Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - Planning and Zoning Commission - 2017 - 06/06 - RegularJane 6, 2017 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting June 6,2017 CITY OF ALLEN ATTENDANCE: Commissioners Present: Jeff Cocking, Chairman Ben Trahan, 1" Vice -Chair Luke Hollingsworth John Ogrizovich Michael Orr Absent: Stephen Platt, Jr., 2's Vice -Chair City Staff Present: Lee Battle, AICP, LEED AP, Assistant Director of Community Development Joseph Cotton, PE, Assistant Director of Engineering Brian Bristow, Assistant Director Parks and Recreation ' Madhuri Mohan, AICP, Senior Planner Kevin Laughlin, City Attorney Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present: With a quorum of the Commissioners present, Chairman Cocking called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m in the City Hall Council Chambers Room at Allen City Hall, 305 Century Parkway. Directors Report 1. Action taken on the Planning & Zoning Commission items by City Council at the May 23, 2017, regular meeting, attached. Consent Agenda (Routine P&Z business. Consent Agenda is approved by a single majority vote. Items may be removed for open discussion by a request from a Commission member or member ofstaf/:) 2. Approve minutes from the May 16, 2017, regular meeting 3. Extension Request — Consider a request for a 60 -day extension to file the Final Plat for Allen High Point Addition, Block A, Lots 3 and 4, being 1.9175± acres situated in the Henry Wetsel Survey, Abstract No. 1026; generally located north of Exchange Parkway and west of Greenville Avenue. (FP -12/14/16-125) [Allen High Point Addition] 1 June 6, 2017 Motion: Upon a motion by P` Vice -Chair Trahan, and a second by Commissioner Hollingsworth, the Commission voted 5 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion carried. Regular Aeenda 4. Preliminary Plat — Consider a request for a Preliminary Plat for Ashwood Creek Place, Lots 1-11, Block A, Lots 111, Block B, and Lots 1-3, Block C, being 6.245+ acres situated in the Henry Wetsel Survey, Abstract No. 977; generally located south of Main Street and east of Greenville Avenue. (PL -Pre -040417-0001) [Ashwood Creek Place] Ms. Madhuri Mohan, Senior Planner, presented the item to the Commission. She stated that the item is a Preliminary Plat for Ashwood Creek Place. The property is generally located south of Main Street and east of Greenville Avenue. The property to the north is zoned Community Facilities CF and Planned Development PD No. 120 Townhome Residential TH. The property to the east is zoned Community Facilities CF and Townhome Residential TH. To the south, the property is zoned Townhome Residential TH. To the west (across Greenville Avenue), the property is zoned Single -Family Residential R-3. ' Ms. Mohan stated that a new Planned Development was adopted and approved by City Council in November 2016 for a townhome development. Preliminary platting is the next step in the development process. The subject Preliminary Plat shows 6.2451 acres of land subdivided into 18 Residential Lots and 7 Open Space/HOA Lots. Ms. Mohan explained that there are two access points into the development; a primary access point on Greenville Avenue and a secondary, emergency access point also on Greenville Avenue. The Preliminary Plat has been reviewed by the Technical Review Committee, is generally consistent with the Concept Plan, and meets the requirements of the Allen Land Development Code. Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Hollingsworth, and a second by Commissioner Orr, the Commission voted 5 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to approve the Preliminary Plat for Ashwood Creek Pace, generally located south of Main Street and east of Greenville Avenue. The motion carried. 5. Tabled/Public Hearing — Conduct a Public Hearing and consider a request to amend the development regulations for Planned Development No. 54 and adopt a Concept Plan and Building Elevations relating to the use and development of Lot 8R, Block D, Bray Central One Addition; generally located at the northwest comer of US Highway 75 and McDermott Drive (and commonly known as ' 802 W. McDermott) (Z-1/19/17-5) [RaceTrac McDermott] Ms. Madhuri Mohan, Senior Planner, presented the item to the Commission. She stated that this item was June 6, 2017 ' a continuation of a Public Hearing for a Planned Development Amendment for a proposed RaceTmc that was tabled from the May 16, 2017, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Ms. Mohan provided a brief recap of the site and reminded the Commission that the main reason for the PD amendment is to modify the western side yard setback to allow 5' instead of the 25' required by the original PD. She reiterated that staff is recommending denial of the request based on the lack of a mansard roof. She provided a recap of the building materials and provided a visual of the building elevations including the main building and canopy components. She provided an example of a mansard roof from another local RaceTrac location. She explained that this is the expectation for fueling canopies in Allen. She indicated that the Commission requested updated elevations at the last meeting showing the but color rather the red color and presented the revised elevations provided by the applicant with that change. The applicant also added a 6" red strip to the canopy which reflected the development regulations. She reviewed the proposed development regulations and specifically pointed out regulations related to the fueling station: 1. The fueling station band may not be more that 6" wide. 2. The vent stacks for the fueling station shall be enclosed in masonry canopy columns. 3. The fueling station canopy shall be designed and construction with a mansard roof. In this case, however, the applicant has not agreed to the mansard roof and it is not reflected in the elevations. Therefore, staff is still recommending denial. Ms. Mohan stated that Allen strives to be distinctive and unique and this location would be at a prominent gateway into the City. She stated flat roofs on canopies can be seen anywhere, but Allen has high standards and requires a higher level of development including mansard roofs. She acknowledged that ' this is a redevelopment site and therefore has different costs associated with it, but ultimately, staff believes that the mansard roof is worth the investment. She reminded the Commission that a PD amendment allows the City the opportunity to bring standards up to City Code and City Policy. While the mansard roof is not currently an ALDC standard, it is a policy that has been applied for the last several years. Additionally, staff is in the process of amending the ALDC to include mansard roofs for fueling station canopies, m evidenced by the next item on the P&Z agenda for the evening. She stated that the applicant provided updated elevations prior to the meeting that they will pass out to the Commission, but that staff did not have adequate time to review them in detail. She said the applicant also provided two letters that were included in the packets. The first is the same engineering letter provided last time stating that the mansard roof is not feasible with the existing canopy. The second and new letter is from the applicant stating that they are willing to add the mansard roof at a later date when and if a complete canopy replacement is needed or desired by the applicant. She pointed out that the letter is vague and does not guarantee that a mansard roof will be built in the foreseeable future. Ms. Mohan concluded that based on all these factors, staff recommends denial based solely on the lack of mansard roof. Commissioner Ogrizovich pointed out a typo in the staff report stating that the caption read "masonry" instead of "mansard." Ms. Mohan replied that she would correct the error. Commissioner Ogrizovich also asked if the example of the mansard roof was provided in the packet. Ms. Mohan said it was not — she showed it in the presentation as an example of other locations, but did not include this in the packet. ' Commissioner Orr asked if the other locations with the mansard roof are renovations or new construction. Ms. Mohan stated that they were both new construction. Jane 6, 2017 ' The applicant's representative, Laum Hoffmann, 2728 N. Harwood Street, Dallas, TX, came forward to make a presentation and provided copies of revised elevations for the Commission to review. She stated that the use they are proposing is allowed by right under the existing PD. They are proposing to renovate the existing location and make several notable site improvements. Ms. Hoffman stated that the only difference in RaceTrac's proposal and staff's is that they are asking not to have the mansard style roof. She stated that there were two action items that came out of the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The first was to provide revised canopy elevations with a tan color, which they have done. She said the elevation that she just passed out adds a cornice feature to the top of the canopy. She apologized for the delay in providing them, but stated the revised elevations were received and sent to staff as soon as the structural engineer finished evaluating them. The second action item was to confirm the existing canopy condition with a structural engineer, which they conducted through the process of adding the cornice feature. Ms. Hoffman stated that since Commissioner Hollingsworth was not present at the last meeting she would provide a recap of the applicant's reasoning for requesting that the mansard roof not be required in this case. She stated that mansard roof should not be required for this site because the site is a renovation not new construction. She provided an overview of the costs associated with the redevelopment and that RaceTrac is investing substantially in the site including a masonry building, additional cladding for the canopy (brick and stucco), new tanks, enhanced landscaping, increased building footprint to allow for more store amenities, and a covered patio. She stated that she disagreed with staff that the canopy is the main focal point of the site. On the contrary, the canopy is largely hidden from the site due to the trees and elevation. In her opinion, the store is the main focal point and they are proposing to make substantial improvements to the building and site itself Ms. Hoffman provided renderings of the new store model and the types of amenities that will be offered inside. She reiterated that with all the upgrades, it is not feasible to include the additional cost of a mansard roof. Their ' structural engineer has stated that the existing canopy cannot support it, so a full rebuild of the canopy and supporting concrete would be necessary in order to add that feature. She stated that RaceTrac was required to amend the zoning due to increasing the square footage more than 10%, so since they were already going to be required to go through a PD amendment process, they decided to also add the covered patio, which required a modification of the side yard setback. She stated that RaceTrac has built mansard roofs at two other locations in Allen, but those were new construction. She said she would argue that the policy has been used on new construction, not redevelopment. She also reiterated that RaceTrac is willing to build a mansard roof in the future when and if it is necessary due to damage or desire by the company. In conclusion, she provided an elevation showing the proposed cornice feature and new color scheme. She stated that she understood the Commissioners' comments at the last meeting and RaceTrac has attempted to meet the City halfway. After further evaluation from thew engineers, they believe this is what can be structurally supported. This roof also meets the ALDC requirements to compliment the main structure. Ms. Hoffman asked that the Commission consider this modification as a compromise to the mansard roof considering all the other site improvements that are proposed. Chairman Cocking opened the public hearing. Chairman Cocking closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hollingsworth stated that he thought there were three RaceTrac locations in Allen and asked what kind of roof the Bethany location had. Ms. Mohan stated that the Racetrac at Bethany has a flat roof, but was unsure when it was built. ' A RaceTrac representative replied from the audience that it was built in 2009 and remodeled a few years ago, which speaks to their commitment to continually improve their stores. Jane 6, 2017 ' Chairman Cocking said that the Council direction for mansard roofs for gas stations came about around five years ago. Commissioner Hollingsworth asked if there was a substantial remodel a few years ago, why was the Racetrac at Bethany not required to add a mansard root? Ms. Mohan responded that she was not sure of the exact square footage that was added at that time, but said it was not as significant as the one currently proposed. David Bond from Spiars Engineering, 765 Custer Rd. Plano, TX came forward. He said his company has worked on all the remodels and new builds in the DFW area for AaceTmc. He confirmed that the square footage improvements were very minor. The majority of the work was internal. They did not hit the threshold to have to bring that site fully up to Code, so the roof was not addressed. Commissioner Hollingsworth asked if RaceTrac would be replacing the fuel tanks and if so, where they are located. Drew Cunningham, 3225 Cumberland Blvd. Atlanta, Georgia, came forward to address the question. He said that the tanks are located southwest of the canopy. Mr. Hollingsworth asked if the tank updates affect the canopy. Mr. Cunningham said that it would not and that the issue with the canopy is the structural changes that would have to be made to the steel and concrete footings to support additional weight. ' 1" Vice -Chair Trahan asked for a RaceTrac representative to confirm what they were trying to convey with the letter. Mr. Cunningham said that basically what they are trying to convey is that when and if the existing canopy needs to be replaced, then they will add a mansard roof, but they do not want to commit to a certain time frame as it would require shutting down the site to make that kind of improvement. They know that inevitably upgrades and remodels are necessary on all sites and they are willing to make those improvements when they are structurally needed, but do not want to commit to it now when the existing canopy is in stable condition. Commissioner Hollingsworth asked about the age of the existing canopy Mr. Cunningham said he was unsure. Commissioner Hollingsworth asked what the typical life span of a canopy is barring any kind of structural damage. Mr. Cunningham stated that he is not sure. He said that RaceTrac typically upgrades their buildings every 6-7 years, but does not like to touch canopies because they have to shut down while upgrading the canopy. He estimates they have a 20 to 30 year life span. Commissioner Ogrizovich said that he understood the applicant didn't want to have to shut down to do ' the canopy, but asked if they would have to shut down to move the tanks. Mr. Cunningham stated that all the remodel work will be completed before they open the store, but if they committed to adding the mansard roof in a specific timeframe, then they would have to close for June 6, 2017 businesses, which is why they would prefer to leave it open ended and address it when it becomes necessary. Commissioner Ogrizovich asked if they can'tjust do the roof with the rest of the work before they open. Mr. Cunningham said that it is not so much a time issue as it is a financial issue. The redevelopment deal as it is structured does not allow for the extra expense. Commissioner Hollingsworth asked what the expense of replacing the canopy would be, to which Mr. Cunningham said upwards of roughly $350,000. Commissioner Orr asked Mr. Cunningham what exactly they are doing to the canopy. Mr. Cunningham replied that they will replace the canopy with new ACM metal, add the cornice, and add the brick wraps around the columns. Chairman Cocking said that last time, they also mentioned they would be replacing the decking, lighting, and basically everything but the structural elements. Mr. Cunningham confirmed that is correct. The recessed LED lights, which do not hang down, and are much more energy efficient. Commissioner Hollingsworth asked a clarifying question as to why the Bethany location did not require a canopy upgrade and whyt staff is asking for one at this location. Ms. Mohan stated that the renovation of the Racetrac at Bethany was minimal and did not require a zoning action so there was not a catalyst to request the change. This one does and thus gives the Commission and Council the ability to require higher standards. Chairman Cocking also pointed out that the setback triggered the PD amendment and it is common for an applicant to ask for relaxed regulations and the City to ask for something in return, such as an increased development standard elsewhere. Mr. Cunningham explained that originally, they did not think a PD amendment was required. However, once the 10% expansion triggered it, which did not include the porch addition, they decided to add it. Ms. Hoffmann also added that the setback was not the catalyst for the zoning amendment, but rather it was the increase in the square footage. Commissioner Ogrizovich said he commends RaceTrac for trying to make this work, but ultimately the mansard roof is going to become the standard in less than a few weeks' time. This is a prominent intersection and he wants RaceTrac there. He went on to say that there are very few cases that reach this point with a recommendation of denial, which speaks to staffs efforts to work with the applicant to reach an agreement before this point. Because of that, he respects staffs recommendation. He also believes approving this would set a precedence to other remodels. In summary, he said that while he appreciates the efforts made, he cannot support this as presented. Ms. Mohan came forward to conclude the discussion. She restated that staff understands that this is a redevelopment, but believes this detail is worth the attention. Approving this would certainly set a precedent. She said that the section in the Code that the applicant referenced regarding accessory ' structures complimenting the main building is accurate, but that there is another section in the Code that specifically addresses fueling stations which are viewed differently from standard accessory buildings. She also stated that RaceTrac knew from the beginning of this process that if they amended the PD to add the additional square footage and setback provision, they would be expected to meet all Codes and Jane 6, 2017 ' policies related to redevelopment including the roof. She further stated that staff did not have adequate time to review the comice feature, but has some questions as to how it can be attached to the canopy in light of the applicant's concerns regarding increasing weight on the structure. Ultimately, while it is a more decorative element, it is still a flat roof, which does not meet the intent of what the City is trying to achieve through the mansard roof. Again, this is why staff ultimately still recommends denial. Commissioner Orf stated that this is a predominant comer and he would hate for this deal to go away because the emphasis is on the canopy and not the improvements to the building itself. He does not have a problem with the flat canopy because it will match the building. Additionally, the mansard roof will presumably become code in the new future, it is not right now and he would support the project as presented. 1" Vice -Chair Trahan stated that he understands that reconstructing the canopy does not help RaceTrac improve their retail sales, that they are meeting the base code requirement that were in place when they applied for the PD amendment, and the give and take that comes along with requesting a PD amendment. He understands both sides of the case. Commissioner Hollingsworth stated that this was a hard case and in his three-year tenure with the Commission, he does not remember a time when staff has ever recommended denial. Chairman Cocking stated that he has been on the Commission for 14-15 years and there have been times when staff has recommended denial and the Commission has sometimes supported and sometimes overruled the denial. The process that is in place is that staff makes their best educated recommendation and the Commission gives their best recommendation and the City Council makes the best decision for ' the City. Kevin Laughlin, City Attorney, provided a suggestion that if the motion did include a recommendation for approval, that it also include a provision to treat the canopy as a non -conforming structure so that it can be required by zoning to be replaced in certain conditions. He said that if the letter the applicant provided is going to mean anything, it needs to be enforceable and adding that to the PD would help make it enforceable. He said that if the Commission can provide the basic motion, he can help mold the language to provide adequate protections. He said that he knows the structure is not technically non- conforming but the manner in which the roof is to be replaced could follow the same standards if a provision is put in the PD to enforce the intent of the applicant's letter. Chairman Cocking said that the letter states that if the applicants choose to replace the fueling station canopy, then they would replace it with the mansard roof. Mr. Laughlin stated that his recommendation would be to also include an Act of God or any substantial structural improvement provision in order to fully meet the intent. Commissioner Off asked if changing the current code would catch that circumstance. Mr. Laughin stated that it would not because the PD would trump the ALDC. Commissioner Hollingsworth asked if that was the case even if the ALDC amendments were made before the PD was approved. ' Mr. Laughlin said a PD always trumps ALDC requirements regardless of the order. June 6, 2017 t Motion: Upon a motion by 1" Vice -Chair Trahan, and a second by Commissioner Ogrizovich, the Commission voted 4 IN FAVOR, and 1 OPPOSED to recommend denial of the request to amend the Development Regulations for Planned Development No. 54 and adopt a Concept Plan and Building Elevations for RaceTrac McDermott. The motion carried 6. Public Hearing — Conduct a Public Hearing and consider a request to establish a Planned Development "PD" for Single -Family Residential "R-5" and "R-6" and adopt a Concept Plan, Building Elevations, Screening Plan, and Development Regulations, for approximately 79.095± acres out of the Francis Dosser Survey, Abstract No. 280 and the G. Phillips Survey, Abstract No. 701; generally located west of Chelsea Boulevard and south of the Ridgeview Drive right-of-way. (Z- 2/23/17-19) [Ridgeview Crossing] Ms. Madhuri Mohan, Senior Planner, presented the item to the Commission. She stated that the item is a PD Zoning for Ridgeview Crossing. The property is generally located west of Chelsea Boulevard and south of the Ridgeview Drive right-of- way. The properties to the north (across the Ridgeview Drive right-of-way) are zoned Planed Development PD No. 92, Corridor Commercial CC and Community Facilities CF. The properties to the west are zoned Community Facilities CF and Planned Development PD No. 92 Single -Family Residential ' R-3. To the south, the properties are zoned Planned Development PD No. 92 Single -Family Residential R-3, Planned Development PD No. 92 Single -Family Residential R-5, and Planned Development PD No. 92 Single -Family Residential R-7. To the east (across Chelsea Boulevard), the property is zoned Agriculture Open Space AO. Ms. Mohan said that the applicant is requesting to establish a Planned Development with a base zoning of both Single -Family Residential "R-5" and "R-6," and adopt a Concept Plan, Building Elevations, Screening Plan, and Development Regulations to establish design standards for a new residential community. She then provided an overview of the concept plan indicating a total of 262 front entry lots with two product types. Approximately 129 units (49% of the total lots) will be R-5 lots, which are 65'X110' with a minimum dwelling unit size of 2,400 square feet. These lots are primarily located west of Hilliard Drive and south of Baugh Drive. Approximately 133 units (51 % of the total lots) will be R-6 lots, are 55'X110' with a minimum dwelling unit size of 2,200 square feet. These lots are primarily located east of Hilliard drive and north of Baugh Drive. She stated that the smallest lot size in this development will be a 55' lot The maximum gross density of the development is 3.5 units/acre. She clarified that the lot depth should be 110', not 120' as shown in the packet. Ms. Mohan explained that there are two primary access points into the development; one on the future Ridgeview Drive right-of-way and one on Chelsea Boulevard. She indicated that the plan also shows approximately 5.5± acres of open space which is provided throughout the development; this exceeds ALDC requirements. The open space calculation includes an existing cemetery on the eastern side of the property. Approximately 0.7f acres of the property will include the amenity center. Additionally, approximately 2.3± acres of the property will be dedicated to a public park. A 10' Hike and Bike trail is proposed along the western side of the property. This trail connects to the existing trail to the south and ' continues to the north where it will be connected to future trails. Pedestrian wating/benches are proposed along the trail as well as a seating area with a shade structure (pavilion) proposed near the creek. June 6, 2017 ' Additionally, the trail continues east along Street K within this development and will connect to the Jenny Preston Elementary school. Screening for the property will consist of an 8' masonry screening wall on the northern property boundary along the Ridgeview Drive right-of-way and on the eastern property boundary along Chelsea Boulevard. An 8' masonry screening wall will also be constructed along the eastern side of Lots 39-46, Block H. An existing 6' Wrought -Iron fence will remain along the southern property boundary. A 6' Wrought-hron fence or a 6' builder fence will be constructed on the western side of the property along Lots 23-34, Block H. The portion of the cemetery will be enclosed with an 8' masonry screening wall, an 8' Wrought -Iron fence, and a 4' Wrought -Iron fence. Ms. Mohan said that several building elevations will be incorporated in the development. All sides of all elevations will be 100% masonry with primary building materials such as stone, brick, and stucco, with composition shingle roofing. The 100% masonry requirement exceeds the ALDC standards. Additionally, the elevations will be further enhanced through treated/textured driveways and enhanced garage doors. Ms. Mohan concluded by summarizing the development regulations. Additionally, she said that staff had received one letter of opposition outlining concerns about density, traffic, and school overcrowding. She went on to address those concerns saying that the overall density of these lots is less than what is allowed by right in the ALDC; that an AISD member sits in the Technical Review Committee meeting and did not raise any concerns; and that an updated Traffic Impact Analysis was submitted and reviewed by Engineering. Commissioner Ogrizovich asked if the cemetery was considered part of the development and if it would be maintained by the development. Ms. Mohan responded that it is and would be. Chairman Cocking added that this was a cemetery that was found with the building of the road and is a family cemetery. Warren Corwin with Corwin Engineering, 200 W. Belmont Allen, TX, stated that he was there to answer any questions and handed out product books for the Commission's review. Chairman Cocking opened the public hearing. Don Parker, 870 Clear Water Dr., Allen, TX, addressed the commission. He stated that he has lived in the area for three years and knew there would be development behind their neighborhood. They are pleased the development is not going to be a Walmart or apartments, but they are concerned about safety of the school children walking to school and would like more information about the temporary connection. He would also like more information on the drainage on the southwest side of the properly and how it will affect their development. Also, since he is directly behind the R-5 lots, he wants to know what will happen with the tree line and what kind of fencing will be provided for the new houses. He wants to know why there are already water and sewer taps in the open field before the zoning is even approved and if this project was rubber stamped prior to approval. Cullen Wood, 850 Veneto Dr., Allen, TX, spoke to the commissioners. She said that she lives along the ' wrought iron fence. Similar to Mr. Parker, she expressed her relief that this is a residential proposal and not commercial, but she is concerned about the existing tree line and protecting the value of her homes. She also expressed concems with there not being any direct connection for elementary school kids walking from the Star Creek subdivision. June 6, 2017 ' Jeremy Coder, 852 Veneto Dr., Allen, TX, addressed the Commission. He stated that his concerns are similar to the other speakers, but in addition, is concerned about the size of the homes, the size of sidewalks, walking patterns for schools, and the busy entrances to the school. He would like to see larger sidewalks and more green space connections for the kids and current residents. He would like more clarification about if the 9' of space is Star Creek's properly and if the trees will be removed. Chairman Cocking closed the public hearing. Chairman Cocking stated that they received one additional letter in opposition: Larry Crawford, 908 Clearwater Dr., Allen, TX. He had concerns with a dense population, with no infrastructure, with school, and with noise level/traffic. Chairman Cocking then asked for more information about the drainage ditch Mr. Corwin stated that the drainage ditch is temporary and is intended to service the school until development occurs on the west side of the school. At that time, all the drainage will be moved underground. He also addressed the sewer stub outs on the vacant property along Baugh Dr. stating that in Allen, you can't bring services to a property later and tear up the streets. In this case, a General Development Plan was previously approved for this development along with the school, which showed a preliminary lot layout which acted as a guide when the school started construction. The sewer sub outs were put in with the school construction based on the GDP so that the street would not have to be tom back out with future development. It was the best thought-out plan at the time. He stated that Corwin Engineering has designed every school for AISD since the 1980s and it is common practice to make an ' educated guess as to how the adjacent property will develop in order to provide adequate infrastructure connections at the time of school construction. Chairman Cocking then asked for someone to address the tree line, where the property line is, and what the alley fence configuration will look like. Mr. Corwin stated that there is a strip of land that Star Creek owns north of the alley; it is Star Creek's property and the developer will not remove any trees on property they do not own. In addition, the developer plans on preserving as many trees as possible adjacent to the property line as well, so there are no plans to remove trees. 1" Vice -Chair Trahan asked if there is a tree preservation easement on the property and Mr. Corwin replied that there is not an easement. 1" Vice -Chair Trahan replied that the developer could remove trees if they wanted. Mr. Corwin clarified that they could not on Star Creek's property and that the plan is to preserve as many as possible on their own property as well. Mr. Corwin then addressed the sidewalk concern on Baugh Dr. stating that the size of the homes has nothing to do with the size of the sidewalks and setbacks. Regardless of where the house is placed on the lot, the sidewalk is a standard size and is within the City right-of-way, so the size of the house has no effect on the size or location of the sidewalk or setbacks. Chairman Cocking stated that the homes are required to have 25' setbacks from the property lines and ' clarified with Ms. Mohan that a standard sidewalk width is 5'. Mr. Corwin confirmed that there will be 5' sidewalks on either side of Baugh Dr. and that the trail would be much wider than 5'. Mr. Corwin also addressed the access issue to the school from Star Creek stating June 6, 2017 ' that the way Star Creek developed, there is an alley between the two developments with no breaks and it is not safe to bring kids through an alley to get to school, so the alternative is to walk around. Chairman Cocking stated that it is a policy of the City to never create a condition where kids have to walk in an alley to access a school for safety reasons. Commissioner Hollingsworth stated that this property's setup is exactly what his kids have to do now — walk to the end of the street and around to get to the school. Mr. Corwin also stated that the side yard setbacks for each home are larger than what is typically required so there will be the appearance of more greenspace than is typical, which he sees as a positive because it creates more view corridors. I°' Vice -Chair Tmhan stated that his main question/concern was regarding the trail and connection and how the kids would walk to school and it has been addressed. Commissioner Hollingsworth stated that looking at the plan, there are no connecting sidewalks directly to the school. He wanted to know if that met the school district's guidelines for bus service. Chairman Cocking said he is not comfortable speaking for the school district, but when the trail is completed, there will be an eastern and western connection to the school and sidewalks along Chelsea. He stated that the school district sits in all the development meetings and is aware of all of these issues and has the ability to raise concerns, and they have not in this case. t Commissioner Hollingsworth reiterated that this layout is very similar to how his kids walk to school and it has always been very secure and safe. He also commented that being on the east side of the City in an older subdivision, the sidewalks are less than 5' wide, and that has not caused issues. He said the crossing guards and police always help the kids and create a safe environment. Chairman Cocking asked if the amenity center is for the entire development. Ms. Mohan responded yes. Chairman Cocking said one of the changes he would like to see is the fences facing the trail should only be wrought iron in keeping with other configurations in Allen. He would like to see the builder fence option be removed. He said it is a nice development; it has less density than Star Creek and other similar developments and larger lots. Ms. Mohan clarified that the fences along the southern border would be 6' board -on -board fences maintained by the HOA. Chairman Cocking asked if they needed to codify that in the ordinance. Mr. Laughlin asked if it was shown on the Concept Plan and Ms. Mohan said no as this is the typical standard. Mr. Laughlin said that if it is a default standard, then it does not need to be called out specifically in the ' PD because it will default to the ALDC. Mr. Lee Battle, Assistant Director of Community Development, stated that the HOA typically maintains property called out on the Final Plat, so staff will make sure that happens in this case as well. June 6, 2017 Commissioner Ogrizovich asked if the fence would have masonry columns or if it would be just be board on board. Chairman Cocking said that this is along an alley and typically masonry columns are not required in that condition. Ms. Mohan requested that the wrought iron fence and lot depth correction be added to the motion. Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Hollingsworth, and a second by Commissioner Orr, the Commission voted 5 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to recommend approval of the request to establish a Planned Development "PD" for Single -Family Residential "R-5" and 46B-6" and adopt a Concept Plan, Building Elevations, Screening Plan, and Development Regulations, for approximately 79.095± acres; generally located west of Chelsea Boulevard and south of the Ridgeview Drive right-of-way, for Ridgeview Crossing, with the following conditions: 1) The fencing facing the trail along Block H, Lots 23-33 shall be wrought iron, and 2) The lot depth shall he 110 feet. The motion carried. 7. Public Hearing — Conduct a Public Hearing regarding proposed amendments to the Allen Land Development Code relating to the following: Section 4.06 "Changes and Amendments" regarding the placement of public hearing notice signs; Section 4.20.2 "Schedule of Principal Uses" regarding uses constituting Medical Clinics, Fat Rendering and Animal Reduction, Hatchery, Poultry and Egg Farm, Livestock Auction, and Stockyard or Slaughterhouse; Section 4.20.3 "Schedule of Accessory Uses" regarding uses constituting Medical Clinic or Medical or Dental Office; Section 4.20.4 "Schedule of Principal Uses Central Business District" regarding uses constituting Medical Clinic, Condominium Dwelling, Multi -Family Dwelling, and Urban Residential Dwelling; Section 5.01 '"Floodplain Hazard" relating to floodplain hazard regulations; Section 6.06 "Supplemental Use Regulations" by adding additional development regulation to Section 6.06.2 "Fueling Stations" and adding a new Section 6.06.13 regarding Urban Residential Dwelling developments; Section 7.03.2 "Exterior Fagade Materials" relating to security and burglar bars; Section 7.03.4 "Outdoor Lighting" relating to the regulation of outdoor lighting; Section 7.05 Landscaping Requirements relating to the regulation of landscaping in association with development; Section 8.05.1 "Street Design Standards" relating to design standards for cul-de-sacs; Appendix A "Definitions" adding a definition for "Urban Residential Dwelling"; amending the median improvement fee set forth in Appendix B "Filing Fees & Charges" ; and amending various design standards set forth in Appendix F "Standard Construction," Appendix G "Storm Drainage and TxDOT Details," Appendix H "Water Lines and Sanitary Sewer," Appendix I "Trail Design Standards," and Appendix L "Traffic Impact." Ms. Lee Battle, Assistant Director of Community Development, presented the item to the Commission. He stated that the item is a Public Hearing related to proposed amendments to the Allen Land Development Code. Mr. Battle stated that the ALDC is periodically amended to improve the effectiveness ' and efficiency of the code, address changing development trends and new technologies, and make changes necessary for compliance with state and federal laws. He then discussed the proposed changes and amendments to the ALDC. lune 6, 2017 Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Ogrizovich, and a second by 1" Vice -Chair Trahan, the Commission voted 5 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Allen Land Development Code. The motion carried. Executive Session (As Needed) As authorized by Section 551.071(2) of the Texas Government Code, this meeting may be convened into closed Executive Session for the purpose of seeking confidential legal advice from the City Attorney on any agenda item listed herein. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m. These .approved this Qday of �5t 1 N4 201 ng, Chairman Madhuri T tan, AICP, Senior Planner Iene 6, 2017 ' Director's Report from 523/2017 City Council Meeting • There were no items taken to the May 23, 2017, City Council Meeting. L