Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - Planning and Zoning Commission - 1999 - 03/25 - RegularALLEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 25 1999 ATTENDANCE: Commission Members Present: Ross Obermeyer, Chairman Jeff McGregor, Vice -Chairman Jeffrey Kelley Kevin Kerr Scott Neice (arrived at 7:36 p m.) Mark Pacheco (arrived at 7:51 p m.) Pamela Smith (arrived at 7:36 p.m.) Commission Members Absent None City Staff Present Marcie Diamond, Senior Planner Pam Conway, Secretary George Conner, Director Public Works Dan Tracy, Civil Engineer Jason Marshall, Ci[}' Attorney's Office CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM: With a quorum of the Commission Members present, the Allen Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order at 7 06 p.m, by Chairman Obermeyer, at the City Council Chambers, Allen Public Library, Two Allen Civic Plaza, Allen, Texas. Ms. Conway stated that prior to the meeting, it was brought to her attention that in the minutes from the March 11, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, there was a typo on page 10, in the second paragraph Ms. Conway stated that would be corrected. Ms. Diamond stated that on Item V, Public Hearing for Exxon Corp. there was an error in her memo which stated that along the northern portion of the frontage on U.S. 75 there was an 25 foot landscape buffer indicated, and a 15 foot landscape buffer the southern portion. The site plan submitted indicates an 15 foot landscape along the whole boundary, adjacent to US 75 She noted that the 25 foot landscape buffer was a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance and could not be waived through the SUP process. The proponent could request a variance from the Board of Adjustment and the Planning & Zoning approval would be contingent upon approval of that variance. Ms. Diamond stated another concern is placement of the dumpster close to the front door of the facility Mr. Jason Marshall stated that the Commission had previously questioned what they could or could not approve regarding Specific Use Permits (S.U.P ) The language in the current ordinance u I A PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 25,1999 states that the granting of a SUP is discretionary with the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council On Item VI, Public Hearing for Mini Warehouse, Commission Member McGregor questioned the Use and Area regulations Ms. Diamond explained that they have been revised to reflect the current request, if this amendment to the P.D. Conditions is granted. Commission Member McGregor also questioned Mr. George Conner about why the improvements to Allen Heights south of Bethany are not complete and stated that it appears that dirt is being dumped and potentially filling the flood plain. Mr. Conner stated that he will investigate these issues. REGULAR MEETING Consent Agenda Agenda Item II Chairman Obenneyer read the consent agenda into the record as follows Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of March 11, 1999 Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Kelley and a second by Commission Member Kerr, the Commission voted 4 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve the Consent Agenda ss presented with the correction of the clerical error in the minutes as noted in the Workshop. Motion carried. COMBINATION PLAT James D. Kerr Elementary School Agenda Item III Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda item into the record as follows: PAGE "Consider a request by the Allen Independent School District for James D Kerr Elementary School, being 12.009 ±acres of land out of the Mary Standifer Survey, Abstract No. 812 in the City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; further described as being located northwest of Alma Drive and Exchange Parkwav on Glendover Drive west of Kenshire Court" Ms Diamond presented the request to the Commission. She stated that the property is a twelve acre site on one lot located along the south side of Glendover Dr. To the north and east Ire portions of the Glendover Estates. A park lies to the west. Mr. Conner has approved the engineering for this subdivision Ms. Diamond stated that staff recommends the Commission approve this final plat as submitted. Mr. Bobby Curtis, AISD representative, stated that he is prepared to get to work on this and requested approval of the request. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Kerr and a second by Commission Member McGregor, the Commission voted 4 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve the Combination Plat as submitted. Motion Carried. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 3 MARCH 25, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING Taylor/Cameron Allen Development Agenda Item IV Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Consider a request to amend and extend the existing Planned Development No. 75 by Taylor/Cameron Allen Development, Ltd , being 2.2492 ± acres of land situated in the George Fitzhugh Survey, Abstract 320, in the City of Allen, Collin County, Texas, further described as being south of Stacy Road and West of FM 1378" Ms Diamond presented the item to the Commission. She stated that in January of 1999 the Commission recommended approval of a preliminary plat on PD 75, which included the condition that prior to the final platting of Phase 2 of this PD, the subject property be annexed into the Citv of Allen. The annexation ordinance is scheduled for adoption on April 1, 1999 She stated that approval of the expansion of PD 75 to incorporate this 2 249 ± acres of land, subject to the Use and Area Regulations and Concept Plan for this PD. Marie Cameron, 2300 Highland Village Rd. Highland Village, TX, stated that she would answer any questions the Commission might have. �r Chairman Obermeyer Opened the Public Hearing With no one wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Commission Member Kelley stated that this was visited at length at the original time of zoning and he had no concerns. The Commission members expressed no concerns Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member McGregor and a second by Commission Member Kerr, the Commission voted 6 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve the zoning request as submitted, subject to the Use and Area regulations and Concept Plan for this PD. The motion carried. Findings: I Annexation appears to be in agreement with the previously discussed boundary changes for the City of Allen and Love Joy School District. 2 Good land use. PUBLIC HEARING Exxon Corporation Agenda Item V Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Consider a request for a Specific Use Permit for a Service Station by Exxon Corporation. The property is 573 ± acres of land located in the William Perrin Survey, Abstract No. 708. being a part of Lot 4, Block 8 of the Whisenant Addition, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; further described as being located at the northeast corner of U S 75 and McDermott Drive " PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 25, 1999 PAGE Ms. Diamond presented the item to the Commission. She stated that this property is currently vacant and had been an Exxon station since 1968. It was developed under less stringent regulations than exist today The request indicates that there is only a 15 -foot landscape buffer along US 75, which would be contrary to the existing requirements. Also, the dumpster is currently located adjacent to the main building, and although it is relatively screened from McDermott and U.S 75, it is located in close proximity to the front entry into the retail building, and therefore not desirable. Robert Strangle, USA Engineering, stated that this site is extremely tight. A variance to the required 25 -foot buffer for landscaping is being requested. He also stated that the R.O W needed for Belmont and a right turn lane for McDermott Drive, is further reducing this site. Chairman Obermeyer stated that the Commission cannot give a variance to the Zoning Ordinance, and slated that he would need to take his request to the Board of Adjustment (BOA) for that variance Chairman Obermeyer Opened the Public Hearing With no one wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Chairman Obermeyer stated that the two concerns are the dumpster location and the landscape buffer. Commission Member Smith stated that she agrees with the staff recommendation that we cannot approve this request since it is not conformance with the Zoning Ordinance, Commission Member Kerr stated that he is not in favor of approving this subject to the BOA decision. Planning and Zoning Commission approval might give the BOA the impression that the Commission was suggesting approval. He would like that decision to be made by the BOA before a decision by the Commission is given. Ms Diamond questioned Mr. Marshall if the request could be considered by the BOA without the use currently being permitted by zoning. Mr. Marshall stated affirmatively, that the applicant may apply to the BOA and request the variance to the landscape requirements, irrespective of the intended use or site plan. Commission Member Kelley stated that this wouldn't be the first time we have relaxed the landscape section of the ordinance. Mr. Marshall stated that flexibility was allowed in a Planned Development. Commission Member Kelley asked what is the landscape buffer at the Fina across the street. It was noted that it is 15 feet; however, it was built prior to our current landscape requirements. Commission Member Kelley stated that a narrow piece of property is becoming narrower because of the R O.W dedications. He would like to send the message that this variance would be acceptable. In regard to the dumpster, he is not sure moving it to the back side of the road (Belmont) would be desirable He questioned the building set back. It was determined by Ms. Diamond that no set back is required because it is zoned CBD which does not specify setbacks. Commission Member Kelley stated that he would be supportive of sending this to City Council based on receiving a variance, since this is basically a modernized version of the Exxon which was in PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 25, 1999 PAGE operation there for years. He would rather not force the 25 -foot landscape buffer He would be W supportive of this request. Commission Member Neice stated that he agreed with Commission Member Kelley, given the fact that they are putting in additional landscaping to make it a better site than it was. He questioned the site plan, if we would hold them to what is presented to the Commission tonight. Ms. Diamond stated that the landscape plan could be attached to the ordinance as well as the site plan to give some level of comfort that what is shown on the site plan tonight will indeed be what is developed. Commission Member Kelley also stated that he would like to have the lighting addressed Ms. Diamond stated that in our last S.U.P , the Commission stated only down lighting would be allowed. Mr. Stangle stated that the lighting would be the shoebox type. He is familiar with the concerns of the Commission regarding lighting and is happy to address those issues. Commission Member Pacheco stated that his initial reaction was that it seemed to be a large facility for such a small site. Traffic circulation could be a problem. He would also be in favor of the landscape plan being attached to insure the buffer of the Dumpster He would like the attachment of the landscape plan to the SUP, and again stated that this looks like a real tight plan. Ms. Diamond stated that a landscape plan was submitted with the original submission and revisions could be made and attached to the SUP t, Commission Member McGregor asked Mr. Stangle why access was not off of Belmont. Mr Stangle stated that Belmont is a substandard street, so it would not be prime access to the site Commission Member McGregor questioned the necessity of a building of this size. Mr. Stangle stated that it is economics of the size of the budding and the number of gas pumps Commission Member McGregor questioned if the landscape buffer of 25 feet was imposed would they still developed Mr Stangle stated that Exxon would probably market the property and not develop. Commission Member McGregor stated he is not in favor of the location of the dumpster, however in light of the landscape plan being attached to the SUP, he could support the request. Chairman Obermeyer stated that he has no concerns regarding the landscaping. Visually coming into Allen, McDermott is like our front door. He stated that he is concerned about the placement of the dumpster. Chairman Obenneyer again questioned if this was as small a building as they would consider building. The representative for Exxon that was present in the audience stated that it was. Commission Member Smith questioned the room for the tankers to maneuver Mr. Stangle explained that they would enter the site from McDermott and showed on the plan displayed. Some discussion was held regarding the spacing between pumps and the turning radius. Mr. Stangle described the access of gas trucks for filling up the pumps and stated that there will be adequate access and maneuvering areas. a Mr. Stangle stated he might have been confused when he needed to request the variance He also stated he would like the Commission to act on this request tonight PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 25, 1999 Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Smith and a second by Commission Member McGregor the Commission voted 6 FOR and 1 OPPOSED to approve the Specific Use Permit contingent upon the requested landscape variance is given approval by the Board Of Adjustment. The Landscape Plan and Site Plan presented tonight shall be a part of this request, and lights under the canopy will be down lighting only. Commission Member Kerr opposed. The Motion Carried. Findings (Maiority) t The request is consistent with the property to the south. 2. The landscape buffer exceeded requirements on McDermott. 3 This is a reasonable plan considering the size of the site. 4. Prior use was the same. 5. This is an improvement over the existing facility Minori I This request has too much building and congestion for the size of the lot 2. As legal council advised the Commission, granting of an SUP is discretionary, and there is no particular need for a gas station here. 3. There could be a better use for this site. PUBLIC HEARING Mini Warehouse Agenda Item VI Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda item into the record as follows: PAGE6 "Consider a request to amend Tract 4 of Planned Development No 55 to permit Mini Warehouse by Specific Use Permit, and to attach a Specific Use Permit for Mini Warehouse The property is 4.7614 ± acres of land located in the Michael See Survey, Abstract No 543, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; being further described as located at the northeast comer of Watters Road and Allen Central Drive." Dave Denison, 8100 Lomo Alto, Dallas, stated that he is the applicant for this request He stated that this property is across Watters Drive from an apartment complex and across the street to the south is the last portion of property that they own, and it is zoned office. Directly east of this property is permanently deed restricted as permanent openspace, and a portion is wetlands. Which will always remain as it is. He stated that he has put some ridged restrictions on the project, i.e. no doors will face the exterior of the property at all, masonry exterior, not visually see into the project where the doors are located, except where the gates are. The wall surfaces would be broken up with off sets, columns, and landscaping so there would be no view into the project. These were requirements agreed to the apartments planned to the south. Joe Gordon, 6958 Royal Lane, Dallas, indicated that he is the architect for this project. He stated that this project has a pitched roof on Watters Drive and on Allen Central, and is not the usual for a mini warehouse. They are following 25 -foot setbacks and the landscape buffers, which are in accordance with the ordinance. Also, landscaping (raised planters)to beautify The colors of the PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 25, 1999 buildings will be neutral The Fire Department has examined the plan and has approved it The internal hallways are well lit and have emergency phones. There will be T V sets all around the buildings for monitoring. A live-in manager will be there all the time. There is a fully sprinklered lawn system, and the dumpsters are well placed and screened. They offer a facility that is needed in the community. The building is also fully fire sprinklered. Chairman Obermeyer opened the Public Hearing. Charisse Reaume, Representing Allen Economic Development Corporation (AEDC), One Butler Circle, stated that AEDC is not opposed to this use. The AFDC wants to insure it will be ascetically pleasing. She referred to the Advantage Self -Storage facility located on Bethany, and stated they would like this project to be a quality project, such as that. With no one else wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Marshall stated that the Commission would be amending the Planned Development (PD) to allow Mini Warehouse by S.U.P., and then the S.U.P for Mini Warehouse could be attached. Commission Member McGregor stated that he is in favor of amending the PD and allowing this use. He stated that the AFDC has brought up a good point. He has noticed a lot of stucco in their plan Why not more brick veneer? Mr. Gordon stated he doesn't have a problem with the brick, theyjust thought light colored (neutral) concrete or stucco was a good design However, if there were a good reason to change to brick, he would change it. Commission Member McGregor stated that in years to come brick would last better We did spend a lot of time on the Advantage Self Storage request regarding brick, berms, etc Commission Member McGregor also questioned where the air conditioners would be located. Mr. Gordon stated they would be located on the ground The units will not be visible from the street. He will make that commitment. Mr. Gordon asked Commission Member McGregor if concrete would be a problem, painted, or textured? Commission Member McGregor stated, yes, he has a problem with that. Commission Member McGregor stated he is not opposed to tilt wall; however, he wants absolutely no masonry block. Mr. Gordon stated that tilt wall would be preferred. Mr. Gordon also stated that the Fire Marshall requested a second access, and so it was added. Commission Member Pacheco shared the concern to be sensitive to the development to the south. However, this is a site behind the Home Depot. It looks like this could accomplish that with the combination of stucco and brick. He was in favor of the tilt roof. He would like to possibly see a percentage of brick facing the street, just to get a transition He would like to see the patio for the living quarters, have a solid screen versus landscaping. He also stated that he has no problem with tilt wall, as long as it's done well. He stated that this use is appropriate at this location. Commission Member Neme stated that his concerns have been addressed and he is fine with the patio screening as submitted. Commission Member Kelley stated that the plan presented here meets the AEDC's desire to have a quality mini warehouse. He has no problem with brick, if that the direction the Commission PAGE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 25, 1999 desires. As far as stucco, he would eliminate the svnthetic stucco; however, tme stucco is a good product. Mr. Gordon replied that true stucco is what they would use Commission Member Kelley stated that the look the owner is trying to obtain is fine using the stucco. The site seems well screened. He questioned the parking east of the residential structure. Mr. Gordon stated that there would be no overhead doors facing the streets Commission Member Kerr stated that it is a good looking project and agreed that it is a needed project. He does have concern; however, that this seems inconsistent with the intent of the Commercial Office area. He would like to see commercial continue to be developed here Commission Member Smith stated that we seem to be labeling this property as a "dump' zone because it is behind Home Depot She referred to the Advantage Self Storage case, and the treatments imposed. She wants to preserve the quality She is very pleased with the Advantage Self Storage and would like to see a comparable product which would be brick. She also would like to see architectural treatments, breaks, etc She wants standards comparable to those imposed on Advantage Self Storage. She favors brick, and would not support stucco. She wants an all brick wall no wrought iron fencing. Commission Member Smith noted that according to the P.D., a continuous hedge, high berm or screen wall is required within the required landscaped area. Mr. Gordon stated that there would be a continuous wall. He further stated that if the Commission wanted an all brick wall, he would make it all brick. Commission Member Smith wanted some type of architectural treatments to break up the monotony Mr Gordon agreed Commission Member McGregor asked Mr Gordon the size of the fence. Mr. Gordon stated that it is a 6 foot fence Chairman Obermeyer questioned outside storage Mr. Gordon stated that no outside storage is allowed. He further indicated that this is a good transition from Home Depot He stated it is a very attractive plan and would blend in with the rest of the area. He actually prefers the wrought iron with brick pillars to one long brick wall. Mr. Denison stated that the openings with the wrought iron fencing was actually a requirement placed upon them, because they felt like breaking up the brick look would actually enhance the visual appearance. He stated that if the Commission prefers brick, he would relax that requirement. Commission Member Smith stated that the wrought iron fencing would not cover the view Commission Member McGregor agreed. A brick fence will cover the view. Commission Member Kelley stated that he feels that what is presented is every bit as attractive as the brick. It is just difference of opinion. Commission Member Pacheco stated that this wrought iron fencing is not going around the entire property. It is just a small percent. PAGE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 25,1999 Mr. Gordon stated that it is only about 5% wrought iron. Mr. Marshall stated that based on the comments from the Commission, he suggested separating out the consideration of allowing this use, and then consider granting the SUP Commission Member Smith stated that she is basing her opinion on the finished product of Advantage Self Storage. She Ickes that product and the way it turned out. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member McGregor and a second by Commission Member Kelley the Commission voted 5 FOR and 2 OPPOSED to approve an amendment to the Development Regulations for Tract 4 of Planned Development No. 55 to allow the Mini Warehouse use by SUP. Commission Member's Smith and Kerr was opposed. Motion Carried. Findings (Majority) I It is reasonable to include this use with a SUP given it is the back end of a large retail center. 2 Can be a compatible use given the controls the SUP allows. 3 It meets the originally established purpose stated in the P D as a commercial activity Findings (MmoritvI 1. Concerns regarding the intent on this tract in this PD, which states the purpose is " Am preserve a high quality business park and employment center with regard to architecture, aesthetics, noise, access and circulation." 2 Concerned that this site was deemed as undesirable, when it is not undesirable. 3. Given the office development yet to come in this area, there are no retail uses for the people who work in those offices 4. Weare not allowing for that retail which is allowed in the P.D. which would be consistent with the original plan. Commission Member McGregor stated that he would like to see a percentage of brick. Commission Member Kelley stated that wrought iron with landscaping behind it is much softer than the one long wall of brick. Commission Member McGregor suggested 50% brick for fencing. Mr. Gordon stated that would not be a problem. Commission Member Pacheco stated that this fencing is only about 50 or 60 feet long. He likes it the way it is presented. He would like to leave that decision to the architect Commission Member Kelley agreed. Commission Member Neice stated that he likes the patio as well as the fence as presented. He suggested leaving it as submitted. Commission Member Kerr questioned the wording in the PD regarding a high berm, screen wall or continuous hedge. EMr. Marshall stated that the PD recommendations are flexible and subject to interpretation. PAGE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 25, 1999 PAGE 10 Mr. Gordon stated that he is required to put in a sidewalk. He stated that it is within the 15 foot buffer. It is all landscaped from the property line to the building. Chairman Obermeyer indicated that he is actually exceeding the requirement. Commission Member Smith questioned Mr Marshall about P.D. flexibility Is it not binding? Mr. Marshall stated that whenever a PD Ordinance is passed, it provides for some departure from underlying zoning, i e. commercial, which allows the developer to have some flexibility It gives the discretion to view the site plan, and once the SUP is approved, it becomes part of the zoning amendment But, you cannot deviate from the P.D. regulations. Commission Member Kelley stated that the site plan as presented is adequate screening. He stated that he has met the intention of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Marshall stated that this is not a legal issue, it is just opinion. Chairman Obenneyer stated that this request is meeting or exceeding the requirements. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Kelley and a second by Commission Member Neice, the Commission voted 5 FOR and 2 OPPOSED to approve the Specific Use Permit for Mini Warehouse with the following amendments: 1. Screen air conditioning units from streets. 2. No Outside Storage will be permitted. 3. No synthetic stucco (i.e. EIFS) shall be used 4. Continuous hedge of landscaping shall be installed and maintained behind the wrought iron fencing. 5. Attachments shall be made a part of the S.U.P (Concept Site Plan and Elevation Plan) Commission Members Kerr and Smith were opposed. Motion Carried. Findings (Maiority) I Appropriate transition between the back of Home Depot and the development to the south. 2. Architectural enhancements meet City standards for this type of facility 3. It is the opinion of the majority that the screening along Watters Road met the intent of the zoning. Findings (Minority) 1 Buffer along Waiters Road not seen as conforming with regulation 4.A.5 of Tract 4, 6 and 7, of the P.D. regulations. 2 Desire architectural standards more like Advantage Self Storage. 3. Too much consideration to the proximity of Homes Depot rather than the consideration of property to the south of this tract. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 1I MARCH 25, 1999 Other Business Agenda Item V I Update on Council Action 2. Items of Interest to the Commission 3. Tentative Agenda Ms. Diamond stated that the Home Occupation section of the Zoning Ordinance was tabled at the last City Council meeting to allow for representatives of the Home Based Business Subcommittee of the Chamber of Commerce to meet with the Ad-hoc Committee of the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Home Occupation ordinance is scheduled to be considered again by the City Council on April 15, 1999 The items expected to appear on the next agenda were noted. Commission Member Kelley stated that he would not be in attendance at the April 8ih meeting. Commission Member Neice stated he would be absent from the April 22nd meeting. Adiourn. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Smith and a second by Commission Member Neice, the Commission voted 7FOR and 0 OPPOSED to Adjourn the March 25, 1999 meeting at 10:33 p.m. These minutes approved this B* day of g4go c _ 1999 A L y. oss Obenneyer, Chairman Pamela Smith, Secretary p