Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - Planning and Zoning Commission - 1994 - 06/29 - WorkshopLALLEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSSION WORKSHOP MEETING JUNE 29, 1994 John Garcia, Chairman (arrived 7:50 p.m.) Douglas Gallagher, Vice -Chairman Kenneth Falk, Secretary Harold Biggs Jeffery Kelley Steve Allen Noel Crume [" City Staff Present: LLBill Petty, Director of Community Development Tom Keener, Development Coordinator Sally Leeper, Secretary With a quorum of the Commissioners present, the Allen Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Acting Chairman Gallagher at the City Council Chambers, One Butler Circle, Allen, Texas. Mr. Bill Petty addressed the Commission regarding the tree/landscape proposals. He made the following comments: 1. It is important to remember that property owners have rights; we cannot prevent people from using their property in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan to be Lable to save every single tree. I PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ■ NNE 29, 1994 PAGE 2 L2. The model ordinance (Garland) is one of the stricter ordinances in the Metroplex area. The summary provided at the last meeting of the City of Dallas is very permissive, at the other end of the spectrum. Mr. Petty stated that he has discussed the Garland ordinance with their staff, and advised that the review personnel for that City is a landscape architect. 3 Garland has run into some problems; i.e., they require surveys relating to trees 3" in diameter measured 41h feet from the ground. This has been a major headache, and they would change that to 6", probably 8 to 10" 4. Some of the older, larger trees that have experienced their life expectancy could appear healthier, but may not be. Therefore, they are discounting the older trees that have lived their life expectancy 5 The list of trees may not be appropriate for the City of Allen; it was completed by a consultant hired to examine the City of Garland. Their staff indicated that many of the trees in the list do not even appear in the City They have removed this list from an enforcement standpoint. They take the principle basically of "whatever you take down, you put back." L 6. The Garland ordinance attempts to preserve at least 60% of the trees. They have indicated that this can be a problem, and cost prohibitive for development. They accept sample surveys on a percentage of the property (1 or 2 -acre sample site); sometimes as small as 'h acre. At that point they make an assignment to the entire tract. 7 The City of Garland allows a discount for right-of-ways, pad sites, and homes. They allow the use of healthy trees for screens or buffers where required. 8. Garland staff indicated that they feel that after the developer is gone it is too late to deal with tree preservation. The preservation must be inspected and maintained through development as opposed to working with individual builders. Mr. Petty added that City staff recognizes that with enforcement of this ordinance, there will be a budget impact related to review since there is no one currently on staff that can review these submissions with expertise, an impact with respect to site inspection (administration during development will have to occur in the engineering inspection department). City administration recommends that as a part of the recommendation going forward to the City Council, the budgetary impact and funding possibilities be considered. Mr. Petty indicated that Section A-1 of the proposed draft indicates that application for tree removal permit should be signed by the Director of Community development. He suggested it might be appropriate to assign this to a future planner (landscape architect). PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NNE 29, 1994 PAGE 3 Commissioner Gallagher suggested this could be outsourced, such as we do with traffic study review Mr. Petty indicated that there is a conflict with the term "preserved" and "replaced." The requirement for trees to live 4 years in paragraph 4E would be difficult to enforce because of changes in ownership. In paragraph 5H, Mr Petty suggested that the appeal should possibly be to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Petty added that this ordinance most addresses single family development. The Commission should consider commercial and multi -family tracts as well. Mr. Tom Keener introduced Mr. Tom Sawyers and Mr. Todd Story, who provided a slide presentation regarding the need for tree preservation. Ms. Theresa Biddick, Regional Planner for Collin County, spoke to the issue of the need for tree preservation. E Mr. Sawyers commented that enforcement should be considered through consultants, either an arborist or landscape architect. He does not feel it is always wise to replace a tree with the same type; you should use a healthy species that would do well in this area. The replace inch -for -inch may not be necessary, but rather using a percentage of replacement. Mr. Story discussed some options he would recommend for the ordinance such as tree removal restrictions, inspection by government entity, compensatory payment for tree removal, and tree replacement clause. Mr. Petty questioned whether the presenters were aware of any approach which includes incentives for preservation. Mr. Story stated that he was not aware of an incentive program, except through the reputation of the developer who does preserve the trees. Mr. Story added that he does not feel that every tree is worth saving, but an evaluation needs to be completed to determine whether it is worth saving. Consideration should be given to requirements for utility companies during the installation of their lines. Discussion was held regarding the difference between the cost of a tree survey and a tree evaluation. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 29, 1994 PAGE 4 Ms. Biddick offered the following comments: She encouraged the Commission to consider the intent of the ordinance. There will be areas of dense forest and areas of sporadic trees. Each situation requires a different approach. In a forest, you will have smaller (under story) trees less than 6", and these might be desirable trees such as Red Buds. She stated that caution should be given to cut and fill processes. Mr. David Morgan, past Park Board member, added that the majority of the trees in Allen are along the creeks. He discussed the differences between a tree survey and a tree evaluation, and the importance of an evaluation. He agreed that the 6" diameter is appropri- ate for conservation. He recommended considering additional ordinances from other cities. Mr. Brett Johnston suggested that an incentive process would be a positive direction, and has been used in the northeast section of the country They offer such incentives as credits toward open space and parkland, etc. Commissioner Crume suggested incorporating incentives into the ordinance. Commissioner Kelley suggested that there are possibly some changes to the ordinance that need to be considered based on information received this evening. Commissioner Fulk agreed that a great deal of definition needs to be provided. Commissioner Allen stated that he is not (' satisfied with the proposed ordinance at this time. He stated it attempts to be too inclusive Land must be simpler. Commissioner Gallagher added that additional work needs to be done. Discussion was held regarding replacing an equal amount of trees that were removed, after development has occurred, does not always leave enough room for this number of trees. Commissioner Kelley stated that he felt that if the property is zoned and prepared for development with the proper setbacks, the developer should not be penalized for the removal of trees to accommodate this development. An appropriate landscape ordinance should go a long way to enhance the commercial developments. Mr. Petty stated that David Morgan was partly responsible for the linear greenbelt study His comments are very important; most of the areas that need protection are along or in the floodplain. He suggested identifying specific areas that should be protected, this already being done in the greenbelt study. This would, of course, be a budget impact, but could be very important. Protection of the floodplain might require hike and bike trail construction to be considered with regard to the tree preservation. Incentives could be used to preserve these specified areas. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that density can be increased in order to protect the tree stands. Commissioner Fulk suggested an additional workshop be set for the tree preservation ordinance to further consider the issues discussed tonight. Possibly a future document should be presented to professionals for review. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 29, 1994 PAGE 5 MOTION: Upon a motion by Commissioner Falk and a second by Commissioner Biggs, the Commission voted 7 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to adjourn the workshop on the tree preservation ordinance at 9:20. Chairman Garcia called the workshop to order at 9:25 p.m. Ms. Sally Leeper provided the Commission with copies of a memo from the Fire Marshal indicating that temporary asphalt paving of Old Alma would not be acceptable, and a revised staff memo from Mr. Keener containing corrections to the density tables. Mr. Petry reviewed City staff's concerns regarding the proposal. These are reflected in the attached memo. He discussed the existing planned development zoning on the property, and the property owner's rights to construct homes entirely through the forest area. He indicated that the forest in the floodplain will be dedicated to the City, as well as an additional 18 acres of forest. An additional 20+ acres will be cross -zoned community facilities and single family to be reserved for possible purchase by the City He recommended that more than one year will be necessary for the City to exercise this option of purchase. He added that staff does not feel it appropriate at this time to set a fixed price for the land. He suggested that the City does not have the fund to build the bridge at this time, and the purchase of the land should not be tied to the construction of the bridge. City staff recommends that three lanes of the bridge, a portion of Alma, and Suncreek be constructed at the beginning of development. Staff feels that Suncreek should be constructed as opposed to the temporary paving of Old Alma. The proposed extension of Bethany from New Alma to FM 2170 could be eliminated if the park site is moved to the forest. He indicated that the tree preservation section proposed represents a strong concern to City staff in the enforcement area. Current staff is not equipped to appropriately conduct these inspections. He added that a 26% reimbursement on the bridge represents the two inside lanes of the 6 -lane thoroughfare. It is current city policy to participate 26% on all bridges. The reimbursement on this particular bridge was included as a part of the recently approved bond election. He stated that staff feels a compromise has been reached through City staff on preservation of the tree area which far exceeds the existing zoning on this property Commissioner Kelley questioned whether the design of the bridge has been considered with regard to minimizing the impact on the tree loss. Mr. Petty stated that the bridge plans were approved years ago, and the bridge actually partially constructed. Staff intends to pursue this with the City of Plano, and will take these things into consideration. E Chairman Garcia advised the Commission that the developer has offered to tour the commis- sioners through the property PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 29, 1994 PAGE 6 Commissioner Biggs requested clarification of the exact location of the tree area that the City is being offered. Commissioner Gallagher questioned whether it is too late to redirect Alma Drive and Mr. Petry stated that Alma is fixed; it is constructed at the north end. Chairman Garcia requested copies of the development standards for the previous zoning, and Mr. Keener added that they are included in staffs memo. Mr. Tary Arterbern advised the Commission that there are approximately 5 acres along the periphery of the tributaries that would not be preserved. They have attempted to preserve the predominance of the hardwoods. He offered to take the Commission to the property for a tour He suggested that they would agree to add text to their proposal indicating that the tree preservation section would be superseded by any future policy adopted by the City He stated that tracts 8a, 8b, 10, 10a, and 12 are included in their preservation policy Their policy was based on that of the City of Grapevine; except that they have included trees of 6" caliper or greater rather than 3", inspection is suggested by Director of Planning rather than building inspection division. He added that the Grapevine ordinance does not protect trees in rights-of-way and on building pads. Mr. Greg Rich stated that 920 single family homes would be built, with two trees per lot along with requirements for streetscaping. Commissioner Allen questioned the plans for the McDermott forested property. Commissioner Kelley stated that he was concerned regarding the financial impact of the proposed tree preservation policy Mr. Keener suggested that staff work with the proponent regarding the inspection process. Discussion was held whether a tree survey would be provided at the time of preliminary plat. Mr. Rich stated he is proposing an aerial survey rather than a complete tree survey Mr. Rich suggested he would provide text requiring a tree survey at the time of preliminary plat, or at the discretion of the City staff. The text would require a tree preservation plan and survey at the time of final plat as well. He discussed the possibility of receiving credit for transplanting the smaller (under -canopy) trees. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the Director of Planning would handle the permits, etc., and could this be accomplished with the current staff? Mr. Rich indicated that he felt that this would be accomplished through the Technical Review Committee meetings. Chairman Garcia suggested that Mr Arterbern coordinate with Tom Keener and the Commissioners for a tour of the property PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 29, 1994 PAGE 7 MOTION: Upon a motion by Commissioner Gallagher and a second by Commissioner Fulls, the Commission voted 7 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to adjourn the June 29, 1994, meeting at 10:30 p.m. These minutes approved this day of 1994. U- � AAV�� Joarcta, Chairman 0 4 t41F�gsretar.}�,, / I I TO: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FROM: BILL PETTY, DIR. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT SUNCREEK ZONING REQUEST DATE: JUNE 21, 1994 I had hoped very much to be in attendance at your meeting when you held the public hearing for the Suncreek zoning request; however, that hearing date conflicted with a scheduled vacation. Consequently, I am out of town and unable to be there. I felt it appropriate as Director of Community Development to provide you with a list of my comments or concerns for your consideration. L1. I feel that we have to keep in mind that the proponent's have the right, under the existing zoning, to plat their property and develop it under the current conditions; particularly that the entire tree area under consider- ation that is located outside the floodplain would not be preserved as a forest. There would be some protection through the tree preservation ordinance, but it would allow that single family dwellings be built throughout this area. 2. The existing zoning, as you know, allows a reservation for approximate- ly 18 acres of a future community park. This 18 acres is flat and usable for ballfields, etc. The consideration to change the community park site to some other location, and trade this 18 acres for an equal amount of the forest area, in my opinion, is not only a positive move, but has the blessing of the City Manager, Parks Director, and the Parks and Recre- ation Board. The additional acreage that is being cross -zoned between Community Facilities and Single Family is a direct result of many meetings between the proponents, the City Manager, Rhoda Savage and myself. I might add that the City Manager and Rhoda Savage have both indicated that this is acceptable, and will allow the City to utilize the area to its fullest extent in its natural state. The caveat, however, is that the City must Page 2 Suncreek Comments June 22, 1994 find a way, over a period of time, to purchase this land that is being reserved, and I feel very optimistic that every stone will be overturned to make that possible. If there is a point of discussion in my mind, it would be the length of time. As you know, one year is suggested by the developer, and I would hope that some negotiation could take place that might extend that period. As you are aware, the proponents have offered an alternate (either/or): building Suncreek Blvd. to F.M. 2170, or doing interim paving of Old Alma Road. In my opinion, it is very important that Suncreek Blvd. be constructed as the access point from F.M. 2170, and not use alternate means such as temporary asphalt paving. 4 You will note that the proponents have removed the extension of Bethany Drive from New Alma to F.M. 2170. There are two thoughts to this; a) if we maintain the community park site that is currently zoned as opposed to honoring the request to exchange the tree area, then Bethany Drive should remain in place to accommodate the traffic load; b) if the Commission recommends and the Council approves a trade of this land and allows the 18 acres presently zoned Community Facilities to become Single Family, then it is entirely possible, if approved in the traffic analysis, that Bethany could terminate at Alma and remove that section from Alma to F.M. 2170. This simply means, unless traffic warrants, that roadway section is not needed and would create another opening onto F.M. 2170. 5. The Suncreek tree preservation ordinance being proposed represents a strong concern in my opinion. Tree preservation for development has to be administered during development, not during the construction of houses. Consequently, the appropriate inspection team is the City forces under Engineering, and not building inspectors. I would suggest also that the Commission discuss with the City Engineer whether or not his present workforce has the capability through the existing manpower to manage this process. I can assure you that building inspection does not. 6. There are certainly other changes that are being proposed that the Commission needs to take under advisement, such as under the current zoning, no building permit can be issued on any tract of land until the bridge is built, and Suncreek Blvd. is put in to connect F.M. 2170. ( Staff has indicated to the proponents, as well as others in the past, that in order to get this area under development and provide another access north/south into West Plano, that modifications could be considered to Page 3 Suncreek Comments June 22, 1994 allow possibly the first half of the bridge to be built along with Suncreek Blvd., and allow construction in a portion of the area. However, before construction could move into the other phases, the other side of the bridge would have to be complete. The Commission needs to evaluate the equity of the tracts that are being proposed to be developed under each of these scenarios. In summary, I would just like to say that under the current zoning, this could be one of those cases where we could lose the forest by looking at the trees. By that I mean that the plan that has been submitted, once again, was in confor- mance with an understanding between the proponents, the City Manager, and the Director of Parks and Recreation. If we take it a lot further than that, then we have to remember that they can plat the property and build within the tree area under current zoning. There are many other areas which the Commission will need to evaluate very carefully, and make their determination of their recommendation on this case, but I felt that I should provide you at least with this list of my comments as Director of this department.