Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning Commission-Minutes-9/24/2001 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24, 2001 Page 1 of 24 - Approved October 8, 2001 Chairman Gasper called the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order at 7:00 P.M. on September 24,2001. Roll Call: Present: Jeff Wall, Bob Culley, Earl Swift, Mark Jones, Bud Sellers, Mark Hollis, Jo Ann Gasper Barry LeBaron, Tom Niederauer, and Jan Levy Staff: Invocation: Chairman Gasper Approval of Minutes: September 10, 2001 Recording Secretary Jan Levy distributed updated copies of draft minutes. The ones in the packet were never spell checked or checked for content due to major computer problems being experienced by the City. Commissioner Wall moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Commissioner Swift seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: None SWEARING IN OF BOB CULLEY, PLACE 5: Recording Secretary Jan Levy administered the oath of office to Bob Culley, Place 5 1. TABLED ITEM - A Zoning Change from R20 to CPO (Commercial-Professional Office) requested by Claire Edwards, on Lot 18, Block 3, Andy Felps Addition located on the northeast corner of Cheek Sparger Road and Felps Drive. Case Z-01-023 Commissioner Wall moved to remove the item from the table. Commissioner Sellers seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: None Chairman Gasper stated at the last meeting they had decided to not open the hearing because they held the advertised public hearing regarding this matter then. She said the item was tabled solely because Ms. Edwards was not able to attend to present her side and they felt that before the Commission made any decision they would like to hear from her. Chairman Gasper said she received a letter from Mr. Knight requesting that they reconsider that decision and reopen the public hearing. She read the letter into the record. (Attached at the end of the minutes.) Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24,2001 Page 2 of 24 - Approved October 8, 2001 Commissioner .Wall said that he has no problem with reopening the public hearing so long as those people who choose to speak are not anyone who spoke last time in order to not duplicate. He said that if there were one person who wanted to present the information, he would be glad to receive new information. Commissioner Wall said that at the last meeting, it was very clear by the homeowners as to their reasons of opposition and he would like to hear new information and not simply the repetition of the information they received before. Commissioner Wall moved to suspend the rules and reopen the public hearing, but only for new information and hopefully for only one person, perhaps Mr. Knight, to present the new information. Commissioner Hollis seconded the motion. Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: None Staff did not have any information to present prior to the reopening of the public hearing. Chairman Gasper opened the public hearing. Chairman Gasper explained the rules of procedure that allows the applicant 20 minutes to speak and anyone else has a 5-minute time limit. Those present wishing to speak were: Claire Edwards, applicant, said that they took their information from the tape that said the Commission would not open the meeting up for discussion tonight and she did not bring a group of people to speak in her behalf. She said they would have been there if they new the public hearing was going to be reopened. Claire Edwards introduced herself and thanked the Commission for hearing her request tonight. She apologized for being unable to attend the last meeting and appreciated that they were kind enough to table the rezoning until she was back in town. She said that now more than ever before, this country needs to be thoughtful, kind, respectful of their fellow man and the Commission showed their thoughtfulness by tabling the request until tonight. Ms. Edwards also thanked the Commissioners for taking their time to serve on an appointed board by volunteering their time and expertise to the City of Colleyville. She said that all of them have had a couple of emotional weeks and her emotions were already running pretty high and she wants to stay focused on the issue before them tonight, and that is the rezoning request. She said she retained Michael Newman to present her case. Claire Edwards said she's worked and lived in the Northeast Tarrant County area since 1962 and moved her office to Colleyville when there were no accountants who had offices in Colleyville. She said she's worked diligently in this community for over 15 years and served on many boards, volunteered her time on many committees. Ms Edwards said she's been active in the political arena as well as the private sector ofthe community. She said her clients, Andy Felps neighbors, and herself work, vote, pay taxes, and shop Colleyville. She said she bought an old home that dates back to the late 1920's to early 1930's. Ms. Edwards said the house was in terrible shape when she bought it and had faulty wiring, rotted roofing, rusted out propane tanks, had never been hooked on to city gas lines. She said the washing machine was run directly outside and this is just naming a few of the things the property had at the Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24,2001 Page 3 of 24 - Approved October 8, 2001 time she purchased it. She said Mr. Moore moved this house to its current location in 1956 when Belknap Street was widened and she took it upon herself to research the house because she believes in preserving that which people worked very hard to build. Claire Edwards said Mr. and Mrs. Moore lived in the house until their deaths and during the years the property became a run down piece of property especially after Mr. Moore died two years before she purchased the property. She said she's worked very hard to restore the property, be a good and considerate neighbor in her restoration efforts. She said she sought advice from builders, architects, and has repeatedly been told, even by City staff, that this property should be rezoned to CPO. Ms. Edwards said with those recommendations, she made the choice to seek rezoning to CPO and she asked that they grant this request. Chairman Gasper asked Ms. Edwards how her brother is doing? Claire Edwards said he had one kidney removed and he has some cancer in the other kidney and hopefully it will be maintained. She said he is home and thank you for asking. Chairman Gasper said they do wish him the best. Michael Newman said he is present to represent Claire Edwards in this proceeding. He said that he echoed her sentiments and statements about opening the issue for public comment. Mr. Newman said he purposely did not bring persons who expressed interest to come down and speak before the Commission and would ask the Commissioner to consider the possibility to table the case if it is appropriate. He said they came to make a presentation only and not have public opinions. He handed out two notebooks to each Commissioner and staff. Mr. Newman said that the gray booklet is a copy of the slides he plans on going through so they have them in front of them. He went through the slides. He said they've met Claire Edwards who is the applicant and she has one full time employee. He said they've seen some literature previously that indicated she has no plans to expand her existing building, which occupies less than one third of the existing lot. Mr. Newman said Ms. Edwards established her practice in Colleyville fifteen years ago and has been in business for over twenty years. He said what they are looking at is a picture of the proposed subject property as it now sits. He displayed a view of the house before the renovation and it is a one story, wood framed house that was vacant for two years prior to her acquisition of the property, and was in substantial disrepair. Mr. Newman showed a slide of the side view of the property prior to the restoration and renovation. He said it is important to note that the property sits directly in front of a vacant lot on Felps road, and there is another vacant lot on the northwest corner of Felps Road. Mr. Newman said there were three primary issues raised by citizens at the last public hearing and those were: increased traffic, increased crime, and decreased property values. He said that certainly those are very important issues that should be considered anytime something comes before the Commission. Mr. Newman said the traffic count for Cheek Sparger was 9,704 vehicles per day as of November 2000 per statistics kept by the Colleyville police department. He said it is their contention that the applicant does not generate more than two cars per day average and some days she has no additional clientele coming in. He said this slide tells them that there are already 9,700 cars Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24,2001 Page 4 of 24 - Approved October 8, 2001 coming through this neighborhood down Cheek Sparger before the applicant even acquired the property. Mr. Newman said that another issue is property values. He said this is certainly an issue that is near and dear to most homeowner's hearts. He said they've learned that the house on Felps Court directly across from Cheek Sparger was up for sale and it was sold three days from when the for sale sign was put out in front of the house. He said that occurred with the zoning request sign being displayed in the front yard of the subject property. Mr. Newman said that commercial lots do exist on Cheek Sparger, as he is sure they are all well aware, stretching from Brown Trail particularly onto Highway 121. He said they also exist between Brown Trail and Colleyville Boulevard. Mr. Newman said that one such example is on the corner of Brown Trail and Cheek Sparger and apparently that has not affected the construction and sale of estate homes in the Woods subdivision. He said houses in that neighborhood are substantially built out and sold and range in excess of a range of $400,000. Mr. Newman said that Tara Plantation was one of the first high end neighborhoods established in Colleyville back in 1977 and developed by Larry Cole. He said Larry Cole built Tara Village on Cheek Sparger, which is west ofthe subject property. He displayed a slide of the Tara Village shopping center, and told about other businesses located on Cheek Sparger: an animal hospital, Daisy Hill Academy, and various subdivision located around the subject property. Mr. Newman also said there are various subdivisions around the subject property like the Woodbridge Addition (Note: I believe he meant Wood briar North-jl) and the subject property is one block west. He said that there are three houses in the addition that were notified of the pending application and there has been at least one vocal opposition from one of the residents. He said he wanted to point out that that particular resident's house is one of the three close to Cheek Sparger and it faces directly into a commercial zoned lot zoned for retail. Mr. Newman said there are various other additions. Bridlewood Addition obviously appears to be unaffectedly the incorporation of neighborhood commercial businesses all up and down Cheek Sparger like Saddlebrook Addition is situated adjacent to commercial properties. He said that it just shows the Commissioners that there are residential properties that are adjacent to the subject property and shows them what the appearance of some of those properties is as seen by 9,700 drivers that travel on Cheek Sparger. Mr. Newman said that it was stated they don't want commercial activities in their neighborhoods because it brings crime. He said that he is speaking about a professional accounting office. He said the statistics for Colleyville are actually very bright because for the twelve-month period ending in 2001, the criminal activity was down. He said twelve-month prior had a total 393 criminal complaints made to the police department and these include unfounded complaints and there were 366 ending in 2001. Mr. Newman said he represents that there has been no criminal activity generated at the subject property over the last eleven months, and Ms. Edwards' previous office located on Colleyville Blvd. and there has been no history of criminal activity at that prior location. Mr. Newman said that Andy Felps Addition is one of the oldest residential additions in Colleyville and Felps Road faces the backside of certain commercial businesses or is adjacent to commercial Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24, 2001 Page 5 of 24 - Approved October 8, 2001 business along .Colleyville Boulevard. He said several of those lots are in fact vacant. He said the questions he submit to the Commission is, "Who would buy one of these vacant lots, and what's going to happen to these vacant lots?" Mr. Newman said most of the lots are one acre lots and most people coming in want large lots to put estate homes on, but who would buy one of these vacant lots that faces a commercial business, or build on a road that carries 9,700 cars a day? He displayed a slide of a view of a commercial business from a home on Felps Road to show what they look out across. He asked again, "Who would build or restore a residential house with this type of view?" He displayed a slide looking down Cheek Sparger to the west showing the view of commercial businesses on the left. He displayed other slides and showed pictures of the current status of Colleyville to show what would happen if you leave an area that has smaller wood frame houses that fall into disrepair. He said that you then have homeowners who have difficulty selling them to people who want to invest the money to fix them up. Mr. Newman said there are also closed commercial businesses in the area. He mentioned the Payless Cashways, the Chevron station and these don't do any wonders for the residential neighborhood. Mr. Newman displayed an excerpt from the Future Land Use map and he identified Ms. Edwards's lot. He said it shows the proposed usage of the area just to the west is commercial retail, and proposed professional office that comes down Cheek Sparger up to three lots before Felps. He said when you go back one more lot to the east, there is proposed office space for that entire section as well. He said the reason he thinks this map is important is that the property of the northwest corner of Felps and Cheek Sparger is a vacant lot and that is a dilemma. He said he thinks that owner is in a quandary, because who will buy it for an estate home knowing they are right behind commercial retail and two doors down from office. Mr. Newman said it's his and Ms. Edwards feelings that placing and allowing her property to be CPO is going to create a very nice buffer for what is coming and he thinks what she has done has greatly improved the neighborhood. He said she has taken a property that was blighted, vacant, and run down and has done something very wonderful with that property. Mr. Newman showed a slide of the subject property and said it is a very treed lot with a pastoral country feeling to it and does not have a very blatant or obvious commercial building which would be a concern to many homeowners. He showed a slide from the other side of the property to show the trees that buffer it from the other direction and a picture looking from Felps Court and a picture of the property itself. Mr. Newman said they have had no objections from the Felps neighborhood located behind the property or Acuff Street. He said they have gotten the support of 28 residents who live in Andy Felps Addition. He said the blue booklet is photocopies of the letters they've obtained from 28 or more of the residents on Felps Street and he read some of the comments. He said there are also over 30 letters of support from Colleyville residents who are familiar with the property and he read some of those comments. He asked the Commission to approve the requested change from R20 to CPO. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24, 2001 Page 6 of 24 - Approved Ocfober 8, 2001 Chairman Gasper said that under the resolution that was passed, Mr. Knight is supposed to be providing the new information to the Commission and only those residents they did not hear from last week may speak and there is a five-minute rule. Steve Knight, 3917 Felps Court, and said before his time starts he would like to point out that he doesn't believe according to proper procedures that Ms. Edwards was required to state her location of residency nor was the gentleman who made the presentation. He asked if they could correct that failing at present. He asked if Ms. Edwards reside in Colleyville. Chairman Gasper said that Mr. Knight is pointing out that the normal procedure is that they do get name and address of residents of people who testify. Claire Edwards said she resides at 210 Cheek Sparger Road. Michael Newman said he is an attorney licensed by the State Bar of Texas and the Supreme Court of Texas and his office address is 2601 Airport Freeway, Suite 300, Fort Worth, Texas. Mr. Knight said that in accordance with the Chairman's request, he would not review any information that he covered with them last time. He said he wasn't prepared to rebut such a slick presentation this evening, however some of the new information that he wanted to bring them is photographs. He said he took the photographs himself while in the presence of his neighbor Mike Mauer while conducting surveillance on this property over the last year. He said it would show that the representations about traffic at this location are completely erroneous. He said these photographs, as they will see you can count up to nine vehicles parked on the two east and west parking lots of the property on March 31,2001. He asked to approach and give the pictures to the Chairman and she responded that he may. Mr. Knight said that a strong rebuttal is that this was a nice slick presentation and Ms. Edwards can expect that the homeowners who oppose it will have an equal presentation before City Council. He said that in any event the new materials he wants to cover with the Commission are the photographs, and they may be retained because he has the negatives, and the new information is of a bit of a disturbing nature. He said that two of his neighbors have approached him and made him aware that it appears that because of their opposition of Ms. Edwards zoning proposal that she has now resorted to intimidation of some of his neighbors. Chairman Gasper said that she wants him to keep personalities out of the discussion. He said he understands and he doesn't want this to digress into a name-calling match. He said, however he believes the behavior of this applicant cannot be ignored in how the use of this property has been approached over the last year. Mr. Knight said Ms. Edwards has made misrepresentations about the use of this property since she acquired it and she has attempted to cheat the system, as they know it for the last year in the manner in which she has used the property. He said she has broken the rules that they all have to live by in the City of Colleyville and has essentially back- doored this property use issue. Mr. Knight said she has come into a residential neighborhood and squatted and converted this property to commercial use. , Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24, 2001 P8ge 7 of 24 - Approved October B, 2001 Mr. Knight said that many of the homeowners who oppose this rezoning request are also not there tonight and the applicant has opposed others being allowed to speak and there may be additional new information for all he knows. He said he thinks it's somewhat odd that only he is being allowed to present new information and it could be that other people who spoke before the Commission at the last meeting may have new information. He told the Commission that he thinks they should reconsider that. Mr. Knight said that in any event, this applicant's conduct over the last year in the manner in which she has approached the acquisition and renovation and now requesting rezoning of this property couldn't be ignored. He said this is an individual who lies, who cheats the system, and who breaks the rules. He said he hopes the Commission will take that into consideration in considering this request. Tim Roberts, 215 Cheek Sparger Road, right across the street. He said he believes and from what he understands from the old timers around here that his house is the first house that was ever built on Cheek Sparger, but he is not planning on putting a historical marker up at this time. He said that he also had a dilapidated wood frame house that he remodeled himself as he does custom woodwork. He said he's invested in his house probably a little more than your average Joe as it is all custom on the inside and he's spent many hours and worked like a dog. He said he's improved his property also and is still is working on it and it's a work in progress. Mr. Roberts said he first met Claire when she first moved in and as he understood it she was going to do a residential business and now that's changed. He said when you're going home and look at the 5300 block of Bransford Road there is a stone office building and when she first moved in that was her dream. He said when she tells him in this pamphlet that she's not planning any further expansion, he doubts it. Mr. Roberts said as far as being neighborly, Claire has talked to him about three times, like for the Wal Mart issue or something of that sort. He said it's not a neighborly kind of friendship type deal, but its always been about a certain issue, so having a regular neighbor like he has with Steve, that is not the type of relationship he has with Claire. He said it is a business and it scares him because he hates to have an office building or business park in front of his house. He said that this isn't in his plans or dreams. He said he has two autistic children and his wife can't work so their struggling and they make due with what they have. He said they had dreams when they bought the property and to see something done backwards isn't right to him. He said she should have applied for this before she bought the property or invested investigated it more and asked the neighbors before she made the move. Mr. Roberts said he feels like he is being strong armed and being taken advantage by someone who has a lawyer and can afford these luxuries in life and he hates to see it happen. He said it's not fair to them and it's not in his interests and hopes the Commission can see it. Commissioner Hollis asked if Mr. Roberts could point out where the property was on the location map. Olivia Locker, 116 Cheek Sparger Road, said she has lived in their house for about thirty years and they heard about Ms. Edwards proposal to live in the house and do work out of her home. She said they have absolutely no objection to that. She said that if she is involved in any sort of Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24, 2001 Page 8 of 24 - Approved October 8, 2001 criminal activity or cheating anybody, she would like to see that in writing and she does not want to hear about that in a meeting. Ms. Locker said there has been an awful lot of that in their area about what people are and not doing and if they are going to be accused of anything, she would like to see it in writing. She said they have no objections to Ms. Edwards going ahead with her proposal and she's not had a chance to meet her, but she's not seen any unusual activity over there. Ms. Locker said the only time there were extra cars in the area was when she was building. She said as far as the family across the street that has children who are afraid of the extra traffic, she has not ever seen any children out there and she is in and out of the house all the time. Ms. Locker said if Claire Edwards would like to do this and there's no proof that she is doing any kind of criminal activity, she supports her efforts. Chairman Gasper confirmed that Ms. Locker's property was master planned for office. Susan Dunn, 3809 Felps Court, said she just wanted to point something out that she heard this evening. She said she understood that Ms. Edwards had a tape of the last meeting and heard the proceedings and she asked if that was correct. Chairman Gasper responded that is what her understanding is from what Ms. Edwards said earlier. Ms. Dunn said that part of the problem is that Ms. Edwards is trying to run a business and she is not residing in the home and to have a home business they cannot use more than 25% of the residence. She said Ms. Edwards just stated her address as 210 Cheek Sparger and that is not a residence and they determined that at the last meeting. Ms. Dunn said so she is not one of their immediate neighbors per say. She said one more point is that Ms. Edwards began her speech as wanting to be thoughtful and having them be thoughtful and caring neighbors. She said if she wanted to be a thoughtful and caring neighbor, she would have worked on the rezoning before she opened her business in their residential area. Ms. Dunn said if she's allowed to do this, then the people who buy property in the future that express they plan to live there and then decide to open up a business this sets a horrific precedence for future activities. Virginia Garret, 128 Cheek Sparger, said she is next to the corner and owns the vacant lot across the street from Felps Drive. Ms. Garret said she has a driveway that comes down the side of her house and around the back and when her grandson, children and company comes, she may have as many as seven cars in her driveway. She said she sees nothing wrong with seeing two cars in Ms. Edwards' yard. Ms. Garret said she has never heard any disturbance at Ms. Edwards' and they've never had any problems in the neighborhood and she's been there 43 years and it is peaceful. She said as far as the traffic is concerned, they do have a lot of traffic and have always had a lot of traffic and it isn't because of the businesses along the road, but from people going to and from various other areas. Ms. Garret said she sees nothing wrong with the request and the house is now beautiful and anyone who takes her house and fixes it up that nice, they're welcome to have a business in it too. She said the improvements are an addition to the neighborhood. She asked for it to be commercial if that is what Ms. Edwards wants. Fern Dale 4005 Felps Drive. She said she's never met Ms. Edwards but she goes past the house at least once a day seven days a week and there were quite a few cars when the home was being remodeled. She said there are not a lot of cars there now and Ms, Edwards has beautified the whole area and she appreciates that. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24,2001 Page 9 of 24 - Approved October 8, 2001 Paul Dennie, 200 Cheek Sparger, said he is up and down Cheek Sparger every day and has never seen 7 to 9 cars at this location. He said it's strange to him that when their properties were up for sale with the Wal Mart situation, the same opposing bunch of people kicked them in the teeth are again trying to kick this lady in the teeth too. He said it's strange to him that they can't see the great improvement that this lady has done upon this home and the money that has been spent there. He said the improvements are a great asset to the community and he appreciates everything she has done. Mr. Dennie said if it weren't for people like Claire Edwards, where would Colleyville be, but a stick in the mud somewhere because of people who oppose everything that is good and prosperous for this city. He said he hears the Mayor and others say that they are running out of commercial property and are they going to shoot these projects down and just turn them down because of the fact that somebody just doesn't want to agree with the other people and go along. Mr. Dennie said that he notices that whenever something like this comes up that they always come up with crime, with traffic, and all those things and that's the very same things that they shot at them when they were trying to sell their property on Cheek Sparger. He said that he just doesn't go for this business of always opposing something that is good in this city, and believes that the city could move forward if they had some people who would cooperate. He said that now we have a bunch of rebels who want to shoot everything down and we need to reconsider a few of these things and look at the possibilities. He said Ms. Edwards has not had an effect on traffic and that's not so and he goes whole heartedly with this latest proposal and he hopes they get the opportunity to stand before the Commission again on the sale of their property. Commissioner Gasper said a Commissioner has asked him to point out where he lives. He did and said that they've lived there 36 years. Randy Knight, 4205 Felps Drive, across from the All Tune and Lube. He said his property faces the back of that business. He said there were comments made about bending the rules and he's sure that the people who made them have never bent them themselves. He said he's known Claire for quite a while and she is his CPA and he loves that she is right down the end of the street because he can almost jog down there and give her his taxes. Mr. Knight said that Claire's a very Christian lady and as far as Christian things, every Christian has bent the rules or has done things, but she is a very good lady. He said she's helped him out a lot and she has done a lot of improvements to the neighborhood by buying that house and fixing it up. Mr. Knight said that thing was nothing but a dump before she bought the place, and as far as her expanding, he thinks all she wants is her little house with her little office. He said he doesn't think she's going to build a Wal Mart next to it or a big office complex, which they already have on their street. He said they already have several office buildings on the street that line almost the whole side of the street on Felps, and it looks worse than what she has. He said that if they want to complain, they should complain about all the other office buildings that are already on the street and aren't very nice places and an improvement to the community. Mr. Knight said the only way you can tell from a regular house and her property is that she has a sign on her mailbox. He said he is for what Claire Edwards has done because it is a very, very, good improvement. Vernel Greer, 4001 Felps Drive, next door to Claire Edwards. She said she and her husband own lots 15,16, & 17, and she's been a very good neighbor and they have no complaints. Ms. Greer Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24, 2001 Page 10 of 24 - Approved October 8, 2001 said the Commission has a statement from her. She said Claire's been neighborly and comes overto talk to them and asks them ifthere is anything that is bothering them and there is nothing. She said she wants to commend her for what she's done, and she hopes Claire gets the commercial zoning. Peggy Dennie, 200 Cheek Sparger Road, and she has others living with her that have just come in from Singapore who would sign the same paper. She said she wants to say what this lady has done and she really appreciates it, and she commends her, and commends her spirit for trying to do something that's right and for trying to help these people that are in Colleyville. Ms. Dennie said Claire Edwards never ran anyone down when she came to her, but she herself had been run down and that's sad. Ms. Dennie said she's helped a lot of people since she's been here and has counseled a lot of people as a retired pastor's wife. She said her husband was about to have heart surgery when they were here for the Wal Mart issue and even though he was very ill, he was treated very badly while he was in the council chambers the last time. Ms. Dennie said she loves everybody and doesn't have a critical remark to make, here or elsewhere. She said she wants to say that she appreciates someone who will come into her community and build a nice little home like it is and do the things that she's done. Ms. Dennie said she's told Steve Knight in her innocence what was going on way back there with Wal Mart and did not realize that he did not love her and her neighbors as much as she thought he did. She said she did not know him. She said she's been here a long time and she's all for somebody who will make their community better. She said she came to Colleyville as a young woman and she wonders since she's been here so long, why her voice is not heard. Ms. Dennie said their friend, Claire Edwards, is worthy of some good comments and she would like to see Claire get this business started as soon as possible. She said even though Claire moved in and lived there some, but it doesn't matter or not if she lives there now, and she more than welcomes her in the community. Patty Romi, 4913 Parkbrooke Drive, Fort Worth, 76137, said she wanted to tell the Commission that she worked with Claire when she had Colleyville and South lake offices and she was with her when Claire was looking at buying this property because she wanted to cut back her business. She said Claire wanted to cut back due to stress with family matters, the death of her husband, and other family things and she wanted to be able to be at home and work at her place. She said Claire also wanted to be able to take advantage of a vacation place she has and that is one of the reasons she bought this place. Ms. Romi said she understood from a previous lady that the Commission has established that this is not Claire Edwards' residence at the last meeting and she doesn't know how they established that. She says as far as she knows that is Claire's address for voting, drivers license, and she has a bed there, a kitchen and furniture. Ms. Romi said she's sure Claire doesn't live there all the time, because she has a vacation place on a lake she goes to. Ms. Romi said she's worked with Claire and Claire is highly ethical, very moral, and she always does what's right for her clients and her employees. She said that although she no longer works for Claire because she cut back on her business, she doesn't feel any disrespect or anger or hostility because Claire was really trying to have this place for her home and for her business. Ms. Romi said she hopes that no one ever condemns her for the number of cars in front of her house when she has people over. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24, 2001 Page 11 of 24 - Approved October 8, 2001 Wanda Knight, 3917 Felps Court, directly across the street. She said she has nothing against Claire Edwards and neither does her husband, contrary to what some people think. She said what she is concerned about is that she has seen on a daily basis that Ms. Edwards is not living at this property. She said the cars leave at 5:30 - 6:00 every evening and they don't come back until the following morning and nobody is there on the weekend. She said this is a business, this is not a residence, and this is the one concern that she's had and it's been purported to be a residence with an office within that residence. She said this has not been the case. Ms. Knight said the cars that they've been talking about here were during tax season, and there are five to ten cars in the parking lot. She said the parking lot has been expanded to carry up to twelve cars and they're all there as she's seen them and she sees everybody vacate the premises in the evening. Ms. Knight said the other thing that concerns her is in setting precedence here. She said that Randy Knight was talking about the business on Felps Drive and how bad they look and if they allow this property to go commercial, she asked, "What is going to happen in the future with the residential property that surrounds it?" She said that it is going to set the precedence for that property to also go commercial as well, and she doesn't what that to happen to her neighborhood and that is exactly why they fought the Wal Mart project as bad and heavy as they did. She said they want to preserve their neighborhoods and serenity and they can't do it if they let a little at a time be etched away. Michael Newman, applicant, wanted to respond to the new issues that have been brought before the court. He said he could tell the Commission from a personal note, that he has known Ms. Edwards for over ten years and he has never known her to be the type of person that has been suggested that she is. He said he appreciates Chairman Gasper for curtailing that line of personal attack. Mr. Newman said he's listened to some of the new evidence that's been brought up today, but he does not know if any evidence has been offered. He said this is not a court of law, but there should be some shred of information that can be used to establish some of these complaints that have been lodged. He also wanted to suggest and remind the Commission that in his opinion, this is not the forum or the place to determine what a person's legal residence is, and that's not why they're here. He asked that the Commission not be misguided on that point and deal solely on the case that's been brought to this Commission. He said he has a friend of his that has probably a dozen residences, and he picks one of those and says that is his residence. He said that in some other forum, whether it's a court or panel or tribunal, that may be where it is determined what the residency is and it's not the issue today. Mr. Newman said that as far as the allegations that Ms. Edwards has done something underhanded or sneaky, he bristles at those types of comments. He said this is not the tribunal to determine what's happened, but he would just comment that Ms. Edwards had attempted all along to do the right thing. He said she came down to the city and talked to the people who needed to be talked to in order to find out what she can and can't do. He said she believed that what she was doing was appropriate. He said there have been citizens suggesting that what she's done up till now is not appropriate, but this is not the forum to determine is appropriate. What she has done is to make an application and it's been brought in good faith that they believe is warranted and justified based on what Colleyville has already done back in 1998 and a lot has changed since then. He said when they had the full support of almost every residence who lives on Felps Road behind the property, it is interesting to note that the persons that come up and speak Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24,2001 Page 12 of 24 - Approved October 8, 2001 against this actually don't even live in the neighborhood or addition that is being affected. He said that he would admit that Felps Road is affected. He said that the lady across the street on the corner of Felps Drive & Cheek Sparger has two vacant lots and asked what will she be able to do with those properties in the future? He said that common sense and logical case-by-case approach that what Ms. Edwards is asking to do is the appropriate and right thing to do. Chairman Gasper closed the public hearing. She asked Barry LeBaron to point out to the audience what the ordinance regarding home business is and how it is determined that the business in question is not in compliance with existing ordinances. Mr. LeBaron said they have a home occupation ordinance that is a part of the zoning regulations that list a series of uses that are permitted as home occupation uses, but it states you have to limit the use of your home to 25% and you have to be living there as well. He said when he contacted the applicant and advised her of the violation of the zoning regulations, she asked him what her avenue of relief is and he said she either needs to cease and abate the violation or seek rezoning of the property to an appropriate use. Chairman Gasper said that she just wants to say that they all recognize that the applicant has done a wonderful job in improving the appearance of the property and that is not at issue here. She said that they have to determine whether or not it is appropriate zoning for the property to be changed from residential use to a commercial CPO use. She said as most people can see, the Master Plan calls for commercial and the property Ms. Edwards is currently on is zoned in the Master Plan as residential. She said that is what the Commissioners need to discuss at this point and where to go from here. Commissioner Sellers asked if the applicant could answer some of his questions. Chairman Gasper asked Ms. Edwards to come to the microphone. Commissioner Sellers asked Ms. Edwards how she applied for the permit to redo the home. She said that she remodeled the home and since he is asking the question, she said it keeps being brought up where she resides. Ms. Edwards said she currently has four places she resides at the present. She said she has had a homestead in Hurst' she bought the subject property with the intention of cutting back and moving to it' she has a piece of property in Pecan Plantation in Granbury and spends a great deal of time there; and she has a residence at 210 Cheek Sparger Road. She said when she applied for a remodel permit it was a residential. She said she talked with Clayton Husband, Bob Stripling, and several other people on staff and asked about the office in the home occupation. She said if she needs to go before a court of law and decide if she broke a law, she'd be happy to address that issue. Ms. Edwards said she thought that she was in compliance and the house has two bathrooms, a bedroom, a living room, and two areas used for an office. She said she doesn't doubt for a minute that there may have been nine cars at some point in time. She said she talked with the city to find out you may not have parking on the sidewalk so she paid money to have parking off the side. She said when she read the residential office in the home, it specifically states that you may have an accounting or a tax office, a notary, a real estate office and she thought she was in compliance. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24, 2001 Page 13 of 24 - Approved October 8, 2001 Ms. Edwards said she had hoped that tonight they would stay on the issues about the rezoning. She said when Barry came and talked to her, he said they have had one person who has continually complained and Barry said at that point in time it appeared to him that Ms. Edwards has an office in the home. She said she has never denied that she has an office there. She said she doesn't live there full time and she changed her drivers license to Colleyville and it is not her only home. She asked the Commissioners if they would want to live and sleep overnight with somebody who has as much hostility as has been shown against her tonight. Ms. Edwards said she has two daughters sitting here tonight who live in her area and she spends a great deal of time with them and her five grandchildren. She said they're within six miles and one mile of this home. She said she would not go over and check to see where her neighbors sleep, whom they're sleeping with and she resents the fact that this is the attack that is being made against her. She told Mr. Sellers that she thinks it's wrong. She said she doesn't think she is, but this has become an emotional issue for her. Commissioner Sellers said that it's not a personal thing with him, but he's just asking questions for his own knowledge. She said it was remodeled under residential. He asked if she has a parking lot attached. She said she increased the parking and a permit is not required. She said there was originally gravel on the property, but she made the driveway to go out so cars can come in off of one area and there's a circle drive in front of the house. Commissioner Sellers asked her what the parking lot is made of. She responded that it's asphalt. He asked her if she knew the depth of the asphalt and who did it. She responded that she would have to look at the records, but she believes that it was Southwest Paving. He said that it was done from a commercial standpoint. Ms. Edwards said she apologizes if this gets emotional for her, but who she sleeps with and with whom she sleeps with at night is not at issue here and she feels like that's what's happening here. She said there have been people peeping in her windows since she's applied for the rezoning and she is not sleeping over there at night and she doesn't intend to when she has the hostility that she has seen here this evening and the accusations made. Chairman Edwards said the Commission is trying to address this based upon what the city ordinances are and what the zoning requirements are and what the facts are. She said that is how all of the Commissioners plan on approaching it. She said it is unfortunate when personalities get involved. She said they are trying to find out what the facts for the case are and how they pertain to this particular application. Commissioner Hollis said he still has some confusion about whether this is considered a residence or not and the reason he's asking is that Ms. Edwards is asking to rezone the property from residence to commercial light office. He said if it then becomes commercial light office, it's his understanding it cannot be a residence and he believes that is relevant at this point. Ms. Edwards said it has been a residence and she is asking upon Mr. LeBaron's recommendation when she said to him that she didn't want any problems in Colleyville as she has a good reputation in this community and what should she do. She said she believes that Mr. LeBaron said to her that something to the effect that, "Who would want to come in and build a house with 10,000 cars, it really needs to be CPO." Ms. Edwards said she came down and spent her Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24, 2001 Page 14 of 24 - Approved October 8, 2001 $500.00 and made the determination that she would at that point in time convert it from residence to commercial professional office. Chairman Gasper said she is getting a little confused now and asked Mr. LeBaron what is the percentage that may be under a homeowner business. He responded that it is 25% may be utilized for business purposes. She asked Ms. Edwards if she could tell her what percentage is being utilized for business activities. Ms. Edwards said it was her understanding that she wasn't in compliance because he felt they had more than the 25%. She said they have one room that is used exclusively for an office and a combination living/conference/dining room that is used and meets with clients in. Ms. Edwards said those are the only two rooms she meets with clients in and she has one employee who's worked with her for twenty-nine years and she considers her family although there's no blood kin there. Ms. Edwards said she uses two rooms for office use. Chairman Gasper said Ms. Edwards has one unrelated person who is conducting business from the residence. Ms. Edwards responded that is correct. Chairman Gasper said she assumes when Ms. Edwards files her income tax returns she writes off a portion of her house for business purposes. Ms. Edwards said that she's not gotten to that point at this time. Chairman Gasper asked Ms. Edward's what percentage does she anticipate she might be using when she files the income taxes. Ms. Edwards said she has not done that yet and she'll have to figure the square footage and it would probably be about 15%, which is normally standard. Ms. Edwards said there is eight weeks out of the year that they have quite a bit of traffic. She said they videoconference, do remote access, and she has clients in many states and foreign countries that she does not see, but corresponds with mail and email so she doesn't have a high traffic business. Chairman Gasper said they're trying to get to if Ms. Edwards meets the city requirements to be a home based business. Chairman Gasper said if she remembers correctly having an unrelated person employed on the premises is not under the permitted operation for home-occupied business. Mr. LeBaron said that is correct. Ms. Edwards said she believes the ordinance states "engaged in the business" and doesn't say, "employed by a person". She said that on Felps Court she knows of people who have employees working and she doesn't want to get involved with that, but her request is if the business is not in compliance, she wants to come into compliance and that is why she requested CPO. Chairman Gasper said they are trying to decide two things as one like are you or are you not in compliance because that is one of the issues raised as to whether or not it is a residence and how much of the square footage is business. Chairman Gasper asked is she correct that Ms. Edwards is saying she resides there and less than 25% of the residence is used for her business. Ms. Edwards said she wants to ask if that 25% that is never used other than business purposes or is it 25% of the space over an annual basis? She said they have not prepared to deal with the residence issue and what they need to do to come into compliance at this point. Ms. Edwards said she didn't think that is what this issue was before the Commission tonight. Michael Newman said that this line of questioning might not be dealing with the issue at hand. He said that whether or not this is a residence, or a residence occupation, but those are issues that will be addressed by the municipal court in this city. He said it's not as to whether or not a code enforcement officer comes out and feels it may be a violation and a judge determines whether or Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24,2001 Page 15 of 24 - Approved Ocfober 8, 2001 not there is an ordinance being violated. He said Ms. Edwards is simply here to say that apparently there's been some misguiding and misunderstanding when the process was initially started to where she's at now. He said she's told in order to do the right thing, she's should then apply for CPO and that is what they are here for. Mr. Newman said whether or not she is in or out of compliance on a residential standard, he doesn't believe is a relevant point to determine whether or not it's the appropriate use for this lot to be CPO. Commissioner Jones said that he needs some guidance from staff to make it clear for him that she is zoned residential, she is asking for a zoning change, and it's clearly being used as a professional office building and no one is living there. Chairman Gasper said that Ms. Edwards is saying that she is living there. Ms. Edwards interjected that she is part of the time, and that is not her only residence because she has property in three other places. Chairman Gasper said that they are to look at this as a straight zoning case as to whether or not that piece of property should be a CPO or whether it should be R20. Michael Newman answered that is correct and upon the granting of the CPO, obviously Ms. Edwards will be told she can't use this in any form or fashion as a residence and he's certain she would immediately no longer use it and claim it as a residence. Chairman Gasper said she wanted to make it clear that they're to deal with this as solely a zoning issue. She said she thinks they need to look at what is the Master Plan and discuss amongst the Commissioners as to whether or not it is appropriate for this Commission to recommend to City Council that the zoning be changed from R20 to CPO. She said she would like them to stay narrowly focused on that. Commissioner Hollis asked where the nearest commercially zoned property is. He said one of the slides during the presentation said the resident's house faces a vacant commercially zoned lot. Michael Newman said he wasn't sure what slide that was. Chairman Gasper said that from the Master Plan, the red and the pink are commercial uses. Ms. Edwards pointed out where the closest Master Planned commercial property was. Commissioner Wall asked staff to tell them what is the map that they are looking at. Barry LeBaron said it is a copy of the 2025 Future Land Use Map as part of the Master Plan. He said the yellow shows future residential, the pink shows future office, and the red areas show future commercial. Commissioner Wall asked him if he has a slide that shows the current Master Plan. Barry LeBaron said that maybe what he is asking for is what is the current zoning and that's in the packet and he doesn't have a slide. Barry LeBaron said the Master Plan is the crystal ball that was put together in 1998 that says if the city builds out, this is the way they think it will build out. Chairman Gasper said that she and Commissioner Wall recently attended training on planning and zoning issues and they had quite an in depth discussion of master plans and to what extent they are guidelines and to what extent they are binding. She asked Commissioner Wall to correct her if she's wrong, but they walked away with the notion that, absent a compelling public interest, the residents of a community should be able to look at the community's master plan and make a determination if that is what the future will look like until it is changed. Commissioner Wall said he would defer to staff as to the exact definition of what a master plan is. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24, 2001 Page 16 of 24 - Approved October 8, 2001 Barry LeBaron said that in Texas the statute just says you will zone in accordance with a comprehensive plan and the courts have upheld that the zoning map in Texas essentially is to be the master plan. He said traditionally a master plan is not a zoning map, but another map that says, "Well, we recognize the zoning districts are set by ordinance, but if they want to look into the future, then at least there is some rationale as to where they are going with your zoning cases." He said the problem is if they are trying to guess twenty-five years into the future, who's to say the preciseness as to where that line will be drawn and the timing of such. He said there's the thinking that happens each year as you go by from when you first adopted a master plan, there's new information and influencing factors that cause things to be different. Commissioner Wall said that currently the way this City Council has approved the master plan zoning for the city, the lot is zoned residential. Barry LeBaron said that is correct. Commissioner Wall said if sufficient residents in the Andy Felps Addition wanted their area to go commercial, CPO or otherwise, their avenue of redress to the city would be to appeal to the City Council to seek rezoning. Barry LeBaron said that some states like Florida where they have master plan legislation then you have two different official legal processes, but in Texas they only have a zoning process and not a master plan process. Commissioner Sellers asked if the property was rezoned to commercial, what is the largest size building that could be put on the lot. Barry LeBaron it is 40% of the lot. He said that the lot is 9/10 of an acre so a building could be approximately 16,000 sJ. He said you can't apply the 40% standard universally because by the time you back in to parking and landscaping requirements, it would almost need to be a perfect site to get that 40% lot coverage in building. He said it usually ends up something closer to 20%. Commissioner Wall said his understanding of where they're going is, do they recommend to the City Council rezoning of the lot to CPO or do they not? Chairman Gasper asked if the zoning goes to CPO does the property have to be replatted. Barry LeBaron responded that it would not. Commissioner Sellers asked if it went commercial would it require an 8' wall separating the commercial end from the residential end. Barry LeBaron said he is not sure he is prepared to answer that question tonight and the reason is because there may be some nonconforming criteria that will come into play. He said rezoning the property may not trigger site improvements and he'd need to look at it. Chairman Gasper said that she thought the minimum requirement would be a landscaped barrier and it would not have to be a wall. She said the only reason she is aware of that is she happens to live in Bridlewood Estates, which has the CN lot adjacent to it. She said when the zoning case came before the Commission the question was raised about screening and Mr. Husband said it could be a landscaped evergreen screening. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24, 2001 Page 17 of 24 - Approved October 8, 2001 Mr. LeBaron said if the property was rezoned and a commercial building permit was requested, that would trigger the thresholds for bringing the site up to standards. He said then he could answer that question if there would be some of those issues coming into play. He said with the mere fact of rezoning, he's not sure he can give him and answer on that without some additional research. Commissioner Sellers asked if by rezoning, it would the applicant be required to have the proper parking facility under some governing factor. Barry LeBaron said he thinks that because it is an existing structure, he'd have to research that. Commissioner Hollis asked if it would be relevant to ask had this process taken place before business began at that site or if the renovations were not undertaken until after the zoning was done, what would apply? Barry LeBaron responded that in that particular case where you would typically seek rezoning, get rezoning, and then come in for a building permit, he would have something he can point to in his ordinance that says when you're doing these renovations, then you trigger certain requirements. He said that in this particular case because of the mere fact that it's already there, just seeking rezoning, he's not able to tell them if other things are required. Commissioner Hollis said these particular renovations were done as a residence so they escaped the qualifications of commercial. Barry LeBaron said there are people who have property all over the city who seek rezoning and when they get the zoning approved, they don't make them go out there and come into compliance at that time. He said it's only when they come in and seek building permits at that point. Commissioner Wall said he's driven past this and it's a beautiful building and he understand that they do not have a preponderance and it appears to him that neighbors on either side, or 100% of the neighbors, don't say they want to go one way or the other. He said he's not sure either one of those bears on the issue. Commissioner Wall said the master plan calls for this to be a residential area and there's a method by which the residents can appeal that and have redress and ask the City Council to rezone the area. Commissioner Wall moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission report to the City Council and recommend in the negative as far as rezoning to CPO. Commissioner Sellers seconded the motion. Chairman Gasper told the Commissioners that the question they're voting on if they vote yes, they are voting a recommendation to the City Council that this zoning request be denied. Commissioner Wall said that would require 3 out of 4 votes at Council. Chairman Gasper said if they would deny it, it would require a super majority approval by the City Council for them to pass the zoning. Commissioner Wall said it doesn't mean that the applicant cannot move forward. Chairman Gasper said the applicant could appeal the recommendation of this Commission to the City Council. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24, 2001 Page 18 of 24 - Approved October 8, 2001 Commissioner Swift asked Chairman Gasper to clarify the point she just made about the yes or no in the vote. Chairman Gasper said if you vote yes, that means you are in favor or denying the request for rezoning and you do not want this property to be rezoned CPO. Commissioner Hollis said that a majority no vote would cause this motion to fail and they would need a new motion then to vote upon until something passes. Chairman Gasper said she does not believe so, because they would have denied the rezoning request. Commissioner Hollis said if a majority of the Planning and Zoning Commission votes no, the motion will simply fail and will be opened to entertaining an additional motion. Barry LeBaron said that is correct. Commissioner Sellers asked if they have any statistics as to the number of people who are for the request and the number of people who are against the request. Barry LeBaron said they have not compiled the statistics on that. Chairman Gasper said that they are basically to address the facts is this suitable property to go to CPO or should they comply with the master plan and leave it as residential. She said they are here to make the recommendations to the City Council and they don't make them based upon a vote among the people of Colleyville. She said it's not a referendum, but a recommendation from this commission. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Swift, Jones, Hollis, Gasper Noes: Culley, Sellers Commissioner Wall requested the Chairman to make one statement. He said that he hopes the applicant takes it forward, and now this issue goes to the proper group of people who need to consider zoning for the City of Colleyville. He said they are, as you well know, an appointed body and this master plan was drawn up and approved by the City Council. He said if the citizens of Colleyville, the residents who came forth in Claire Edwards support, the people of the Andy Felps Addition wish strongly enough that this issue gets resolved, it will be. Commissioner Wall said if Ms. Edwards will take it forward he believes she is taking it to the proper group to consider it. 2. A Minor Plat of Lot 9, Block 1, Oak Knoll North Addition requested by William Stromberg, 1.30 acres located in the 7300 block of Cedar Court. Case P-01-028 Commissioner Hollis said he owns property on Cedar Court and will be abstaining from this vote even though he is not technically within the 200'. He asked if the Commissioners wanted him to leave during the discussion. Chairman Gasper said he might abstain if he so desired, but there is no conflict of interest for him to participate in this discussion. Barry LeBaron said if the only time they would have a conflict here is if he was within the 200' and you felt that this case would benefit you by some 10% or $2,500 or more. Mr. LeBaron said that for example if they wanted to rezone this to some oil wells and it was going to improve everybody's property values in there and his was one of them, it could be that he'd receive at least $2,500 benefit from his vote. He said if he feels his voting on the case will increase his property values by that much, then he needs to abstain. Commissioner Hollis said he is uncomfortable with voting on property located on his own street Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24,2001 Page 19 of 24 - Approved October 8, 2001 and for his own reasons, he'll abstain. Chairman Gasper said that Commissioner Hollis may stay or leave but to do which ever for him is the most comfortable because there's no conflict of , interest under the rules. Commissioner Hollis elected to stay. Tom Niederauer said this is a minor plat and gave the location. He said all the comments made by the Development Review committee have been met. Mr. Niederauer said the only issue, which actually is a non-issue, is the flood plain on the property because of the size of it. He said the applicant has submitted a drainage plan and study and that's been approved by the engineering department. He said the applicant has secured a permit to do the grading work to bring the pad site for the home out of the floodplain or actually 2' above that, which is the city's requirement. Chairman Gasper said since this is a minor plat that whatever their decision is, it does not have to go to the City Council. Barry LeBaron responded that is correct. Tom Niederauer showed the Commission where the flood plain, building line, and pad site are located. Chairman Gasper asked if the engineering department will oversee it to make sure it is stable and the ground will stay put and it meets all the requirements. Tom Niederauer said they do that before they allow the foundation to be poured. Commissioner Wall moved approval of the minor plat. Commissioner Sellers seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Gasper Noes: None Abstained: Hollis 3 PUBLIC HEARING - A Replat of Lots 1 Rand 3, Block 1, Greer Addition, requested by Michael Skinner, 1.083 acres located at 4904 Jim Mitchell Trail West. Tom Niederauer presented the case to the Commission. He said this is a simple plat to replat lots 1 Rand 3 from a previous plat into two lots to be subdivided for two single-family home lots. He said the applicant has met the DRC comments as requested. He said the only issue is the City Council action on the perimeter street requirement and staff has recommended approval subject to that City Council action. He said that both lots do meet the zoning requirements. Chairman Gasper said the vote should be subject to the City Council acting on the perimeter streets, does that mean if they approve it and the City does not waive the fees, then the applicant will not divide the lot into two lots. Mr. Niederauer responded that apparently the applicant would not file it so it would void the replat. Chairman Gasper asked the applicant to come forward. Chairman Gasper opened the public hearing. Those present wishing to speak were: Michael Skinner, 7800 Mockingbird Lane, North Richland Hills. He said he was hired by Karen Moreland to subdivide the lot and she wants to buy the lot to put a single family home on there and whatever action the council takes, she still plans to buy it. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24, 2001 Page 20 of 24 - Approved October 8, 2001 Chairman Gasper thanked Mr. Skinner for clarifying that and said she was a little confused on what the contingency was regarding the perimeter street issue. There being no one else present wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Barry LeBaron said he would like to explain what the perimeter street issue is about and he's hoping they can discuss it later on as well. He said this property was subdivided some time ago and the requirement that was placed on the plat was, the owner didn't have to pay any perimeter street improvements unless they subsequently divided it again. He said they are here tonight to subsequently subdivide it again so it's triggering the requirement for paying for the perimeter street improvements. He said they've indicated they will be going before the City Council and seeking a waiver from that and that's why Tom said he'd like them to make their approval subject to Council's action. He said that what would probably happen if Council were to deny their waiver, then they have to pay for those improvements and put those escrows up, so it may be a moot point because the applicant may not file the plat in the courthouse. Commissioner Wall asked if the last time the lot was subdivided and the Council put that requirement on the plat, was it the same owner that had the land when the property was divided before? Barry LeBaron said he did not know if it was. Chairman Gasper asked the applicant to come forward and answer the question. The applicant responded that it is the same owner. Commissioner Wall moved to approve the minor plat. Commissioner Hollis seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: None Commissioner Wall said that they had an offside discussion and in approving the minor plat the Commission did not need to take any action with the perimeter street issue, because the City Council is going to have to look at that one way or another. 4. A Final Plat of Broughton Addition requested by David Bagwell, 55 acres located on the north side of Hall Johnson Road, west of Highland Hills Lane. Case P-01-024 Barry LeBaron presented the case to the Commission. He said that earlier in the year the City Council approved the planned unit development for residential for this property that now comes to them as a final plat called Broughton Addition. He said it's 55 acres and the plat before them includes 82 lots and it's almost identical to the exhibit that is a part of the approved zoning ordinance. He said the ordinance actually gives the Commission and the City Council some latitude in making some minor adjustments to the plat. He said the reason for that is when you do the preliminary plat, you often haven't done all the engineering and design work to get you to the preliminary plat stage that you need to come forward with the final plat. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24, 2001 Page 21 of 24 - Approved October 8, 2001 Mr. LeBaron said one of the things that is somewhat different on this final plat from the preliminary plat is that a street is originally proposed to go straight up and make the bend. He said one of the things they've done on the plat is design it so you come in and make a slight adjustment for that street. He said the reason is that after doing their final engineering and survey work, they determined what their actual cut and fill situation is in terms of moving dirt. He said they realized if they tried to follow the topography by moving this road over, they'd end up with a much better development because they wouldn't have all these lots cut into the side of the hill and move all the dirt over to the other side. He said that is better simply because the preliminary plat was easier to draw a straight line. He said they've tried to take advantage of the topography and it is such a minor issue that staff didn't have any problem with it, but he wanted to call it to their attention that it is not precisely like the zoning exhibit. Mr. LeBaron said that the other thing the applicant is asking for is the zoning ordinance states these lots are to have 30' front building lines and they want 27' building lines. He said the rationale is that there are some green spaces that are to have one way streets on the west side of the development with a narrower street than residential streets. He said because they are one way, there isn't the traffic to be concerned about passing back the other direction. He said in order to take advantage of that extra width of the green space what they're asking for is to make the front yard setbacks 27' instead of 30'. Mr. LeBaron said this is a slight departure from what was originally proposed, but it gives them the latitude to set that and make a departure from that standpoint. He said staff did not have any particular concerns over that 27' and there are a number of developments in the city that have 25'. Mr. LeBaron said Mr. Bagwell is required to have at least 20% open space in the development. He said he has extra wide greenbelts along the main street that goes in and a green space along Hall Johnson Road and a green area buffering his development from the Highland Meadows development and others within the street areas. Mr. LeBaron said this is a rather unique approach for Colleyville and they've not seen this type of development. He said the developer has done several others in the city with some very creative and imaginative features and each has a good character about it. Mr. LeBaron said that the city's fire station is located in an area and Mr. Bagwell's been negotiating with the city if he can eventually come up with a plan to buy the property from the city and move the fire station farther to the west. He said the applicant has gone ahead and platted around that area and marked two lots as open space lots so that in the future if he can, he would just have to replat them for buildable lots. He said if he did that, it would not reduce him below the 20% open space requirement. Mr. LeBaron said the development only has one primary entrance point into it and there is an emergency access at another location that goes out onto Sanders and Wyatt Drive. He said the emergency access will be gated and will be controlled by Opti COM so the emergency services can get into the addition and those requirements are written into the zoning ordinance. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24, 2001 Page 22 of 24 - Approved October 8, 2001 Chairman Gasper said the major improvement with the curved linear street is that the street is no longer a flume for all the water going "straight down into Hall Johnson. Mr. LeBaron said one of the other features is there is an opportunity to bring the incoming traffic onto one of the locations and the exiting traffic onto the other. He said it helps control the traffic at that location. He said people are concerned about traffic backing up on Hall Johnson Road and this is a way to help alleviate some of that. Mr. LeBaron said that because this is a final plat for more than four lots, the plat also requires City Council action as well. There being no further discussion or questions forthe developer, Commissioner Wall moved for approval of the final plat of Broughton. Commissioner Culley seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: None The Commissioners took a ten minute break. The meeting resumed. 5. TABLED ITEM - Consideration of amendments to Chapter 9 of the Land Development Code relating to Perimeter Street Improvement Requirements. Case Z-01-022 Chairman Gasper said that staff recommends that this item be removed from the table for discussion. Commissioner Hollis moved to remove the item from the table. Commissioner Wall seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: Swift Mr. LeBaron said that the reason he recommends they take it off the table is because it is a really important policy for the city and with the three new members coming on, he felt the first thing he needed to do was give them a brief orientation what the issue is about. He said the Chairman had given staff some direction at the last meeting to give them some policy recommendations. He said since that last meeting, they have three new members and the department lost all their computers. He said staff has been busy reconstructing files and documents and they don't have a recommendation tonight but hoped to have it in two weeks based on the Commission's input. Mr. LeBaron gave a power point presentation and answered questions. Commissioner Swift moved to table the item. Commissioner Sellers seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: None Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24, 2001 Page 23 of 24 - Approved October 8, 2001 Recording Secretary Jan Levy offered to send a copy of the minutes that contained the lengthy discussion regarding this issue to the new Commissioners. 6. Recommendation to the City Council to fill two vacant Park Land Dedication Committee seats. It was decided among the Commissioners that Commissioner Sellers and Commissioner Jones expressed an interest in serving in this capacity. The Commission recommended to the City Council that Commissioners Sellers and Jones would fill the two vacant Park Land Dedication Committee. 7. Citizens' comments regarding items not on the agenda: There were none. 8. Staff comments, reports and discussion items: Barry LeBaron told the Commissioners that he appreciated their attendance at the training session. 9. Commissioner's comments and reports: There were none. ADJOURNMENT: The Commission moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m. The motion was seconded and passed by acclamation. Respectfully Submitted, Approved on: October 8,2001 NOTE: As a matter of public record, an audio recording of the above Planning and Zoning Commission meeting is available upon request. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - September 24, 2001 Page 24 of 24 - Approved October 8, 2001 Septc:mber24,2001 loann Gasper. Chairman Commissioners Planning 8I1d Zoning Commission P.O. Box 185 Colloyville, Texas 76034 RE: Case # Z-Ol-023, a zorring change request.from R-20 to CPO Steven C. Knight 3917 Felps Court P.O. Box 1707 . Colleyvil1c. Texas 76034 Dear Ms. Gasper: I am writing to tCQuCst that you ~en the public heariDg on the above agenda item at this O'VCDing's commission meeting. New info:nnation not shared witb the commission at the last meeting has now come to light. The commission n:al1y should considClr this DC\IV information in order to make the best rcc:ommendation to Council. Also, several aff~ residents do not undcrstmd why there win be no opportunity for continued public comment and only the applicant will be allowed to speak. This is the sort ofrcaction that has, in the past, lead to completely unfounded i""_ginings by residents that some sort of conspiracy is afoot. I am sIJrc you will agree that this &hou1d be avoided at aU cost. Thank you and thc commissioners for your serious collsidcn.tion of'this request. Sincerely. ECEIVED SEP 2 4 2001 Steven C. Knight CC - Woodbriar North Homeowners BriarcliffMoor Homeowners Bridlcwood Homeowners -- CITY OF COLLEYVll.LE BY CQMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT VlAFAX-1-817-S77-7564 ATTENTION: lan Levy forCbainnan and Commissioners.