Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning Commission-Minutes-11/13/2000 Planning & Zoninb Commission Minutes - Nove~ber 13,2000 Page 1 of 22 - Approved on 11/27/00 as submitted. The regular m~~ting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Hart at 7:00 P.ry1. on October 23, 2000. Roll Call: Present: Tom Hart, Jo Ann Gasper, Luann Edwards, Joe Hocutt, Mark Hollis, Jeffrey Wall, Bryan Hill Clayton Husband, Tom Niederauer, Jan Levy, Mike Soab Staff: Invocation: Commissioner Hill Approval of Mi~utes: October 23,2000 I Commissionet Gasper moved to approve the minutes of October 23rd meeting as written. Commissioner Wall seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: !asper, Edwards, Hocutt, Hollis, Wall, Hart Noes: one Abstained: . ill 1. PUBLIC H$RING - A Zoning Change requested by Kelye B. Stites, from R20 & R40 to R20 with a Speci~1 Use Permit for private horse stables for domestic use and an accessory building to be used $s a barn on 2.4086 acres at 4501 Bowman Road. Case S-00-079 I Clayton Husba~d explained the two parts of the zoning change request. He told them about the purpose of the izoning change and then the reason for the special use permit for private horse stables. Chairman Hart Iquestioned the letter from a neighbor regarding drainage and asked if it has any effect on the re~oning of the property. Mr. Husband told the Commission that the letter was for informational p~rposes only and was forwarded on to the engineering department. Commissioner Edwards questioned the width of the long narrow portion of the lot and asked what the lot width requirements were for R40 zoning versus R20 requirements. Chairman Hart 'opened the Public Hearing. Those present wishing to speak were: Ben Johnson, 1712 Oak Knoll Drive. He objected to the R20 zoning and said that he has no problems with !the use, just the down zoning. He said that he has seen with the growth in Colleyville the ~emise of large lots. He recommended that the applicant seek a variance to the building setbaclks rather than having an R20 lot in an area that is mostly R40. Frank Rails, 4~04 Bowman Drive. He said that the house on the property has been there for a very long time ~nd was there before he moved to the area 20 years ago. He said that he would prefer keeping IR40 along the entire length of Bowman Drive. Pete Cline, 16P9 Oak Knoll said that he is against the zoning change, but would support a variance. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 13, 2000 Page 2 of 22 - Approved on 11/27/00 as submitted. Kelly Stites, applicant. He explained the purpose of the zoning change and stated that he is planning on building one house and a barn on the 2.2 acres and he needs a 10' side yard setback on one side. There being no one else present wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gasper moved to recommend the zoning change to R20. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Gasper, Edwards, Wall, Hill, Hart Noes: Hiocutt, Hollis 2. PUBLIC HEARING - Discussion and consideration of amending the Master Thoroughfare Plan by closing Wyatt Drive. Case G-00-016 Tom Niederauer presented the case to the Commission. He told them about the meeting that was held with the neighbors along Wyatt and in the Ross Downs V subdivision. He spoke about the issues associated with the proposed Broughton subdivision and the Master Plan indication for Wyatt Drive and Sanders Lane. He said that the fire department and the police department to not depart from the Master Plan. Mr. Niederauer said that it would become more difficult to develop property on Sanders as commercial without a better through access. The Commission spoke about the past use of Wyatt Drive and if it had ever been used as a street. Commissioner Edwards said that it had always been a dirt road. She gave the history of the abandonment Of a portion of the roadway when Ross Downs was developed and also spoke about the abandonment of Caldwell Hughes Road. The Commission discussed the potential development of a commercial district along Sanders Lane. Commissioner Wall spoke about placing a barricade on Reynolds. Commissioner Edwards said that she has a problem with closing off any streets as the City is beginning to experience problems with areas not connecting when they should. She told the Commission about how Highland Hills Lane was supposed to become a through street to the north, but when the property to the north developed they neighbors did not want a connection and it became a dead end street. Fire Chief Mike Johnston answered questions by the Commission and told his reasoning to not remove Wyatt Drive from the Master Thoroughfare Plan. Commissioner Wall asked about possible gate access that allows entry to Reynolds Drive. Chief Johnston said that there is no turnaround and if there was room to make it a cul-de-sac that could be an option but gates will delay access and response for an emergency. Commissioner Edwards reminded the Commission that there are two dwellings on Wyatt Drive that require access through Reynolds. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Those present wishing to speak were: Ed Grossly, 2008 Reynolds Drive. He said that they had an emergency on Reynolds and a fireman said that the fire department can't bring a fire truck up Wyatt Drive. He said that the Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 13, 2000 Page 3 of 22 - Approved on 11/27/00 as submitted. commercial property owners and the citizens are in favor of closing Reynolds from Wyatt Drive. Michael Nooney, 2004 Reynolds Drive. He said that all of the properties along Industrial Blvd. are industrial. He said that Ross Downs and Reynolds Drive create a residential environment to the corner of Sanders. He said that if the loop is completed it allows industrial trucks to travel through the residential neighborhood and it makes more sense to turn Sanders north into Industrial Blvd. Jerry Johnson, 2003 Kyle Court. He said that his whole backyard fronts on Wyatt. He said that commercial trucks come off Industrial and then go through Ross Downs by using Reynolds on a daily basis. He said that at late hours of the night teens write graffiti on the fences. He said that when it rains a lot of sand washes down on Wyatt and the kids get in their cars and hot rod in the sand. Mr. Johnson said that he is in favor of closing Wyatt and if that is not done it should be improved. Swift Lindley, 2002 Kyle Court. Mr. Lindley said that Wyatt is a dirt road and if the roadway is improved the City will need to buyout his and his neighbor's back yard or purchase the properties to the west because there is not enough space to improve the road. He said that his main concern is that Wyatt is basically a turn around and people use it to go back up Industrial. He said that some people use it to go to Reynolds and in the last 2 ~ years he has had his fence torn down about four times when people come down Industrial and are unable to stop on the gravel and dirt. Mr. Lindley said that one time it was a police car that came through the fence and up into their back yard. He said that there is not enough space to create a loop. He said that he doesn't want trucks coming down and parking in his pool. He said that he and all of the property owners on Kyle Court are advocates of closing Wyatt Drive and it should be anything but a thoroughfare. Michael Tomlinson, 2005 Kyle Court. He said that he wanted to be on the record that he would like to see the street closed. He said that he is concerned that there are children who play in his and Jerry Johnson's back yard and there is no buffer between the ally and the back yard. He said that because cars have come through the back fences before, he worries. He said that an iron railing may prevent it from happening. He said that people dump things because there is limited visibility. He said that people on Reynolds don't use Wyatt as an access. Don Hawkins, 2005 Reynolds Drive. Said that if it taken as a given that Wyatt Drive will be completed with commercial properties bordering it, there are already two homes on Wyatt Drive and the residential homes on Reynolds and the commercial access road would split the residential area. He said that he is in support to close Wyatt Drive because the sense of neighborhood will be maintained. Stacey Loftin, 6306 Wyatt Drive. He said that he lives at the dead end of Reynolds and all of this started as a safety issue and not the potential development of Broughton. He said that he drafted a petition and circulated it because of the heavy commercial traffic use from Industrial. He said that they go south to Reynolds and there are usually 12 to 15 small children playing on Reynolds. Mr. Loftin said that there have been cars stopped on Wyatt Drive at night with marijuana smells coming from the cars and many incidences of dumping. There have been concrete fence posts, trash and debris that has to be picked up and there is also spray paint graffiti on his white picket fence. Mr. Loftin said that if there were some legitimate purpose for Wyatt Drive they would not have requested closing it. He told the Commission to look at Industrial Park and at one time Wyatt Drive went north of Industrial and was abandoned. He said that they propose that the City Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 13,2000 Page 4 of 22 - Approved on 11/27/00 as submitted. continue the abandonment to the edge of Reynolds Drive and if some day Sanders Lane does come through, then it would have an access to Reynolds and a loop could be created back through Ross Downs to Industrial. He said that when they met with City staff members, there was no negative discussion or vote about the issue of abandoning this small section of Wyatt Drive. Maria Rogers, 2001 Reynolds Drive said that she is in favor because of safety reasons. She said that she is the first house that looks into Wyatt Drive. She said that she is also speaking for Keith and Christine Neil that live at 2000 Reynolds Drive because they couldn't be at the hearing. She presented a letter from the Neils explaining their reasons. She said that the ally is used by construction trucks going at a fast speed and there are children playing on Reynolds. She said that there is movement of vehicles at night and that is not what the neighborhood wants. Anne Marie Apaliski, 2003 Reynolds Drive. She said that a year or two ago her son had his pickup truck parked out front of their house and vandals smashed the cab window and crowbarred everything out of it. She said that the vandals used the alley to escape and the police say that Wyatt Drive is a hazard and the neighbors want it closed for a safety reason. She said that as far as she knows, Ross Downs is the only subdivision that has a lot of entrances and exits. Ms. Apaliski said that there is an entrance from Industrial to Wyatt, Hwy 26 through Longwood, Pool Road into Twelve Oaks, Pool Road through Highland Meadows and there is no way they need another entrance and exit. She asked the Commission if they have been through Wyatt and if they have they should never consider Wyatt Drive to be a road to be opened up to become a thoroughfare into Ross Downs. There being no one else present wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hill asked staff how wide the right-of-way currently is in the ally. Tom Niederauer said that he researched the plats and there appears to be 20'. He asked if the City currently has the right-of-way all the way through Sanders Lane. Clayton Husband responded that it would need to be purchased or be built when the property develops. Commissioner Gasper asked what is the required width to build a commercial street to bring the loop up to standards. Tom Niederauer responded that it would be a minor collector that requires 75' of right-of-way with 42' of paving that creates a two lane road with parking on either side. Commissioner Gasper said that the City would need to acquire additional property to bring Wyatt, Industrial and Sanders up to standard. She asked how the Master Plan Thoroughfare was developed. Staff told her that the Thoroughfare Plan is a part of the Master Plan and it supports the Master Plan and it supports the proposed commercial development. They said that it gives guidance to steer future development. Mr. Niederauer said that when the Thoroughfare Plan is changed it is an ad hoc way of changing the Master Plan. Chairman Hart asked staff to point out where the vacant land is on Sanders and Industrial. He said that Mr. Nooney had speculated another route for Sanders and it appears that is not a possibility because the property is already built on. Commissioner Wall asked what the possibility of closing off Wyatt Drive at both ends and giving a key to the Fire Chief. Tom Niederauer said that Chief Johnston said that they cannot get into Wyatt Drive now, but he does not want it taken of the Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Husband said that if those properties were to be constructed for commercial businesses, the roads would be Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 13, 2000 Page 5 of 22 - Approved on 11/27/00 as submitted. constructed to City standards. Commissioner Wall said that he is looking for middle ground and if they close it off they serve the purpose of the people in Ross Downs and retain the right-of-way for the City at the same time. Clayton Husband said that is the key point of keeping the right-of- way and public domain so that in some point of time they do have the opportunity to construct the streets. He said that if it is given up then it becomes more difficult to develop in the future. Tom Niederauer said that one solution would be to place large barricades and pylons to prevent through traffic and that would need a recommendation from the police department. Commissioner Gasper asked if they could leave the Master Thoroughfare Plan the way it is and ask the police department to do something about preventing traffic between the two points on Wyatt Drive. Tom Niederauer said that the only down side that he sees would be that the City will need to get into the area to maintain it from time to time. He said that it could be some kind of barricade that could be removed to get machinery in there if necessary unless they work some kind of contracts with Mr. Loftin and Mr. Moyaidi. Commissioner Gasper said that she had some real problems with giving up the right-of-way because of the impact on future commercial development. The Commission asked if they could ask the police department for suggestions. Tom Niederauer told Commissioner Gasper that the Commission could make recommendations to the Council because it helps them in their deliberations and the Commission's primary role is to make determine the thoroughfare plan whether it is to shift the location of the roadway or close it off altogether. Commissioner Gasper moved that the Commission table this case at this time and ask the City staff to come back to them with a plan that will maintain the integrity of the commercial property. She said that in other words, not abandoning the street, but also trying to help the residents in the residential area as an interim until it is developed. She said If it means blocking Wyatt Drive and putting up a gate to do something to help the neighborhood but would not result in the City giving up its right to Wyatt Drive and precluding future development. Commissioner Hollis said that he doesn't see why they can't grant the homeowners request by asking it to be gated on both ends now, retain the right-of-way and allow the Master Plan to come out how it may in the future. Commissioner Edwards asked who would pay for the gates now because they are expensive especially if the police department would want Opticon gates. Tom Niederauer said that the police department would not use it if it were gated. Chairman Hart asked if they could consider just barricading it. Commissioner Gasper called for a point of order since there is a motion that has not been seconded and the motion needs to be dealt with and if it fails for a lack of second they can do something else. Commissioner Edwards seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Gasper, Edwards, Hocutt, Hollis, Hill, Hart Noes: Wall Chairman Hart told the audience that this means the item is tabled and they are asking staff to investigate all of the options for them. He said that if they have input for the staff regarding the issue to please get in touch with them. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 13, 2000 Page 6 of 22 - Approved on 11127/00 as submitted. 3. PUBLIC HEARING - A Zoning Change requested by Raman Chandler, from PUD-C (for an institutional use) to CC-2 (Shopping Center) on 43.9 acres located on the south side of McDonwell School Road & Precinct Line Road - Westgate Addition. Case Z-OO-074 Tom Niederauer presented the case to the Commission. He told them the history of how the zoning category changed from Mr. Chandler's proposed PUD-R on a portion of the property to the CC-2 zoning on the whole parcel of property. He mentioned the Thoroughfare Master Plan and the proposed four lane road through the property going north and south and McDonwell School Road is currently 2 lanes and proposed as a minor collector. Mr. Niederauer told the Commission about the Master Plan with the proposed retail and the proposed office uses. He said that the north/south road on the Master Plan will continue on to L. D. Lockett Road. He said that the roadway is conceptual and there is no magic about where it actually goes. Chairman Hart asked why they would want to consider CC-2 when with PUD-C they would have move control over the commercial development. Clayton Husband said that the current PUD-C is for a private school and they would not amend that PUD-C, but make a complete change to another PUD-C. He said that the applicant could have asked for that zoning category, but he chose to request a CC-2 and that would implement the Master Plan as offices are allowed within the CC-2 category. He said that there are other mixes of districts available to achieve the same thing, but this is what the applicant had requested for the entire property. Commissioner Hocutt said that with the CC-2 there would be no guarantee of a buffer from the residential to the retail. Commissioner Gasper asked if the developer has any stores currently lined up. Staff said that he has not discussed that with them. Chairman Hart said they can ask the developer when he comes up to speak. Commissioner Hocutt said that he wants to make sure that the Commission hears that the Master Plan is for future retail commercial and then the other part is office space, but that can change based on the developer. Clayton Husband responded that CC-2 is not an office zoning category primarily, but it does allow offices. He said that most of the commercial zoning districts allow offices as a use by right. Commissioner Hocutt said that all he is suggesting is that this exhibit is from the Mast Plan and not anything that the developer has proposed. Staff confirmed that it was. The Commission confirmed that there was a rezoning sign on the property. Staff said that someone from Remington Park picked up a copy of the briefing on Friday. There were people from the HOA in the audience to speak. Commissioner Wall said that with CC-2 their ability to discuss any setback area with the developer is removed. Mr. Husband responded that it is a category that all of the requirements are laid out in the code and that is what governs that category. Commissioner Wall said that it would be strictly at the developer's will to provide additional screening or setbacks to work with Remington Park. He said that with PUD-C the Commission can work out that particular issue. Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. . Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 13, 2000 Page 7 of 22 - Approved on 11127100 as submitted. Raman Chandler, applicant, 7001 Lismore Court, spoke regarding his thoughts and the problems that are inherent with the property. He said that first of all some of the things that were said earlier regarding the homeowners in Remington Park, he is sensitive to those homeowners and Larry Cole is a personal friend of his and they've been friendly competitors for a number of years. He said that he doesn't want to come in and do something that is adjacent to his subdivision that would detract from the values of those homes. He said that was the reason they submitted the property with a PUD-R zoning that the Commission reviewed a few weeks ago. Mr. Chandler apologized for being out of town at that meeting. He said that he still feels that in that particular location the PUD is something the Commission and the City should reconsider because it fits the needs of the adjacent homeowners and provides an appropriate buffer. He said that one interesting aspect the Commission should consider is that with PUD-R zoning it creates additional rooftops immediately adjacent to the commercial property to be developed in the future and would be an advantage to the City. He said that being now as that may he wanted to look at the commercial property that is now being considered. Mr. Chandler said that his suggestion in dealing with the homeowners concerns, there is a strip along the east side that is 150' wide that backs up to Remington Park. He said the intent is to develop it with offices and he would be receptive to changing that portion to CC-1 which eliminates some of the uses and has a more restrictive setback requirement. Mr. Chandler said that the property would be deed restrictive and he would restrict it to the type of offices that are seen displayed on the board. He said that one of the challenges there is to this property is that if they had the PUD-R zoning it is something he could go ahead with immediately to develop. He said it is a good product for the location and is an empty nester product similar to the Villas at Caldwell's Creek. He said that it is a known quantity that the Commission can go and see what they will get. He said the problem is that they are beyond that at this point. Mr. Chandler said that at this point they would have to warehouse the land essentially for a period of time because it's not mature for development today. He said that the development of the commercial property would be between 3 to 8 years away and it would not be feasible to develop it today. He said that one way to accomplish that goal is to utilize two of the existing buildings on the property. He said that they are currently the two large metal buildings. Mr. Chandler said that there is a need in the area for a meeting hall to have wedding receptions, class reunions, Chamber of Commerce meetings and an area they can serve food and have catered dinners. He said that they will completely redo the existing buildings and give them a hill country look similar to some of the offices portrayed on the board he passed around earlier. Mr. Chandler said that he would take two ugly buildings and with some architectural magic create a different fayade and make them usable and viable buildings as is illustrated with some degree in the drawing. Mr. Chandler said that the large building on the right would be a reception hall and the are in between would be an open patio in the area where the original 9 Acres building was located that they are presently demolishing. He said that it would be enclosed with a brick wall, landscaped, and make a very nice outdoors setting for those types of groups. He said that the building to the left is one of the existing buildings and it would be finished out as office space similar to the building on Hall Johnson Road. Mr. Chandler said that there is a need for inexpensive office space in Colleyville and this would be made to look very nice and utilized in that manner. He said that the rest of the property on an interim basis would be developed as a golf center with an academy, and a driving range. He showed pictures of a similar facility on Highway 30 in west Fort Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 13, 2000 Page 8 of 22 - Approved on 11/27/00 as submitted. Worth. He said that they would be in a position to use the property and buildings and hold the property until some future date when it is suitable for redevelopment. He said he could go ahead and develop some kind of offices on that property that backs up to Remington Park. Commissioner Gasper asked if Mr. Chandler had any comments or thoughts regarding the thoroughfare master plan. He responded that the location of the roadway would have to be determined in the future as staff said that it depends on the layout of the property. He said that it depends on how the front part of the property would layout and what users would become available. She asked him if he currently owns the property or if it is under contract. He said that it is under contract. Chairman Hart questioned the PUD-C versus the CC-2 and if the redevelopment of the old Nine Acres site could be handled under a PUD-C. Mr. Chandler responded that it would not be feasible to develop the property under a PUD plan because he anticipates it changing and today he could not tell them what the ultimate plans would be. Chairman Hart said that the refurbishing of Nine Acres and the golf academy could be accomplished under a PUD-C as well. Mr. Chandler said that he would not want to approach it that way because he would have to come back in the future to amend the PUD or change the zoning and the appropriate use is commercial. He said the property adjacent to Remington Park would not require a CC-2 and that could be accomplished with a CC-1 zoning. He said that he didn't know any way to tie down the deed restrictions on the property to make sure that they are limiting themselves to the garden office type structures adjacent to Remington Park, but he was receptive to that. Commissioner Gasper asked if she were correct that he wanted the CC-2 because that would permit him today to do something with the existing structures and still leave him open in the future to a more advanced development. Raman Chandler told her that is correct. She asked if at some point in time if he had a tenant and more detailed plans on how he wants the property to be developed for the long term if he would be coming back for a PUD-C. He responded that he would. Mr. Chandler said that the big box ordinance would accomplish a lot of the objectives as a PUD-C and in addition he is involved in working on an ordinance that would be submitted to Council to expand those restrictions to all commercial properties. He said they would provide additional safeguards for the people in Remington Park as well. Commissioner Gasper said that if he wanted a large building he would have to request a PUD zoning per the big box ordinance. Commissioner Wall reconfirmed that Mr. Chandler is asking for CC-2 zoning right now, but what he is telling the Commission is that he would be receptive to CC-1 next to Remington Park with the current plan and CC-2 for the remainder of the property. Mr. Chandler acknowledged that was correct. He showed him on the site plan where the line would be and said the depth would be 150'. He said that he is suggesting to the Commission if they want to recommend to the Council more restrictive zoning on that parcel of property being CC-1, he would be receptive to that. Will Edgington, 213 Oak Lawn in Remington Park. He stated that he is very much opposed to CC-2 zoning and doesn't think that the Master Plan is correct to allow commercial uses that far back. He said that what he is hearing from Mr. Chandler is that he is really not asking for CC-2 but would prefer to go back to residential. He said that it seems to him that this is some kind of ploy to scare the residents so that they would be happy with another rendition of the high density housing he would propose in a couple of weeks. Mr. Edgington said that he thinks it is a waste of all of their time to listen to this dog and pony show about putting in CC-2 all the way up to Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 13, 2000 Page 9 of 22 - Approved on 11127100 as submitted. residential. He said that he thought it was a ridiculous ploy to get come back with something latter on. He said that he would wish that the Commission would deny the zoning. Ralph Lahr, 306 Oak Lawn. He said that they moved from New York City about 2 Y2 years ago because they liked the Colleyville community. He said that he is not too familiar with the zoning rules and laws, but what it sounds like to him is that if Mr. Chandler is given CC-2 zoning, he will have the opportunity to have a boarder brush to develop the property with. Mr. Lahr said that what they want to do to preserve the community and life style that they chose to move to Colleyville is to be able to have a little more control over how that property is developed. He said that the neighbors need to have more say in the matter. He said that he thinks the development Mr. Chandler has proposed tonight look like they are more a three and four year plan for the property and the future of the property will still be up in limbo. Mr. Lahr said that he didn't think that he would be an investor in a wedding chapel business because he is unsure if the community is calling for it at this point. He said that Colleyville is a highly residential community with a lot of families and to have possibility of a commercial entity going right up to the backs of homes is not what the people who chose to live hear are looking for. John Keeney, 2003 Polo Trail in Remington Park. He said that he is the person who picked up the copy of the staff notes and distributed them to the HOA. He said that three weeks ago he was standing before the Commission talking about Mr. Chandlers request for a PUD-R zoning. He said that at the time they did not object to residential zoning but did object to the plan. Mr. Keeney said that they objected to packing 58 homes into 14.9 acres. He said that they asked for the plan to be reworked to one that was acceptable to all with the least minimum size lots with a green space management that was consistent with the quality residential area. Mr. Keeney said that instead of doing that Mr. Chandler has gone to the other extreme and has requested a CC-2 for all of the property from Precinct Line right up to Remington Park. He said that with a meeting of some of the board of director members of Remington Park HOA last week and Mr. Chandler indicated no flexibility in regards to re-modify his residential plan as they had requested. Mr. Keeney said that tonight Mr. Chandler is proposing to leave two of the Nine Acres structures standing to become a wedding chapel and a reception hall for parties for 300 people or more. Mr. Keeney said that they've gone a long way from attracting empty nesters to marrying off all of the singles now and it sounds like a shot gun approach to development to him. He said that he objects to the rezoning request and the briefings states that the acreage adjacent to Remington Park be office development and serve as a buffer to retail development further to the west. He said that it says the CC-2 is generally consistent with the Master Plan because it would allow office use as a matter of right. He said that what they failed to say and has come up in the discussion tonight is that CC-2 by right allows convenience stores with gasoline sales, restaurants with drive thru services, hardware stores with outside displays and general retail sales. Mr. Keeney said that he disagrees that the CC-2 zoning for this property is generally consistent with the Master Plan. He said that he thinks that is a broad brushed zoning that will invite the developer to completely disregard the Master Plan for example a reception hall for parties of 300 or more with alcohol being served does not sound like professional office space to him. Mr. Keeney said that as citizens of Colleyville they will find themselves fighting this battle over and over again in front of the Commission unless the zoning is done properly and up front. He said if they were going to disregard the Master Plan they needed to err on the positive side and rezone the entire property as residential and wait for a great deal to come along. He said that several. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 13, 2000 Page 10 of 22 - Approved on 11127100 as submitted. hundred homes turning out $10,000 to $15,000 in City and ISD taxes not to mention sewer and water income sounds like a good deal to everyone to him. He said that if they do want to be consistent with the Master Plan then he feels that the property should be zoned as CPO commercial professional office right up front to ensure that it will in fact serve as a buffer zone for the residents of Remington Park. Mr. Keeney said that users for the property will come along in the future and he wondered what the rush is. He asked why they are in a hurry to choose between a bad plan and a worse plan especially when there are no end users for even the bad plan right now. He said that the acreage in question along McDonwel1 School Road is rural and very pretty with rolling hills and trees and would be ideal for home sites. He said that there are homes along the north side of McDonwell School where families with community pride are living happily today. Mr. Keeney asked why this couldn't be a win-win situation. They should allow the developer to proceed naturally as it is needed with class and quality and in such a way that the City can get its revenue. Where the developer can make his money, and the citizens can maintain their property values as well as their pride in the quality of the community. He said that he recommends that the property not be rezoned CC-2 and at worse it should remain the way it currently is. Same Kabe, 1513 Caldwell Creek. He said that he's know Raman for about 5 years and basically has a comment. He said that across the street from him was 14 acres and it became the Villas of Caldwell's Creek. He said that at the time there was a question about the master plan and there were pro's and con's. Mr. Kabe said that Raman Chandler did an excellent job of putting up a new fence and the homes were not disappointing to the neighbors. He said that he found out that Raman is a typical entrepreneur with a vision and lot of it is to take a leap of faith. He said that he was before the Commission when they were going through trying to approve the Villas, and as a homeowner, he is pleased with the development and the quality that he did. Larry Lewis, 209 Oak Lawn in Remington Park. He said that observing the meeting he is trying to figure out what Mr. Chandler is really after. He said that all this is merely a CC-2 and then the adjacent property owners will go back and beg him to put in the high density housing area out of fear that tin sheds are still being left in their back yards or a convenience store. Mr. Lewis said that he is not sure why the Commission would want to have CC-2 zoning all the way back from Precinct Line Road because there is very valuable property across McDonwell School Road that will be residential. He said that $500,000 and $600,000 house will not want to look down on a 711 store. He said that obviously Mr. Chandler still has in mind and wants to go back to the residential part and they have no objections to residential but don't want such high density. Mr. Lewis said that the broad stroke of the CC-2 would allow him to do anything and he assumes that CC-1 allows similar uses as CC-2. He said that he wants to speak against the broad brushed stroke of CC-2 for the entire property and wants the Commission to have control with a PUD. He said that ugly tin buildings will still be ugly even with improvements. Tad Unum,. 2713 Derby Court, Southlake. He said that he is the builder of several homes that back up to this property. He said that he currently has a 1.7 million dollar investment. He said that he owns Lots 7 and 8 and is currently getting ready to move into Lot 9 that will be their personal residence on Horseshoe Bend. Mr. Unum said that he is in a unique position that he has two homes to sell and another one will he his personal home and the first thing anyone asks a builder is what is the property zoned behind them. He said that he needs to be able to give them a reasonable explanation as to what is going to be or possibly be built behind them. Mr. Unum said that with CC-2 zoning it opens the door for absolutely everything and the buildings he is Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 13, 2000 Page 11 of 22 - Approved on 11127100 as submitted. presenting tonight the money that will need to be spent will be astronomical to refurbish and he can't imagine that economically it will work out for the developer. Mr. Unum asked that the CC-2 zoning change is rejected and he would like to see it remain as a PUD which gives the Commission control later on to not destroy the value of the surrounding homes. Bob Putnam, 315 Polo Trail in Remington Park. He said that he met with Mr. Chandler last week to discuss some of the options he has and he would recommend rezoning all of the property CC- 2. Mr. Putnam said that he is a little worried about the environment with serving alcohol and all of the parties and lighting. He said that looking at the Caldwell Creek area, residential is the way to go with a buffer or at very least an office garden type development. He said that to leave the property all open for commercial is troublesome and he would recommend against that. George Lambreth, 503 Mustang Court in Remington Park. He said that he is maybe closer than some of the residents the Commission has heard from. He said that the concern he has from listening to the presentations both the last time and this time is fairly succinct. He said that he doesn't quite see the vision Mr. Chandler has and he didn't think the Commission sees the vision Mr. Chandler has any more so than he does. Mr. Lambreth said that he does see the request by an applicant who is yet to make a significant financial commitment other than to contract land that he does not yet own. He said that Mr. Chandler is trying to make an investment in a piece of property that he hopes is zoned for something that they are yet to see what that may look like. He said that is a concern to him as well as his fellow residents in Remington Park. Mr. Lambreth said that if they had a firmer fix on what it is he is asking for, they could give him a more succinct answer on who they feel about it. He said that the last time they did object to one piece of the development Mr. Chandler is proposing and they didn't really see the entirety of the development or his vision even last time he spoke. He said that it is even less clear because if he understands correctly what Mr. Chandler is asking for is for all practical purposes a temporary use of a piece of property and buildings that exist adjacent to theirs. He said that this is property that will find its way eventually into some other use of which the Commission would have less control or influence than they do today. Mr. Lambreth said that he would suggest to the Commission the prudent course of action is to reject this particular request, ask to see Mr. Chandler's vision in more detail so that they can make a more logical recommendation to the City Councilor approve the zoning he may request at that time. He said that he thinks they need more clarity, he needs a vision that he can express better, he needs a vision that conforms to the City of Colleyville and the residents that have invested in the community as he and his wife have done. Don Nix, Arlington, representing one of the four property owners. He said that there are four sellers who entered into a joint agreement to market their property and the sale is condition on getting zoning that any developer can make use of the property. He said that if zoning cannot be achieved that can consummate that sale, then the properties will need to be sold piece-meal, one at a time. Mr. Nix said that it will not enable the City to work with one plan and probably what will happen is that lots of people wanted to buy a tract next to Remington Park to build more houses and then the property west of that parcel will continue in the same manner. He said that maybe the whole parcel would become residential other than the property on Precinct Line Road. He said that the only feasible way to jointly develop the property is to approve some sort of total zoning package and the Master Plan is consistent with the request. He said the school can't afford the property and if it can't be developed with the Master Plan, what will they do with it? He said that the property was commercial up until 10 months ago and it was rezoned for the school and the property owners are asking to reverse the zoning change because the school doesn't Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 13,2000 Page 12 of 22 - Approved on 11/27/00 as submitted. want it. Mr. Nix said that the people who moved into Remington Park should have known what it was zoned before and that is what they want it to be rezoned for. Gary Cantrell, 3400 Glade Road. He said that he wasn't going to speak at the meeting, but he is confused. He said that the Nine Acres property has always been commercial and a PUD was granted on the property for a school. He wanted to know when the PUD expires. Staff told Mr. Cantrell that PUD is a zoning district much like any other and there are no expiration date or sunset clauses on those. Mr. Husband said that the only way to change zoning is to go back through the process with notification, public hearings, and adoption of an ordinance by City Council. He said that it doesn't revert back one from another based on the passing of time and State law is very specific about what has to happen to change zoning. Mr. Cantrell said that it is his understanding that if it is zoned PUD it stays that way for six or twelve months and then automatically reverts back to the old zoning if it is not used that way unless the time deadline is extended by the City Council. He said that the only way it can be extended is by the request of the applicant. Mr. Husband said that the only provision for timelines is related to platting and the two ways to change zoning on a property is by the owner or the purchaser making an application or by the Council directing a property to be considered and going back through the entire process. Mr. Cantrell said that he and Raman looked at the Nine Acres property nine years ago when they were partners and declined not to buy it because they didn't like Nine Acres there. He said that Larry Cole took the risk and purchased the property. He said that he thinks that anything that goes there is a benefit to the neighbors of Remington Park. Mr. Cantrell said that if the Master Plan says there should be offices and commercial, it should be rezoned for offices and commercial. He said that Raman has come up with a pretty unique scheme to warehouse the property and if he says he will remodel the buildings, he will. He said that he has known Raman for 15 years a'nd if he says that he will do something, he is the man who will do it. He said that the Commission should have a little faith that by getting this plan they are getting something that is better than what they have now in his opinion. Patricia Page, owner of Brides & Beaus at 5604 Colleyville Blvd. She said that she is in agreement with Mr. Cantrell. She said that she feel that anything Mr. Chandler does will be class and beautiful and that is apparent by everything else he has done in Colleyville. Ms. Page said that there is a need for an event site as daily she encounters people who need facilities for their receptions and there is not anything large enough for some of the groups. She said that it could bring a lot of revenue into the City. She said that her business draws people from all over the Metroplex and advertise nationally and they could be spending other dollars in this town besides the dollars they are spending with them. She said that it could be a win situation and in the meantime to use it for this type of thing. Gary Pan no, 7006 Primrose. He said that he is a homebuilder and lives in Caldwell's Creek and wanted to talk about the high density and need for these homes. Chairman Hart said that homes are not being proposed in this zoning change request. Mr. Panno said that listening to the residents and some other people that there might be high density homes behind Remington Park, but they would be high quality ranging in price from $300,000 to $450,000 and by no means are they track homes. There being no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 13, 2000 Page 13 of 22 - Approved on 11/27/00 as submitted. Commissioner Gasper said that there was some mention made of alcoholic beverages on site of the CC-2 and it her understanding that a special use permit would be needed for alcohol consumption. Mr. Husband said that she is correct. She said that if there was this reception hall it would require a special use for alcohol to be served at a private function. Clayton Husband said that he believe it would be required and there is Chapter 6 that deals with alcoholic beverage sales and it depends who it fall under those provisions. He said that there are provisions for food to alcoholic beverage sales ratio. He said that he does not know how food and catering business are involved. Commissioner Gasper said that mention was made of a gas station and she wondered if she were correct that it would require a special use. Mr. Husband said that a convenience store with a gas sales does require a special use and there is no zoning district that the use is allowed by right. She asked what the property was on the property before it became zoned for the school. He responded that the Nine Acres property was zoned commercial, but he didn't know if it was CC-1 or CC-2 and staff could research it for her. She asked if the Commission were to recommend having part of the property CC-2 and part CC-1, would it require notification to the public. Mr. Husband said that in his opinion it would not require re-notification and if they made that recommendation to Council it would be what they would consider. He said that the City Attorney would make the final determination. Commissioner Gasper asked what sort of tax revenues would be generated to the City for receptions. Mr. Husband said he did not know the answer. Mr. Soab said that he was not aware of taxes being paid on meeting hall rental, but food sales would be taxable. He said that alcohol sales would fall under Chapter 6 of the Municipal Codes, but like at the Community Center, they don't have to sell alcohol, but it can be served. He said that the participants can bring their own and a police officer needs to be present. Commissioner Gasper asked if taxes are paid for the golf driving range. Mr. Soab said that he has not had time to review any of the proposal because it is all new to him and he would have to research it. Commissioner Wall said that rather than CC-1 for the 150' wide area, if they could retain PUD-C control of the section, he wanted to know if that was a possible alternative. He said that Mr. Chandler said he would be receptive to CC-1 for an office complex and then CC-2 for the remaining portion. He said that since it is already zoned PUD-C and since PUD-C handles office parks. Mr. Husband responded that the PUD-C that is in place now is very specific for the school and is not applicable for anything thing other than what is left on the private school portion. He said that it doesn't apply to anything else other than what that PUD is proposed for and there is no carry over. He said that when they are talking about a PUD-C and having more control, this PUD-C current zoning has no applicability to do anything other than to do the school and could not be used for commercial development. Commissioner Gasper said that if they want to lock in commercial then they need to change the zoning to a commercial zoning. Commissioner Hill said that they could do a PUD-C and be specific. Commissioner Gasper said that you can't do a PUD-C unless you have a real plan on the table and they don't have a real plan on the table. Commissioner Hill responded that that is exactly right. He said that he would go ahead and speak next. He said that there are a lot of things he looks at in an application. He said that certainly, Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 13, 2000 Page 14 of 22 - Approved on 11/27100 as submitted. Mr. Lambreth said his sentiments best and that is that it's vague and he doesn't see a vision. Commissioner Hill said the he has concerns about the buffer for Remington Park, the north/south roadway, a lot of concerns that are nowhere near satisfied with giving broad brush CC-1 or CC-2 designation. He said that he wasn't here at the last meeting, but he thinks that another thing that is relevant is the history if there is one of this applicant. He said that this applicant has sued our city in the past, cost thousand and thousand of tax payer dollars, and that's a voluntary act. Commissioner Hill said that he doesn't generally want to condone that type of behavior by granting privileges to someone who decides voluntarily to sue our city. He said that he's got a real problem with that and at a minimum with a PUD-C he would want to see very specific provisions on what's going on here. He said that he'd like to personally see a covenant not to sue the city so we don't get into the same problem that the city got into last time with him and again a lot more specificity on this before he'd ever be in a position to approve it. Commissioner Wall said that he guessed his take on it is a little different. He said the that the property was zoned for AG and commercial and it's shown in the Master Plan for AG/commercial and if he understands correctly the property's proposal is to be sold and warehoused where there is currently no large commercial development proposed. He said that no one is will to come in and buy it, so it is the best use and the owners are willing to sell. He said that the question is if they allow the owners to sell as a group in one large piece of commercial property and try to work with the developer to best protect Remington Park and still allow commercial zoning or do they take away the option of the owners to sell as a group. He said that they would be left with having to sell individually for different uses. Commissioner Wall said that he does not like the idea that they can't have some control next to Remington Park because he feels that the City needs to work with Remington Park to provide some kind of a buffer. He said that as he said three weeks ago, it is not that the area is not going to be developed, so Remington Park needs to work with the owners and developers for what is going to be there. He said that it is the right of the owners to sell and it's going to developed and it's a question of is the best case balance here between the needs of Remington Park and what the owners and developer wants to see. Commissioner Wall said that he can't see zoning the property all CC-2. Commissioner Gasper said that it sounds like Commissioner Wall would be favorable to a CC-2 and a CC-1. Commissioner Wall said that is the reason he suggested a PUD-C for that one section. He said that he can't see a CC-1 on the property because it is just as open to being whatever it turns out to be as a CC-2 if you read the uses. He said that a PUD-C is the only way he can see to provide additional buffer space for Remington Park. Commissioner Gasper said that without commercial zoning nailed down it would be difficult for a developer to bank the property and so it seems to her that doing a CC-2 up front and a CC-1 at the back and gives them the greater setbacks and is more consistent with the Master Plan for light office. She said that seems to be the way to go so that they can get commercial development started. Commissioner Gasper said that somebody has to be willing to step up to the plat and plop some money down and start swinging at the ball. She said that for a developer to be able to do that he has to have some assurance that when he goes and tries to get people to build that he can get the zoning. She said that she obviously doesn't have a crystal ball and what she firmly believes that if they grant commercial zoning on the property whether CC-2 or CC-1 at some point in time Mr. Chandler will have tenants that want on that property. She said that they will probably see him back before them with what they would really like to have which is the PUD-C because he will have something real in hand. She said that it is kind of which comes first the chicken or the egg. Commissioner Gasper said that if they don't give the opportunity to go find tenants then he won't Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 13, 2000 Page 15 of 22 - Approved on 11127100 as submitted. be able to find tenants. Commissioner Hollis said that he would like to point out that they already have three land owners who have taken the time in the past to work together well enough to put together a PUD which is a special use for a school. He said that if they were able to do that, those land owners have already showed their ability to work with potential developers and come up with a PUD that reflects a quality use for the land. Commissioner Gasper said that she thinks that in the situation of the school, it was the church that came forward with the proposal and what they heard from one gentleman representing an existing land owner, is if they can't get favorable zoning, they will be forced into selling the property piece meal. She said that is counter productive as far as what is best for the City. Commissioner Hocutt said that he thinks they are a little closer than they sound. He said that he heard from the homeowners that they want a quality development to the west whether it be in commercial professional office buildings or in a lower density residential to act as a buffer to build out to CC-2 toward Precinct Line. He said that Mr. Chandler is in the business to make a profit and is trying to submit something like that and the City wants commercial development there. He said that the City gets property tax for residential, but the city is looking for reoccurring revenues in sales tax. He said that it is the definition of quality development and lifestyle for the folks in Remington Park. Commissioner Hocutt said that he thinks they are polarizing themselves and hates to see that happen and want to work together to achieve a good quality development that is mutually beneficial for all involved. Commissioner Gasper said that she thinks that the CC-2/CC-1 would get them to where Commissioner Hocutt is talking about going because it would provide the greater setbacks and the lower density in the office kind of environment next to Remington Park and still permit them to do the CC-2 up front. She said that it strikes her as being compatible with what the Master Plan calls for. Commissioner Hocutt said that the homeowners want some assurance there and one of the commissioners was talking about some assurance because of some history which may come in the form of a PUD-R on one piece of it, a PUD-C on another would give some assurances over time. Commissioner Hill said that they are assuming CC-1 will be offices and he wanted them to realize that a CC-1 abutting residential has all their uses by right that a CC-1 designation has. Commissioner Gasper asked what the zoning for office would be. Clayton Husband said that the zoning designation for office is CPO. Chairman Hart asked if the permitted uses in CC-1, village retail district, Section 3.19.8 say that #1. says residential is allowed on page 3 - 28 of the Land Development Code. Clayton Husband said that it refers to the general breakdown of the types of categories that are in the land use tables and all of the uses in #1 are clumped under one particular category in the Code and it doesn't infer that anyone could actually build a single family residence in that particular zoning district. He said that it refers back to the governing portion of the code being the land use table. Commissioner Gasper asked if they do CC-1 it would not go residential or it could go residential. Mr. Husband said it could not. Commissioner Edwards said that basically all the CC-1 does is guarantees the setbacks not anything else. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 13,2000 Page 16 of 22 - Approved on 11/27100 as submitted. Commissioner Hollis said that a PUD would give the flexibility to negotiate the setbacks and even a CPO the rear abutting residential is 25'. Commissioner Gasper said that the CC-1 would be better as far as setback requirements. Commissioner Hollis said that PUD is where they can negotiate with the builder to get something appropriate. Commissioner Gasper said that they can't get there from here. Commissioner Hollis said that they would have to have the applicant reapply with a plan. Commissioner Gasper said that the applicant would have to have real tenants and she thinks it would be very difficult for him to get real people. Commissioner Hill said that the applicant could have parameters that the tenants would have to follow and fit into and that is a different thing from having real tenants. Commissioner Edwards said that they have done conceptual PUD's other times. Commissioner Gasper asked how they would do a conceptual PUD. Commissioner Hill said that the Commission doesn't and they ask the applicant to come back when he has a better idea of what he wants to do with the property rather than a vague CC-2/CC-1 broad brush with no tenant. Commissioner Gasper said that she would like to see the property clearly delineated as commercial property because she has some concerns if they have the property remain as a PUD- C for institutional purposes they may be inviting another church or school or non tax paying entity onto that tract. She said that if they go to commercial zoning then that is not to say that some point somebody is not going to come back with an institutional use, but at least the Commission has clearly articulated that they would like the property to be commercial. She said that where they stand right now is they have a piece of property zoned PUD-C for institutional use and granted it is specific. She said that if an institution comes to them and wants to make some modification on the PUD-C, they would be hard pressed not to grant it. She said that she would like to see that the property is clearly commercial and protect the Master Plan that way. Commissioner Hollis said that it is his understanding that if the City Council is all that concerned about the zoning, they may request a rezoning that they feel is more appropriate for the Commission to consider. Clayton Husband said that is correct and that leads to a comment that he wished to address. He said that it was asked earlier about amended proposals and what the Commission could recommend to Council on a variety of things. He said that in the Code it does talk about the report of the Commission which is what they vote on to recommend to Council regarding if it needs to require additional notification if it were to change. He said that if the Commission determines if the amended request is more restrictive than the original request, is such that if staff knows what the boundaries are on that particular district an ordinance can be prepared for the Council without requiring additional notification. Commissioner Edwards said that they did not have any indication by the applicant if that would be acceptable. Clayton Husband said that they would certainly want to do that, but the recommendation they make is their recommendation. Commissioner Gasper said that she thinks that the applicant would be interested in doing a CC- 2/CC-1 would not be a problem. Commissioner Hocutt asked Chairman Hart if they wanted to table the case and the applicant wanted to come back with some changes, if they would have to re-notify as he just hates to keep tabling things. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 13, 2000 Page 17 of 22 - Approved on 11/27/00 as submitted. Commissioner Gasper moved to recommend granting CC-2 I CC-1 zoning on this piece of property with the CC-1 zoning to abut to the Remington Park residential and that the staff work with the developer to determine where that line is consistent with the things the Commission has talked about. Staff asked Commissioner Gasper to give them some kind of idea where she wants that line to be. Mr. Chandler showed where the boundary for Remington Park is and the line would be150' to the west and parallel to their boundary. Commissioner Gasper said that she thought Mr. Chandler said that would be a green belt. Mr. Chandler said that 150' of property would be the office use. She asked what the setback is on CC-1 and was told by the Commission 25'. Clayton Husband said that 25' is a pretty common setback in all zoning categories adjacent to residential and there are none that are any greater. Commissioner Gasper asked what is the use of the rest of the drawing that is in green. Mr. Chandler responded that it was the existing buildings. Mr. Chandler said that he wanted to make a suggestion. Commissioner Hollis said that they have a motion on the table and he wanted to call it. Commissioner Hollis seconded the motion. Chairman Hart restated the motion to approve case Z-00-080 which would be a combination of CC-2 and CC-1 and the CC-1 would be dedicated at a minimum of the 150' of the western most part of Remington Park. He asked if there was any more discussion. Commissioner Hocutt asked if they vote on the motion, would there be more discussion after the vote. Chairman Hart responded, "Absolutely." Commissioner Gasper asked what Commissioner Hocutt's question was. He said that if this motion was voted down, if there could still be discussion. Commissioner Gasper said there could be. Commissioner Walls said that he wanted to be very clear that with this motion there is no guarantee with the CC-1 portion that the 150' strip would in any way resemble any kind of an office complex and it is strictly CC-1 by right so anything could be built there that is allowable in the CC-1 zoning. Commissioner Edwards said that is correct. The vote being: Ayes: Gasper Noes: Edwards, Hocutt, Hollis, Wall, Hill, Hart Commissioner Hill moved to recommend denial on the zoning change for Case Z-OO-080. Commissioner Hollis seconded the motion. The Chairman called for any further discussion. Commissioner Hocutt said that he thought the developer was going to say something. Chairman Hart said that they had a motion on the floor again. Commissioner Wall said that he would like to make a comment. He said that he goes back to working with Remington Park, the owners, and the developer and to simply deny the case without giving some guidance on what is acceptable puts them back to square one and he doesn't think that is fair to them just as he didn't think what they were doing before was fair to Remington Park. Commissioner Hill said that he agrees with that comment, but a PUD-C can be shaped in any way the applicant desires to shape it so it is open for them to discuss and he thinks that one of things he would like to see is some clarity on what is what. He said that beyond that, the applicant can create office areas, buffer areas, and some parameters for himself and then come back with more Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 13, 2000 Page 18 of 22 - Approved on 11127100 as submitted. clarity as to what this project is going to be. Commissioner Gasper said that it sounds as if they would need to table so they would have to vote down the denial. Commissioner Hollis said that Commissioner Hill is clarifying what they are looking for. Commissioner Hocutt said that he agrees with Commissioner Wall that the Commission as a body is kind of polarizing this process to where they are a little bit closer than maybe they all think. Commissioner Hollis said that he likes the idea of this being a commercial area and also that there being a residential buffer if it appropriately done. He said that he is not against the property being developed commercially in any way. He said that having used the PUD-C and/or the PUD-R process gives everyone involved more of a voice and it gives them a better opportunity to end up over the long haul with a quality piece of land. Commissioner Gasper said that she thinks they are tying the developers hand by not giving him the zoning that he can bank on. Commissioner Hollis said that if this were the owner, he thinks that things might be a little different, but this is speculative at this time. Commissioner Hill said that he also thinks that there has been a lot of information that has come out from the residents, the City, and the Commissioners tonight to give some guidance. He said that he thinks there have been some clear views expressed and he thinks the applicant can come away with some good ideas on how to make it better. Commissioner Hocutt asked the Chairman to restate the motion since there has been so much discussion. Chairman Hart said that the motion was to deny case Z-00-080 as written. The vote being: Ayes: Edwards, Hocutt, Hollis, Wall, Hill, Hart Noes: Gasper The Commission took a ten minute break. Chairman Hart called the meeting to order. 4. TABLED ITEM - A Zoning Change requested by Awad Eskander for Perry Mulubhoy, Atlantic Oil & Gas, Inc., to amend the PUD-C, 0-96-1053 & 0-99-1146, to allow a restaurant with a drive-thru window on Lot 3, Atlantic Oil & Gas Addition located on the southwest corner of L. D. Lockett Road & Precinct Line Road. Case Z-00-073. Commissioner Gasper moved to remove the item from the table. Commissioner Wall seconded the meeting. The vote being: Ayes: Gasper, Edwards, Hocutt, Hollis, Wall, Hill, Hart Noes: None Clayton Husband said that the case was discussed at the last meeting and there was a 3 to 3 tie vote and the Commission decided to table the case until there was a full Commission present to obtain a resolution of some sort. He showed a photograph of the prototype for Grandy's. Commissioner Gasper asked staff to identify the other buildings on the site. She asked if there were any plans for the middle lot. Mr. Husband said that the applicant showed a multi-tenant building because of the location of the lot. She said that one of the issues that was of some concern to some of the Commissioners was the desire to have a sit down restaurant and she thought that it would be very difficult to have a sit down restaurant that close to a gas station. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 13, 2000 Page 19 of 22 - Approved on 11127/00 as submitted. Chairman Hart said that Grandy's could be built without a drive-thru and the only thing they have to look as is the drive-thru window. Mr. Husband said that regardless of the restaurant itself, Luby's Cafeteria does have a drive-thru window and they would be required to go through the same process. Commissioner Gasper said that she remembered that the drive-thru generated roughly 50% of the sales and therefore if they don't grant the drive-thru they may lose the Grandy's. Commissioner Wall said that the ordinance states to allow a restaurant with drive-thru service and doesn't say a Grandy's or Wendy's, it just says restaurant. Mr. Husband said that is correct. Commissioner Gasper said that from what her understanding was, the owner had a commitment from Grandy's if they got the drive-thru it was a firm offer. Mr. Husband said that is correct, but the ordinance that they put together would not specifically state a corporate name but be very generic and state land use type. He said that Grandy's is on the table right now but what the Commission is really considering is a larger issue of whether the PUD should be amended to include a restaurant with a drive-thru. Commissioner Hocutt said that another one of his concerns is that they were going to leave the special use for alcohol sales and he is not opposed to a Grandy's with a drive-thru, but he is opposed to having a building with an alcohol permit next to a church and not knowing what it is. Commissioner Gasper said that you can't have alcohol uses next to a church because there are certain requirements on how close it can be. He said that he wanted the special use permit to be pulled away from this particular lot on the PUD-C. Clayton Husband said that the fact that a special use permit overlay does exist on this property, does not alleviate the property owner or who ever develops on that site from still meeting all of the requirements from the alcohol code. He said that it could be possible for them to not be able to get a license to sell alcoholic beverages because of the distance provisions from a church. He said that it was a 1000' distance from door to door measured as someone would walk to the street. Commissioner Gasper asked if Grandy's got a drive-thru would alcoholic beverages be able to be sold in that location. She said that if Grandy's goes out of business and someone else wants to do business would they be able to sell liquor to someone sitting down inside the restaurant. Chairman Hart said that the convenience store down the street will be selling alcoholic beverages to go. Commissioner Hocutt said that it would not be for on-site consumption. Commissioner Gasper said that is why she is asking the question would alcohol be able to be consumed on site in the Grandy's building. Clayton Husband said that he has not measured it, but it would be pretty close. Commissioner Hocutt said that they just denied one developer just a second ago because they didn't know what the future use was and again he is looking at it as if they are granting a special use permit for something they don't know will be there in the future. The Commissioners told Mr. Hocutt that alcohol sales are already in place and the applicant is not asking for that they are asking for a drive-thru window. Commissioner Gasper said that she doesn't think the SUP for alcohol sales should have any impact on whether they permit a drive-thru window on a Grandy's or not because, the way it is now if Grandy's goes out of business and someone else come is they already have the SUP in place assuming it is outside the distance. Commissioner Edwards asked if they had any option to remove that SUP from the lot. Clayton Husband said that it has not been advertised as a part of what they are considering. Awad Eskander, representative of the owner Atlantic Oil and Gas. He said this site is not the subject of the alcohol sales and whoever goes into the site will have to abide by the rules of the Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 13,2000 Page 20 of 22 - Approved on 11/27/00 as submitted. State. He said that they are allowed to build a Grandy's under the zoning, but not allowed to have a drive-thru window. He said that Grandy's does not serve alcoholic beverages as it is a family restaurant. Commissioner Gasper asked Mr. Eskander how firm is his commitment from Grandy's to build a restaurant on this site with a drive-thru. He responded that pretty firm because they have done the feasibility study for the study and have estimated their income already. They said that they could not build it if they didn't have a drive-thru window because 50% of the income is from the drive-thru window. He said that the parcel is only 116' wide and it won't accommodate a main chain like Chili's or Salt Grass Steakhouse to come in to build and it is only good for fast food. He said that a drive-thru window is very essential for it. Mr. Eskander said that Grandy's is a lot more decent looking than the average fast food restaurant. Chairman Hart pointed out the letter in the packet from Grandy's. Mr. Eskander said that there are two representative from Grandy's at the meeting if the Commission has any questions. Commissioner Gasper moved to recommend approval of case Z-00-073. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Gasper, Edwards, Hocutt, Hollis, Wall, Hill, Hart Noes: None 5. TABLED ITEM - An amendment to the Colleyville Land Development Code regarding the following items: cul-de-sac streets, roadway impact fee schedule, right-of-way widths for collector and arterial streets, lot grading and drainage standards, city developer agreements, dust control, COG and TXDOT specifications, procedures for abandonment of public easements and rights-of-way, location of loading spaces, fire hydrant spacing, single entry subdivisions, emergency access and entrance gate specifications, review requirements for plats, preliminary drainage analysis guidelines, and non-conforming lots. Case Z-00-075 Chairman Hart said that staff has recommended that the Commission keep the item on the table. Commissioner Edwards said that she had a call from a developer asking for an opportunity to provide input. Chairman Hart said that he believed that they all had the same call by Mark Howe and he suggested a work session. Commissioner Edwards said that she thought he suggested a committee. She asked if staff could work individually with people so that by the next meeting they had enough input by various developers that they could remove it from the table. Clayton Husband said that this is an ongoing case and if someone regardless of what their position is wants to submit comments they are taken by staff and are considered. Commissioner Edwards that she thought the main areas of concerns was the drainage and the dust thing. Clayton said that Mark Howe was in his office and didn't mention anything about it. Commissioner Gasper asked when the developers were given an opportunity to review the ordinance. Clayton Husband said that since the amendment has been going on for so long he didn't remember what had been sent out, but Barry LeBaron has been coordinating that effort. He said that it is staff's particular practice to allow anyone to comment. Commissioner Gasper asked if it was reasonable to assume that the developers have had adequate time to get their comments into staff. Commissioner Hill said that the last packet said that copies have been sent to area developers and local engineers who regularly prepare plans for construction projects in Colleyville. Commissioner Gasper said that it seems to her that they need to decide how they will come to resolution on this and the notion of having a working session to talk through the working Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 13,2000 Page 21 of 22 - Approved on 11/27/00 as submitted. items makes sense. Commissioner Edwards said that one of the Commissioners had comments too. Chairman Hart said that he has received two e-mails, one from Commissioner Gasper and one from Commissioner Hollis. Commissioner Gasper said that they need to know what the developers comments are. Clayton Husband said that up to this point the comments have been evaluated and incorporated if they were deemed to merit incorporating into the ordinance. Chairman Hart asked if they were in a huge hurry to get the item off the table. Staff said that they would like to get moving along and the things that are before them are the things the Council had and most of the previous Commissioners have given as work items. Clayton Husband said that if they really wanted a work session, he could arrange it but couldn't give them specific times or dates. Chairman Hart polled the Commissioners and it was unanimous to hold one and open it up to the local developers. Mr. Whitman said that the developers would like advance notice so they could attend. 6. TABLED ITEM - A Zoning Change requested by David Bagwell, from AG to PUD-R (planned unit development-residential on 54.93 acres located on a portion of Bluebonnet Hills on Hall Johnson Road - Broughton. Case Z-00-064. Commissioner Hill removed himself from any discussion on the item and left the Council Chambers. Commissioner Gasper moved to remove the item from the table. Commissioner Wall seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Gasper, Edwards, Hocutt, Hollis, Wall, Hart Noes: None Commissioner Gasper said that they had a work session on the proposal and the developer requested that they bring the item forward and vote it either ups or down. She said that as much as she would like to see residential development, she cannot agree with the way the ordinance is worded because of the drainage in the streets and therefore she moves to recommend denial of case Z-OO-064. Commissioner Wall seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Gasper, Edwards, Hocutt, Hollis, Wall, Hart Noes: None Commissioner Hill returned to the Commission. 7. Citizens' comments regarding items not on the agenda: There were none. 8. Staff comments, reports and discussion items: There were none. 9. Commissioners' comments and reports: Commissioner Edwards asked staff if they could look into obtaining copies of "Suburban Planning" for all of the Commissioners. She said that it was an excellent reference book. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 13, 2000 Page 22 of 22 - Approved on 11/27/00 as submitted. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Gasper moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:25 p.m. Commissioner Edwards seconded the motion. The motion passed by acclamation. Respectfully Submitted, ~~~- Jan Levy . V . Planning & Zoning Assistant Approved on: November 27,2000 as submitted. NOTE: As a matter of public record, an audio recording of the above Planning and Zoning Commission meeting is available upon request.