HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - Planning and Zoning Commission - 2017 - 09/05 - RegularSeptember 5, 2017
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
September 5, 2017
CITY OF ALLEN
ATTENDANCE:
Commissioners Present:
Ben Trahan, 1" Vice -Chair
Stephen Platt, Jr., 2"a Vice -Chair
Luke Hollingsworth
John Ogrizovich
Michael Orr
Absent
None
City Staff Present:
Lee Battle, Acting Director of Community Development, AICP, LEED AP
Joseph Cotton, PE, Assistant Director of Engineering
Brian Bristow, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation
' Madhuri Mohan, AICP, Senior Planner
Hayley Angel, Planner
Kevin Laughlin, City Attorney
Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present:
With a quorum of the Commissioners present, 1" Vice -Chair Trahan 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 August 22, 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 of staff.)
2. Approve minutes from the August 15, 2017, regular meeting.
3. Final Plat — Consider a Final Plat for The Village at Twin Creeks, Phase Three, being 23.067+ acres
located in the Catherine Parsons Survey, Abstract No. 711; generally located west of Watters Road and
south of Kennedy Drive. (PL -071717-0013) [The Village at Twin Creeks Phase Three]
Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Hollingsworth, and a second by
' Commissioner Orr, the Commission voted 51N FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to
approve the Consent Agenda.
September 5, 2017
' The motion carried.
Restular Attends
4. Preliminary Plat — Consider a Preliminary Plat for Ridgeview Crossing, being 75.155± acres located in
the F. Dosser Survey, Abstract No. 280 and the G. Phillips Survey, Abstract No 701; generally located
at the southwest comer of the intersection of Ridgeview Drive and Chelsea Boulevard. (PL-Pre-
071817-0005)[Ridgeview Crossing]
Ms. Hayley Angel, Planner, presented the item to the Commission. She stated that the item is a Preliminary
Plat for Ridgeview Crossing. She stated that the property is generally located at the southwest comer of the
intersection of Ridgeview Drive and Chelsea Boulevard. The properties to the north (across Ridgeview
Drive) 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
properties are zoned Planned Development PD No. 128 Corridor Commercial CC and Agricultural Open
Space AO.
Ms. Angel stated that in 2016, an Alternative Screening Request, General Development Plan, and
Preliminary Plat were approved for the subject property. She stated that a new Planned Development was
adopted and approved by City Council in June 2017 for Single -Family Residential R-5 and Single -Family
Residential R-6. Preliminary platting is the next step in the development process.
' Ms. Angel stated that the subject Preliminary Plat shows 75.155± acres of land subdivided into 262
Residential Lots and 15 Open Space/HOA lots.
Ms. Angel noted that there are two points of access into the development; one on Ridgeview Drive and one
on Chelsea Boulevard.
Ms. Angel stated that 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 2"d Vice -Chair Platt, and a second by Commissioner Orr,
the Commission voted 5 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to approve the
Preliminary Plat for Ridgeview Crossing, generally located at the southwest
corner of the intersection of Ridgeview Drive and Chelsea Boulevard.
The motion carried
5. Public Hearing — Conduct a Public Hearing and consider a request to establish a Planned Development
zoning district with a base zoning of Shopping Center SC and to adopt Development Regulations, a
Concept Plan, and Building Elevations for an 8.472± acre tract of land situated in the William Perrin
Survey, Abstract No. 708 and the Rufus Sewell Survey, Abstract No. 875; generally located at the
' southwest comer of the intersection of Bethany Drive and Greenville Avenue. (ZN-080717-0008)
[Bethany Greenville Retail Center]
September 5, 2017
' Mr. Lee Battle, Acting Director of Community Development, presented the item to the Commission. Mr.
Battle stated the item is a Planned Development PD Zoning request for Bethany Greenville Retail Center.
He stated that the property is generally located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Bethany Drive
and Greenville Avenue. The properties to the north (across Bethany Drive) are zoned Planned Development
PD No. 3 Shopping Center SC. The properties to the west and south are zoned Light Industrial LL The
properties to the east (across Greenville Avenue) are zoned Planned Development PD No. 4 Shopping
Center SC.
Mr. Battle stated that the property is currently zoned Light Industrial LL He stated that the applicant is
requesting to change the zoning by creating a Planned Development with a base zoning of Shopping Center
SC for a mix of uses including retail, restaurant, fueling station, and mini -storage uses, and adopting
Development Regulations, a Concept Plan, and Building Elevations for the property.
Mr. Battle showed the approximately 8.472± acre Concept Plan and highlighted its five proposed lots: Lot
1 for a 2,500 square foot restaurant building; Lot 2 for a 7,000 square foot retail building; Lot 3 for a
180,000 square foot mini -storage building; Lot 4 for a fueling station and an associated 5,773 square foot
convenience store; and Lot 5 for a 6,750 square foot retail building.
Mr. Battle stated that there are a total of six access points for the site; one on Bethany Drive, one on
Greenville Avenue, and four on the south and west sides of the property through a Fire Lane/Mutual Access
easement. Additionally, he stated that several traffic improvements will also take place including
deceleration lanes and turn lanes on both Bethany Drive and Greenville Avenue.
Mr. Battle stated that Lot 4 depicts a fueling station and convenience store located at the hard comer and
oriented at an oblique angle to face the intersection of Bethany Drive and Greenville Avenue. He noted that
the fueling station is further subject to the recently adopted ALDC requirements, including that the vent
stacks are enclosed in masonry canopy columns and that the fueling station canopy be designed with a
mansard roof.
Mr. Battle stated that the mini -storage building on Lot 3 will be climate -controlled with a maximum height
of 5 stories and 55'. He noted that it is strategically located in the interior of the property and behind the
retail, restaurant, and fueling station buildings. He stated that loading space is shown on the southeastem
portion of the building with enhanced landscaping provided for scmening. Additionally, he noted that the
property will adhere to the "Mini-Warehouses/Public Storage" regulations as listed in the Development
Regulations and the ALDC.
Bill Dahlstrom, 2323 Ross Avenue, the Applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that he believes
that the best use of this tract is for retail uses as opposed to light industrial uses, and that they worked closely
with the staff to develop the application. He noted that there was one portion of the application that he
wanted to address, specifically the mansard roof requirement.
John Pimentel, 1120 N. Industrial Boulevard, the Applicant, stated that he works in the real estate
department of QuikTrip. He stated that he is before the Commission to ask for deviation from the mansard
roof requirement. He noted that he is aware that the newly adopted amendment requires a mansard roof on
fueling stations to ensure quality and that he feels the alternative that he is presenting will he of a similar
high quality.
' Mr. Pimentel displayed several photos of an existing mansard roof in Frisco and stated that the mansard
roof was plain and outdated. He then displayed a canopy with a comice as an alternative to the mansard
roof. He stated that it is more modem and flows with the architecture of the retail building.
September 5, 2017
' 1" Vice -Chair Trahan opened the public hearing.
1" Vice -Chair Trahan closed the public hearing.
1" Vice -Chair Trahan stated that the Commission and City Council recently adopted an amendment to the
Allen Land Development Code to require mansard roofs on new -build fueling station canopy. He stated that
the Commission has seen previous applicants offer alternatives to the mansard roof, including a cornice.
Mr. Battle stated that the Allen Land Development Code is very clear on the requirement for a mansard or
sloped roof and that staff could not support an alternative to this requirement He also stated that the
submitted elevation is different than the mansard roof in Frisco and that staff feels the submitted elevation
is more visually appealing. He noted that staff are open to working with the developer to enhance the
mansard roof in other ways.
Commissioner Ogrizovich asked Mr. Battle to clarify staffs stance on the cornice option.
Mr. Battle stated that staff would not support the cornice option. He stated that staff would be willing to
work on the trim around the edge but that the mansard roof is a requirement.
1" Vice -Chair Trahan asked if there were any variations to a mansard roof or if this was a typical example
of a mansard roof.
Mr. Battle stated that while this was a typical example, there can be variations to the roofline.
' 1" Vice -Chair Trahan noted that the staff are able to distinguish between mansard roofs and other types of
roofs.
Mr. Battle agreed and stated that the elevations included in the packet were compliant with the Allen Land
Development Cade standards.
1" Vice -Chair Trahan clarified that the Commission would be voting on the mansard roof as included in
the packet that staff had distributed.
Commissioner Ogrizovich asked the applicant to explain their preference for the cornice.
Mr. Pimentel stated that it was not a concern of cost, especially as the cornice option can sometimes be
more expensive, but that the applicant preferred the cornice for aesthetic reasons.
Commissioner Ogrizovich asked the applicant if they were opposed to the mansard roof option.
Mr. Pimentel stated that they would move forward with the mansard roof should the Commission not
support the comice option.
1" Vice -Chair Trahan noted the staffs' openness to discussing different design options that include a
mansard roof.
Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Orr, and a second by Commissioner
' Hollingsworth, the Commission voted 5 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to
recommend approval of the request to establish a Planned Development
zoning district with a base zoning of Shopping Center SC and to adopt
Development Regulations, a Concept Plan, and Building Elevations for an
September 5, 2017
' 8.472± acre tract of land; generally located at the southwest corner of the
intersection of Bethany Drive and Greenville Avenue, for the Bethany
Greenville Retail Center.
The motion is carried.
6. Public Hearing — Conduct a Public Hearing and consider a request to amend the Planned Development
zoning district with a base zoning of Shopping Center SC and to adopt Development Regulations, a
Concept Plan, Open Space Plan, Sub -Area Plan, Phasing Plan, Sign Plan, Fire Lane Plan, and Building
Elevations for a 79± acre tract of land situated in the L.K. Pigues Survey, Abstract No. 702, the Francis
C. Wilmeth Survey, Abstract No. 999, and the Henry Wetsel Survey, Abstract No. 1026; generally
located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Stacy Road and US Highway 75. (2091616-0086)
[Stacy Green]
Mr. Lee Battle, Acting Director of Community Development, presented the item to the Commission. He
stated that the request is a PD Amendment for Stacy Green. He stated that the property is generally located
at the southwest corner of the intersection of Stacy Road and US Highway 75 and is approximately 79
acres. The properties to the north (across Stacy Road) are zoned Planned Development PD No. 92 Single -
Family Residential R-3, Planned Development PD No. 92 Single -Family Residential R-5, Planned
Development PD No. 92 Shopping Center SC, and Planned Development PD No. 78 Corridor Commercial
CC. The properties to the west are zoned Planned Development PD No. 93 Townhome TH, Planned
Development PD No. 93 Single -Family Residential R-7, and Corridor Commercial CC. To the south, the
property is zoned Corridor Commercial CC. To the east (across US Highway 75), the properties are zoned
Planned Development PD No. 73 Shopping Center SC.
' Mr. Battle stated that the property is currently zoned Planned Development PD No. 45 Corridor
Commercial. He stated that the applicant is requesting to amend the Planned Development and change the
base zoning to Shopping Center SC for a mixed-use development containing retail, restaurants, and urban
residential uses. He noted that the PD Amendment includes Development Regulations, a Concept Plan,
Building Elevations, Open Space Plan and Cross -Sections, Sub -Area Plan, Phasing Plan, Sign Plan, and
Fire Lane Plan for the property. He stated that rezoning to a mixed-use development is consistent with the
Future Land Use Plan.
Mr. Battle highlighted the location of each of the five sub -areas on the property and stated that he will begin
by detailing the Concept Plan by sub -area.
Mr. Battle showed Sub -Area 4, which runs along the creek on the western side of the property. He stated
that the applicant is proposing to reclaim a portion of the floodplain to make more of the property
developable and that the proposal meets standards set forth in the Allen Lmrd Development Code. He stated
these changes are also subject to approval by FEMA through a CLOMR and LOMR. He stated that the
floodplain area is approximately 13.3± acres and will be dedicated to the City but maintained by the
developer through a separate agreement. A 12' hike and bike trail is proposed within the floodplain along
the western side of the development and will connect to existing trail to the north and will extend to the
south.
Mr. Battle then showed Sub -Areas 2 and 3, which are on the northern and eastern boundaries of the
property. He stated that these sub -areas show pad areas with retail and restaurant buildings totaling
' approximately 154,0001 square feet. He noted that this includes a fueling station on the comer of Stacy
Road and US Highway 75. He showed pad site elevations with primary exterior building materials
consisting of brick and concrete with wood and metal accents.
September 5, 2017
' Mr. Battle presented Sub -Area 1, located on the northwest comer of the property. He stated that this area
will comprise of the first phase of urban residential development. He noted that this development meets all
of the requirements for urban residential in the Allen Land Development Code. He stated that the Concept
Plan shows five buildings, structured parking, a maximum height of 4 stories, interior corridors, and a total
of 699 units. Mr. Battle stated that the urban residential meets the minimum one -bedroom requirement and
may exceed it. Additionally, Mr. Battle noted that the school district has received a study from the applicant
stating that there will be about 25 school aged children in this facility. He showed the urban residential
buildings and explained that they have an urban styling and are primarily composed of stucco and stone
with some accent metal elements and a flat composition shingle roof with varying parapets.
Mr. Battle then presented Sub -Area 5, located in the center of the development. He stated that it will be
mixed-use and includes a variety of potential uses such as a theater, hotel, office uses, and retail/restaurants
uses totaling a building area of approximately 418,927} square feet. He noted that one of the major
amenities, a park -like amenity area, lies at the heart of this sub -area. He stated that the office/retail
representative elevation for the mixed-use area includes materials such as brick, concrete, and aluminum
storefront with metal accents. Elevations include pedestrian features such as green screens, planters,
benches, and pavers.
Mr. Battle then presented the applicant's proposal for traffic improvements. He stated that there are a total
of eight access points for the site; four on Stacy Road and four on US Highway 75. He stated that Chelsea
Boulevard will be extended as a private road from Stacy Road to US Highway 75 by the developer. He
noted that the developer was required to conduct a Traffic Impact Analysis and, as a result, several
mitigation strategies will be included to alleviate traffic. He stated that the developer will be constructing
deceleration lanes for each point of access and an acceleration lane from the Chelsea Boulevard extension
' onto US Highway 75. Additionally, Mr. Battle noted that the developer will be constructing an additional
right turn lane from Stacy Road to US Highway 75. He stated that the developer will be constructing an
additional thm or left turn lane on southbound Chelsea Boulevard. A traffic signal is proposed at the
intersection of Stacy Road and Sweetwater Lane. The developer will enter into an escrow agreement for
the cost of the new traffic signal. Parking provided for the pad sites, urban residential, and mixed-use portion
of the development meet Code standards.
There are two requirements with developments; a parkland dedication and an open space requirement. For
this project, there would be a parkland dedication of about seven acres and the creation of a pedestrian
bridge. Mr. Battle noted that there are ongoing conversations about land that may be acquired on the eastern
side of US Highway 75 to complete the trail extension. Parkland dedication requirements are clearly
outlined in the Code, and as such, are not included in the Development Regulations. Mr. Battle stated that
he simply wanted the Commission to be aware of this requirement and the on-going conversations.
Mr. Battle then presented the Open Space exhibit, which addresses the open space requirements. He stated
that the Code requires one acre of open space for every 75 units, which would require this development to
have over nine acres of open space. Additionally, he pointed out that floodplain is not generally wanted as
part of this open space requirement. Mr. Battle pointed out that staff looks at the amount of open space as
well as the quality of open space; usable open space that functions as an amenity provides more value to
developments. He stated that the Open Space exhibit displays almost seven acres of open space and that it
includes a plaza, the centralized green, and enhanced streetscape that adds quality to the open space. For
this reason, the open space requirement has been reduced in the Development Regulations. He then
presented cross-sections to illustrate open space areas.
' Mr. Battle stated that the Sign Plan illustrates location, type, and design of signs. He stated that two pylon
signs are proposed along US Highway 75. There are eight multi -tenant monument signs throughout the
development, and individual monument signs are proposed for each pad site.
September 5, 2017
' Mr. Battle presented the Phasing Plan. He stated that Phase I targets the development of the floodplain. He
noted that the Development Regulations specify that Certificates of Occupancy for Phase II cannot be
granted prior to completion of the floodplain and the infrastructure for the entire site. He stated that Phase
IV cannot be started until certain buildings in Phase III have begun.
Mr. Battle stated that the request has been reviewed by the Technical Review Committee and meets the
requirements of the Allen land Development Code.
2nd Vice -Chair Platt asked if the buildings on the pad sites would be oriented towards Stacy Road and US
Highway 75.
Mr. Battle confirmed that they would be orientated towards Stacy Road and US Highway 75.
1st V ice -Chair Trahan asked if the back of house operations would be facing the interior of the development.
Mr. Battle said that they would, but that the buildings on the pad sites are centrally located on the lots,
leaving parking lots to create a buffer. Additionally, he noted that the Site Plan process would address issues
of screening loading docks and dumpsters.
2nd Vice -Chair Platt stated that the addition of the street trees along Street A and the extension of Chelsea
Boulevard will also help screen the pad sites.
Mr. Battle stated that the applicant is present and has a presentation for the Commission.
' Brian Glaser, 4619 Insurance Lane, the Applicant, thanked the Commission for hearing the case. He stated
that he had been working on the project for several years and that, over time, the project transformed into
something extraordinary. He stated that, after the recession, there was a shift towards a "live, work, play"
mentality, and that he believes this development embodies that philosophy. Mr. Glaser stated that he found
that parkland and open space was central to similar developments, which shaped the development's focus
on the centralized green. Mr. Glaser then presented a video that presents a 3-D version of the proposed
development.
1 st Vice -Chair Trahan stated that the Commission received two letters of support for the project and a third
letter which did not take a stance but expressed concerns with traffic.
Angela R Martinez, Cottonwood Creek Villas, Allen, TX, SUPPORT
Susan Littlefield, 1847 Villa Drive, Allen, TX, SUPPORT
Bobby and Karen Thomas, 937 Lairds Lane, Allen, TX, NO POSITION
1 st Vice -Chair Trahan opened the public hearing.
1 st Vice -Chair Trahan closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Ogrizovich asked the developer about the potential timeline for development.
Mr. Glaser responded that he anticipated the sites along US Highway 75 being developed in the first 12
' months and the first phase of urban development, retail along the perimeter, and the interior green
completed in the first 24 months. He stated that it might be around four years for full build out but that it is
all subject to the market.
September 5, 2017
' Commissioner Ogrimvich asked if the interior green would be one of the first pieces constructed.
Mr. Glaser stated that they would not begin the interior development without the green being developed
first.
2nd Vice -Chair Platt asked what would happen to the small house along Stacy Road and whether it was a
historical landmark.
Mr. Glaser said that it is not a historical landmark and that it would be removed. He stated that there has
not been a tenant in the building for two years.
Commissioner Ort asked what would be the draw of this development to maintain the amount of retail
proposed.
Mr. Glaser stated that retail is changing and that the amount of retail in this development has decreased
over the life of the project. He noted that adding entertainment to the mix of uses provides sustainability to
the other uses. Additionally, he stated that that incorporating residential components increases the market
for the proposed retail.
Commissioner Orr commended the developer for meeting with the surrounding Homeowner's Associations
and that he felt the success of a project depended on the buy -in from surrounding properties.
Mr. Glaser stated that the surrounding properties' input helped shape the project.
' 1 st Vice -Chair Trahan asked whether adding a signal at Sweetwater Lane and Stacy Road would be a part
of this development.
Mr. Battle explained that the Department of Engineering determines the implementation of the signal by
traffic counts and that it is anticipated that the intersection will reach that point by the first phase of urban
residential is developed.
1st Vice -Chair Tmhan asked for more detail on the floodplain reclamation.
Joseph Cotton, Assistant Director of Engineering, answered the Commission. He stated that the Allen Land
Development Code states that there should be no adverse impact on the floodplain. This is defined as no
increase in velocity, no loss of valley storage, and no rise in the Floodplain elevation. He stated that
reclaiming floodplain meant that there would be a loss of valley storage and that the loss must be made up
elsewhere on the property. He noted that the department felt this development met the intent of the
ordinance because while there were impacts within the property, the impact was the same by the time the
initial flow left the property. He stated that FEMA would still need to review the proposed reclamation
prior to the developer beginning work.
Motion: Upon a motion by 2"d Vice -Chair Platt, and a second by Commissioner
Ogriwvich, the Commission voted 5 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to
recommend approval of the request to amend the Planned Development No.
45 inning district to a base mining of Shopping Center SC and to adopt
Development Regulations, a Concept Plan, Open Space Plan, Sub -Area Plan,
'
Phasing Plan, Sign Plan, Fire Lane Plan, and Building Elevations for a 74f
acre tract of land; generally located at the southwest corner of the intersection
of Stacy Road and US Highway 75, for Stacy Green.
September 5, 2017
' The motion is 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 8:10 p.m.
These
. tes
a ed this
i*h
day of $CQiCWW 2017.
Ben
ian, I"
Vice -Chair
Hayley A lane
1
I
September 5, 2017
' Director's Report from 8/22/2017 City Council Meeting
• There were no items taken to the August 22, 2017 City Council Meeting.