' Landscape Easement Plantings Planner:SAGE GROUP, INC. Master Planning Urban Design Architecture Landscape Architecture 1130 N. Carroll Ave., Ste. 200 Southlake, Texas 76092 817-424-2626 SHADE TREES SYMBOL PLANT NAME SIZE CONDITION / REMARKS single trunk clear to 6'; b & b; matching growth Live Oak Quercus virginiana QUANTITY 4" CAL. / 16'-18' HT. / 12'-14' SPREAD 28 Northern Boundary Landscape Easement - Landscape Specifications15' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT 4 SHADE TREES ON EACH LOT - LIVE OAKS WITHIN LANDSCAPE EASEMENT OS-467,489 s.f.1320,195 s.f.3740,273 s.f.3840,236 s.f.3942,949 s.f.4045,709 s.f.4142,098 s.f.3542,790 s.f.4242,032 s.f.4840,991 s.f.434747,749 s.f.4644,916 s.f.3640,317 s.f.30' REAR SETBACK 30' REAR SETBACK 30' REAR SETBACK 30' REAR SETBACK 30' REAR SETBACK30' REAR SETBACK OS-122,935 s.f.Greystone Manor Colleyville, Tarrant County, Texas 3 JUN 22 0 50'100'200' 1" = 50' Landscape Easement Plantings - EAST Planner:SAGE GROUP, INC. Master Planning Urban Design Architecture Landscape Architecture 1130 N. Carroll Ave., Ste. 200 Southlake, Texas 76092 817-424-2626 SHADE TREES SYMBOL PLANT NAME SIZE CONDITION / REMARKS single trunk clear to 6'; b & b; matching growth, 30' O.C. Live Oak Quercus virginiana QUANTITY 4" CAL. / 16'-18' HT. / 12'-14' SPREAD 13 Eastern Boundary Lots 35, 36 & 37 Landscape Specifications LANDSCAPE EASEMENT - 30' 4" CAL. SHADE TREES ON LOTS 35, 36 AND 37 - LIVE OAKS WITHIN REAR BUILDING SETBACK - 30' O.C. single trunk clear to 6'; b & b; matching growth, 30' O.C. Cedar Elm Ulmus crassifolia 4" CAL. / 16'-18' HT. / 12'-14' SPREAD 6 SHADE TREES SYMBOL PLANT NAME SIZE CONDITION / REMARKS single trunk clear to 6'; b & b; matching growth, 30' O.C. Live Oak Quercus virginiana QUANTITY 4" CAL. / 16'-18' HT. / 12'-14' SPREAD 15 Eastern Boundary Lots 39, 40 & 41 Landscape Specifications LANDSCAPE EASEMENT - 30' 4" CAL. SHADE TREES ON LOTS 39, 40 AND 41 - LIVE OAKS WITHIN REAR BUILDING SETBACK - 30' O.C. M UI R L AN EMCDONWELL SC H OOL ROAD W WESTMONTDRIVEB A R T R A M LA NE BETTINGER DRIVEPOLO TRA IL THERESAL ANEWESTCOAT DRIVEPLEASANT RUN ROADBRIDGE STREET DERBYDRIVEHUNTER LANEFEGA NS PA TH VAN O A K S D RIVE M CD O N W E L L S C H O O L R O A D E WHITE DRIVE BRANS F ORDR OA D L D LOCKETT ROADOLDENWOOD COURT STONINGTON LA NE HILLIER COURTHAWKS RIDGE TRA IL OLD GROV E ROA D CUTTERRIDGECOURT Notification Map DISCLAIMER:This map and information contained in it were developed exclusively for use by the City of Colleyville.Any use or reliance on this map by anyone else is at that party's risk and without liability to the City of Colleyville, its officials or employees for any discrepancies, errors, or variances which may exist. ZC22-020 K6605 Westcoat Drive Subject Property 500ft Buffer Properties within 500ft NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING «Owner_Name» «Owner_Address» «Owner_City» «Owner_Zip» The City of Colleyville has scheduled public hearings concerning the below referenced request on the following dates and location: Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Monday, June 13, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Meetings: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 & Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 7:30 p.m. 3rd floor of City Hall, 100 Main Street, Colleyville, Texas Request: Consideration of a zoning change from the AG Agricultural and RE Single Family ‘Estate’ Residential districts to the PUD-R Planned Unit Development - Residential district. The request is to rezone the property to allow for a new 56 lot private and gated subdivision, Greystone Manor. It proposes lot sizes ranging from approximately 20,000 sq.ft. up to 50,000 sq.ft., the average being approximately 38,800 sq. ft. Zoning Case:ZC22-020 Applicant:Kosse Maykus Owner: Julianna Garrison Location:6401, 6405, 6409, 6417, 6501, 6507, and 6605 Westcoat Drive Property Description:Tract 1B, Abstract 1487, O C Sturm Survey, Tracts 2A01, 2A01B, 2A07A, and 2A07A1, Abstract 1748, James E. Weathers Survey, Lots 1 and 1A, Block 1, K Bar G Estates Addition, Lot 1A, Block 1, Wescoat Estates, and Lots 1A2, 1B, and 1C, Block 1, Hilley Addition Present Zoning:AG Agricultural and RE Single Family ‘Estate’ Residential This notice has been sent to all owners of real property within 500 feet of the request as such ownership appears on the last approved tax roll and all homeowners associations within 1000 feet. Approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission serves as a recommendation to the City Council and is not a final action on the request. Denial of the proposal by the Commission is final, unless the applicant submits a written notice of appeal within 10 days from the date of action by the Commission. If appealed, the request will be placed on the next available City Council agenda as listed above. Rezoning requests, zoning amendments and conditions recommended by the Commission for approval by the City Council may be more restrictive than those described in this notice. All interested persons are encouraged to attend the public hearing and express their opinions on the zoning change request. If you are unable to attend, but wish to have your opinions made a part of the public record, please submit written comments prior to the public hearing, to the address below: Community Development Department City of Colleyville 100 Main Street Colleyville, TX 76034 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING If the property owners of 20% or more of the land within the 200 foot notification area file a written protest prior to the public hearing, State law provides that the approval of the zoning change request shall require the approval of a super majority vote by City Council. The application is on file for public examination in the Community Development Department at 100 Main Street, Colleyville, Texas 76034. A brief project description can be found online on the Agenda Packet and Active Development Case map (please use your phone’s camera to scan QR code below): For additional information, please contact the Community Development Department at 817.503.1056. Please reference the zoning case number when requesting information. Jacquelyn Reyff Planning Manager jreyff@colleyville.com Owner Name Owner Address Owner City 77 LEGACY LLC 6214 LD LOCKETT RD COLLEYVILLE, TX A BETTER PLACE LLC 3008 CANTON ST DALLAS, TX ALBERTINI, RAE 114 BARTRAM LN COLLEYVILLE, TX ALIANNE ESTATES 6201 THERESA LN COLLEYVILLE, TX BAILEY, COLLEEN 111 W MCDONWELL SCHOOL RD COLLEYVILLE, TX BAJEMA, BRYAN 6303 BETTINGER DR COLLEYVILLE, TX BARFIELD, MARK 113 BARTRAM LN COLLEYVILLE, TX BARGY, TODD M 6304 LD LOCKETT RD COLLEYVILLE, TX BATESON FAMILY TRUST 209 WHITE DR COLLEYVILLE, TX BEALMEAR, ALLEN D 300 STONINGTON LN COLLEYVILLE, TX BLOCKER, DOROTHY J 6313 BETTINGER DR COLLEYVILLE, TX BOLTON, JOHNNY L 6713 VINES CT COLLEYVILLE, TX BRASWELL FAMILY TRUST 6512 WESTCOAT DR COLLEYVILLE, TX BROWN, WHITNEY C 308 WHITE DR COLLEYVILLE, TX BRUMMETT, CLAUDIA M 6800 FALLBROOK CT COLLEYVILLE, TX BRUNDAGE, JEFFREY 6508 WESTCOAT DR COLLEYVILLE, TX CALHOON, CHRISTOPHER 6308 WESTCOAT DR COLLEYVILLE, TX CAMPBELL, TOM 501 MCDONWELL SCHOOL RD E COLLEYVILLE, TX CEPAK, BENNETT 6301 BETTINGER DR COLLEYVILLE, TX CHILD, QUINN 6701 VINES CT COLLEYVILLE, TX COBB, CHRISTOPHER 305 STONINGTON LN COLLEYVILLE, TX COOK, STANLEY D 6500 CUTTER RIDGE CT COLLEYVILLE, TX CORBETT, CHRISTOPHER 200 WHITE DR COLLEYVILLE, TX CUTTER RIDGE ESTATES ADDITION 6404 CUTTER RIDGE CT COLLEYVILLE, TX DAVID AND JENNIFER SCOTT FAMIL 6704 PLEASANT RUN RD COLLEYVILLE, TX DODSON, EDWARD GINO 213 WHITE DR COLLEYVILLE, TX DOODY, KEVIN J 401 W LD LOCKETT RD COLLEYVILLE, TX DUPUY, VICTOR 6807 FALLBROOK CT COLLEYVILLE, TX FICK, GARY 504 MCDONWELL SCHOOL RD COLLEYVILLE, TX FITZGERALD, B J 201 WHITE DR COLLEYVILLE, TX FITZGERALD, MARILYN S 205 WHITE DR COLLEYVILLE, TX FITZHUGH, BRYAN 6708 WESTMONT DR COLLEYVILLE, TX FONSECA, LUIS M 305 OLDENWOOD CT COLLEYVILLE, TX GAGE, FREDDIE 313 STONINGTON LN COLLEYVILLE, TX GALLATIN, FREDA S 121 BARTRAM LN COLLEYVILLE, TX GARRISON, JULIANNA 6401 WESTCOAT DR COLLEYVILLE, TX GRANTLAND, GARY M 201 FREMONT CT COLLEYVILLE, TX GRAPEVINE COLLEYVILLE ISD 3051 IRA E WOODS AVE GRAPEVINE, TX GREYSTONE MANOR LP 6401 WESTCOAT DR COLLEYVILLE, TX GRIDIRON REALTY LLC 1450 POST PADDOCK ST N GRAND PRAIRIE, TX HALLEN, PAUL R 7100 DAVID LN COLLEYVILLE, TX HANCE, KEATH E 6504 CUTTER RIDGE CT COLLEYVILLE, TX HANNO, GREGORY 213 STONINGTON LN COLLEYVILLE, TX HARRIS, MICKEY A 109 W MCDONWELL SCHOOL RD COLLEYVILLE, TX HEATH, H DARRYL 6200 BRANSFORD RD COLLEYVILLE, TX HELDOORN, DEBBEE D 205 STONINGTON LN COLLEYVILLE, TX HELLMAN, DONALD 201 E GLADE APT RD 7208 GRAPEVINE, TX HOAG, RICK 6309 BETTINGER DR COLLEYVILLE, TX HONGOLA, MICHAEL 6704 WESTMONT DR COLLEYVILLE, TX HUGHES, THOMAS 411 MCDONWELL SCHOOL RD COLLEYVILLE, TX HUSAIN, MUSTAFA 6811 FALLBROOK CT COLLEYVILLE, TX HUTCHINSON, JOHN T 6816 FALLBROOK CT COLLEYVILLE, TX HYDE, R W 202 WHITE DR COLLEYVILLE, TX IRWIN, WAYNE ALLEN 301 OLDENWOOD CT COLLEYVILLE, TX JEDRUSIAK, NAOMI 305 WHITE DR COLLEYVILLE, TX JOHANN, MELISSA 6316 WESTCOAT DR COLLEYVILLE, TX JOINT REVOCABLE TRUST OF DANIE 312 WHITE DR COLLEYVILLE, TX JOLISSAINT, STEPHEN 6705 VINES CT COLLEYVILLE, TX JOSEPH AND NANCY KORKMAS REVOC 108 MUIR LN COLLEYVILLE, TX KAMPINE, JOHN 304 STONINGTON LN COLLEYVILLE, TX KOETHER, PAUL O 6808 MYSTIC WOODS LN COLLEYVILLE, TX LABRECQUE, JIMMY 6214 LD LOCKETT RD COLLEYVILLE, TX LAFORNARA, LEWIS 6305 BETTINGER DR COLLEYVILLE, TX LANGHAM, KEVIN 6405 BETTINGER DR COLLEYVILLE, TX LARSEN, MATTHEW L 6808 FALLBROOK CT COLLEYVILLE, TX LEDBETTER, HAROLD C 6700 PLEASANT RUN RD COLLEYVILLE, TX LEVITZ, SHELLEY 6403 WESTCOAT DR COLLEYVILLE, TX LUKE, FRANK 116 MUIR LN COLLEYVILLE, TX MARKLE, CHAD 301 STONINGTON LN COLLEYVILLE, TX MARLING, TIMOTHY 308 STONINGTON LN COLLEYVILLE, TX MCDONALD, RICHARD L 212 STONINGTON LN COLLEYVILLE, TX MCKIBBEN, BENJAMIN 205 OLDENWOOD CT COLLEYVILLE, TX MCNAMARA, SHANNON L 309 OLDENWOOD CT COLLEYVILLE, TX MELENDEZ, HENRY 6208 L D LOCKETT RD COLLEYVILLE, TX MERCER, CHIP 6504 WESTCOAT DR COLLEYVILLE, TX MILLER, KENEISHA 6812 FALLBROOK CT COLLEYVILLE, TX MORGAN, PAIGE 208 WHITE DR COLLEYVILLE, TX MOTKIN, IGOR 209 STONINGTON LN COLLEYVILLE, TX OAKBROOK HILLS ADDITION 204 STONINGTON LN COLLEYVILLE, TX OAKBROOK HILLS MAINT ASSN INC 4004 GATEWAY DR STE 110 COLLEYVILLE, TX OLD GROVE ADDITION PO BOX 1481 COLLEYVILLE, TX PEKURNEY, BROOKE 204 WHITE DR COLLEYVILLE, TX REICH, GEORGE E 204 STONINGTON LN COLLEYVILLE, TX REMINGTON PARK ADDITION 5751 KROGER DR KELLER, TX REMLEY, VALERIE 6803 FALLBROOK CT COLLEYVILLE, TX REPP, ED 6303 WESTCOAT DR COLLEYVILLE, TX REPP, JENNIFER 6313 WESTCOAT DR COLLEYVILLE, TX RHODES, JAMES 6213 WESTCOAT DR COLLEYVILLE, TX RIVERA, PAUL 6712 WESTMONT DR COLLEYVILLE, TX ROBERTS, CORY 6314 WESTCOAT DR COLLEYVILLE, TX ROSHAMI, MEHNAZ 205 FREMONT CT COLLEYVILLE, TX ROYBAL, ROBERT E PO BOX 893 COLLEYVILLE, TX SCHARFFENBERGER, STUART 112 MUIR LN COLLEYVILLE, TX SMITH, RICHARD S 6709 VINES CT COLLEYVILLE, TX STEWART, GLENN 6408 CUTTER RIDGE CT COLLEYVILLE, TX THE NORTON FAMILY TRUST 6304 WESTCOAT DR COLLEYVILLE, TX THOMPSON, ANN 117 BARTRAM LN COLLEYVILLE, TX VANSELOUS, HEATHER 6412 CUTTER RIDGE CT COLLEYVILLE, TX WALTON, KIMBERLY A 6320 WESTCOAT DR COLLEYVILLE, TX WARDEN, MALINDA HARBIN 508 MCDONWELL SCHOOL RD COLLEYVILLE, TX WASHBURN, GARY D 6815 FALLBROOK CT COLLEYVILLE, TX WEST, JOHN 208 STONINGTON LN COLLEYVILLE, TX WESTMONT ADDITION 5751 KROGER DR KELLER, TX WESTMONT MAINTENANCE ASSOC INC PO BOX 935 KELLER, TX WILBANKS, CODY 120 MUIR LN COLLEYVILLE, TX WILFRED J CAMERON REVOCABLE TR 309 STONINGTON LN COLLEYVILLE, TX WORKMAN, DAVID J 201 STONINGTON LN COLLEYVILLE, TX YARRISH, JAMES 6216 L D LOCKETT RD COLLEYVILLE, TX Greystone Manor Letters received from surrounding property owners: • Letter of Interest • Letters of Opposition: o Bajema o Bealmear o Bradford o Braswell o Brundage (2 separate letters) o Cameron o Cobb o Dupuy (2 separate letters) o Gabriel o Haithcock o Hanno (2 separate letters) o Hardeman o Heenan o Hellman o Hutchinson o Hyde o Irwin o Johann o Johnson o Jordan o Lewis o Light o Markle o Marling o Mercer o Mercer o Miller (2 separate letters) o Motkin o Neff o Paulo o Petition (2 separate petitions) o Remley o Scott o Sinclair o Valek o Walton o Washburn o West o Wilson • Letters of Support: o Capps o Cook o Fick o Follis o Grant o Heldoorn o Hughes (2 separate letters) o Petition (2 separate petitions) o Short o Story o Williams o Yelverton 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Concerned Citizen; New Development near CSA soccer fields From: douglas bell< > Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2022 1:53 PM To: President colleyville soccer; Bobby Lindamood <BLindamood@colleyville.com>; Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com> Subject: Concerned Citizen; New Development near CSA soccer fields Wanted to share with you the concerns I am hearing and share from many parents about the new neighborhood planned near the CSA soccer fields and the safety of the children playing soccer there. I hope the planning and approving committees will factor in the need to keep the kids safe and route the traffic from that neighborhood out the west side of the development and not east right at the soccer fields. Pic of the area below. Doug Bell 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: New Housing development planned on Westcoat Dr From: Bryan Bajema <> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 8:42 AM To: Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com>; Bobby Lindamood <BLindamood@colleyville.com> Subject: New Housing development planned on Westcoat Dr Hi, I want to express my concern about and opposition to the large development being proposed on Westcoat drive. Given the amount of traffic on Westcoat today, it is my belief that the additional hundreds of cars and service vehicles which would be on the road daily would be much more than can safely be handled. I'd like to see an objective analysis of how the traffic could be mitigated, including reducing the number of houses, exploring access to both Westcoat and Pleasant Run/Mcdonwell School East. We moved to Colleyville because of its semirural feel. Adding this many houses on a small street changes the character of the neighborhood by adding more traffic noise and congestion. I hope to attend the meeting tonight to express my opinion there. -- Bryan Bajema 6303 Bettinger, Colleyville, TX 76034 1 Ben Bryner To:Jerry Ducay Subject:RE: Oakbrook Hills/Maykus Development From: Sophie Bradford < > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 3:10 PM To: Bobby Lindamood <BLindamood@colleyville.com>; Kathy Wheat <KWheat@colleyville.com>; Brandi Elder <BElder@colleyville.com>; George Bond <GBond@colleyville.com>; George Dodson <GDodson@colleyville.com>; Chuck Kelley <CKelley@colleyville.com>; Callie Rigney <CRigney@colleyville.com>; Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com> Subject: Oakbrook Hills/Maykus Development Good afternoon, I am a Colleyville homeowner in the Oakbrook Hills neighborhood. Recently, you were made aware of Oakbrook Hills residents' concerns over the potential development of the land that backs up to our neighborhood. I share the same concerns that many have probably already addressed, but wanted to be sure you heard from us as well. As it stands right now, Westcoat is already experiencing alot of traffic congestion. I can not imagine how Westcoat could serve another neighborhood at this point. Westcoat currently serves as the entry for 2 neighborhoods, Oakbrook Hills and Westmont. Leaving the neighborhood by car is difficult if turning right (going with traffic) and turning left is just down right dangerous (against traffic). People ignore the speed limit and this makes it difficult to come and go, especially during peak hours. We have two small children (age 7 and 10) who attend Colleyville Elementary School. Their school bus stop is at Westcoat and Stonington, across the street from the neighborhood. Our children must cross this busy street each morning to catch the bus. They should be old enough to walk to the stop on their own, but a parent has to take them due the heavy traffic in the mornings. We have a very hard time crossing, despite the fact that there is a crosswalk with a lit sign. Albeit, the sign's lights are hard to see during the day. Most people just do not want to stop. I have had to hold my hand up to motion for cars to let us cross. This is a big concern and I am also getting in touch with GCISD Transportation about these concerns. It is my understanding that the bus can not enter our neighborhood since there is no outlet. That said, adding an additional neighborhood to Westcoat would only exacerbate the problem. I hope you will consider other suggestions that have been made, such as relocating the entry/exit to Pleasant Run vs Westcoat. If nothing else, please consider making that an alternate entry/exit. We purchased our home in 2020, during the creation of the round-abouts at John McCain and McDonwell. While the round-abouts likely helped traffic congestion some, the amount of traffic seems to have increased and continues to serve all of the surrounding neighborhoods from Colleyville and Keller, and as mentioned previously makes it difficult to get in and out of Oakbrook Hills. I hope you will consider the existing Homeowners and our needs as you review the Maykus proposal. Thanks for your consideration and thanks for serving our City. Sincerely, Sophie & Carter Bradford 312 Oldenwood Ct, Colleyville, Texas 76034 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Greystone Manor Dear Colleyville City Council: My wife and I bought our present lot (~2 acres) in Blackberry Farms Addition in about 1978 and moved into our then newly completed house in 1987. Previous to that we had lived in Chelsey Park, Colleyville, for about 3‐1/2 years. We had built and moved to the house on Westcoat Drive because we liked the large residential lots, low volume of vehicular traffic and country atmosphere. Over the years we've seen surrounding properties being divided and subdivided into ever smaller parcels and very nice houses being crammed onto those parcels. The property under the proposal east of Westcoat is relatively large and is surrounded by some tightly built neighborhoods. With the present proposal construction of some 50 to 60 homes crammed into the surrounded farm land I can envision sewer lines, water and gas lines, several miles of roads, curbs and side‐ walks, electric and internet lines and fireplugs causing additional environmental hazzards and that is beside the likely addition of, say, two or more motor vehicles per household (totaling some 100 to 150 cars pouring onto already crowded roadways twice per day). This doesn't include the additionally required law enforcement and fire & rescue services. Colleyville was once known for its spacious neighborhoods and moderate volume of vehicular traffic. Now we're getting ever tighter neighborhoods and bumper to bumper traffic even given the multiple roundabouts and traffic control lights. McDownwell School road and Westcoat Drive have become non‐stop raceways since the roundabouts have been built so that vehicles do not have to stop but roar around the circles. Too many vehicles now ignore speed limits and crosswalk warning lights on these roads. I know because I regularly jog through these areas 3 or 4 times per week in the mornings. Adding 100+ more vehicles to the trafic on these roads is going to increase the danger... and it's not an exageration. The bottom line for me and my family is that we are not in favor of the present proposal and believe that half as many houses built on lots of size 1/2 to 1 acre minimum and with much more green space would be much more in line with what has been the tradition in Colleyville for many years. By the way, I am an engineer by education and practice with part of that practical experience being as an Officer and Company Commander of a US Army Corps of Engineers Construction Company on the ground during the Vietnam war. I understand civil infrastructure and I oppose projects that impose on space and freedom of our fellow citizens. Texas is a state with ample space to be shared and enjoyed by its deserving citizens. Respectfully, Dan Braswell July 17, 2022 Letter in opposition to Greystone Manor Development ZC22-020. Rural - in, relating to, or characteristic of the countryside rather than the town. Wikipedia - In general, a rural area or a countryside is a geographic area that is located outside towns and cities. Typical rural areas have a low population density and small settlements. Does this look rural to you? A quick Adobe scan of Destination Colleyville produces 76 References to “rural”. It is clear when reading Destination Colleyville, a “rural” feel is of extremely high importance to the community in general and especially in Northwest Colleyville - Neighborhood Area 6. A good place to start is the Destination Colleyville webpage summary to begin to understand the key elements of any new development in Northwest Colleyville. The goal for Colleyville’s homes and neighborhoods is to preserve the high-quality, large lot, natural setting neighborhoods while improving connections and amenities. The plan encourages enhancing neighborhood-level amenities such as pocket parks, and sidewalks and trails. It also requires new residential developments to contribute to the city’s “rural feel.” When you dig into the 178 pages of the Destination Colleyville document it is impossible to miss the importance placed on large lots, connected communities and a rural feel. A key strength of Colleyville is the high quality, low density neighborhoods. A goal of the plan is to define strategies to protect and maintain the quality and character of those neighborhoods. It is recognized that there will be tremendous pressure to redevelop them into higher density housing that will not distinguish Colleyville from its neighbors. This plan reinforces and builds on the principles and values that have historically guided decisions in the city, but it also updates policies on new topics since the previous plan’s adoption. Preservation of neighborhoods from destination Colleyville The purpose of this plan is to guide the future growth and changes that will occur in Colleyville. Simply put, a comprehensive plan is a document that articulates the key principles and vision for a community, and outlines a set of goals and actions to achieve that desired vision. The plan provides guidance and direction to City staff, elected and appointed officials, residents, property owners, businesses, and developers in the choices and decisions that they make. It is first and foremost a plan driven by the Colleyville community, both current and future. We ask that you take into consideration the intent of the master planning effort that has guided our community to become one of the best places to live in North Texas and not disregard the will and the intent of our residents when considering the approval of Greystone Manor ZC22-020. Does the Plan • Improve traffic congestion? • Preserve Colleyville’s rural atmosphere? • Preserve high quality, established neighborhoods with an emphasis on large lots and natural settings with a “country feel”? • Preserve the “country-feel” of roadways? • Connect neighborhoods and provide high quality amenities? • Protect the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods by promoting future development that is compatible with the surrounding development patterns and development character? • Preserve high quality, established neighborhoods with an emphasis on large lots and natural settings with a “country feel”? Can you answer yes to most if not all the above questions? This is not about thwarting development or preventing a land owner from monetizing their property. It is about following the proven and successful planning approach the community has embraced. If you can’t answer yes to most or all these questions when considering the current development plan for Greystone Manor ZC22-020 it cannot be approved. From Destination Colleyville Given the high demand for homes in the Colleyville area and as the city approaches build-out, it will be important to thoughtfully design new residential projects with appropriate considerations of lot sizes, transitions and connections to adjacent neighborhoods, trails, open space and tree preservation, and design of open fencing, landscape treatment, and setbacks along rural character roadways. The Northwest Neighborhood has beautiful established areas with the country character that represents what the Colleyville community wants to preserve. The neighborhood’s residential net density of 1.3 dwelling units per acre is one of the lowest in the city, with 2,122.4 net residential acres and 2,656 residential lots. It is critical to emphasize a policy of not allowing higher density residential development as existing neighborhoods redevelop. In fact, many of the properties in the vicinity of this proposed development are 2 acres (87,120 s.f.) and larger. Greystone Manor’s proposed minimum building lot of 20,086 s.f. and average lot of 31,878.6 s.f. (excluding lot 56 (418,401 s.f.), which is being maintained on the South boundary and an excellent example of the rural, large lot country feel) significantly degrade the high-quality, large lot, natural setting of the neighborhood. We respectfully ask that you do not approve Greystone Manor ZC22-020 in its current form. Please send the developer back to the drawing board to submit a plan that supports Destination Colleyville and the communities strong desire for a “rural” feel. At a minimum the average lot size should be approximately 2 acres with additional open spaces, drainage control ponds, trails, and connectivity to Pleasant Run Road. Sincerely, Jeff and Diane Brundage 6508 Westcoat Dr. Colleyville, TX 76034 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Opposing Greystone Manor subdivision From: Diane Brundage <> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 6:25 AM To: Brandi Elder <BElder@colleyville.com>; Bobby Lindamood <BLindamood@colleyville.com>; Chuck Kelley <CKelley@colleyville.com>; Callie Rigney <CRigney@colleyville.com>; George Bond <GBond@colleyville.com>; George Dodson <GDodson@colleyville.com>; Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com>; Kathy Wheat <KWheat@colleyville.com> Subject: Opposing Greystone Manor subdivision Dear City Council member: I attended last night’s meeting concerning the development of Greystone Manor subdivision (Garrison property on Westcoat Drive). I live across the street at 6508 Westcoat Drive. I realize that Ms. Garrison is most likely going to sell this property at some point. I have 3 main reasons why I am opposed to the proposal which was discussed last night. 1. We moved to Colleyville because of the rural feel Colleyville had to offer. We bought our property because of the size of the properties in this part of Colleyville, “Residential Estate”. My hope would be that when this property does become a subdivision the lot sizes will be 2 acres or more. That is what the adjacent property sizes are, except to the North where the Oakbrook community is located. The developer failed to mention the properties to the east and west have much larger parcels than he is proposing. I’m sure the folks living on E. McDonwell have larger properties as well since the homeowners were discussing riding horses on and around their property. I think the look and feel of larger estate lots in this part of Colleyville should remain as close to the open and rural feel as they are now. I understand that things change and 50 acre parcels of land are becoming memories of the past, but let’s do our best to preserve the “residential estate” feel we currently have. 2. The burden of additional traffic to Westcoat will become a more serious matter than it currently is. I think the best entrance for this subdivision should be on the Pleasant Run side. 3. The need for adequate green space with biking/walking trails and common areas (also the connection through to McDonwell East for biking/walking would be greatly beneficial). This will help with the problems of water drainage which is another big issue. It will also give a more open and rural feel. Please add my name to the list of property owners who live within 200’ of proposed development that I am opposed to the current plan. My mind may change if the developer increases lot sizes to Residential Estate size and comes up with a better plan. Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns. Sincerely, Diane Brundage 6508 Westcoat Drive Colleyville, TX. 76034 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Oakbrook Hills Feedback regarding potential development with Maykus Homes & Neighborhoods From: wilfred cameron < > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 3:18 PM To: Bobby Lindamood <BLindamood@colleyville.com>; Kathy Wheat <KWheat@colleyville.com>; Brandi Elder <BElder@colleyville.com>; George Bond <GBond@colleyville.com>; George Dodson <GDodson@colleyville.com>; Chuck Kelley <CKelley@colleyville.com>; Callie Rigney <CRigney@colleyville.com>; Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com> Cc:; wilfred cameron < >; Chad Markle < >; matthew Larsen < >; Tassie Cameron () < >;; Igor M. < > Subject: Oakbrook Hills Feedback regarding potential development with Maykus Homes & Neighborhoods My wife (Anastasia Cameron) and I (Wilfred Cameron) live at 309 Stonington Lane , a property directly abutting home lots on the proposed Greystone Manor. Our top of mind issue is one of privacy with our neighbors to be. Kosse Maykus has been working to meet our needs with a proposed 30 foot landscape barrier. He has also agreed to let our neighborhood participate in the landscape design.We have yet to reach a consensus on an optimum approach. We also resonate with Kelly Miller regarding existing traffic congestion. Ingress/egress from the neighborhood is already a challenge. If there is a way to “share the burden” with other neighborhoods ,it should be fully visited. Regarding drainage I believe Kosse has done a lot of planning for Greystone Manor with a view to ensure drainage is not an issue for Oakbrook Hills. I would ask that the city validate his plans. In addition drainage from the Greystone Manor northeast settling pond will flow through our neighborhood. I would ask that the city confirm this will nor result in unforeseen problems during heavy rainfall periods. Respectfully Wilfred and Anastasia Cameron 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Protest to Proposed Greystone Manor Development Plan - Oakbrook Hills - 305 Stonington Lane From: Chris Cobb <> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 12:26 PM To: Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com> Cc: Cobb Melanie < >; Cobb Chris < > Subject: Protest to Proposed Greystone Manor Development Plan ‐ Oakbrook Hills ‐ 305 Stonington Lane Hi Jerry, we really appreciate all you do to keep Colleyville a wonderful place to live! As residents of Oakbrook Hills, we wish to provide notification of our formal protest of and objection to the proposed Zoning Change from AG Agricultural and RE Single Family "Estate" Residential to PUD-R Planned Unit Development-Residential zoning district for Tract 1B, Abstract 1487, O C Sturm Survey, Tracts 2A01 and 2A01B, Abstract 1748, James E Weathers Survey, Lots 1 and 1A, Block 1, K Bar G Estates Addition and Lots 1A, 1A2, 1B, and 1C, Block 1 Hilley Addition, located at 6401, 6405, 6417, 6501, 6507, and 6605 Westcoat Drive, Case ZC22-020. Sincerely, Chris and Melanie Cobb 305 Stonington Ln, Colleyville, TX 76034 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Protest To Proposed Greystone Manor Development Plan From: Victor Dupuy < > Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 1:02 PM To: Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com> Cc: Bobby Lindamood <BLindamood@colleyville.com>; Kathy Wheat <KWheat@colleyville.com>; Callie Rigney <CRigney@colleyville.com>; Brandi Elder <BElder@colleyville.com>; George Bond <GBond@colleyville.com>; George Dodson <GDodson@colleyville.com>; Chuck Kelley <CKelley@colleyville.com>; Subject: Protest To Proposed Greystone Manor Development Plan Jerry, Thank you for the productive conversation we had yesterday in our discussion about the proposed Greystone Manor. Your in depth knowledge of the issues and history of Colleyville is a very positive development and reassures us in Oakbrook Hills that care and attention to detail are very important to you and the city leaders on the Council. We discussed three main areas of Oakbrook Hills concerns which we want addressed: Drainage from Greystone Manor and existing drainage issues when heavy downpours occur o Historical flows in and around Oakbrook Hills and from the new development o Flows in the area including how dry creek beds and other conduits significantly affect drainage o Flooding on Westcoat when the rains occur o Proposed retention ponds in Greystone are likely inadequate for the additional flows which will occur o An expert flow analysis is required to ensure adequate and reserve capacity is engineered to accommodate higher drainage levels Concerns for Westcoat traffic flows for existing neighborhoods, through traffic and the new development o How many entrances and exits will exist on Westcoat and their placement from Greystone o Feasibility of another limited access entry/exit from Greystone to the east o Increased traffic flows post pandemic from the west during AM rush/school pickups and PM school drop offs/rush - while many work from home, traffic flows have increased - some neighbors have expressed safety concerns especially for children navigating Westcoat for bus pickups/drop offs o At times just exiting Oakbrook Hills is already challenging due to heavy traffic o As discussed, a traffic flow analysis and study must occur which measures current traffic flows and projects future flows based on overall area growth including contiguous towns which use McDonwell, Westcoat and John McCain to move east and west through the area General privacy concerns for Oakbrook Hills residents but especially our neighbors on the south side of Stonington and the residents who at the southwest side of Fallbrook Court o In general, lot sizes in Greystone - especially abutting Oakbrook Hills lots o An appropriate buffer including thicker shrubbery such as Skyrocket Junipers and 3-4 inch caliper trees for appropriate level of privacy between both neighborhoods 2 You mentioned that it may be a city requirement to have a wall erected between Oakbrook Hills and Greystone Manor which I believe would be suitable to our residents assuming high quality execution of said wall o Neighborhood aesthetics - our assumption is these homes will all be executed by custom builders with a mandated minimum square footage requirement and individual/customized features that are not duplicated such as exterior colors/materials, unique rooflines and materials on each house and the like o You assure me that the council takes the above seriously and will not permit substandard or inadequate planning as it relates to Colleyville development aesthetics I've written you and the council before and would like that original note and this one to be placed in the record so we can discuss at the upcoming City Council meeting 7/19. I have attached that note below for reference with the exception of noting drainage does not flow back to the open property from Bridge Street. However, we are concerned about where the wash will flow from the open area in the proposed development. Have also included a subsequent note on the same subject. Jerry, I really appreciate the time you took with me to discuss my concerns and have communicated your candor and professionalism to other Oakbrook Hills residents who have expressed same. While I couldn't make the meeting Monday, I understand the meeting was generally very positive. Looking forward to meeting you and the rest of the Council next week, thanks. Vic. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Some internal notes to Oakbrook Hills Board Members which you and I discussed yesterday: When I was on the board at Mill Creek we were building out extensively and had major drainage issues. The runoff which parallels the eastern edge of our neighborhood begins drainage from somewhere near Cutter Ridge and the properties which are immediately south and east of Oakbrook Hills From an aerial view, you can make out the trench which runs from McDonwell School Road East and then behind 6 properties on Pleasant Run until it curves behind 6815. That house has had multiple fence replacements from damage over the years when large runoff occurs. 6819, 6824 and 6820 essentially have moats in front of those houses to manage drainage which is more intense when hard rains come. That water continues to drain around 6816 and go through a culvert on Bridge street. It appears to continue behind the houses on the west side of Fallbrook until it washes into the Maykus property. (that water flows to the north as noted above through a subterranean conduit) That water will go somewhere so our concerns are not idle - this comment still applies since water will from Greystone Manor will feed that flow when heavy rains occur. I'm not and engineer but from my experience with Mill Creek buildout, sizable drainage will be required to manage additional flows from the new development. An independent expert needs to do a flow analysis to ensure house in current and the new development have proper drainage. _______________________________________________________________________________________ Original Note to you and the Council: From: Victor Dupuy < > Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 3:35:39 PM 3 To: Bobby Lindamood; Kathy Wheat; Callie Rigney; Jerry Ducay; Brandi Elder; George Bond; George Dodson; Chuck Kelley Cc: Kelly Miller; LaJaynes Dupuy Subject: Maykus Westcoat Development To: Colleyville City Council & City Manager Re: Maykus Planned Neighborhood near Oakbrook Hills in Northwest Colleyville From: Victor & LaJaynes Dupuy 6807 Fallbrook Court Colleyville, TX 76034 I write this as a homeowner with past experience as Chairman of the Architectural Committee of Mill Creek when it built out in the 90's. We were able to develop one of the first quality neighborhoods south of Glade and west of 26. We paid attention to details like lot sizes and quality of chimney and fencing materials facing subdivision streets. We also changed the neighborhood covenants to ensure consistency as Mill Creek matured over the years. The changes also included minimum house square footage which necessitated larger lots to adequately site a new home and that the homes were custom built so designs weren't replicated with similar roof lines, exterior materials, style of house, etc. Due to the existing housing in this area, we expect that any new development will have custom built housing by only custom builders. I submit my suggestions from that level of experience. We are concerned about the amount of additional traffic that will occur when a new subdivision is initiated immediately south of The Oak Hills neighborhood we've lived in for almost 23 years. * Our understanding is the proposed neighborhood will have one entry and exit point. That will dramatically increase traffic on Westcoat which is not built for high volumes of traffic. * While the rotaries at Westcoat and McDonwell School Road have helped with traffic flow, they have also increased throughput. * This has resulted in challenging exits at various times during the day but especially early mornings and from school dismissals through evening rush from Oakbrook Hills. Another much larger neighborhood than Oakbrook's 38 homes with many more properties will dramatically add to that volume. * Neighbors have already expressed concerns for the potential of accidents with children catching morning buses or exiting them in the afternoons. * One way to alleviate additional traffic is to have two entries, one on Westcoat and one on McDonwell School Road east of the proposed development. If they are gated, no one could get through the neighborhoods without being a resident. If not, circuitous street design and dead end cul-de-sacs would prevent through traffic, especially if a 30 MPH universal speed limit is established with enough stop signs and other methods like speed bumps. * Two entries would be appealing to new residents, especially ones with children attending CES and CMS since they could exit the new development and head east dramatically shortening the drive. Otherwise, far higher traffic will need to flow south on Westcoat, White and Bransford to get to either school instead of Pleasant run. Another concern is drainage. We already experience heavy drainage when significant rainfall occurs. Little Bear Creek which runs behind my property and drains through Oak Brook Hills has grown substantially since development has occurred in NW Colleyville. It is likely to get significantly higher runoff since it will be adjacent to the new neighborhood and Oakbrook Hills. * A city sponsored drainage study should ensure that there are adequate conduits and extra engineered drainage to handle additional flows from streets, sidewalks, concrete driveways, street drainage and the new housing built * Improved drainage for Oakbrook Hills since the additional runoff will affect existing structures abutting the new development or in the drainage path of Little Bear Creek * Improved drain tile or a 6 foot minimum concrete conduit for Little Bear Creek to keep the dry river bed from the continuing expansion and depth it has reached since we've lived in this neighborhood. * Like Oakbrook Hills, we would expect all utilities to be buried for a variety of aesthetic, safety and weather related reasons. These measures also increase volume of water runoff. When we bought from the developer we specifically didn't choose a lot on the south side of Stonington since those lots back-up to the open property in question. Also some of those lots are smaller than many others in our development. So while it's desirable to us to request acre lot sizes of the properties in the new subdivision it may not be doable even though attractive to Oakbrook Hills. We'd like to discuss but anticipating the Council's position, we also suggest the following: 4 * A minimum 30 foot buffer plus lot sizes no smaller than 1/2 acre, preferably larger. The buffer should include skyrocket junipers or other thicker evergreen hedge spaced no more than 4 feet apart and large enough so a privacy shield will grow between the properties. * For other lots depending on configuration, lot sizes should be .6 to at least .75 an acre. Surely if cul-de-sac lots are included, a significant number of those should be at least an acre as is the case in Oakbrook Hills. * The mix of lots will ensure houses are spaced and will maintain high property values enjoyed by residents of Westmont, Oakbrook Hills and the planned new development. Looking forward to hearing from you. I know my neighbors are very concerned as we are and know you'll make good decisions as our city continues to build out with quality, custom built homes suitable to our area, thanks. Victor Dupuy 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Maykus Westcoat Development From: Victor Dupuy < > Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 3:36 PM To: Bobby Lindamood <BLindamood@colleyville.com>; Kathy Wheat <KWheat@colleyville.com>; Callie Rigney <CRigney@colleyville.com>; Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com>; Brandi Elder <BElder@colleyville.com>; George Bond <GBond@colleyville.com>; George Dodson <GDodson@colleyville.com>; Chuck Kelley <CKelley@colleyville.com> Cc: Kelly Miller < >; LaJaynes Dupuy < > Subject: Maykus Westcoat Development To: Colleyville City Council & City Manager Re: Maykus Planned Neighborhood near Oakbrook Hills in Northwest Colleyville From: Victor & LaJaynes Dupuy 6807 Fallbrook Court Colleyville, TX 76034 I write this as a homeowner with past experience as Chairman of the Architectural Committee of Mill Creek when it built out in the 90's. We were able to develop one of the first quality neighborhoods south of Glade and west of 26. We paid attention to details like lot sizes and quality of chimney and fencing materials facing subdivision streets. We also changed the neighborhood covenants to ensure consistency as Mill Creek matured over the years. The changes also included minimum house square footage which necessitated larger lots to adequately site a new home and that the homes were custom built so designs weren't replicated with similar roof lines, exterior materials, style of house, etc. Due to the existing housing in this area, we expect that any new development will have custom built housing by only custom builders. I submit my suggestions from that level of experience. We are concerned about the amount of additional traffic that will occur when a new subdivision is initiated immediately south of The Oak Hills neighborhood we've lived in for almost 23 years. Our understanding is the proposed neighborhood will have one entry and exit point. That will dramatically increase traffic on Westcoat which is not built for high volumes of traffic. While the rotaries at Westcoat and McDonwell School Road have helped with traffic flow, they have also increased throughput. This has resulted in challenging exits at various times during the day but especially early mornings and from school dismissals through evening rush from Oakbrook Hills. Another much larger neighborhood than Oakbrook's 38 homes with many more properties will dramatically add to that volume. Neighbors have already expressed concerns for the potential of accidents with children catching morning buses or exiting them in the afternoons. One way to alleviate additional traffic is to have two entries, one on Westcoat and one on McDonwell School Road east of the proposed development. If they are gated, no one could get through the neighborhoods without being a resident. If not, circuitous street design and dead end cul-de-sacs would prevent through traffic, especially if a 30 MPH universal speed limit is established with enough stop signs and other methods like speed bumps. Two entries would be appealing to new residents, especially ones with children attending CES and CMS since they could exit the new development and head east dramatically shortening the drive. Otherwise, 2 far higher traffic will need to flow south on Westcoat, White and Bransford to get to either school instead of Pleasant run. Another concern is drainage. We already experience heavy drainage when significant rainfall occurs. Little Bear Creek which runs behind my property and drains through Oak Brook Hills has grown substantially since development has occurred in NW Colleyville. It is likely to get significantly higher runoff since it will be adjacent to the new neighborhood and Oakbrook Hills. A city sponsored drainage study should ensure that there are adequate conduits and extra engineered drainage to handle additional flows from streets, sidewalks, concrete driveways, street drainage and the new housing built Improved drainage for Oakbrook Hills since the additional runoff will affect existing structures abutting the new development or in the drainage path of Little Bear Creek Improved drain tile or a 6 foot minimum concrete conduit for Little Bear Creek to keep the dry river bed from the continuing expansion and depth it has reached since we've lived in this neighborhood. Like Oakbrook Hills, we would expect all utilities to be buried for a variety of aesthetic, safety and weather related reasons. These measures also increase volume of water runoff. When we bought from the developer we specifically didn't choose a lot on the south side of Stonington since those lots back-up to the open property in question. Also some of those lots are smaller than many others in our development. So while it's desirable to us to request acre lot sizes of the properties in the new subdivision it may not be doable even though attractive to Oakbrook Hills. We'd like to discuss but anticipating the Council's position, we also suggest the following: A minimum 30 foot buffer plus lot sizes no smaller than 1/2 acre, preferably larger. The buffer should include skyrocket junipers or other thicker evergreen hedge spaced no more than 4 feet apart and large enough so a privacy shield will grow between the properties. For other lots depending on configuration, lot sizes should be .6 to at least .75 an acre. Surely if cul-de- sac lots are included, a significant number of those should be at least an acre as is the case in Oakbrook Hills. The mix of lots will ensure houses are spaced and will maintain high property values enjoyed by residents of Westmont, Oakbrook Hills and the planned new development. Looking forward to hearing from you. I know my neighbors are very concerned as we are and know you'll make good decisions as our city continues to build out with quality, custom built homes suitable to our area, thanks. Victor Dupuy 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Greystone Manor From: frank gabriel < > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 11:08 AM To: Colleyvillle <colleyville@colleyville.com> Subject: Greystone Manor To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: I am writing regarding the Greystone Manor development. I live in the Westmont subdivision and am very concerned about additional traffic coming in to our area. I would request that you ask the developer to do an exit on the back side of the property to Pleasant Run or somehow figure how to alleviate traffic in this area. Thank you for your consideration in this matter and thank you for making a city a great place in which to live. Sincerely, Frank Gabriel 6703 Hillier CT Colleyville 76034 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Greystone Manor development ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Jeffrey Haithcock < > Date: Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 10:09 AM Subject: Greystone Manor development To: Kathy Wheat < > Hi Kathy: I hope this email finds you well. I was reaching out to you about the planned proposal for the Greystone Manor development. I hope that the Colleyville City Council reconsiders the proposal, as having the traffic inflow and outflow towards Pleasant Run Rd. (via McDonwell) would be a much better situation for the residents of Westmont and Oak Hills subdivisions. During the weekday morning and afternoon commute throughout the academic year, there is very heavy traffic on Westcoat Drive, which will likely be even worse this coming Fall due to the new traffic pattern at Bandit Drive and Davis Blvd. (no left turn onto Bandit from Davis Blvd). I would be curious to know your thoughts too, and I am curious to know what the likelihood of this planned development being altered due to the concerns of the neighbors in this area. Thanks for your time, hope that all is well with you and the family. Thanks Kathy, Jeff 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Protest/Objection to Proposed City of Colleyville Zoning Change Case ZC22-020 From: Greg Hanno < > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2022 9:20 AM To: Bobby Lindamood <BLindamood@colleyville.com>; Kathy Wheat <KWheat@colleyville.com>; Brandi Elder <BElder@colleyville.com>; George Bond <GBond@colleyville.com>; George Dodson <GDodson@colleyville.com>; Chuck Kelley <CKelley@colleyville.com>; Callie Rigney <CRigney@colleyville.com>; Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com> Subject: Protest/Objection to Proposed City of Colleyville Zoning Change Case ZC22‐020 Importance: High Dear Mayor Lindamood, Mayor Pro Tem Wheat, Councilmembers Elder, Bond, Dodson, Kelley, Rigney and City Manager Ducay, Previously we provided notification by mail to the City of Colleyville offices of our formal protest of and objection to the proposed Zoning Change from AG Agricultural and RE Single Family 'Estate' Residential to PUD‐R Planned Unit Development‐Residential zoning district for Tract 1B, Abstract 1487, O C Sturm Survey, Tracts 2A01 and 2A01B, Abstract 1748, James E. Weathers Survey, Lots 1 and 1A, Block 1, K Bar G Estates Addition, and Lots 1A, 1A2, 1B, and 1C, Block 1, Hilley Addition, located at 6401, 6405, 6417, 6501, 6507, and 6605 Westcoat Drive, Case ZC22‐020 With continued discussions and recent meetings, we wish to reaffirm our stance and maintain the protest and objection to the above proposed zoning change as we approach the July 19th City Council meeting to begin review of this zoning change and the accompanying PUD development plans. The development plan as proposed is inconsistent with other Colleyville neighborhoods in the area and seems counter in some regards to the City of Colleyville Comprehensive Plan, and the City of Colleyville Land Development Code. Please carefully and thoughtfully consider the following items to preserve the integrity and character of Colleyville that all citizens appreciate: Alignment and consistency with other neighborhoods – The Maykus development as proposed, lacks typical Colleyville neighborhood characteristics such as open space, walking trails, interior features, structures, monuments, unique perimeter treatment, and privacy provisions such as green space barriers between neighboring lots. A walk in Westmont, Whittier Heights, Oakbrook Hills, The Preserve, The Overlook and Oak Alley brings these deficiencies to light and exposes the proposed development plan as less than creative and very inconsistent with typical Colleyville neighborhoods and non‐compliant with the City of Colleyville Comprehensive Plan. Also reference attached Oak Alley Master Plan for comparison. Open Space Requirements – When questioned at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the developer acknowledged the plan proposed would require a variance (and P&Z agreed) to City of Colleyville Open Space requirements. Reference the City of Colleyville Land Development Code, chapter 11, section 11.5B, item 2a. This deficiency and non‐compliance must not be allowed and should be corrected. Density and Lot Size – Neighboring homes have enjoyed the open land for years but realistically expected development at some point. However, the indication was always that any development would be estate lots and home sites. We request consideration be given to preserving the Comprehensive Plan and the Mayor’s 2 vision by requiring minimum lot sizes of 1 acre. This also helps to maintain the open feel of the area and an atmosphere more similar to what exists. Traffic and Road Development ‐ Current roads in the area are over utilized with neighborhoods egressing to Westcoat Road having difficulty entering traffic flow. Alternatively, the proposed land use plan should give consideration to remove traffic entering onto Westcoat Road and use the East McDonwell School Road to Pleasant Run Road for egress. Westcoat Road is currently overloaded for much of the day. Improvements to the under‐used and dysfunctional East McDonwell School Road would be beneficial. Proper traffic studies must be conducted to arrive at a suitable egress plan for the development and to consider reasonable compromises. Drainage – This is an issue with the current Oakbrook Hills residences backing up to the proposed zoning change property and must be addressed. City Engineering review and input is requested. Oakbrook Hills Buffer Area ‐ An appropriate and significant buffer is requested to preserve the integrity and neighborhood of the homes in the Oakbrook Hills subdivision that have houses proposed to be constructed directly opposite their backyard. Heavy landscaping and perhaps a more creative way to establish the buffer needs to occur than what is proposed (an easement for landscaping on the new home lot). Reference the included City of Colleyville Land Development Code, chapter 4, section 4.6, item J. Perimeter Treatments ‐ It is unclear what perimeter treatment and fencing would be installed. Some mention was made of wooden fencing but this is not consistent with other Colleyville neighborhoods with masonry fencing and significant perimeter fencing. There needs to be consistency and proper monuments, entrances, fencing, and signage aligning with the other area neighborhoods. Your consideration and attention to these matters to preserve the quality of life that Colleyville residents appreciate currently, is appreciated. Sincerely, Greg Hanno Katherine Hanno 213 Stonington Lane Colleyville, TX 76034 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Greystone Manor concerns From: Tom Hardeman < > Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2022 12:05 PM To: Bobby Lindamood; Callie Rigney; Chuck Kelley; George Dodson; Kathy Wheat; George Bond; Brandi Elder Subject: Greystone Manor concerns Dear City Council members, Kosse Maykus has submitted a request for a zoning change for Greystone Manor on approximately 59.40 acres which is currently zoned AG Agricultural district. The request is to rezone the property from AG agricultural district to PUD-R Planned Unit Development Residential District to allow for a new 56-lot single-family detached subdivision. As a resident of the Westmont subdivision which is situated West of Westcoat Drive and North of McDonwell School Road I am very concerned about the increased traffic coming into our area especially at rush hour in the morning and evening. I understand that Mr. Maykus has agreed to move the entrance to Greystone Manor south of the roundabout on Westcoat Drive. That would be better than the original proposal which was just south of one on the entrances to our subdivision. Since I live on Reverchon Court, a single street subdivision in which the exit is very close to the roundabout of Westcoat Dr and John McCain, currently in the mornings I can hardly exit our subdivision now due to backed up traffic. The addition of 56 new homes will make this traffic situation an intolerable mess. Under no circumstances should an addition be added that allows primary entry and exit onto the already overcrowded Westcoat Drive. A better solution would be to develop an exit on the back side of the property and exit onto Pleasant Run. I would like to be able to have a discussion with all concerned residents, our city council members and Mr. Maykus to see if we can resolve many of the concerns. Thanks for your consideration in trying to keep the small town country feel to our city. Tom and KayLane Hardeman 7012 Reverchon Court Colleyville, TX 76034 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: IMPORTANT update regarding potential development Fwd: Oakbrook Hills Feedback regarding potential development with Maykus… From: patty heenan < > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 6:38 PM To: Bobby Lindamood <BLindamood@colleyville.com>; Kathy Wheat <KWheat@colleyville.com>; Brandi Elder <BElder@colleyville.com>; George Bond <GBond@colleyville.com>; George Dodson <GDodson@colleyville.com>; Chuck Kelley <CKelley@colleyville.com>; Callie Rigney <CRigney@colleyville.com>; Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com> Cc:;;;;;; 'Patrick/Terri Heenan' < > Subject: IMPORTANT update regarding potential development Fwd: Oakbrook Hills Feedback regarding potential development with Maykus… Dear Sirs / Madams, Unfortunately we were traveling when the June 16th meeting occurred with Mr. Maykus. After learning of the details from that meeting we are writing to personally express our grave concern with the approach being taken with this proposed new development. We would like to echo and expand on the statements provided below as this is not something the City of Colleyville should be approving without extreme due diligence, which my assumption is, this is already taking place as we speak. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GATE INGRESS / EGRESS: We were shocked to learn of the proposed entry for this new development to be directly on Westcoat Drive. This would invite a myriad of problems and make a bad situation worse. I would strongly encourage any of you to visit this area during the a.m. and p.m. commuting time frames – it’s ridiculous. It’s already extremely unsafe with the increased traffic from McDonwell School Rd with all those vehicles using it as a cut through, mostly to Colleyville Blvd. Especially for the children who have to cross the street to get the bus. Clearly, Pleasant Run would be the most logical entrance / exit for this new development for the reasons outlined below. It is a bit concerning that there were no traffic studies conducted or in process and this had to be initiated by one of the Oakbrook Hills residents. DRAINAGE: Again, as stated below this is a major concern and we can speak from direct experience having levied several complaints to the City of Colleyville regarding the run off drainage issues already occurring. This new proposed development will only exacerbate the situation. The maintenance required to continually dredge the run off area located between our house and the cul‐de‐sac is out of control. The City is responsible for ensuring there is a clear flow run off from the street drains to the engineered run off area. However, this is already not being maintained, so I can only conclude the situation will get substantially worse. The homeowner’s of Oakbrook Hills and the surrounding neighborhoods want to thank you in advance for your commitment to keeping Colleyville safe. We look forward to your assurance that any new development such as this one proposed by Mr. Maykus, will not simply get rubber stamped, but rather will be deeply analyzed to ensure current residents are not gravely, adversely affected. If this proposed development is permitted to proceed as outlined, it will make current situations worse, not better, and that would be a tragedy. Your leadership and due diligence is much appreciated. Regards, 2 Patrick Heenan Terri Heenan 6824 Fallbrook Court Colleyville, TX 76034 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Graystone From: Donald Hellman <> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2022 8:39 AM To: Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com>; Kelly Miller < > Subject: Graystone Morning Jerry, I am writing to "Protest" the Graystone Development as presented. I prefer less density, fewer homes and more green space. I feel the West Entrance is reasonable and found the Council Woman's statement that the East Entrance was "Solvable" to be disingenuous and unfair to the Developer. Don Hellman 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Concerns Regarding Colleyville Development From: John Hutchinson < > Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 6:49 PM To: Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com> Subject: Concerns Regarding Colleyville Development July 6, 2022 Dear Mr. Ducay: We recently moved into our home at 6816 Fallbrook Ct. in the Oakbrook neighborhood here in Colleyville. We are writing to express our view with regard to the proposed development between Pleasant Run and Westcoat, at McDonwell School Road. We have two primary concerns related to the proposed development: 1. Traffic: The traffic on Westcoat during the peak morning and evening rush hours is already stressing the recently constructed round-about at Westcoat and John McCain, and limits access onto Westcoat from Stonington Ln. I believe a reasonable modification to the current development plan would be to include another development access to Pleasant Run Rd in order to share the burden of the increased traffic flow. 2. Density: The current proposal calls for building lot sizes substantially smaller than those in the immediate vicinity, which would put significantly more pressure on the already stressed traffic infrastructure as previously mentioned, and I fear will also have a negative economic impact on surrounding property values due to the change in the nature of the community character. I believe requiring lot sizes more in line with those in surrounding neighborhoods even if they vary in size (from a half acre to an acre for example) could be a possible solution. We are supportive of a development plan that takes into consideration the needs of the community so that we can continue to enjoy the character of Colleyville, which is one of the main reasons we relocated to this city. Thank you for your consideration, John and Sharon Hutchinson 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Opposition to Garrison Development on Westcoat As Is From: robbin.hyde <> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 9:35 AM To: Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com>; Bobby Lindamood <BLindamood@colleyville.com>; Brandi Elder <BElder@colleyville.com>; George Bond <GBond@colleyville.com>; Kathy Wheat <KWheat@colleyville.com>; George Dodson <GDodson@colleyville.com>; Chuck Kelley <CKelley@colleyville.com>; Callie Rigney <CRigney@colleyville.com> Subject: Opposition to Garrison Development on Westcoat As Is Name: Robert & Robbin Hyde 202 White Drive Colleyville, TX 76034 We oppose the Garrison Development on Westcoat as is currently planned. There needs to be a road from Westcoat to Pleasant Run. This would help with the flow of traffic and in addition, encourage residents to shop and dine in Colleyville. Thank you. Robbin Hyde 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Feedback regarding potential development with Makus Homes & Neighborhoods From: Wayne Irwin < > Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2022 10:38 AM To: Bobby Lindamood <BLindamood@colleyville.com>; Kathy Wheat <KWheat@colleyville.com>; Brandi Elder <BElder@colleyville.com>; George Bond <GBond@colleyville.com>; George Dodson <GDodson@colleyville.com>; Chuck Kelley <CKelley@colleyville.com>; Callie Rigney <CRigney@colleyville.com>; Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com> Subject: Feedback regarding potential development with Makus Homes & Neighborhoods All, My family lives in the Oakbrook Hills neighborhood just north of the proposed new development - we were one of the first homes built in the subdivision and are one of the few original homeowners in Oakbrook Hills. The reason I think that is important is that we have experienced the change over the years and have a good perspective on the additional impacts this proposed development could bring. We want to maintain the beauty of this area and the City of Colleyville (City) overall. While we'd hope that the property in question was left in its current state, we understand that development will occur, therefore, we need to ensure what is developed provides the best outcome for the residents of Oakbrook Hill and the surrounding area. I attended the June 13th, Planning & Zoning meeting where Mr. Maykus outlined the plans for the development and the adjustments he was willing to make to the original plans based on feedback he had received. The key changes that were critical to our support of the proposal were: Establishment of a single entrance into the neighborhood SOUTH of the traffic circle at the corner of Westcoat and McDonwell School road. The other entrance, north of the traffic circle would be for emergency use only. This would mimic the set up we have in Oakbrook Hills where there is an emergency-only gate at the west end of Oldenwood Ct. o This is important for a variety of reasons, but the primary reason is traffic congestion. Since the City terminated any plans to have the 2 portions of McDonwell School Road to connect, the main traffic flow coming from our neighboring cities (North Richland Hills, Keller, etc.) flows to John McCain. This flow causes considerable congestion for our neighborhood. While having the entrance south of this traffic circle won't stop people from the new neighborhood to turn right while exiting and continuing to John McCain for access to Colleyville Blvd, it may have a portion of the traffic to turn left to avoid the already congested path. Appropriate setback (30') and greenspace along the north side of the proposed neighborhood abutting the south side of Oakbrook Hills. This greenspace would provide a level of privacy for the homes on Stonington Lane with both lower-height shrubs and a type of tree that is more evergreen (Live Oak). This would not only provide privacy but also help maintain the country feel of the area. Drainage. There has always been a level of drainage challenges with property due to natural drainage flows. Mr. Maykus committed to including appropriate drainage and catch ponds so that the Oakbrook Hills neighbors are not impacted with additional water heading our way given the additional concrete and less natural use of the land. To ensure that the developer adheres to the commitments made and agreed upon, we ask that they be codified in the current PUD-R. While Mr. Maykus seems like a trustworthy developer, we also trusted David Bagwell who made a number of commitments to the City and the residents of Oakbrook Hills that 2 weren't codified and he subsequently modified his plans, negatively impacting the residents of Oakbrook Hills and the City in general. Thank you for your service to the City and your commitment to keeping Colleyville a special place in the DFW area. Respectfully, Wayne & Lori Irwin 301 Oldenwood Ct. Colleyville, TX 76034 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Opposition to Cos Maykus Westcoat Drive development Begin forwarded message: From: Melissa Johann <> Subject: Opposition to Cos Maykus Westcoat Drive development Date: July 18, 2022 at 3:59:04 PM CDT To: blindamood@colleyville.com Cc: belder@colleville.com, gbond@colleyville.com, kwheat@colleyville.com, gdodson@colleyville.com, ckelley@colleyville.com, crigney@colleyville.com Please be informed that I am opposed to the proposed development of the Cos Maykus project on Westcoat Drive, Garrison property as proposed. I am requesting a consideration of an entrance gate on the east side of the property that exits on to Pleasant Run/McDonwell School Road. Thank you, Melissa Johann 6316 Westcoat Drive Colleyville 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Feedback on Proposed Greystone Manor Development From: Jennifer Johnson <> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 6:00 PM To: Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com> Cc: Kathy Wheat <KWheat@colleyville.com> Subject: Feedback on Proposed Greystone Manor Development Thank you for facilitating the meeting today. It was helpful to hear an overview, and have the chance to participate in providing feedback. If you could please pass this email along to all City Council Members for their consideration as they hear detail on the proposal on July 19, we would appreciate it. Of the four primary areas of concern - Traffic, Drainage, Density and Aesthetics, they all closely impact each other, but my husband, Mark and I are primarily concerned with the volume of traffic this will add to an already extremely busy Westcoat drive. Over the past few years, as we have had many road improvement projects, traffic patterns have increased traffic on Westcoat. Most recently, with the restrictions added on Bandit/Davis, we have noticed the largest increase. Exiting our Westmont subdivision, especially making a left/North turn has become very difficult. A couple of times, to ease my stress, I have turned right, and then used the roundabout to then be able to head North. Adding 55 homes, and 110-150 more cars will make this a solid line of traffic. Ideally, we would like to see the primary entrance moved to E McDonwell School Rd, where quick access to Pleasant Run, LD Lockett and Tinker can be used to disperse traffic. At a minimum, we would want to see a second entrance/exit on E McDonwell School Rd, to pull some of the traffic of Westcoat. Since this is proposed as a gated community, it would not be used as a cut through, so the only traffic generated on E McDonwell would be from Greystone Manor. Jennifer and Mark Johnson 203 Colden Ct Westmont Subdivision Stan Jordan 6809 Westmont Dr. Colleyville, Tx 6/26/22 Response to : Zoning case ZC22-020 Dear City Council members, Kosse Maykus has submitted a request for a zoning change for Greystone Manor on approximately 59.40 acres which is currently zoned AG Agricultural district. The request is to rezone the property from AG agricultural district to PUD-R Planned Unit Development Residential District to allow for a new 56- lot single-family detached subdivision. As a resident of the Westmont subdivision which is situated West of Westcoat Drive and North of McDonwell School Road I am very concerned about the increased traffic coming into our area especially at rush hour in the morning and evening. I understand that Mr. Maykus has agreed to move the entrance to Greystone Manor south of the roundabout on Westcoat Drive. That would be better than the original proposal which was just south of one on the entrances to our subdivision. A better solution would be to develop an exit on the back side of the property and exit onto Pleasant Run. I do not think Mr. Maykus has begun to address the drainage issue in the overall area. Although he mentions Oakbrook and the new lots, nothing [Last Name] 2 has been discussed as to how he will handle all the additional drainage as it leaves the subdivision. Currently all drainage from the south, west and east drains into a small drainage ditch in Westmont. This drainage is currently beyond it’s ability to handle the existing drainage. The water regularly goes out of the ditch and floods the common area that runs behind the houses on Westmont. A detailed engineering study should address this issue. I don’t see that here. I would further like to address the traffic issue. The addition of at least 100 cars on to Westcoat or Mcdonwell road is a bad idea. These roads are nearly impossible during certain times of the day to enter. There have been several accidents or near accidents involving cars speeding through the turnabout and crashing into the back of traffic waiting to turn onto Westmont drive. I can’t see how any plan to add that much additional traffic to these roads would be prudent decision. I don’t see any reason why some of this could not be addressed by an exit to the east. A road and an easement already exists. I would like to be able to have a discussion with all concerned residents, our city council members and Mr. Maykus to see if we can resolve many of the concerns. Thanks for your consideration. Stan Jordan 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Opposition to new development, Greystone Manor ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Tricia Lewis < > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 10:29 PM To: Christine Loven <cloven@colleyville.com> Subject: Opposition to new development, Greystone Manor Dear Council members, We have lived in Remmington Park for 18 years and have watched as several neighborhoods have gone up around us. We are very concerned about another 50+ residential development going in right around this same area as traffic is already a huge concern for us. Local roads John McCain, Westcoat, McDonwell School Road, and LD Lockett are already congested and experiencing high volume traffic, often at standstills during rush hour times. We are also concerned about losing the charm and quaint atmosphere that this section of Colleyville still has. It is a little oasis in the middle the concrete jungle of the metroplex. I would venture to say that a majority of homeowners chose Colleyville because of it’s unique landscape and it has been very disappointing to see our city partner with companies that want to come in and chip away our land, one lot at a time, all for the sake of profit. We are losing what differentiates Colleyville from all the other cities around us. We implore the council to consider these factors when making decisions on this zoning change and allowing another developer in to chop up our lovely city. Adding another densely populated neighborhood will have an adverse effect on our city landscape and put even more strain on our already highly populated road ways. Thank you for your time and consideration. Concerned residents, Clint and Tricia Lewis 307 Polo Trail Colleyville, TX 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Grestone Manor Development Concerns From: Diana Light < > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 3:32 PM To: Brandi Elder; George Bond; Bobby Lindamood; Kathy Wheat; George Dodson; Chuck Kelley; Callie Rigney Cc: Kirk Light Subject: Grestone Manor Development Concerns Dear City Council members, Kosse Maykus has submitted a request for a zoning change for Greystone Manor on approximately 59.40 acres which is currently zoned AG Agricultural district. The request is to rezone the property from AG agricultural district to PUD‐R Planned Unit Development Residential District to allow for a new 56‐lot single‐family detached subdivision. We are homeowners in the Westmont subdivision which is situated West of Westcoat Drive and North of McDonwell School Road. We are deeply concerned about the increased traffic coming into our area especially at rush hour in the morning and evening. During those heavy traffic times, and often throughout the day, Westcoat carries a large amount of traffic as the path from Colleyville Blvd, through John McCain, down Westcoat to McDonwell School Road is the only legitimate pass through from Colleyville Blvd to Precinct Line Road. This is obviously understood as the more recent roundabouts put in along Westcoat were necessary to help provide a more consistent traffic flow. The problem for our neighborhood is that under the current traffic situation it can be very difficult to enter or exit at any time of the day, and most especially during heavy traffic times in the morning and evening. Our main concern then with the development of Greystone Manner is the intent to add the neighborhood entrance right near the roundabout at Westcoat and McDonwell School Road. We understand that Mr. Maykus has agreed to move the entrance south of the roundabout on Westcoat Drive. That would be better than the original proposal which was just south of one on the entrances to our subdivision, and would result in an effective (but not official) 4 way stop between the two neighborhoods. A better solution would be to develop an exit on the back side of the property and exit onto Pleasant Run. Pleasant Run is not as heavily trafficked as Westcoat, as it is not a pass through street. We also would like to better understand the landscaping plans for the property that lines up to the Westcoat road. Looking at the plan maps, it would appear that where our entrance into Westmont currently views the gorgeous green space property, we will now see the back sides of the smaller homes in the new subdivision. Would it be possible to consider green space or 2 landscaping along that line? We are concerned with decreasing our property values as well as the ability to maintain the country feel of our community. We would like to be able to have a discussion with all concerned residents, our city council members and Mr. Maykus to see if we can resolve many of the concerns. Thanks for your consideration in trying to help keep all residents safe and all property values stable. Kirk and Diana Light 6905 Westmont Dr 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Protest To Proposed Greystone Manor Development Plan - Oakbrook Hills - 301 Stonington Lane From: chad markle <> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 7:27 PM To: Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com> Cc: Shana Markle <> Subject: Protest To Proposed Greystone Manor Development Plan ‐ Oakbrook Hills ‐ 301 Stonington Lane Jerry. Thank you for your thoughtful and timely responses to our Oakbrook Hills homeowners about the proposed Greystone Manor. Your understanding of Colleyville policy and process and level of patience is an asset to our citizens and our city council members. We are lodging formal protest with the points of objection or concern. These items were shared by Wilf Cameron on behalf of some members of the Oakbrook Hills homeowner’s association at the Colleyville City Council on July 19, 2022 1. The development plan should provide for at least a 30-foot buffer with landscaping primarily consisting of trees, between the residences on Stonington Lane and the proposed development. This buffer should be land managed and cared for by the homeowners association and be part of the open space requirements required by the PUD zoning classification. The current plan provides for only a 15-foot buffer of undetermined type in some areas and does not appear to provide for any open space. 2. The proposed fencing on the Stonington Lane side of the development should be uniformly iron. The plans appear to call for wooden fencing for part of this segment. 3. Plans for drainage should ensure that the proposed development does not increase water flow into the Oakbrook Hills subdivision. 4. Residents of the Westmont development community and Oakbrook Hills Community request a second exit to the new development be placed on McDonwell East as a second access/egress point to the development. The traffic and congestion on Westcoat has become unmanageable and is a safety hazard to people and cars attempting to exit from neighborhoods off of Westcoat. A traffic survey of the McDonwell East and Pleasant Run area is requested to compare the relative traffic burdens of Westcoat and Pleasant Run. We believe the study will show that Westcoat has the heavier burden, and that Pleasant Run would be in a better position to absorb traffic from the new development. 5. Whether or not a secondary exit is made on McDonwell East as requested, landowners need to be certain that the proposed access to the development north of the Westcoat/McDonwell School roundabout will be for emergency/fire access only, as the current plan suggests. Having this access available for day-to-day use would cause significant problems for both developments in exiting onto an already congested Westcoast Dr. 6. The smallest proposed lots back up to Stonington, resulting in 8 lots backing up to Stonington. One or two lots should be taken from the Stonington side and reallocated to other sides of the proposed development, so as to more equitably equalize lot sizes backing up to the various existing developments. 7. Landowners need to be certain that, in connection with the proposed zoning change, the City of Colleyville will require the proposed development to implement every element put forward in the development plan (i.e., the developer will not have the flexibility to alter any of the above items, or other elements of the current development plan, without obtaining a further zoning change). We understand that the current PUD-R zoning proposal requires this, but if the proposed zoning type changes, there must be a similar requirement for the developer to adhere to the plan. Thank you. Chad & Shana Markle 301 Stonington Lane 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Protest of Greystone Manor Development Plan From: Timothy Marling <> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 2:56 PM To: Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com> Cc: Karrie Marling <> Subject: Protest of Greystone Manor Development Plan Mr. Ducay, My wife and I are writing to inform you that we formally wish to protest the current development plan for Greystone Manor. Timothy & Karrie Marling 308 Stonington Ln, Colleyville, TX 76034 Regards, Tim & Karrie 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: rezoning & development - Westcoat Dr From: Kristy Mercer < > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 3:49 PM To: Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com>; Bobby Lindamood <BLindamood@colleyville.com>; Brandi Elder <BElder@colleyville.com>; George Bond <GBond@colleyville.com>; Kathy Wheat <KWheat@colleyville.com>; George Dodson <GDodson@colleyville.com>; Chuck Kelley <CKelley@colleyville.com>; Callie Rigney <CRigney@colleyville.com> Subject: rezoning & development ‐ Westcoat Dr Hello and thank you for your service to our great community. I am writing to express my opposition to the rezoning and development of the property at Westcoat Dr and McDonwell School Road. Since I first moved to this neighborhood as a teenager in 1989, I have witnessed tremendous growth, but with that growth has come headaches. The major problem affecting our family would be the increased traffic on Westcoat Drive. It is unbelievably difficult to get out of our driveway in the mornings and evenings, and with a teenage driver and elderly parents next door, we are often concerned for their safety. Once we are able to leave our house, we can wait for several minutes at the roundabout from all of the cars traveling from Keller and NRH. The backup at John McCain to get to school often stretches back to McDonwell. Our street CANNOT handle the additional traffic a new neighborhood would bring. I long for the Colleyville I knew 30 years ago...please realize that all of the long time Colleyville residents live here for a reason. We don't wish to live in just another DFW suburb. Kristy Mercer 6504 Westcoat Dr Colleyville, TX 76034 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: PUD zoning plan Westcoat Dr development From: lee mercer <> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 11:56 AM To: Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com> Cc: Bobby Lindamood <BLindamood@colleyville.com>; Brandi Elder <BElder@colleyville.com>; George Bond <GBond@colleyville.com>; George Dodson <GDodson@colleyville.com>; Kathy Wheat <KWheat@colleyville.com>; Chuck Kelley <CKelley@colleyville.com>; Callie Rigney <CRigney@colleyville.com> Subject: PUD zoning plan Westcoat Dr development We reside at 6400 Westcoat Dr. (Colleyville) and oppose the rezoning being discussed for our neighborhood. We have observed a significant increase in traffic on Westcoat over the past few years. We understand that much of that traffic flow is determined by our location between Hwy 26 and N Tarrant Pkwy and cannot be changed without major traffic flow redesign. However, we feel that adding a residential development into that mix would create substantial congestion from the increased number of delivery and service vehicles. We also have enjoyed the green space provided by this property. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns, and thank you for your service to our community. Sincerely, Chuck and Cindy Mercer 6400 Westcoat Dr. Colleyville, TX 76034 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: In opposition of Maykus Development ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: HENRY MILLER III < > Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 11:52 PM To: Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com> Subject: In opposition of Maykus Development I am writing this email in strong opposition of the new neighborhood development on the Westcoat property by Maykus. There should be no ingress or egress on Westcoat only pleasant run due to existing traffic patterns and development. There are three routes to Hwy 26 via Tinker, John McCain and Hall Johnson (actually White to Beverly, etc). The ingress/egress would go into a soccer field versus the already heavily trafficked Westcoat. The area neighborhoods (including ours) haven’t felt the traffic impact from the Hall Johnson residential development as it is not had any occupancy. Due to intense traffic the resdidents of Oakbrook have to get out of their vehicles and use the crosswalk blinking lights just to leave our neighborhood mbira Westcoat during traffic hours. Not only hampering adult workers but students as well. Ingress and egress should be on pleasant run ONLY. Ingress and egress on westcoat is completely impractical and will severely impact our daily lives. Lots should be 1.5 acres each in order to reduce the already burdensome traffic patterns and to maintain all neighborhood’s quality of life. The set backs between the neighborhoods should be greater as well. The most obvious reasons are for privacy and drainage. Maykus and the seller do not care about the citizens of Colleyville. They seek to make a profit then walk away from the problems they have created. The seller could care less about how well she has had it in Colleyville for so many years. The residents of Colleyville that supported you all in your elections plead with you to maintain the small town atmosphere of our neighborhoods and don’t allow this rude and condescending out of town developer negatively impact our well being. I’m ashamed for the seller as she has benefitting from our community for years and now she chooses to turn her back on the families and friends that will remain in the area. The current Infrastructure will not support the additional traffic. The round sbouts were merely bandaids. The traffic in the area will continue to get worse as the developments are built out. I would ask the you and all of the city council members to walk in our shoes so to speak and attempt to leave our Oakbrook neighborhood, turn right to the John McCain round about, circle it and then try to enter our neighborhood. Please do this multiple times until 9:00 and see how horrible the traffic already is. Being summer the traffic is even much less as there are no students nor parents trying to get to their kids to school. Regards Henry Miller III 6820 Fallbrook Ct 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: IMPORTANT update regarding potential development Fwd: Oakbrook Hills Feedback regarding potential development with Maykus… From: Kelly Miller < > Subject: Oakbrook Hills Feedback regarding potential development with Maykus… Date: June 23, 2022 at 3:37:54 PM CDT To: blindamood@colleyville.com, kwheat@colleyville.com, belder@colleyville.com, gbond@colleyville.com, gdodson@colleyville.com, ckelley@colleyville.com, crigney@colleyville.com, jducay@colleyville.com Cc: Oakbrook Hills Feedback regarding potential development with Maykus Homes & Neighborhoods At the recent June 13, Planning and Zoning meeting, a number of Oakbrook Hills’ neighbors signed a comments document advising the zoning committee of several concerns we were discussing with Mr. Maykus regarding his proposed development. A group of neighbors met with Mr. Maykus on June 16, to further discuss these concerns. Our understanding is that many residents are dissatisfied with how these discussions are progressing partly due to Mr. Maykus’s disrespectful and angry approach toward us at the June 16, meeting whenever the idea of one acre lots and a second entrance were mentioned. His behavior was way out of line, unprofessional and unnecessary. We would like to request a meeting with Colleyville City Council members to ask questions to best understand the circumstances of the potential development, what’s permissible, what are the views of our city council representatives, etc,… under the city council’s guidelines and policies, of course, of what is allowed in order to have an informal meeting with our city representatives. This email is intended to serve as a high level “umbrella” to provide council members with some background information and our overall views as a neighborhood. We anticipate that individual residents will soon be emailing, as well, expressing in more detail their personal views, expectations, and wants regarding the potential neighborhood development. We are looking at this from a viewpoint of what is the very best for Colleyville now and in the future. Ideally, we want to preserve the larger plots of land/lots and maintain the small town feel that is rare and somewhat unique to Colleyville both of which are main reasons we all love Colleyville and what has also helped make Colleville so desirable to all of us. We do not want to lose either, especially to a developer who does not seem to have the same values and ideals as we do for Colleyville. As you all know there are not many pieces of land like this remaining in Colleyville. In the last several years 2 similar pieces of land were developed with the Oak Alley and Oak Leigh neighborhoods and before that under our old city council the high density neighborhood of Overlook, which is connected to Monticello. If we’re not careful with development decisions before we know it Colleyville will be a small town with a lot of neighborhood developments with less than one acre lots. There was a time not too long ago when Colleyville approved no less than an acre lot size. 2 I’d also like to mention that in my opinion one acre lots in a neighborhood are very desirable and very hard to find. That may not be what best benefits Mr. Maykus financially, but if a development is inevitable I think it is what is best for Colleyville and the best way to maintain the larger pieces of land while attempting to continue the small town feel we all enjoy. This is a very important decision with many factors involved and we want to be as informed and knowledgeable as possible, so we truly appreciate your help as our council members and fellow Colleyville citizens! As of now the concerns fall collectively into 4 main areas. The key issues and concerns are 1. Traffic Congestion: The current proposal is a gated sole ingression/egress off of Westcoat Drive (south of the McDonwell School Road roundabout). The alternative preferred option is to either move the entrance to a gated entrance off of Pleasant Run or at least add a second entrance off of Pleasant Run so that Westcoat doesn’t bear the burden of ALL of the new traffic. Traffic is already a major issue for Oakbrook Hills residents with high volume from McDonwell School Road going east via the roundabout toward John McCain in the mornings and the reverse in the evenings. Since Westcoat has two existing communities in close proximity off of Westcoat, Oakbrook Hills and Westmont, we think sharing the traffic pain with our neighbors to the east by having an additional entrance on Pleasant Run just makes sense overall. This will also help avoid the potential need for widening Westcoat in the future. Currently, Westcoat is used as a cut through for so many coming from the North Richland Hills, Keller areas and will most likely only increase in the future. Also, if I’m a resident in the proposed neighborhood being right down the street from our neighborhood schools, CES and CMS, via Pleasant Run would be not only very appealing but much more convenient. The Pleasant Run entrance would only pass by a handful of homes in Cutter Ridge as you enter/exit. Unless you’re going to McDonwell School Road the Pleasant Run entrance makes much more sense and has access to a number of avenues to 26, such as, Tinker, Hardage, Hall Johnson, John McCain and even to 114 from Pleasant Run/White’s Chapel. Coming around from Westcoat doesn’t seem as logical or logistically savvy. 1. Privacy: Oakbrook Hills has a significant number of homes, which will directly abut to a new development. The current proposal has 1/2 acre lots abutting to Stonington Lane and Oldenwood by the new development with a 30 ft. buffer included in the 20,000 sf lots. The alternative strongly preferred would be one acre lot minimums with a 30 ft. buffer to ensure privacy. We would want to do this within the current PUD-R zoning in order to ensure that Mr. Maykus is in compliance with all aspects of the development plan presented to residents. 1. Drainage: Oakbrook Hills has faced significant drainage issues in the past. To ensure that any Maykus proposal includes a well engineered drainage plan we would ask that the city conduct an engineering study. We want to make certain that his proposed plans do not adversely effect Oakbrook residents downstream from the settling ponds that are in the current plan. 1. Lot size: One acre lots only is extremely important for many of the reasons previously mentioned regarding doing our very best to help preserve and maintain what makes Colleyville so great and so special! Thank you all for your service to Colleyville and your genuine desire to keep Colleyville great! 3 On behalf of Oakbrook Hills Homeowners Respectfully, Kelly Miller 6820 Fallbrook Ct. Colleyville “The best small town in Texas” 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: IMPORTANT update regarding potential development Fwd: Oakbrook Hills Feedback regarding potential development with Maykus… From: Igor Motkin < > Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 2:33 PM To: Bobby Lindamood <BLindamood@colleyville.com>; Kathy Wheat <KWheat@colleyville.com>; Brandi Elder <BElder@colleyville.com>; George Bond <GBond@colleyville.com>; George Dodson <GDodson@colleyville.com>; Chuck Kelley <CKelley@colleyville.com>; Callie Rigney <CRigney@colleyville.com>; Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com> Cc: Subject: Fwd: IMPORTANT update regarding potential development Fwd: Oakbrook Hills Feedback regarding potential development with Maykus… Ladies and Gents: My name is Igor Motkin and my wife’s name is Volha Ramanouskaya. We live in Oakbrook Hills Neighborhood at 209 Stonington Ln, Colleyville 76034. Both my wife and I are completely agree with all issues/concerns expressed by Kelly Miller in her email below. The only thing I would add is our personal expectations from the City of Colleyville and developers who City of Colleyville considers/allows for zoning developments. Honestly, I don’t know much about city procedures, behind the scene work on zoning and developments, etc — this is my first time being involved in something like that (I attended the recent June 13, Planning and Zoning meeting and that was my first experience). Anyway, my biggest surprise was that at all meetings with Mr. Maykus (both with city and with Oakbrook Hills community) wasn’t able to answer a lot of our questions in a direct way. Most of his answers sounded like “I think this option is the best for everybody”. And when we asked WHY — he would just repeat “In my opinion this is the best.” Another surprise to me was his message he repeated several times — it sounded like “This is done deal — you can protest but it doesn’t matter.” Mr. Maykus didn’t say anything about alternatives he looked at, or what researches/studies were done to prove the option he suggested are the best. It sounded like “This is best for me and that’s it” and I can’t remember he ever said something like “This is best for you and Colleyville and here is why.” Let’s use entrance/exit as an example. It’s only my guess but I believe what he did within the last months was this: Mr. Maykus talked to all neighbors on the Pleasant Run side and told them “You need to support my plan or the entrance will be off of Pleasant Run” — that’s how he collected supporting votes. I have never heard about any open discussions on WHY the entrance/exit should be on our side. Important: we are not talking about another street that would connect Pleasant Run and Waistcoat to allow a straightforward traffic. Mr. Maykus is developing a gated community which (if set up right) doesn’t allow any straightforward traffic to begin with. If there are still concerns about straightforward traffic — there is a simple solution — they can add an Emergency gate in the middle of the community. This option of splitting traffic 50/50 is fair to everybody. Unfortunately we haven’t heard any true explanations/factors/study results that are opposite to this solution. 2 Also I can’t remember city representatives said anything on why Mr. Maykus’s plan is the Best for Colleyville during the recent June 13, Planning and Zoning meeting. They only confirmed that most of the items on his plan are in line with city rules (except for larger open zoning on his land, if I’m not mistaken). But to me ‘being in line with rules’ is very different from ‘being best’. Again, I’m not familiar with such meetings and know nothing about procedures — maybe this is not something that we should expected at all. But I strongly believe that city should have a meeting with us and: explain if City is OK with everything proposed by Mr. Maykus and is not going to look at any alternatives and listen to our ideas and concerns, and this is a truly done deal explain WHY THIS IS BEST FOR COLLEYVILLE in their opinion Thank you for your time! Sincerely, Igor Motkin 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Re 7/19 City Council Mtg From: Brent Neff <> Date: July 19, 2022 at 10:51:04 AM CDT To: Brandi Elder <BElder@colleyville.com> Subject: Re 7/19 City Council Mtg Reply-To: Brent Neff <> Dear Council member Elder , Thank you for serving the city of Colleyville. As a resident of Colleyville since 1990 and a resident at 204 John McCain for over 25 years I have certainly seen the importance of well managed growth in our exceptional city. Your service is greatly appreciated. I am writing in hopes that you will see this in time for the 7/19 council meeting and consider my concerns regarding the proposed 50+ lot subdivision adjacent to the Westcoat/McDonwell School Rd round-a-bout. I believe it is described as Case ZC22-020 and is an agenda item for 7/19 meeting. Changing zoning from Estate and Ag zoning to PUD seems counter to the low density and high value uses that have made Northwest Colleyville in such high demand for more estate type properties. But IF the council chooses to consider a development proposal for the "Graystone Manor" acreage, please consider the following concerns. It is well known and documented that Westcoat Dr between John McCain and McDonwell School Rd is a major traffic concern. While the round-a-bouts have helped, there are still almost daily backups at all the effected intersections. The proposed subdivision would add considerable traffic from over 50 households directly into the Westcoat trouble spots and effected intersections. It seems an entrance to the subdivision located at the property's eastern boundary at McDonwell School Rd. (at Cutter Ridge) would direct the traffic from the subdivision to Pleasant Run which is a more appropriate thoroughfare allowing the traffic from the 50+ households quicker access to Colleyville and Colleyville schools and would add less stress to already problematic Westcoat. Please consider that following minimum engineering or traffic flow standards for this project would likely result in major impact on already terrible traffic issues. Not so well known are the drainage and flooding issues in the Westcoat/John McCain areas, The official FEMA maps have been updated recently to confirm that areas along Chapel Creek are in a designated flood hazard area, so the issues are well documented. Chapel Creek runs through Westmont subdivision just west and parallel to Westcoat Dr. The creek is not able to handle current runoff in a heavy rain event and documentation of such can be seen in the updated FEMA map and the hydrology study done for the City of Colleyville by Hallf and Associates engineering. My home at 204 John McCain (and my neighbors home also adjacent to the creek) is now in a designated flood hazard area according to FEMA, largely due to the way Westmont (and Old Grove) subdivision was developed. The retention pond system in Westmont is undersized and poorly placed and allows much more water to move to the creek much more quickly than water did before the Westmont subdivision was built. I lived at 204 John McCain for years before Westmont was developed and flooding was never an issue. My concerns regarding a new development that will discharge even more water more quickly and will multiply the flooding problems and endanger the area and especially my property in particular cannot be overstated. Please consider that following minimum/typical engineering and hydrology standards will likely increase flooding issues along Westcoat, Westmont, John McCain, and Monticello Estates. The size of the retention ponds in the proposed plat and a drainage plan that allows the greater portion of runoff from the new subdivision to be directed to Westcoat/Chapel Creek will likely have similar disastrous effects as the Westmont development had on the area and my property. Please consider these concerns and share any portion of the above that you wish as discussions are had by the council. Please feel free to contact me as well. Thank you. Brent Neff 204 John McCain Rd. 2 Colleyville, TX 76034 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Greystone Manor Protest From: Lauren <> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 10:07 AM To: Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com> Cc: Damon Paulo 🖤 < > Subject: Greystone Manor Protest Hello, My husband, Damon Paulo, and I are protesting the current proposal for Greystone Manor. We live at 6808 Mystic Woods Lane, Colleyville TX 76034. We are aligned with all of the concerns presented by our fellow neighbors in the Oakbrook Hills neighborhood. Sincerely, Lauren Paulo 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Zoning Case ZC22-020 From: Richard Remley <> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2022 1:13 PM To: Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com> Subject: Re: Zoning Case ZC22‐020 Thanks Jerry, We are located just to the south of Victor Dupuy. Thus, I have confirmed that we are within the 200 foot radius zone of the proposed Greystone Manor development. Please ensure that future updated voting maps include our opposition and that it is counted for purposes of whether any City Counsel vote in favor of the development will require a super majority. Also, I recognize that the City Counsel does not have unbridled discretion either way on this matter. Could you point me to where the criteria it will follow is described. Thank you, Richard Remley From: Richard Remley < > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 3:21 PM To: Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com> Subject: Zoning Case ZC22‐020 Dear Mr. Ducay: My wife Valerie and I reside at 6803 Fallbrook Ct in the Oakbrook Hills HOA in Colleyville, TX. We are in the southeast corner of the Fallbrook cul de sac – one house east from being contiguous with the proposed development that is the subject of Zoning Case ZC22‐020. Thus, I am not clear whether we are in the 200‐foot zone or just outside it. Valerie and I support the objections made by others in the Oakbrook Hills HOA, including those related to the need for: A thirty‐foot buffer with landscaping primarily consisting of trees; The proposed fencing being of iron rather than wood; Plans for drainage ensuring that the proposed development does not drain into Oakbrook Hills; An entrance/exit being south of the Westcoat/W. McDonwell School Rd traffic circle, a second entrance/exit being off E. McDonwell School Rd/Pleasant Run, and any second exit off Westcoat being limited to emergencies. Minimum lot size of acre, but should there be smaller lots, they should be distributed equitably throughout the development rather than backing into Stonington; and This to be a PUD‐R project. My failure to specifically list an issue raised by others in our HOA should not be construed as my disagreeing with such. Richard J. Remley, Jr. 6803 Fallbrook Ct. Colleyville, TX 76034 1 Dakari Hill From:Ben Bryner Sent:Friday, June 10, 2022 9:45 AM To:Dakari Hill Subject:FW: Zoning Case ZC22-020 FYI… From: David Scott <> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 9:45 AM To: Ben Bryner <BBryner@colleyville.com> Subject: Zoning Case ZC22‐020 I wish to protest this re-zoning request. I will attend the P&Z Commission Meeting 06/13/2022 in order to amplify my concerns if needed. Please reply that you have received my request. Thank You for your consideration, David A Scott 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Greystone Manor From: Claudia Brummett <> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 5:21 PM To: Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com> Subject: Greystone Manor Mr. Ducay, I live at 6800 Fallbrook Court in Colleyville and would like to protest the proposed development at Greystone Manor. My concerns are the increased traffic on Westcoat Drive (it is already a challenge at times to exit onto Westcoat), drainage and green belt issues. Thank you, Sheri Sinclair 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Greystone Manor From: Valek, Kevin M <> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 11:53 AM To: Christine Loven <cloven@colleyville.com> Cc: Bobby Lindamood <BLindamood@colleyville.com>; Kathy Wheat <KWheat@colleyville.com>; Callie Rigney <CRigney@colleyville.com>; Brandi Elder <BElder@colleyville.com>; George Bond <GBond@colleyville.com>; George Dodson <GDodson@colleyville.com>; Chuck Kelley <CKelley@colleyville.com> Subject: Greystone Manor All, I am writing to disagree with not having an Eastern exit on McDonwell School Rd for the proposed Greystone Manor Development. I do not live on E McDonwell School Rd or Cutter Ridge nor do I live on Westcoat so I am not directly impacted or biased like those residents directly on either side of Greystone who will see the additional cars every day. I have been a Colleyville resident for 8 years on Wagonwheel Ct in far NW Colleyville and use the John McCain/Westcoat intersection/roundabout daily so have seen the impact of various changes to the traffic flow over the years like 100’s of residents who are like me in that corner of Colleyville. While the new roundabouts on Westcoat have improved traffic flow, the efforts by the City of Keller and others to reduce traffic on Bandit Trail to John McCain have worked somewhat and I think increased McDonwell School traffic as a way to get from Davis to 26. Not having any eastern exit will only add more traffic to already congested area on Westcoat. Maybe a traffic study is needed. Besides one of these days Trinity Broadcasting is going to sell more of their land and someone will want to extend Westcoat North into the Overlook development as all that land eventually gets developed. That will make the John McCain/Westcoat intersection a nightmare and we can help alleviate that with an eastern entrance. I know many years ago the McDonwell School road extension was removed from the City plan. But this would not be an full extension connecting the sides but just an exit and likely a gated exit if a gated community. Kevin Kevin M Valek Tax Partner-in-Charge, Southwest Business Unit National Asset Management Leader - Tax KPMG LLP | 2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 1400 | Dallas, Texas 75201 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Cos Marykus Westcoat Dr Development From: kim walton <> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 9:01 PM To: Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com>; Bobby Lindamood <BLindamood@colleyville.com>; Brandi Elder <BElder@colleyville.com>; George Bond <GBond@colleyville.com>; George Dodson <GDodson@colleyville.com>; Chuck Kelley <CKelley@colleyville.com>; Callie Rigney <CRigney@colleyville.com>; kwheat@colleyvill.com Subject: Cos Marykus Westcoat Dr Development I am writing this email to all involved as I will be unable to attend the City Council meeting on July 19th due to illness. I am concerned about some aspects of this planned development though and felt that these concerns needed to be considered and addressed. To begin, the entrance into this area is currently planned for Westcoast Dr. This I am totally opposed to as this road is now absorbing traffic from Colleyville as well as from Keller and North Richland Hills being used as a pass through to Hwy 26. Pleasant Run is a much more viable option given the road does not have direct feeders, as does Westcoat, and in addition is a wider road to handle the increased traffic. If you do not live in this area I strongly urge each of you to travel these roads during the week day rush hour, morning and night, so you know exactly what it is you are voting on. And spend some time discussing this with the Colleyville Police as it wasn't long ago they were in a position of directing traffic and will understand the volume and flow of said traffic. I am also opposed to the smaller lot sizes. These lots should be, at minimum 1/2 acre (app 22K sq ft), which will give a more open appearance helping to maintain what Colleyville states they want with a "country feel". Smaller lots will just give it a more congested feel and detract from what Colleyville has stated they want. I would also like to see the city arborist fully involved to protect the decades old oak trees located around parts of the property. There needs to be a complete drainage study done before anything is considered. This general area has had some flooding issues in the past and natural pasture filled in with concrete may well exacerbate this issue. In this regard, leaving an area or two open as a park (2- 3 acres) may help offset some of the potential drainage issues while also helping to give it a more country feel. Thank you for your time Kim Walton 6320 Westcoat Dr Colleyville TX 76034 Tel: 214 500 0715 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Protest To Proposed Greystone Manor Development Plan - Oakbrook Hills - 6815 Fallbrook Ct. From: Daniel Washburn <> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 7:35 PM To: Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com> Cc: LaDana Washburn <> Subject: FW: Protest To Proposed Greystone Manor Development Plan ‐ Oakbrook Hills ‐ 6815 Fallbrook Ct. Jerry. Thank you for your thoughtful and timely responses to our Oakbrook Hills homeowners about the proposed Greystone Manor. Your understanding of Colleyville policy and process and level of patience is an asset to our citizens and our city council members. We are lodging formal protest with the points of objection or concern. These items were shared by Wilf Cameron on behalf of some members of the Oakbrook Hills homeowner’s association at the Colleyville City Council on July 19, 2022 1. The development plan should provide for at least a 30-foot buffer with landscaping primarily consisting of trees, between the residences on Stonington Lane and the proposed development. This buffer should be land managed and cared for by the homeowners association and be part of the open space requirements required by the PUD zoning classification. The current plan provides for only a 15-foot buffer of undetermined type in some areas and does not appear to provide for any open space. 2. The proposed fencing on the Stonington Lane side of the development should be uniformly iron. The plans appear to call for wooden fencing for part of this segment. 3. Plans for drainage should ensure that the proposed development does not increase water flow into the Oakbrook Hills subdivision. My home at 6815 Fallbrook already has excess water flow through my backyard when it rains, which I have discussed with the City; however no remediation plans were implemented by the City to fix the drainage problems that accumulate in my backyard. 4. Residents of the Westmont development community and Oakbrook Hills Community request a second exit to the new development be placed on McDonwell East as a second access/egress point to the development. The traffic and congestion on Westcoat has become unmanageable and is a safety hazard to people and cars attempting to exit from neighborhoods off of Westcoat. A traffic survey of the McDonwell East and Pleasant Run area is requested to compare the relative traffic burdens of Westcoat and Pleasant Run. We believe the study will show that Westcoat has the heavier burden, and that Pleasant Run would be in a better position to absorb traffic from the new development. 5. Whether or not a secondary exit is made on McDonwell East as requested, landowners need to be certain that the proposed access to the development north of the Westcoat/McDonwell School roundabout will be for emergency/fire access only, as the current plan suggests. Having this access available for day-to-day use would cause significant problems for both developments in exiting onto an already congested Westcoast Dr. 6. The smallest proposed lots back up to Stonington, resulting in 8 lots backing up to Stonington. One or two lots should be taken from the Stonington side and reallocated to other sides of the proposed development, so as to more equitably equalize lot sizes backing up to the various existing developments. 7. Landowners need to be certain that, in connection with the proposed zoning change, the City of Colleyville will require the proposed development to implement every element put forward in the development plan (i.e., the developer will not have the flexibility to alter any of the above items, or other elements of the current development plan, without obtaining a further zoning change). We understand that the current PUD-R zoning proposal requires this, but if the proposed zoning type changes, there must be a similar requirement for the developer to adhere to the plan. 2 Thank you. Daniel & LaDana Washburn 6815 Fallbrook Ct. 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Protest of Greystone Manor development From: John West < > Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:24 PM To: Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com> Cc: Kari Lervick < > Subject: Protest of Greystone Manor development Mr. Ducay, My wife and I reside at 208 Stonington Ln in the Oakbrook Hills development off Westcoat Rd in Colleyville. I'm writing to protest one aspect of the development plan - the entrance/exit off Westcoat Rd. Westcoat Rd is full of traffic congestion, especially during morning and evening rush hour. Westcoat and McDonwell West already serve as a pass-through connecting 26 and Precinct Line/North Tarrant, creating significant congestion at the beginning and end of each workday. We understand that change is inevitable, but we would like to ask the city why McDonwell East could not be used as an entrance/exit into the new private development. Pleasant Run/McDonwell East is a much quiter, less busy road and the prospect of any pass- through traffic to Westcoat would be eliminated, as Greystone Manor is gated. Our request is that the city examine McDonwell East as a viable entry/exit option for Greystone Manor. Thank you for your service to Colleyville. John West and Kari Lervick 208 Stonington Ln Oakbrook Hills 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Greystone Manor Protest From: Corey Wilson <> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 8:06 PM To: Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com> Subject: Greystone Manor Protest Good evening. Please consider this our formal vote. We are protesting the current proposal for Greystone Manor Corey and Laura Wilson 308 Oldenwood Ct Colleyville, TX 76034 Michael & Brenda Capps 6116 Legacy Trail Colleyville, TX 76034 July 19, 2022 City of Colleyville Planning and Zoning Commission 100 Main Street Colleyville, TX 76034 RE: Ordinance 6C July 19, 2022, meeting: O-22-2211 Hat Creek Development, Greystone Manor My wife and I would encourage the Council to vote in favor of the zoning change and plans presented to you in the meeting schedule on July 19, 2022. As a background, my wife and I had the opportunity to purchase a property in The Legacy subdivision developed by Hat Creek Development back in 2017 and have continually been impressed by the professionalism and solid work performed by the Maykus family. In 2019 I had the opportunity to become the first HOA President with many of the homes in the neighborhood under construction and if we ever had a challenge with one of the builders or a question about the subdivision, I saw firsthand that Mr. Maykus and his staff ensured that the challenge or question were immediately addressed and cleared. When Hat Creek developed Legacy North, I saw that again with their company working with each of neighboring subdivisions making sure their questions and concerns were responded to and with the development bringing continuity to Lavaca Trail. The builders they select are bringing quality homes to that subdivision which reflects on Hat Creek that they take time to select high quality, professional builders. You can see that Mr. Maykus and his team takes pride and care of their subdivisions long after the streets are in, and the lots have been sold. Even though we do not live directly beside the proposed subdivision, based on his reputation and the designs presented, I would suggest that this is the best option for that land and the City of Colleyville. We all know that someone will develop the land, the best solution is to have a high quality, high integrity developer such as Hat Creek that has a proven history. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out. Thank you. Michael Capps Michael Capps 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: McDonwell School Road From: Stan Cook <> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 6:28 PM To: dlindamood@colleyville.com; Brandi Elder; Callie Rigney; Chuck Kelley; George Dodson; kwheat@colley.com; George Bond Subject: McDonwell School Road Dear City Council Members We have been residents of Colleyville and Cutter Ridge for over 30 years. We want to voice our serious concerns about the prospect of opening up McDonwell School road from the east. In our minds, whatever benefits are perceived of this project are far outweighed by the huge downsides. The inevitable massive increase in traffic through our quiet neighborhood will affect the safety and comfort of our families, which includes many young children. Our neighborhood is unique, even for Colleyville, with horses and a bridle pathbeing a major part of our lives. We will be losing a safe entry for our horses and riders into the bridle path. We will also lose a safe walkway to Pleasant Run Soccer Complex and the Cottonbelt Trail. The residents of Colleyville have chosen to live here because of the wonderful lifestyle this community provides. We implore you as our elected leaders to reject this life‐changing proposal. Respectfully, Dr. Stan and Barbara Cook 1 Ben Bryner To:Jerry Ducay Subject:RE: GREYSTONE MANOR development From: BJ GF <> Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 2:20 PM To: Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com> Subject: GREYSTONE MANOR development Mr. Ducay, We live at 504 Mcdonwell School Rd on the east side of the proposed development. Track 8 on attached ploy. You encouraged us to put our "two cents" worth in, so here it is. You may thank it is "four cents" when we are finished. Before we start, we are in favor of the design of the current proposed development. There may be an abandoned petroleum pipe line running through the proposed development acreage. It does run through our property (see attached Pleasant Run Estates plot). The pipeline runs from a refinery in Ft. Worth to Saginaw to the tank farm in South Lake. It was the cause of a release(leak) on neighbor's property in 1996 The site(labeled #30980 ) was handled by Natural Resource Conservation Commission, the predecessor to Texas Commission on Environmental Quality(TECQ). The pipeline was controlled by Easy Serve Corp at the time of the release. The Corp went bankrupt, dissolved, and abandoned the pipeline due to the release. This information was obtained from Jose Cheverez, Railroad Commision of Texas, 512‐865‐1579, jose.cheverez@rrc.texas.gov. We have made numerous attempts to obtain information in regards to the release and pipeline from TECQ to no avail. Therefore, we do not know if the pipeline was 'flushed' at the time of abandonment as required by law. We have informed the developer about the pipeline and furnished him with a copy of attached plot. TRAFFIC DENSITY The community on the south side of Mcdonwell School Rd East is equine which uses part of the Rd shoulder as a riding path connector to the path around the community. Any development of The Rd would be detrimental to this use. Mcdonwell School Rd East 'T's into Pleasant Run. At that intersection is Pleasant Run Park(33 acres). The Park is home to a large number of soccer fields that regularly hosts practices and games of children as young as 3 years old. As a safety concern for these children, any increase in traffic will statistically greatly increase risk of injury from vehicles. There is also a church with private school across from this T. Less than a 1/4‐mile south is the Cotton Belt Trail and Railroad intersection with Pleasant Run and LD Lockett. Another 1/4‐mile south is Good Shepard Church and school, which is expanding. Currently, traffic from LD Lockett uses Pleasant Run to reach Tinker or John McCain. These intersections are as busy as intersections on the west side of the development at peak traffic times. An entry/exit of the development on Mcdonwell School Rd East, at a minimum, will require: 2 Acquisition of private property not part of the development. Revamp/development of Mcdonwell School Rd East. Possible relocation of utilities. Redesign of drainage along Rd. The city is requiring two entry/exits into the development. On the east side, there is only access for one entry/exit with the above‐mentioned possibilities. It would be more cost effective to put both entry/exits on the west side. From the traffic view point, it will be the same affect on either side. Also, any requirement for entry/exit on east side will cause this developer to 'walk away'. This could result in a lower tier developer with the possibility of much lower over all property value and loss of revenue for city and GCISD through taxes. Any questions or further discussion, contact us via Email or phone. Gary Fick Becky Cast 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: FW: 6401 Westcoat Rezoning Case From: Bryan Grant < > Date: July 15, 2022 at 12:41:26 CDT To: Kathy Wheat <KWheat@colleyville.com> Subject: 6401 Westcoat Rezoning Case Councilmember Wheat, I am writing to you in regard to the rezoning case located roughly at 6401 Westcoat Drive, Case ZC22‐ 020 from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that occurred on June 13, 2022. I am writing in support of the plan as currently designed and respectfully request you follow the unanimous approval of your planning and zoning commission. My wife and I moved into 6504 Cutter Ridge Ct a few months ago from another home in Colleyville. We are so new to the home, that we were not on the notification list for this item and instead the previous owner is mentioned in the notification list. When looking for a forever home for our family of four plus one more on the way, we knew we would stay in Colleyville because of the rural feel of the neighborhoods while having the proximity to every amenity one could possibly need. We were drawn to the Cutter Ridge neighborhood because of the large lots, quiet street, and the equestrian neighborhood. My wife was raised with horses and my 4‐year‐old daughter has lovingly been asking me when we will be getting a horse of our own since the day we moved in. Our home is at the entrance to the Cutter Ridge neighborhood and our fence borders McDonwell School Rd. Before we made the significant investment of purchasing the home, the first thing we did was look up the master thoroughfare plan to see if McDonwell School Rd was planned to connect to the west in the future, as that traffic increase would drastically change the quality of life that our family would experience. Given that the plan does not show a connection, we decided to move forward with the purchase and family move. We are grateful that the developer is choosing to honor that plan and decision that was made by a previous council to not have a connection of this neighborhood to McDonwell School and is instead including entrances to Westcoat. I am no civil engineer, and in fact am an aggie, so I admittedly am not the smartest in the room no matter what room I am in, but it seems that Westcoat is better suited to handle the traffic increase that would result from this neighborhood given the recently constructed roundabout (which includes a horse statue as a representation of what makes our city unique) and the already existing roundabouts along John McCain. I ask that no matter what final plan you approve, you please do not have a connection to McDonwell School. Our home features an open fence that my daughters could, and do, easily crawl through and if the traffic was increased along that road next to our home, we wouldn’t feel comfortable allowing them to play outside alone like we do now. Also, much to my daughter’s delight, we do plan to get a horse in the future and the access to the bridle path that surrounds the Cutter Ridge neighborhood requires us to walk down McDonwell School Rd. That is not a problem today as there are only two homes to our west but would be a major problem if there was a connection made to this proposed 2 neighborhood. The homes to the east of this development were not designed with that kind of traffic in mind. Today, you can stand in my yard and take a picture that is an exact replica of the City of Colleyville logo, same fence style, trees and horses exist today. Please don’t approve a plan that would go against the logo and what makes Colleyville so great and unique. Thank you for your service to our city and the time and effort you put into your role and decisions. Regards, Bryan Grant 6504 Cutter Rudge Court 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Garrison property From: debbee heldoorn < > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 1:39:42 PM To: Bobby Lindamood Subject: Garrison property We support the project that Kosse Maykus is submitting to the city. Fred and Debbee Heldoorn 205 Stonington Lane Colleyville Tx 76034 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: 6401 Westcoat Drive (Case ZC22-020) From: "Hughes, Thomas" < > Date: July 15, 2022 at 15:05:32 CDT To: Bobby Lindamood <BLindamood@colleyville.com>, Kathy Wheat <KWheat@colleyville.com>, Brandi Elder <BElder@colleyville.com>, George Bond <GBond@colleyville.com>, George Dodson <GDodson@colleyville.com>, Chuck Kelley <CKelley@colleyville.com>, Callie Rigney <CRigney@colleyville.com> Cc: Heidi Hughes < > Subject: 6401 Westcoat Drive (Case ZC22‐020) Dear Colleyville Council, I am writing in support of Case ZC22‐020 (located at 6401 Westcoat Drive). The Planning and Zoning Committee unanimously approved this case on June 13, 2022; I respectfully request your approval as well. My wife and I moved to Colleyville in 2010 after our twin daughters were born. We have owned 4 properties in Colleyville, moving our primary residence to 411 McDonwell School Road East in 2019. We purchased the property from Ms. Garrison, but before closing, we confirmed with city officials there were no plans to ever connect McDonwell School Rd. from the West. While I would prefer the property be left as is, it’s every resident’s right to sell her/his property. I believe Ms. Garrison picked a developer who would not only add value to the property, but also the surrounding homes. Having lived off of Bandit Trail for nearly a decade, I can empathize with the frustration due to increased traffic flow to & from John McCain, Westcoat Drive, & McDonwell School Road West. I applaud Colleyville’s massive investment in traffic circles, sidewalks, and road widening. However, any suggestion to relocate the development’s ingress or egress to McDonwell School Road East would require demolition, road widening, utility replacement and many other capital improvements that have already been put in place on Westcoat Drive. McDonwell School Road East is a blacktopped farm road with large Oak trees lined by homes built in the 1980s and no sidewalks. On a personal note, any renovation to build an entrance or exit would be less than 200 feet from my front door, through a good portion of my front yard. My wife & I arguably have the most to lose if the entrance is move to the East side. If the roles were reversed, I would NEVER suggest a developer plow through a fellow resident’s front yard to avoid a few extra cars per day while attempting to make a right or left hand turn out of a community. I support Case ZC22‐020 as proposed with ingress and egress on Westcoat Drive. I appreciate your attention and look forward to the discussion on July 19th. 2 Thank you for your service to Colleyville. Sincerely, Thomas Hughes 411 McDonwell School Road 3908 Allendale Street 1 Ben Bryner To:Jerry Ducay Subject:RE: Greystone meeting From: Heidi Hughes < > Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2022 11:35 PM To: Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com>; Bobby Lindamood <BLindamood@colleyville.com>; Kathy Wheat <KWheat@colleyville.com>; Brandi Elder <BElder@colleyville.com>; George Bond <GBond@colleyville.com>; George Dodson <GDodson@colleyville.com>; Chuck Kelley <CKelley@colleyville.com>; Callie Rigney <CRigney@colleyville.com> Subject: Greystone meeting Greetings! My name is Heidi Hughes, and I am writing on behalf of the residents who live on the East side of the newly proposed PUD, Greystone Manor. As I'm sure you are aware, there are twenty households who have signed a letter in support of the development, and we plan to be at the council meeting on July 19th to share our thoughts about why it's critical we get this right. We are in a unique situation because this development has the potential to adversely affect our households and property values, most specifically, the homes on McDonwell School Rd. E. Unlike other communities to the north, where the Greystone entrance is currently designed 1100+ feet from their STREET, that same entrance, if put on the East, would be around 200 feet from our FRONT DOOR. It's essential to make that distinction. Further, I believe the developer Mr. Makus, will also tell you how creating the entrance from the East would be a mistake. I also believe that in a low‐density community like Greystone, people on the west side and north of the traffic circle would not even notice a difference in traffic. The number of additional cars simply wouldn't be great enough. Comparatively, the homes on the east would see a substantial change, as the Greystone entry and traffic would literally be out our front windows. Communities like Westmont and Oakbrook will see their property values go up with Greystone Manor down the street from them. In contrast, if there is an East entry, the property values on McDonwell School Rd. will undoubtedly go down. We see this PUD as an opportunity to do something wonderful on that land. If we let this pass us by, and a high‐end developer like Kosse Maykus walks away, we must prepare ourselves for what comes next. I personally know that Julianna Garrison spends 1M+ a year in taxes and maintenance on empty land. It is not sustainable, or smart for her to continue paying high dollar amounts to provide neighboring homes a great view out their back windows. We understand that there will be city staff and some council members meeting with our northern neighbors on July 11th to discuss concerns and answer questions from residents. Are households from the east able to attend that meeting or would you prefer to meet with us separately? We value our community and respect our neighbors. We all want what's best for Colleyville and look forward to sharing our thoughts and concerns with you. 2 Thank you, Heidi Hughes 411 McDonwell School Rd. E. 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Greystone Manor From: Jody Short <> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 4:14 PM To: Ben Bryner <BBryner@colleyville.com> Subject: Greystone Manor Ben, Hope you are doing well. I wanted to pass along a few thoughts on the proposed Greystone Manor development. While the current thoroughfare plan does not include the extension of McDonwell School Road form Westcoat to Pleasant Run, providing a connection would benefit many residents in Northwest Colleyville by providing traffic relief to John McCain Road and the White/Shelton route to Pleasant Run. At the very least, a pedestrian/bike connection should be provided that would allow new residents of Gerystone Manor and residents along the McDonwell School Road corridor to access the soccer complex, CES and other uses along Pleasant Run via a more direct routing. Thank you for your consideration and for passing this along to the city council. Jody Short 7703 Jefferson 1 Dakari Hill From:Ben Bryner Sent:Monday, June 13, 2022 8:07 AM To:Dakari Hill Subject:FW: Greystone Manor And another… From: Mallie Story <> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2022 12:53 PM To: Ben Bryner <BBryner@colleyville.com>; Jackie Reyff <JReyff@colleyville.com> Subject: Greystone Manor Hi all, We are in full support of the Greystone Manor development done by Maykus. My husband and I purchased our first home here in Colleyville in 2018 and appreciate all of the work our city has done to make us continual fall further in love. The previous projects in the community that Maykus’ has done have only added value and beauty to our city. We hope to be new residents in the Greystone Manor development. Mallie and Trevor Story 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Supporting Greystone Manor with NO Eastern Access From: Williams, Tom G (BNSF) <> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2022 3:17 PM To: Bobby Lindamood <BLindamood@colleyville.com>; Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com> Cc: sherrylisawilliams Subject: Supporting Greystone Manor with NO Eastern Access Mayor Lindamood and City Manager Ducay – My wife Sherry and I recently moved into our new home at 6900 Pleasant Run Rd. We are long‐time Colleyville residents, having lived in Remington Park for several years prior to building here on Pleasant Run. We are very familiar with the property that will be developed into Greystone Manor – having driven and even walked back and forth so many times from our Remington Park house to our new homesite. I was just informed today that there is a push to have the access to that property be on the eastern side through to Pleasant Run, which I honestly would not have even thought was feasible given that the primary frontage to that property is on Westcoat. I am sure many of my neighbors who share the property here along Pleasant Run have already weighed in, but am sending this to share our concern with this eastern access concept. While we are supportive of the development, we certainly would be very concerned if it pushed through to Pleasant Run. Appreciate your hearing our concern. Thank you and best regards, Tom and Sherry Williams 1 Ben Bryner Subject:RE: Greystone Manor Letter of Support From: Bryan Yelverton < > Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 7:13 AM To: Jerry Ducay <JDucay@colleyville.com> Subject: Greystone Manor Letter of Support Mr. Ducay - I am writing to to voice my support for the proposed Greystone Manor development. I am a resident at 708 Lyndsey Way, Colleyville Texas 76034 in the original Legacy Development. The property of interest, will undoubtedly, be developed and I would prefer a custom home builder with a proven track record in Colleyville rather than a National Home builder. The quality of homes built needs to be taken into account and, as evidence by The Legacy and The Legacy 2, these are quality built homes that will add value to the city of Colleyville. Please approve proposed development. Sincerely, Bryan C. Yelverton MD, FASE Partner, Arlington Division US Anesthesia Partners (USAP) ORDINANCE O-22-2211 AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING ON 59.47 ACRES TRACT 1B, ABSTRACT 1487, O C STURM SURVEY, TRACTS 2A01, 2A01B, 2A07A, AND 2A07A1, ABSTRACT 1748, JAMES E. WEATHERS SURVEY, LOTS 1 AND 1A, BLOCK 1, K BAR G ESTATES ADDITION, LOT 1A, BLOCK 1, WESTCOAT ESTATES, AND LOTS 1A2, 1B, AND 1C, BLOCK 1, HILLEY ADDITION, LOCATED AT 6401, 6405, 6409, 6417, 6501, 6507, AND 6605 WESTCOAT DRIVE FROM THE AG AGRICULTURAL AND RE SINGLE FAMILY ‘ESTATE’ RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO THE PUD-R PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT–RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City of Colleyville has received an application for a rezoning under Case No. ZC22-020; 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 amend the City’s zoning ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, has given reasonable consideration to, among other things, the character of the City’s zoning 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 City Council is of the opinion that the change in zoning provided for herein should be made, in compliance with the City Charter, and state law with reference to changes to zoning classifications under the City’s zoning ordinance and zoning map, having given the requisite notices required by law and having held public hearings affording all interested persons and property owners a full and fair opportunity to be heard. 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. Ordinance O-22-2211 Page 2 of 6 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 59.47 acres, being Tract 1B, Abstract 1487, O C Sturm Survey, Tracts 2A01, 2A01B, 2A07A, and 2A07A1, Abstract 1748, James E. Weathers Survey, Lots 1 and 1A, Block 1, K Bar G Estates Addition, Lot 1A, Block 1, Westcoat Estates, and Lots 1A2, 1B, And 1C, Block 1, Hilley Addition, located at 6401, 6405, 6409, 6417, 6501, 6507, and 6605 Westcoat Drive from the AG Agricultural and RE Single Family ‘Estate’ Residential zoning district to the PUD-R Planned Unit Development–Residential zoning district, as depicted in the attached Exhibit “A” and 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 PUD-R is to allow for a single family residential development of detached dwelling units. b. The 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, labeled as Exhibit “C”, which shall not be considered the preliminary plat. The actual street and lot arrangement may differ from that shown on Exhibit “C” to accommodate topographic, drainage, engineering design limitations or other conditions. 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 PUD-R. Ordinance O-22-2211 Page 3 of 6 3. PERMITTED USES a. Single family residences, detached; limited to no more than 56 lots as shown on the attached Development Plan. b. Common open space areas. 4. RESIDENTIAL LOT REQUIREMENTS AND SETBACKS Single family detached residential lot requirements and setbacks shall comply with the following R-20 zoning district and subject to the following provisions: a. Minimum Lot Size 25 lots of 20,000 s.f. (average about 38,781 s.f.); nine lots of 30,000 s.f.; and 22 lots of 40,000 s.f. b. Minimum Lot Width 100 feet, measured at building setback line, except pie- shaped cul-de-sac lots 43-46, in which case the minimum shall be as shown on the Development Plan. c. Front Building Line 30 feet back of property line. d. Side Building Line 10 feet. e. Rear Building Line 25 feet. f. Street-facing Side Yard Side yard setbacks on the street side of a corner lot, fronting on another street, shall be 20’, except for “key” lots which shall match the front setback of adjacent lots, as shown on the Development Plan. g. Minimum House Size 4,500 square feet. 5. Open Space a. This development shall provide not less than 5.18% common open space, which shall generally be configured as shown on Exhibit “C”. All open space areas shall be landscaped and maintained by the Homeowner’s Association. Ordinance O-22-2211 Page 4 of 6 b. All amenities within the open space areas shall be maintained by the Homeowner’s Association. 6. SCREENING a. Perimeter fencing and screening shall be in compliance with the Wall/Fence Diagram included and shown on the Development Plan, labeled as Exhibit “C”. b. Wood fencing between lots is not permitted. All front elevation fences, from the front of the house to the side property line, shall be open style fencing of decorative metal, and/or masonry. All lots adjacent to a Common Open Space shall be open style fencing of decorative metal, and/or Masonry. c. Where lots back to existing residential lots with fences, the existing fence shall be kept, maintained or improved in coordination with each owner, as shown in the diagram on the Development Plan and associated detailed diagrams. Where open space lots border adjacent properties, either the existing fence will be maintained or improved, or a decorative masonry or metal fence will be installed, all in cooperation with the adjacent property owner, according to the detailed plans submitted with zoning. 7. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES a. The dominant exterior vertical wall area of each structure, exclusive of doors and windows, shall be masonry (brick, stone, or stucco over CMU block) or other material solely determined by the Committee. No more than 20% of the exterior vertical wall to be authentic lath and stucco application over wood framing. Dryvit systems or Styrofoam products are not acceptable. b. Garage Standard – Minimum of a three-car garage with wood-like, architecturally enhanced doors. c. Minimum Roof Pitch – Minimum of a 10:12 roof pitch unless architecturally required to vary, based on home style. Ordinance O-22-2211 Page 5 of 6 d. Windows – No aluminum windows allowed in the subdivision, only windows of higher quality and every efficiency will be allowed. All windows will be insulated glass with a “low-e” specification. 8. OTHER a. A minimum of two (2) three-inch (3”) caliper trees shall be planted within the front yard of each lot by the homebuilder upon construction of a new home, unless quality existing trees are present and saved. b. Street Design Standards: o Right-Of-Way: Fifty feet (50’) (Undivided) o Travel Lane Width: Thirty-two, one half feet (32.5’), back of curb to back of curb o Turning Radii: Fifteen feet (15’) 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. Ordinance O-22-2211 Page 6 of 6 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 July 2022. The second reading and public hearing being conducted on the 2nd day of August 2022. PASSED AND APPROVED BY A VOTE OF ___ AYES, ___ NAYS, ON THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2022. Mayor Bobby Lindamood Aye Mayor Pro Tem Kathy Wheat Aye Brandi Elder, Place 1 Aye George Bond, Place 2 Aye George Dodson, Place 4 Aye Chuck Kelley, Place 5 Aye Callie Rigney, Place 6 Aye ATTEST: CITY OF COLLEYVILLE Christine Loven, TRMC Bobby Lindamood City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Whitt Wyatt City Attorney Exhibit “A” – Location and Zoning Map Exhibit “B” – Statement of Planning Objectives Exhibit “C” –Development Plan Exhibit “D” – Landscaping Plans SPEAKER CARD Date: J I Agenda Item Number: 2cZ Item must be completed! For example: 5a (this can be found on the far /eft side of the agenda cove) Do you have special technology needs, such as loading photos, connecting a laptop or tablet, during your time to speak? yes No I wills speak In Support pport of this item. V I will speak In Opposition to this item. I do not wish to speak, but please record my: support opposition Y I ) I Name: 1iy I Y\q ka 1111(2 n Address: City: I understand I am limited to speaking for rive minutes. For agenda items not listed on the agenda as a Public Hearing, City Council cannot respond to speakers in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551 of the Texas Local Government Code. This includes persons speaking under the Citizen's Comments semen of the agenda. Signed: This is a Public Record SPEAKER CARD IVA Date: �� ✓ Z Agenda Item Number: *— Item must be completed! For example: Sa (this can be found on the far left side of the agenda copy) Do you have special technology needs, such as loading,.photos, connecting a laptop or tablet, during your time to speak? . Yes T7 No I will speak In Support of this item. -2�,_I will speak In Opposition to this item. I do not wish to speak, but please record my: support opposition Name: l Address: A6 �f �� City: I understand I am limited to speaking for Five minutes, For agenda items not listed on the agenda as a Public Hearing, City Council cannot respond to speakers in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551 of the Texas Local Government Code, This includes persons speaking under the Citizen's Comments section of the agenda. Signed: information is a Public Record SPEAKER CARD Date:. >� 7 Agenda Item Number: / *-- Item must be completed! For example: Sa (this can be found on the far left side of the agenda copy) Do you have special technology needs, such as loadin hotos, connecting a laptop or tablet, during your time to speak? Yes 77 No I will speak In Support of this item. *—I will speak In Opposition to this item. I do not wish to speak, but please rec*d my: support Name: Address: City: opposition LL�6 I understand I am limited to speaking for five minutes. For agenda items not listed on the agenda as a Public Hearing, City Council cannot respond to speakers in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Law, apter 551 of the Texas Local Government Code. This includes persons speaking under the Cit" en Comments seen of the agenda. Signed: is a Public Record SPEAKER CARD j Date: �. � %� V Agenda Item Number: _ `f Item must be completed! For example: Sa (this can be found nn the s _ ._x. _ --- Do you have special technology needs, such as loading photos, connecting a laptop or tablet, during your time to speak? yes s No I will speak In Support of this item. I will speak In Op position pposition to this item. I do not wish to speak, but please record m l I IJ4 r1, ,/4 V „ / Y� support opposition Name: Address: �it Y�Yt2L'6 b 7 I . '/ City: L° MililF'� I understand I am limited to speaking for five minutes. For agenda items not listed on the agenda as a Public Hearing, City Council cannot respond to speakers in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551 of the Texas Local Government Code. This includes persons speaking under the CitizenIs Crmmentsisection of the agenda Signed: This information is a Public Record jj SPEAKER CARD Date: � � 1al �-� Agenda Item Number: -9&—r._ Item must be completed! For example: Sa fthis can ha Do you have special technology needs, such as loading photos, connecting a laptop or tablet, during your time to speak? Yes No I will speak In Support of this item. I will speak In -- P Opposition to this item. I do not wish to speak, but please record my: - -r support opposition Name: 1 �t11 `�_�Sc, Address: S�FY7�� �(L� City: UtL1l� I understand I am limited to speaking for rive minutes. For agenda items not listed on the agenda as a Public Hearing, City Council cannot respond to speakers in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551 of the Texas Local Government Code. This includes persons speaking under the Citizen's Comments section of the agenda. Signed: his information is a Public Record l SPEAKER CARD Date: ✓ )S Agenda Item Number: ��` Item must be completed! For example: 5a this can he fnimef ,,......- r _ ,_r _ _ , Do you have special technology needs, such as loading hotos, connecting a laptop or tablet, during your time to speak? yes No I will speak In Support of this item.I will speak In Op position pposition to this item. I do not wish to speak, but please record MY: support opposition Name: T�1 1,,(,0rA I A 11 .� Address: ��� �nlPi�i bt t�✓1 F_ '� City: I understand I am limited to speaking for t<ve minutes. For agenda items not listed on the agenda as a public Hearing, City Council cannot respond to speakers /n accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Law, Chapter 5sl of the Texas Local Government Code, This includes persons speaking under the CitJ ends Comments secgon of the agenda, Signed —jurmarion is a Public Record SPEAKER CARD Date: `LG LZ Agenda Item Number: `1_U_ *- Item must be completed! For example: Sa (this can be found on the far left side of the agenda cony) Do you have special technology needs, such as loading ' hotos, connecting a laptop or tablet, during your time to speak? Yes 77 No ✓ I will speak In Support of this item. I will speak In Opposition to this item. I do not wish to speak, but please record my: support opposition Name: SVe-elo&Nffle�\sy,cA- A ddress: (o 4162 oju- er RIA02 '+ City: I understand I am limited to speaking for Five minutes. For agenda items not listed on the agenda as a Public Hearing, City Council cannot respond to speakers in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551 of the Texas Local Government Code. This includes persons speaking under the Citizen's Comments section of the agenda. Signed: This is a Public Record IJ V SPEAKER CARD Date: UG' S E ZO Z Z Agenda Item Number: Z-4 Item must be completed! For example: 5a this can be fnnndl " +A. o _ Y—xa Do you have special technology needs, such as loading ph�atos, connecting a laptop or tablet, during your time to speak? yes L/ No I will speak In Support of this item. I will speak In Op position pposition to this item. I do not wish to speak, but please record my: r Name: Address: support Opposition I understand I am limited to speaking for five minutes. For agenda items not Listed on the agenda as a Public Hearin City Council cannot respond to speakers in accordance with the Texas open Meetings Law, ap er 551 of the Texas Local Government Code. This includes persons speaking under the Cit"I n's amrj/e is section of the aaPnde Signed is a Public Record SPEAKER CARD Date• ,e • S P�C��lo2 a`t Agenda Item Number: A&c- Item must be completed! For example: 5a (this can be found on the far left side of the agenda copy) Do you have special technology needs, such as loading photos, connecting a laptop or tablet, during your time to speak? Yes V No NE �r haVe a �u�sf�`oa (mil ��csn6r or9c<ifh r c��%Riiolzp��d I will speak In Support of this item. I will speak In Opposition to this item. I do not wish to speak, but please record my: support opposition I r + rl Name Address: 00Q 9 City: I understand I am limited to speaking for five minutes. For agenda items not listed on the agenda as a Public Hearing, City Council cannot respond to speakers in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551 of the Texas Local Government Code. This includes persons speaking under the Citizerj's Comments section of the aaenda., Signed: This informion is a Public Record SPEAKER CARD Date: 9 -1 77— Agenda Item Number: ZA * Item must be completed! For example: Sa (this can be found on the far Jeff side of the agenda copy) Do you have special technology needs, such as loading p otos, connecting a laptop or tablet, during your time to speak? Yes No Ll I will speak In Support of this item. I will speak In Opposition to this item. I do not wish to speak, but please record my: support opposition Name: fit/ %lLry Address: �501 C V11r R 12t1 C 1 City: I understand I am limited to speaking for five minutes. For agenda items not listed on the agenda as a Public Hearing, City Council cannot respond to speakers in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551 of the Texas Local Government Code. This includes persons speaking under the Citizen's Comments section of the agenda. Signed: This information is a Public Record Date: 4' 10 SPEAKER CARD ,/ /� f I �� Agenda Item Number: .+--- Item must be completed! For example: 5a (this can be found on the far left side of the agenda copy) Do you have special technology needs, such as loading photos, connecting a laptop or tablet uring your time to speak? Yes No I will speak In Support of this item. I will speak In Opposition to this item. I do n t wish ��toff speak, but please record my Name: Z%U`�- .�LC( h IA, - Address: W support opposition �'�IlAWJe I(� I understand I am limited to speaking for five minutes. For agenda items not listed on the agenda as a Public Hearing, City Council cannot respond to speakers in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551 of the Texas Local Government Code. This includes persons speaking under the Citizen's Comments section of the agenda. Signed: s This init"brmation is a Public Record n Date: SPEAKER CARD Agenda Item Number. Item must be completed! For example: Sa (this can be found on the far left side of the agenda copy) Do you have special technology needs, such as loading photos, connecting a laptop or tablet, during your time to speak? Yes No I will speak In Support of this item. lzn will speak In Opposition to this item. I Name: Address: but please record my: support opposition �-/ i rv'6-e city: G I understand I am limited to speaking for five minutes. For agenda items not listed on the agenda as a Public Hearing, City Council cannot respond to speakers in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551 of he Texas Local Government Code. This includes persons speaking under the Citi3en's Commentsctign of the agenda. Signed: K information is a Public Record SPEAKER CARD Date: Agenda Item Number: -o.-- Item must be completed! For example: Sa (this can be found on the far left side of the agenda copy) Do you have special technology needs, such as loadin tos, connecting a laptop or tablet, during your time to speak? Yes No I will speak In Support of this item. I will speak In Opposition to this item. I do not wish to speak, but please record my: support opposition Name: � 1/C c f Address: �' �� T 0 l� City: re;' I understand I am limited to speaking for rive minutes. For agenda items not listed on the agenda as a Public Hearing, City Council cannot respond to speakers in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551 of the Texas Local Government Code. This includes persons speaking under the Citizen's Comments section of the aaenda. Signed: is informat o 's a Public Record l j SPEAKER CARD a Date: G Agenda item Number: *_ Item must be completed! For example: 59(this can be found nn #ism f�. .._ Do you have special technology needs, such as loading photos, connecting a laptop or tablet, during your time to speak? yes v No D I wills speak In Su ' '�S e I&`_;y /0 ©P&LED P Support of this item. I will speak In Opposition to this item. I do not wish to speak, but please record m r , Y support opposition Name: Address: City: CD - I understand i am li , ed to speaking for five minutes. For agenda items not listed on the agenda as a Public Hearin; C ty Co u cannot respond to speakers in accordance with the Texas open Meetings Law, Ch�pt r 551 f the Texas Local Government Code, This includes persons speaking under the Citize U/" mm is sectigngf the agenda, Signed:( T information is a Pub%ic Record SPEAKER CARD VIZ Dater Agenda Item Number: aa' Item must be completed! For example: Sa this can be found on the far leftside of the agenda copy) Do you have special technology needs, such as loading photos, connecting a laptop or tablet, during your time to speak? yes No ✓� I will speak In Support of this item. � I will speak In Opposition to this item. I do not wish to speak, but please record my: support opposition Name: r Address: Svc} 14edan,-clf 5Aegg1 /J city: I understand I am limited to speaking for rive minutes. For agenda items not listed on the agenda as a Public Hearing, City Council cannot respond to speakers in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551 of the Texas Local Government Code. This includes persons speaking under the Citizen's omm is section of the agenda. Signed: This information is a Public Record Date: / <'- Zf �_ Agenda Item Number: For example: 5a this cai SPEAKER CARD * Item must be completed! Do you have special technology needs, such as loading photos, connecting a laptop or tablet, during your time to speak? yes No I will speak In Support of this item. N - I will speak In Opposition to this item. I do not wish to speak, Name Address: ;e record my: su I (? ( Li < V City: \i Opposition a understand a am limited o speaking for Five minutes. For agenda items not l listed on the agenda M a MeePubtings L Hearing, City Council cannot respond to speakers in accordance with the Texas open Meetings Law, Chapter 551 of the Texas Local Government Code, This includes persons speaking under the Citizen's Comme is section of the agenda. Signed: This information is a Public Record SPEAKER CARD Date: 2 Agenda Item Number: 4Item must be completed! For example: 5a (this can be found on the far left side of the agenda copy) Do you have special technology needs, such as loading photos, connecting a laptop or tablet, during your time to speak? Yes f/•"IVo I will speak In Support of this item. 4�1 will speak In Opposition to this item. I do not wish to spec Name: record my: support opposition Address: 6!700 �p�� rY %L •�c✓ City: I understand I am limited to speaking for five minutes. For agenda items not listed on the agenda as a Public Hearing, City Co if cannot respond to speakers in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Law, Chapter51 the Te s Local Govent Code, This includes persons speaking under the Citi2m s Co a is .ae .r: n s+Fa: ---- Sig Public Date: 9 1� SPEAKER CARD Agenda Item Number- 0- - --- Item must be completed) For example: Sa (this can be found on the far left side of the agenda copy) Do you have special technology needs, s ch as loadin hotos, connecting a laptop or tablet, during your time to speak? Yes No Name: I will speak In Support of this item I will speak In Opposition to this item. I do not wish to speak, but please record my: support 0000sition Address I understand I am limited to speaking for Five minutes. For agenda items not listed an the agenda as a Public Hearing, City Council cannot respond to speakers in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551 of the Texas Local Government Code. This includes persons speaking under the Citgreg's Comments section of the agenda. . Signed: This information is a Public Record SPEAKER CARD Date: A I I q I ZI-12, Agenda Item Number: C .- Item must be completed! For example: Sa (this can be found on the far left side of the agenda copy) Do you have special technology needs, such as loading photos, connecting a laptop or tablet, during your time to speak? Yes No I will speak In Support of this item. —_LI will speak In Opposition to this item. I do not wish to speak, but please record my: support opposition I►fT73 Address: & Sa)a Wes+- Og - Dr. City: t � �t✓�I �/ I understand I am limited to speaking for rive minutes. For agenda items not listed on the agenda as a Public Hearing, City Council cannot respond to speakers in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551 of the Texas Local Government Code. This includes persons speaking under the Citizen's Comments section of the agenda. Signed: This information is a Public Record V SPEAKER CARD Date: Agenda Item Number: *-- Item must be completed! For example: Sa (this can be found on the far left side of the agenda copy) Do you have special technology needs, such as loading photos, connecting a laptop or tablet, during your time to speak? Yes No ������/ I will speak In Support of this item. I will speak In Opposition to this item. I do not wish to speak, but please record my: support opposition Name: ✓!U %LF- o1;r 46-R(,/v1V Address: 3 G q s(d iy,1 & 1�,W LAWe City: C d L t& yu/llt�7 I understand I am limited to speaking for five minutes. For agenda items not listed on the agenda as a Public Hearing, City Council cannot respond to speakers in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Law, ChaTo ter 551 the Texas Local Government Code. This includes persons speaking under the Citizenme t�section of the agenda. Signed: This information is a Public Record SPEAKER CARD Date: Z Agenda Item Number: -Z_ f— Item must be completed! For example: Sa (this can be found on the far left side of the agenda cony) Do you have special technology needs, such as loading ph tos, connecting a laptop or tablet, during your time to speak? Yes No I will speak In Support of this item. I will speak In Opposition to this item. ...._................ . "T do not wish to s; p�k�but please record my: support � opposition Name: Address: qU-a �l E i I C�r%� city: I understand I am limited to speaking for five minutes. For agenda items not listed on the agenda as a Public Hearing, City Council cannot respond to speakers in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551 of the Texas Loc I Government Code. This includes persons speaking under the Citizen's CpMments sect�ioq of the Zenda, Signed: information is a Public Record SPEAKER CARD Date: Agenda Item Number: Z *.— Item must be completed! For example: Sa (this can be found on the far left side of the agenda cony) Do you have special technology needs, such as loading photos, connecting a laptop or tablet, during your time to speak? Yes Y No I will ��_speak-I Support of this item. I will speak In Opposition to this item. I do not wish to speak, but please record my: support opposition Name: Address: y O C. Y-f C� ((� City: n �e S U I understand I am limited to speaking for five minutes. For agenda items not listed on the agenda as a Public Hearing, City Council cannot respond to speakers in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551 of the Texas Local Government Code. This includes persons speaking under the Citizen's Comments se\ion of the agenda. l r Signed: This information is a SPEAKER CARD Date: I a(9� Agenda Item Number: Z,C as —em must be completed! For example: Sa (this can be found on the far left side of the agenda cony) Do you have special technology needs, such as loading photos, connecting a laptop or tablet, during your time to speak? . Yes -X— No I will speak In Support of this item. -�LI will speak In Opposition to this item. I do not wish to speak, but pl se record my: support opposition Name: l f 1 l liC( c� l me aolp Address: 30c) ot onr�n�fcd1--�✓�e City: I understand I am limited to speaking for rive minutes. For agenda items not listed on the agenda as a Public Hearing, City Council cannot respond to speakers in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Law, Chaptyy s1 f the Texas Local Government Code. This includes persons speaking under the Citizen s ¢ommen s section of the 15pnda. Signed: C rr This inform` ion is a Public Record SPEAKER CARD Date: - ) q as Agenda Item Number: -+ — Item must be completed! For example: Sa (this can be found on the far left side of the agenda copy) Do you have special technology needs, such as loading photos, connecting a laptop or tablet, during your time to speak? Yes �e// No I will speak In Support of this item. I will speak In Opposition to this item. II- do not wish to speak, but please record my: support ✓ opposition Narne:` 6l&G l - C? LM G )elr J-,j Address: _��:nl (�,e� IZ city: I understand I am limited to speaking for rive minutes. For agenda items not listed on the agenda as a Public Hearing, City Council cannot respond to speakers in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551 of the Texas Local Government Code, This includes persons speaking under the Citizen's ComMknts section of the agenda, . Signed: This information is a Public Record SPEAKER CARD Date: 0 %'- / 1— 2-1— Agenda Item Number: 4— Item must be completed! For example: 5a (this can be found on the far left side of the agenda cony) Do you have special technology needs, such as loading photos, connecting a laptop or tablet, during your time to speak? Yes ✓ No I will speak In Support of this item. I will speak In Opposition to this item. V I do not wish to speak, but please record my: support V opposition Name: IMa I I n W CrJe2ti Address: Sdt I" I 9i bh Wet( 5dwI lea City: V, I understand I am limited to speaking for rive minutes. For agenda items not listed on the agenda as a Public Hearing, City Council cannot respond to speakers in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551 of the Texas Local Government Code. This includes persons speaking under the Citizen's Comments section of the agenda. Signed:-4 �A10,A This information is a Public Record