HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council-Agenda Packets-11/8/2000C1tY of
Il~
Texas
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
5400 BRANSFORD ROAD
November 8, 2000
6:45 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. EXECUTNE SESSION - In accordance with Texas Government Code Chapter
551, Subchapter D
Sec. 551.071 - Consultation with Attomey
a. Large Commercial Building Ordinance
b. Title for Vacated Streets - Oakbriar Lane and
Greenbriar Lane
c. Lease Agreement - 5100 Colleyville Boulevard
d. Munson Condemnation
Sec. 551.072 - Property Acquisition -Village at Colleyville
Sec. 551.072 - Property Acquisition - Colleyville Boulevard/Smith Tract
Sec. 551.072 Property Acquisition -.Colleyville City Hall
Sec. 551.072 Property Acquisition - Colleyville Public Library
Sec. 551.072 Property Acquisition -Fire Station
Sec. 551.074 - Personnel -The City Council may consider the appointment,
employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline or
dismissal of public officers or employees, including the City
Manager, City Secretary, City Attomey, and City board and
commission members. A complete list of the City boards
and commissions is on file in the City Secxetary's Office.
7:30 P.M. -RESUME REGULAR MEETING
INVOCATION: Donna Arp, Mayor
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Ross Foster, City Attomey
P.O. BOX 1 SS COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS 76034 (817) 577-7575
2. CORRESPONDENCE, MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS OF MEETINGS
ATTENDED BY THE COUNCIL AND CITY OFFICIALS, AND
ANNOUNCEMENTS, PROCLAMATIONS, OR PRESENTATIONS
PROCLAMATION -World Town Planning Day, November 8
CONSENT:
3. READING AND PUBLIC HEARING -Resolution R-00-1729 -Consent Items:
a. Approval of minutes of the regular City Council meeting of October 17,
2000
b. Approval of minutes of the City Council worksession held October 26,
2000
c. Approval of minutes of the City Council meeting held on October 30, 2000
d. Approval of a Final Plat of the Bridges at Riverwalk, requested by Dave
Hannah, 11.955 acres located on the north side of Glade Road in the
1300 block, Case P-00-076
e. Approval of Health/DentalNision Insurance renewal with Blue Cross Blue
Shield
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING -Ordinance 0-00-1253 - A
~~1 ` Special Use Permit for a carport requested by Steve Pence for Keith & Betsy
Luttrell, on Lot 11, Block 3, Western Trails Addition Section 2 located at 7420
Overland Trail
5. FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING -Ordinance 0-00-1254 -Approval
of a City/Developer Agreement with Larry Cole Investments for Phase III of
Remington Park
6. FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING -Ordinance 0-00-1255 - A zoning
change requested by Doug Henderson representing Kipp Whitman, Lavaca Trail,
LLC, from R40 to PUD-C (planned unit development-commercial) on 6.335 acres
located at the southeast comer of Lavaca Trail and Precinct Line Road, Case Z-
00-070
7. READING AND PUBLIC HEARING -Resolution R-00-1730 -Establishing the
conditions for the location of the Colleyville City Hall on the Village at Colleyville
site
TABLED ITEMS:
8. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 0-00-1249 -Amending Chapter 3, Land
Use, of the Land Development Code regarding large commercial buildings
REPORTS:
9. TRAFFIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE -October 9, 2000
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 9, 2000
CITIZEN COMMENTS:
10. CITIZEN COMMENTS/PRESENTATIONS REGARDING ITEMS NOT ON THE
AGENDA
ACTION/RESOLUTION:
11. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION RATIFYING
COUNCIL AGENDA ACTION FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2000 -
Reading and Public Hearing -Resolution R-00-1731
ADJOURNMENT:
12. ADJOURNMENT
~ certify the above agenda was posted on the bulletin board at City Hall on November 2,
2000, at 4:30 p.m.
Cynthia Singleton
City Secretary
If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disability that requires special
accommodations, please advise the City Secretary at least 48 hours in advance at 577-
7575, and reasonable accommodations will be made to assist you.
CITY COUNCIL
U~`' or
~' i ~
rcz, s
AGENDA BRIEFING
For mt .: 11!08/00 CMO Approval:
Item #
1
Ordinance #
N/A
Previous Action: None
DEPT.
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Executive Session - In accordance with Texas
Government Code Chapter 551, Subchapter D
Sec. 551.071 - Consultation with Attorney
a. Large Commercial Building Ordinance
b. Title for Vacated Streets - Oakbriar Lane and Greenbriar
Lane
c. Lease Agreement - 5100 Colleyville Boulevard
d. Munson Condemnation
Sec. 551.072 - Property Acquisition -Village at Colleyville
Sec. 551.072 - Property Acquisition -Colleyville BoulevardlSmith Tract
Sec. 551.072 - Property Acquisition -Colleyville City Hall
Sec. 551.072 - Property Acquisition -Colleyville Public Library
Sec. 551.072 Property Acquisition -Fire Station
Sec. 551.074 - Personnel -The City Council may consider the appointment,
employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline or
dismissal of public officers or employees, including the City
Manager, City Secretary, City Attorney, and City board and
commission members. A complete list of the City boards and
commissions is on file in the City Secretary's Office.
~~
ITY MANA®GER /
DEPARTMENT HEAD
FINANCIAL REVIEW (IF NECESSARY
ctTY couwct~
c<<•• or
~~ ° i ~
T~<.
AGENDA BRIEFING
For mt .: 11/08/00 CMO Approval:
Item #
2
Ordinance #
N/A
Previous Action: None
DEPT.
CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT
CORRESPONDENCE, MISCELLANEOUS
REPORTS OF MEETINGS ATTENDED BY THE
COUNCIL AND CITY OFFICIALS AND
ANNOUNCEMENTS, PROCLAMATIONS, OR
PRESENTATIONS
PROCLAMATION -World Town Planning Day
November 8 has been celebrated as World Town Planning Day in many countries since
its inception in 1949. The celebration of World Town Planning Day gives us the
opportunity to publicly recognize the participation and dedication of the members of
planning commissions and other citizen planners who have contributed their time and
expertise to the improvement of Colleyvilfe, Texas.
Clayton Husband will receive the proclamation.
Attachments:
Proclamation (paper copy)
~ ~~~G~l/
CI MANAGER
~~
D PARTMENT HEAD
FINANCIAL REVIEW (IF NECESSARY)
roc~~n~~ttor~
CITY OF
Colleyville,
Texas
~..
~;~
~_
i.
fi;
~"'.
WHEREAS: November 8 has been celebrated as World Town
Planning Day in many countries since its inception in 1949; and
WHEREAS, the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), acting for the 11,000
members of the planning profession in America, a component of the 30,000
member American Planning Association, endorses World Town Planning
Day as an opportunity to highlight the contributions sound planning makes
to the quality of our settlements and environment and to celebrate American
accomplishments in making collective decisions concerning our cities and
regions that bring quality and meaning to our lives; and
WHEREAS, the celebration of World Town Planning Day gives us the opportunity to
publicly recognize the participation and dedication of the members of
planning commissions and other citizen planners who have contributed their
time and expertise to the improvement of Colleyville, Texas; and
WHEREAS, we recognize the many valuable contributions made by professional
community and regional planners of the city of Colleyville, Texas and extend
our heartfelt thanks for their commitment to public service.
NOW, THEREFORE, 1, DONNA ARP, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS,
do hereby proclaim the November 8, 2000 as
World Town Planning Day
in the City of Colleyville, Texas
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I do hereby set my hand, and seal of the City of Colleyville affixed
this 8th day of November, 2000.
"~:
~:
~:
r.
~'
Mayor, City of Colleyville
~N
9
+,~~;~
RESOLUTION R-00-1729
A RESOLUTION APPROVING COUNCIL ACTION
UNDER CONSENT ITEMS AT THE REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 2000
WHEREAS, Council has taken action on certain items on the agenda under Consent
Items.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS:
Sec. 1: THAT the agenda decisions approved by Council action under Consent Items
as follows are hereby adopted:
a. Approval of minutes of the regular City Council meeting of October 17, 2000
b. Approval of the City Council worksession held October 26, 2000
c. Approval of minutes of the City Council meeting held on October 30, 2000
d. Approval of a Final Plat of the Bridges at Riverwalk, requested by Dave
Hannah, 11.955 acres located on the north side of Glade Road in the 1300
block ,Case P-00-076
e. Approval of Health/DentalNision Insurance renewal with Blue Cross Blue
Shield
AND IT IS SO RESOLVED.
Passed by a vote of ayes, nays, and abstentions on the day
of , 2000.
ATTEST: CITY OF COLLEYVILLE
Cynthia Singleton Donna Arp
City Secretary Mayor
MINUTES OF THE
COLLEYVILLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 17, 2000
The regular meeting of the Colleyville City Council was called to order by Mayor Donna
Arp on October 17, 2000, at 6:50 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Councilpersons Jody Short, Mike Taylor, Dana Feldman, Dennis
Marlin and Mayor Pro Tem Ginny Tigue were present. Mayor
Donna Arp, City Manager, Bob Stripling, Assistant City Manager
Dianne McWethy, Director of Public Services Bob Whitehead,
Community Development Manager Bang LeBaron, Public Works
Manager Randy Brown, Police Chief John Young, Fire Chief Mike
Johnston, Human Resources Manager Kelly Cooper, Development
Coordinator Clayton Husband, Marketing Specialist Dixie
Cawthorne, City Attorney Ross Foster, City Secretary Jean Harris,
and Office Assistant Cynthia Singleton were also present.
1. EXECUTIVE SESSION - In accordance with Texas Government Code Chapter
551, Subchapter D
Sec. 551.071 - Consultation with Attomey
a. Large Commercial Building Ordinance
b. Shalimar Private Streets
c. Zoning Board of Adjustments Cases
Sec. 551.072 - Property Acquisition -Village at Colleyville
Sec. 551.072 - Property Acquisition - Colleyville Boulevard
Sec. 551.074 - Personnel -The City Council may consider the appointment,
employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline or
dismissal of public officers or employees, including the City
Manager, City Secretary, City Attomey, and City board and
commission members. A complete list of the City boards
and commissions is on file in the City Secretary's Office.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 17, 2000
Mayor Arp explained that the Executive Session had been called in accordance with
Texas Government Code Chapter 551, Subchapter D, Section 551.071 -Consultation
with Attorney, Section 551.072 - Property Acquisition, and Section 551.074 -
Personnel. She further explained that there would be no decisions made or action
taken during this time. The meeting was recessed at 6:52 p.m. and reconvened at 7:50
p. m.
2. CORRESPONDENCE, MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS OF MEETINGS
ATTENDED BY THE COUNCIL AND CITY OFFICIALS, AND
ANNOUNCEMENTS, PROCLAMATIONS, OR PRESENTATIONS
Councilman Taylor reported attending a RTC meeting during the week of October 9,
2000 concerning funding for street projects.
Mayor Arp presented Keys to the City to Jean Harris and Bob Stripling.
Councilman Taylor expressed gratitude for Mr. Stripling's dedication and spoke of his
leadership.
CONSENT:
3. READING AND PUBLIC HEARING -Resolution R-00-1724 -Consent Items:
a. Approval of minutes of the regular City Council meeting of October 3,
2000
b. Approval of a donation of labor and materials for L.D. Lockett House
improvements from Stuart Bolerjack and Kelly-Moore Paint, Inc.
c. Approval of revisions and inclusions to Chapter II - Employee
Responsibilities and Conduct -Section D. Uniform & Dress; Section J.
Use of City Equipment and Vehicles; Section P. Internet and E-mail; and
revisions to Chapter IV -Compensation -Section C. Classification and
Pay Administration of the City of Colleyville Personnel Policies and
Procedures Manual
d. Approval of a Final Plat for Riverwalk at Colleyville Addition, requested by
Charles Searcey for D.R. Horton-Texas Ltd., 20.054 acres located on the
north side of Glade Road at the future Riverwalk Drive
e. Approval of a City/Developer Agreement with Barbara Gordon for the
Barbara Gordon Montessori School
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 17, 2000
Approval of Professional Services Supplements! Agreement with Brinkley
Sargent Architects for AudioNisual Design Services and Americans with
Disabilities Consultation
g. Approval of purchasing a Sign Shop Utility Truck with lift bucket through
the HGAC bidding process for the amount of $57,039
h. Approval of a design contract with Halff Associates, Inc. for the Brighton
Oaks Drainage Improvements in the amount of $30,260
Approval of purchasing three (3) Ford Crown Victoria police vehicles in the
amount of $61,842 from Five Star Ford through the Tarrant County
Purchasing Department Joint Venture/Cooperative Bid
Mayor Arp opened the public hearing and read Resolution R-00-1724 in its entirety.
There was no one present wishing to speak concerning this item and Mayor Arp closed
the public hearing.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed plat for Riverwalk at Colleyville Addition, the
detention areas, street widths, item i regarding the police vehicle purchase and the cost
related to equipping the vehicles.
Councilman Taylor moved to approve Resolution R-00-1724.
Councilman Feldman seconded the motion.
Ayes: Councilpersons Short, Taylor, Feldman, Marlin, and Mayor Pro Tem Tigue
Nays: None
Mayor Arp declared the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING -Ordinance 0-00-1247 -
Amending the PUD-C, Ordinance 0-96-1024, to allow living quarters in a
commercial building requested by Behjat McElroy, New Synergy Inc., on Lot 1,
Block 1, Cavillino Park located at 1001 and 1005 Village Park
Mayor Arp opened the public hearing and read the caption of Ordinance 0-00-1247.
Ms. Karen Lucchesi, 4703 Mill Creek, applicant, was present to answer questions of the
Council.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 17, 2000
Ms. Janice Gauntt, 2429 Meadow Creek, representing the tenant, spoke in favor of the
proposed Ordinance.
Mr. T.U. Tutt, 4800 Bedford Road, spoke in opposition to the proposed Ordinance.
Mr. Axel Holland, 1100 Jo Carol Lane, spoke in opposition to the proposed Ordinance.
There were no others wishing to speak.
Mr. Mehrdad Moayedi was present to answer questions of the Council.
Discussion ensued regarding lighting requirements, truss load-bearing factor, zoning,
square footage, uses of the property, fence requirements, and exterior entrances to the
apartment.
Councilman Short moved to deny Ordinance 0-00-1247.
Councilman Feldman seconded the motion.
Ayes: Councilpersons Short, Taylor, Feldman, Marlin, and Mayor Pro Tem Tigue
Nays: None
Mayor Arp declared the motion carried.
5. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING -Ordinance 0-00-1248 - A
Special Use Permit for an accessory building requested by Jim Gray, for Lot 3,
Erickson Subdivision located at 300 Quail Run
Mayor Arp opened the public hearing and read the caption of Ordinance 0-00-1248.
There was no one present wishing to speak concerning this item and Mayor Arp closed
the public hearing.
Mayor Pro Tem Tigue moved to approve Ordinance 0-00-1248.
Councilman Short seconded the motion.
Discussion ensued regarding the size of the proposed building.
Ayes: Councilpersons Taylor, Feldman, Short and Mayor Pro Tem Tigue
Nays: Councilman Marlin
Mayor Arp deGared the motion carried.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2000
6. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - Ordinance 0-00-1249 -
Amending Chapter 3, Land Use, of the Land Development Code regarding large
commercial buildings
Mayor Arp opened the public hearing and read the caption of Ordinance 0-00-1249.
Mr. Mark Hollis, 7301 Cedar Court, spoke in favor of the proposed Ordinance.
Mr. Rich Munson, 1905 Hall-Johnson Road, spoke in favor of the proposed Ordinance.
There were no others wishing to speak.
Councilman Feldman thanked Mr. LeBaron for his work on this project.
Discussion ensued regarding having a worksession, timeframe of the moratorium, and
future consideration.
Mayor Pro Tem Tigue moved to table Ordinance 0-00-1249.
Councilman Feldman seconded the motion.
Ayes: Councilpersons Short, Taylor, Feldman, Marlin, and Mayor Pro Tem Tigue
Nays: None
Mayor declared the motion carried.
7. .SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - Ordinance 0-00-1250 -
Approval of a City/Developer Agreement with Gottfredson Land Development I,
L.L.C. for Tanglewood Addition
Mayor Arp opened the public hearing and read the caption of Ordinance 0-00-1250.
There was no one present wishing to speak concerning this item and Mayor Arp closed
the public hearing.
Discussion ensued regarding the length of the sidewalk in front of the development.
Councilman Taylor moved to approve Ordinance 0-00-1250.
Mayor Pro Tem Tigue seconded the motion.
Ayes: Councilpersons, Short, Taylor, Feldman, Marlin, and Mayor Pro Tem Tigue
Nays: None
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Mayor declared the motion carried.
OCTOBER 17, 2000
8. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING -Ordinance 0-00-1251 -
Amending Ordinance 0-00-1234, approving a contract between the City of
Colleyville and The Village at Colleyville for public improvements
Mayor Arp opened the public hearing and read the caption of Ordinance 0-00-1251.
There was no one present wishing to speak concerning this item and Mayor Arp closed
the public meeting.
Councilman Taylor moved to approve Ordinance 0-00-1251.
Councilman Feldman seconded the motion.
Ayes: Councilpersons Short, Taylor, Feldman, Marlin and Mayor Pro Tem Tigue
Nays: None
Mayor Arp declared the motion carried.
9. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - Ordinance 0-00-1252 -
Approving the Fiscal year 2000-2001 Budget for the Colleyville Economic
Development Corporation
Mayor Arp opened the public hearing and read the caption of Ordinance 0-00-1252.
There was no one present wishing to speak concerning this item and Mayor Arp closed
the public hearing.
Councilman Taylor moved to approve Ordinanoe 0-00-1252.
Mayor Pro Tem Tigue seconded the motion.
Ayes: Councilpersons Short, Taylor, Feldman, Marlin and Mayor Pro Tem Tigue
Nays: None
Mayor Arp declared the motion carried.
10. FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING -Ordinance 0-00-1253 - A Special
Use Permit for a carport requested by Steve Pence for Keith 8~ Betsy Luttrell, on
Lot 11, Block 3, Western Traits Addition Section 2 located at 7420 Overland Trail
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 17, 2000
Mayor Arp opened the public hearing and read the caption of Ordinance 0-00-1253.
There was no one present wishing to speak concerning this item and Mayor Arp closed
the public hearing.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed building.
11. READING AND PUBLIC HEARING -Resolution R-00-1726 -Authorizing
participation in the cause of action styled the City of Denton, Texas vs. Texas
Utilities Company and Lone Star Gas Company participating in seeking
delinquent franchise fees
Mayor Arp opened the public hearing and read Resolution R-00-1726 in its entirety.
There was no one present wishing to speak.
Discussion ensued regarding a possible compromise and City Manager, Bob Stripling
recommended passing on this item.
There was no action taken on this item.
12. READING AND PUBLIC HEARING -Resolution R-00-1727 -Approval of the
City Manager's recommendation of Cynthia Singleton as City Secretary effective
October 20, 2000.
Mayor Arp opened the public hearing and read Resolution R-00-1727 in its entirety.
There was no one present wishing to speak concerning this item and Mayor Arp closed
the public hearing.
Councilman Taylor moved to approve Resolution R-00-1727.
Councilman Feldman seconded the motion.
Ayes: Councilpersons Short, Taylor, Feldman, Marlin, and Mayor Pro Tem Tigue
Nays: None
Mayor declared the motion carried.
13. READING AND PUBLIC HEARING -Resolution R-00-1728 -Approval of
establishing Compensation for Interim City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 17, 2000
Mayor Arp opened the public hearing and read Resolution R-00-1728 in its entirety.
There was no one present wishing to speak concerning this item and Mayor Arp closed
the public hearing.
Councilman Taylor moved to approve Resolution R-00-1728.
Councilman Marlin seconded the motion.
Ayes: Councilpersons Short, Taylor, Feldman, Marlin, and Mayor Pro Tem Tigue
Nays: None
Mayor Arp declared the motion carried.
STAFF REPORTS:
14. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
There was no action taken on this item.
REPORTS:
15. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES -September 25,2000
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES -October 2, 2000
There was no action taken on this item.
CITIZEN COMMENTS:
16. CITIZEN COMMENTS/PRESENTATIONS REGARDING ITEMS NOT ON THE
AGENDA
There was no one present wishing to speak.
ACTION/RESOLUTION:
17. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION RATIFYING
COUNCIL AGENDA ACTION FOR THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 17, 2000 -
Reading and Public Hearing -Resolution R-00-1725
This Resolution was not needed.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
ADJOURNMENT:
18. ADJOURNMENT
OCTOBER 17, 2000
There being no further business before the City Council, Councilman Feldman moved to
adjourn.
Mayor Pro Tem Tigue seconded the motion.
Ayes: Counciipersons Short, Taylor, Feldman, Marlin, and Mayor Pro Tem Tigue
Nays: None
Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m.
APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 2000, BY A VOTE OF
AYES, NAYS, AND ABSTENTIONS.
Minutes taken and prepared by:
Jean Harris, TRMC, CMC
City Secretary
MINUTES OF THE
COLLEYVILLE CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
OCTOBER 26, 2000
The Colleyville City Council Worksession was called to order by Mayor Arp on October 26,
2000, at 7:07 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Councilpersons Jody Short, Mike Taylor, Dana Feldman, and Dennis
Marlin, were present. Mayor Donna Arp, Mayor Pro Tem Ginny
Tigue, City Attorney Ross Foster, Assistant City Manager Dianne
McWethy, Interim Assistant City Manager Curtis Hawk, Public
Services Director Bob Whitehead, Community Development Manager
Barry LeBaron, Community Development Coordinator Clayton
Husband and Economic Development Manager Mike Soab were also
present.
Planning and Zoning Commission members Chair Tom Hart, Jo Ann
Gasper, Joe Hocutt, Mark Hollis, Jeffry Wall and Luann Edwards
were also present. State Highway 26 Corridor Commercial
Development Standards Task Force members Bernard Johnson, Dee
McNoskey, Richard Myers, Kipp Whitman, Chairman Larry Midtbo,
David Coulson, Lori Edwards and Curtis Young were also present.
1. DISCUSSION OF THE LARGE COMMERICAL BUILDING ORDINANCE
(ORDINANCE 0-00-1249)
Community Development Manager Barry LeBaron provided an overview of the proposed
Large Commercial Building Ordinance 0-00-1249. The Mayor and City Council, Planning
and Zoning Commission and the State Highway 26 Corridor Commercial Development
Task Force members reviewed provisions of the proposed Large Commercial Building
Ordinance and provided suggestions and/or changes for consideration.
Staff plans to review proposed suggestions andlor changes proposed for the Large
Commercial Building Ordinance 0-00-1249 for City Council consideration on November
8, 2000. Mayor Arp adjourned this meeting at 9:40 p. m.
2. EXECUTNE SESSION - In accordance with Texas Government Code Chapter 551,
Subchapter D
Sec. 551.072 -Property Acquisition -Village at Colleyville
Sec. 551.074 -Personnel -City Manager
Mayor Arp called the meeting to order at 9:45 p.m.
No action was taken during Executive Session.
There being no further business before the City Council, the Executive Session was
adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Minutes taken and prepared by:
Dianne McWethy
Assistant City Manager
MINUTES OF THE
COLLEYVILLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 30, 2000
The Colleyville City Council Meeting was called to order by Mayor Arp on October 30,
2000, at 5:25 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Councilpersons Jody Short, Mike Taylor, Dana Feldman, and Dennis
Marlin, were present. Mayor Donna Arp, Mayor Pro Tem Ginny
Tigue, City Attorney Ross Foster, and Acting City Manager Dianne
McWethy were also present.
1. EXECUTIVE SESSION - In accordance with Texas Government Code, Chapter
551, Subchapter D
Sec. 551.072 - Property Acquisition -Village at Colleyville
Sec. 551.072 - Property Acquisition -Colleyville Boulevard/Smith Tract
Sec. 551.072 - Property Acquisition -Colleyville City Hall
Sec. 551.072 - Property Acquisition -Colleyville Public Library
Mayor Arp explained that the Executive Session had been called in accordance with Texas
Government Code Chapter 551, Subchapter D, Section 551.072 -Property Acquisition.
She further explained that there would be no decisions made or action taken during this
time.
There being no further business before the City Council, the Executive Session was
adjourned at 6:35 p.m.
Minutes taken and prepared by:
Dianne McWethy
Acting City Manager
CITY COUNCIL
~,~, ~,
n~ ~~
~~
~~.,;
AGENDA BRIEFING
For mt .: 11!08/00 CMO Approval:
Item#:
3d
Resolution #
R-00-1729
Previous Action: None
DEPT.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT
A Final Plat of the Bridges at Riverwalk, requested
by Dave Hannah, 11.995 acres located on the
north side of Glade Road in the 1300 block, Case
P-00-076 - by Consent
Reading and Public Hearing
Background
Dave Hannah is the owner of an 11.995-acre parcel of land located on the north side of
Glade Road at the future intersection with Riverwalk Drive. The owner has submitted a
Final Plat of the property for review and consideration by the City Council. The plat will
create 38 lots for the construction of single-family residences and one lot for future
commercial construction.
The following is an analysis of the major issues associated with this request.
Zoning. The property is zoned PUD-R Single Family Residential, approved by the City
Council on January 18, 2000, by Ordinance 0-99-1192. The approved PUD-R
requires a minimum lot size of 6,001 square feet, a minimum lot width of 56 feet, and
a minimum lot depth of 106 feet. The lots meet these minimum requirements.
(continued)
FINANCIAL REVIEW (IF NECESSARY)
Agenda Briefing
Resolution R-00-1729
Page 2
Riverwalk Drive. The developer, in coordination with the adjacent property owner, will
construct Riverwalk Drive as part of this development. Right-of-way for the road is
being dedicated with this plat. Construction plans for Riverwalk Drive have been
submitted with the plat for this property.
Glade Road. Glade Road is classified as a Minor Arterial on the Master Thoroughfare
Plan, which currently requires a 95 foot right-of-way. However, since 1998 it has not
been clear what the right-of-way requirements have been due to the number of
changes to the Master Thoroughfare Plan that have occurred over the past two and
half year period. For example, in September of 1998, the City Council adopted
Resolution R-98-1408 which changed all the roads on the Master Thoroughfare Plan
to two lane roads regardless as to the classification on the Master Thoroughfare
Plan. For the past two years it has not been clear whether Glade Road required a
60 foot right-of-way (as shown on the Thoroughfare Plan for a two lane road) or 70
feet of right-of-way according to the standards for a Minor Arterial street. When the
right-of-way width table was amended by the City Council on January 4, 2000, the
right-of-way width for Minor Arterial streets was changed to 75 feet and later to 95
feet on Apri- 18, 2000 as a part of the Land Development Code ordinance.
When the preliminary plat and zoning change for this property was approved in
January 2000, (at the same meeting where the Master Thoroughfare Plan
established the 75 feet of right-of-way) the applicant was advised to provide fora 60-
foot right-of-way for Glade Road. The owner is required to dedicate 30 feet of right-
of-way from the existing centerline of Glade Road witl-~ this plat. The applicant has
been advised that the new standard for Glade Road is 95 feet. However, the
applicant is requesting that the ultimate 60 feet of right-of-way be required with this
plat. The applicant proposed to dedicate one-half of the right-of-way, or about 24
feet, on the plat, for a total right-of-way of 60 feet. The City Council changed the
requirement from 60 feet to 75 feet at the same meeting the zoning
change/preliminary plat was approved. The Planning and Zoning Commission has
recommended that an additional 7.5 feet of easement be dedicated along Glade
Road to provide for a street that has a 75 foot right-of-way. It was the P&Z's opinion
that the 75 foot standard should be applicable to this development considering the
timing of the various events. A letter from the applicant is attached expressing the
applicant's request to not have to comply with the 95 foot right-of--way standard.
Open Space. Open space is being dedicated with this plat. A significant portion of the
open space is being used for drainage detention areas. The development provides
25.3% of open space on the plat.
Agenda Briefing
Resolution R-00-1729
Page 3
Gated Community. The owner had indicated that the plat request might include a
request for a gated community. The owner has now stated that he will not request
that this subdivision be a gated community. The Land Development Code allows the
homeowner's in the subdivision to request a gated community at any time in the
future, subject to 100% participation from all property owners.
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved this Final Plat at its October 23, 2000
meeting by a vote of 5-1 (Edwards against), subject to the following requirement: the
addition of a 7.5-foot drainage, utility and pedestrran easement along Glade Road.
Recommendation
Approval, subject to the applicant dedicating a 7.5 foot drainage, utility and pedestrian
easement along Glade Road.
Atta~hmpntc
^ Location map
^ Plat (see paper copy)
^ Applicant's letter regarding right-of-way dedication
^ Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Location Map
Applicant's Letter Regarding Right-of-Way Dedication
Riverwalk Development
October 16, 2000
3401 Amhest cisde ~n27 -
Bedford, TX 76021
(617) 49~-07?2
fu (617) X65.7111
OCT 172000
BY COMMtlNI?'.! J1:VEL~P~+~~.
IVir. Clayton Husband.
Development Coordinator, City of Colleyvillc
P.O. Box 185
Colleyville, TX 76034
Re: P-00-065 Final Plat -The Bridges at Riverwalk
Dear Mr. Husband:
We have received your written comments, datod October 12, 2000, from the
Development Review Committee's review of our final plat.
Items i through 8 we have done. Item 9, Glade Road right-of--way, we respectfully
request the right-of--way dedication remain as showm on our preliminary plat which was
prepared after consultation with City staff aad was approved by both P&Z and City
Council. Item 9 requests a total riglrt-of-way width of 95 fat which would impact
significantly our ability to develop the commercial portion of our PUD.
On Item 20, we have decided not to pursue the additional gate for the subdivision at this
time.
Thank you for your time and assistance. Please call if you have additional questions or
comments.
~~
Dave Hannah
Copy: Jackey Fluitt, Washington & Associates
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
October 23, 2000
2. A Final Plat of the Bridges at Riverwalk, requested by Dave Hannah, 11.955
acres located on the north side of Glade Road in the 1300 Block. Case P-00-076
Clayton Husband presented the case to the Commission. He stated all comments have
been addressed, with the exception of the right-of-way on Glade Road.
Commissioner Gasper asked if the ordinance required a specific right-of-way for Glade
Road. Staff advised that the ordinance did not, that it only required the right-of--way as
shown on preliminary plat
Mr. Wall asked how would the City obtain right-of-way in future if it were not dedicated
on the plat.
Staff advised the City would have to purchase the right-of-way.
Mr. Hocutt asked if there would be enough room left to provide adequate building space
if extra right-of-way was dedicated. Staff advised that it would not likely impact building
area, but could impact parking.
Mr. Dave Hannah, 3401 Amherst Circle, Bedford was present to represent the case. He
stated staff originally mentioned a 95-foot row for Glade Road. He said that an
additional 7.5 foot right-of-way could be handed as a drainage, utility and pedestrian
easement along Glade Road without impacting building area or open space on the lot or
parking area on the lot.
Commissioner Gasper stated she could support the change to include a 7.5-foot
drainage, pedestrian and public access easement.
Commissioner Gasper moved to approve the plat, subject to the addition of a 7.5-
foot drainage, utility and pedestrian easement along Glade Road, Case Z-00-076.
Commissioner Hollis seconded the motion. The vote being:
Ayes: Gasper, Hocutt, Hollis, Wall, Hart
Noes: Edwards
Copy of Proposed Plat
~ .+ ..
• i~ ~~
~ ~
,~ ~~~ i .:
11 cif ,~
~t ~~~, ~
,~• ~ ~- ,,
~ ~ ~ ~
~-
ti
~ -:
.~ - - .~
~.
~ ' :; ~°,
•i ~ •i
~~ •;. ~ •_
_f i
~ _~
,,
f ' ~~
it ,~' ~ '~ ''~
~ `. ! -- --
~ ~ !`~
• ^~/ •
1
1 i . ~. 1
~~ ~ f
~~
,~ ~
,! .
~~
~ ~~r
i
i~
~ ~ `.
} ~~1
t
7.5' Drainage, Utility 8~
it Pedestrian Easement
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ~
-~- ~ -~
CITY COUNCIL
L11r qr
TtsnR
AGENDA BRIEFING
For mt .: 11/08/00 CMO Approval:
Item #
3e
Resolution #
R-00-729
Previous Action: None
DEPT.
CITY MANAGE R
SUBJECT
Approval of Health, Dental and Vision Insurance
renewal with Blue Cross Blue Shield - by Consent
Reading and Public Hearing
Background
On November 4, 1998, the Council approved a contract with Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Texas for health, dental and vision insurance for City employees for a proposed three-
year period. Employees may choose to use the HMO Blue Plan or Blue Choice PPO
plan. Renewal rates from Blue Cross for the period of January 1, 2001 through
December 31, 2001 are as follows (See Attachment A):
(continued)
~u
ITY MANAGER ~
i
'ART ENT HE
FII~NCIAL REVIEW (IF NECESSARY)
Agenda Briefing
Resolution R-00-1729
Page 2
CURRENT PROPOSED INCREASE
Employee Health PPO
(Includes vision) $184.19 $222.26 $38.07
Dependent Health PPO
(Includes vision) $517.37 $624.27 $106.90
Employee Health HMO $165.77 $197.11 $31.34
Dependent Health HMO $466.40 $554.59 $88.19
Employee Vision $3.68 $4.38 $0.70
Dependent Vision $11.61 $13.82 $2.21
Employee Dental $21.25 $21.25 0
Dependent Dental $60.56 $60.56 0
Financial Impact
Currently, the City provides funding in the amount of $249.90 for the PPO dependent
health coverage and $225.47 for HMO dependent health coverage. There is no funding
provided for dependent dental coverage. Staff requests that the City continue the
funding for the dependent health coverage. There are currently 77 employees carrying
dependent health insurance. Attached is a funding analysis (Attachment B) of the
proposed cost. There are funds available to cover the cost of the employee health,
dental and vision coverage and to continue the dependent coverage funding.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the contract for Health/DentalNision Insurance be renewed with
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas with the changes noted above and at the
aforementioned monthly rates. Staff also recommends that funding for dependent
coverage continue at aforementioned monthly rates.
Attachments
Attachment A: Renewal Notice from Blue Cross Blue Shield. (Paper Copy)
Attachment B: Funding Analysis (Paper Copy)
Huacnment ti
vov
B1ueCross BlueShieId
of Texas'
Marketing
October 6, 2000
Ms. Kelly Cooper
City of Colleyville
P. 0. Box 185
Colleyville, TX 76034
Dear Ms. Cooper:
Richland Corporate Centre
9001 Airport Freeway, Suite 600
Fort Worth, Texas 76180
(817581-3860
Thank you for allowing Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas the opportunity of providing group benefits to }rou and your employees. As you are aware, your
group's annual renewal date is January 1, 2001. After a review of your account the following rates will be effective on your anniversary date (AD) as shown
and, if accepted, will apply for the 12-month period immediately following the AD-subject to the terms and conditions of the applicable group agreements
and the schedules of coverage or schedules of specifications, if any.
Health Rates - PPO
Employee Only Present Effective 1-1-2001
Ernpioyee/Dependent(s) $180.51 $217,88
$505.76 $610.45
Health Rates -HMO
nployee Only Present Effective 1.1-2001
_,nployee/Dependent{s) $165.77 $197.11
5466.40 $554.59
Dental Rates
Emplovee Only Present Effective I-1-2001
EmployeelDependent(s) S21.25 $21.25
560.56 $60,56
Vision Rates
Emplovee Only Present
Effective 1-1-2001
Employee/Dependent(s) $3.68 $4.38
$11.61 $13.82
PHYSICAL MEDICINE BENEFlT CHANGE
Physical Medicine will now have a $1,500 calendar year maximum
OPEN ENROLLMENT
Your group contract includes an annual open enrollment on your AD. This means your annual open enrollment for all eligible employees and dependents
will be held on the first day of the month prior to your AD and will extend for 31 consecutive days. It is imperative that these enrollment applications and
:hanges be submitted to the bcal sales office during this open enrollment period. A late enrollees's application received after your AD will not be eligible for
:overage until your group's open enrollment the next year.
i A Dnwu+n of Health Gre Serwre Corporation, a Afutual Lesal Reserve Company,
an Independent Licenxe of the Blue Cross and 81ue shield Assocu lim
1525.000~e99
City of Colleyville
October 6, 2t~0
Page 2
HMO Renewal Information
Enclosed are copies of your current NMO benefits and a Plan Description for HMO. If no changes are made to your current plan, these items need to b
distributed to all employees along with a HMO Directory during the open enrollment period. Please contact our office for additional supplies or fuRhE.
information.
Also, enclosed is the Group Enrollment Agreement for this renewal period. If no changes are made, please sign this part of your HMO contract and retur
to the above address by December 15, 2000. Returning this Agreement promptly will help ensure that your HMO memberships are extended until your
renewal date next year. If not signed and returned prior to your AD, your HMO memberships will be cancelled on the last day of the month prior to your AD
fl changes are made to your HMO plan, please contact our office so that we can prepare a corrected Agreement for your signature.
If you have any questions regarding your renewal, please contact our sales office. Thank you again for albwing 81ue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas to serve
you.
Sincerely,
Bill Davis
Regional Sales Executive
Enclosures
Huacnment B
PROPOSED BENEFIT INSURANCE FUNDING
DEPARTMENT TOTAL BUDGET
CITY MANAGER $19,692.00
BUILDING INSPECTION $24,615.00
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT $4,923.00
CITY SECRETARY $4,923.00
FINANCE $24,615.00
ENGINEERING $39,384.00
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $24,615.00
POLICE $1%,920.00
FIRE $152,613.00
MARKETING $4,923.00
PARKS $54,153.00
RECREATION $4,923.00
COMMUNITY CENTER $9,846.00
STREET $56,613.00
COURT $4,923.00
MAINT $9,846.00
UTILITY•ADMIN $9,846.00
UTILITY~OPNS $83,689.00
UTILITY~BILLING $9846.00
DRAINAGE $17,230.00
TOTAL BUDGET $758,138.00
EMPLOYEE PREMIUMS EXPENSE (OCT•DEC 00) $105,541.32
DEPENDENT PREMIUMS EXPENSE (OCT•DEC 00) $57,722.28
$ AMT REMAINING FOR JAN•SEPT 2001 INSURANCE PAYMENTS $594,874.40
LESS PROPOSED INS COVERAGE EXPENSE JAN•SEPT 2001
EMPLOYEE HEALTH ~ 156 EMPLOYEES $306,586.80
EMPLOYEE DENTAL ~ 156 EMPLOYEES $29,835.00
EMPLOYEE LIFE ~ 156 EMPLOYEES $5,686.20
EMPLOYEE LTD (d 156 EMPLOYEES $22,500.00
$ AMOUNT REMAINING FROM BUDGET $230,266.40
TOTAL OF REQUESTED DEPENDENT HEALTH INS
COVERAGE FUNDING FOR 84 EMPLOYEES $227,939.67
$ BALANCE REMAINING $2,326.73
CITY COUNCIL
C~~~ ni
~, ~~
7crai
AGENDA BRIEFING'
For mt .: 11/08/00 CMO Approval:
Item #
4
Ordinance #
0-00-1253
Previous Action: 70/'17100
DEPT.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT:
A Special Use Permit for a carport requested by
Steve Pence for Keith & Betsy Luttrell, on Lot 11,
Block 3, Western Trails Addition Section 2 located
at 7420 Overland Trail.
Second Reading and Public Hearing
First Reading and Public Hearing
Background
Keith and Betsy Luttrell are the owners of a house located at 7420 Overland Trail. The
owner's representative, Steve Pence, has submitted a special use permit application to
construct a carport on this property.
The property at 7420 Overland Trail is located on the west side of the road, near the
intersection with Sagebrush Street. The lot is 0.54-acres in size. The carport would be
located at the southwest side of the house, approximately 80 feet from the street. The
carport would be attached to the house, and the roofline of the carport integrated into
the roofline of the house.
~ryr3C ~~
MANAGER
ARTMENY H
(continued)
FINANCIAL REVIEW (IF NECESSARY)
Agenda Briefing
Ordinance 0-00-1253
Page 2
The carport regulations include design and location standards for carports. A
comparison of the regulations and the proposed carport is shown below. The proposed
carport meets all the requirements of the carport regulations. Staff recommends
approval of the SUP due to technical compliance with the regulations.
CARPORT ZONING COMPARISON
Category Zoning Requirement Applicant Proposal
1. Maximum Size 480 sq. ft. 400 sq. ft.
2. Longest Dimension Allowed 24 ft. 20 ft.
3. Maximum Height 15 ft. to highest point of roof 14 ft.
4. Side and Rear Setback 5 ft. 20 ft. side / 80+ ft. rear
5. Located in Rear Yard Required Yes
6. Maximum Number Per Lot 1 1
7. Paved Parking Surface Concrete, asphalt or pavestone Concrete
8. Roof Pitch 2:12 minimum 4:12
9. Construction of Posts brick, stone or decorative metal
between 12" and 48" in width 12" wide brick column supports
Staff mailed eleven notices to adjacent property owners regarding this request and has
received no correspondence or letters in support or opposition at the time the agenda
was prepared.
The Planning & Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing
special use permit request at its October 9, 2000 meeting
recommended approval of the request.
Recommendation
Approval, due to technical compliance with the carport regulations.
Attachments
^ Carport Drawings
^ List of Property Owners Receiving Notice of Public Hearing
^ Planning & Zoning Commission minutes
^ Ordinance 0-00-1253
and considered this
and unanimously
Carport Drawing
Carport Drawing
i
2
,i
~ ~
a ~
oft ~ ~
Q o
K -'
v
c~
a
I
2
~ ~
2
a
c
~~ 1
~¢ ;
__.
i
0
~ ~
a
~~
~.
~ ~-
.~
0
List of Property Owners Receiving Notice of Public Hearing
City of Colleyville
Colleyville, TX 76034
Evelyn McLain
512 Sagebrush Street
Colleyville, TX 76034
James 8 Durinda Gawrys
7501 Overland Trail
Colleyville, TX 76034
Philip Torgeson
P.O. Box 479
Colleyville, TX 76034
Lavonne Berg
513 Sagebrush Street
Colleyville, TX 76034
Everett & Vicki Johnston
7405 Overland Trail
Colleyville, TX 76034
Case S-00-071
Bobby & Diane Weaver
7420 Overland Trail
Colleyville, TX 76034
Roland 8 Kathy Kirkland
7416 Overland Trail
Colleyville, TX 76034
City of Keller
P.O. Box 770
Keller, TX 76244
Wesley Eaves
7409 Overland Trail
Colleyville, TX 76034
John 8 Kathryn Griffin
7412 Overland Trail
Colleyville, TX 76034
Keith 8 Betsy Luttrell
7420 Overland Trail
Colleyville, TX 76034
According to the last published Tax Records dated 09-01-00, individuals who own property that
is within the 200' of the proposed special use permit request are listed above. I certify that the
parties listed above have been notified of the proposed special use permit request as
required by Section 211 the Local Government Code. {Notices dated: September 29, 2000)
r
Jan Levy '~
Planning & aping Assistant
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
PUBLIC HEARING - A Special Use Permit for a carport requested by Steve Pence for
Keith & Betsy Luttrell, on Lot 11, Block 3, Western Trails Addition Section 2 located at
7420 Overland Trail. Case S-00-071
Clayton Husband presented the case to the Commission. He informed the Commission
that it meets all of the existing criteria and technical aspects for a carport. Jan Levy
informed the Commissioners that she received a call from the neighbor across the
street, Wesley Eaves, at 7409 Overland Trail. He said that he could not be at the
meeting and had no objections to the carport.
Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Steve Pence was present to represent the
case. There being no one else present wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Gasper moved to recommend approval of the special use permit.
Commissioner Hollis seconded the motion. The vote being:
Ayes: Gasper, Edwards, Hocutt, Hollis, Wall, Hill, Hart
Nays: None
Exhibit A -Location Map
~~
VIIAGONWHEE~ CT
.- _
__
..~ ,`
~. _ _ ~ L~
~2
A-GEB-RUSH ST-~
rn G~
-J ~ ~ _` <
LL _~
._.
W _ :_
_. > ~ _ __;
CHIS~~L~I-CT r-
8
--i
Q, C ,c
N
W
0.06 0 O.Ofi 0.12 Miles
E
S
Exhibit B -Conceptual Site Plan
1,OT 11
`°. 1•x
t. r
~ i
tV
E-+
w
~~
1
t
_ ., ._
I
~•~~ ~~r
---• x
.' ;.
' '•
'' ~ .,
:~
~•.:,;~.
i . ;• ,;.
.;,,~: •:
-.
:,.;;~
'..:~
.•..~,
r •,;.
~ •~.
• ~ P
. ,s .
.~:.~
~.:;.;
.:.
~. ; :.
~' • 1
r ~f r .
`,. ~.
~ ~ •
.~
. j
~ ~•~~
i .~ ,•~
~; , ;;~
PRoPos~, GA
`~ ~"rlSYo~,E
N
O
m
IV
0
.~ r wa~usdq:r~ a._ x._
Prw+ - ~' ~ ~!J
~Ti'- 7
~. ~
w
v
~/
•
• '~ r ~ i~~ ~ ~ ~~ i ~
sau~rit c i;~.Qa• .
7~t-~0 QVI~:KLANU TI~~IL
ORDINANCE 0-00-1253
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE
CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING
MAP BY AUTHORIZING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A CARPORT ON LOT
11, BLOCK 2, WESTERN TRAILS ADDITION SECTION 2; PROVIDING FOR A
PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS AND AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION
WHEREAS, an application for a special use permit was filed by Steven Pence for
Keith and Betsy Luttrell on September 15, 2000, under Case No.~S-
00-071; and
WHEREAS, notice of a hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission
was sent to real property owners within 200 feet of the property
herein described at least 10 days before such hearing; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing before the City Council was published in
a newspaper of general circulation in Colleyville at least 15 days
before such hearing; and
WHEREAS, notices were posted on the subject land as provided by the zoning
ordinance; and
WHEREAS, public hearings to change the zoning and the Master Plan on the
property herein described were held before the Planning and
Zoning Commission and the City Council, and the Planning and
Zoning Commission has heretofore made a recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that the zoning change herein
effectuated furthers the purpose of zoning as set forth in the Zoning
Ordinance and is in the best interest of the citizens of the City of
Colleyville.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS:
Sec. 1. THAT, the Master Plan, the Land Development Code of the City of
Colleyville, Texas, and the accompanying Location Map (Exhibit A)
are hereby amended insofar as they relate to certain land located in
Colleyville, Texas, described as Lot 11, Block 2, Western Trails
Addition Section 2, by authorizing a Special Use Permit for a
carport, with all site plans which are conceptual in nature,
supporting documents, and other conditions and restrictions
imposed and approved by the Council which are incorporated
herein by reference including, but not limited to the conceptual site
plan (Exhibit B).
Ordinance 0-00-1253
Page 2 of 2
Sec. 2. THAT, any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions
of this ordinance as read together with the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Colleyville shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon
conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum- not to exceed Two
Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). Each and every day such violation
continues shall constitute a separate offense and shall be
punishable as such.
Sec. 3. THAT, the City Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to
cause publication of the descriptive caption and penalty clause
hereof as an alternate method of publication provided by law.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
The first reading and public hearing being conducted on the day of
2000.
The second reading and public hearing being conducted on the day of
2000.
ATTEST:
Cynthia Singleton
City Secretary
CITY OF COLLEYVILLE:
Donna Arp
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Ross T. Foster
City Attorney
CITY COUNCIL
~it~ ~~
'~
Trsas
AGENDA BRIEFING
For mt .: 11/08/00 CMO Approval:
Item #
5
Ordinance #
0-00-1254
Previous Action: None
DEPT.
ENGINEERING
SUBJECT
Approval of a City/Developer Agreement with
Lany Cole Investments for Phase III of Remington
Park
First Reading and Public Hearing
Background
The plat of the Remington Park Addition -Phase III was filed with Tarrant County on
August 18, 2000. Council approved zoning for the Remington Park Addition on June
16, 1998 by Ordinance 0-98-1100. Public improvements associated with this
development are currently underway.
Staff has reviewed the subject agreement with Lang Cole Investments grid finds it to be
consistent with developmental policies and ordinances. All items in this agreement are
standard with the exception of item 8, which states that the City agrees to pay the
Developer a sum not to exceed $124,936.05, for the construction of 2,781 L.F. of 16-
inch, C-900 PVC DR-18 Water Main, to conform with the City's Built-out Water
Distribution Master Plan.
(continued)
/~Gl.!/
CITY MANAGER
D RTMENT HEAD
FI CI REVIEW (IF NECESSARY)
Agenda Briefing
Ordinance 0-00-1254
Page 2
Financial Impact
Funding for the 16-inch water main will be made available from the water impact fees.
Recommendation
Approval of the City/Developer Agreement with Larry Cole Investments.
Attachments
City/Developer Agreement
Letter from Goodwin & Marshall (paper copy only)
Site location map (paper copy only)
Ordinance 0-98-1100 (paper copy only)
Ordinance 0-00-1254
CITY OF COLLEYVILLE
CITY/ DEVELOPER AGREEMENT
REMINGTON PARK, PHASE III
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF TARRANT
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
That Larry Cole Investments, hereinafter called "Owner/Developer", and the City of
Colleyville, Tarrant County, Texas, hereinafter called "City", enter into the following
agreement.
In consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and for the purpose of
developing lots in Remington Park, Phase III, an Addition to the City of Colleyville, as
filed of record in Cabinet A, Slide Numbers 6058 and 6059 of the Plat Records of Tarrant
County, Texas, the parties hereto do agree:
The Owner/Developer will provide a complete service connection at each lot,
including tap, service line, curb stop and tap for sewer. The charge for the right to
connect to the system shall be in accordance with the City's current water and
sewer tap fees. Fees will be charged and paid at the time building permits are
issued.
2. The Owner/Developer will contract for street, drainage, water and sewer
requirements with reputable contractors. All contract documents shall be
prepared under the supervision and bear the seal of the Registered Professional
Engineer who shall be licensed in the State of Texas. Before acceptance of the
public improvements by the City, the contractor or contractors will furnish a two
year maintenance bond or place funds in escrow with the City for two years, such
bond or escrow to be in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the construction cost
of all public improvements.
3. The Owner/Developer agrees to pay the City for plan review and inspection fees
for the water, sanitary sewer, drainage, paving improvements and erosion surety
in accordance with the current ordinance requirements.
4. The Owner/Developer will reimburse the City for the installation of street name
signs, stop signs or any other traffic control signs, material and labor payable
before installation.
5. The Owner/Developer agrees to escrow with the City the sum of $70,951.21 for
the future improvements of L.D. Lockett Road adjacent to Remington Park
Addition -Phase III.
6. The Owner/Developer understands that he has no authority to cancel or amend
the terms of the agreement without speck written authority of the City.
7. If for any reason the ownership of the property should change prior to the
acceptance by the City of the water, sewer, - storm drainage and paving
improvements in Remington Park -Phase III, it is agreed that these conditions will
pass from this OwneNDeveloper to the next owner and the City will require proper
signatures of the new Owners agreeing to the terms of this Agreement.
8. City agrees to pay the Developer a sum of $124,936.05 for constructing 2,781
L.F. of 16-inch, C-900 PVC DR-18 Water Main.
9. Upon completion of the work, good and sufficient title to all facilities constructed,
warranted free of any liens or encumbrances, is hereby vested in the City of
Colleyville.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to these presents have executed this contract in
three (3) counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original on this day of
2000.
DEVELOPER
Larry Cole
Larry Cole Investments
CITY OF COLLEYVILLE
Donna Arp, Mayor
Cynthia Singleton, City Secretary
10/31/2000 17:45 4463116 GOODWIN MARSFIALt_ PACE 02
~OODwIN~ CML. ENGINEERS ~ PLANNERS - SURVEY+Ot~S
ARSH.ALL~
October 30, 2000
Ms. Chayce Morrow, P.E.
City of Collcyville; Engineer
5400 Bransford Road
Colleyville, TX 76034
Re: Remington Pair Addition, Phase 3 - DeveIoper's Agreement
Dear Ms. Mon: ow,
1 am writing this letter im regazds to the necessary reimbursement for the design and construction of
the 16" Water Line for the above referenced project. Based on the verbal agreement by the City of
Collcyvillc with Larry Cole, he would pay for the design and installation of the 16" water line as a
convenience to the~City and be reimbursed those costs per the Developer's Agreement. The civil
engineeriiag costs, including project management during construction and a partial redesign of the
16" water line, total $11,400.00. The surveying and construction staring costs will be $2,800.00.
The total construction cost for the installation of the 16" water line is $110,736.05. I have included
with this letter a copy of the water facilities portion of the utility contractor's proposal that is a part
of the contract documents. Again based on the verbal agreement with the City, it is our
understanding that the final inspection fee included in the Developer's Agreement will be based om
the total construction costs, excluding the 16" water line.
Ms. Morrow, I appreciate the staff's time and cooperation on this project and should you have any
questions or need any additional. information, please do not hesitate to call.
sincerely,
Goodwin di Mars 11 Inc.
Edwazd W. Eckart, E_l.T.
EWE/jc
encl.
cc: Larry Cole
6001 BRIDC3E STREET, S6l~TE 1001 FORT WORTH, Texas 76 1121817-4Z9-4373 (METRO) / e 17-416-3 t I b (FAX)
rt~o ~o or
~~
[[.... ~ ~
- ° as ~ ~j
o~
~ .ate __Ltt~ '^ • ` '~ ~,~, ~~ ~ ~
i E.x- 4 I ~ 4a~ ,~~~~:~~ ..1~. .s~;+I3R~ +~ I ~~ i~ l oa4 to ~„ i
qqa- $r- tt. 1 o cif .5 C ~4 < < h
_ a
c eyy `~
anciVL_
«« «i~r~'iir'~w ~*' ~ ~ J.yyreps • [ ' -t ~'I ~i .~.. ~\~~'
~oaieine....~ ~'ai~ ~ -- • ---
,ler ~ .lei,;.-~j`~ e.a
^+a 1` ~ i ~ r~~~ 5 °e
~~ r r r L o' • ~,~
~~yjp~'l~ .~iJ [ I
t J 4 i t 1
`~ t
G
rr ti
I~~hh ~
V
~~~
FF i,~
E i4~a. • r
- - - '`ii -.... '~ ~~r '" ~ Lam. i a ~t S i ~ _ ~;~ ; ~r a~di'i~~~~
~~~q' ~ ,y w p i I ~I I :-~ ~ ~-" ~ „ Lt~ X77-~ - ~~p/ y
!~ ~ y
_~, _ ~
~,,,, -
.-'- S -- n~51g ~~ ~ ~~ ~ e r .ir~:~' '~~i ~ t. •• C I ` _e. t ICI a-_
tr
~+ c '
ti' ,a~ ~s
~I~ ~ n i c c y ~+
.~li is • .A -.~ 4- ~ / ~, r^ rfKtir y
!~ ~ 9 ~ . -.-~7.Y*.~i~.i~R+ -. ryi-~1~.a7iaaJ_ ~R
:~ .
.~... ! : .
r
~i :: ~ ~~ ~ I~ i ~
~ ~ ~~ ~.~
~a~ ~~ ~ R ~~~ i
~~ S~Y ~ ~ ~ ~i 1
i[ii
•1
~g W ~" ~~#r '-~-r ~.:o. ~_~,..~ -i-~~~w . Apr ~ ~~. $~~ ~~~ ~ 8 ~ 1
..., j
a, ~ ~ ~-
ID TWTOIW L~. -l]1~1 - -7RA- - . r4 j~ c ~~ ^ p i R s
t }~
e r
Ott un~ >~ 17.ii.~priN __~- e ~ ~ ~Y~~ .
~~ w aka, ~ ~~ j , ~ ~ '~ ~ k4°~ I ~...BIP i. r~~
~ L__~ a~-"s j_f.r •~-~sNi ~_~', ~ ,~saoti 1 ' ~,~~ ~~'-p~pi 4~ I
3 N1 ~ 8 -~---l---i -~ru.or:w.o ~-_r~ia;R~ « :V 47 '~+~~''~~r+ -1 \\ \
max lY7 r
i , i i i i i i ,1 ` `~~`. ~7: ~ s i ~.
~ _ _ - _ -- -
ORDINANCE 0-98-1100
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AND CHANGING
THE ZONING OF 123.9 TOTAL ACRES, 103.21 ACRES BEING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE PUD-R FOR REMINGTON PARK, 0-97-1058, AND AN ADDITIONAL 20.879
ACRES OUT OF THE J. S. NEWTON SURVEY, ABSTRACT 1177, TRACTS 1C, 1C1,
1 L1, AND LOTS 4A AND 46, BLOCK 5, BRIARWOOD, AND A PORTION OF LOT 1,
BLOCK 1, TALBOT ADDITION, IN THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS FROM THE
PUD-R (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL) AND R40 (SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, MINIMUM LOT 40,000 S.F.) AND R20 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,
MINIMUM LOT 20,000 S.F.) DISTRICTS TO THE PUD-R (PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT; PROVIDING A PENALTY AND
AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION.
WHEREAS, an application for zoning change was filed by Lany Cole on April 17, 1998
under Case No. Z-96-023; and,
WHEREAS, notice of a hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission was sent
to real property owners within 200 feet of the property herein described at
least 10 days before such hearing; and,
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing before the City Council was published in a
newspaper of general circulation in Colleyville at least 15 days before such
hearing; and,
WHEREAS, notices were posted on the subject land as provided by the zoning
ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, public hearings to change the zoning and the Master Plan on the property
herein described were held before both the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the City Council, and the Planning and Zoning Commission
has heretofore made a recommendation; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that the zoning change herein effectuated
furthers the purpose of zoning as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and is
in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Colleyville;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS:
Ordinance 0-98-1100
Page 2 of 10
Sec. 1. THAT the Master Plan, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Colleyvil~ ,
Texas, and the accompanying Zoning Map (as indicated in Exhibit A) a
hereby amended insofar as they relate to certain land located in Colleyville,
Texas, described by metes and bounds (Exhibit B) by changing the zonii ~
of said property from the PUD-R and R40 and R20 districts to the PUD~, fi
district together with all site plans, supporting documents, and other
conditions and restrictions imposed and approved by the Council which a 3
incorporated herein by reference including, but not limited to the site plan
which is Attachment 1 to this ordinance and the planning objectives whi~~i
are Attachment 2 to this ordinance.
Sec. 2. Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of tF~>
ordinance as read together with the Zoning Ordinance of the City f
Colleyville and accompanying official Zoning Map thereto shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum not ' ~
exceed Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). Each and every day sup i
violation continues shall constitute a separate offense and shall be
punishable as such.
Sec. 3. The City Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to cause publication
of the descriptive caption and penalty clause hereof as an ~altem~
method of publication provided by law.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Th first reading and public hearing being conducted on the 2^-d day of
1998.
Th second reading and public hearing being conducted on the ~~ day of
un~ , 1998.
ATTEST:
CITY OF COLLEYVILLE
~~
J n Harris, CMC
City Secretary
Richard Newton
Mayor
ED A TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Ross T. F stet
City Attorney
If3~3~ ~~~~~
.~ (~ ~cEZt ~ ( t l Iv lVV+ ( IJI 91 ~ .ii t ~ I Z.1u ~cl
OAD tcl ~tI
~1~` t IIL'
.0 ~I
~I,
:~
--~ ~ - ~-
~:. „~.
ORDINANCE 0-98-1100
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Description
BEING a 123.9 acre tract of land in the J.E. Withers Survey, Abstract No. 1748, the H.L. Allen
Survey, Abstract No. 65, the RN. McEwing Survey, Abstract No. 1154 and the J.S. Newton
Survey, Abstract No. 1177, situated in the City of Colleyville, Tarrant County, Texas and being
more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at a 1/2" iron pin found on the East line of a tract of land conveyed to Victor H.
Payne and wife Marie Payne by deed recorded in Vol. 4575, Pg. 900 of the Deed Records of
Tarrant County, Texas (DRTCT), said iron pin also being on the South right-of--way line of
McDonwell School Road (County Road No. 3105) (Observed 50'RO.W.), said iron pin also
being on the West line of a tract conveyed to F.C. Becker by deed recorded in Vol. 6273, Pg. 467
DRTCT;
TI-~NCE N 89°23'51" E along the said South right-of-way line of said McDonwell School Road,
a distance of 357.87 feet to a 1/2" iron pin set, said iron pin also being the point of curvature of
a circ~ilar curve to the left, having a radius of 525.00 feet, a central angle of 33°31'53", a chord
distance of 302.88 feet and a chord bearing of N 72°37'54" E;
THENCE easterly and northeasterly along said circular curve to the left and South right-of--way
line of said McDonwell School Road, a distance of 307.25 feet to a 1/2" iron pin set;
THENCE N 55°51'58" E along the said South right-of-way line of said McDonwell School Road,
a distance of 151.49 feet to a 1/2" iron pin set for the point of curvature of a circular curve to the
right, having a radius of 475.00 feet, a central angle of 2?°34'56", a chord distance of 226.46
feet and a chord bearing of N 69°39'26" E;
THENCE northeasterly and easterly along said circular curve to the right and said South right-of-
way line of said McDonwell School Road, a distance of 228.67 feet to a 1/2" iron pin set, said
iron pin also being on the West line of Lot 3, Block 1 of Tallman Addition, an addition to the City
of Colleyville, Tarrant County, Texas as recorded in Vol. 388-120, Pg. 9 of the Plat Records of
Tarrant County, Texas (PRTCT) and on the called East line of a tract of land conveyed to RL.
Perritt by deed recorded in Vol. 2432, Pg. 365 DRTCT;
TI~NCE S O1°54'35" W along the called East line of said Perritt tract and the West line of said
Lot 3, Block 1, a distance of 895.29 feet to a 1/2" iron pin found, said pin being the Southwest
corner of said Lot 3, Block 1 and the Northwest corner of Block 3 of Bellinger Place, an addition
to the City of Colleyville, Tarrant County, Texas as recorded in Vol. 388-V, Pg. 15, PRTCT;
THENCE S 89°57'55" E along the North line of said Block 3 of Bellinger Place and the South
line of said Tallman Addition, a distance of 428.77 feet to a 7/8" iron pin found, said iron pin
being the Southeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1 of said Tallman Addition and the Southwest corner
of Lot 1, Block 1 of O'Steen Subdivision, an addition to the City of Colleyville, Tarrant County,
Texas as recorded in Vol. 388-129, Pg. 11 PRTCT;
ORDINANCE O.98-1100
EXHIBIT "B"
T'I~NCE N O1°54'35" E along the East line of said Lot 1, Block 1 of said Tallman Addition and
the West line of said Lot 1, Block 1 of said O'Steen Subdivision, a distance of 555.00 feet to a
1/2" iron pin set;
T~NCE S 89°54'36" E departing said East line of said Lot 1, Block 1 of said Tallman Addition,-
adistance of 435.18 feet tD a lll" iron pin set, said pin being on the East line of said Lot 1, Block
1 of said O'Steen Subdivision and on the West line of Lot 1, Block 1 of Blackberry Farm, an
addition to the City of Colleyville, Tarrant County, Texas as recorded in Vol. 388-126, Pg. 76
PRTCT;
THENCE S Ol°54'35" W along the East line of said Lot 1, Block 1 of said O'Steen Subdivision
and the West line of said Lot 1, Block 1 of said Blackberry Farm, a distance of 555.00 feet to a
1/2" iron pin set on the North line of said Block 3 of said Bellinger Place;
THENCE S 89°54'36" E along the South line of said Blackberry Farm and the North line of said
Bellinger Place, a distance of 902.77 feet to a 1/2" iron pin found;
THENCE S 00°02'35" E departing the said South line of said Blackberry Farm and continuing
along the common line between Block 3 and Block 2 of said Bellinger Place, a distance of 753.81
feet to a 1/2" iron pin found, said iron pin being on the North line of Block 1 of the James A.
Ryan Addition, an addition m the City of Colleyville, Tarrant County, Texas as recorded in Vol.
388-127, Pg. 4 PRTCT;
THENCE S 88°59'52" W along the said North line of said Block 1 of the James A. Ryan
Addition and the South line of the said Block 3 of said Bellinger Place, a distance of 361.45 feet
to a 1/4" iron pin found, said iron pin also being in the North line of Lot 1, Block 1 of Van Oaks
Addition, Phase R, an addition to the City of Colleyville, Tarrant County, Texas as recorded in
Vol. 388-205, Pg. 1 PRTCT;
'T'HENCE N 89°41'26" W along the North line of said Lot 1, Block 1 of said Van Oaks Addition,
Phase II and the South line of said Block 3 of said Bellinger Place, a distance of 558.02 feet to
a 5/8" iron pin found, said iron pin also being the Northwest corner of a tract conveyed to M.I.
Mackey by deed recorded in Vol. 6192, Pg. 806 DRTCT;
THENCE S 00°44' 10" W along the West line of said Mackey tract and the West line of Lot 1,
Block 1 of the E.A. Smith Addition, an addition to the City of Colleyville, Tarrant County, Texas
as recorded in Cab. A, Slide 1749 PRTCT, a distance of 400.48 feet to a 1/2" iron pin found,
said iron pin also being the Southwest corner of said Lot 1, Block 1 of said E.A. Smith Addition;
'I~NCE S 89°31'48" E along the South line of said Lot 1, Block 1 of said E.A. Smith Addition,
a distance of 435.12 feet to a 1/2" iron pin found, said iron pia being in the West line of Lot 1,
Block 1 of Talbot Addition, an addition to the City of Colleyville, Tarrant County, Texas as
recorded in Vol. 388-186, Pg. 51 PRTCT and in the East line of the E.A. Smith Tract, an
addition to the City of Colleyville, Tarrant County, Texas as recorded in Vol. 388-60, Pg. 31
PRTCT;
ORDINANCE 0-98-1100
EXHIBIT "B"
TI~NCE S 00°36' 18" W along the West line of said Lot 1, Block 1 of said Talbot Addition and
the East line of the said E.A. Smith Tract, a distance of 616.18 feet to a 1/2" iron pin found;
THENCE N 88°25'00" E, 286.80 feet to a point;
THENCE S 00°01'51" E, 1599.15 fect to a point on the North right-of-way line of LD Lockett
Road;
THENCE S 89° 15'00" E, 532.25 feet to a point;
TFl3rNCE N 10°22'38" W, 55.79 feet to a point;
THENCE N 00°03'24" E, 296.18 feet to a point;
THENCE N I3 ° 47' 08 " W, 66.15 feet to a point;
THENCE N 00°05'02" W, 1277.32 feet to a point;
TI~NCE S 88°33'48" W along the North line of said Briarwood, a distance of 713.81 feet to a
1" iron pipe found, said iron pipe being the Northwest corner of said Briarwood and the Northeast
corner of The Oaks, an addition tD the City of Colleyville, Tarrant County, Texas as recorded in
Vol. 388-76, Pg. 10 PRTCT;
THENCE S 88°35'21" W along the North line of the said The Oaks, a distance of 933.67 feet
to a 3/4" iron pipe found, said iron pipe being on the West line of said E.A. Smith Tract and on
the East line of Tracts A & B of the McEwing Subdivision, an addition to the City of Colleyville,
Tarrant County, Texas as recorded in Vol. 388-29, Pg. 447 PRTCT;
THENCE N 00°I7'03" W along the said East line of said Tracts A dt B of said McEwing
subdivision and the West line of said E.A. Smith Tract, a distance of 980.87 feet to a 5/8" iron
pin found, said iron pin being the Northwest corner of said E.A. Smith tract and on the East line
of Tract C, McEwing Subdivision, an addition to the City of Colleyville, Tarrant County, Texas
as recorded in Vol. 388-46, Pg. 878 PRTCT, said iron pin also being the most Southerly
Southwest corner of said RL. Perritt tract;
THENCE N 00°32'56" E along the East line of said Tract C of said McEwing Subdivision and
the West line of said Perritt tract, a distance of 471.98 feet to a 3/8" iron pin found, said iron pin
being the Northeast corner of said Tract C of said McEwing Subdivision;
THENCE S 89°34'32" W along the North line of said Tract C of said McEwing Subdivision and
the South line of said Perritt tract, at a distance of 108.14 feet passing the Southwest corner of
said Perritt tract and the Southeast corner of said Becker tract, continuing long the South line of
said Becker tract a total distance of 299.67 feet to a 1/2" iron pin found, said iron pin being the
Southwest corner of said Becker tract and the Southeast corner of said Payne tract
ORDINANCE 0-98-1100
EXHIBIT "B"
TI~NCE N 00°28'55" W along the East line of said Payne tract and the West line of said Becker
tract, a distance of 912.42 feet to the POINT of BEGINNING, and containing 5,339,100 square
feet or 123.9 acres of land.
ORDINANCE 0-98-1100
EXHIBIT "B"
•_- :i iii ~_- `i •:. •i" -'i :: ' fi.: S.. iii -_ _ :I ]s :.:~
- y? ;+1 _ i:3 ;}a~ •a :it: xts~ iii t. ' ~!~2 ... :ia.~ 'i - - ::)Ea ~x :I:'
s'[ ~~ .:' _ :a.. _ ~L`: . - .: a :•~ _ :•° '
:t):f :: '-215= ~).> °!i' ir!? :~- _ 'r:i -`` ii - -[ a .5~: '{..f ,.'
ti8 -~'!~ t:'~ ~' !r -!: °::a - cl •!s: iii ix .iF- •`i?, ai :_ _f .e s .i. _i.+ _ si _t':? St
__ i:~•i
~'. °t~ii firs !~ xj= .:.: :'_; `"! :i =~:t '• 1•i` ~~ '~" :~ y- •-i . iii i~` :az. ~- •~-~ ::
::;i_ _ :iii. = :. s_~ a._ :::cti i :::.: ~{:: .;
:i e1.. Ei s :' ii' • :.:: 'Sac :'~~i. :S sx ... ~!°' •• _ 't: '~~ --. ~;.s- .-
f ' IF •1 .;E c:~cf :~- :~ ti i3:: :sa -~ ? `::? s:iif ;i;'++. :i~' i r - :it+ i~+~.•i +i: •f~r
! .''- 3j:5t xeI =: ~~,_ : :_r ~a} ?;b~- -;+_] Y.: +•;: :ts_ :,~..~ ? ;f.; i s = ~ xt:i _.ra ;t..: _
i ::.~ tF'ti ~'•_ ~ -; ~r:s' :t?. •"s.°t '- ~ ': ~ '° :..) ::-> -~-s :::js .` ;h" ]iI: :sl':i ii- j.'f:i
_ :t:.^ it;t l.t~ :; 3t; _'_3 ii i!eI :!.- !di• ill:.:I_. .i c i .z: '-,• .. .:
i :fir s • +•': 3s a:,% :at -' +~ ?si 1 r !::_ is %ii: i;z? ss.r ?jli i'f~ r. » e { = f ~ • ?~= '»; :t:~. ix:::i:.:?
: .• i °5i jl - ' r='= j•i: ii_ ;s :mil ~ Y'-sl +'~•"' '1~ ;•:. "s3 ~ [• ! ` t i t _ s~ ;i::._i°'' :1 ;~l:i 3j
:s3; fl~+1: ~: ' iFs; 2i" t5 :~= is C.+ :, ~' :2? ij ts„ ; .s, f-:` :~ c_.!s ~~ .. _ .. ~ si :- ~i•~ti :: ;fix ::.
:u :', t ai r_ "'Ysts.....: /l:es -i '~I -s+ ': '3;~ 'rt •jji ~ 'sit: - - s _1=~ .?i?'i '2 ' --; ,:?
i.~ :Y:- a°1.i ij i., i.~:. -~_ '.i.i a:i .2" cti . afat ).. t <it.:_s ss~ r s= a : e • : r a s~l..~- .. ti '7t 's•is .
saa ...fl as :i , ~ •s 2 .. '- fa :.i s.s ;:= Si )1~{' "~i t is s. ~_s. .. c _ : i i i : cli::.:a sf a,; als •. t!.
iii: 'is'I tz.a ii "s s::~f Gi~y isse ~ r •: :i r- s .: si 't afa t_i• : _: s, i i _ s s : s sf`s s'_; st .;- a' r:;; aa;
J ~ '-a .j. _ :~1, ..u _ .: .•r-x ..i .ji3 "+i "~ :fei~ 'tisll ' '_.; 'li it 'i i : • ' ~t :: it ':~:}1 ~~~ '~F~i • -
tis. ti t°:i s~ t:I: i'i3;: i'}2 i:ia ias il)Tt i' i' '~:. i:.: iu+ i::. iY»s'i:-t i' i a i i i •ii i3 _: t ti:
.LI K~sp ...: L S.:e l2a:# r:a_ _:x~ rr_"-' :...t EIi ri I •:t rl:i2 Ej ~1 d.ss ! ::! :? _ !i : 3 s r s r_.i i.li !a:a tl rFi !!:i~ !a-
®' ! i `
t y
Z Ql
-~ t
3
l
t
! i
I s
. t
i )
~~~
9 ~
YI
l~-1
ATTACHMENT -1
- ~
. :: ~ :.
;-
_:. ;,
}z_ ;# ;:_
i -
_.! a' .1'
.i' )i r!t
_3 -' !~-~
\:: .i _ _
:i .s _
: ~~ _-
. j ' . 4 -
- -,, • _ : ,
.- fii 9.
;' '~- -
:, '~ _:
~
:
; ~ :..
i
t
~ z
~~
'
ei S
V i
_.
r E
#
:
j~jl l•~~~
.
:
.
(
~
~
~
~ ~ ~
a a i
]
.
: . F ; r.I~
::
Z -
Q
! ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~`-
4'Qgiiva;~
i~6<.3a e
3 Z r+~ ~'
: r3
V
44~
i
is
~; ~ is
~ ~ ~~
. ~ ~~
1~
y,
;a~~
s
C
L
~ .1~'
~d
e~
REMINGTON PARK DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
Phase I Commenced June 1997
Phase II Commence Fall 1998
Phase III Commence Fall 1999
Phase N Commence Winter 2001
Completed February, 1998
Complete Spring 1999
Complete Spring 2000
Complete Summer 2001
STATEMENT OF PROPOSED OWNERSHIP
Foxcreek Residential Development Ltd.
ORDINANCE 0-98-1100
ATTACHMENT - 2
REMINGTON PARK PLANNING OBJECTIVES
The main objective we wanted to accomplish was to establish a neighborhood that had an open
country h7ce feeling with all the convenience of city services. We feel we have achieved this result by
doing the foIlowing:
1. The neighborhood is designed with a spine road through the lowest elevation of the land
giving an internal feeling driving through the valley with trees surrounding the perimeter of
the property.
2. The open space (apPro'Y 15 ae~es) is fully visible as you eater the community with two
ponds, jogging trails, a junior Olympic-size pool as well as a clubhouse and community center.
3. The community is designed to maximize the number of lots of that are located on cul de sacs
cad streets of the main spice road.
4. The circ~ilation pattern allows residents to be able to exit to the north on McDonwell School
Road, to the south on L.D. Lockett Road and to the west on Lavacca Trail.
5. The design allows for preserving as many trees as possible and the natural stock pond while
adding additional seasonal planting and a buffer adjacent to McDonwell School Road.
6. The internal pedestrian trail system allow for about 1-1/2 miles of path directly from the cul
de sacs minimiang the number of road crossings providing for safety of the neighborhood
residents. .
7. The community is designed within the master plan target of 1.72 Lots per acre while still
providing enough lots cad open space to make the project feasible.
8. The price range of the houses built w~71 be from ~ 50,000 to 5500,000.
REIVIIl~TGTON PARK UTII.I'TY PROVISIONS
A proposed tea inch sanitary sewer line will be connected to the e~asting ten inch line and
manhole located between Colts Neck Drive and Quail's Path, along the north boundary line of the
Briara+ood subdivision. A ten inch sanitary sewer line will be extended to the north property line of
Remington Park Addition for future development to co~ect to the proposed system. Eight and six
inch sanitary sewer lines branch off of the ten inch line in order to sern Remington Pazk residents.
A proposed ten inch water line will be looped to connect the existing ten inch water line along
the north side of Lavacca Trail and an e~asting tea inch Iiae that extends to the end of Van Oaks
Drive. The six inch water line that extends along the south side of McDonwell School Road will be
rtplaced with a ten inch line along the north boundary line of the subdivision_ An eight inch line within
the subdivision will loop the McDomvell School Road Line to the other two existing ten inch Lines.
Six inch water lines will be branched off of the two main lines in order to serve Remington Park
residends. A ten inch line will also be looped from Vaa Oaks Drive through Remington Park to L.D.
Lockett at the south end of the proposed development.
ORDINANCE 0-96-1100
ATTACHMENT - 2
ORDINANCE 0-00-1254
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE DEVELOPER PARTICIPATION IN CONTRACT
FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN LARRY COLE INVESTMENTS AND THE
CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS FOR REMINGTON PARK, PHASE III ADDITION
WHEREAS, Larry Cole Investments (Developer) shall construct public improvements
and the City of Colleyville, Texas shall participate in the cost as
determined by municipal ordinance under Subchapter C. Developers
Participation in Contract for Public Improvements, Local Government
Code, State of Texas; and
WHEREAS, The City of Colleyville and Developer hereby entered into a
City/Developer Agreement/Contract for the Remington Park Addition -
Phase III, which specifies certain construction costs that the City has
agreed to participate in with the Developer.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS:
Sec. 1. THAT the Developer shall construct the improvements and the City shall
participate in their cost.
Sec. 2. THAT the City's total cost participation ($124,936.05) does not exceed
thirty percent (30%) of the total contract price.
Sec. 3. THAT the Developer must execute a performance bond for the
construction of the improvements to ensure completion of the project, said
bond must be executed by a corporate surety in accordance with Chapter
2253, Government Code.
Sec. 4. THAT the City shall be reimbursed by the Developer the total cost
participation by the City if City finds there was any undue loading of cost,
collusion, or fraud.
Sec. 5. THAT all of the Developer's books and other records related to the project
shall be available for inspection by the City.
Ordinance 0-00-1254
Page 2 of
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
The first reading and public hearing being conducted on the day of
2000.
The second reading and public hearing being conducted on the day of
2000.
ATTEST:
Cynthia Singleton
City Secretary
CITY OF COLLEYVILLE
Donna Arp
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Ross T. Foster
City Attorney
CITY COUNCIL
Lary of
~, "~
~~~,;
AGENDA BRIEFING
For mt .: 11!08!00 CMO Approval:
Item #
6
Ordinance #
0-00-1255
Previous Action: None
DEPT.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT
A zoning change requested by Doug Henderson
representing Kipp Whitman, Lavaca Trail, LLC,
from R40 to PUD-C (planned unit development-
commercial) on 6.335 acres located at the
southeast corner of Lavaca Trail and Precinct Line
Road. Case Z-00-070
Firsf Reading and Pub!!c Hearing
Background
The applicant is requesting rezoning of this 6.3 acre tract from R40 single-family
residential to PUD-C, to develop eight commercial "pad sites". The property is located
at the southeast corner of Precinct Line Road and Lavaca Trail. Earlier this past
summer, the applicant submitted the initial rezoning request to allow the development of
a convenience store and a large kennel facility. However, after considerable discussion
at the August 15, 2000 City Council public hearing, the applicant decided to withdraw
the kennel facility from his original proposal, but to proceed on with the proposed
commercial rezoning. The City Council referred the request back to the Planning and
Zoning Commission for further study and review, since the rezoning request had been
significantly modified from the initial proposal.
(continued)
C MANAGER
DEPARTME HEAD
FINANCIAL REVIEW (IF NECESSARY)
Agenda Briefing
Ordinance 0-00-1255
Page 2
Staff subsequently met with the applicant to identify the various parameters of the
request and drafted specific language, which has been incorporated into the ordinance
to guide the overall development, particularly since there are no building site plans or
building elevation drawings. The developer is requesting aPUD-C ordinance, which will
allow development of a convenience store with SUP provisions to allow the sale of
alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption on the corner lot. The developer is
also requesting SUP provisions for the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises
consumption in conjunction with a restaurant on the other two lots that front on Precinct
Line Road. The proposed ordinance includes all CC1 and CC2 uses for this PUD-C.
The Colleyville Master Plan shows this area as a future commercial location and the
general concept of the applicant's proposal appears consistent with the Master Plan
from an overall perspective. However, staff is concerned that an additional convenience
store at this location is premature and will "consume" an important location and is
recommending denial of the request.
Since there are no site plans or building elevation plans submitted with this request,
language has been inserted into the ordinance to require City Council approval of all
site plans and building elevation plans prior to the issuance of any building permits.
Additionally, the developer is required to design the site plan and building elevations to
score a minimum of 35 points under the Colleyville Building Design guidelines.
Included with this agenda briefing is a draft ordinance for your review. The applicant
has reviewed the draft ordinance and concurs with the specific terms and conditions of
the requirements of the ordinance. The "Zoning Exhibit" does not include a preliminary
plat, therefore the preliminary and final plat requirements are included within the
language of the proposed ordinance.
The following is an analysis of the major issues associated with this rezoning request:
1. Master Plan. This proposal is compatible with the Colleyville Master Plan adopted
in 1998 since the area has been identified as development potential for retail,
commercial and office uses. The land uses being proposed include all of those in
the CC1 and CC2 district, and incorporated into the ordinance, are Special Use
Permits (SUP) that are normally required for alcohol sales. These are for a
convenience store on the corner and potential restaurants along Precinct Line Road.
No other specific uses have been identified at this time.
Agenda Briefing
Ordinance 0-00-1255
Page 3
2. Surrounding Properties. While there are still some single-family homes along
Lavaca Trail, Precinct Line Road is not yet developed on either side.
3. Development Trends. Since both North Richland Hills across the street and
Colleyville identify much of the property in this area as commercial on the respective
Land Use Ptans, the trend would be (will be) towards commercial development.
4. Infrastructure. All utilities will have to be provided for this area. Since the property
will have to be platted, additional right-of-way will be dedicated along Lavaca Trail.
5. Current Zoning Suitability. The area is currently zoned R40 and could be
developed for single family, however that does not match the proposed Master Plan
land uses.
6. Economic Development Upgrading this under-developed property for use as
commercial property will have an immediate positive impact on the surrounding
area.
7. Trail System Plan. Sidewalks along Precinct Line Road must conform to the
provisions of the Colleyville Pathways Plan for hike and bike trails. The Pathways
Plan requires a 10-foot wide trail along Precinct Line Road. Sidewalks along Lavaca
Trail must be 5-feet in width.
8. Landscape Spaces and Setbacks. There are provisions for oversized landscaped
spaces along both street frontages. The effect of this is to create an attractive
"greenbelt" along both streets, and prevent automobiles from parking near the street
right-of-way.
9. Design Review. The provision of building elevations for the convenience store has
been a concern for this project in that the actual designs are unknown at this time.
This has been resolved by including a requirement in the proposed Ordinance that
requires City Council approval of a site plan and building designs prior to
construction of all buildings in this PUD-C. This task is normally performed at the
staff level.
10. Engineering, Platting, etc. PUD plans are normally accompanied by very detailed
plats as the first stage of project development. However, since there are still many
unknown engineering facets to this project, the applicant has opted to forego
producing the costly detailed analysis at this point. Staff is not concerned as all of
the engineering will still have to be provided -whether final or preliminary -prior to
the approval of plats and issuance of building permits.
Agenda Briefing
Ordinance 0-00-1255
Page 4
Summary and Conclusion
Staff remains concerned that this rezoning application is primarily a speculative zoning
venture, with the convenience store at the corner location being the only somewhat firm
use. At this time, there are no plans or client for any of the tracts. By consuming an
important corner with another convenience store, the staff believes that approval of this
request is not in the best interests of the long-range development plan of the City of
Colleyville. The staff would feel differently about this project if there were firm plans for
the other lots in the development and the convenience store was a part of that firmer
package.
The Planning & Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered this
zoning change request at its October 9, 2000 meeting and recommended approval of
the request by a vote of 6 - 1 (Hocutt against). Attached is a copy of the minutes from
the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
Denial
Attachments
^ Proposed Ordinance 0-00-1255
^ Location Map (Ordinance "Exhibit A")
^ Metes and bounds description (Ordinance "Exhibit B")
^ Conceptual Site Plan (Ordinance "Exhibit C")
^ List of Property Owners Within 200'
^ Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
List of Property Owners Within 200 Feet
The City of North Richland HiNs
c/o John Pitatidc
P.O.Box 820609
N. Richland HiNs, TX 76180
William D. Souder Investments
305 Brookridge Ct.
Hurst, •TX 78054
William D. Souder
305 Brookridge Cct.
Hurst, TX T8054
Daniel Lapier
305 W. Van Oaks Drnre
Colleyville, TX 78034
Doyle McIntosh
8333 Thomhitl Drive
N. Richland Hills, TX T8180
Case Z-00-037
BiN RiPPY
1757 Cynthia Lane
Hurst, TX 78054
Buddy ~ Linda Shipman
1018 Lavaca Trail
Colleyville, TX 78034
State of Texas
P.O. Box 6868
Fort Worth, TX 78115
Lewis 8 Bonnie Martin
P.O. Box 14009
Forth Worth, TX 78117
According to the last pubNshed Tax Records dated 09-01-99, individuals who own property that
is within the 200' of the proposed zoning change reques# are listed above. 1 certify that the
parties listed above have been noWied of the proposed zoning change request as
required by Section 211 the Local ~3ovarnment Code. (Notices dated: June 02, 2000)
Jan Levy
Planning 8~ Z Wing Assistant
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
1. TABLED ITEM - A zoning change requested by Doug Henderson representing Kipp
Whitman, Lavaca Trail, LLC, from R40 to PUD-C (planned unit development-
commercial) on 6.335 acres located at the southeast corner of Lavaca Trail and
Precinct Line Road. Case Z-00-070
Commissioner Gasper asked if they received any comments from the neighbors
regarding the revised plans. Tom Niederauer responded that staff did not receive any
additional responses. Commissioner Gasper asked if it was fair to assume that the
neighborhood is still opposed to the development of this corner. Commissioner
Edwards said that they were just opposed to the kennel and weren't opposed to
commercial development. Commissioner Hill asked staff to explain how the zoning
change request has changed.
Tom Niederauer presented the case to the Commission and told them about the four
issues that have changed. He said that the applicant is back to a similar plan to what
the Council looked at earlier with the exception of designs and elevations. He said that
the eight lot plat, not the zoning exhibit, is the plat from the original submittal. Tom said
that staff has disregarded what had gone on before and the land uses are CC-1 and
CC-2 with exception for a Special Use Permit for alcohol sales. He said that the lot on
the corner is for sale with off premise consumption and the other two lots on Precinct
Line Road are for on premise consumption in a restaurant. He said that those are the
only land uses that are different than just straight CC-1 and CC-2 and the kennel has
been removed. He said that an extra wide landscape setback on Precinct Line Road is
proposed with no parking. He said that a 20' greenbelt is proposed on Lavaca. He said
that the design review is different as there are no proposed buildings to evaluate and
they recommended in item #5B that requires site plans and building elevations to be
reviewed by City Council. He said that the last issue is that normally in a PUD the
zoning exhibit is considered a preliminary plat then they go directly to the final plat
stage. He said that in this particular case a preliminary plat has not been submitted for
consideration with the zoning change. The applicant will be required to submit a
preliminary plat with all of the engineering requirements for approval prior to submitting
a final plat. Mr. Niederauer said that staff concludes, that it is a speculative zoning
change and staff recommends denial because we don't know what is specifically
designed for the area.
Commissioner Edwards said that they may ask the applicant to not ask for a special use
and request that when they have a specific use for the property. Commissioner Gasper
said that she was under the impression that had been the practices that the SUP was
not granted until there was a for real instance to grant it. Commissioner Edwards said
that there are a group of lots in front of Bransford Elementary that an area was granted
a SUP and then the property was and will be divided for appropriate restaurants along
Highway 26. She said that this was done to encourage development and it depends on
the situation.
Tom Niederauer said that a similar SUP was granted along State Highway 121 for
restaurant and hotel alcoholic beverage related uses in order to attract business. He
said that the properties will still need to be platted and have site plans approved.
Commissioner Gasper asked what impact will the development have on the remainder
of the undeveloped land adjacent as it is one of the last large tracts of property within
the city limits. She wanted to know if this development will either encourage or
discourage future development and if it will encourage development, what type. Tom
Niederauer said that these parcels are fairly small lots, but there are singular uses for a
convenience store on the corner, and two restaurant sites. Barry LeBaron responded
that it may hinge on the Commissioner perspective as to whether or not you think this
will be a stimulus to new development.
Commissioner Gasper asked what is proposed across the street. Commissioner
Edwards said that there is a lot more traffic through the area now that Rumford is
opened, but she has not seen any thing proposed. Staff said that they are not aware of
any firm plans. Barry LeBaron said that there is a Thornbury residential subdivision in
the area. Commissioner Edwards said that there is some development proposed to the
north that may be a Wal-Mart. Barry LeBaron said that further north at North Tarrant
Parkway and Davis Blvd. there is a proposed Wal-Mart Super Center. He said that
there is an Eckerd's and a Walgreen's in the location now.
Commissioner Edwards moved to remove the item from the table. Commissioner Wall seconded the
motion. The vote being:
Ayes: Gasper, Edwards, Hocutt, Hollis, Wall, Hill, Hart
Noes: None
Kipp Whitman was present to represent the case. He said that have amended their
request and they have pretty much gone back to the original plan. He said that it was
not their intent to import dogs to Colleyville, but out of the blue they were contacted with
an attractive offer from the kennel. He said that had it been approved and had they
closed on the purchase, it would have given them a lot of leverage to bide their time and
pick and chose what kind of uses they would like to sell the property to. He said that
now they are back to rezoning and they want to encourage buyers to come to this
property. Mr. Whitman said that in regards to granting SUP's on the unknown, it was
done on their property at John McCain and Highway 26 for the intent of bringing a
service station to the location. He said that it was also granted to them at L. D. Lockett
and Precinct Line in order to attract business and they have done it. He said that they
were able to attract a service station and a strip center and a future site for a sit down
restaurant. He said that they are asking at this time for approval of the SUP for the
potential business they can attract. He said that the attractions goes in the fashion of
they have a parcel that is already rezoned, it's already set to go and they won't have to
worry about if they'll be approved or sell alcohol at the location. Staff and Council have
set the parameters for the development.
Mr. Whitman said that the reason they wish and desire to be approved for Council to
review the potential buyer's plans versus staff is to get it through staff quickly. He said
that otherwise it will languish for months. He said that it is historical that it takes time to
go through staff because they have a lot of things to do, and rather than giving staff
twice the things to do, if they get Council's approval on the design, it can go back. He
said that the purpose is to speed development because it has definitely stopped in our
city. He said that development has come to a dead halt as everybody is trying to do
things and it's a very complicated issue. An idea for a gas station on every corner it will
not happen, as this may be the last corner to have one. He said that the rear portion of
the property will be developed into offices and they may not provide much of a tax base
for the city, unless they are a sales offices.
Mr. Whitman said that the convenience store will bring tax revenue especially for the
alcoholic beverage sales. Mr. Whitman said that he has been told that he shouldn't talk
about alcohol, but he needs to go in with the confidence that we are adults and most
drink wine and where do they buy it in the area. He said that we purchase it from either
a gas station or the super market. He said that the people in North Richland Hills buy
their wine from Colleyville. He said that in reference to the question about what is
planned for across the street, North Richland Hills does not want to see commercial in
that location but want it on Davis. He said that Precinct Line grows with traffic everyday.
Mr. Whitman said that Wal-Mart that is coming begins by this corner and then heads
towards Davis and his development will be one block from the Wal-Mart. He said that
he can't wait for Bill Souder to sell his property as he is tough in business. He said that
he needs the Commission's vote for approval, so they can get business started. Mr.
Whitman said that he has someone they are talking to but cannot divulge who it is
because Colleyville has already turned them down for another location. The retail
business they bring in and the office pad sites they can develop will be much more
profitable for them in the long run than the three churches who want to build at this
location. He said that the idea of a convenience store selling beer and wine, their other
location at L. D. Lockett abuts Bear Valley Church and the pastor came before the
Commission and said they liked what he is doing and did not oppose the project. He
said that their difficulty is marketing as they do not have the assistance of the city and
they need to market it themselves.
Commissioner Gasper asked Mr. Whitman if he owns the property and if they have solid
tenants. Mr. Whitman responded that they do own the property and they have one very
serious contender right now and other possible commitments pending on the other one
committing. She asked about the office sites and restaurant sites how large would the
buildings be going onto those pads. Mr. Whitman said that the buildings in the back may
be 3,000 to 7,000 feet, but if someone wanted more space, they would combine a
couple of the lots. He said that they would like to develop a pond in the back as this will
be a drainage issue and will do it at the time of platting. Commissioner Gasper asked
how many square feet would be at the service station site. Mr. Whitman responded that
it would be 4,500 s.f. She asked if he has done a survey as to how saturated the
market is with gas stations. Mr. Whitman said that it depends on the stations, as there
are ones with no alcoholic beverage sales, but his convenience store will compete with
wine sales. He said that in regards to the stations that closed down on the Central and
Harwood corner in Bedford, Chevron had ownership issues and Exxon had tank issues.
Commissioner Edwards asked staff if Remington Park would be connecting to Lavaca
and increasing the traffic in the area. Staff answered that it would.
Commissioner Gasper asked if the service station will have fast food sales. Mr.
Whitman said that the group he is talking to have not disclosed that to him.
Commissioner Hocutt asked for clarification of the difference and locations of the
Special Use Permits. Mr. Whitman said that the SUP for alcoholic beverage sales with
off premise consumption is for the lot on the corner associated with the convenience
store and Lot 2, facing Precinct Line, is for on premise consumption limited to a
restaurant. The multiple offices located on the lots behind will draw customers.
Commissioner Edwards said that she realizes that it is speculative but she is willing to
support it.
Barry LeBaron said that the request that is before the Commission is what they already
approved and went to Council, and while it was at Council the kennel came into play,
He said that Council recommended that it go back to P&Z. Barry said that now that the
kennel is removed, it is being treated as a new application.
Commissioner Gasper asked Barry to expand on the issues on the briefing that it is not
compatible with the surrounding area. Barry LeBaron said that staff is concerned about
the practice of chopping up the larger portions of land for a service station and they
don't want to see every corner being a convenience station. He said that if the
developer had a firm package, staff would be willing to give up the convenience store.
Chairman Hart asked Economic Development Manager Mike Soab if the special use
permit would enhance quick development of the property. Mr. Soab said that the
difference of looking at this as an entire puzzle or as a piece of the puzzle. He said that
they should look at the entire vision for Precinct Line Road as they will have many large
parcels behind small parcels if they keep carving out small pieces. He said that the
vision for Colleyville is not for fast food restaurants and the special use permit is o.k. for
sit down restaurants. Chairman Hart asked what is the difference Mr. Whitman's
development on the L. D. Lockett site as this is a clone of that site.
Mr. Soab responded that it all goes back to vision as to what we expect Precinct Line
Road to look like. Commissioner Hill said that it would be great in a utopian world, but
the city controls the uses of the property, but now what property owners can do,
combine, and sell. He said that he loves churches in the abstract, but they don't
produce revenue for the city and people can't hold property indefinitely. He said that is
his dilemma as he looks at these types of things. Mr. Soab said that they do make
these decisions all of the times to allow speculative ventures go forward and in and of
itself the deal is not bad, but in the interest of Colleyville is it the best deal for the city.
He said that is the decision that the P&Z and Council will have to make, not staff and
himself.
Commissioner Wall said in reference to Mr. Soab's comments about hiding large
parcels of land, he asked about the potential development of the lots located in the flood
plain. Barry LeBaron said that they can fill some areas of the flood plain to reclaim some
of the property. He said that some times they put in detention facilities and if designed
properly can be an enhancement to the property. Commissioner Edwards said that one
of the branches to Bear Creek is just to the south.
Commissioner Hocutt asked if there is anything in the city that has a convenience store,
a restaurant, and office buildings adjacent to it to help him visualize how this project
might look. Commissioner Gasper said that possibly where the Monet restaurant used
to be. Commissioner Edwards said that the corner of Hwy. 26 and Brown Trail has a
Mobil, a cleaners, and a Hi-Lo next to it. She said that the mixed use where Redentas
Nursery is located is a great look. Barry LeBaron said that if you look at the
development sequence of events that often occurs, the convenience stores pick off the
best corners first, then the others come along afterwards. He said that he thinks that is
a normal progression because they have to get their foothold first, they recognize that,
and the dollars involved are such that they're allowed to do that. He said that is one of
the things the Commission needs to weigh and ask if that is something we want to see
as our long range vision. He said that he can see why it is advantageous to the
developer to change this from the current residential zoning to something he can
market. He said that if he has commercial zoning in place with special use permits for
alcoholic beverage sales either off premise or on premise, he can increase his
opportunities to get someone in there.
Commissioner Gasper asked Mr. Soab what he would envision if the Commission does
not do this as far as a long range development that would be in the best interest of the
City and how long will it take for us to get there. Mr. Soab responded that a lot of it is
timing of the Wal-Mart and it depends on how soon they go in. He said that once Wal-
Mart develops, the whole area is going to boom and it will probably take 12 to 18
months for that to happen. Commissioner Gasper asked Mr. Soab that if hypothetically
they want to wait 18 month, what is likely to happen with the whole area not just this one
individual tract. Mike Soab said that if you follow Mayor Souder's line of thinking at the
last meeting, he talked about combining tracts into bigger pieces for bigger users. He
said that he knows the city has a big box ordinance going through the system now and
the Mayor and City Council wants to have major sales tax generators on Precinct Line
Road. He said that major does not mean 2,500 or 3,500 s.f. stores that generate a little
bit of sales tax, he's talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars. He said that the
City is rapidly running out of commercial land for the big boxes and this is a major
opportunity for them. He said that he would hate to lose it for a corner. He said that it
may not affect it at all.
Commissioner Edwards said that theoretically there is still room for that type of
development. Mr. Soab said that there is still room on Precinct Line Road for large
development. Commissioner Hill said that it is an interesting thing to think about.
Commissioner Edwards said that her thinking is that it would be great to have one big
development right now, but they are having a hard time getting commercial. She said
that she is hoping that if they go ahead, it would be great if lots would combine to make
an even bigger development. Commissioner Edwards said that she is willing to take
that risk that it might happen, and if not, what they get will be sufficient for what they
have there and she is willing to take the risk to wait. Mike Soab agreed that it is a
subjective thing.
Commissioner Wall asked Mr. Soab to give him an example of a fast food restaurant
that needs an on site alcoholic beverage license. Mr. Soab said that Taco Cabana
serves alcohol and has a drive thru as well. He said that most sit down restaurants do
not have drive thru windows. Commissioner Wall said then there would be no reason to
grant a special use permit for on site alcoholic beverage consumption for the zoning to
be CC-2. Mr. Soab said that is a separate issue and one other example is Railhead
Restaurant has a drive thru and sells alcoholic beverages on the inside. He said that
the CC-2 is a separate issue from alcoholic beverage sales. Commissioner Edwards
said that if they approve a special use permit, a fast food restaurant could locate on the
property and not utilize the permit. Mr. Soab said that was correct. He said that on the
Bransford Road area blanket special use permit, he did not believe than anyone is
selling alcoholic beverages, but on Highway 121 it was very advantageous to have it.
Commissioner Hocutt asked staff if the Keller ISD still wants a school just north of the
area. Mr. LeBaron responded that they were wanting to build an elementary school.
Commissioner Gasper what distance is required between a school and an
establishment selling alcoholic beverages. He said that is 1,000 feet and that is not an
issue at this location. Commissioner Hocutt asked what the projected look is for the
landscaping for the corridor. Mr. Whitman said that his set backs are pretty significant
as is the voluntary setback on the L. D. Lockett site. He said that it is setback with a 40'
building line that includes landscapes to give it a classic look all along Precinct Line in
Colleyville. Mr. LeBaron said that Mr. Whitman is proposing a 40' landscape buffer
along Precinct Line Road. Mr. Whitman said that in regards to the dream of Big Box
uses he said that he gave the Commission a thick packet of what is going on in Wal-
Mart. He said that it would be lovely to have some big box users like Best Buy, but they
won't come because they are already going into Grapevine. He pointed out of the map
possible locations and said that he doesn't see anything happening and he doesn't see
anybody knocking down doors to come to Colleyville. He said that this is an irregular
piece of property he is working with and he would love to work with Mayor Souder to do
something, but they can't get a consensus of prices to cross over and market. He said
that there is a need for something to develop and he is the only developer on Precinct
Line doing anything. He said that he needs a drive thru and it won't impact anything
behind the site. He said that if he is going to build offices behind the commercial, he
surely doesn't want to be looking into the back end of a gas station. He said that if he
sells the corner, it will not have a normal look at the back, because it would be too
difficult to sell the balance of the land. Mr. Whitman said that he wants to make the
project as neat as he can.
Commissioner Hocutt moved to suspend the rules and open the public hearing.
Commissioner Edwards seconded the motion. The vote being:
Ayes: Edwards, Hocutt
Noes: Gasper, Hollis, Wall, Hill, Hart
The motion did not pass.
Chairman Hart said that they have had a pretty significant length of time to discuss the
case.
Commissioner Edwards moved to recommend approval the zoning change with the requested special
use permit. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion.
Commissioner Hocutt said that he is concerned because we already have property on
L. D. Lockett basically zoned the same way. He said that we have an opportunity to
look at the actual versus a projected in terms as to what real revenues the city will reap
from sales from restaurants and alcoholic beverages in a convenience store that has
not yet been developed. He said that we get a sense of emergency that it has to be
done now because there is a perspective buyer and the perspective buyer won't
disclose who it is because they've been turned down in the past. He said that this is an
opportunity to look at an actual versus projected. Commissioner Edwards said that it
depends on how soon the actual will take place. Commissioner Hocutt said that if the
actual is not going to take place pretty soon, then why should they zone something else
for the same purpose.
Chairman Hart said that Mr. Whitman is the owner of the land and he has brought the
request before them. Commissioner Hocutt said that he is thinking about the overall
vision for Colleyville in terms of what they want there in the Western corridor.
Commissioner Gasper said that since Mr. Whitman owns property she has a strong bias
and favor for owners being able to do what they would like to do with their own property
absence some compelling public interest. She said that she for one does not see the
compelling public interest.
Commissioner Hill said that he is afraid that they will see a non tax producing property
would go there like a church since it seems to be church row already and he not getting
down on churches. He said that at some point in time a property owner who is occurring
a debt load will need to do something with the property. He said that he sees that the
owner has been incurring debt service for several months and you can't do that
indefinitely. He said that his sense is that if there were a reasonably workable plan to
couple with another developer or two to create a larger tract for a big box, Mr. Whitman
being a businessman would want to entertain it.
Commissioner Wall said that Mr. Whitman has made it known to the Commission that
this is going to be a quality development and he takes the man at his word.
Commissioner Gasper said that there are provisions like a 35-point architectural design
score on all buildings and the landscaping buffers, so the city does have a fair amount
of protection that it will be quality.
Chairman Hart called for the vote. The vote being:
Ayes: Gasper, Edwards, Hollis, Wall, Hill, Hart
Noes: Hocutt
ORDINANCE 0-00-1255
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY O-
COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AND
CHANGING THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 6.335 ACRES INCLUDING 5.419
ACRES OF TRACT 1J AND 0.919 ACRES TRACT 1H, BOTH OF ABSTRACT 1154
OF THE R.H. McEWING SURVEY, FROM THE R40 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
DISTRICT TO THE PUD-C (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-COMMERCIAL)
DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS AND AUTHORIZING
PUBLICATION
WHEREAS, an application fora zoning change was filed by Doug Henderson
representing Kipp Whitman under Case No. Z-00-070; and
WHEREAS, the City of Colleyville has complied with the notification requirements of
the Texas Local Government Code and the Colleyville Land Development
Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has held public hearing and made
recommendation on the proposed zoning amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed zoning amendment is
in the best interests of the City of Colleyville;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS:
Sec. 1. THAT the Master Plan, the Land Development Code of the City of
Colleyville, Texas, and the Official Zoning Map are hereby amended
insofar as they relate to certain land located in Colleyville, Texas, as
shown on the attached Zoning Map, Exhibit "A", and described by
metes and bounds, as contained on the attached Exhibit "B," by
changing the zoning of said property from the R40-Single Family
Residential district to the PUD-C (Planned Unit Development-
Commercial) district, and including any other conditions and
restrictions imposed and approved by the City Council, which are
incorporated herein.
Sec. 2. THAT this PUD-C shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. GENERAL
a. The purpose of this PUD-C is for the development of retail,
office and service type uses.
Ordinance 0-00-1255
Page 2 of 4
b. This property shall be subject to all the regulations contained
in the Colleyville Land Development Code, except where
amended by this ordinance.
c. Parking associated with each use may be constructed on any
lot in the subdivision, provided that all of the provisions of
Section 3.29.8 - "Off-Street Parking Requirements" of the
Colleyville Land Development Code are met.
2. SITE PLAN AND PLATTING
a. Prior to the issuance of any development permits within this
PUD-C and as a condition to the development of the subject
property, the developer shall obtain approval of a preliminary
plat and final plat of the property in accordance with the
procedures and requirements of the Colleyville Land
Development Code.
b. The subdivision plat shall be generally consistent with the
Site Plan attached as Exhibit "C", which shall be considered
conceptual only. The actual street and lot arrangement may
differ from that shown on Exhibit "C", to accommodate
topographic, drainage or other conditions. In approving the
preliminary and final plat, the approving body shall exercise
complete discretion over roadway design, lot size, lot shape,
building lines, set-back lines, open space, and all other
aspects of the plat; provided, the approving body shall not
approve anything inconsistent with the other conditions of
this ordinance.
c. At final platting, a joint access easement of 30 feet wide shall
be provided to connect all lots to a public right-of-way. An
agreement permitting vehicle access across all lots shall be
noted on the Final Plat.
d. There shall be a landscaped buffer strip a minimum of 40
feet in width along Precinct Line Road a minimum of 20 feet
in width along Lavaca Trail. The only paved areas permitted
within the landscaped buffer strip shall be sidewalks and
access drives.
e. Building line setbacks shall be 40 feet along Precinct Line
Road and 20 feet along Lavaca Trail. Side and rear building
setbacks shall be 20 feet from all other perimeter lot lines.
Ordinance 0-00-1255
Page 3 of 4
f. A maximum of two (2) access drives will be permitted along
the Precinct Line Road frontage. Spacing between such
drives will be a minimum of 150 feet, centerline to centerline.
No drive entrance shall be closer than 150 feet to the south
line of Lavaca Trail.
3. PERMITTED USES
a. All commercial and office uses allowed in the CC1-Village
Retail and CC2-Shopping Center zoning districts shall be
permitted in this PUD-C.
b. A convenience store with gasoline sales and a Special Use
Permit for alcoholic beverage sales for off-premises
consumption will be permitted on Lot Three.
c. A Special Use Permit for alcoholic beverage sales for on-
premises consumption as an accessory use to a restaurant
shall be permitted on Lots One and Two.
4. OPEN SPACE. LANDSCAPING & SCREENING
a. A six foot (6') photinia hedge shall be required along the
southern property line of Lots 3 and 8 and along the western
line of Lot 8~ as indicated on the attached Exhibit "C". This
hedge must be in place prior to the issuance of a building
permit for each respective lot.
b. Each lot shall be landscaped in accordance with the
landscaping standards contained in the Colleyville Land
Development Code.
5. DESIGN SCORES AND SITE PLAN APPROVALS
a. All buildings shall meet a minimum building design score of
35 points, in accordance with Chapter 6 of the Land
Development Code.
b. Before a building permit may be issued, the Site Plan
Application including all building elevation drawings, must be
approved by the Development Review Committee (DRC)
and the City Council.
Ordinance 0-00-1255
Page 4 of 4
Sec. 3. THAT any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions
of this ordinance as read together with the Land Development Code
of the City of Colleyville shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon
conviction thereof shall be fined a sum not to exceed Two Thousand
Dollars ($2,000.00). Each and every day such violation continues
shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such.
Sec. 4. THAT the City Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to cause
publication of the descriptive caption and penalty clause hereof as an
alternate method of publication provided by law.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
The first reading and public hearing being conducted on the day of ,
2000.
The second reading and public hearing being conducted on the day of
2000.
ATTEST:
Cynthia Singleton
City Secretary
CITY OF COLLEYVILLE:
Donna Arp
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Ross T. Foster
City Attorney
- - -
~~' sw
t arc as ty~ t
'C
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED LA VACA TRAIL, BLOCK 2
A pert dill R.H. McE~NING SURVEY, Abdract No. 1154, skuated M the City d Cdkyvl8e Tartant
Courtly, Texas; and embracing all d the 5.418/1000 acros Trod dssutbed M the deed to Lavaca
Trail, LLP recorded In volume 19952, paps 52 of the Deed Records dTarrarxt Counly, Taxes and ai
d the x917/tooo d an acre tract described in the deed 1o Lavaca Tr~eii. LLP recorded in vohurie
14221. peps 73 d the said Deed Recwrds acrd dssaitxed by notes and bounds as idlows.
t3eginning at a K" iron found for the nortl~rsast corner d the Bald 5.41811000 acres Trsct and the
northwsd corner d Lot 5 Block 1 LAVACA TRAIL ADDITION, an addition to the Cty d CaisyviNs as
said Lot 5 appears upon the plat Cheroot recorded in volume 388-114, page 100 dths said Deed
Records and in the south right-o~way d Lavaca Trail (a 80' pubic rlphFoFwa~.
Thence south 1 depress-50 minutes-ssst, along the east Hna of said 5~418H000 ears Tract and the
west lies d said Lot 5, a dManes d 819.02/100 fell to a 1" pipe found for tM soulFread comer d
said 5418/7000 oars Trail M ~e wed irrs d acid Lot 5 and the north~et comer dihe 7-251!1000
saes Tract described in the deed to William D. Souder Investments recorded M vokms 8081, page
1452 d ftre avid Deed Records.
Thence north 88 depress 11 minutes-50 seconds wed, along the south Nne d said 5-418/1000 oars
Tract and the north tins d said 7-251/1000 oars Tred, 232 78/100 lest to a y4" hon fctsrd torthe
most southerly southwed corner d said 5-418!1000 acres Tract and the souttrsast oornsr dths
1-t7/100 acres Tred described M the deed to W81fam D. t5ouder rooorded in voharrs 12885, pegs
795 dthe said Deed Reocnfs.
Tharres north rro degrees-27 minutes-09 ssronds east, along the wed Ills d said S418It 000 care
Tred and the ssd ins d said 1-17/100 ears Tred 184-12/100 feet to a 1/2" iron forrrd forfhe
southsad comer sold o-917/1000 aarstrad.
thence north 88 degrees-58 minutes-22 seconds wed, along tM ccngaon Rrrs dssld 0-9t7/t000
acres trail and said 1-17/100 oars trail, 313-091100 test fo the aorxtfrwest caner d said 0917/1000
oars trail in the Nil Nns d a 0111/1000 d an ear tract described in the deed to the Stabs dTexas
recorded In vdume 12045, page 1892 dthe said Dssd Reoorda.
Thsncs north no degress3l minutes-09 seconds sad, along Urs commaf Iine d said 0-917n000
acres frail and said 0111/1000 d an acre tred 127-09/1 OO feet to a 5/85" iron rooaded for the
northwed corrrsr d said o-917/1000 d an scro trod, the northead comer d said 0111A0000 aces
Irad and the southwsd oomsr d acid 5-41811000 acres tray and the aouttread caner d e
0291/1000 d an acre !rail dssaibsd in the deed to the Stall d Texas recorded in vohxrrrs 12018,
page 1036 d the said Dsed Reoads.
Thence in the sad right-of-way d i~rocinct !.ins Road (a variabb width pubic right-of-way).
Thence noM no dsgress3t minutes09 seconds east, along the common /fns d said 5.418!1000
acres tree and said 0291/1000 of an acro Tract, 281-99/100 feet to a conaefe right-d-way
monument found.
Thence north 32 degrees-38 minutes-41 seconds east, along the sasbrty right-o~way d said
Preclrret Une Road, 47-03/100 test to a concrde right-o~wsy monument found forthe raAfrerly
noMwest comer d said 5-41811000 oars trail in the south right-of-wsy d sold Lavaca Trai.
Thence south 89 degrees-10 minutes-10 second: east, alarg the north Iine d said 5-418/1000 acros
Trail and the south rigM•of--way of sold Lavaca Troll, 49581/100 feet to the place d begirmhq and
containing 8-33511000 ears.
The basis for bearings is the east line of sold 541811000 ears Trod per deed cal.
~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION - EXHIBIT `B' I
'1'yl ~~Y1}t,l~~j 1:i~ 1; 11• I;II~ t ~• fi ~ w ~ s~ " ;Q
8pg,,_~~ i •, l,,! t~,! r~ tt i~ r~r~i ~ r~ r ~ rr ! U z ~ $ ~~
¢ ~I~'l ~~~i t %~ 1fi~ ~'r F~.i ~rfal 3 ~P ~~r ~~ ~ ~ Z V ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~
LY ;~11 l~l. fir. ~~; ~ r~; :_;• f ; .~ ~~ ; > N ~, Q
~ 3~R ~ ~ 1 : r 1~ r • 1 +~ , ! to it ~ N E~ ~'~
,rile .I# i~l, i~~+ it ili ~I,~i l }l I ~~ firer
~~~;~ ~~,~ lr,r4 lrri~ !~~ lrri lt~,~r ! !r~ !~~ !~~
I^
--~~- ~ ~
a
0
~ ; ...... -,~-r .............
~~~~b~ ~
`/ ~~~~
~ ZONING PROPOSAL -LOT LAYOUT -EXHIBIT `C'
DESIGN PARAMETERS fQr LAVACA TRAIL CQRNER PROPERTY
Canopy roof shall not be of a flat roof design.
Under canopy, lighting to be completely recessed, (flat against ceiling) as to
avoid glaring lights onto surrounding areas. Rear and sides and front of
building lighting to be positioned in locations and focused downward so that
they do not pose a glare factor into the surrounding residential and or
commercial areas.
Landscaping design shall be with mature plants and trees of a caliber of not
less than four inches.
The rear and sides design to conform to the front building in color and appeal
so that the any view from the residential/ commercial areas lends to the
appearance of a contiguous look.
Parking islands shall contain landscaping, be it lawn or plants/flowers.
Landscape berms to be of greater height than roadway or driveway elevations
with the intersection berm no less than three feet in height and landscapped.
Dumpster area to hidden from front or side street views, with a door that shall
remain closed at all times. Dumpster walls and doors shall match in design
and color of the building.
CITY COUNCIL
C;n'oi
~° ~`
Tra.-
AGENDA BRIEFING
For mt .: 11!08/00 CMO Approval:
Item #
7
Resolution #
R-00-1730
Previous Action: None
DEPT.
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
SUBJECT
Establishing the conditions for the location of the
Colleyville City Hall on the Village at Colleyville
site
Reading and Public Hearing
Background
The City Council has analyzed potential sites for the new Colleyville City Hall. In
establishing the conditions for the location of the Colleyville City Hall on the Village at
Colleyville site, the City Council has considered the following:
• The Village at Colleyville is an approved PUD-C which establishes numerous
conditions for the development of the site, including building location and height,
landscaping, setbacks, density and other conditions
• The PUD-C zoning category provides for greater control over the development than
is available in other zoning categories
• The City Hall and related improvements are to be constructed with Tax Increment
Financing (TIF) District funds
%tX~G~,t /~ ~GC•~/~
CITY MANAGER / ~
~~Gf/
DEPARTMENT HEAD
(continued)
FINANCIAL REVIEW (IF NECESSARY)
Agenda Briefing
Resolution R-00-1730
Page 2 of 2
• The City has an existing TIF Agreement and Developer's Agreement with the
developer at the Village at Colleyville
• The Village at Colleyville site offers substantial cost savings in the development of
improvements related to the City Hall
• The Village at Colleyville developer has offered to donate in fee simple title a site to
the City
Recommendation
The City Council needs to determine if the existing zoning and Agreements and the
substantial cost savings make the Village at Colleyville the preferred site for the City
Hall development, and if so, authorize the Mayor to negotiate an agreement with the
developer.
Attachment: Resolution R-00-1730
RESOLUTION R-00-1730
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE CONDITIONS FOR THE LOCATION OF
THE COLLEYVILLE CITY HALL ON THE VILLAGE AT COLLEYVILLE SITE
WHEREAS, the Colleyville City Council has analyzed the Village at Colleyville as
a potential site for the new Colleyville City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the Village at Colleyville is an approved PUD-C which sets numerous
conditions for the development of the site including building location
and height, landscaping, setbacks, density, and other conditions; and
WHEREAS, the PUD-C zoning category gives the City Council greater control over
development than is available in other zoning categories; and
WHEREAS, the City Hall and related improvements are to be constructed with Tax
Increment Financing (TIF) District funds; and
WHEREAS, the City has an existing TIF Agreement and Developer's Agreement
with the developer of the Village at Colleyville; and
WHEREAS, the Village at Colleyville site offers substantial costs savings in the
development of improvements related to the City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the developer of the Village at Colleyville has offered to donate in fee
simple title a site to the City for the new Colleyville City Hall.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS:
Sec. 1. THAT the protections provided by the existing zoning and
Agreements, and the substantial cost savings available to the
residents of Colleyville, make the Village at Colleyville the preferred
site for the City Hall development.
Sec. 2. THAT the Mayor is hereby authorized to negotiate an agreement with
the developer of the Village at Colleyville to locate the new Colleyville
City Hall on the Village at Colleyville site and present the agreement
to the City Council for action.
Resolution R-00-1730
Page 2
AND IT IS SO RESOLVED.
Passed by a vote of ayes, nays, and
day of , 2000.
ATTEST:
Cynthia Singleton
City Secretary
abstentions, on this
CITY OF COLLEYVILLE
Donna Arp
Mayor
Hidden Oaks Estates Homeowners Association
1000 Hidden Oaks Ct.
Colleyville, TX 76034
City Hall Issue
RESOLUTION BY HIDDEN OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS 11/5/00
Whereas property values of homeowners in the Hidden Oaks Subdivision are of
paramount importance,
And whereas the city of Colleyville has planned for the past ten years for the new
City Hall to be located in the eighty acre track of land on the Southeast corner of Hall
Johnson and Highway 26,
And whereas the Community Center, Justice Center, U.S. Post Office and the
future City Hall are all part of the planned "New" City Center,
And whereas our subdivision opposes any "Big Box Retail" Development located
on this property,
Be It Resolved that the Hidden Oaks Homeowners Board of Directors opposes
the relocation of the new planned City Hall to the Villages of Colleyville development.
Further, the Hidden Oaks Homeowners Board of Directors directs the Mayor of the City
of Colleyville to enter into negotiations with the developers of the City Center to achieve
the objectives of the Colleyville Master Plan dated September 1998 in Issue #13.
Signed by:
Robert J. Wilder
Mike Moore
Gloria Flores
Bill Slovak
Jim Fletcher
CITY COUNCIL
iii. w
~i ~! ~y
~~.,,<
AGENDA BRIEFING
For mt .: 11108!00 CMO Approval:
Item #
Ordinance #
0-00-1249
Previous Action: Tabled
DEPT.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT
Amending Chapter 3 -Land Use of the Colleyville
Land Development Code regarding large
commercial buildings
Update
The City Council tabled action on this proposed ordinance and scheduled a workshop
with the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Highway 26 Task Force to discuss
additional issues. The workshop was held on October 26, 2000 at City Hall and a
number of comments were made to enhance the development regulations proposed for
the large commercial buildings ordinance. The following is a summary of the
comments:
1. Add the word "building footprint" to Section 1 regarding the definition of a large
commercial building. This has been added to the ordinance.
(continued)
FINANCIAL REVIEW (IF NECESSARY)
Agenda Briefing
Ordinance 0-00-1249
Page 2
2. Clarify the "ten percent expansion clause" in Section 3. Additional language has
been added to the ordinance to include all cumulative prior building permit
expansions.
3. The building set back requirements are unrealistic and should be modified to only
require additional set back when facing a public street or an adjacent residential
property. Huge set backs are not required when two commercial buildings are
side to side or back to back. The building set back table has been deleted and
replaced with a new formula for calculating building set back lines. The building
tine set backs start at 40 feet, which is the same as required in the industrial
zoning district. Since the nature of these buildings is very similar to an industrial
building, the industrial set backs seem reasonable. However, as the size of the
building is increased, the set back requirements are increased proportionately.
For example, for every 2,000 square feet of additional building above the 50,000
square foot threshold, the building would have to set back an additional one foot
from a public street. When the building set back is adjacent to a residential
property, the set back increases one foot for every 1,000 feet of additional
building size above the 50,000 square foot threshold.
4. One comment suggested that the width of any adjacent street be included in
calculating the building set back. Staff has not included this provision in the
attached ordinance because building set backs are traditionally calculated from
the adjacent property line. Since right-of-way widths tend to vary according to
the street classification, there would be no consistency in determining building
set back lines.
5. Apply the building facade articulation requirement on any facades facing a public
street, not just the front of the building. This requirement has been added to the
proposed ordinance.
6. Require all sides and the rear of the building to have three architectural changes
when a side or the rear of building faces a residential property. This would
prevent an adjacent residential property owner from having to face alarge-blank
wall. However, if the side or rear of the building faced another commercial
building, then that side or rear building wall could be straight and contain no
architectural features. This requirement has been added to the ordinance.
7. Change the exterior masonry requirement from 75% to 90%. This has been
added to the ordinance.
8. Limit the amount of EIFS (fake stucco) to 10% instead of 25% of the building
exterior. This has been changed in the ordinance.
Agenda Briefing
Ordinance 0-00-1249
Page 3
9. Remove the word "natural" from the provision which allowed alternative exterior
surface materials. This word has been deleted in the ordinance.
10. Delete the words "such as off-white, beige, tan, brown and gray." This has been
deleted from the proposed ordinance.
11.Only allow 10% of the building to be painted instead of the 20% initially
proposed. This has been changed to 10% in the proposed ordinance.
12. Require earthen berms to "meander" rather than create a "straight-line" effect.
This language has been added to the ordinance.
13. Limit the amount of a front solid wall to 30% of the street frontage to prevent a
solid wall across the entire front of the lot. This language has been added to the
ordinance.
14. Require walkways within the parking lots. Language has been added to the
ordinance to require eight foot wide walkways within the parking lots for every
four rows of parking.
15. Establish a maximum parking ratio of one parking space per 200 square feet of
building floor area. Staff has not included this requirement in the ordinance.
There have been many comments regarding the "c~er-parking" requirement that
Colleyville, as well as other cities, have within the typical parking schedule in the
zoning ordinance. Staff has recommended a minimum parking ratio of one
parking space per 250 feet of floor area, which is 20% reduction in required
parking from Colleyville's normal commercial parking standard. Staff feels it is
inappropriate to establish an upper limit of parking on large commercial buildings
for fear that any "under-parking" problems that may be experienced will force
automobiles to parking along street rights-of-way.
16. Staff has added a regulation in the ordinance to limit long term parking of delivery
vehicles to 48 hours. This was a comment made during the workshop.
17. The ordinance has been changed to require a solid metal door on all refuse
enclosures and a connection to the sanitary sewer system as suggested at the
workshop.
18. Staff has increased the landscape buffer strip from 20 feet to 40 feet as
suggested at the workshop.
Agenda Briefing
Ordinance 0-00-1249
Page 4
19.Overcrowding of plants will make it harder for them to maintain their health,
particularly with drought conditions. The ordinance has been changed to extend
the planting distances between shrubs from 24" to 36".
20. There were questions about the landscape islands that are adjacent to the
landscape buffer strip. These are not actually "islands" but landscape peninsulas
within the parking areas.
21. The word "mature" has been added to the ordinance regarding the spacing
between "mature" plants which screen delivery and loading areas.
22. Staff has added the words "to reduce light pollution and" in the paragraph
regarding outdoor lighting.
23.There was one comment suggesting that any berm be moved back away from
the right-of-way to prevent a problem related to "airlifting" in case of an accident.
However, the 30 inch berm would be located clearly out of the right-of-way and
would not create a problem. The limiting factor in such a situation would be the
width of the right-of-way and the actual amount of clear area.
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted to avoid a conflict with the
November 19th expiration date of the "moratorium" ordinance.
Recommendation
Approval
Attachments
^ Ordinance 0-00-1249
Second Reading and Public Hearing
Update
At the October 3`d meeting, the City Council offered several recommendations to staff
for inclusion in the proposed "big box" ordinance. The attached draft ordinance has
been modified by marking the changed text with either "strikethrough text" for deleted
items or with "bold-underlined-italics text" for the additional language that has been
Agenda Briefing
Ordinance 0-00-1249
Page 5
added to the initial draft. The following is a brief summary of the changes to the revised
ordinance:
1. The word "stores" has been replaced with the word "buildings" to more accurately
describe the type of commercial facilities that are applicable to the regulation.
2. One question has been raised regarding how this ordinance will apply to the
buildings proposed for the Village at Colleyville project. To avoid a potential problem
with the "big box ordinance" and any future buildings that may locate within the
Village at Colleyville project, specific language has been included in the proposed
ordinance to exempt buildings within the limits of the Village at Colleyville PUD from
the "big box ordinance." You may recall that the Village at Colleyville PUD has its
own site design and building construction criteria.
3. The "outdoor lighting" regulation has been relocated from the section dealing with
"rezoning application requirements" and placed in the latter part of the ordinance
where the actual "site development standards" are found.
4. The table, which contains maximum lot coverage, maximum building height, and
minimum setback requirements, has been expanded to incorporate additional
building size categories. The minimum front, side and rear building set-back
distances have also been increased by incorporating a formula that increases the
set-back distance requirements as the size of the building increases.
5. The reference to the "commercial building design point system" has been deleted as
suggested. To compensate for the removal of this particular building design
regulation, the facade articulation language has been refined with additional criteria
regarding the design of front building facades. For example, one of the comments
from the City Council suggested that sloping roofs and covered walkways should be
an important design feature. This provision has been included in the building
articulation requirement.
6. The requirement for a second customer entrance when the building is situated on a
corner lot has been deleted.
7. One of the City Council's recommendations was to delete "earthen berms" as an
optional feature within the landscape buffer along public streets. The concern here
was that berms along major streets might pose a potential problem for "airlifting" a
vehicle that has run off the road. However, staff feels that this option should be
retained, since earthen berms have proven popular and acceptable as landscaping
features in many new commercial developments.
Agenda Briefing
Ordinance 0-00-1249
Page 6
8. The regulation for loading dock screening has been completely revised from the
original staff recommendation. Initially, staff recommended a solid 12-foot screening
wall to block the view of a truck loading dock which faced a public street or a
residential property. At the October 3`d City Council meeting, there was a
suggestion that this screening wall requirement be increased to 14 feet. However,
staff is concerned about the long-term stability of such a tall, and often unsupported,
structural wall. Another review of the loading dock screening requirements from a
number of cities around the country suggests that a combination solid masonry wall
with a live landscaping screen is the preferred requirement. Staff is recommending
an 8-foot tall solid wall with a 6-foot live landscape screening in front of the wall.
Since most loading docks are sloped and depressed below grade to gain better truck
access, most of the vehicle, but not all of it, is hidden from view.
9. The language regarding outside storage has been revised to specifically prohibit
outside storage areas. After reviewing the original language, which required outside
storage areas to be screened with a solid wall, it appeared that language was
actually prohibiting outside storage by allowing outside storage areas to be within "a
building having no roof."
Therefore, there would actually be no outside storage allowed. Staff revised the
language to make this requirement very clear that outside storage of plant materials
or merchandise is prohibited. An additional regulation prohibits the visibility of
merchandise above the solid screening wall.
First Reading and Public Hearing
Background
At the September 19th City Council meeting, an ordinance was approved which places a
moratorium on the issuance of permits for any commercial store containing 55,000
square feet or more. The moratorium will expire in 61 days, on or about November 19,
2000. This time frame will allow the City time to complete the process for adopting new
regulations for large commercial stores. Staff has prepared a draft ordinance to
establish regulations regarding large commercial stores, which, if approved by the City
Council, will become effective on or before the date when the moratorium expires. The
draft ordinance attached to this agenda briefing has been prepared by using copies of
similar ordinances from a number of cities around the country and from information on
large commercial stores provided by the American Planning Association.
Large commercial stores, more commonly referred to as "big box retailers," vary greatly
in size, but they typically range from 50,000 square feet of building space to as large as
200,000 square feet in the "supercenter" category. Depending on the population size
Agenda Briefing
Ordinance 0-00-1249
Page 7
and transportation characteristics of a community, the issues associated with
development of a big box retailer often become first noticed when a structure of
approximately 50,000 square feet is proposed. Citizens residing near a proposed large
commercial facility generally perceive a big box retailer as a nuisance to their particular
neighborhood.
Big box retailers usually have several common characteristics; they are large
rectangular single story structures, seldom have any visual architectural appeal and
generally have large concrete parking areas. Big box retailers require very large sites of
about 10-12 acres, or more. Sites of this size are generally only found in industrial
areas of many cities, where it is much easier to accommodate the large parking areas
required to satisfy the needs of a large building footprint. Typically, the siting of a big
box retailer is such that the parking lot is highly visible from the adjacent roadway and
the building is situated to the rear of the parking lot. In addition to the huge size of the
building facade, it is the large concrete parking area that is often cited as one of the
primary objectionable features of the big box retailer. The attached ordinance, if
approved, will amend the Colleyville Land Development Code by inserting a new
section to establish regulations for large commercial stores.
The proposed ordinance contains minimum site criteria intended to mitigate many of the
objectionable features of these big box retailers.
Historically, big box retailers have focused on sites served by Interstate or U. S.
Highway routes, as evidenced by the fact that virtually Every community surrounding
Colleyville, where these types of major transportation routes exist, has attracted at least
one big box retailer over the past few years. Since Colleyville is primarily a residential
community and is not served by a major Interstate or U. S. Highway facility, it has not in
the past become a targeted location for the big box retailer. However, recent economic
development trends indicate that many large corporations are changing their retail
development strategies to place their big box facilities closer to residential
neighborhoods in order to tap new markets.
Due to Colleyville's small population size and the absence of any Interstate or U. S.
Highway transportation routes, it is more likely that "mid-box" retailers rather than
"supercenter" stores would find a suitable location within Colleyville. From a
perspective of proportionality, a "mid-box" concept in Colleyville would probably have
many of the same adverse effects on adjacent properties, as would a superstore in a
larger city.
The attached ordinance has been drafted to affect any commercial store, whether it is a
single store or a combination of stores, which occupies 50,000 square feet or more.
The ordinance will amend the Land Development Code to allow a large commercial
Agenda Briefing
Ordinance 0-00-1249
Page 8
establishment containing 50,000 square feet or more of building footprint the option of
either locating "by right" in the ML-Light Manufacturing District or requesting rezoning to
a Planned Unit Development -Commercial.
The ordinance establishes minimum site criteria regarding parking lot lighting, parking
lot landscaping, landscaping buffers along public rights-of--way and where the
development is adjacent to residential property, as well as establishing criteria for the
exterior appearance of the building. The City of Colleyville adopted building design
criteria in 1996 and the attached ordinance enhances those requirements by specifying
brick or stone as the only acceptable exterior surface material.
The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the proposed ordinance at its
September 25th meeting and recommended approval by a vote of 6 -1 (Commissioner
Hill voting against). Also, there were several items recommended by the Commission
for inclusion in the ordinance. The suggestions included shopping cart storage, security
lighting intensity, varying the building set back according to the size of the building, an
option for alternative exterior surface materials and a few other small items that have
been incorporated into the ordinance.
Recommendation
Approval
Attachments
^ Ordinance 0-00-1249
^ Memo from Bob Whitehead with maps
ORDINANCE 0-00-1249
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS, AMENDING
CHAPTER 2 -DEFINITIONS AND CHAPTER 3 -LAND USE, OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS AMENDED, BY APPROVING REGULATIONS
FOR LARGE COMMERCIAL S~GRr6~ BUILDINGS; PROVIDING A PENALTY
CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND AUTHORIZING
PUBLICATION
WHEREAS, Chapter 211 of the Texas Local Government Code authorizes the
governing body of a municipality to adopt zoning regulations to
regulate the height, number of stories, size and bulk of buildings
and other structures; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the unregulated development
of large commercial s buildings presents unusual land use
concerns for the City, tend to have irreversible adverse impacts on
adjacent neighborhoods, and promotes dangerous congestion in
the streets; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Colleyville desires to amend Chapter
2 -Definitions and Chapter 3 -Land Use of the Colleyville Land
Development Code, Ordinance 0-00-1214, by approving
regulations for large commercial sues buildings; and
WHEREAS, notice of a hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission
was published in a newspaper of general circulation in Colleyville at
least 15 days before such hearing; anc
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing
a newspaper of general
before such hearing; and
before the City Council was published in
circulation in Colleyville at least 15 days
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has held a public hearing and
forwarded its report and recommendation to the City Council for
consideration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS:
Sec. 1. THAT Chapter 2 -Definitions, Section 2.5, Definitions, of the Land
Development Code is hereby amended to add a definition, such
definition to read as follows:
Ordinance 0-00-1249
Page 2 of 14
a. Large Commercial Stefe Building. A ,
building
containing one or more commercial businesses and ~g
having a building footprint of fifty thousand (50,000) square feet
e~a~ea, or more.
Sec. 2. THAT Chapter 3 -Land Use, Section 3.24.C, Table of Permitted Uses,
of the Land Development Code is hereby amended to add a permitted
use, such permitted use to read as follows:
Large Commercial a Building: (see Section 25.1)
Sec. 3. THAT Chapter 3 -Land Use of the Land Development Code is hereby
amended by adding Section 25.1 Large Commercial des Buildings,
such section to read as follows:
Section 25.1 Large Commercial Sees Buildings
25.1.A Applicability
The criteria in this Section shall be applicable to the construction of any
new large commercial she building ~ proposed for
construction on or after November 19. 2000,
These criteria shall not be applicable to the following:
?. the use, re-use, modification or consolidation of existing
commercial s#~es buildings developed prior to November 19,
2000, or to the expansion of commercial s~t~es buildings existing
as of November 19, 2000, provided ~e expansion does not exceed
ten percent (10%) of the existing building footprint, including the
cumulative amount of all prior expansions or
2. buildings constructed within the limits of the PUD-C
established by ordinance 0-99-1141.
25.1.8 General Provision
No new large commercial she building shall be permitted for
construction within the city of Colleyville, except where allowed as
follows:
Ordinance 0-00-1249
Page 5 of 14
Minimum Building Line Set Backs, Maximum Height and
Maximum Lot Coverage for a
50,000 s.f. Lar a Commercial Buildin
Minimum Building Set Back
Front: 40 ft. (1) (2)
Side: 40 ft. (1) (2)
Rear: 40 ft. 1 2
Maximum Buildin Hei ht 35 ft.
Maximum Lot Covera a 40%
Notes:
(7) The minimum building set back line adjacent to a
public street shall be increased one foot for each
additional increment of 2,000 s.f. of building
footprint over 50, 000 square feet of building
footprint.
(2) The minimum building set back line adjacent to a
residential property shall be increased one foot for
each additional increment of 1,000 s.f. of building
footprint over 50,000 square feet of building
footprint.
b. Facade Articulation -All large commercial buildings shall
have facades which comply with the following
requirements:
i. Horizontal Articulation - No building facade which
faces a public street shall extend horizontally greater than
three (3) times the height of the wall without having an off-
set of not less than ~ fifteen (15%) percent of the
wall's height as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" and
such off-set shall continue for a minimum distance equal to
at least twenty-five (25%) percent of the ~ length of
eit~e~ the longest adiacent plane.
Ordinance 0-00-1249
Page 6 of 14
ii. Vertical Articulation - No building
facade which faces a public street shall extend horizontally
for a distance _greater than three (3) times the height of the
wall unless the wall contains at least one of the following
features and every front building facade shall have no less
than two of the following features:
(a) Parapets which change the roof line. The parapet height
shall be a minimum of fifteen (15%) percent of the wall's
height, and such height change shall continue for a
minimum distance equal to at least twenty-hve (25%)
percent of the length of eie€ the longest
adjacent plane.
(b) Overhanging eaves, extending no less than three (3) feet
past the supporting walls.
(c) Slopin_g roofs that do not exceed the average height of
the supportingg walls, with an average slope greater than
or equal to one (1) foot of vertical rise for every three (3)
feet of horizontal run and less than or equal to one (7)
foot of vertical rise for every one (7) foot of horizontal
run.
(d) Three or more roof slope planes.
(e) A covered walkway along a minimum of fifty (50%)
percent of the front facade length.
c. Side and Rear Facade Features -Side and rear building facades,
which do not face a public street, shall include a minimum of
three architectural changes, such as (1) a changing plane not less
than five (5) feet in width and #~~ ei_ghteen (18) inches in
depth, (2) a surface material change of not more than thirty (30)
feet in length, as measured horizontally, or (3) a combination of
these elements.
Building Design - In addition to the building facade
requirements contained herein, the site plan and building
elevation plans shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 6 -
Building Design of the Colleyville Land Development Code, except
where modified by the requirements in this Section. The minimum
building design score shall be 30 points.
Ordinance 0-00-1249
Page 3 of 14
a. Large Commercial Mere Building: shall be allowed by right in the
ML -Light Manufacturing District
b. Large Commercial Building: shall be allowed with
approval of a Planned Unit Development - Commercial
c. No large commercial s#e€e building shall be permitted within a~
a
previously approved Planned Unit Development -Commercial,
unless the approving ordinance contains a specific provision for a
large commercial sl:efe building as provided in this Section. The
requirements and procedures for a Planned Unit Development -
Commercial contained elsewhere in the Colleyville Land
Development Code and the additional requirements set forth in this
Section shall be used in the review of an application for a large
commercial sere buildinq. The City Council may establish such
terms and conditions as are necessary to protect life, health.
property, public peace and the general welfare of the public and
the adjacent properties. For purpose of this regulation, a
commercial ste~e buildinq which contains a buildinq footprint of
fifty thousand (50,000) square feet , or more, shall be
declared a large commercial s#e~e buildinq and be subject to these
criteria.
25.1.C Application and Development Requirements
Every large commercial s#efe building must comply with the
requirements of this Section. All site plan reviews required by the
Colleyville Land Development Code or applications fora rezoning
request for a Planned Unit Development -Commercial for a large
commercial s~tere buildinq shall include all the information outlined as
follows.
a. Site Plan - A site plan, drawn to scale, showing the property
boundary, all proposed buildings, water features, creek channels,
the 100-year flood plain, outdoor display
areas, proposed driveways, parking lots, landscaped areas, loading
and delivery docks, refuse and recycling facilities and other
physical features which may influence the development of the site.
Ordinance 0-00-1249
Page 4 of 14
b. Elevation Drawings -Building elevation drawings, drawn to scale,
indicating the type and percentage of each exterior building wall
material.
25.1.D Development Requirements
a. Building Height, Set Back Requirements and Maximum Lot
Coverage -The minimum front, side and rear building set back
lines, maximum building height, and maximum lot coverage for a
50,000 square foot building footprint shall be in accordance with
the following schedule:
~ a~
r.~
s+~
a~ SuiWiwg Lot
c~,yo
ae-~~ a,ee.~, ~~ a~-~ ae~
a.ee-~r~~. ~-~. a~ae- a~ ae~
a~ee-~sc~~ a~.s~ .gee-~~, asp a~es~
~- a.Ge-~ ~.~.c~.~ as.€~ aes~
~ ~ a~ ae~
~ ~ ~
a.~.,~sc-~t. a. ate-ass-~.. a~-~- arc
Ordinance 0-00-1249
Page 7 of 14
e. Exposed Columns -Exposed structural support columns shall
be constructed of, or clad in, the same masonry material as
the principal structure. Architecturally significant columns
(e.g. fluted, etc.) maybe permitted.
f. Exterior Surface Materials - A minimum of
ninety (90%) percent of each exterior wall surfaces, excluding
door and window openings, shall be constructed of clay-fired brick,
native stone, cast stone, or a combination of these materials. Tilt -
up concrete construction is permitted, provided the exterior surface
is covered with clay-fired brick, native stone, cast stone, or a
combination of these materials. Stucco and EIFS (Exterior
Installation Finished System) are permitted for not more than
ten (70%) percent of the exterior surface.
Concrete block, split-faced block or cinder-block shall not be
acceptable, except where a wall surface faces an adjacent non-
residential building. Proposals for surface materials with similar
durability and appearance of clay-fired brick, native stone, or
cast stone _
may be considered
g. Exterior Surface Colors -The exterior surfaces shall be of a natural
finish e~-~a~te~, provided the colors are e#4e subtle,
or neutral colors ~ ,
.Trim and accent areas may be painted and feature
brighter colors, including primary colors, but not more
than ten 10% percent of the wall surface area,
High intensity or fluorescent colors are
prohibited.
h. General Landscaping Requirement - The landscaping of the
development shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 4 -
Landscaping and Buffering of the Land Development Code, except
where modified by the requirements of this Section. All ground
surfaces not used for buildings, sidewalks, roadways or other
impermeable surfaces shall be covered with live grass, turf,
Ordinance 0-00-1249
Page 8 of 14
shrubbery, trees, ground cover, flowering plants or appropriate
mulching. In order to insure for a variety of plant materials the
following minimum requirements for grass, shrubs, and trees shall
be provided:
Minimum Landscaping Coverage: Not less than twenty percent
(20%) of the total land area of the development shall be,
landscaped. At least fifty percent (50%) of the total landscaped
area shall be located in the street yard(s).
~ir~-#~ie The overall minimum percentage of required
landscaping may not be reduced by the
application of landscaping enhancement credits.
ii. Trees: Landscaping shall include the retention or planting of one
(1) three-inch (3") caliper shade tree per each forty (40) feet of
street frontage. These trees to be planted within the
landscaped buffer adjacent to each street frontage.
Landscape Buffer and Screening Wall Adjacent to Residential
Property -Along the entire length of the common property line
adjacent to residential property there shall be a landscape buffer, a
minimum of forty (40) feet in width, and a solid
screening wall constructed of clay-fired brick, native stone,
cast stone, or a combination of these materials, not less than
eight (8) feet in height nor more t;tan ten (10) feet in height.
The landscape buffer and the solid screening wall shall be
.provided along the entire length of any property line adjacent to
any residential property. The landscaped buffer shall contain lawn
grass or ground cover and be maintained as a permanent
landscaped area. There shall be no buildings, parking areas,
driveways, sidewalks or structures contained within the required
buffer. The landscaping buffer shall include the retention or
planting of one (1) three-inch (3") caliper tree per each forty (40)
feet of common property line with an adjacent residential property.
Said screening wall shall be
constructed generally a/on_g
the common property line with the residential property, but its
terminus shall not encroach nearer than twenty-five (25') to a
street right-of-way.
Ordinance 0-00-1249
Page 9 of 14
Landscape Buffer and Screening Adjacent to Public Streets -
There shall be a minimum twenty (20) foot wide landscape buffer
adjacent to all street rights-of-way._ There shall be no buildings,
parking areas, driveways, sidewalks or structures, except
permanent signs, contained within the required landscape buffer. A
driveway or sidewalk may cross the buffer to provide access to the
site. Within the landscaped buffer, there shall be either one or a
combination of the following landscaping features:
i. Earthen Berms: A minimum of thirty (30) inches in height with a
maximum side slope of three feet to one foot of rise as shown
on the attached Exhibit "B". The berm shall not extend
parallel to the street right of-way, but shall meander in a
serpentine fashion and ~ shall be entirely vegetated
with lawn grass or groundcover.
ii. Shrubs: A row of shrubs consisting of individual shrubs planted
not less more than thirty-six (36) inches on
center which will form a solid continuous visual screen of not
less than thirty (30) inches in height within a two year period
after planting as shown on the attached Exhibit "C". Shrubs
shall be maintained so as to not exceed six (6) feet in height.
The shrub row shall be located along the portion of the
landscaped buffer that is the furthest from the street right-of-
way.
iii. Low ~e Solid Wall: A solid sff wall constructed of
clay-fired brick, native stone, cast stone, or a combination of
these materials, not less than thirty (30) inches in height as
shown on the attached Exhibit "D". Said s~ wall shall
be constructed generally parallel to and twenty (20) feet from
the street right-of-way. The solid wall shall not constitute
more than thirty (30) percent of the length of the abutting
street frontage.
k. Parking Lot Landscaping -Parking areas shall contain a minimum
of one (1) landscaped island per sixteen (16) parking spaces. No
landscaped island shall be less than three-hundred (300) square
feet. Every landscaped island shall include one (1) three-inch (3")
caliper shade tree with the remaining area covered with grass,
shrubs or ground cover. Landscaped planting areas shall be
located so that no parking space shall be more than seventy-five
(75) feet from the trunk of a shade tree.
Ordinance 0-00-1249
Page 10 of 14
Where a landscaped
island is adjacent to a landscaped buffer, the parking spaces
adjacent to the landscaped island shall be paved with a pervious
material pave-stone. The parking lot landscaping requirements
contained in the paragraph shall not be applicable to the interior
parking spaces of a parking garage.
Parkin_g Lot Walkways -There shall be a pedestrian walkway a
minimum of eight (8) feet in width for every four rows of
parking within the parking area. Said wa/kway shall be
constructed parallel to the parkin_q rows as shown on the
attached Exhibit "B". The wa/kway shall be paved with a hard
surface.
m. Curbing of Landscaped Areas -All landscaped islands and
landscaped areas shall be protected from vehicular encroachment
by concrete curbs ~ a minimum of six (6) inches in
height.
n. Permanent Ground Signs -The development shall comply with the
provisions of Chapter 7 -Sign Regulations of the Colleyville Land
Development Code, except that only one monument sign per street
frontage shall be allowed. The maximum height of the monument
sign structure shall be eight (8) feet. The maximum area of the
monument sign structure shall tie one-hundred (100) square feet.
Only external illumination shall be allowed. Each side of the
monument sign structure shall contain an architectural feature of
clay-fired brick, native stone, cast stone or a combination of these
materials. The architectural feature shall be equivalent to fifteen
(15%) percent of the total area of the sign structure.
o. Aftached Building Signs -The development shall comply with the
provisions of Chapter 7 -Sign Regulations of the Colleyville Land
Development Code, except that the total square footage of all wall
signs shall not exceed ten (10%) percent of the wall face.
p. Tree Preservation -The development shall comply with the
provisions of Chapter 5 -Tree Preservation of the Colleyville Land
Development Code.
Ordinance 0-00-1249
Page 11 of 14
q. Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements -The development
shall comply with the requirements of Section 3.29 -Off-Street
Parking Requirements of the Colleyville Land Development Code,
except that the ~#e minimum number of parking spaces shall be
one (1) space per two-hundred and fifty (250) square feet of gross
floor area.
r. Delivery /Loading Spaces - No delivery or loading space shall be
located within one-hundred (100) feet of a residential property. All
delivery and loading spaces shall be screened from public view
from a street right-of-way or an adjacent residential property by a
an Lek} ei ht 8 foot tall solid screening wall constructed
of like material to the building. Additional planting materials
shall be provided so that no more than two-thirds of the
surface area of the solid screening wall is visible from the
street or residential property The live plant screening shall
consist of shrubs, a minimum of three (3) feet in height when
planted, and which can be expected to reach six (6) feet or
greater in height within three (3) years of planting Shrubs
shall be spaced so that there shall be no gap greater than four
(4) feet between mature plant materials.
. No
delivery or loading area shall be operated between the hours of
11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Parking of delivery vehicles shall not
exceed 48 hours duration.
s. Outdoor Display Areas -Outside display of merchandise shall be
allowed, provided that it shall be limited to an area within eight (8)
feet of the front wall of the primary building and further provided
that emergency pedestrian access to the building is not blocked.
No merchandise shall be displayed between the hours of 11:00 p.
m. and 6:00 a. m.
For purpose of this regulation, the front wall shall be the front
containment wall of the structure and not the front of an
overhanging walkway cover.
t. Outside Storage and Sales Areas - A!'e There shall be no outside
storage area or outside sales areas of /andscaoing materials
plants or general merchandise except for an outside display
area, as provided in the above paragraph
,}e
Ordinance 0-00-1249
Page 12 of 14
. .
~+s#~t: For urpose of this re_gulation, nothing shall prohibit
the sale or disp/aV of landscapin_q materials, plants or general
merchandise located behind an enclosed solid screening wall
constructed of like materials to the building, provided
merchandise is not visible above the top of the screening wall.
u. Refuse Collection - No refuse collection shall occur within 100 feet
of residential property. All refuse containers, including recycling
containers, and trash compactors shall be screened from view from
a public street and from adjacent residential properties by an
enclosure constructed on three sides with an eight (8) foot high
solid masonry screening wall constructed of like material to the
building. Said screening enclosure shall include solid metal
doors. When a refuse container, trash compactor or recycling
container is situated adjacent to a residential property, the
screening wall enclosure shall comply with the building setback
lines established for the zoning distr?ct. Refuse areas shall be
fitted with a drain inlet that is~ connected to the sanitary sewer
system.
v. Screening of Mechanical Equipment -Roof or ground-mounted
mechanical equipment shall be screened to mitigate noise and
views in all directions from adjacent property. If roof mounted, the
screening material shall be designed to conform architecturally with
the design of the building. Ground-mounted mechanical equipment
shall be screened by a solid masonry screening wall constructed of
like material to the building and be of sufficient height to block the
view and noise of the equipment from adjacent property.
w. Cart Storage -All shopping cart storage areas shall be contained
within the primary building. Temporary shopping cart parking within
parking areas shall be allowed, provided carts are removed to
within the primary building on a frequent basis.
Ordinance 0-00-1249
Page 13 of 14
x. Outdoor Lighting -Light poles situated within 300 feet of
residential property shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height
Exterior lightinq must be High /ntensitV Discharge (HID) lights
shielded and directed away from adiacent properties and shall
produce light no greater than one foot candle at the property
line, except at driveway entrances which shall be lighted
adequately to provide for safe access to the property The
parking lot lighting system shall be designed to dim between
the hours of 19:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Wooden light poles shall
be prohibited as an illumination standard. Security lightinq at
the rear and sides of the building shall be designed to reduce
light pollution and to prevent obiectionab/e glare onto any
residential property.
Sec 4. THAT Ordinance 0-00-1214, the Land Development Code, as
amended, shall remain in effect, except where amended by this
ordinance.
Sec 5. THAT it is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that
the phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, and sections of this
ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence,
paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared
unconstitutional by the valid judgement or decree of any court of
competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect any of
the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections
of this ordinance, since the same would have been enacted by the
City Council without the incorporation in this ordinance of any such
unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section.
Sec 6. THAT any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions
of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon
conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum not to exceed Two
Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). Each and every day such violation
continues shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable
as such.
Sec 7. THAT the City Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to cause
publication of the descriptive caption and penalty clause hereof as an
alternate method of publication provided by law.
Ordinance 0-00-1249
Page 14 of 14
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
The first reading and public hearing being conducted on the day of
2000.
The second reading and public hearing being conducted on the
.2000.
ATTEST:
Cynthia Singleton
City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
CITY OF COLLEYVILLE:
Donna Arp
Mayor
day of
Ross T. Foster
City Attorney
Exhibit "A"
Facade Articulation
'~~.
ri~.T
r `~~ ~~/~..!
~~ ~,
Berm \\\~~.'~ ~ ~.
Berm
Landscape Berm
Exhibit "B"
Hedge
Landscape Shrubs
Exhibit "C"
Masonry
wall
Solid Wall
Exhibit "D"
Parking Lot Walkway
Exhibit "E"
~`
AMENDMENTS TO Ordinance 0-00-1249
Section 1 a.
Large Commercial Building. A building containing one or more
commercial business and having a building footprint of forty
thousand (40,000} square feet or more.
Section 3.
25.1A Applicability.
The criteria in this Section shall be applicable to the construction of
any new large commercial building proposed for construction on or
after November 8, 2000.
1. Change November 19, 2000 to read November 8, 2000.
25.1. B General Provision (p.3)
c. Change fifty thousand (50,000) square feet to forty thousand
(40,000) square feet.
25.1.D Development Requirements
a. Change 50,000 to 40,000
Notes: (p.5}
{1) Change the number 50,000 to 40,000.
(2) The minimum building set back line adjacent to a residential
zoned property shall be a minimum of 50 feet and shall be
increased one foot for each additional increment of 1,000 s.f.
of building footprint over 50,000 square feet of building
footprint with a maximum building setback of 250 ft. If a
public road stands between the residential zoned property
and the commercial establishment, the road width may be
included in the setback calculation if the setback exceeds
100ft.
(3} The setback requirements between two commercial zoned
properties shall conform with the CC2 zoning requirements
as outlined in Section of thei~tg Code.
~,
~~~
Pg.8
h.ii insert the word O~erstory in front of Shade Tree
i.... The landscape buffer shall include the retention or planting of
one (1) three-inch caliper Overstory Shade tree...
~•~~
pg. 9
40 foot landscape buffer... not 20 ft.
page 11
q. The maximum number of parking spaces shall be one (1)
space per 200 square feet of gross floor area.
r. 8 to 10 foot tall solid screening wall.
~... c~
s~ .~~~
TRAFFIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MINUTES - Oc#ober 9, 2000
1. CALL TO ORDER. The meeting of the Traffic Safety Advisory
Committee was called to order by Chief John Young at 7:05 P.M.
in the Colleyville Community Center at 5300 Bluebonnet Rd. Those
present were:
Angela Davis
Richard Fairlamb
Mike Taylor
John Young, Chief of Police
2. DISCUSSION ITEMS.
A. Traffic control signs at L.D. Lockett and Pleasant Run, time frame
for installing railroad-crossing signals.
B. Bogart Street traffic volume and flow problems. Contact GCISD
transportation to set up a problem solving meeting for solutions
C. Striping at intersections at Poole/Glade Road. Look into moving
warning sign closer to corner and cleaning painted arrows on
roadway.
D. Thompson TerracelGlade Road/Hwy 26 re-alignment timetable and
plan review. Request for copies of thoroughfare and land use
plans.
E. Reviewed street and traffic plans for the Villages of Colleyville.
F. Reviewed accident statistics Jan. 99 -Oct 00.
3. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
A. Traffic control signs in Villages of Colleyville
B. Thoroughfare and Land Use Plans
C. Results of meeting with GCISD Transportation Dept.
4. Adjournment
A. Meeting adjourned 8:27PM
Planning 8~ Zoning Commission
Minutes -October 9, 2000
Page 1 of 22 -APPROVED ON 10/23/00
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman
Hart at 7:00 P.M. on October 9, 2000.
Roll Call: Present: Jo Ann Gasper, Luann Edwards, Joe Hocutt, Mark Hollis,
Jeffrey Wall, Bryan Hill, Tom Hart
Staff: Barry LeBaron, Clayton Husband, Tom Niederauer, Jan
Levy, Mike Soab
Invocation: The invocation was given by Commissioner Hollis.
Approval of Minutes: September 25, 2000
Commissioner Hocutt moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Commissioner Wall
seconded the motion. The vote being:
Ayes: Gasper, Edwards, Hocutt, Hollis, Wall, Hill, Hart
Noes: None
1. PUBLIC HEARING - A Special Use Permit for a carport requested by Steve Pence for Keith
& Betsy Luttrell, on Lot 11, Block 3, Western Trails Addition Section 2 located at 7420
Overland Trail. Case S-00-071
Clayton husband presented the case to the Commission. He informed the Commission that it
meets all of the existing criteria and technical aspects for a carport. Jan Levy informed the
Commissioners that she received a call from the neighbor across the street, Wesley Eaves, at
7409 Overland Trail. He said that he could not be at the meeting and had no objections to the
carport.
Chairman Hart opened the public hearing. Steve Pence was present to represent the case.
There being no one else present wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Gasper to recommend approval of the special use permit. Commissioner
Hollis seconded the motion. The vote being:
Ayes: Gasper, Edwards, Hocutt, Hollis, Wall, Hill, Hart
Noes: None
2. TABLED ITEM - A Zoning Change requested by David Bagwell, from AG to PUD-R (planned
unit development-residential on 54.93 acres located on a portion of Bluebonnet Hills on Hall
Johnson Road -Broughton. Case Z-00-064
Barry LeBaron updated the Commission and informed them of the changes in the zoning exhibit.
Commissioner Edwards asked if staff was opposed to eliminating the northern access and staff
responded that Mr. Bagwell kept an emergency access. Mr. LeBaron said that in a gated
Planning 8 Zoning Commission
Minutes -October 9, 2000
Page 2 of 22 -APPROVED ON 10/23/00
community you balance idea that smaller streets only impact those houses. He said that you
wouldn't want to do that as a normal routine thing around the community because you wouldn't
want a 21' street that provides access from one side of the community to the other side of the
community. He said that in a gated community it only affects the houses abutting on the narrow
street. He said that everything proposed is an idea and it is necessarily not a bad ides. He said
that it has been proven successful in some other places around the country and if it were to be
approved and didn't work out, the HOA could always come back and put the extra pavement in
there and bring it up to the current two way standards.
Commissioner Gasper asked if the Fire Chief has reviewed the plan and what are his comments
regarding safety.. Mr. LeBaron responded that the Fire Chief still wants the 31' normal street
section through the area.
Hocutt asked about the northern emergency access and if the Fire Chief had any concerns. Fire
Chief Johnston said that he has concerns about street width as the code does not allow it. He
said that with the dept of the blocks that have 21' street this plan is better because the depth has
been shortened. He said that his main concern is the emergency access. He said that we
continue to build subdivisions with the one main entrance in and with their attempt to separate the
entrance, is an attempt to go along with the rules changes in the near future. Chief Johnston said
that depending on the size of the subdivision, if there is a large incident inside and can't get to the
back of the subdivision, the emergency access is needed. He said that they would recommend
an emergency access easement for sure and it is his understanding that Mr. Bagwell is willing to
do that.
Commissioner Hocutt said that he asked about response time at the last meeting if the fire
department had to come from the north rather than the south entrance. How many homes will be
impacted with fire trucks responding to homes to the north like in Ross Downs by being able to
cut through this subdivision with a full open street and not an emergency access. Chief Johnston
responded that it would be much quicker to all homes to the north. He said that they normally
take Pool Road or Highway 26 and that is a very large section of the City.
Commissioner Gasper said that the bubbles have been pulled back to 80' and she asked staff
what effect will that have with the lights shining into the adjacent homes. Barry LeBaron said that
the thing to consider is that the backs of these lots in many respects have an existing privacy
fence. He said that we have not defined whether or not they have a gated section or a fenced
section at the end of each one of these cul-de-sacs and they could look at that. He said that
another way to prevent the lights landscaping could be put into the green area. He said that the
green area has been pulled back either 45' to 50' from the east side of the development.
Commissioner Gasper asked how far do low beams normally travel. Barry LeBaron responded
that he thought possibly 150 - 200 feet. Commissioner Gasper said that of course high beams
will be greater and in absence of any other modifications, there will be light pollution in the back
yards of the current residents.
Commissioner Hill asked how many lots there were on the prior application. Barry LeBaron said
that the prior exhibit had 83 and they reduced it to 82.
Planning 8~ Zoning Commission
Minutes -October 9, 2000
Page 3 of 22 -APPROVED ON 10/23/00
Commissioner Gasper said that there was a formal protest from the neighbors and has that been
withdrawn or does it still stand. Mr. LeBaron said that it still stands.
Commissioner Hollis said that since the property immediately to the west is privately owned land
and could be developed at some point in the future, he notices that in Shalimar one of the side
streets is a stub out. He asked if it would be wise to do something like that in the northern loop
streets to perhaps satisfy the need for a future second entrance. Mr. LeBaron said that it depends
on if you believe that Bluebonnet will ever sell other land in the future. He said that this is to be
a gated development and a stub out will forever end up looking like a place provided for parked
vehicles.
Commissioner Hocutt said that at the last meeting he requested an actual survey of trees and plot
of trees to the north to look at the impact of the trees. Barry LeBaron said that when they looked
at the aerial photographs there were only a few isolated trees on this property and the density is
to the west off the site of the property. Commissioner Hocutt asked if the staff get with Bob
Moore Sports Center to keep golf balls from hitting the houses and the effect of the bright lights.
Barry LeBaron said that it is incumbent upon the commercial to react to the concerns and
complaints of the citizens. He said that our regulations always require the commercial to make
sure that they don't shine or put glare into people's yards. He said that it may be that he may
have to adjust his lighting accordingly.
Commissioner Edwards asked that since he's been there a very long time, if we have the same
compelling reason to make him make changes. Mr. LeBaron responded that lighting is not
something that you would get a vested right in zoning. He said that his right to use the property
does not give him the right to continuing the glare on the adjacent properties. He said that as far
a hitting the golf balls, the liability is in the person who hits the golf ball and it could be that he may
have to increase his netting. He said that it could very well be that golf balls are currently going
off his property and there is no one there to complain about it.
Commissioner Hill said that as he tries to piece together, the 2'/2 pages of special conditions he
asked how do they overlay with our City Codes. He asked if they need to address each one of
them in order to move forward.
Chairman Hart asked the Commission if they want to take the item off the table.
Commissioner Hocutt asked if they take it off the table tonight can they re-table. He said that he
would like to allow the developer to speak, but he hates to keep tabling the case because of the
opposition of homeowners, they have to come back to the meetings every other Monday. He said
that is a roll the Commissioners have taken on, not the homeowners.
Commissioner Gasper asked if they take it off the table and allow the applicant to speak, are they
opening another public hearing. Chairman Hart said that they have already held a public hearing
and they could open it back up for additional input from the public. Commissioner Gasper asked
if they can place a time limit on the developer. Chairman Hart said that the current rules that they
are operating on do not place a time limit on the applicant and she moved to suspend the rules
to put a 10 minute time limit on the applicant if it is taken off the table.
Planning 8 Zoning Commission
Minutes -October 9, 2000
Page 4 of 22 -APPROVED ON 10/23/00
Commissioner Wall moved to remove the case from the table. Commissioner Hill
seconded the motion. The vote being:
Ayes: Gasper, Edwards, Hocutt, Hollis, Wall, Hill, Hart
Noes: None
Gasper moved to suspend the rule and limit the discussion by the developer to 20 min.
Commissioner Wall seconded the motion. The vote being:
Ayes: Gasper, Edwards, Hocutt, Hollis, Wall, Hill, Hart
Noes: None
David Bagwell, 8222 Douglas Ave., Dallas, TX., was present to represent the case.
Commissioner Edwards said that she has concerns with number of homes in the area and the
elimination of the emergency access to nothing at all. She said that traffic wise she is
uncomfortable with having no communication both ways. Mr. Bagwell said that the lack of and
emergency access is an oversight and there will be one there at the intersection of Sanders and
Wyatt. He said that the concept with the single access and a gated secondary access the
popularity is demonstrated by the number of them in town and some of them are larger. He said
that a portion of the public would like to live in them and they are proposing to appeal to that
segment. He said that as to the number of units, there are a number in town with more lots. He
said that in terms of if it were ever necessary to use the emergency access, when the missing link
on Sanders is added, it will be a shorter response time for the fire department to get to the second
emergency access than to a number of primary entrances in a number of other subdivisions in
town. Mr. Bagwell said that he understands that the fire dept. has never had to use a secondary
access. Commissioner Edwards said her primary concern is with the location. She said that the
response times are slower because the trucks always go to the primary entrance, just because
the secondary access is always the second choice. Mr. Bagwell said that it would be a unique
event that the fire department would ever be blocked within the subdivision and they could come
out and use the secondary entrance faster than getting to some other areas of town.
Commissioner Edwards said that her concerns are not just about fire trucks, but getting citizens
through the subdivision both ways. Mr. Bagwell said that they are not volunteering to allow traffic
to travel through the subdivision. He said that he believes that the people to the north who
oppose their plan, actually want to see the secondary access blocked off to eliminate cars coming
through their subdivisions. He said that their plan is for a subdivision that is safe, is a workable
subdivision, and is gated.
Commissioner Gasper asked if the developer is still proposing 5 inch concrete. Mr. Bagwell
responded that the issue can also be reduced to science. He had the geotechnical engineer who
did the design for the runways at Alliance Airport . He told him that there are less expensive and
better quality streets using the 5 inch technology. Mr. Bagwell said that it would save them
significant money and the financial gain is to be put in amenities. Commissioner Gasper said that
she also talked to an engineer and the information he provided her stated that the more concrete
provided the better.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes -October 9, 2000
Page 5 of 22 -APPROVED ON 10/23/00
Commissioner Edwards asked if Mr. Bagwell would still be interested in pursuing the zoning
change without the attachment of the special conditions. Mr. Bagwell said that he understands
that P&Z can recommend approval or denial, but if they recommend approval, they can include
what changes they believe need to be changed. He said that it would depend upon the kind of
changes they want, but he can't think of one special condition they would want to trade. He said
that in regards to the thickness of the street, he is not an expert, but it could be true that the
thicker the better. He said that he wondered if Commissioner Gasper's figures are correct as he
thought that all of the engineers agreed, and if they are wrong, that is one of the conditions that
they would be willing to work on. He said that there is such a financial difference in the two that
they would like to have the money back to do the kinds of things that they do to make the streets
capable and beautify the property.
Commissioner Gasper said that there is another provision that is very troubling to her and that is
not the developer is not assuming responsibility for any off site drainage problems which he may
be causing to adjacent neighbors. Mr. Bagwell said that they don't say that, they say that they are
not responsible for improvements off site. He said that what the intend to say is there are things
that none of them foresaw and the community wants them to fix like insufficient things off site. He
said that the community wants the developer to shoulder that burden. He said that in the past,
the people approving the subdivision asked staff what is broken off site and it behooves everyone
to identify that now. He said that as a practical matter, they don't think that there is anything
broken off site. He said that it was suggested at the last meeting that they should be responsible
for doing something to the swale that is on four lots of Highland Meadows and should not be their
responsibility. Commissioner Gasper said that it is her understanding that the drainage that is
currently there works well for the people who are there. She said that when he adds streets and
houses, rooftops and hard surfaces, he will significantly increase the amount of runoff that is
leaving his property and going into the drainage that is on somebody else's property. Mr. Bagwell
said that he does not increase the drainage, but what happens under Colleyville's ordinances,
they are required to retain on site, any runoff that is the increase over the natural condition of the
property. He said that the same quantity of water is allowed to pass the site, but it arrives faster
because of the hard surfaces. Mr. Bagwell said that they proposed they will not be required to fix
anything that doesn't work offsite, but will not be allowed to create a problem off site. They
wouldn't get the engineering plans approved otherwise. He said that they are not asking for
permission to violate the City Code.
Commissioner Hocutt asked Mr. Bagwell if there was a variance for the thickness of concrete that
save dollars, how many dollars would that be. David Bagwell responded that he could not tell
them, but they would put it all into landscaping and beautification of the site. He said that his
theory is that if you look around Colleyville, the ones people admire beautiful developments the
City will get improvements to site as good as Land Dev. Code calls for. Commissioner Hocutt said
that per the last meeting, Mr. Bagwell mentioned a town meeting to talk with the opposition. He
asked if Mr. Bagwell has incorporated all of the concerns into the new proposal. Mr. Bagwell said
that he heard to get together with the neighbors. He said that he has placed phone calls and tried
to reach people and it is represented to the extent that they can in the plan.
Commissioner Gasper asked Mr. Bagwell how many neighbors has he actually spoken with. He
responded that maybe 8 or 9. He said that they tried to call everybody how spoke, he did not get
to additional people who signed the petition. He said that the plan is a little bit different than what
Planning 8~ Zoning Commission
Minutes -October 9, 2000
Page 6 of 22 -APPROVED ON 10/23/00
it seems to be and it takes time to work out all of the changes. He said that he did take a plan to
Brenda Grogan and talked to her.
Commissioner Hill acknowledged that Mr. Bagwell has complicated issues and he received
information tonight that he did not have over the weekend to review. He said that his was
surprised that it came back so quickly, but maybe more time should be given to allow the people
who are opposing time to review the plan as indicated in a number of the letters received tonight.
Mr. Bagwell said that he objects to that as there is no shoving at all here and the Commissioners
know full well that they don't have to take it off the table or take action. He said that he rejects the
notion that they are trying to shove anything and shoving is not what is happening. He said that
he is merely an applicant that is trying to conduct his business and if they don't want a
development here, he understands it. He said that from the beginning he has recognized that
people who live next to the cemetery would have expected it to remain that way, and they are
surprised. He said that he is just a developer and is not shoving anything and is bringing ideas.
He said that when those kinds of things are said to him, he wants to take exception to it. He said
that it shocks him to bring in a plan on property that is for sale and the cemetery has the right to
sell for some use beside agriculture. He said that they are a proven developer in town and they
brought in a plan and are treated pretty rudely and the community ought to ask themselves why
should they be rude to someone who is bringing a good idea in. He said that it is one thing to say
no thank you, cut he does not act especially well to some of the things that are said about them
and about their motivations. He said that he is going to defend himself for doing quality work and
as somebody who is under the law to bring in an application.
Commissioner Wall said that they can all agree to be nice to one another, but Mr. Bagwell can
understand that this being his line of work, there are homeowners who will object to wherever he
builds and bring their emotions to the meeting. He said that the P&Z will give him every
opportunity to speak and they are required to. He said that if they used the wrong term they are
not trying to take umbrage with what he does or his presentation. He said that they will back off
and will ask Mr. Bagwell to do the same thing and they will conduct business in an orderly and
proper manner. He said that they would appreciate all sides doing it the way it's supposed to be
done.
Commissioner Wall asked Mr. Bagwell if he thinks that down the line he would be able to meet
with the neighbors and resolve any of their problems or is this the way it will be. He said that he
asks the question with his perception being that this is not going to change. Mr. Bagwell
responded that his sense is that probably there are opponents that there is nothing they can do
to satisfy because they don't want the property developed. He said that if you accept them out
of the question, that they will be happy to meet with them, and maybe they can accept
development if they better understand what the developer is trying to do. He said that as you
reduce the quality or the quantity of your residential units, economically it has an impact. He said
that they lost $130,000 by losing a lot and as you reduces the quantity and quality of the
residential units and pick up costs, you will end up with less to make it financially viable. He said
that at some point he may have to say that he can't figure out how to take the plan further and if
that is perceived as not being able to work with people, he is happy to look at different ways to try
to resolve problems. Mr. Bagwell said that he thinks this is the process he is in. He said that the
solution to headlights in back yards can be resolved by adding berms with landscaping to
eliminated traffic lights. He said that the amount of traffic at the end of a cul-de-sac is significantly
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes -October 9, 2000
Page 7 of 22 -APPROVED ON 10/23/00
lower especially in a gated community.
Commissioner Wall asked Mr. Bagwell if the Commission were to approve the case without the
development standards, would he not be interested. Mr. Bagwell responded he couldn't tell them
which standard is placed in lightly and everyone of them is meaningful. He said that the one on
staff processing time is because they are suffering a thousand deaths on their Westmont
development with the drawn out approval process they have gone through with the City
engineering staff. He said that they are asking for the City engineering staff look at the plans and
approve the engineering plans and require them to build according to those approved plans and
not change things. He said that he has tens of thousands of dollars in their Westmont
development that came up after the engineering staff approved the plans and he can't afford to
do that. He said that with that example, he couldn't give that standard up.
Commissioner Gasper told Mr. Bagwell he had stated earlier in the meeting that as you build a
development, some issues come up that you don't realize are there until you get to a certain point
and then you can change them. She asked him if that is correct and now she is hearing him say
that we can't make changes when they find out problems. Mr. Bagwell said that he did not recall
what she is actually referring to. He said that he thinks there is a contradiction in his mind and
he does not mean to contradict himself.
Commissioner Edwards said that she is getting the sense that none of them are comfortable with
the special conditions. She said that maybe one of the things they could do is poll the
Commission if they want to table the case to give Mr. Bagwell a couple of weeks to think about
if he could eliminate the conditions and just go by City standards. Commissioner Wall said that
if the Commission would pass the request without the standards, the exceptions to the Code could
still be requested at a future point. Mr. Bagwell said that the City Council could either accept or
not accept their recommendation. Commissioner Gasper said that she would not like to see them
lay everything off onto the City Council as she thinks that they are obligated to make judgements
and recommendations. Commissioner Hill said that he agrees and just the sheer number of going
through each special condition one by one is a little daunting too. He said that he did not know
of any other way to do it. Commissioner Hill said that for instance on the point Mr. Bagwell made,
it sounds as if he was asking for preferential treatment over every other developer in town. He
said that in regards to if Mr. Bagwell doesn't get specific exceptions, he has to deal with what is
causing him a thousand deaths in his other development. He asked Mr. Bagwell why he should
get preferential treatment for his company as opposed to others, if it is a slow City process and
a flawed one.
Mr. Bagwell said that it has gotten so bad that he's come forward and said that it can be cured if
the City will agree to his proposal. He said that the City asks him for commitments and he is
asking the City to make commitments back to him. He said that what they've proposed in terms
of how soon his plans will be approved and he would be held to no other standard other than the
Colleyville Land Development Code and his approved engineering plans is imminently reasonable.
He said that is not the way it works with the engineering staff today. Mr. Bagwell said that the
Commission can say that he is asking for preferential treatment, but his is asking for what he
thinks is reasonable treatment.
Planning 8- Zoning Commission
Minutes -October 9, 2000
Page 8 of 22 -APPROVED ON 10/23/00
Commissioner Hill said that if he hears that there is a serious flaw of that type, he would rather
try to address it on a city wide basis with all of the developers so they can get back on even
footing rather than to give one preferential treatment over another. He said that it seems like
everyone is suffering if what Mr. Bagwell has said is true and he's not doubting that. Mr. Bagwell
responded that it could be that they would say that there is an issue here and it is so significant
that the developers come forward and ask for reasonable treatment here.
Mr. Bagwell said that they've picked what they think are reasonable periods of time for approval
of their engineering plans, but it could be that the engineering staff would say that that is not
reasonable. He said that there may be a leadership roll just by asking the questions.
Commissioner Hocutt said that he did not understand why it would take additional time when you
have the rules in front of you and then if you follow the rules. Mr. Bagwell said that in fairness to
the engineering staff, they're not here to tell you if the developer did a sloppy job the developer
did and what they have to go through with him. Commissioner Hocutt asked why they would say
that. Mr. Bagwell said that it wouldn't be him personally. Commissioner Hocutt said that if Mr.
Bagwell was given the rules to develop by and he followed them and if the engineering staff is
responding that way, he would agree with Commissioner Hill. He said that that is something that
needs to be resolved at a City level so that more developers will come and develop based on the
codes that the City has set forth.
Commissioner Hill said that he is concerned about painting the City staff into a box that is difficult
for them to achieve.
Mr. Bagwell said that he wanted to give them an example. He said that he got a voice mail on
Friday saying that three people from the engineering staff would meet them on Monday at 8:30
a.m. at the Westmont site and none of them showed up. He said that he had equipment out there
running to do the work that he was told they needed to do to fix what they thought needed to be
fixed. He said that they built a swale beside a trail that they were required to build for the benefit
of the community to handle drainage because John McCain Road cannot accept the water. He
said that they built it right and built the trail nest to it and Tri County Electric later and moved their
poles and messed up the swale. He said that it now holds water. He said that the staff told him
that he had to fix it. He asked staff to please meet him out there and show him how they want it
done and they will do it how the City wants it. He said that one person's child was sick, he didn't
know what happened to another person, and another person was not told that the meeting was
to be held. Mr. Bagwell said that another example was that they were told they needed to re-
grade McDonwell School Road to carry water into the drainage area. He said that they have
looked at it, looked at it, and looked at it and none of them can figure out what staff is talking
about and that is why they wanted staff there today to look at it. He said that consequence for him
to not get staff's requested work done is that he can't get building permits. Mr. Bagwell said that
he is trying to get something he can't figure out personally and his engineers can't figure it out,
nor can the excavation contractor. He said that they ask staff to meet them there, they don't meet
them there, and the consequences fall back on him and they can't get building permits. Mr.
Bagwell said that when he takes on a piece of property like this and tries to commit to
extraordinarily high quality for the city, it seems like a reasonable to ask in the standards, a
commitment be made that they will do that for him. Mr. Bagwell said that a lot of staff time is
going into the refurbishing Hall Johnson Road but his company is paying a price it because they
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes -October 9, 2000
Page 9 of 22 -APPROVED ON 10/23/00
can't get attention on their job. Mr. Bagwell said that the meeting today was in order for them to
correct some things that they have not done correctly and also some things that had been done
to them by Tri County, but he was required to fix.
Commissioner Edwards said that even if that condition was included, it couldn't be enforced. She
said that it would be nice to have it for him to sight, but it probably wouldn't do him any good. Mr.
Bagwell said that when the staff gives him deadlines and tell him that if he doesn't get it done they
will shut him down or they can't get building permits or they will fine him $200 a day. He said that
it would be nice if there was a little bit of balance to that where they could get somebody from staff
out to help them accomplish what they are requiring. Mr. Bagwell said that he is not unique in the
development community in talking about this issue. He said that he had a contractor tell him last
week that he put an extra $40,000 in his bid for the Westmont job because of the extra stuff that
you have to do in Colleyville that you don't have to do in other communities. Edwards said that
these are things that need to be up to the City Council.
Commissioner Hill said that he is not disputing anything that Mr. Bagwell is saying, but he wonders
if they are the right body to create exceptions for him to these specific city problems. Chairman
Hart said that does not believe that it falls under anything the Commission does.
Chairman Hart polled the Commissioners about special conditions and he would like to give Mr.
Bagwell and the rest of them an idea about where they stand on the issue. He said that the pole
is if they recommend approval with the inclusion of Mr. Bagwell's special conditions.
Commissioner Hill said that he would not be inclined to approve the case without going over each
condition one by one in order to understand the implications of each. He said that his is mindful
of the difficulty of the property, but he has had a problem from the beginning about the density.
He said that he understands that Mr. Bagwell has lost $130,000 dollars and his response is to
lower the purchase price of the property from the cemetery.
Commissioner Wall said that without hearing city staff give a thumbs up to each and every one
of the conditions, since they are the experts, he would not be incline to approve with them
attached in total.
Commissioner Hollis said that in addition to the issue of the 21' streets, he also has a problem
with the number of conditions and would be inclined to either vote no or table the item at this time.
Commissioner Hocutt said that he is not inclined to approve unless the Land Development Code
was followed.
Commissioner Edwards said that she has already stated that she is comfortable with what they
have in the City ordinances and they are very sufficient and good. She said that she is really
concerned about a lot of special conditions and she would have to go over them one by one. She
said that she feels that staff guidance would be crucial.
Commissioner Gasper said that she would not be able to be in favor the zoning change with all
of the conditions that are presently there.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes -October 9, 2000
Page 10 of 22 -APPROVED ON 10/23/00
Chairman Hart said that he would echo what Commissioner Gasper is saying. He said that there
are so many there that they would have to go over them one by one and check them out.
Commissioner Edwards said that they could take action immediately or they can table the case
again and see if the developer can come any closer than what they want to look at.
Commissioner Gasper asked how may times the proposal has been tabled. She was told that this
proposal has been tabled one time because she has concerns about continuing to table items.
Commissioner Wall recommended that he believes tabling the case is the correct way to go as
it allows the developer an opportunity to work with the citizens, and the staff and then the staff can
give clear guidance one by one. Commissioner Wall said that he is hearing the developer saying
that the special conditions are his Bible, what he lives by, where his profit is and he needs them
and wants them. He said that he does not believe that this is the time to go through the process
because it will take several hours and there will be much discussion. Commissioner asked that
staff try to guide the Commission by summarizing the conditions.
Chairman Hart said that staff's position was to deny the request because of technical
noncompliance with the Land Development Code. Commissioner Wall said that that comment
does not specify which items don't comply and they need that information. He said that if they
have problems, staff needs to resolve them with the developer and if there can't be an agreement,
the Commission needs to know it item by item.
Commissioner Gasper asked how do we give to staff their thoughts regarding what are the make
or break issues for them. She said that her sense is that they each have different areas of
concern that if they aren't fixed, they won't vote for it. Commissioner Hill said that he can't tell
which ones are types of departure from the norm and if it is very problematic or not. He said that
the conditions need to be matched to the Land Development Code. Commissioner Hocutt said
that he doesn't think that the responsibility should be put on staff and commit their time and
efforts to go through and negotiate each item for the developer, they have the Codes and policy
in place. He said that he doesn't want the Commission to tell staff to go negotiate this process
because it is the Commission's responsibility and not staff's.
Commissioner Gasper asked if it would make sense to have a working session with staff to go
over the standards that are being proposed and come forward with the standards they would be
willing to live with. Barry LeBaron said that they will be glad to make time available to them.
Commissioner Hill asked if it would be difficult to state what the differences are between what the
developer is asking for and what the City's standards are. Mr. LeBaron said that he would be glad
to summarize them for the Commission. Commissioner Gasper said that she does not know how
they will resolve the impasse, because her sense is that the Commission wants to continue
working with Mr. Bagwell on this piece of property.
Chairman Hart said that he doesn't think that they will fully be able to resolve the issues because
not everyone will be delighted with the project one way or another. Commissioner Edwards said
that she believes that they need to resolve what the special conditions are first. Commissioner
Hocutt asked if they need to resolve the City's engineering standards before they address the
citizens' concerns. He said that maybe a plat that is acceptable to the citizens needs to be
accomplished first. Chairman Hart said that the Commission has listened to the citizens when it
was R20 and as a PUD-R. Commissioner Edwards said that the changes are not substantial as
Planning 8~ Zoning Commission
Minutes -October 9, 2000
Page 11 of 22 -APPROVED ON 10/23/00
the widths and the open space are wider and various things have changed, but it is still pretty
much the same layout. She said that one of the. sticking point is that the developer wants to
include the special conditions and it makes a huge difference monetarily to him and if the
Commission can't live with that they need to let him know. Commissioner Hocutt would like to
hear from the citizens at this meeting regarding their concerns with the revised plat.
Commissioner Gasper said that she thinks they have heard from the citizens at great length and
she's not aware, based on the plat, that there are any new issues that could be laid on the table.
She said that it seems to her that the issues that need to be addressed are the same ones that
were discussed at great length the last time.
Commissioner Hollis said that they should not consider tabling the item at this time, but should
ask Mr. Bagwell to remove any conditions that he does not consider absolute make or break
issues. He said that it should be brought back either as a go or no go and then have the City staff
brief the Commission on the differences.
Commissioner Hocutt said that he agrees, but feels that they need to get the citizens involved.
He said that it may not be a nice meeting but they need to get together to where the snow ball
gets rolling down hill and at the bottom are the citizens saying that they have not had an
opportunity to speak. He said that the citizens do not need to speak at this meeting, but when the
item is discussed again. He said that there are two issues, what happens after the case is tabled
as a time should be established when they need to come back. Chairman Hart said that he does
not object to further discussion with the citizens, but he agrees with Commissioner Hollis that a
list should be made by Mr. Bagwell of the go or no go points and discuss them with staff.
Commissioner Gasper said that they should have a working session to discuss with staff where
Mr. Bagwell is and they can look at his proposal and see to what extent the Commission can live
with it or not. Commissioner Hocutt said that all he is suggesting is that the developer put
together a list and give it to the citizens who are opposed. Commissioner Gasper said that once
the developer formulates the list and they have a working session with staff to go over the
technical impact of those issues. She said that presumably there would be a revised list to come
forth to the Commission and at that point it would be appropriate for the citizens to be able to
address what is on the table then. Commissioner Hill said that he recognizes that staff's and Mr.
Bagwell's time is valuable. He said that in the no and no go list, Mr. Bagwell might try to enlighten
the Commission on his reasons for the departure of some of the items from the norms in the City
to help them focus on those.
Commissioner Wall moved to table the item. Commissioner Gasper seconded the motion.
The vote being:
Ayes: Gasper, Edwards, Hocutt, Hollis, Wall, Hill, Hart
Noes: None
Commissioner Gasper moved that the developer be instructed to draw up a go no go list
and present it to staff. The staff is then to schedule a work session with the Commission
so that they can become more knowledgeable. She said that the item will remain tabled
until there is a work session. Commissioner Wall seconded the motion.
Planning 8~ Zoning Commission
Minutes -October 9, 2000
Page 12 of 22 -APPROVED ON 10/23/00
Commissioner Hocutt said that there needs to be clear communication with the citizens so that
they do not have to appear at meetings every two weeks. He said that if at the next meeting, the
work session has not taken place, the citizens won't have to spend their Monday nights with the
Commission.
Chairman Hart called for the vote. The vote being:
Ayes: Gasper, Edwards, Hocutt, Hollis, Wall, Hill, Hart
Noes: None
3. TABLED ITEM - A Zoning Change requested by Doug Henderson representing Kipp
Whitman, Lavaca Trail, LLC, from R40 to PUD-C (planned unit development-commercial) on
6.335 acres located at the southeast corner of Lavaca Trail and Precinct Line Road. Case Z-
00-070
Commissioner Gasper asked if they received any comments from the neighbors regarding the
revised plans. Tom Niederauer responded that staff did not receive any additional responses.
Commissioner Gasper asked if it was fair to assume that the neighborhood is still opposed to the
development of this corner. Commissioner Edwards said that they were just opposed to the
kennel and weren't opposed to commercial development. Commissioner Hill asked staff to
explain how the zoning change request has changed.
Tom Niederauer presented the case to the Commission and told them about the four issues that
have changed. He said that the applicant is back to a similar plan to what the Council looked at
earlier with the exception of designs and elevations. He said that the eight lot plat, not the zoning
exhibit, is the plat from the original submittal. Tom said that staff has disregarded what had gone
on before and the land uses are CC-1 and CC-2 with exception for a Special Use Permit for
alcohol sale. He said that the lot on the corner is for sale with off premise consumption and the
other two lots on Precinct Line Road are for on premise consumption in a restaurant. He said that
hose are the only land uses that are different than just straight CC-1 and CC-2 and the kennel has
been removed. He said that an extra wide landscape setback on Precinct Line Road is proposed
with no parking. He said that a 20' greenbelt is proposed on Lavaca. He said that the design
review is different as there are no proposed buildings to evaluate and they recommended in item
#5B that requires site plans and building elevations to be reviewed by City Council. He said that
the last issue is that normally in a PUD the zoning exhibit is considered a preliminary plat then
they go directly to the final plat stage. He said that in this particular case a preliminary plat has
not been submitted for consideration with the zoning change. The applicant will be required to
submit a preliminary plat with all of the engineering requirements for approval prior to submitting
a final plat. Mr. Niederauer said that staff concludes, that it is a speculative zoning change and
staff recommends denial because we don't know what is specifically designed for the area.
Commissioner Edwards said that they may ask the applicant to not ask for a special use and
request that when they have a specific use for the property. Commissioner Gasper said that she
was under the impression that had been the practices that the SUP was not granted until there
was a for real instance to grant it. Commissioner Edwards said that there are a group of lots in
front of Bransford Elementary that an area was granted a SUP and then the property was and will
Planning 8~ Zoning Commission
Minutes -October 9, 2000
Page 13 of 22 -APPROVED ON 10/23/00
be divided for appropriate restaurants along Highway 26. She said that this was done to
encourage development and it depends on the situation.
Tom Niederauer said that a similar SUP was granted along State Highway 121 for restaurant and
hotel alcoholic beverage related uses in order to attract business. He said that the properties will
still need to be platted and have site plans approved.
Commissioner Gasper asked what impact will the development have on the remainder of the
undeveloped land adjacent as it is one of the last large tracts of property within the city limits. She
wanted to know if this development will either encourage or discourage future development and
if it will encourage development, what type? Tom Niederauer said that these parcels are fairly
small lots, but there are singular uses for a convenience store on the corner, and two restaurant
sites. Barry LeBaron responded that it may hinge on the Commissioner perspective as to whether
or not you think this will be a stimulus to new development.
Commissioner Gasper asked what is proposed across the street. Commissioner Edwards said
that there is a lot more traffic through the area now that Rumford is opened, but she has not seen
any thing proposed. Staff said that they are not aware of any firm plans. Barry LeBaron said that
there is a Thornbury residential subdivision in the area. Commissioner Edwards said that there
is some development proposed to the north that may be a Wal Mart. Barry LeBaron said that
further north at North Tarrant Parkway and Davis Blvd. there is a proposed Wal Mart Super
Center. He said that there is an Eckerd's and a Walgreen's in the location now.
Commissioner Edwards moved to remove the item from the table. Commissioner Wall
seconded the motion. The vote being:
Ayes: Gasper, Edwards, Hocutt, Hollis, Wall, Hill, Hart
Noes: None
Kipp Whitman was present to represent the case. He said that have amended their request and
they have pretty much gone back to the original plan. He said that it was not their intent to import
dogs to Colleyville, but out of the blue they were contacted with an attractive offer from the kennel.
He said that had it been approved and had they closed on the purchase, it would have given them
a lot of leverage to bide their time and pick and chose what kind of uses they would like to sell the
property to. He said that now they are back to rezoning and they want to encourage buyers to
come to this property. Mr. Whitman said that in regards to granting sups on the unknown, it was
done on their property at John McCain and Highway 26 for the intent of bringing a service station
to the location. He said that it was also granted to them at L. D. Lockett and Precinct Line in order
to attract business and they have done it. He said that they were able to attract a service station
and a strip center and a future site for a sit down restaurant. He said that they are asking at this
time for approval of the SUP for the potential business they can attract. He said that the
attractions goes in the fashion of they have a parcel that is already rezoned, it's already set to go
and they won't have to worry about if they'll be approved or sell alcohol at the location. Staff and
Council have set the parameters for the development.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes -October 9, 2000
Page 14 of 22 -APPROVED ON 90/23/00
Mr. Whitman said that the reason they wish and desire to be approved for Council to review the
potential buyer's plans versus staff is to get it through staff quickly. He said that otherwise it will
languish for months. He said that it is historical that it takes time to go through staff because they
have a lot of things to do, and rather than giving staff twice the things to do, if they get Council's
approval on the design, it can go back. He said that the purpose is to speed development
because it has definitely stopped in our city. He said that development has come to a dead halt
as everybody is trying to do things and it's a very complicated issue. An idea for a gas station on
every corner it will not happen, as this may be the last corner to have one. He said that the rear
portion of the property will be developed into offices and they may not provide much of a tax base
for the city, unless they are a sales offices.
Mr. Whitman said that the convenience store will bring tax revenue especially for the alcoholic
beverage sales. Mr. Whitman said that he has been told that he shouldn't talk about alcohol, but
he needs to go in with the confidence that we are adults and most drink wine and where do they
buy it in the area. He said that we purchase it from either a gas station or the super market. He
said that the people in North Richland Hills buy their wine from Colleyville. He said that in
reference to the question about what is planned for across the street, North Richland Hills does
not want to see commercial in that location but want it on Davis. He said that Precinct Line grows
with traffic everyday. Mr. Whitman said that Wal Mart that is coming begins by this corner and
then heads towards Davis and his development will be one block from the Wal-Mart. He said that
he can't wait for Bill Souder to sell his property as he is tough in business. He said that he needs
the Commission's vote for approval, so they can get business started. Mr. Whitman said that he
has someone they are talking to but cannot divulge who it is because Colleyville has already
turned them down for another location. The retail business they bring in and the office pad sites
they can develop will be much more profitable for them in the long run than the three churches
who want to build at this location. He said that the idea of a convenience store selling beer and
wine, their other location at L. D. Lockett abuts Bear Valley Church and the pastor came before
the Commission and said they liked what he is doing and did not oppose the project. He said that
their difficulty is marketing as they do not have the assistance of the city and they need to market
it themselves.
Commissioner Gasper asked Mr. Whitman if he owns the property and if they have solid tenants.
Mr. Whitman responded that they do own the property and they have one very serious contender
right now and other possible commitments pending on the other one committing. She asked
about the office sites and restaurant sites how large would the buildings be going onto those pads.
Mr. Whitman said that the buildings in the back may be3,000 to 7,000 feet, but if someone wanted
more space, they would combine a couple of the lots. He said that they would like to develop a
pond in the back as this will be a drainage issue and will do it at the time of platting.
Commissioner Gasper asked how many square feet would be at the service station site. Mr.
Whitman responded that it would be 4,500 s.f. She asked if he has done a survey as to how
saturated the market is with gas stations. Mr. Whitman said that It depends on the stations, as
there are ones with no alcoholic beverage sales, but his convenience store will compete with wine
sales. He said that in regards to the stations that closed down on the Central and Harwood corner
in Bedford, Chevron had ownership issues and Exxon had tank issues.
Commissioner Edwards asked staff if Remington Park would be connecting to Lavaca and
increasing the traffic in the area. Staff answered that it would.
Planning 8~ Zoning Commission
Minutes -October 9, 2000
Page 15 of 22 -APPROVED ON 90/23/00
Commissioner Gasper asked if the service station will have fast food sales. Mr. Whitman said that
the group he is talking to have not disclosed that to him.
Commissioner Hocutt asked for clarification of the difference and locations of the Special Use
Permits. Mr. Whitman said that the SUP for alcoholic beverage sales with off premise
consumption is for the lot on the corner associated with the convenience store and Lot 2, facing
Precinct Line, is for on premise consumption limited to a restaurant. The multiple offices located
on the lots behind will draw customers.
Commissioner Edwards said that she realizes that it is speculative but she is willing to support it.
Barry LeBaron said that the request that is before the Commission is what they already approved
and went to Council, and while it was at Council the kennel came into play, He said that Council
recommended that it go back to P&Z. Barry said that now that the kennel is removed, it is being
treated as a new application.
Commissioner Gasper asked Barry to expand on the issues on the briefing that it is not
compatible with the surrounding area. Barry LeBaron said that staff is concerned about the
practice of chopping up the larger portions of land for a service station and they don't want to see
every corner being a convenience station. He said that if the developer had a firm package, staff
would be willing to give up the convenience store.
Chairman Hart asked Economic Development Coordinator Mike Soab if the special use permit
would enhance quick development of the property. Mr. Soab said that the difference of looking
at this as an entire puzzle or as a piece of the puzzle. He said that they should look at the entire
vision for Precinct Line Road as they will have many large parcels behind small parcels if they
keep carving out small pieces. He said that the vision for Colleyville is not for fast food
restaurants and the special use permit is o.k. for sit down restaurants. Chairman Hart asked what
is the difference Mr. Whitman's development on the L. D. Lockett site as this is a clone of that site.
Mr. Soab responded that it all goes back to vision as to what we expect Precinct Line Road to look
like. Commissioner Hill said that it would be great in a utopian world, but the city controls the uses
of the property, but now what property owners can do, combine, and sell. He said that he loves
churches in the abstract, but they don't produce revenue for the city and people can't hold
property indefinitely. He said that is his dilemma as he looks at these types of things. Mr. Soab
said that they do make these decisions all of the times to allow speculative ventures go forward
and in and of itself the deal is not bad, but in the interest of Colleyville is it the best deal for the
city. He said that is the decision that the P&Z and Council will have to make, not staff and himself.
Commissioner Wall said in reference to Mr. Soab's comments about hiding large parcels of land,
he asked about the potential development of the lots located in the flood plane. Barry LeBaron
said that they can fill some areas of the flood plain to reclaim some of the property. He said that
some times they put in detention facilities and if designed properly can be an enhancement to the
property. Commissioner Edwards said that one of the branches to Bear Creek is just to the south.
Commissioner Hocutt asked if there is anything in the city that has a convenience store, a
restaurant, and office buildings adjacent to it to help him visualize how this project might look.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes -October 9, 2000
Page 16 of 22 -APPROVED ON 10/23/00
Commissioner Gasper said that possibly where the Monet restaurant used to be. Commissioner
Edwards said that the corner of Hwy. 26 and Brown Trail has a Mobil, a cleaners, and a Hi-Lo next
to it. She said that the mixed use where Redentas Nursery is located is a great look. Barry
LeBaron said that if you look at the development sequence of events that often occurs, the
convenience stores pick off the best corners first, then the others come along afterwards. He said
that he thinks that is a normal progression because they have to get their foothold first, they
recognize that, and the dollars involved are such that they're allowed to do that. He said that is
one of the things the Commission needs to weigh and ask if that is something we want to see as
our long range vision. He said that he can see why it is advantageous to the developer to change
this from the current residential zoning to something he can market. He said that if he has
commercial zoning in place with special use permits for alcoholic beverage sales either off
premise or on premise, he can increase his opportunities to get someone in there.
Commissioner Gasper asked Mr. Soab what he would envision if the Commission does not do
this as far as a long range development that would be in the best interest of the City and how long
will it take for us to get there. Mr. Soab responded that a lot of it is timing of the Wal Mart and it
depends on how soon they go in. He said that once Wal Mart develops, the whole area is going
to boom and it will probably take 12 to 18 months for that to happen. Commissioner Gasper
asked Mr. Soab that if hypothetically they want to wait 18 month, what is likely to happen with the
whole area not just this one individual tract. Mike Soab said that if you follow Mayor Souder's line
of thinking at the last meeting, he talked about combining tracts into bigger pieces for bigger
users. He said that he knows the city has a big box ordinance going through the system now and
the Mayor and City Council wants to have major sales tax generators on Precinct Line Road. He
said that major does not mean 2,500 or 3,500 s.f. stores that generate a little bit of sales tax, he's
talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars. He said that the City is rapidly running out of
commercial land for the big boxes and this is a major opportunity for them. He said that he would
hate to lose it for a corner. He said that it may not affect it at all.
Commissioner Edwards said that theoretically there is still room for that type of development. Mr.
Soab said that there is still room on Precinct Line Road for large development. Commissioner Hill
said that it is an interesting thing to think about. Commissioner Edwards said that her thinking is
that it would be great to have one big development right now, but they are having a hard time
getting commercial. She said that she is hoping that if they go ahead, it would be great if lots
would combine to make an even bigger development. Commissioner Edwards said that she is
willing to take that risk that if might happen, and if not, what they get will be sufficient for what they
have there and she is willing to take the risk to wait. Mike Soab agreed that it is a subjective thing.
Commissioner Wall asked Mr. Soab to give him an example of a fast food restaurant that needs
an on site alcoholic beverage license. Mr. Soab said that Taco Cabana serves alcohol and has
a drive thru as well. He said that most sit down restaurants do not have drive thru windows.
Commissioner Wall said then there would be no reason to grant a special use permit for on site
alcoholic beverage consumption for the zoning to be CC-2. Mr. Soab said that is a separate issue
and one other example is Railhead Restaurant has a drive thru and sells alcoholic beverages on
the inside. He said that the CC-2 is a separate issue from alcoholic beverage sales.
Commissioner Edwards said that if they approve a special use permit, a fast food restaurant could
locate on the property and not utilize the permit. Mr. Soab said that was correct. He said that on
the Bransford Road area blanket special use permit, he did not believe than anyone is selling
Planning 8~ Zoning Commission
Minutes -October 9, 2000
Page 17 of 22 -APPROVED ON 10/23/00
alcoholic beverages, but on Highway 121 it was very advantageous to have it.
Commissioner Hocutt asked staff if the Keller ISD still wants a school just north of the area. Mr.
LeBaron responded that they were wanting to build an elementary school. Commissioner Gasper
what distance is required between a school and an establishment selling alcoholic beverages. He
said that is 1,000 feet and that is not an issue at this location. Commissioner Hocutt asked what
the projected look is for the landscaping for the corridor. Mr. Whitman said that his set backs are
pretty significant as is the voluntary setback on the L. D. Lockett site. He said that it is setback
with a 40' building line that includes landscapes to give it a classic look all along Precinct Line in
Colleyville. Mr. LeBaron said that Mr. Whitman is proposing a 40' landscape buffer along Precinct
Line Road. Mr. Whitman said that in regards to the dream of Big Box uses he said that he gave
the Commission a thick packet of what is going on in Wal Mart. He said that it would be lovely
to have some big box users like Best Buy, but they won't come because they are already going
into Grapevine. He pointed out of the map possible locations and said that he doesn't see
anything happening and he doesn't see anybody knocking down doors to come to Colleyville. He
said that this is an irregular piece of property he is working with and he would love to work with
Mayor Sauder to do something, but they can't get a consensus of prices to cross over and market.
He said that there is a need for something to develop and he is the only developer on Precinct
Line doing anything. He said that he needs a drive thru and it won't impact anything behind the
site. He said that if he is going to build offices behind the commercial, he surely doesn't want to
be looking into the back end of a gas station. He said that if he sells the corner, it will not have
a normal look at the back, because it would be too difficult to sell the balance of the land. Mr.
Whitman said that he wants to make the project as neat as he can.
Commissioner Hocutt moved to suspend the rules and open the public hearing.
Commissioner Edwards seconded the motion. The vote being:
Ayes: Edwards, Hocutt
Noes: Gasper, Hollis, Wall, Hill, Hart
The motion did not pass.
Chairman Hart said that they have had a pretty significant length of time to discuss the case.
Commissioner Edwards moved to recommend approval the zoning change with the
requested special use permit. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion.
Commissioner Hocutt said that he is concerned because we already have property on L. D.
Lockett basically zoned the same way. He said that we have an opportunity to look at the actual
versus a projected in terms as to what real revenues the city will reap from sales from restaurants
and alcoholic beverages in a convenience store that has not yet been developed. He said that
we get a sense of emergency that it has to be done now because there is a perspective buyer and
the perspective buyer won't disclose who it is because they've been turned down in the past. He
said that this is an opportunity to look at an actual versus projected. Commissioner Edwards said
that it depends on how soon the actual will take place. Commissioner Hocutt said that if the
actual is not going to take place pretty soon, then why should they zone something else for the
Planning 8~ Zoning Commission
Minutes -October 9, 2000
Page 18 of 22 -APPROVED ON 10/23/00
same purpose.
Chairman Hart said that Mr. Whitman is the owner of the land and he has brought the request
before them. Commissioner Hocutt said that he is thinking about the overall vision for Colleyville
in terms of what they want there in the Western corridor. Commissioner Gasper said that since
Mr. Whitman owns property she has a strong bias and favor for owners being able to do what they
would like to do with their own property absence some compelling public interest. She said that
she for one does not see the compelling public interest.
Commissioner Hill said that he is afraid that they will see a non tax producing property would go
there like a church since it seems to be church row already and he not getting down on churches.
He said that at some point in time a property owner who is occurring a debt load will need to do
something with the property. He said that he sees that the owner has been incurring debt service
for several months and you can't do that indefinitely. He said that his sense is that if there were
a reasonably workable plan to couple with another developer or two to create a larger tract for a
big box, Mr. Whitman being a business man would want to entertain it.
Commissioner Wall said that Mr. Whitman has made it known to the Commission that this is going
to be a quality development and he takes the man at his word. Commissioner Gasper said that
there are provisions like a 35 point architectural design score on all buildings and the landscaping
buffers, so the city does have a fair amount of protection that it will be quality.
Chairman Hart called for the vote. The vote being:.
Ayes: Gasper Edwards, Hollis, Wall, Hill, Hart
Noes: Hocutt
[NOTE: The Commission took a five minute recess.]
4. Discussion and Consideration of Planning and Zoning Commission Rules of Procedure.
Barry LeBaron said that they found the rules were adopted in 1987. He said that they offer a
procedural mechanism for how to conduct meetings. Barry said that he scanned them and put
them on a word processor. He did some wordsmithing to meet how the meetings have been
conducted for the last two years and took out a lot of language that talks about plat submittal
because they're a part of the Land Development Code. He said that the old procedures said that
the Commission would elect a secretary and he eliminated that language. He said that normally
they elect a Chairman and a Vice Chairman because they have to have someone to sign the plats
and someone to take over in absence of the Chairman. He said that as far as the secretary, there
is no function other than a recording secretary and they would just appoint that position because
Jan Levy has been doing that for the past several years and they can reappoint her. He said that
basically he just left the procedures to conduct a meeting.
Commissioner Gasper said that she took Barry's good work and then did some tweaking which
left the work illegible. She said that she retyped the rules and sent it by email to the
Commissioner and some did not get it.
Planning 8~ Zoning Commission
Minutes -October 9, 2000
Page 19 of 22 -APPROVED ON 10/23/00
Chairman Hart said that Commissioner Gasper's version of item #1 says that the Chairman shall
prepare the agenda for all meetings and he questioned that. She responded that presumably the
staff will actually do that but it is the Chairman's responsibility to ensure that there is an agenda
and it meets with the Chairman's approval. Commissioner Edwards asked if it wouldn't be more
correct to assign that duty to the recording secretary since Jan Levy already does that.
Commissioner Hocutt said that he believed that item #1 means not that the Chairman prepares
the agenda but makes sure that the agenda is administered for the meeting. Commissioner
Gasper said that it is not that the Chairman prepare in the sense of technically do it, as that is
covered else wear, but it means that staff does the technical preparation as has been done in the
past. Chairman Hart said that staff's version really says what the duties of the chairman are.
Commissioner Gasper said that if he wants to strike the "prepare the agenda for all meetings" she
does not see any problem with that. She said that the "shall preside at all meetings covered all
of the rest of the duties in the original.
Commissioner Hill said that the number one thing that the chairman would do and never has had
to do it is to maintain order if that is necessary to do and he recommends to leave that phrase in.
Commissioner Edwards asked where were the regulations for limiting time for speakers.
Commissioner Gasper answered that the limiting time is listed under Hearings, Section B, page
2.
Edwards asked if we could take the proposals home to look at them and ask staff to put them on
the agenda first thing next time to have a change to discuss them at the last meeting. Barry
LeBaron said that one of the things staff could do is take the differences and incorporate them
into the strike through and bold version because the way they will have to deal with the changes
is to amend the existing rules of procedures. He said that it would be nice to know what the
additions and deletions are. Commissioner Gasper said that could simply be accomplished by
strike everything after "and substitute". She said that they would not need to go through them
word by word, but they clearly need to know what the final version is. Barry LeBaron said that
they could repeal the original rules and adopt the new rules and that would be acceptable.
Commissioner Edwards said that she believes that Commissioner Gasper's version has many
good things in it, but she cannot compare them in just a few minutes. Commissioner Edwards
asked if the rules of procedure would be discussed and adopted as the first item at the next
meeting, could they immediately use the time limits? Barry LeBaron said that the way they are
worded is when they are adopted, they would go into effect at the next meeting. Commissioner
Gasper said that they could suspend the rules at their next meeting and set the guidelines for time
limits. Commissioner Hocutt said that the problem with considering the item at the beginning of
the next meet would be that it may take a long time and he wouldn't want the citizens to sit
through the discussion if they didn't want to. Commissioner Gasper said that she would
recommend that the discussion take place at the end of the meeting because it is business related
to the Commission and if citizens want to hear, that would be fine.
5. Citizens' comments regarding items not on the agenda:
Former Mayor Ed Baker, 6106 Highland Hills Drive, said that he was not here to talk about what
he was specifically instructed to talk about. He congratulated everyone sitting on the Commission.
He said that he has never attended two meetings in a row with the Commission like he as for the
last five years. He said that he wanted to go over two or three things with the Commission as he
believes they are right on target. One of the major problems that he and the Council perceived
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes -October 9, 2000
Page 20 of 22 -APPROVED ON 90/23/00
and cured in many ways in 1995 -1997, was the developer problem. He said that they cured the
problem by meeting with the developers and staff. He said that the critical issue with staff was
making sure they had timelines to follow and they were adhered to and the same way with the
developers. Mayor Baker said that the Commission heard from David Bagwell this evening and
also Kipp Whitman that there is frustration to be had. He said that this is not Highland Park,
Texas regardless of what some people like to think it is. He said that this is Colleyville, Texas and
we need revenue stream and the motion that was made for a meeting with the developer and the
staff is an excellent idea. He said that he believes that everyone can learn from this procedure
as both sides, including the citizens, the Commission, and the developer. Former Mayor Baker
said that he believes that this could be a trend oil as they have had some turmoil for the last six
months or so that has created some massive interaction problems and we need a trendsetter to
come about. He said that he watched this committee and he applauds them for working well, they
do their homework and it makes him feel good as a citizen and happy that they are doing what
they are charged to do. He said that the city is a small business, a $15 million business that is
run by a lot of volunteers and paid staff. He said that when he was Mayor, they instituted a
program called the Mayor's Hot Line and it was an open line to make sure that the people
including the developers or anyone else could call in if they had a problem. He said that it is
amazing how it worked. He said that he took two years off from his business to be Mayor and he
would take the calls and walk over to the chief of engineering or whatever department it was
related to. He said that he would talk to them about what would appear to be an issue problem
and ask them how they were going to solve it. Former Mayor Baker said that he would then go
to the City Manager and tell him what he had done. He said that he had 32 complaints the first
month and they trickled down to where he was getting one call a week. He said that he
recommended that everybody take a passion that these are our customers when they walk
through the door and we should be treating people like they are our customers when they're
paying the water bill or whatever else they are doing. He said that the City Manager and he
disagreed vehemently about that. He said that the City Manager said that you can't run a small
city like a small business, but he told him that he had been doing it for 30 years and he has been
fortunate to run some $300 million business, but it is all the same. He said that people like to be
treated nice. Mayor Baker said that David Bagwell is a quality developer, can be argumentative,
wants his own way, and it is cash driven, and an economic issue, and the Commission handled
it well. He challenged the Commission that with all of the brain power they have, they should
come up with something that would be a trendsetter in the city for awhile. He said that the city is
not in good stead with the developers right now, they think that we are an aloof group at the city
and won't work with them. He said that is not true and the Commission asked the types of
intelligent questions to Mr. Bagwell and he did not field those questions very well. He said that
he thinks they need to look at how we can interact better with the citizens and challenged
Chairman Hart to put some timelines on those things as they can get out of hand. He said that
he came to talk about something else, but felt so strongly about this issue, and saw how the
Commission act as professionals, and felt that he need to stay to give them a "Thank You" from
him as an individual and as a citizen of our city. Chairman Hart thanked Former Mayor Baker for
all he has done for the city and for addressing the Commission tonight.
Kipp Whitman, concurred with former Mayor Baker, and said that he is surprised because Mr.
Hocutt mentioned that we should bring people together and everything else. He said that he
thinks P&Z ought to be on the web site for Colleyville the same as the Council agenda. He said
that In response to the turn around time in submitting plans or bringing things to the city, it should
Planning 8~ Zoning Commission
Minutes -October 9, 2000
Page 21 of 22 -APPROVED ON 10/23/00
be a 3 - 4 week turn around like it used to be. He said that the development that is going on at
L. D. Lockett took 4 months to go through staff. He said that it was already approved and it was
four months to get the plans through and he said that he applauds the Commissioners diligence
to go through everything to deliver to council with intelligent recommendations. Mr. Whitman said
that it has gone so askew that they would like to bring more people to Colleyville,. He said that
he would like to be able to say and be proud that he has Colleyville property to offer, rather than
people saying they want something somewhere else because they don't want to go through that
nightmare. He said that they get a lot of that
Albert Lujan, 1713 Gatehouse Court, said that he stayed to talk about drainage on Hall Johnson.
He said that the city is currently doing construction and they had on two occasions that the main
line and it ended up in his front yard. He asked the Commission what he could do if there is a
new development across the street from him. He said that he doesn't believe that the city has
planned for any development with this many residents with the drainage that is currently in place.
He said that he has been talking with Chris Steubing and they had two breaks this week and a lot
of it ended up on his front yard. He said that the City has not contacted him one time to determine
what they are going to do to clean it up or make sure it won't happen again. He said that he
understands they are going to put in some French drains in the drive to the entrance of the their
subdivision, but it won't handle the drainage that is coming down from Bluebonnet Hills.
Commission Edwards said that since they can't really answer the problem, they recommended
that he stays until the meeting is over and talk to staff. Mr. Lujan said that what he wants at this
time is for the Commission to consider the new development that is being proposed today at the
north side of Hall Johnson, because the drainage alone will not handle new residents. He said
that he doesn't believe that the city ever planned to have new residents on Bluebonnet Hills
Commissioner Gasper asked Mr. Lujan if she were hearing him say that the current drainage is
presently inadequate? He said, "Absolutely, Absolutely." He said that the concrete for Hall
Johnson is currently there. Commissioner Hocutt asked if Mr. Lujan was talking about actual
runoff or actual infrastructure not being able to handle it. He said that the runoff is not being
handled as they are below Hall Johnson and it all comes in their direction and to their yard. He
said that the city can't take care of it because it's private property and therefore the burden is on
him to take care of it. Mr. LeBaron said that Mr. Lujan believes that the Commission is the City
Council. Mr. Lujan responded that the Commission can plan not to have another development
where the city drainage is not adequate and he applauds the fact that they tabled the proposal
to make sure that that they will make a prudent decision as to what they would do with it. He
asked them to not approve something that the city has not planned for a long term development
in that area..
Ruth Heidle, 1712 Gatehouse Court, said that Albert is absolutely right and he wasn't there at the
worst of the flooding, but she was. She said that she has pictures and as soon as the
Commission would want to see what was going on in their neighborhood this last week they will
show it. She said that there were two breaks in the water line that the City never bothered to
clean up after the first one other than to move the soil around to different places in the cul-de-sac.
She said that the second break was a major break with water coming up half way up their
driveway and the ironic thing was Mr. Bagwell stood in her driveway late Saturday afternoon and
said, "You mean to tell me the water was way up here? I can see this clay here." She said that
the cover that sits on top of the water meter out front got lifted up and started floating away and
that is not always as bad as it is. Ruth said that the city was out there all day trying to clean it up
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes -October 9, 2000
Page 22 of 22 -APPROVED ON 10/23/00
and they had to call them back the next day and they tried to clean up some of the mess. She
said that they didn't finish it and told the neighbors across the street that they were going to get
more water to hose down the driveway and they disappeared as it was the end of the day. She
said that they came back today and shoveled out two driveways and left all of the rest the way it
was. She said that she is tired of sweeping mud out of her garage every time there is a significant
amount of water coming down through the cul-de-sac because of stuff that is going on across the
street. She said that so far there no pavement on their road, but it is all soil that should be
absorbing the water and she dreads thinking about what will happen when Hall Johnson is paved
all the way across. She said that Albert is absolutely right and they have no idea what they have
been living through in the last 3'/2 months now. She said that the last week has been horrendous
as they've broken gas mains, broken the water main, the phone have been out once a day for the
last week and '/2 ,the t.v. cable people are out there constantly repairing and they now have wires
hanging over the fence so they don't have to go into the yards so after at 3:00 a.m. Ruth said that
this is a major disruption to their lives and not the least of such is infrastructure problems and the
drainage problems are the biggest ones. She asked if there was anything the Commission could
do, they would really appreciate it, but they have to understand that when they come into
meetings, they are very excitable because there nerves are raw from what they are going through.
She said that if it doesn't get fixed, it's not going to get any better when they put a subdivision
across the road where the City never ever planned to have one. She said that Mr. Bagwell knows
this, he's standing there and watching, and saying how horrible it is and yet he's going to go right
ahead with his plan. Ruth said that she does commend Commissioners Gasper and Edwards for
doing a wonderful job and the rest of them for asking a lot of the right questions. She said that
she has waited a long time to say this that there is one lady here who really does understand who
her customers are and that's Jan Levy. She said, "Thank you so much, Jan." (Chairman Hart
said that I should add that comment to the minutes.)
6. Staff comments, reports and discussion items: Chairman Hart asked staff about the upcoming
zoning change by Raman Chandler. Staff explained what kind of residential zoning was being
requested.
7. Commissioners' comments and reports: There were none.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Gasper moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Edwards
seconded the motion. The motion passed by acclamation.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jan Levy
Planning & Zoning Assistant
Approved on:
NOTE: As a matter of public record, an audio recording of the above Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting is available upon request.
RESOLUTION R-00-1731
A RESOLUTION APPROVING COUNCIL ACTION
UNDER BUSINESS AT THE REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING OF
NOVEMBER 8, 2000
WHEREAS, Council has taken action on certain items on the agenda under Business.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS:
Sec. 1. THAT the agenda decisions approved by Council action under Business this
date and not otherwise adopted by Ordinance and/or separate Resolution,
as follows are hereby adopted:
a. THAT
AND IT IS SO RESOLVED.
APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 2000, BY A VOTE OF
AYES, NAYS, AND ABSTENTIONS.
ATTEST: CITY OF COLLEYVILLE
Cynthia Singleton Donna Arp
City Secretary Mayor