Loading...
Min - Planning and Zoning Commission - 1996 - 12/12 - RegularALLEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING December 12, 19% Commission Members Present: Kenneth Folk, Chairman Susan Bardemay Pamela Smith Jeff McGregor (arrived 7:35 p m.) Jeffery Kelley Bruce Heller Commission Members Absent: Ross Obermeyer City Staff Present: Bill Petty, Director of Community Development Tom Keener, Development Coordinator George Conner, Director of Public Works Dan Tracy, Civil Engineer Sally Leeper, Administrative Assistant With a quorum of the Commissioners present, the Allen Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order at 7.30 p in. by Chairman Fulk at the City Council Chambers, Allen Library, Two Allen Civic Plaza, Allen, Texas. Consent Agenda (Agenda Item Ill) MOTION: Upon a motion by Commissioner Bartlemay and a second by Commissioner Heller, the Commission voted 5 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve and adopt all items on the Consent Agenda as recommended and as follows: A. Approve minutes of November 14, 1996, Regular Meeting, B. Final Plat - Consider Replat Approval for Mr. Tom Engle, Eureka Investments, Inc., for Edwin Place Addition, being 1.72 acres of land, a replat of Lot 3, Block A, Original Town of Allen, Collin County, Texas; further described as being located on Allen Drive north of Coats Drive. I PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1996 PAGE 2 C. Final Plat - Consider Final Plat Approval for Bethany Ridge Limited Partnership for Bethany Ridge Estates Addition, being 28.634 acres of land located in the John Snider Survey, Abstract No. 848, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; further described as being located south of Bethany Drive and east of Allen Heights Drive. Tabled Item Unprotected Tree List (Agenda Item III) Chairman Folk read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Tabled Item - Consider Amendment to List of Unprotected Trees in Section 3.05 of Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance No. 1425-5-96 to add Chinaberry Tree." MOTION. Upon a motion by Commissioner Heller and a second by Commissioner Bartlemay, the Commission voted 5 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to remove Agenda Item III from the table. Mr Conner presented a letter from the City's consulting arborist, whose recommendation was to require all mature chinaberry species to be protected under City of Allen Tree Ordinance. Because of this recommendation, no further action was taken on this request Tabled Item Ptimeco Personal Communications (Agenda Item IV) Chairman Folk read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Tabled Item - Consider a request by Primeco Personal Communications to allow a Microwave Radio Tower by Specific Use Permit, with site plan approval, on the Community Facilities Tract of Planned Development No. 56, being a 0 022 -acre tract of land situated in Abstract 416, John Huffman Survey, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; further described as being located south of McDermott Drive on Custer Road adjacent to the Custer Hill Addition." Chairman Fulk reviewed the previous discussions held on this request. Mr. Bill Petty advised that the City has hired the new Senior Planner, who will begin work as of January 6, 1997 Her name is Ms. Marcie Diamond. Mr. Petty indicated he would like to clarify the fact that the City of Allen is not pushing for approval of this request. He stated that the proponent has approached the City with a request to place an antennae on top of the future water tower. They are now asking for a monopole in the interim period of time. At the time they first requested this monopole, it was to be 100' in height. The request is now for 125', and there are now a number of homes constructed in the area. They were advised that if this requested was granted, the City would lease the property to them; with the intent of placing the antennae on the future water tower. The City signed the application as property owner, but is not acting as the proponent PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1996 PAGE 3 Tabled Item Primeco Personal Communications (Cont.) (genda Item IV) Mr. Petty discussed the question of ownership of this property He stated that in 1994, the water tower site was included in the zoning requested and allowed as a part of the open space requirement of the PD It was agreed that when any portion of the PD (commercial or residential) was platted, the water tower site would be dedicated to the City In the event the water tower was not platted and dedicated to the City prior to the City's need, the owner agreed to dedicate the site at that time. There is additional text returning the property to the owner if the water tower was not built within two years, to be again dedicated at the time of platting of any portion of the development. A finding of the Commission at that time was that the dedication of the water tower site was a strong reason that the density was given to this property Mr Petty provided copies of the minutes of the Commission and Council meetings regarding this request, as well as copies of the PD Ordinance and Special Warranty Deed dedicating the property to the City It is his opinion that the site belongs to the City of Allen, and ownership should not be a consideration in this case. The question to be evaluated is the use of the land. MOTION: Upon a motion by Commissioner Heller and a second by Commissioner McGregor, the Commission voted 6 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to remove Agenda item IV from the table. Chairman Fulk reviewed issues regarding height and location of the proposed monopole. Commissioner Smith expressed concern regarding the CF regulations regarding height, which is the limit of the most permissive adjacent zoning district (in this case 35'). Mr. George Conner indicated that the future water tower will be approximately the same size as the Rowlett Tower; 175-185' It is close to 100' in diameter. Commissioner Kelley indicated that it appears a water tower will be on the site soon, and does not understand the objection to the temporary pole which will be much smaller and lower than the future water tower Commissioner Smith indicated that the connection between a water tower and the monopole should not be considered the same; the pole requires a Specific Use Permit, and the water tower is allowed by right. The water tower is a necessary City utility to be used for City services. She does not feel it is appropriate in the back yard of these residents Chairman Fulk questioned whether terms and conditions would be appropriate to make Commissioner Smith comfortable with this user He questioned whether Mr Conner felt the location of the pole could be moved? Mr. Conner indicated it needed to be around the perimeter of the property; not in the interior. Mr. Pat Atkins, Tipton Engineering, representing Mr. John Baker, current owner of the property, presented a letter from Mr. Baker and the homebuilders in this development expressing opposition to the request. He stated that Mr Baker is in agreement that the ownership of the property lies with the City He explained that they had visited with City staff and were now in agreement that there is no question regarding the ownership of the property They did not previously have the background of this zoning case available to them, and now they are in agreement with staff regarding the ownership. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1996 PAGE 4 Tabled Item Primeco Personal Communications (Cont) (Agenda Item IV) Mr. Atkins provided a copy of the survey plat that all potential home buyers have signed indicating that they are aware that a water tower will be built on the property in the future. He requested that the proposal be denied. Commissioner Smith indicated that if the Commission approves the request, she would request that no other antennae be allowed to be placed at the top of the pole; also there should be time restrictions on the pole, and on the removal of the pole when the water tower is constructed. Commissioner Heller discussed the fact that uses of property tend to change from time to time. He was not opposed to the request, assuming that appropriate restrictions are placed on the pole Commissioner McGregor questioned whether there were residents immediately adjacent to the site at this time Mr Atkins indicated there were, however, it is corrected later in the meeting that there are none at this time within 200 feet of the property Commissioner McGregor stated that he was not comfortable with changing the rules on the property, when the representation was for a water tower site only Commissioner Bartlemay stated she would be opposed to the monopole if there was not going to be a water tower on the property; however, these residents have purchased property with the knowledge that a larger water tower would be built and this request is for a much smaller structure. The Specific Use Permit process allows this use She was in support of the request with some restrictions. Chairman Folk reviewed the issues: 1. Height, less than the future water tower 2. Subleasing? Mr. Willie Cothmm, Primeco, indicated that the monopole could be constructed at 100 feet in length if that is the desire of the Commission. He offered to locate the monopole wherever the City's Engineering staff would desire. He stated he feels although this is not a publicly owned service, it does provide a needed service. Regarding subleasing, he indicated they have no intention to sublease the monopole for additional antennae. He stated that would agree to a time restriction being "after the water tower is erected." The monopole could be removed within 90 days after completion of the water tower and the City gives permission to locate the antennae on the tower He indicated that there are no homes adjacent to this property The wind rating of the tower is 70 MPH, consistent with National standards and building codes. Mr Mark Maloof, structural engineer, stated that there is no need to increase the wind rating No lights will be on the tower The FAA will not require lights. Chairman Folk questioned Mr. Conner as to the appropriate location of the monopole. Mr. Conner stated it could be located along the perimeter; however, the proposed location would allow a cluster affect with the existing utility facilities (L.S. Gas and SW Bell). PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1996 PAGE 5 Tabled Item Primeco Personal Communications (Cont) (Agenda Item IV) Commissioner Heller asked if the proponent would agree to a specific time limit should the City elect to never construct the tower Mr. Cothrum stated this would be very difficult without an immediate replacement close by Mr. Conner indicated the tower could be built within 8 years MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Bartlemay and seconded by Commissioner Heller to approve the request by Primeco Personal Communications with the following restrictions: 1. Height to be limited to 100' 2. Wind rating to be 70 MPH 3. Monopole to be removed within 120 days after City gives permission to locate the antennae on the tower. 4 Any lighting on the tower would be approved by the City 5 Tower is not to be subleased to any other entity without City Council approval. 6. Location of the tower to be moved interior to the lot if this can be accomplished per the City Engineer 7 Landscaping approved per site plan submitted, to be irrigated and maintained. 8. The Company's phone carrier needs to have a franchise with the City There was considerable discussion on the fact that this request is not temporary, but permanent to be used during the interim prior to construction of the water tower. Mr. Cothrum indicated that a specific time limit would be difficult for him to agree to. Mr. Petty indicated that he is working with law firms regarding model ordinances regarding this type of cellular tower He suggested there is some question regarding franchising agreements and the local telephone provider. He stated the City would need to know that the provider to Primeco has a franchise agreement with Allen. Mr Cothrum stated their provider is the local carrier. Mr John Lopez indicated that the service provider would have a franchise with the City The Commission voted 4 FOR and 2 OPPOSED and the motion carried. MAJORITY FINDINGS. 1. Tower, at 100', located toward the interior of the site appears to be compatible to adjacent uses compared to the future location of a water tower 2. The use is allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The ultimate location of the antennae on top of the water tower far outweighs the objectionable temporary use of the monopole. 4. Although privately owned, this will serve a large portion of the public. 5. This use was discussed during the revision of the Zoning Ordinance and was accommodated. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1996 PAGE 6 Tabled Item Pattern Personal Communications (Cont) (Agenda Item IV) MINORITY FINDINGS. I. The intent of the use of CF is questionable as to private use being acceptable or desired. 2. The use is inappropriate in this location based on adjacent zoning. 3 The use is inappropriate because of the height restrictions on CF districts. 4 It is uncertain as to the temporary nature of the monopole; possibly 8 years before the water tower is constructed Public Hearing Amended to P D 31 - Standridee (Agenda Item V) Chairman Falk read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Public Hearing - Consider a request by Stacy Sumdridge - Othel, Inc., representing Tatum Othel, LTD & North Texas Conference of the United Methodist Church, to amend Planned Development No 31 by increasing its geographic limits and to establish zoning of Community Facilities uses on Tract 1-B, Local Retail on Tracts 1-A and 2-A, and Single -Family (R-2) on Tract 2-B. The property is 16.515 acres of land out of the Joab Butler Survey, Abstract No 47, Alfred Slack Survey, Abstract No. 854, Joseph H. Wilcox Survey, Abstract No 1017, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; further described as being located east and west of Suncreek Blvd And south of McDermott Drive " Mr Tom Keener presented the request to the Commission. It is located directly opposite of Twin Creeks Drive. Watters Crossing III is located to the east across Tatum Drive. The Methodist Church property is located to the west, and zoned A -O. The property is nearly treeless The retail tract is being increased and the office tract is being removed CF zoning is proposed west of Suncreek Blvd south of the retail tract. A parcel of the retail tract east of Suncreek Blvd. Is being restricted for a day care or office use. The traffic study was submitted and reviewed by the City's traffic consultant. Mr. Keener indicated that staff feels the proposal allows the elimination of possible strip zoning along the eastern side of Suncreek Blvd. Mr. Stacy Standridge, proponent, indicated that the proposed day care/office tract could increase to 1.3 acres if the day care occupies the property, which will reduce the retail by 0.5 acre. Tract lA was originally proposed to the City as CF rather than retail. Commissioner Banlemay questioned the distance to Alma and the relationship between this intersection and the one at Alma with regard to the retail uses. Commissioner Smith indicated that she also had a concern about this amount of retail at this location. There would possibly be a strip development on the west side of Suncreek Blvd. r PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION r DECEMBER 12, 1996 PAGE 7 Public Hearing Amended to P D 31 - Standridge (Cont.) (Agenda Item V) Mr. Joel Robuck has indicated that there will be a 100' -median at McDermott on Suncreek Blvd. A traffic light will be located at this intersection, but not at Tatum Drive Mr. Bill Petty provided the Commission with a history of the zoning on this property He advised the Commission that he was opposed to the retail on the west side of Suncreek Blvd., however, this proposal does shorten the depth of the existing retail and office. He stated he is concerned about a height limit on the day care/office tract, and the uses to be allowed on the CF tract. The Commission should consider whether this should be restricted to church uses. He requested that at the time of platting of any of the properties, the required additional right-of-way to accommodate the traffic consultant's recommendations, be dedicated to the City Commissioner McGregor discussed the percentage of commercial allowed in Neighborhood District 21. Chairman Fulk opened the public hearing. Mr. Stacy Standridge, No. 3 Wooded Lane, Allen, Texas, representing a co -applicant to the case, spoke in favor of the request. He indicated that there are agreements in place between himself and the Methodist �I Church and Bon Terre. Mr. Joel Robuck, 3816 Bryn Mawr, Dallas, Texas 75225, spoke regarding the request. He discussed the opportunity to make sure that W McDermott Drive is developed properly He discussed issues related to a question of fencing along Tatum Drive in Watters Crossing III. He provided copies of the proposed agreement on this property (Suncreek North) dated August 14, 1996, and stated that Item No. 10 states that this agreement should have been filed of record immediately after closing of the property by Mr. Standridge, and this has not been done. The proposed agreement between the owners does not include the southwest corner of McDermott and Suncreek He requested that the Commission consider these issues and the traffic study recommendations, remembering that this is the front door to both Twin Creeks and Suncreek developments. Mr. Sherwood Blunt, Amend Group, representing the Methodist Church, 8150 N. Central, Dallas, Texas 75206, stated he was available for questions. Mr. Art De'Antremont, 106 San Mateo, Allen, Texas, expressed concerns of the Watters Crossing community regarding the need for a fence along the eastern side of Tatum Drive. He stated he feels the proposed uses, as well as the proposed middle school, will increase the traffic on Tatum greatly With no one else wishing to speak for or against the request, Chairman Falk closed the public hearing. The Commission discussed issues relating to the intended use of Tract 1B, and Mr. Blount stated that the intention is for the property owner to sell or give the acreage to the Methodist Church. They are agreeing to deed restrict the property along with the Standridge portion of this request. He added he would agree to restrict Tract 1B to church and church related uses. PLANNING 8, ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 1996 PAGE 8 Public Hearing Amended to P D 31 - Standridge (Cont.) (Agenda Item V) Chairman Folk indicated he felt the proposed single family on the east side of Suncreek appears to be appropriate. He questioned Tract 2A and the use of office as opposed to garden office. Commissioner Heller expressed concern regarding the proposal in that the proposed deed restrictions are not a part of the zoning proposal, and are not filed at this time. Mr. Standridge stated he is prepared to include these restrictions as part of the submission. Commissioner Smith indicated she felt the request should be tabled until the issues included in the proposed deed restrictions are finalized and made a part of this zoning submission. Mr Petty reviewed the fact that deed restrictions are not enforceable by the City He added that he feels the southwest comer of Suncreek is appropriate for the church, however, that zoning is A -O at this time, and A -O zoning does not secure the property for a church. Mr. Standridge advised he was willing to include the deed restrictions in the submission and to add the A-0 tract in question to the proposal. MOTION. Upon a motion by Commissioner Heller and a second by Commissioner Smith, the Commission voted 6 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to table the request by Stacy Standridge. The Commission discussed the proposal in view of giving direction to the proponent. They discussed E whether the retail should be located at Suncreek and McDermott or whether this should be changed to CF since the retail in the PD is being increased in Tract 2A. Mr. Blount stated he would be agreeable to the limitations of Tract 2A and 1B, but requested that the retail zoning be allowed on Tract IA. He is, however, willing to limit the uses on the retail tract to bank/office type uses. Commissioner McGregor questioned whether the A-0 zoning to the west could be made a part of this request as CF zoning Mr Blount stated he would include this property in the submission. This would not include the existing Evans residential tract. Mr. Blount agreed that the request will be amended to 1. Add the A -O as CF/church and related uses. 2. Tract IA will be restricted to bank and/or office type uses. 3. Use and area regulations will be included in the proposal. 4. The height of the office/day care tract will be limited to one story 5. A new land use plan will be submitted. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION November 14, 1996 Page 9 OTHER BUSINESS. The next agenda will include a zoning request on the southeast corner of Malone Road and Exchange Parkway ADJOURN MOTION: Upon a motion by Commissioner Heller and a second by Commissioner McGregor, the Commission voted 6 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to adjourn the December 12, 1996, meeting at 11:05 p.m. These minutes approved this day of 1997 Fulk, Chairman I Ross Obermeyer,