Loading...
Min - Planning and Zoning Commission - 1999 - 01/28 - RegularALLEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 28, 1999 ATTENDANCE: Commission Members Present: Ross Obermeyer, Chairman Jeff McGregor, Vice -Chairman Jeffrey Kelley Pamela Smith, Secretary (arrived 7:35 p.m.) Mark Pacheco Kevin M. Kerr Scott Neice Commission Members Absent: None City Staff Present: Marcie Diamond, Senior Planner Pam Conway, Secretary George Conner, Director Public Works Dan Tracy, Civil Engineer Don Horton, Director Parks & Recreation WORKSHOP MEETING CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM: With a quorum of the Commission Members present, the Allen Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:09 p.m., by Chairman Obermeyer, at the City Council Chambers, Allen Public Library, Two Allen Civic Plaza, Allen, Texas. Discussion was held regarding the City Council's current activities relating to revitalization of the city's boards and commissions. The City Council's appointed ad-hoc committee has prepared draft by-laws for the Planning and Zoning Commission Ms. Marcie Diamond stated the Planning Commission could submit their comments on the proposed by-laws to the City Council for their consideration. Term limits for the Commission were noted as one of the by-laws being recommended. Chairman Obenmeyer stated he would like the Commission to review these by- laws and give their comments/input/opinions. Commission Member Pacheco questioned the intent of the Chaparral/S.H 5 request concerning the City's desire to revise the Comprehensive Plan and rezone that area. Ms. Diamond stated that the City Council had instructed the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and determine proper zoning. She further stated that it would he also appropriate to review the NP Comprehensive Plan recommendations so that the proposed zoning would be in conformance with the Plan. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 28, 1999 It was noted by Ms. Pam Conway that there was a clerical error on page I 1 of the January 14, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission minutes, and that it would be corrected. Ms. Diamond stated that she distributed a letter of opposition to the Commission from the First United Methodist Church regarding the Kwik Industries item. REGULAR MEETING Consent Agenda Agenda Item II Chairman Obermeyer read the consent agenda into the record as follows. Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of January 14, 1999, Regular Meeting. PAGE B. Final Plat — Consider a request by D.R. Horton -Texas Ltd. for a final plat for Glendover Park Phase III, being 23.628 ± acres of land located in the Mary Standifer Survey, Abstract No. 812 in the City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; further described as being located at the northeast corner of Glendover Drive and City Road 146. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Pacheco and a second by Commission Member Kerr, the Commission voted 7 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve the consent agenda with the correction of the minutes to read "Chairman Obermeyer" on page 11, 1" sentence of Agenda Item VIII. The Motion carried. COMBINATION PLAT The Promised Land Addition Agenda Item III Chairman Obenneyer read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Combination Plat - Consider a request by Jeffery Wood and Randy Friemel for a combination plat for The Promised Land Addition, being 3.1318 ± acres of land located in the 1.T Roberts Survey, Abstract 777, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; further described as being located north of Buckingham Lane and east of S H. 5." Ms. Diamond presented the item to the Commission She stated that the Buckingham Lane right-of-way was previously dedicated by a separate plat. A tree inventory indicates that all trees are less than 6" in caliper; therefore, a tree survey was not required. The staff recommends approval as submitted. Commission Member Pacheco stated that there appears to be an existing power line on the property and should that be noted on the plat as an easement? Ms. Diamond stated that it would be added before it is submitted for filing if that is a condition of approval. Dr. Jeffrey Wood, 1113 Sandy Creek, Allen, stated that he would agree to adding the easement before the filing of the plat. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 3 January 28,1999 Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member McGregor and a second by Commission Member Pacheco, the Commission voted 7 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve the plat with the condition that the power line easement is added before the plat is filed at the county. The Motion carried. PRELIMINARY PLAT Arbor Lakes Addition Anemia Item IV Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Consider a request by Reid Family Enterprises, Ltd, for a preliminary plat for Arbor Lakes Addition, being 46.365 ±acres of land located in part of the D.B. Hearne Survey, Abstract No. 427, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; further described as being located at the southwest comer of Bethany Drive and F.M. 2551:' Ms. Diamond presented the item to the Commission. She stated that before the time of final platting the size of the ponds would be determined. She also stated that over half of the open space will be adjacent to a single loaded street. A maintenance easement for a screening wall was identified along Bethany Dr. and FM 2551. This wall would be on private property and maintained by the Home Owners Association. Staff recommends approval as submitted. Ron Haynes, owner and developer, 17817 Davenport Road, Dallas, stated that he understands that he has met all the requirements of the zoning on this property. The trees on the property are on the south property line along a tree row, and 99 percent are Hackberry trees. Mr. Haynes stated that Hackberry trees are very disease prone, they don't live very long, and tend to blow down. He also noted that they don't have a deep root system, and they can pose some danger. Mr. Haynes stated that they are dedicating half the right-of-way (R.O. W ) on this property and another property owner is dedicating the other half of the R.O. W This R.O.W goes along the tree line. The elementary school proposed to be located on this property is due to open fall of 2000, so they need to proceed with this development. Mr. Haynes stated that the ponds were being created for retention to slow down the water, and also acts as an amenity. More than 50% of the streets are single loaded along those ponds. Chairman Obermeyer questioned Mr. Haynes regarding the calculation of the open space. Mr Haynes stated that they have tried to tum a negative into a positive. Another option would be to have an open ditch to allow for the flow and distribution of the water; however, the ponds are more aesthetically pleasing. Commission Member Smith stated that in the zoning of this property, based on our development standards, 50% of the open space shall be bounded by single loaded streets. She stated that the middle section is not single loaded streets. Mr. Haynes stated that he presented this very preliminary plat to the City Council, and feels that this meets the interpretation of the 50%. Commission Member Smith again stated that her interpretation is that 50% of the lake open space should be bounded by single loaded streets. The middle section does not have 50% PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 4 January 28, 1999 Commission Member Kelley stated that his interpretation is that Mr. Haynes has more than 50% of the open space bounded by single loaded streets. Ms. Diamond stated that she was also at the City Council meeting, and the applicant did have the preliminary plat available for discussion. The intent of the City Council is being reflected on the plat. Commission Member Kerr stated that it seems that they are saying that half of the length of the street has to be single loaded streets. He would support this plan. Commission Member Kelley stated that although he was not at the Council meeting, he felt that the intent of the Council is that half of the land shall have single loaded streets. He agreed with staff s recommendation for approval. Commission Member McGregor stated that he remembered the discussion of shifting lakes, and the alignment of the streets at the Planning & Zoning meeting. He can understand Commission Member Smith's idea, and he can also see the other side. Given the way the development standards are written, he believes that the plat is in conformance. Commission Member Smith stated that she remembered the discussion; however, the City Council has the final decision. Commission Member Pacheco stated he understands the confusion; however, he also concurs with the staffs recommendation. Commission Member Neice also is in agreement with the staffs recommendation. Commission Member Smith would like to require some clarification from City Council, because she has a land use plan, which is attached to the approved ordinance, and she believes this is not in conformance. Commission Member Smith questioned that if this land use plan is part of the ordinance, is it valid or not? Ms. Diamond stated that we are indeed venturing down a new road requiring concept plans with the zoning, and the interpretation of "conformance." Specific criteria will be part of the revisions to the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Obermeyer stated that we would get an opinion from our legal staff if necessary Commission Member McGregor again questioned Commission Member Smith on how she is looking at the open space and the calculation of single loaded streets. Commission Member Smith stated that with the concept plan it was clear to her what the City Council's intent was. She asked Don Horton , Director of Parks and Recreation, if it was his understanding that the Hike and Bike trail would be in back yards. Mr. Horton stated that his concern was that we didn't create another Shadow Lakes. That is still his position. He stated that he is concerned about the portion in the middle. He also stated that is was clear at Council meeting that that would not be a single loaded street. His understanding of the single loaded streets was 50% or more of the perimeter of the development would be single loaded streets. He felt it was made very clear. Commission Member Kelley stated that there is some leeway given in planning regarding the land use plan. "Generally" does not mean exact. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 28, 1999 PAGES Mr. Horton stated that this plan is much better than the original plan regarding the parks and the trail systems. The detention ponds will be reviewed by him prior to final design. Ms. Diamond stated that one condition that was added was wrought iron fencing adjacent to the ponds Commission Member Pacheco stated that he calculated the numbers on the open space and no matter how you look at it, it meets the 50% open space Chairman Obermeyer stated that it appears to be "generally" in conformance Commission Member Smith discussed the fence row and stated that there is an ordinance covering this. She stated that in zoning, it was realized that this fence row was there. Why didn't the Commission address that in the zoning process, if we wanted to overlook the tree section of the ordinance? Ms. Diamond stated that in the future we would ask to see "tree masses" with Planned Development Districts. We need to know where the trees are earlier in the process, however, this it is not a requirement today This will be part of the zoning ordinance review and revisions. Commission Member Smith stated that we do not have the prerogative to dismiss an existing ordinance Chairman Obermeyer asked Commission Member Smith if she believed that the tree row was valuable to the City of Allen. Commission Member Smith answered yes, she believed it adds value to the City of Allen She also stated that we need a ruling if the ordinances apply She believes she is here to follow the rules, not pick them apart. Commission Member Kerr questioned if the Commission has the authority to dismiss the tree ordinance9 Chairman Obenneyer read page 3.8 1, Section G, Number (7) from the Tree preservation section of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Commission Member McGregor read also that it stated that" . in residential areas shall be preserved. " Commission Member Kerr stated that he would go on record that he is not in favor of the tree preservation section of the Zoning Ordinance. He believes that in the future, subdivisions will be over -treed. He stated that engineering problems can be caused by leaving the fence row. Mr. Haynes stated that the school could take out all the trees on their property if that's their desire. Commission Member Kerr stated that he liked the plan, he knows that Mr. Haynes has worked with all the departments (staff) to make this work. Commission Member Kelley asked if there was something in the ordinance regarding the removal of trees for the R O.W ? He stated that this is clearly, although well -intended, where the ordinance fails. Commission Member McGregor stated that the Zoning Ordinance addresses tree rows and the removal of such next to alleys. He asked Mr. Conner about the alignment of Shelly Drive. Commission Member McGregor stated that this is a dilemma, this plan is in direct contradiction with the tree ordinance, yet the road will kill all the trees anyway Ms. Diamond agreed. Commission Member Pacheco agreed with Commission Member Kerr that the ordinance doesn't really make sense in this case; however, we still have the ordinance and it is very clear. Mr. Conner asked what do we do when one side of the tree row is residential and one side is commercial? PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 6 January 28, 1999 Commission Member Ker asked Mr. Conner when a street is a residential street versus a collector' Mr. Conner stated that a collector street collects traffic from the residential streets. Commission Member Neice asked Mr. Horton if he was comfortable with the drainage system. Mr Horton stated that he was concerned about how it would be developed so it would be maintainable. He stated that he wanted some input into the design. Commission Member Kerr stated that this fence row is not within the residential development, it is on the edge creating a problem for development and therefore he could support this request. Motion: A motion was made by Commission Member Kelley and seconded by Commission Member Kerr to approve the request. Discussion: Chairman Obermeyer stated that he wanted to be sure that it is legal to approve a plat which goes against the tree section of the Zoning Ordinance Commission Member Kerr stated that if we approve this plat and find out this is not legal, the process of filing the plat would be stopped. Ms. Diamond stated that considering this is a preliminary plat, it could be approved with a condition of approval by the City Attorney Commission Member Kelley agreed to modify his motion, and Commission Member Kerr agreed to modify his second. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Kelley and a second by Commission Member Kerr, the Commission voted 4 FOR and 3 OPPOSED to approve the request with the condition that the plat be subject to being legal (regarding the trees) as determined by the City Attorney. Commission Member's Smith, McGregor and Neice were opposed. The Motion carried. Chairman Obermeyer stated that he doesn't want to go against an ordinance on purpose, but he stated that it is his opinion that this tree line is of no benefit to the City of Allen. PRELIMINARY PLAT Country Brook Estates Agenda Item V Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Consider a request by D.R. Cameron & Assoc. for a preliminary plat for Country Brook Estates, being 68.198 ± acres of land located in the Gabriel Fitzhugh Survey, Abstract No 318, and the George Fitzhugh Survey, Abstract No. 320, in the City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; further described as being located south of Stacy Road and west of F.M 1378." Ms. Diamond presented the item to the Commission. As required in the Planned Development, this plat contains a variety of lot sizes from 40,000 to 18,000 square foot lots. A NTMWD easement is shown within and adjacent to a collector street. A tree survey is included. The northern edge contains two thatched areas which are a part of a land trade with Lovejoy School District. A portion of this land is not currently annexed into the City of Allen, but will be prior to the final platting of Phase 11 of this PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 28, 1999 PAGE development. She noted that the City has the authority to approve a preliminary plat in this area which is currently in our E.T.J. 3 Staff recommends approval subject to the property being annexed prior to final plat of Phase II. Doyle Cameron, the proponent, stated that he is available for any questions. Commission Member Pacheco stated on the southern boundary, lots 26 & 27 block A (Winding Way Lane) are very small lots. His understanding from the zoning is that larger lots should be used around the perimeter. It doesn't meet the intent to buffer Forest Grove Estates. Warren Corwin stated that this was prepared by another Land Planer and he did not know what the dimensions were. Commission Member Pacheco stated that these are very small lots next to the very large lots. Chairman Obermeyer asked if they could just become one lot. Warren Corwin stated that Mr Cameron would have a problem with that, he feels he has already given all he can give Mr Corwin stated that at final plat he would try to improve that small lot situation. Commission Member McGregor stated that a divided entryway on Country Way was discussed in zoning that has not made it to the Preliminary Plat. Ms. Diamond stated that on the concept plan that landscaping was shown and was attached to the ordinance approving the zoning and she stated that it needs to be a part of the final plat. Mr. Corwin stated that he would provide that at the time of final plat. Commission Member Kelley stated his concern is the buffer intent for Forest Grove Estates. He again encouraged the proponent to work with those two lots mentioned earlier. Technically there is a buffer there, but visually, there is not. Commission Member Kerr stated that on Teasbend Lane that there are some real square turns. He questioned if the Fire Marshall had given his approval. Ms Diamond stated that it was discussed at TRC and has been approved, although that situation is not seen very often. Commission Member Smith stated that her issue was the entry median, and as long as that will be included on the final plat, she had no others concerns. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Kelley and a second by Commission Member Pacheco the Commission voted 7 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve the request subject to Teasbury being changed to Turnberry, enlarge Lot 26, or at least reconfigure that lot to pull it away from Forest Grove Estates; provide the entry feature which is shown on the approved zoning exhibit; and the annexation �! must be completed prior to final plat for Phase 2 of the Cdevelopment. The Motion carried. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 28, 1999 PAGES PUBLIC HEARING Wynne/Jackson — Fitz Gerald -Wolfe Property Agenda Item VI Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda item into the record as follows. "Consider a request for zoning action by Wynne/Jackson Inc., for a Planned Development District for R-5 Single Family Residential. The property is 32.152 t acres of land located in the H. Brandenburg Survey, Abstract 110, and the J. W Parson Survey, Abstract No. 705, further described as being located north of Exchange and east of C.R. 146." Ms. Diamond presented the item to the commission. She reviewed the surrounding zoning and development. She stated that this request mirrors the development regulations of PD 72. Provisions have also been made for dedication of the flood plain, right -of way dedication, and a Facilities Agreement prior to platting. Staff is recommending approval given its compatibility with the surrounding zoning and development patterns. Frank Murphy, Wynne Jackson, 600 North Pearl, Dallas, stated that his proposed zoning is in conformances with PD 72 regulations to allow for the eastern section to be developed with the property to the north (PD 72) and the western portion with the Glendover subdivision to the south. Chairman Obermeyer Opened the Public Hearing. With no one else wishing to speak for or against the request, the Public Hearing was closed. Commission Member Kelley questioned Mr. Murphy if he saw any problems when PD 54 develops, and further inquired as to why he didn't choose to use the PD 54 Development Standards. Mr. Murphy stated that this plan seemed more favorable. Commission Member Smith asked Mr Murphy about the dedication of the flood plain. Mr. Murphy responded that the flood plain would be dedicated at the time of platting. Commission Member Smith asked about the single loaded street in PD 72. Mr. Murphy stated that to the west of the creek is a sanitary sewer easement A considerable amount of land has been taken out of development. No home will back up to the flood plain, which will allow hike and bike trails to run along the creek. The side of a house may abut the floodplain. Mr Don Horton stated that he would want to see how the roads align at time of platting. Commission Member McGregor stated that it is an unusual tract. All of his questions have been answered. Commission Member Smith asked about density Ms. Diamond stated that the densities proposed are in the ranges proposed for the Neighborhood District, and are actually less than what is permitted to the southeast and mirrors the density on the northwest Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Smith and a second by Commission Member McGregor the Commission voted 7 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve the request as submitted with the condition that no homes shall back up to the flood plain; however, they may side to the flood plain. The Motion carried. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 9 January 28, 1999 Findings: I Land uses are compatible. 2. Density meets the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. 3 Allows a leave -out parcel to be developed with adjoining property TABLEDITEM Allen Central II Joint Venture Agenda Item VII Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Consider a request for zoning action by Allen Central H Joint Venture, to amend the uses permitted in Tract IE of Planned Development District No. 26 to add private recreation facilities as an allowable use in this commercial district, subject to the attached concept site plan. The property is 5.36 ± acres of land located in the Michael Lee Survey, Abstract No. 543, Collin County, City of Allen, Texas; further described as being located south of McDermott and west of Watters Road." Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member McGregor and a second by Commission Member Smith the Commission voted 7 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to remove the item from the table. The Motion carried. Chairman Obermeyer stated that although the public hearing at the last meeting was closed, he received speaker cards for tonight's meeting and would allow those to speak. It was then noted that the only cards completed were by the applicants: Patrick Rhamey, 6031 Burgundy, Dallas Bill Dahlstrom, 8333 Douglas Ave, Dallas Dave Denison, representing the Stratford Group, managing partners with Allen Central, and owner the subject property and the property to the east Mr. Denison stated that this property is under contract He would like to address the concerns expressed at the last meeting by the Commission Members regarding better uses for this property Mr. Denison stated that Allen Central 1I has owned this property for several years. It has been on the market for about 4 years. The size and topography is prohibitive for a church, which was the only type of interest in those 4 years. The frontage on McDermott is 224 ft. and there is a drainage easement (20 ft. wide on the front, 100 feet deep), which cannot be built on. The only place for access is on the east line of the property That is a limitation. There has been some interest on the front of the property, but none on the back portion. Further compounding the limitations is the 25 feet of fall (slope) on the property and some flood plain. Again, this is a difficult tract. Mr. Denison continued and stated that there are various allowable uses on this tract such as office buildings, boat dealers, new auto sales or used, office show rooms, hotel rooms, commercial amusements- indoor, or department or discount stores which may not be desirable. He hopes to convince the Commission that this is the best use for the property. Patrick Rhamey, 6031 Burgundy, Dallas, the prospective purchaser stated that they intent to develop a product on the property that is a good use for the property. Mr. Rhamey showed slides of examples of product they developed on the adjoining property which is currently zoned for multifamily The product in Allen would rent for approximately $1150 per month. He stated this multifamily PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 28, 1999 PAGE 10 development will all be developed in the Town Home style. All front doors will be on the ground floor. One and two car garages would be available Bill Dahlstrom, 8333 Douglas Ave., Suite 900, Dallas, stated that basically the request is to put recreation facilities for this multifamily use on the commercial/retail tract The leasing office is already permitted on the tract by the existing zoning. Mr. Dahlstrom presented a slide show which included the Parks and Open Space section of the City's Comprehensive Plan and that this area in the greenbelt area. He stated that his site provides the buffer between the high-density developments and the residential in Watters Crossing. He further showed a slide of an aerial view of the property and pointed out the trees, multifamily, and the residential developments which surround the property. He stated that 200 multifamily units are all they are proposing. Again, this is a town home style community; 100 percent ground floor entry There will be no massive parking lots. A composite site plan was shown, including an internal trail system that would access the trail system in the flood plain. He also stated that they are asking to add a recreation area use to PD 26. Such uses may include swimming pools, a club house, spas, open space, and others. A slide of recreation area examples was presented. Supervision, maintenance and life safety were among the issues identified as to why they wanted the recreation facilities next to the leasing office. Mr. Dahlstrom stated that they met with Ms. Diamond today, and they worked out a better plan for open space. He stated that some work still needs to be done; however, they can achieve the required open space within the multifamily tract. Mr. Dahlstrom stated that this is a better use because, (1) It enhances the adjacent greenbelt (2) Lowers intensity along Watters Creek (3) Allows for a large tree save (4) Accommodates a trail head for the hike and bike trail (5) Traffic volume will be much less than with an alternate use (6) Limits higher intensity commercial use to the northern portion of the tract (7) It's a more compatible use adjacent to the Watters Crossing single family development Chairman Obermeyer noted that this is zoning to amend the allowable uses in Tract IE of P.D. 26. Commission Member McGregor complimented the proponents on their presentation, and the product they are developing. His only opposition is the appearance of expanding the multifamily — the private facilities are being moved offsite. Commission Member Pacheco stated the presentation shows a quality development. He can see the reasoning behind the request, however, he can remember the feedback from the residents opposed to increased multifamily development. This is expanding the multifamily area Commission Member Neice asked if a commercial development could still be on the front of the property. Mr. Dahlstrom stated it would still be commercial; they could add that this request would be limited to the back of the tract if the Commission desired. Commission Member Kelley questioned traffic and circulation behind the shopping center tract abutting to the east and the potential need for screening. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 28, 1999 PAGE I I Mr. Rhamey stated that they would provide landscape and other screening adjacent to the proposed shopping center. Commission Member Kelley also stated that we would be creating more multifamily zoning if they approve this. How would it affect the development if all this were on the current multifamily tract? Mr Dahlstrom stated that the recreation facilities could indeed fit within the current multifamily tract. If they had to also put the leasing office on the multifamily tract, they would probably have to reconsider the product. Maybe reducing the garaged units from the proposed 100% to 50% Mr. Rhamey stated that if all this was placed on current property, it would force taking out some garages, however 200 units will fit. A better product could be provided if this request is approved. Commission Member Kerr stated that it is no secret he doesn't like apartments. He wanted this to be a great product, so allowing the right to have the extra space is good. He realized they would sacrifice some amenities. He questioned ifuo blit facilities would be allowed in PD26? Ms. Diamond stated the legal opinion is that these are apartment amenities, not a private recreation facility Mr. Dahlstrom noted the enormous amount of investment regarding this development Commission Member Kerr stated that he didn't realize there was a ditch in the middle of the property, with a large cluster of trees. He is not concerned about the commercial because of the tree buffer. It does seem to be an odd piece of property with challenges. Commission Member Smith reminded the Commissioners that she was favorable to the request at the last meeting She doesn't believe it increases the multifamily development. She stated that the proponent needs to have the understanding that at platting, the open space will be met and viable open space — as determined by staff. She stated that the recreation center might be a lost amenity on the development if it is not allowed on this tract. She stated that she supports this request. Chairman Obermeyer stated that he agreed that this is expansion of the multifamily He understands what the proponents are trying to accomplish; however, it is not within the multifamily property He would rather see an amenity center located within the development. He asked Ms. Diamond if the staff's recommendation had changed? Ms. Diamond stated that staff continues to oppose this request. Commission Member Pacheco stated that at the public hearing, a speaker expressed concern regarding the location of an access easement. Ms. Diamond stated that per the Subdivision Regulations of the city, driveways should be separated a minimum of 250 ft. The first driveway platted will impact the location of driveways on abutting properties. Staff has suggested ajoint driveway access or mutual access easements to allow for proper circulation for both tracts Sherwood Blount, Allen Watters L.P , 16475 Dallas Pkwy, Addison, stated that he has met with the applicant regarding the driveways. He stated that from a safety standpoint, he has a concern They have had conversation in the past with the proponent about purchasing their property. He did state, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 28, 1999 PAGE 12 however, on the proponent's behalf, that the sewer lines indeed do make it impossible to develop this property. Ms. Diamond asked that if the subject property was developed for retail would he have the same concerns on joint driveway access as he does with the proposed residential. Mr. Blount stated he would not. Commission Member Pacheco questioned if the median opening on McDermott would line up with the driveway to the east? Mr. Conner stated that their median opening is 257 feet This is a concern. A joint drive and mutual access would be preferable. Mr. Blount stated that if the residential and commercial traffic was segregated, the ownership could work this out if this was the only concern. Commission Member Kerr asked if the tract could be split in half to have a nice retail site and the back half used in a good manner. From McDermott it would not seem that the multifamily had been expanded. He also stated he also had some concerns regarding the traffic. Mr. Rhamey stated that he would be willing to limit the units on the multifamily tract Chairman Obermeyer stated that it is not applicable because the adjoining tract is not part of the zoning action this evening. Commission Member Smith questioned Mr. Rhamey about the access regarding the leasing office. Commission Member Kelley stated he would support this request. It doesn't seem to him that this is an expansion of the multifamily He stated that this is a good use and a better buffer. Commission Member Neice asked about the hike and bike trail if the request was not granted. Mr. Dahlstrom stated it would have to be reconfigured. Commission Member Neice asked Mr. Horton if there was value in having a trailhead there? Mr. Horton stated yes, there is value, which was not there in the original plan. Commission Member Kerr questioned which of these promises are being included in the request? Mr. Rhamey stated that they would limit the leasing office to one story Commission Member Kerr stated that the only problem with this specific property is that it would be hard to develop. It is a true hardship in terms of what can be developed on it. He stated that a win/win situation could be achieved with the right restrictions. Mr. Rhamey stated that the stipulations could apply to the recreational uses. Chairman Obermeyer suggested tabling the item temporarily to give the proponent time to develop conditions. Motion; Upon a motion by Commission Member Smith and a second by Commission Member Pacheco the Commission voted 7 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to table the item. The Motion Carried. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 13 January 28, 1999 The consensus of the Commission was to remove the item from the table for further discussion. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Smith and a second by Commission Member Kerr the Commission voted 7 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to remove the item from the table. The Motion Carried. Mr. Dahlstrom offered the following Use and Area Regulations in addition to the previously offered regulations: I Maximum height for Management/Leasing Office would be one story 2. Trail head shall be provided in the southern half to be shown on the site plan 3. Tree preservation — The tree cluster identified on the topographic plan shall be preserved 4. No trees will be removed from the southwest comer below grade of the hike and bike trail. 5. Set back from southwest corner— The Management Leasing Office will be set back at least 200 ft. from the southwest corner of the property. 6. Screening— The eastern boundary adjacent to the Management Leasing Office, as identified on the site plan, shall be screened with a vegetation screen or wall or combination of both (from the trail head back). 7 Lighting — for the tennis courts shall be directed away from the greenbelt. Lights shall not be illuminated past 11:00 p.m. 8. Hours of operation for the outdoor recreation areas shall not be open later than 11:00 p.m. 9 Proponent will work with the adjacent property owners to address access issues, which will be worked out at time of platting, subject to staff approval. tea, Mr. Blount stated that the access driveway could be adjusted. They will be flexible. ®7 Mr. Rhamey stated that at the time of plat these issues could be raised again. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Kelley and a second by Commission Member Neice the Commission voted 4 FOR and 3 OPPOSED to approve the request as submitted including the additional Use and Area Regulations and conditions as follows: Orieinal Conditions: a. In addition to the uses allowed in P.D. 26 as set forth in Ordinance 546-9-84 and Ordinance 1561-12-97, a recreation area is permitted on Tract 1-E. Such recreation area use may consist of indoor and outdoor recreational amenities including, but not limited to, club houses, game courts, swimming pools, spas, fitness and training equipment, tennis courts, putting and pitching greens, open space and other similar recreation facilities and their accessory uses. Further, such recreation area use may be accessory for a use on an adjacent property. b. Parking shall be provided for a building containing a leasing office and recreational area for a multifamily use at a rate of one (1) parking space per two hundred (200) square feet of floor area of building. Additional Conditions: 1. Maximum height for Management/Leasing Office would be one story 2. Trail head shall be provided in the southern half to be shown on the site plan PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 28, 1999 PAGE 14 Minority Findings I. Expands the multifamily use in a highly multifamily area 2. Amenity center needs to be a part of the complex. 3. Private use on the property A 3. Tree preservation — The tree cluster identified on the topographic plan shall be preserved. 4. No trees will be removed from the southwest corner below grade of the hike and bike trail. 5. Set back from southwest comer— The Management Leasing Office will be set back at least 200 ft. from the southwest corner of the property. 6. Screening — The eastern boundary adjacent to the Management Leasing Office, as identified on the site plan, shall be screened with a vegetation screen or wall or combination of both (from the trail head back). 7. Lighting— for the tennis courts shall be directed away from the greenbelt and shall not be illuminated past 11:00 p.m. S. Hours of operation for the outdoor recreation areas shall not be open later than 11:00 P.M. 9. Proponent will work with the adjacent property owners to address access issues, which will be worked out at time of platting, subject to staff approval. Chairman Obermeyer and Commission Members Pacheco and McGregor were opposed. The Motion Carried. Maimity Findings 1 Less intensive use is a good buffer from the anticipated higher intensity uses. 2. Proponent's ability to use the management office without the zoning changes 3. A public facility of the same design would be allowed by right 4. The use is compatible with adjacent property 5. Adjacent property owners supportive of request 6. Willing to add restrictions to the P.D. 7 Advantage of the trail head access Minority Findings I. Expands the multifamily use in a highly multifamily area 2. Amenity center needs to be a part of the complex. 3. Private use on the property A PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 15 January 28, 1999 TABLEDITEM Kwik Industries, Inc. Agenda Item VIII Acting Chairman McGregor read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Consider a request for zoning action by Kwik Industries, Inc. to amend Tract 2 of Planned Development No. 31 (PD -31) to allow a "Cleaning Plant/Laundry" by Specific Use Permit (SUP); and to attach a Specific Use Permit with Site Plan approval for a Cleaning Plant/Laundry on 1.14 i acres of land located in the Tatum Drive Retail Addition, Lot 2RA, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas, further described as being located at the southeast corner of McDermott Drive and Suncreek Drive." Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Smith and a second by Commission Member Kerr the Commission voted 7 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to remove the item from the table. The Motion Carried. Ms. Diamond presented the item and the history of the case to the Commission. She stated that at the last meeting there was some questions regarding the reduction of landscape. This reduction of the buffer yard is permitted per the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, even though approved in two locations in the city neither are currently constructed as such. There were also environmental concerns expressed by Mr. Alex Plotkin from Primrose School. In a memo from Craig Gillis, Fire Marshall dated January 20, 1998, he states that this cleaners will use a "closed" system with fire code approved cleaning fluids, in quantities not exceeding fire code requirements, and therefore will not be classified as "hazardous." He did not share Mr. Plotkin's concerns. Sid Hollingsworth, 4725 Knoll Road, Dallas, stated that he would like to address the opposition. Ray Ellis, 4725 Knoll Road, President of Kwik Ind. will answer any questions. Rev Burt Palmer, 1214 Shadetree Lane, Allen, stated that the opposition letters were delayed in being sent to Commissioners due to church delays, people out of town, etc. He requested that the existing zoning be upheld due to the history of the zoning regarding the commercial tract. Commission Member Smith stated that this use is not allowed as the zoning now exists. Due to the surrounding property owners' objections, she cannot support this request. She would have a concern with a drive thou facility at this location for any use. She stated that this use is of no benefit to the city Commission Member Neice stated that he wasn't present at the last meeting; however, he hears the opposition and agrees with Commission Member Smith and he also would not vote in favor of the request. Commission Member Ker questioned Rev Palmer about the covenants on this tract of land. Rev Palmer stated the North Texas Council (NTC) reserves the right to give clearance to any architectural designs, etc. regarding the deed restrictions (private) which are on the property The NTC believes that the zoning in place is the most appropriate use at this time. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 28, 1999 PAGE 16 Rev Palmer stated that this cleaning plant use is not prohibited in the covenants. However, in the best interest of the church, the church wishes to maintain the current uses permitted Commission Member Kerr questioned that if the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was amended, would this use be allowed by right? Chairman Obermeyer stated that is correct. Commission Member Pacheco stated that at the last meeting he voiced his opposition. This zoning is basically local retail which would support the neighboring area. He stated that this doesn't fit into the intent of the zoning for this area. Referring to the Allen Heights area, he stated that retail is already on both sides. Tatum Retail is a small neighborhood retail center. He stated that a cleaning plant is not an appropriate use; drop off, yes, but not a cleaning plant. This is not the type retail that was intended when this was zoned. Commission Member Kelley questioned Mr. Conner about the traffic. Mr Conner stated they have added a right turn at Public Work's request. This mtersecton will be signalized in the near future and a free right turn lane will help the traffic in this area. Commission Member Kelley stated he doesn't understand why we would allow this budding to be lammed up against the street and eliminate the landscaping. If this was an S.U.P to go into an existing building on the site, he would not have a problem It looks like it is forced into the comer. He has more of a problem with the way it is being developed than with the use itself. Commission Member McGregor stated that he has no problem with the use. He questioned if it was known what would be developed on tract B. Mr. Hollingsworth stated that a Remax Realtor office will be going there. Commission Member McGregor confirmed with Mr. Conner that the right turn lane is required. Commission Member McGregor stated he could support this request. Chairman Obermeyer stated that he couldn't support this request Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Smith and a second by Commission Member Pacheco the Commission voted 6 FOR and 1 OPPOSED to Deny the request. Commission Member McGregor was opposed. The Motion carried. Maiority Findings Proposal not compatible with adjacent land uses Not compatible with development in area Opposition expressed by existing land owners Minority Findings 1 The specific use is not prohibited in the deeds and covenants 2 Reasonable location for this service PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 17 January 28, 1999 Other Business Agenda Item IX 1. City Council action regarding S.H. 5 north of Chaparral —Chairman Obermeyer stated that he would like to better understand the intent of the Council Ms. Diamond stated that City Council has directed the Planning Commission to review the zoning on the property and forward a recommendation to them. She further stated that it would also be prudent to review the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for this areas. The specific process will be defined in the next packet, and could be discussed further then 2. Proposed by-laws — Chairman Obermeyer indicated again that if there are any concerns, send them to Ms Diamond. Commission Member Kelley stated that if the Commission wants to have input we need to ask for time to review. Ms. Diamond stated that if the Commission has any concerns, she would forward them to the Council. Commission Member Kelley stated that he would like to recommend that City Council hold off until the Commission has a chance to review. Commission Member Smith questioned the section regarding the dismissal of a commissioner regarding unexcused absence, III in a calendar year. Adioum. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Kerr and a second by Commission Member McGregor, the Commission voted 7 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to Adjourn the January 28 meeting at 12:15 a.m. These minutes approved this �✓ N' day of 1999 Ross Ober never, Chairman Pamela Smith, Secretary