Min - Planning and Zoning Commission - 2004 - 03/16 - RegularL ;V_�
CITY OF ALLEN
E
I
ATTENDANCE:
Commissioners Present:
Gary Caplinger, Chair
Alan Grimes, Vice -Chair
Robert Wendland
Robin Sedlacek
Darion Culbertson
Ken Harvey
Commissioners Absent:
None
City Staff Present:
David A. Hoover, Director of Planning
Sally L. Leeper, Planner
Kellie Wilson, Planning Technician
Dennis Abraham, Civil Engineer
Joe Gorfida, Attorney
Regular Agenda
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
March 16, 2004
Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present:
With a quornm of the Commissioners present, Chairman Caplinger called the meeting to
order at 7.15 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers at Allen City Hall, 305 Century
Parkway
Director's Report on March 9, 2004 City Council Action.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 2
MARCH 16, 2004
r Consent Aeenda
i Item Number 1 Approve Minutes of March 2, 2004, Regular Meeting.
Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Culbertson, and a second by Commissioner
Sedlacek, the Commission voted 5 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED with
Commissioner Harvey abstaining because he was absent the previous
meeting, to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion carried.
Regular Agenda
Item Number 2 General Development Plan - Consider a General Development Plan for
Auberry at Twin Creeks, a multi -family development on 12.581 acres
located on Benton Drive south of Exchange Parkway.
Mr. Hoover presented the request to the Commission. He stated that there are some minor
unresolved issues that will be addressed on the preliminary plat. Mr. Hoover also stated that the
applicant is coordinating efforts with the City to allow an internal connection from the
development to the City's hike and bike trails.
Commissioner Grimes stated he would not support the current location of the dumpsters and
recycling bins. Mr. Hoover responded that the dumpsters at Benton Point and Lansbrook are
also placed at the front of the development. At both locations the dumpster area is screened by a
masonry wall blocking the dumpters from public view. Because all three developments have the
same management company, he did not see this location causing a problem. However, during
staff review of the preliminary plat, staff will look for an alternate location.
Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Wendland and a second by Commissioner
Culbertson, the Commission voted 6 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to
approve the General Development Plan. The motion carried.
Item Number 3: Public Hearing — Consider an ordinance granting a change in zoning for
Blue Star Development on 529.60± acres of land from Planned
Developments 35, 36, 37, 39 and 43 to Planned Development No. 92 for
CC -Entertainment, AO -Agriculture Open Space, SC -Shopping Center, R-
3, R-5 and R-7 Residential. The property is located north of Stacy Road
between Watters Road and Chelsea Boulevard.
Mr. Hoover presented the request to the Commission. He briefly reviewed the history of the
request. The proposal is for retail, high-end retail, destination business, etc. Mr. Hoover stated
that some of the concerns the Commission has discussed (concerning the residential components)
at previous meetings would be addressed at platting (i.e. single and double -loaded streets.) He
reiterated that the applicant will be required to bring forward a detailed site plan within the next
six months. The Commission and City Council will have the opportunity to review and approve
the detailed site plan before any development occurs. After both groups have approved the
detailed site plan, the platting process will then begin.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 3
MARCH 16, 2004
Commissioner Culbertson asked if the proposed Future Land Use Plan is approved, would it
i affect the hnpact Fees. Mr. Hoover responded that he did not see any affect with the fees.
Commissioner Culbertson asked if a Specific Use Permit (SUP) would be required for the
heliport use in Tract A. Mr. Hoover stated that an SUP is not indicated to be required; however
they will have to apply for a permit. Mr. Hoover stated that should there be any appeals
concerning the possibility of a similar use not specifically listed as a permitted use, they would
go before the Council, not the Board of Adjustments, the way the proposal is written.
The Commissioners were concerned that the Townhome/L.oft permitted use may be construed as
multi -family use. Mr. Hoover stated that the definition of Townhome does not include multi-
family use.
Commissioner Chimes discussed the last bullet point in Tract A (the determination of similar
uses by the Planning Director), and whether it should include approval by the Planning and
Zoning Commission. After discussion, the Commission agreed to leave the statement as is.
The Commission discussed the proposed TH zoning. Commissioner Wendland felt that placing
Townhomes in the development south of Ridgeview could be beneficial. Mr. Hoover reassured
the Commission that when reviewing the detailed site plan, that before placing any townhomes in
the development, they will have a chance to see the plans for the surrounding parcels. The
Commission can determine as this point if townhomes would be appropriate.
The Commission discussed the proposed R7 districts. Mr. Hoover reminded the Commission
that there is a cap of 900 units for the entire development, with a 30% cap on the R7
development, with a higher minimum square footage than in the standard R-7 districts. These
caps will limit the development in the R7 area.
Chairman Caplinger opened the Public Hearing. There was no one present to speak for or
against the request. However, an e-mail was received by Bill Wines opposing the request
because of the proposed alignment of Ridgeview. Chairman Caplinger responded stating that
this is a request for zoning change, and that the roadway placement would be addressed at
platting.
Chairman Caplinger closed the public hearing.
The consensus of the Commissioners was to support the request, except without townhomes
north of Ridgeview. The Commission supported staffs recommendation to amend the Future
Land Use Plan as a result of this zoning request.
Mr. Hoover stated that the request for zoning change gives the City more control. Nothing will
change without the applicant having to submit a detailed Site Plan to the Commission and
Council for approval.
I
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 4
MARCH 16, 2004
Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Wendland and a second by Commissioner
Sedlacek, the Commission voted 6 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to
recommend approving the zoning change. The motion carried.
Item Number 4: Public Hearing — Consider an ordinance granting a change in zoning for
Creekwood Suncreek LP on 14.14± acres of land from Planned
Development No. 31, Tract 6 for Multi -family uses to Planned
Development No. 31, Tract 6 for TH Townhome uses. The property is
located north of Hedgcoxe Road and west of Alma Drive.
Mr. Hoover presented the request to the Commission. This proposal was changed to include
public streets rather than private. The proposal includes roll -down curbs. The request includes
the following variances:
o Minimum lot size is currently 3,300 square feet — applicant is requesting 1,920 square
feet
o Side yard setback is currently 15 feet — applicant is requesting 10 feet
o Minimum lot width is currently 30 feet — applicant is requesting 24 feet for interior lots,
and 26 feet for exterior lots
o Minimum lot depth is currently 110 feet — applicant is requesting 80 feet
o Minimum buildable area is currently 2,250 square feet — applicant is requesting 1,200
square feet
o Applicant is requesting a 40 ft right-of-way as opposed to the required 50 ft right-of-way,
with 28 It of pavement as opposed to 31 ft.
Chairman Caplinger opened the public hearing.
Paul Reilly (spoke)
1517 Westmont
o Concerned about the masonry waiver. Surrounding homes are 80-90% brick.
Randy Wiatrek (spoke)
1503 Westmont
o Inquired about the screening wall material — would like clarification on the material that
would be used to construct the wall.
o Alley way — plan shows 15 feet — requirement is 16 feet
o Stakes are already in place for wall — seems too close to alley paving
Brian Presley (spoke)
1509 Westmont
o Supports zoning, but concerned about wall adjacent to alley
Chairman Caplinger read responses that were received prior to meeting.
o Tim and Andrea Stockall (oppose)
o Norman Matthews (oppose)
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 5
MARCH 16, 2004
o Christopher Lusk (support)
o David Whisenant (support)
o Brodie Bruner (support)
o James Hardgrove (support)
Chairman Caplinger closed public hearing.
Mr. Hoover advised the Commission that City ordinance allows property owners to place fences
on their property line. Also, Chief Building Official Bret McCullough provided a letter to the
applicant with an explanation of the definition of masonry Dennis Abraham, Civil Engineer for
the City, approached the Commission and stated that the City requires a 16 ft alley.
Mr. Joel Robuck, representing the applicant, addressed the concerns.
The letter from Mr. McCullough stated that a Hardy Plank material is considered
masonry. With this information, they are no longer requesting a variance. The building
will be 100% masonry
o Alley on the west and north — the site plan is incorrect — they are within code of 16 feet
o He will consider moving the screening wall back I foot — no guarantee — if it is required
to be masonry then it will be masonry — no final decision has been made on the material
that will be used.
Commissioner Sedlacek wants staff and Commission to consider the Townhome residents when
deciding what material will be used to build the screening wall — this wall will be in their
backyard.
Commissioner Grimes stated he was not comfortable with the number of requested variances,
and would not support the request.
Commissioner Culbertson stated he could not support approving the plan with the lot depth that
is being requested.
The Commissioners requested a more legible, larger plan with more detail. The consensus of the
Commission was to continue the public hearing and requested that staff provide a summary of
Townhome regulations in other cities.
Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Grimes and a second by Commissioner
Sedlacek, the Commission voted 6 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to re -open
the public hearing and continue it to the April 6, 2004, meeting. The motion
carried.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 6
MARCH 16, 2004
Other Business
Upcoming Agenda Items:
➢ Public hearing
➢ Possibly 2 plats
➢ 2 Concept Plans
Adjournment
Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Harvey and a second by Commissioner
Wendland, the Commission voted 6 I FAVOR and 0 OPPOSED to adjourn
the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 9:26 p.m.
T e ;notes approved thisl�day of 2004.
aplinger aimran Kellie Wilson, Planning Technician
I