Min - Planning and Zoning Commission - 1999 - 05/27 - RegularALLEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 27, 1999
ATTENDANCE:
Commission Members Present:
Jeffrey Kelley
Kevin Keff
Pamela Smith
Scott Neice
Kevin Keff
Mark Pacheco
Commission Members Absent:
Jeff McGregor, Vice -Chairman
City Staff Present:
Marcie Diamond, Senior Planner
Pam Conway, Secretary
Carolyn Thomas, Planning Intern
George Conner, Director Public Works
Pete Smith, City Attorney's Office
CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM:
With a quorum of the Commission Member's present, the Allen Planning & Zoning Commission
was called to order at 7 10 p.m., by Chairman Obermeyer, at the City Council Chambers, Allen
Public Library, Two Allen Civic Plaza, Allen, Texas.
WORKSHOP
Item IV Preliminary Plat, Alliance Office Center—Commission Member Pacheco questioned
the screening wall. Ms. Marcie Diamond stated that it refers back to the PD ordinance, which
requires solid screening along the east property line and a combination of landscaping and
decorative fencing along the south property line. Commission Member Pacheco also verified
that the building would be one story Ms Diamond confirmed.
Pete Smith, City Attorney, explained the vested rights legislation recently passed. He stated it
will significantly impair the City's ability to impose new development restrictions and
standards on property
0
I
L
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 27, 1999
REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM:
With a quorum of the Commission Member's present, the Allen Planning & Zoning
Commission was called to order at 7:37 p.m., by Chairman Obermeyer, at the City Council
Chambers, Allen Public Library, Two Allen Civic Plaza, Allen, Texas.
Media Relations Training
Agenda Item 11
PAGE
Katherine Poteet, Public Information Officer, gave Media Training to the Commission Members. Ms
Poteet distributed the City's Media Relations Policy and Media Relations Handbook. A question and
answer period followed the informative presentation.
Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of May 13, 1999
Agenda Item III
Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Kelley and a second by
Commission Member Smith, the Commission voted 6 FOR and 0
OPPOSED to approve the consent agenda as submitted. The Motion
Carried.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Alliance Office Center, Lots 1-8. Blk. A Agenda Item IV
Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda nem into the record as follows:
"Consider a request for Alliance Office Center, Lots 1-8, Block A on 5.0214 ± acres of land
situated in the Henry Weisel Survey, Abstract No. 1026, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas;
further described as being located at the southeast corner of S.H.5 and Buckingham Lane:"
Ms. Diamond presented the item to the Commission. She stated that a five-foot right-of-way
dedication is identified along SH5. A fifteen -foot landscape easement is delineated along SH5 and
Buckingham Lane. There is no access permitted by zoning from this complex to Buckingham Lane,
and the plat is in conformance with that requirement. Staff recommends approval of this Preliminary
Plat.
Commission Member Kelley asked if there was a drive approach on Buckingham. Mr. Conner
stated that there was considerable input from the residents of Buckingham Estates, and this will stay
a chip/seal asphalt road and no access will be permitted from this development to Buckingham Road.
Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Smith and a second by
Commission Member Neice, the Commission voted 6 FOR and 0
OPPOSED to approve the Preliminary Plat for Alliance Office Center,
Lots 1-8, Block A as submitted. The Motion Carried.
Pete Smith, City Attorney, stated that the public hearings could be opened separately, or all of them
opened at once Chairman Obermeyer decided that he would simultaneously open the public hearings
for Items V -Filing Fees and Charges, and VI -Sign and consider the remainder of the Public Hearings
as individual items.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 3
MAY 27, 1999
PUBLIC HEARING
Section 5.04, Feline Fees and Charges Agenda Item V
Chairman Obenneyer read the agenda items into the record as follows:
"Consider a request for an amendment to Section 5.04, Filing Fees and Charges, of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to establish fees by resolution by the City Council"
PUBLIC HEARING
Section 4.03.6, Sign Agenda Item VI
Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda item into the record as follows.
"Consider a request for an amendment to Section 4.03 6, Sign, of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance relating to the posting of signs for public hearings before the City Council."
Ms. Diamond presented the Items V and VI to the Commission. She stated that Section 5.04, Filing Fees
and Charges, as part of the revisions and updates to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the City
Attorney has recommended that all submission fees be established by Resolution, (verses being codified
as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance). A resolution will be brought forward to the City
Council at the time they consider this ordinance amendment Staff recommends approval of these
amendments
She stated that regarding Section 4.03.6, Sign, a Resolution was approved by City Council on February
18, 1999, which provided for the City to assume the responsibility for the placement and removal of
zoning notification signs, and to establish a fee to assess the applicants. This amendment reflects that
change.
Commission Member Pacheco stated that on item IV, Sign, he noted a misspelled word (should be closest
not closet). He also questioned the statement about the closest thoroughfare. What if there is no
thoroughfare near the property? Ms. Diamond suggested adding the words "oriented toward"
It was determined that the words "shall be visible to the public" would be added. Pete Smith noted a typo
in the first sentence in Section I and noted that "the property " should be added after "by the City of
Allen on
Chairman Obermeyer opened the Public Hearing for Item V — Filing Fees and Charges, and
Item VI - Sign.
With no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Kelley and a second by
Commission Member Pacheco, the Commission voted 6 FOR and 0
OPPOSED to approve Agenda Item V — Section 5.04, Filing Fees and
Charges, as submitted, and Agenda Item VI—Section 4.03.6, Sign, as
amended and shown below. The Motion Carried.
Section 4.03.6— Sign Notification —
"6. Sign- A sign shall be erected by the City of Allen on,, which the
change or classification is requested, no less than ten (10) days prior to the public
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 27, 1999
PAGE
hearing to be held by the City Council. Such sign shall ben.•_ n
tate
bold letters the current zoning, the requested chant
and the time, date and location of the public hearing. The sign shall also include the
City of Allen logo. The City Council may waive the requirements of this section if
satisfied adequate notice has been provided to the public."
PUBLIC HEARING/TABLED ITEM
Section 3.01 (Y) Planned Development District Regulations Agenda Item VII
Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda dem into the record as follows:
"Consider a request for an amendment to Section 3.01 (Y) Planned Development District
Regulations, of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to establish regulations for Planned
Development districts."
Ms. Diamond presented the item to the Commission. She stated that for the past several months an
Ad Hoc Committee of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council has been reviewing
various revisions to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The proposed PD Requirements provide
for the following:
• Broaden the applicability of a PD to allow for flexibility in zoning restrictions to
encourage a more creative, efficient and aesthetically pleasing design;
• Better defines the information required to be submitted in the Development
Regulations;
• Includes specific criteria for Concept Plans and Detail Plans;
• Requires that Detail Plans be submitted within six months of the Concept Plan,
• Maintains the provision of open space at the ratio of one acre per seventy five
dwelling unds; however, allows for a consideration of a variance to this requirement
if recommended by the Planning Director;
• Specifically defines what does and does not qualify as open space;
• Expands the items that can be included in a facilities agreement. Past practice has
been that facilities agreements are generally limited to thoroughfares.
Some of these requirements have been incorporated in recent submissions on a volunteer basis;
however, it would be beneficial to have requirements formalized through the ordinance adoption
process. Ms. Diamond also directed the Commission members to the outline of the proposed
ordinance included in the packet.
It was noted by the City Attorney that this item does not need to be removed from the table since it is
on the table before the Commission to consider The public hearing is continued from the last
meeting.
With no one wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed.
Ms. Diamond stated that the main difference is that now we desire to require a concept plan to be
included, or a derailed site plan, with specific requirements of what needs to be indicated on these
plans.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 5
MAY 27, 1999
Chairman Obermeyer asked how exact to the concept plan does the detailed site plan have to be?
Commission Member Kelley stated that a concept plan is a concept It may not be exact based on
unknown issues
Mr. Pete Smith, City Attorney stated that that this has been studied at the Ad Hoc committee
meetings. He stated that the reason for a Planned Development is for the City to jointly develop the
property with the applicant. The concept plan will give a pictorial representation of what the
development may look like. It would give the tools to insure a quality development. He further
stated that some cities require a detailed site plan to come back to the Commission for review. Mr.
Pete Smith stated that he does not encourage that route. If engineering is not done, they can give a
conceptual plan of street layout/openspace/lot layout.
Chairman Obermeyer stated that a concept plan has, in the past, been brought forward to the
Commission, and there are changes, rearrangement of openspace or lots. Are those acceptable
changes in a concept plan? Ms Diamond pointed out the portions of the proposed ordinance which
enumerate acceptable changes in the concept/detail plan.
Ms. Diamond stated that for residential zoning, a concept plan would be a street layout and location
of openspace, etc.
Mr Pete Smith stated that a concept plan is not a detailed site plan.
Commission Member Smith stated that if a concept plan is changed, she would like to see that
detailed site plan to be sure it is in conformance.
Mr. Pete Smith stated that a proponent could submit a detailed site plan and it could also be the
Preliminary Plat.
Mr Pete Smith stated if they come in with a detailed site plan, the Preliminary Plat cannot deviate
from that.
Commission Member Kelley stated that if the concept plan and detailed site plan is submitted for
Commission review, and if it is the opinion of the Commission that they are not in agreement with
staff, and it is the opinion of the Commission that the detailed site plan does not conform, the
Commission needs to have the right to deny it.
Commission Member Pacheco stated that he has a problem with denying a detailed site plan that the
staff has approved.
Mr. Pete Smith stated that we need to be able to trust staff. A professional staff needs to have the
confidence of the Commission to approve the detailed site plan
Mr. Pete Smith stated that if staff approves a site plan, then it is approved.
Chairman Obermeyer agreed that he does not want to be in the detailed site plan process.
Commission Member Kelley agreed, but he wants to see the detailed site plan before approval of a
plat.
Commission Member Pacheco stated that once a detailed site plan is approved, the concept plan is no
longer an issue However, a detailed site plan needs to be done prior to any plat.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 27, 1999
PAGE
Ms. Diamond again noted that a residential plat and commercial are different. She stated that non-
residential will have a detailed site plan prior to platting, and for a single family residential
development a Preliminary Plat will be submitted in confomiance with the Concept Plan and then a
Final Plat must conform to the Preliminary Plat.
Mr. Pete Smith stated that either you want to see the detailed site plan or you don't.
The discussion continued and Commission Member Pacheco stated that if a plat meets the
requirements of the ordinance, it should be approved. It is not subjective.
Commission Member Smith asked what about mutual access, fire lane easements? Mr. Pete Smith
stated that if you have legitimate reasons to deny, of course it can be denied.
It was noted that negotiations between the Commission and proponent could still take place, but most
appropriately at the concept plan stage, verses at preliminary plat approval.
Mr. Pete Smith stated that nothing is being given up that the Commission didn't have in the first
place. If the plat meets the requirements of the zoning plat approval is a ministerial function.
Ms. Diamond stated that if we request the applicant to bring back a residential concept plan, it gives
the Commission and Council maximum discretion of whether to approve or not If they come back
with something that looks like the concept plan they can plan their subdivision.
Mr Pete Smith stated that that is why a concept plan is done and then a detailed site plan is done so
when it gets to the plat stage it is ministerial.
Commission Member Smith stated that she would like to see those detailed site plans. If the staff
approves the derailed site plan, and all plats that staff feels are in conformance with that plan are put
on the consent agenda, why is she even doing this? She stated that she wants input into the details of
the site plan/plats.
Chairman Obe rneyer stated that maybe we could require items we would like to see at the concept
plan stage, and that's when we could add our comments and details.
Commission Member Kelley stated that we can still negotiate with the developers at the plat stage
and most developers are willing to negotiate.
Ms. Diamond stated that you will basically see the same level of detail between the concept plan and
the detail plan.
Mr. Pete Smith stated that you would still have development regulations, which are conditions of
development, which are part of the planned development. A zoning change would have to be
requested to change those regulations You could require no deviation on this, or it shall have thus
and such. A detailed site plan could be required to come back to the Commission and be reviewed.
Commission Member Kelley stated that this ordinance is a good shift He stated that the negotiations
■�+ should be done at the concept plan stage and not at the plat level.
L Mr Pete Smith stated that the purpose of a planned development is to work with the developer and
help plan that development.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 7
MAY 27, 1999
Commission Member Kerr stated that the decisions would be made at zoning rather than at the
platting stage.
Mr. Pete Smith stated that was correct It is not circumventing the process. The Commission would
simply be making all the negotiations at the zoningiconcept plan stage.
Mr. Pete Smith stated that if a Preliminary Plat does not meet the requirements of an ordinance, the
Commission has the right to deny it or approve it conditionally
Commission Member Pacheco stated that he has a real problem with the Commission requiring
review of detailed site plans. He stated that they should only come to the Commission for the detailed
site plan if It's an appeal process.
Mr. Pete Smith questioned the Commission if they wanted to see the detailed site plan or not?
Commission Members Smith and Kerr stated that they would like to have the option to see the
detailed site plan.
Commission Members Kelley, Neice and Pacheco wants staff to review and approve site plans.
Stu Scott, 1307 Mills Ct., Twin Creeks, questioned if all future zoning cases would be required to be
a PD?
The answer was no. This is simply discussion on the Planned Development Regulations section of
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
The question of should there be flexibility in openspace was discussed at length. Three Commission
Members stated there should be flexibility, and three said there should be a minimum with no
flexibility.
Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Pacheco and a second by
Commission Member Kelley, the Commission voted 5 FOR and I
OPPOSED to approve this ordinance as written and amended
(shown below): Commission Member Smith was opposed. The
Motion Carried.
Section 3.01 M. Planned Development District Reeulations
4. c. (1) Concept Plan - Page 3, top of page ... Concept Plan may be authorized the
Director of Planning, added: provided such changes are not contrary
to the approved Development Regulations.
4. c. (1) (a) Residential Concept Plan -Page 3, ...Planned Development District,
added: adjacent zoning and/or land use, ....
4. c. (1) (b) Nonresidential Concept Plan - Page 3, ... Planned Development District,
added: adjacent zoning and/or land use,
4. c. (2) Detail Site Plan — Page 4, ...as indicated on the approved Detail Plan, added:
provided such changes are not contrary to the approved Development
Regulations.
No revisions to Section 5. OpenSpace, were formally included in the motion; however,
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 27, 1999
Commission Member Kerr stated that he would like the record to show [hat in a "straw vote" the
Commission was split in their decision regarding the Flexibility of openspace, and has left that
decision to the Council.
Maiority Findings:
1. This allows critique of the planning process at the proper time instead of at platting
2. Commission Members Kerr and Neice agreed with the findings but wanted the following
Openspace requirement — City Council limit the openspace to 1 acre per 75 units.
3 The purpose of a Planned Development is to provide discretion, including an openspace
requirement.
Minority Findings
1. Loss of openspace deemed undesirable.
2. Loss of openspace opens the door to loss of openspace at total buildout.
3. Openspace requirements provide a benefit to the City of Allen
4. Guidelines for lessening the openspace requirements are not specific, therefore this is totally
discretionary.
5. Purpose for the Zoning Ordinance is to define desirable development attributes that will
benefit the city
PUBLIC HEARING
Article 2, Special Provision, Section 2.06 & 2.06A,
Specific Use Permits Agenda Item VIII.
Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda item into the record as follows:
"Consider a request for an amendment to Article 2, Special Provision, Section 2.06 &
2.06A, Specific Use Permits, of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to establish
regulations for Specific Use Permits."
Ms Diamond presented the item to the Commission. She stated that the proposed
Specific Use Permit requirements provide for the following:
Expands the discretionary authority in determining the appropriateness of uses
allowed by SUP, including such items as:
• Compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding land uses
• Reasonableness of the nature of the use
• Mitigation of any negative impact on surrounding uses
• Additional conditions proposed
Therefore, a SUP may be denied if it is determined that the use is not appropriate
given the above described criteria.
• Retains the requirement for the site plan to be in compliance with Section 2,09 (as
amended).
• Provides for a timeline (expiration date) and/or renewal of the SUP
C • Requires development of the use within six (6) months, with a six (6) month
extension being allowed if approved by the Planning Director. The site plan's
PAGER
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 27, 1999
validity may be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City
Council.
• Minor alterations to the approved site plan may be approved by the Planning
Director, prior to the issuance of a Budding Permit.
Chairman Obermeyer opened the Public Hearing.
Stu Scott, 1307 Mills Court, Twin Creeks, stated that he wished the typical homeowner knew
how much work is done by the Planning and Zoning Commission and he noted his appreciation.
He stated that he is opposed to any changes in the requirements for an SUP He stated that
dramatic changes would be down zoning and devaluing the property He is not sure why any
changes are being considered.
With no one else wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed.
Mr. Pete Smith stated that this amendment would not downaone or affect any existing SUP It is
just clarifying issues. It would not be retroactive and does not change much existing language. It
does not take away anything. He stated that it does not affect any use
Chairman Obermeyer stated that this changes the process for approving an SUP We arejust
cleaning up clerically some language.
Mr. Pete Smith discussed the Private Club portion of the SUP and addressed a question about the
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission.
Mr. Pete Smith read the amendment into the record.
Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Kelley and a second by
Commission Member Smith the Commission voted 6 FOR and 0
OPPOSED to approve as amended (see below). The Motion Carried.
Section 2.06 and 2.06A, Specific Use Permits
A. 2, Page 2, In approving a requested Specific Use Permit, the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council may consider
the following:
3. a. Specific Use Permit Requirements, Page 2, If a time limit
expires, unless the ordinance granting the Specific Use Permit....
3. a. Specific Use Permit Requirements, Page 3, Minor changes or
alterations may be approved by the Planning Director, which do not
alter the basic relationship of the proposed development to adjacent
property, the uses permitted increase the density, building height,
coverage of site, off street parking ratio, or area regulations provided
such changes are not contrary to the approved conditions.
Findings
1. Well needed changes.
2. All were in agreement.
PAGE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 27, 1999
PAGE 10
PUBLIC HEARING
Section 2.09, Site Plan Approval Agenda Item IX
Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda item into the record as follows:
"Consider a request for an amendment to Section 2 09, Site Plan Approval, of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to establish regulations to require and to provide for site
plan approval "
Ms. Diamond presented the item to the Commission. She stated that the proposed Site
Plan requirements provide for the following:
• Sets out a purpose statement which includes " to ensure efficient and safe land
development, harmonious use of land, compliance with design standards",
circulation, utilities and drainage, etc.
• Requires Site Plan approvals for multifamily and non-residential developments, SUP
and when required by a PD.
• The technical information is relatively the same as the current regulations, and has
added a provision for review of site fighting.
• Provides for criteria for the Planning Director's approval of a site plan.
• Sets out an appeal process to the Planning and Zoning Commission in the event that
the Planning Commission disapproves a Site Plan. A denial of a site plan by the
Planning and Zoning Commission may then be appealed to the City Council.
• Finally, the revised Site Plan Approval process imposes a one I I I year expiration date
of which an approval of a site plan is valid.
LIn summary, this expanded site plan approval process allows for a formal staff review
process, increased discretion in site plan review, an appeals process, as well as an
expiration date.
Mr. Pete Smith added that we are also trying to be consistent with the changes to be made to the
Planned Development district
Chairman Obermeyer Opened the Public Hearing
With no one to speak, the Public Hearing was closed.
Commission Member Kerr asked when does this come into the process.
Mr. Pete Smith stated that this will ensure that you have a quality development
Ms Diamond stated that for years this has been done at the building permit level and now is
being brought into the planning process. This is a staff function.
Commission Member Pacheco stated his concern is regarding building elevations and facade
plans. He stated he does not think the Commission needs to be involved with those issues
E Ms. Diamond stated that building elevations are now required with the SUP If it is appealed and
comes to Commission, then yes, they would see the elevations.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 27, 1999
PAGE Il
Commission Member Pacheco questioned if the Commission needs to be involved in this level of
detail (brick color, etc).
Commission Member Kelley stated that it is a reasonable thing to ask. He would caution,
however, that we not be designers or architects.
Commission Member Pacheco stated that we are a planning committee, not an architectural
control board.
Commission Member Smith stated that we)ust want to set some kind of criteria to go by
Mr. Pete Smith stated that this site plan approval will be ministerial by the staff, unless it's a SUP
or Planned Development. He also stated that it would insure that we are getting what we required
them to do
Mr. Pete Smith read the amendments into the record
Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Smith and a second by
Commission Member Kelley, the Commission voted 6 FOR and 0
OPPOSED to approve with the amendments noted below: The
Motion Carried.
Section 2.09 Site Plan Approval
1.7, Page 3 — Supplemental requirements — The Director of Planning
may require...
1.8, Page 3—Review standards —The Director of Planning shall
review...
1. 9. c), Page 5- Approval Process — If construction of tire
development for which a site plan has been approved, ...
1. 9. d), Page 5- Approval Process — In such cases, the Director of
Planning shall have the authority to approve...
Findings
1 Improves the process.
Other Business Agenda Item X.
Ms. Diamond noted the items expected for the neat agenda.
Commission Member Kelley reminded staff and the Commission about the Neo -Traditional
Architecture Forum on Neo -Urbanism, to be held on June 22 at 12 00 noon.
Adiourn.
Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Neice and a second by
Commission Member Kelley, the Commission voted 6 FOR and 0
OPPOSED to Adjourn the May 27, 1999 meeting at 11:53 p.m.
The e i m es v J �s I O+h day of 1999 r—
R ss Obe ey , C ' an Pamela Smith, Secret