Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - Planning and Zoning Commission - 1999 - 05/27 - RegularALLEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 27, 1999 ATTENDANCE: Commission Members Present: Jeffrey Kelley Kevin Keff Pamela Smith Scott Neice Kevin Keff Mark Pacheco Commission Members Absent: Jeff McGregor, Vice -Chairman City Staff Present: Marcie Diamond, Senior Planner Pam Conway, Secretary Carolyn Thomas, Planning Intern George Conner, Director Public Works Pete Smith, City Attorney's Office CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM: With a quorum of the Commission Member's present, the Allen Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order at 7 10 p.m., by Chairman Obermeyer, at the City Council Chambers, Allen Public Library, Two Allen Civic Plaza, Allen, Texas. WORKSHOP Item IV Preliminary Plat, Alliance Office Center—Commission Member Pacheco questioned the screening wall. Ms. Marcie Diamond stated that it refers back to the PD ordinance, which requires solid screening along the east property line and a combination of landscaping and decorative fencing along the south property line. Commission Member Pacheco also verified that the building would be one story Ms Diamond confirmed. Pete Smith, City Attorney, explained the vested rights legislation recently passed. He stated it will significantly impair the City's ability to impose new development restrictions and standards on property 0 I L PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 27, 1999 REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM: With a quorum of the Commission Member's present, the Allen Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:37 p.m., by Chairman Obermeyer, at the City Council Chambers, Allen Public Library, Two Allen Civic Plaza, Allen, Texas. Media Relations Training Agenda Item 11 PAGE Katherine Poteet, Public Information Officer, gave Media Training to the Commission Members. Ms Poteet distributed the City's Media Relations Policy and Media Relations Handbook. A question and answer period followed the informative presentation. Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of May 13, 1999 Agenda Item III Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Kelley and a second by Commission Member Smith, the Commission voted 6 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve the consent agenda as submitted. The Motion Carried. PRELIMINARY PLAT Alliance Office Center, Lots 1-8. Blk. A Agenda Item IV Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda nem into the record as follows: "Consider a request for Alliance Office Center, Lots 1-8, Block A on 5.0214 ± acres of land situated in the Henry Weisel Survey, Abstract No. 1026, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; further described as being located at the southeast corner of S.H.5 and Buckingham Lane:" Ms. Diamond presented the item to the Commission. She stated that a five-foot right-of-way dedication is identified along SH5. A fifteen -foot landscape easement is delineated along SH5 and Buckingham Lane. There is no access permitted by zoning from this complex to Buckingham Lane, and the plat is in conformance with that requirement. Staff recommends approval of this Preliminary Plat. Commission Member Kelley asked if there was a drive approach on Buckingham. Mr. Conner stated that there was considerable input from the residents of Buckingham Estates, and this will stay a chip/seal asphalt road and no access will be permitted from this development to Buckingham Road. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Smith and a second by Commission Member Neice, the Commission voted 6 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve the Preliminary Plat for Alliance Office Center, Lots 1-8, Block A as submitted. The Motion Carried. Pete Smith, City Attorney, stated that the public hearings could be opened separately, or all of them opened at once Chairman Obermeyer decided that he would simultaneously open the public hearings for Items V -Filing Fees and Charges, and VI -Sign and consider the remainder of the Public Hearings as individual items. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 3 MAY 27, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING Section 5.04, Feline Fees and Charges Agenda Item V Chairman Obenneyer read the agenda items into the record as follows: "Consider a request for an amendment to Section 5.04, Filing Fees and Charges, of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to establish fees by resolution by the City Council" PUBLIC HEARING Section 4.03.6, Sign Agenda Item VI Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda item into the record as follows. "Consider a request for an amendment to Section 4.03 6, Sign, of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance relating to the posting of signs for public hearings before the City Council." Ms. Diamond presented the Items V and VI to the Commission. She stated that Section 5.04, Filing Fees and Charges, as part of the revisions and updates to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the City Attorney has recommended that all submission fees be established by Resolution, (verses being codified as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance). A resolution will be brought forward to the City Council at the time they consider this ordinance amendment Staff recommends approval of these amendments She stated that regarding Section 4.03.6, Sign, a Resolution was approved by City Council on February 18, 1999, which provided for the City to assume the responsibility for the placement and removal of zoning notification signs, and to establish a fee to assess the applicants. This amendment reflects that change. Commission Member Pacheco stated that on item IV, Sign, he noted a misspelled word (should be closest not closet). He also questioned the statement about the closest thoroughfare. What if there is no thoroughfare near the property? Ms. Diamond suggested adding the words "oriented toward" It was determined that the words "shall be visible to the public" would be added. Pete Smith noted a typo in the first sentence in Section I and noted that "the property " should be added after "by the City of Allen on Chairman Obermeyer opened the Public Hearing for Item V — Filing Fees and Charges, and Item VI - Sign. With no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Kelley and a second by Commission Member Pacheco, the Commission voted 6 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve Agenda Item V — Section 5.04, Filing Fees and Charges, as submitted, and Agenda Item VI—Section 4.03.6, Sign, as amended and shown below. The Motion Carried. Section 4.03.6— Sign Notification — "6. Sign- A sign shall be erected by the City of Allen on,, which the change or classification is requested, no less than ten (10) days prior to the public PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 27, 1999 PAGE hearing to be held by the City Council. Such sign shall ben.•_ n tate bold letters the current zoning, the requested chant and the time, date and location of the public hearing. The sign shall also include the City of Allen logo. The City Council may waive the requirements of this section if satisfied adequate notice has been provided to the public." PUBLIC HEARING/TABLED ITEM Section 3.01 (Y) Planned Development District Regulations Agenda Item VII Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda dem into the record as follows: "Consider a request for an amendment to Section 3.01 (Y) Planned Development District Regulations, of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to establish regulations for Planned Development districts." Ms. Diamond presented the item to the Commission. She stated that for the past several months an Ad Hoc Committee of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council has been reviewing various revisions to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The proposed PD Requirements provide for the following: • Broaden the applicability of a PD to allow for flexibility in zoning restrictions to encourage a more creative, efficient and aesthetically pleasing design; • Better defines the information required to be submitted in the Development Regulations; • Includes specific criteria for Concept Plans and Detail Plans; • Requires that Detail Plans be submitted within six months of the Concept Plan, • Maintains the provision of open space at the ratio of one acre per seventy five dwelling unds; however, allows for a consideration of a variance to this requirement if recommended by the Planning Director; • Specifically defines what does and does not qualify as open space; • Expands the items that can be included in a facilities agreement. Past practice has been that facilities agreements are generally limited to thoroughfares. Some of these requirements have been incorporated in recent submissions on a volunteer basis; however, it would be beneficial to have requirements formalized through the ordinance adoption process. Ms. Diamond also directed the Commission members to the outline of the proposed ordinance included in the packet. It was noted by the City Attorney that this item does not need to be removed from the table since it is on the table before the Commission to consider The public hearing is continued from the last meeting. With no one wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Ms. Diamond stated that the main difference is that now we desire to require a concept plan to be included, or a derailed site plan, with specific requirements of what needs to be indicated on these plans. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 5 MAY 27, 1999 Chairman Obermeyer asked how exact to the concept plan does the detailed site plan have to be? Commission Member Kelley stated that a concept plan is a concept It may not be exact based on unknown issues Mr. Pete Smith, City Attorney stated that that this has been studied at the Ad Hoc committee meetings. He stated that the reason for a Planned Development is for the City to jointly develop the property with the applicant. The concept plan will give a pictorial representation of what the development may look like. It would give the tools to insure a quality development. He further stated that some cities require a detailed site plan to come back to the Commission for review. Mr. Pete Smith stated that he does not encourage that route. If engineering is not done, they can give a conceptual plan of street layout/openspace/lot layout. Chairman Obermeyer stated that a concept plan has, in the past, been brought forward to the Commission, and there are changes, rearrangement of openspace or lots. Are those acceptable changes in a concept plan? Ms Diamond pointed out the portions of the proposed ordinance which enumerate acceptable changes in the concept/detail plan. Ms. Diamond stated that for residential zoning, a concept plan would be a street layout and location of openspace, etc. Mr Pete Smith stated that a concept plan is not a detailed site plan. Commission Member Smith stated that if a concept plan is changed, she would like to see that detailed site plan to be sure it is in conformance. Mr. Pete Smith stated that a proponent could submit a detailed site plan and it could also be the Preliminary Plat. Mr Pete Smith stated if they come in with a detailed site plan, the Preliminary Plat cannot deviate from that. Commission Member Kelley stated that if the concept plan and detailed site plan is submitted for Commission review, and if it is the opinion of the Commission that they are not in agreement with staff, and it is the opinion of the Commission that the detailed site plan does not conform, the Commission needs to have the right to deny it. Commission Member Pacheco stated that he has a problem with denying a detailed site plan that the staff has approved. Mr. Pete Smith stated that we need to be able to trust staff. A professional staff needs to have the confidence of the Commission to approve the detailed site plan Mr. Pete Smith stated that if staff approves a site plan, then it is approved. Chairman Obermeyer agreed that he does not want to be in the detailed site plan process. Commission Member Kelley agreed, but he wants to see the detailed site plan before approval of a plat. Commission Member Pacheco stated that once a detailed site plan is approved, the concept plan is no longer an issue However, a detailed site plan needs to be done prior to any plat. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 27, 1999 PAGE Ms. Diamond again noted that a residential plat and commercial are different. She stated that non- residential will have a detailed site plan prior to platting, and for a single family residential development a Preliminary Plat will be submitted in confomiance with the Concept Plan and then a Final Plat must conform to the Preliminary Plat. Mr. Pete Smith stated that either you want to see the detailed site plan or you don't. The discussion continued and Commission Member Pacheco stated that if a plat meets the requirements of the ordinance, it should be approved. It is not subjective. Commission Member Smith asked what about mutual access, fire lane easements? Mr. Pete Smith stated that if you have legitimate reasons to deny, of course it can be denied. It was noted that negotiations between the Commission and proponent could still take place, but most appropriately at the concept plan stage, verses at preliminary plat approval. Mr. Pete Smith stated that nothing is being given up that the Commission didn't have in the first place. If the plat meets the requirements of the zoning plat approval is a ministerial function. Ms. Diamond stated that if we request the applicant to bring back a residential concept plan, it gives the Commission and Council maximum discretion of whether to approve or not If they come back with something that looks like the concept plan they can plan their subdivision. Mr Pete Smith stated that that is why a concept plan is done and then a detailed site plan is done so when it gets to the plat stage it is ministerial. Commission Member Smith stated that she would like to see those detailed site plans. If the staff approves the derailed site plan, and all plats that staff feels are in conformance with that plan are put on the consent agenda, why is she even doing this? She stated that she wants input into the details of the site plan/plats. Chairman Obe rneyer stated that maybe we could require items we would like to see at the concept plan stage, and that's when we could add our comments and details. Commission Member Kelley stated that we can still negotiate with the developers at the plat stage and most developers are willing to negotiate. Ms. Diamond stated that you will basically see the same level of detail between the concept plan and the detail plan. Mr. Pete Smith stated that you would still have development regulations, which are conditions of development, which are part of the planned development. A zoning change would have to be requested to change those regulations You could require no deviation on this, or it shall have thus and such. A detailed site plan could be required to come back to the Commission and be reviewed. Commission Member Kelley stated that this ordinance is a good shift He stated that the negotiations ■�+ should be done at the concept plan stage and not at the plat level. L Mr Pete Smith stated that the purpose of a planned development is to work with the developer and help plan that development. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 7 MAY 27, 1999 Commission Member Kerr stated that the decisions would be made at zoning rather than at the platting stage. Mr. Pete Smith stated that was correct It is not circumventing the process. The Commission would simply be making all the negotiations at the zoningiconcept plan stage. Mr. Pete Smith stated that if a Preliminary Plat does not meet the requirements of an ordinance, the Commission has the right to deny it or approve it conditionally Commission Member Pacheco stated that he has a real problem with the Commission requiring review of detailed site plans. He stated that they should only come to the Commission for the detailed site plan if It's an appeal process. Mr. Pete Smith questioned the Commission if they wanted to see the detailed site plan or not? Commission Members Smith and Kerr stated that they would like to have the option to see the detailed site plan. Commission Members Kelley, Neice and Pacheco wants staff to review and approve site plans. Stu Scott, 1307 Mills Ct., Twin Creeks, questioned if all future zoning cases would be required to be a PD? The answer was no. This is simply discussion on the Planned Development Regulations section of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The question of should there be flexibility in openspace was discussed at length. Three Commission Members stated there should be flexibility, and three said there should be a minimum with no flexibility. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Pacheco and a second by Commission Member Kelley, the Commission voted 5 FOR and I OPPOSED to approve this ordinance as written and amended (shown below): Commission Member Smith was opposed. The Motion Carried. Section 3.01 M. Planned Development District Reeulations 4. c. (1) Concept Plan - Page 3, top of page ... Concept Plan may be authorized the Director of Planning, added: provided such changes are not contrary to the approved Development Regulations. 4. c. (1) (a) Residential Concept Plan -Page 3, ...Planned Development District, added: adjacent zoning and/or land use, .... 4. c. (1) (b) Nonresidential Concept Plan - Page 3, ... Planned Development District, added: adjacent zoning and/or land use, 4. c. (2) Detail Site Plan — Page 4, ...as indicated on the approved Detail Plan, added: provided such changes are not contrary to the approved Development Regulations. No revisions to Section 5. OpenSpace, were formally included in the motion; however, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 27, 1999 Commission Member Kerr stated that he would like the record to show [hat in a "straw vote" the Commission was split in their decision regarding the Flexibility of openspace, and has left that decision to the Council. Maiority Findings: 1. This allows critique of the planning process at the proper time instead of at platting 2. Commission Members Kerr and Neice agreed with the findings but wanted the following Openspace requirement — City Council limit the openspace to 1 acre per 75 units. 3 The purpose of a Planned Development is to provide discretion, including an openspace requirement. Minority Findings 1. Loss of openspace deemed undesirable. 2. Loss of openspace opens the door to loss of openspace at total buildout. 3. Openspace requirements provide a benefit to the City of Allen 4. Guidelines for lessening the openspace requirements are not specific, therefore this is totally discretionary. 5. Purpose for the Zoning Ordinance is to define desirable development attributes that will benefit the city PUBLIC HEARING Article 2, Special Provision, Section 2.06 & 2.06A, Specific Use Permits Agenda Item VIII. Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Consider a request for an amendment to Article 2, Special Provision, Section 2.06 & 2.06A, Specific Use Permits, of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to establish regulations for Specific Use Permits." Ms Diamond presented the item to the Commission. She stated that the proposed Specific Use Permit requirements provide for the following: Expands the discretionary authority in determining the appropriateness of uses allowed by SUP, including such items as: • Compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding land uses • Reasonableness of the nature of the use • Mitigation of any negative impact on surrounding uses • Additional conditions proposed Therefore, a SUP may be denied if it is determined that the use is not appropriate given the above described criteria. • Retains the requirement for the site plan to be in compliance with Section 2,09 (as amended). • Provides for a timeline (expiration date) and/or renewal of the SUP C • Requires development of the use within six (6) months, with a six (6) month extension being allowed if approved by the Planning Director. The site plan's PAGER PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 27, 1999 validity may be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. • Minor alterations to the approved site plan may be approved by the Planning Director, prior to the issuance of a Budding Permit. Chairman Obermeyer opened the Public Hearing. Stu Scott, 1307 Mills Court, Twin Creeks, stated that he wished the typical homeowner knew how much work is done by the Planning and Zoning Commission and he noted his appreciation. He stated that he is opposed to any changes in the requirements for an SUP He stated that dramatic changes would be down zoning and devaluing the property He is not sure why any changes are being considered. With no one else wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Pete Smith stated that this amendment would not downaone or affect any existing SUP It is just clarifying issues. It would not be retroactive and does not change much existing language. It does not take away anything. He stated that it does not affect any use Chairman Obermeyer stated that this changes the process for approving an SUP We arejust cleaning up clerically some language. Mr. Pete Smith discussed the Private Club portion of the SUP and addressed a question about the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. Mr. Pete Smith read the amendment into the record. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Kelley and a second by Commission Member Smith the Commission voted 6 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve as amended (see below). The Motion Carried. Section 2.06 and 2.06A, Specific Use Permits A. 2, Page 2, In approving a requested Specific Use Permit, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council may consider the following: 3. a. Specific Use Permit Requirements, Page 2, If a time limit expires, unless the ordinance granting the Specific Use Permit.... 3. a. Specific Use Permit Requirements, Page 3, Minor changes or alterations may be approved by the Planning Director, which do not alter the basic relationship of the proposed development to adjacent property, the uses permitted increase the density, building height, coverage of site, off street parking ratio, or area regulations provided such changes are not contrary to the approved conditions. Findings 1. Well needed changes. 2. All were in agreement. PAGE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 27, 1999 PAGE 10 PUBLIC HEARING Section 2.09, Site Plan Approval Agenda Item IX Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Consider a request for an amendment to Section 2 09, Site Plan Approval, of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to establish regulations to require and to provide for site plan approval " Ms. Diamond presented the item to the Commission. She stated that the proposed Site Plan requirements provide for the following: • Sets out a purpose statement which includes " to ensure efficient and safe land development, harmonious use of land, compliance with design standards", circulation, utilities and drainage, etc. • Requires Site Plan approvals for multifamily and non-residential developments, SUP and when required by a PD. • The technical information is relatively the same as the current regulations, and has added a provision for review of site fighting. • Provides for criteria for the Planning Director's approval of a site plan. • Sets out an appeal process to the Planning and Zoning Commission in the event that the Planning Commission disapproves a Site Plan. A denial of a site plan by the Planning and Zoning Commission may then be appealed to the City Council. • Finally, the revised Site Plan Approval process imposes a one I I I year expiration date of which an approval of a site plan is valid. LIn summary, this expanded site plan approval process allows for a formal staff review process, increased discretion in site plan review, an appeals process, as well as an expiration date. Mr. Pete Smith added that we are also trying to be consistent with the changes to be made to the Planned Development district Chairman Obermeyer Opened the Public Hearing With no one to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Commission Member Kerr asked when does this come into the process. Mr. Pete Smith stated that this will ensure that you have a quality development Ms Diamond stated that for years this has been done at the building permit level and now is being brought into the planning process. This is a staff function. Commission Member Pacheco stated his concern is regarding building elevations and facade plans. He stated he does not think the Commission needs to be involved with those issues E Ms. Diamond stated that building elevations are now required with the SUP If it is appealed and comes to Commission, then yes, they would see the elevations. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 27, 1999 PAGE Il Commission Member Pacheco questioned if the Commission needs to be involved in this level of detail (brick color, etc). Commission Member Kelley stated that it is a reasonable thing to ask. He would caution, however, that we not be designers or architects. Commission Member Pacheco stated that we are a planning committee, not an architectural control board. Commission Member Smith stated that we)ust want to set some kind of criteria to go by Mr. Pete Smith stated that this site plan approval will be ministerial by the staff, unless it's a SUP or Planned Development. He also stated that it would insure that we are getting what we required them to do Mr. Pete Smith read the amendments into the record Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Smith and a second by Commission Member Kelley, the Commission voted 6 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve with the amendments noted below: The Motion Carried. Section 2.09 Site Plan Approval 1.7, Page 3 — Supplemental requirements — The Director of Planning may require... 1.8, Page 3—Review standards —The Director of Planning shall review... 1. 9. c), Page 5- Approval Process — If construction of tire development for which a site plan has been approved, ... 1. 9. d), Page 5- Approval Process — In such cases, the Director of Planning shall have the authority to approve... Findings 1 Improves the process. Other Business Agenda Item X. Ms. Diamond noted the items expected for the neat agenda. Commission Member Kelley reminded staff and the Commission about the Neo -Traditional Architecture Forum on Neo -Urbanism, to be held on June 22 at 12 00 noon. Adiourn. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Neice and a second by Commission Member Kelley, the Commission voted 6 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to Adjourn the May 27, 1999 meeting at 11:53 p.m. The e i m es v J �s I O+h day of 1999 r— R ss Obe ey , C ' an Pamela Smith, Secret