Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning Commission-Minutes-3/25/2002 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - March 25, 2002 Chairman Gasper called the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order at 7:00 P.M. on March 25, 2002. Roll Call: Present: Jeffrey Wall, Bob Culley, Earl Swift, Mark Jones, Bud Sellers, Mark Hollis, Jo Ann Gasper Staff: Barry LeBaron, Jan Levy Invocation: Commissioner Culley Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Minutes: March 11, 2002 Commissioner Gasper moved to approve the minutes of March 11, 2002 as written. Commissioner Swift seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Cully, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: None 1. Final Plat of LDS Addition, requested by Goodwin & Marshall, Inc., for Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints, 6.090 acres located in the 500 block of McDonwell School Road, Case P-02-012 Barry LeBaron presented the case to the Commission and reviewed the staff briefing. He said the church property was included in the Westcliff preliminary plan and the church is ready to move forward with their plat before the final plat was ready to submit for Westcliff. He said the church has requested relief from the parkland dedication fees and the request is in the response letter from the project engineer to the DRC comments. Mr. LeBaron said that because this subdivision is creating a new street, the plat would go to City Council for final approval. Commissioner Sellers asked if the trail that was discussed during the preliminary plat approval for Westcliff was on the plat. Mr. LeBaron responded that the City would look to the church to build the trail and the street east of where the church property is located. Chairman Gasper asked if there are any drainage issues on the church property. Staff responded that they were not aware of any; however, the applicant's engineer is present and the Commission may want to ask him. Eddie Eckert, 6001 Bridge Street, Fort Worth, was present to represent the case. He said that his firm has begun the construction plans for Westcliff and the final plat application will be filed with Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2002 Page 1 of 16 - Approved on April 8, 2002 the City soon. He said there is a filed document in the Tarrant County records regarding the construction of Newkirk Lane. He said that the developer rather than the church would be responsible for the construction of Newkirk Lane. He said regarding the drainage, there is a small amount of water that comes across the church property to McDonwell School Road, but that will be handled through the construction of the Westcliff subdivision. Commissioner Wall asked where the access to the church property would be located. Mr. Eckert responded that they will have two access points off McDonwell School Road and an access in the future off Newkirk Lane when it is built. Commissioner Culley asked questions about the church's request for parkland dedication fees to be waived. Eddie Eckert said that the church is a nonprofit organization and they would like consideration. He said most members are residents who live in the community and they have already paid parkland dedication fees when their homes were built. Commissioner Swift asked staff what is the procedure to waive parkland dedication fees. Barry responded that they have always been paid and have never been waived, but it is up to City Council to consider the request. Commissioner Wall asked the engineer if there would be an acceleration or deceleration lanes on McDonwell School Road to accommodate the two access points for the church. The engineer, Eddie Eckert, responded that there were no improvement plans associated with the church plat. Chairman Gasper asked staff if they have looked at the traffic patterns in the area. Staff responded that would be looked at when the final plat is filed for Westcliff. Commissioner Wall suggested that a note is sent to City Council stating the Commission's concerns about safety on McDonwell School Road. Commissioner Culley asked about what days the church would be opened. Eddie Eckert responded that the church would be open seven days a week; however, most traffic will be generated on Sunday mornings. He said that all new subdivisions along McDonwell School Road have not been required to do road improvements, but have put fees into and escrow account. He said the fees are available for the City to do the improvements. Commissioner Wall said the traffic patterns need to be studied in order to accommodate the cars entering and exiting by making left hand turns into the church property. Commissioner Swift asked if the city has required Westcliff to provide a queuing lane. Barry LeBaron said the study would be required when the final plat for Westcliff is submitted. Eddie Eckert said the church is only a minor portion of the overall area that will be developed, and the church has dedicated right- of-way per the thoroughfare plan requirement. Commissioner Culley moved that they suspend the rules and allow public discussion ofthe plat. Commissioner Swift seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: None Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2002 Page 2 of 16 - Approved on April 8, 2002 Linda Baker, 404 W. McDonwell School Road, addressed the Commission. She said that Newkirk Lane and the trail that is proposed to be constructed on the east side of the street places the trail next to her property. She said that the trail placed in that location may create a danger. She said that she has racehorses she breeds on her property and when they breed they can become dangerous to people who would try to disturb them. She said she is publicly warning the City that there may be liability issues if anyone is hurt because of the trail being located next to her property. Commissioner Cully asked what would the logistics be to move the trail? Staff said that the city park will be on the east side of the street and the trail should be incorporated into the park. Commissioner Hollis asked ifthe Commission does not specifically address the park location and the location of the trail, could it be changed later? Discussion pursued relating to McPherson Park and how the exact location has not been set yet. Chairman Gasper moved to approve the LDS plat with a notation stating that is clearly indicated that the church is responsible for building the street and for construction of the trail on the east side of the street if it evolves that way. She did not recommend approval of the waiver of parkland dedication fees. Commissioner Hollis seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: None 2. PUBLIC HEARING - Text Amendments to the PUD-C (0-99-1131) for The Village at Colleyville, Case Z-02-01 0 Barry LeBaron presented the case to the Commission. He said with the nature of the development and the mixed-use proponents of the ordinance if they approve this amendment, there will probably be more changes in a year as the subdivision develops. He explained why staff is expanding the original ordinance rather than creating a new one that amends the original one. Mr. LeBaron said it becomes difficult to enforce when three or four ordinances are put together and there is a greater chance of conflicts within the ordinances. He reviewed the changes made to the original ordinance. Chairman Gasper opened the public hearing. Those present wishing to speak were: Joe Moore, 123 Acuff, said that the tables for the encroachments did not make direct reference to the ADA requirements. He said the ADA requires a four-foot free flow pattern. He said that the awnings allowed over the street might conflict with the trees. He spoke about 90% coverage versus 95% coverage, and said that the most difficult aspect of the ordinance to enforce would be the grand opening sign regulations. Dee McNosky, 5108 Pleasant Run Road, spoke about the need for outside tables to be placed in such a way that they do not block the fire access easements nor be a hindrance for anyone with Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2002 Page 3 of 16 - Approved on April 8, 2002 disabilities. She said that the Village at Colleyville presents a very unique situation for regulations and she appreciates all the work that is being done to adopt an ordinance that addresses the special conditions needed for the project. She said she is the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the proposed regulations will prevent future business and property owners having to go before the Zoning Board of Adjustments and seek variances. Ms. McNosky also said that her property is not a part of the Village at Colleyville. Robert Figueroa, 817 Central Drive, asked questions about the regulations for off-premise alcoholic beverage consumption. Steve Groffman, 815 Central Drive, asked questions about reducing the rear building setback line from five feet to four feet. He asked if that regulation applied to the properties on the outside perimeter of the Village at Colleyville? He said the exterior properties should have a 5-foot requirement. There being no one else present wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. LeBaron told the commissioners that the five-foot setback requirements were established in 1999 and 5-foot setbacks were common at that time. He said when the property was platted the utility companies only required a 4-foot easement and there seems to be no need for a one-foot parcel of property that could not be used and the 4-foot setback requirement makes the easement and setback requirement one in the same. Barry LeBaron said people cannot drink on sidewalks per the open container law. He explained the regulations for off premise consumption and the requirements for restaurants to fence the outside seating area if they allow alcoholic beverages so the customer would have to walk back through the restaurant to exit. Commissioner Wall said the DRC letter that is included in the packet recommends that the setback requirements not be changed to 4-foot. Barry LeBaron responded that he overrode the DRC recommendations. Fire Chief Johnston said the eliminating one-foot of the setback requirement was not significant for the fire department. He said they would review all building plans to make sure there is adequate fire protection. Commissioner Swift moved to suspend the rules to allow additional discussion from the audience. Commissioner Culley seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: None Dee McNosky said she wanted to redirect the original question about exterior setbacks. She asked if there would be a change in the buffer? Staff said there would be no change in the buffer. Commissioner Sellers asked if the Commission was doing anything now to set precedence within the City. Barry LeBaron responded that every time a PUD is approved it is for the purpose of taking a departure from the standard zoning category regulations. He said the Commission Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2002 Page 4 of 16 - Approved on April 8, 2002 cannot grant variations from the regulations for the CC1 or CC2 zoning categories, but a PUD is designed to meet the particular needs of the developer and no two PUD's are alike. He said that setting precedence is not a concern. Chairman Gasper spoke about sandwich board signs and asked if there could be a provision for podium display signs or easel signs so that restaurants could post their menus. Commissioner Wall asked about outside sales other than food on sidewalks. He was directed to page 4 Section m. and also page 8 under retail merchandise of the proposed ordinance. Chairman Gasper recommended that the commissioners go through the ordinance page by page. Chairman Gasper went through the proposed ordinance and asked for the commissioners to comment on any changes they want to discuss or make. Commissioner Hollis commented on adding the language for ADA requirements to the ordinance. Barry LeBaron suggested inserting those requirements under #3 on page 8 where it talks about temporary structures not blocking pedestrian traffic and adding not blocking fire exits. Jimmy Archie, representing the Village at Colleyville, said that in regards to ADA requirements, they are required to provide a 3-foot clearance. He distributed pictures they took of businesses on Main Street in Grapevine that have overhangs, planter boxes, and tables. Commissioner Wall said he wanted to address the issue of retail merchandise being place out on a sidewalk. He said he finds that stores place their sale merchandise outside and it does not improve the quality of the establishment. Commissioner Culley asked if there would be full time sidewalk sales. He said that extending the walls of the shops might not be inappropriate. Chairman Gasper said she sees that there are two issues they need to discuss. One issue is outside tables and that does not seem be to a problem, but the other issue is outside merchandise displays and there seems to be concerns about that issue. Richard Myers, 1111 S. Main Street, Grapevine, said that one of the points of the Village at Colleyville is that the development is pedestrian oriented and offers visual interest with flower shops displaying flowers, merchants with vegetable stands, and toy shops with outside merchandise displays. He said that the Owners' Association will regulate the types of displays and they want to encourage the creativity of the shop owners. There was discussion about the Owners' Association and how it functions. He said the Village at Colleyville would like to have from time to time an annual sidewalk sale where it is like a festival and all the merchants may have merchandise out on the sidewalks. He said that would obviously not be an every day occurrence and they would explore how that would be regulated. Chairman Gasper requested Councilman Feldman to come forward and address the Commission regarding ADA requirements since she is a lawyer. Chairman Gasper asked Councilman Feldman if the Commission needed to incorporate the ADA requirements into the PUD. Councilman Feldman said she wanted to qualify her remarks by saying she is not the city attorney, but answered that the businesses and the development are required to be in compliance with the Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2002 Page 5 of 16 - Approved on April 8, 2002 Federal regulations, as well as the City of Colleyville regulations. Commissioner Sellers said he wanted to propose that they need to put a restriction on sidewalk sales into the PUD in order to maintain continuity and possibly only allow sidewalk sales four- times per year since they don't know how strong the Owners Association will be. Commissioner Wall said he is at a loss as to how they want to add regulations. He suggested sending a note to the City Council and point out the issue because they know the Council will negotiate with the developer on any sensitive issues or put some hard and fast regulations in the ordinance. He said he recommends not putting any hard and fast numbers into the ordinance, but simply point out to the City Council what the areas are that may be an issue on which some of the commissioners see a possibility of a problem. Commissioner Wall said the proposed ordinance has already been negotiated between staff and the developer and the Council should do the tweaking. Chairman Gasper said she believes the Planning and Zoning Commission would have a difficult time making modifications at this meeting because of not knowing what the appropriate language would be. She said that they could request that staff take this proposal forward and they have two sets of ordinances, one the way it is, and one which extracts the restrictions for the retail merchants as far as frequency for outside displays. Commissioner Jones said the Commission is restricting capitalism. He said they are trying to determine what times a year someone can put things on sale and the merchants' business cycles and their merchandise may not correspond with that time of year. He said by adding the restrictions, the Commission is limiting the ability of the merchants to be successful. Commissioner Sellers said he is all for a store having a sale anytime they want it as long as it is held within the premises and they keep the streets clean. Commissioner Wall said Commissioner Sellers is exactly right. Commissioner Sellers said he is not trying to tell them how to run their business. Chairman Gasper said she thinks to the extent they restrict the frequency that merchandise can be displayed on the street; they are in fact impacting the operation of the merchants' business. She said she would probably tend to be much more liaise-faire than some people. She said her sense is that there is not a consensus of the Commission regarding the issue of outdoor merchandise displays. Commissioner Jones said the ordinance addresses bay windows, planters, outside merchandise, sandwich board signs and if the Commission wants to address those items, they could say either/or on some of those things. He said if someone put all of those things out, he doubts if they could keep a three-foot clearance because it would be a real snake path. He said an alternative to restricting the times of year for outside displays of merchandise, may be that they want to say the merchants can have either this and/or that. Commissioner Culley said he thinks the developer has a clear vision as to how the Village is going to work. He said the Village will work differently than the Albertson's/K-Mart strip center where they do have restrictions on the number of times merchants can put tables outside because Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2002 Page 6 of 16 - Approved on April 8, 2002 clearly some merchants would do it 24/7. He said he is beginning to understand they may want to make that more accessible for businesses that display fruits and vegetables or flowers. Commissioner Culley said he would ask the developer to give some consideration to the fact that the citizens have listened to the commissioners for 1 % hours describing six and twelve inch encroachments into the public rights-of-way and all of a sudden the commissioners are giving the developer free gratis to put any type of tables outside and any type of sales anytime the developer wants to. Commissioner Culley said the developer's vision is clear as to the development and his association and it is in the best interest of the citizens that the commissioners don't waste anymore time. He said he is interested in the developer and the businesses succeeding. Chairman Gasper asked the developer to come forward. She said she assumed Mr. Myers has carefully read the revised ordinance and asked him if there was anything in the proposed ordinance that would adversely affect the economic viability of the development. Richard Myers said they are O.k. with the ordinance. He said they had a lot of discussion with the city staff and there were a lot of comments that went back and forth and there has been a lot of give and take at this point. Chairman Gasper asked if city staff was comfortable with balancing the needs of the businesses to grow, develop, and prosper in Colleyville as well a maintaining the quality and safety for the citizens. She asked Mr. LeBaron if an appropriate balance has been reached. Mr. LeBaron said the ordinance was not drafted in haste. He said the meetings with the developer were started in October and they've met approximately twice a month since that time. He said it has taken quite some time before the Commission has seen the ordinance. He said it is like other ordinances that are as comprehensive; there will be bits and pieces of it that everyone did not agree on. Mr. LeBaron said the Village at Colleyville is a much different type of development than a traditional one with forty-foot setbacks with plenty of space between the buildings. Richard Myers said this has been an interesting process and one thing he wanted to point out is they looked at other ordinances like Southlake Towne Square and that one is significantly less detailed and they didn't get into all the issues. He said the Village at Colleyville ordinance is much more restrictive in many areas like setbacks from the curb for columns and canopies. He said the regulations are generally reasonably close to other projects that are developed that look like the Village at Colleyville. Chairman Gasper continued to go through the ordinance page by page and highlighted the changes. She said the Commission has issues with merchandise display and questioned if 60 days was sufficient for grand opening signs. She said that at what point does the visual interest become clutter and where is that point? Commissioner Swift said that page 13, paragraph "j" clarifies the issue of visual interest versus clutter as it places the enforcement on the Owners' Association. Commissioner Sellers said that like any homeowners' association, the Owners' Association still has to abide by the law, so what ever the Commissioner or the City Council sets forth, they can't go beyond those regulations. Commissioner Swift said he doesn't disagree with that, but some of the items are fairly nebulous, like how often is often, or how big of a display of t-shirts can a merchant display? He said those displays do generate traffic and that is what the commissioners are all involved in is trying to make the development a success. Commissioner Sellers said he Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2002 Page 7 of 16 - Approved on April 8, 2002 agrees with the success part but they are also trying to keep the look of the development clean and not allow it to get out of hand. Chairman Gasper said she doesn't think it is in the merchants' best interest to have a place that is not attractive and enticing to customers. She said it gets back to what extent does the City of Colleyville want to manage or micro manage what goes on in the Village at Colleyville and how much do they want to rely upon market forces as Commissioner Jones pointed out. Commissioner Culley said in his mind, the developer has answered the challenge as to terms of control and how the development will look. He said he believes staff and the developer have done an excellent job in preparing a document that tries to cover as much as possible. Commissioner Culley said the Commission has raised the issues as they should do and the developer has risen to the challenge and has answered the issues. He said he is satisfied the Village is going to control it to the best interest of the merchants and also the public. Commissioner Culley said he has no problem with the way the ordinance is currently written. Barry LeBaron said staff and the developer talked for about two hours on special events and the issue of how long a merchant can put merchandise out may be more global than just one specific store. He said they realized for the Village to be successful, it would frequently want to have a village wide sidewalk sale or have festivals within the development. He said staff did not feel they were ready to bring that language forward at this point, but that may come forward later. Mr. LeBaron said the City currently has provisions for a Mass Gathering in the Code of Ordinances. He said it says if an event will bring in 500 citizens or more, the organizer would have to come before the City Council and get a Mass Gathering permit. He said there is protection already in place if it happens before they get the language added to the Village PUD as they would have to get the permit for each event they want to have. Barry LeBaron said that page 11 Section 9 c., Security Fencing in the proposed ordinance there is a requirement that was put into the original ordinance that requires the developer to construct an 8-foot wrought iron fence with openings for gates along the entire western property line where the PUD is adjacent to the City owned park property. He said that made sense at the time for security reasons before the City Hall and Library were planned to be in the Villages, but since they will abut much of that common line, the city doesn't feel they want that fence. He said the city will put some type of landscape buffer at that location and they don't want an 8-foot wrought iron barrier. He said staff proposes that when the Commission considers the proposed ordinance, that they add language to Section 9 c. to exclude where the City Hall and Library property abuts the park. He said the developer still has to put in an 8-foot wrought iron fence with gates and openings where it abuts the park but not where it abuts City Hall and the Library. Chairman Gasper asked if the Commission wants to keep the sixty days limitation for grand opening signs or remove it? She said the Commission had some agreement that staff needs to look at the sandwich board regulations to allow easel and podium signs as well. Commissioner Culley moved to recommend approval ofthe text amendments to the PUD-C, 0-99-1131 for the Village at Colleyville with the exception that under Section G-9-c. the 8- foot wrought iron fence is excluded where the City Hall and Library property abuts the park. Commissioner Swift seconded the motion. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2002 Page 8 of 16 - Approved on April 8, 2002 Commissioner Culley accepted a friendly amendment by Commissioner Hollis that the sandwich board sign terminology will be updated to include easel and podium signs. Commissioner Swift seconded the friendly amendment. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: None The Commissioners adjourned recessed the meeting for a break and returned at 9:20 p.m. 3. PUBLIC HEARING - Special Use Permit for an accessory building, requested by Howard Holt for Pat & Ed Wadley, on Lot 1 R, Block 1, Skipper's Estate located at 5200 Bill's Lane, Case Z-02-011 Barry LeBaron presented the case to the commissioners and reviewed the staff briefing. He told the Commission that the applicants are requesting a Special Use Permit to construct an accessory building on the property and they intend to live in the structure while the main house is completely renovated. He said they would then use the facility for a caretaker's quarters. He described the 2-story building. Mr. LeBaron said the proposed building exceeds the requirements for maximum size, height and use requirements and the applicants are requesting a variance from those requirements, as allowed by the Code. He said the request is consistent with the Master Plan and the wishes of the area homeowners should be the most important factor in the decision to grant the Special Use Permit or not. He told the commissioners that they might establish conditions different than or in addition to the normal requirements of the Land Development Code. Commissioner Swift asked Mr. LeBaron if the accessory building would be the same architecture as the home. Mr. LeBaron responded that the commissioners should ask the applicant. Chairman Gasper opened the public hearing. Those present wishing to speak were: Ed Wadley, 5200 Bill's Lane, the applicant. He said he and his wife want a two-story home in the French tradition and the house would be constructed with Austin Stone. He said his wife is a historical research librarian and the upper level of the accessory building will serve as the library. He said there would be approximately 10' of space between the main house and the accessory building and the rooflines will be equal. He said once the main dwelling is renovated, the accessory building would be used as a garage with a residential area to be used as a study. There being no one else present wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Ed Wadley responded to the Commission's a question saying the architect for the renovations and accessory building is the same architect who designed the pool house. He said the pool house is 20' by 40', 280 square feet in size. Barry LeBaron told the commissioners that if the main dwelling and proposed accessory building Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2002 Page 9 of 16 - Approved on April 8, 2002 were attached by sharing a common wall, the applicant would not need a special use permit and the Commission would not be considering the case. Chairman Gasper moved to recommend approval ofthe Special Use Permit. Commissioner Sellers seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: None 4. PUBLIC HEARING - Amendments to the PUD-R (0-96-1052) for Spring Garden Addition, requested by Doug Henderson for State park Colleyville, Ltd., located at the northeast corner of Cheek Sparger Road and Jackson Road, Case Z-02-012 Barry LeBaron presented the case to the Commission and reviewed the staff briefing. He told them that the development is approximately 40% built out and the purpose of the amendments is to allow the developer to expand the style of dwellings and offer an alternative. He said if the amendments were allowed, the developer would have to replat the subdivision. Chairman Gasper opened the public hearing. Those present wishing to speak were: Bill Wilson, a resident within Spring Garden, said he bought into the development with the plan that the subdivision will be built out as townhomes. He indicated that there is a large group of residents present at the meeting who all have an investment in the property and they want to protect it. He said the developer has not consulted them about the changes and they want to make sure that the new ideas do not destroy their investment values and yet they want to facilitate the completion of the subdivision if it will improve their investments. He said they don't know enough to determine what they want to do and if they are for against the proposal. Doug Henderson, 3602 Lake Champlain, Arlington, Texas, was representing the developer. He said there is a problem with the economy and the product of attached townhomes are not moving as well as detached garden homes. He said there would be a mixed use within the development of town homes and garden homes and that would produce a comprehensive development that offers smaller lots with less maintenance. He said the homes would appeal to an upscale market and they need to reduce the total number of lots by two lots. Mr. Henderson said the garden homes would meet all deed restrictions and have the same architectural restriction as set forth in the deed restrictions that are included in the original ordinance. He said the original ordinance does not prohibit detached homes, but they wanted to clarify the ordinance and lower the density. Mr. Henderson said the detached garden homes would have less impact on the development and yet would increase the tax revenues. He said the market value on the detached garden homes would increase the values of all dwellings within Spring Garden. He said the builder that will build the detached single-family homes built the homes adjacent to the Byron Nelson Golf Course. Mr. Henderson said the garden homes are compatible with the Master Plan and he quoted from a Texas Supreme Court ruling. He said the proposed change in the subdivision has no negative impacts. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2002 Page 10 of 16 - Approved on April 8, 2002 Commissioner Wall questioned Mr. Henderson's analysis of a Texas Supreme Court decision and asked Mr. Henderson if he was an attorney. Mr. Henderson responded that he is not an attorney, but has assisted in writing Texas zoning law and mentioned the Farr versus Tibbin case. Commissioner Culley asked questions about current requirements and potential sale prices of the proposed homes in Spring Garden. He also asked about demographics. Chairman Gasper asked about the average time a town home is on the market. The commissioners discussed square footage of the proposed homes versus the dwellings that are already built. Chere Kimbell, 3986 Witten Drive, spoke about architectural integrity, property valuation, asked questions about size of dwellings and if there were any specific plans for the current residents to review. She said she understands the need to facilitate the building out of the community, but they have concerns, and yet do not want to impede the building out of Spring Garden. Bill Robertson, 3961 Holiday Drive, said the developer is not keeping up with the property maintenance and the place is run down. He said no repairs have been made and the entrance gates often times do not operate. He said the developer has not had someone on the property to show the units and those are some of the reasons things are not selling. Harold Hickman, 3975 Witten, said there have been problems over legal matters between the developer and builder. He said between 1985 and 1994 they lived in California in a similar development and people had to stand in line to bid on a unit. He said the key difference between the end units and the interior units is that the end units sell quicker. Henry Del Casio, 3980 Witten, said that he has lived in Spring Garden for two days. He said the marketing of the property has been poor. He said everyone who lives in Spring Garden bought into a life style. He discussed the demographics of people who want to live in Spring Garden and the importance of property values. He said that communications have been very poor between the Title Company, realtor, and developer. He said he has never heard mentioned that it requires consent of the property owners to change the deed restrictions. Carol Bertram, 3977 Witten, said they had no idea what was being proposed and they want to protect their investments in Spring Garden. She said the overall community plan for Spring Garden was given to them when they bought and they fear deviations. Ms. Bertram said as a neighborhood they want to see Spring Garden develop. Earl Hopenrath, a resident in Spring Garden, discussed the demographics and how the development lends itself to the empty nester or young professionals who don't want upkeep or maintenance. He said the situation of reaching build out is one of absorption. He said in this present time the development needs another product. He said Colleyville is not an urban setting with townhomes, and so the new developer is proposing to build patio homes. He said the homes will be in the $300,000 range and the cost of the lots will be approximately $60,000. He said there is a market for patio homes. Steve Knight, 3917 Felps Court, asked if there were proposals for garages openings along Cheek Sparger that could be seen from the street. He said the problem with garages facing Cheek Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 25,2002 Page 11 of 16 - Approved on April 8, 2002 Sparger is they tend to be unattended and unsupervised and become an attractive crime problem. He said he has sympathy with the residents because the developer did not communicate with them. He said that developers feel they live on an island and don't need to communicate. There being no one else present wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Doug Henderson, representing the developer said that most questions needed to be answered by the developer. Commissioner Culley said the point is not to attack the representative, but Mr. Henderson needs to tell his boss that he, as the developer, is not doing a good job of communicating. He said the gates and fountains are in disrepair and the homeowners need to be protected. Commissioner Culley said he wants to see the developer be able to build, but in developing a property there are no guarantees that the developer will do what he says he will do. Doug Henderson discussed with the commissioners the kind of homes that the developer intends to build. Commissioner Swift moved to table the item to allow the developer time to meet with the residents within Spring Garden. Commissioner Wall seconded the motion. Commissioner Hollis asked questions about how many units will be attached or detached and asked if the developer could provide specific layouts. Chairman Gasper said she sees no redeeming value to the development. Commissioner Culley said he heard homeowners in Spring Garden specifically state that they desire whatever it takes to facilitate the completion of the subdivision. He said he wants to give the developer time to meet with the homeowners. Commissioner Jones said the developer did not do much to solicit the support of the current residents. Commissioner Wall said he does not want to throw out the baby with the bathwater and wants to allow the homeowners an opportunity to meet with the developer. Chairman Gasper called for the vote. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: None 5. TABLED ITEM - Zoning Change from R20 Residential to PUD-R Planned Unit Development-Residential, requested by Ernest Hedgcoth, Lots 14 & 15, Block 1, Andy Felps Addition located at 137 Acuff Lane and 136 Cheek Sparger Road, Case Z-02-008 Commissioner Hollis moved to remove the item from the Table. Commissioner Sellers seconded the motion. The vote being: Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2002 Page 12 of 16 - Approved on April 8, 2002 Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: None Chairman Gasper spoke about the commissioners' concerns about the drainage. Commissioner Swift said the drainage comes from upstream and should not be an issue. Commissioner Jones said if the proposed addition develops, the drainage would get worse. Barry LeBaron told the commissioners that the developer has made a change to his original plan and has included a green space on the corner of Felps and Cheek Sparger. He displayed the topographic map of the area and pointed out that the area is not within the 1 OO-year floodplain. He said that area is not recognized as a floodplain by FEMA. Mr. LeBaron told the commissioners that the engineering department said the developer would have to provide plans for the drainage on the property when they submit a plat. Tommy Cunningham, 7205 Walden Court, was present to represent the case. He told the commissioners that the property is currently zoned residential. He said he was a former resident in Bridlewood Estate and he understands the concerns by those residents about the proximity to potential commercial development. He said the proposed homes would create a buffer zone and would be a good compromise. He said he needed a minimum of six lots to be successful. Mr. Cunningham said the drainage will be handled in the platting process and they are required to retain the water on sight. He said that six homes would generate 1.2 million dollars on the tax rolls versus the $30,000 currently being generated. He said this is the highest and best use of the property and they would put in the deed restrictions that the property behind the lots would be used for commercial businesses. Commissioner Swift asked Mr. Cunningham questions about the density and average lot size. He asked about the open area and the maintenance of the open area. Mr. Cunningham said the homeowners would maintain the open area as he is proposing to set up a homeowners' association. Chairman Gasper had questions about the generations of income from residential homes versus commercial businesses. Commissioner Culley discussed with Mr. Cunningham the proposed plans and cost of the homes. Mr. Cunningham said the homes would sell for $200,000 and he distributed pictures showing the style of architecture he plans to build. He said they would be approximately 2,000 to 2,300 square foot in size. Chairman Gasper commented that the lot sizes are the same as the lots in Bridlewood Estates. She said she senses that the Commission is in favor of residential development along the street and they will provide a screen from the commercial. The Commission discussed the viability of residential homes selling next to commercial uses. Barry LeBaron told the commissioners that the property is currently zoned R20 and the Master Plan indicates that the lot along Felps and Cheek Sparger is planned for residential use and the lot along Felps and Acuff is planned for commercial use. He said a note could be placed on the plat stating the property behind the subdivision is planned for commercial use. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2002 Page 13 of 16 - Approved on April 8, 2002 Commissioner Culley moved to suspend the rules to allow people in the audience to speak. Commissioner Swift seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: None Those present wishing to speak were: Joe Moore, 133 Acuff, said that Lot 13 is due west of his property and when they moved into their home, they knew the property was projected for commercial development. He said the Master Plan use for the property fits in that location. He said there are several different kinds of buffers and the street, Felps Drive, is a buffer. He said the creek behind Bridlewood is a buffer. He said that with the deep lots along Felps Drive that back up to Bridlewood Estates, and the width of Felps Drive, Bridlewood Estates is 400' away from potential commercial development. Mr. Moore said he wants to be able to get as much value from his property as he can. He said if the commission changes the Master Plan by allowing this development, they take away future commercial property and he wants to see the City go forward with their commercial plans. He said he had a problem with the density of the subdivision. Mrs. Virginia Garrett, 128 Cheek Sparger, said she has reported to the commissioners in the past about the drainage problems associated with her land and with the most recent rains, this property was under solid water. She said the trees on the property are dying. Mrs. Garrett said she does not feel comfortable with not knowing how the drainage for the proposed development will be handled. She said when Payless was built the flow of water came directly down Cheek Sparger and they had to install French drains and a sump pump to prevent the water from coming into their home. Chairman Gasper asked Mrs. Garrett if she could be assured that the drainage problems would be alleviated and the developer would improve the drainage, would she be in support of the proposed development. Mrs. Garret said she would rather not have houses. Steve Knight, 3917 Felps Court, asked why did the density cease to be an issue? He said six houses on small lots are a problem. He asked when did the land behind the proposed houses get to be zoned commercial? He said his main concern is the density and he has concerns with telling people the property behind the houses will go commercial when it might not. There being no one else present wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Gasper referred to the Master Plan versus the Zoning Map. She said the density per the Master Plan is 1.8 dwellings per acre. She spoke about the drainage. Mr. LeBaron displayed the topographic map ofthe area and explained the drainage patterns in the area. Commissioner Culley spoke about density and asked Steve Knight why that density should not be allowed on that property after viewing the style of homes the developer proposes to build? Mr. Knight explained that he has concerns not oppositions. He questioned how close the homes would be to each other and was told that the houses and lots would be similar in size to Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2002 Page 14 of 16 - Approved on April 8, 2002 Chairman Gasper opened the public hearing. Those present wishing to speak were: Luann Edwards, 220 W. Glade Road, said that the streets on the plat looked funny to her and one street is only big enough for one-way traffic. The commissioners and staff discussed the traffic patterns in the area. Main Street from Cottage Lane is only one way to allow traffic to circulate out Forest Oaks. Staff said Casa Lane is a two way street and the Fire Department wanted two 12-foot lanes on Casa Lane. Commissioner Culled moved to approve the plat with Casa Lane being widened an addition two-feet. Commissioner Swift seconded the motion. The vote being: Ayes: Wall, Culley, Swift, Jones, Sellers, Hollis, Gasper Noes: None 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: There were none. ADJOURNMENT: The Commission moved to adjourn the meeting at 11 :45 p.m. The motion was seconded and passed by acclamation. Respectfully Submitted, Jan Levy Planning & Zoning Assistant levyj@ci.colleyville.tx.us Approved on: April 8, 2002 as corrected. (Page 8 - changed "adjourned" to "recessed") NO TE: As a matter of public record, an audio recording of this Planning and Zoning Commission meeting is available upon request. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2002 Page 16 of 16 - Approved on April 8, 2002 Bridlewood. He said that helps him accept the plan and he is concerned about the aesthetic results and if the end result is pleasing he could support the project. Chairman Gasper said she thinks there is a market for homes in the $200,000 price range and they would be an improvement to the area. The commissioners discussed with staff the issue of commercial development behind the proposed homes. Barry LeBaron explained the Master Plan and the current zoning map. The commission commented that commercial development would generate more trips per day than residential development. Tommy Cunningham, the developer, discussed the width of the proposed lots and the setback requirements. The commissioners discussed with the developer the plans for commercial development behind the houses. The developer said that the Master Plan is a vision and sometimes it doesn't work out the way it is planned. He said it makes more sense for the corner of Cheek Sparger to be commercial rather than the residential that is indicated on the Master Plan. He said his proposed change on the property will begin immediate income for the city and the area needs newness brought to it. Commissioner Sellers said he has concerns about the water and does not want to have a problem with the development. He said he is concerned about too many lots for the drainage issues. Barry LeBaron said the commission could require the developer to provide a preliminary drainage plan and make the condition in the ordinance. He said the plan might have to be altered at the platting stage. The commissioners discussed with the developer the logic behind the higher price range as opposed to the current neighborhood. Commissioner Jones said he also has a problem with the water on the property and believes that it could only get worse. Chairman Gasper said it is her sense that the zoning change probably would not be approved as is, but if the developer's engineer was present to give them a comfort level regarding proposed drainage, they may be able to reach a comfort level. Chairman Gasper moved to table the case to allow the developer to have his engineer present. Commissioner Swift seconded the motion. The vote being Ayes: Wall, Culley, Jones, Sellers, Gasper Noes: Swift, Hollis 6. PUBLIC HEARING - A Replat of Lots 11, 13,43 & 59, The Village at Colleyville requested by the City of Colleyville for the City Hall and Library, located at 100 Main Street Case P- 02-004 Barry LeBaron presented the case to the Commission and reviewed the staff briefing. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 25, 2002 Page 15 of 16 - Approved on April 8, 2002