Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - Planning and Zoning Commission - 2006 - 04/18 - RegularI V_ CITY OF ALLEN ATTENDANCE: Commissioners Present: Alan Grimes James Rushing Jeff Cocking Robert Wendland Douglas Dreggors Steve Shaffer Commissioners Absent: Marcelle Jones City Staff Present: David A. Hoover, Director of Planning Lee Battle, Assistant Director of Planning Kellie Wilson, Planning Technician Erin Jones, Planner Dennis Abraham, Engineering Joe Gorfida, Attorney PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting April 18, 2006 Regular Agenda Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present: With a quorum of the Commissioners present, Chairman Wendland called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers at Allen City Hall, 305 Century Parkway Director's Report on April 11, 2006, City Council Action • Council held the Public Hearing on the zoning amendment for P.D 54 — they voted to continue the Public Hearing until their next meeting. Consent Agenda Agenda Item 1: Approve Minutes of April 4, 2006, Regular Meeting. Agenda Item 2: Final Plat - Consider a Final Plat for Market Street at Montgomery Farm, Phase One, being 33.524± acres of land located southwest of US75 and Bethany Drive. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 2 April 18, 2006 Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Grimes and a second by Commissioner Rushing, the Commission voted 6 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED, to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion carried. Regular Agenda Item 3: General Development Plan — Consider a General Development Plan for Saddleridge, being 73.504± acres of land located south of Ridgeview Drive between Stacy Road and CR 150. Mr. Hoover presented the request to the Commission. The GDP is consistent with the Concept Plan that was approved by the Commission. The open space is a little different from what was originally approved. Street alignment with adjacent properties is being refined and may be adjusted to allow cross connection and adequate traffic flow to the future school site. Commissioner Cocking asked how the height restrictions would be enforced. Mr. Hoover explained that this will be done through the building permit stage. Deed restrictions, plat notes, and the zoning ordinance are all in place to regulate the restrictions. Mr. Hoover explained that should the airport cease to exist, the height restrictions would be removed. This is addressed as a note on the GDP, and will carry over as a plat note. The Commissioners liked the plan and agreed they would strongly support it. Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Grimes and a second by Commissioner Rushing, the Commission voted 6 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED, to approve Item 4. The motion carried. Agenda Item 4: Preliminary Plat — Consider a Preliminary Plat for Waterford Parks Phases 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9; being 59.4321± acres of land located east of Watters Branch, north of Exchange Parkway Commissioner Rushing stepped off the bench and recused himself from the request as his home is adjacent to the proposed development. Mr. Hoover presented the plat to the Commission. He stated that the plat is generally consistent with the General Development Plan that was approved in 2002. At that time, the Parks Department thought they may want to purchase some land along the western edge of the development. However, a decision was never made. It was agreed to wait until the developer was ready to construct this portion of the subdivision. Since then, the Parks Department has decided that this land was not needed. D0 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 3 April 18, 2006 At the time the GDP was approved, the Code allowed for lots to back up to the floodplain, and was supported by Parks Department Staff. Staff is in agreement that since the approved GDP allowed for this configuration, that the preliminary plat should be approved. The Commissioners had no problems with the plat. The Commission did request that after a Facilities Agreement is approved, that Staff update the Commission on the improvements that will be constructed by the developer in the form of amenities. Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Cocking and a second by Commissioner Shaffer, the Commission voted 5 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED, with Commissioner Rushing abstaining, to approve Agenda Item 4. The motion carried. Agenda Item 5: Public Hearing Continued — Continue the Public Hearing and consider a request to amend PD Planned Development No. 54, Tract 32E, to amend the Land Use Plan for an office development, to amend the required front yard setback from 100 feet to 25 feet, and to allow additional monument signage. The property is 6.0456± acres located northeast of McDermott Drive and Lakeway Drive. Mr. Hoover presented the item to the Commission. He described the background of the property and stated that a concept plan is approved as a part of the zoning process. He described the approved concept plan and stated that a flood study had not been updated when the current plan was approved. Almost two and one half additional acres of land is now developable. That additional land accounts for the additional buildings. The architecture previously approved remains the same. Although the request was revised, the applicant is still requesting the three (3) monument signs, one at each entrance, a change from the required 100 foot setback to the proposed setback, 50 feet, which only includes the comers of the front buildings and the additional building square footage based on the additional land that is no longer in the floodplain. Staff supports the new proposal and feels it is more in line with the approved plan, and is simply taking into account the additional developable land. Commissioner Shaffer asked if there were plans to install a signal light at Lakeway. Mr. Hoover responded not at this time. Commissioner Shaffer asked if there was a traffic study done. Mr. Hoover responded that nothing official, but that the plan was reviewed and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer. Commissioner Dreggors asked if they could flatten the roof of the two (2) story buildings. Mr. Hoover responded that the plan was to keep the buildings similar in elevations. Chairman Wendland opened the Public Hearing. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 18, 2006 PAGE Kendall Hutton (spoke in opposition) 404 Brazoria Drive • Opposed the extra buildings • Against three (3) entrances —amount of traffic is already increasing on McDermott. • A Traffic Study should be done Tammy Lee (spoke in opposition) 9 Wooded Lane • The residents in the area do not want • Do not want two (2) story buildings • Our houses are worth $500,000 —what value are we getting from this project? • Office vacancies already exist —how can you justify adding 70,000 more sq. foot David Rutkoske (spoke in opposition) 10 Wooded Lane • The original plan was opposed by neighbors — if profitable with four (4) buildings, why increase the number of buildings just because you can put a building there? • Approved for one (1) story, now they are threatening two (2) stories if they don't get what they want. • This is the wrong area for this project. • 300 puking spaces on six (6) acres — it will be nothing but buildings and black top. • This is a premier spot in Allen • You'll ruin this men if you approve. Irene Moss (did not speak — opposed) — Chairman Wendland read her comments into record. 11 Wooded Lane • You got approval for the four (4) office buildings — please quit pushing. • You were going to incorporate wetlands in the design. Go with your original and leave the rest alone. David Kim (spoke in opposition) 1830 Canyon Ct. • No detailed landscape plan • Keep the allowed building setback—this would provide more open space. Lary Barrett (spoke in opposition) 1824 Canyon Ct • Concerned with traffic — may be problematic with those who exit and need to travel east • Abuse of land use Jeffrey Erb (spoke in opposition) 1434 Rodgers Cl. • What will residents who live in Twin Creeks be looking at? Applicant has not provided rear elevations. • Why with the extra land to they have to come closer to McDermott? PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 5 April 18, 2006 Susan Mynyk (spoke in opposition) 1834 Canyon Court • Are you considering the impact to the million dollar homes be constructed off Lakeway? How does this enhance their investment? Chairman Wendland closed the Public Hearing and read into record the names and comments of those who sent e-mail to Staff. Bill and Peggy Smith (opposed) 7 Wooded Lane Nancy Fischer (opposed) 4 Wooded Lane Pedro and Dorothy Guillen (opposed) 1833 Canyon Court Kaye Geiser (opposed) Somerset Ben Stradley (opposed) 1 Wooded Lane David Clark (opposed) Somerset Gary Denlinger and Margaret McCollum (opposed) 1834 San Leanna Drive Shane Jordan, Applicant, 14860 Momford, Dallas, addressed the Commission. He stated that in the approved plan, two (2) of the four (4) buildings were on the 25 -ft. setback. To address the comments on traffic congestion, he stated that there is an existing median to allow for eastbound traffic. He stated that this proposal has no negative impact on wildlife, and there were no wetlands to incorporate in the development. Mr. Jordan stated that he presented a traffic study which showed that no problem or negative impact would be created to this area. To address the concern of the rear elevations, he stated that the existing homes that back up to this property will probably have a higher elevation than the two (2) story office buildings. The Commission asked about elevations for the two (2) story buildings. Mr. Jordan stated he did not have any, but the two (2) elevations would compliment each other. He responded to Commissioner Dreggors' request to flatten the roof line - The higher pitch roof provides a more residential look, which he had been instructed to do. Mr. Jordan stated that this will be a unique development, where the 6181 square foot buildings alone will be $1 million. This price doesn't even include the finish -out, which is estimated to be PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 6 April 18, 2006 $200-300 thousand. He responded to the parking comment by stating that there will be 177 surface parking spaces and 128 underground spaces. Commissioner Cocking asked about the traffic study and whether the westbound decel lane would be included. Mr. Jordan responded that they will be constructing a westbound decel lane with a greater storage capacity than the city minimum requires. Chairman Wendland asked if buildings 7 and 8 were lower than buildings 5 and 6. Mr. Jordan stated that building 7 is 2 feet lower, and building 8 is 4 feet below. Commissioner Grimes stated that the area was very nice, and that something will eventually be developed here. The area is not zoned residential, and it will never be developed residential. Commissioner Grimes stated he did have concern with pushing the development closer to McDermott. Commissioner Grimes likes the larger setback requirement on McDermott. He responded to the concerns of the additional traffic, by stating no one is complaining about the additional traffic the Somerset subdivision will be bringing to McDermott with future development. The applicant has a right to develop this property Commissioner Rushing stated he didn't like the approved Concept Plan, but is was better than this one — he will not support this proposal. Commissioner Cocking stated that this proposal is a nice alternative to a normal garden office. This is not a bad prospect compared to what could be there. Commissioner Shaffer stated he liked the proposal and currently nothing else exists in the City that would attract the same customers this project would. Commissioner Dreggors stated he had mixed emotions. The handicap parking is not sufficient, and wants it relocated to the front doors. He stated that when our war veterans return, they need a place to park. Commissioner Dreggors also stated he didn't like the location of the dumpsters. Mr. Hoover stated that this is not a site plan, it's a concept plan, and it does not meet the requirements for a site plan. Dumpsters are not allowed in the front. These items will be addressed at the site plan stage. Chairman Wendland stated that there are other nice developments such as this throughout the metroplex, that have coexisted with the surrounding residential development. He stated he had no problems with the number of buildings being requested. Chairman Wendland also stated that this property will never develop as residential and this request was appropriate. Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Shaffer and a second by Commissioner Cocking, the Commission voted 4 IN FAVOR, and 2 OPPOSED, with Commissioners Rushing and Dreggors casting the opposing votes, to recommend the request to amend PD Planned Development No. 54, on 6.0456± acres of land located northeast of McDermott Drive and Lakeway Drive, to amend the concept site plan for an office development, to reduce the PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 7 April 18, 2006 100 foot building setbacks to 50 feet based on the proposed concept plan, to provide for three monument signs, one at each entrance, and to require one surface handicap parking spot in front of each building and one for each building underground The motion carried. Agenda Item 6: Public Hearing — Conduct a Public Hearing and consider an amendment to the Future Land Use Plan for the area west of US 75 and south of SH 121. Mr. Hoover presented proposed refinements to the Future Land Use Plan for the SH 121/US 75 corridor. He described the difference between actual zoning and the Land Use Plan, and how they work together. Mr. Hoover stated that staff would like to guide the development towards Class A Office, high end retail, and office technology and we need to have a collective vision of what the community desires for development. The Commission liked the Plan. It offers a destination place feel. Commissioner Cocking stated he likes the open space look. Commissioner Grimes agreed stating it was a nice refinement — appeared to be well planned. The consensus was that the look and feel that has occurred along US 75 should be continued along SH 121 without creating one long strip center and that the proposed mix would accomplish this result. The Commission also recognized that the proposal was a general guide representing a mix of these various uses to ensure a healthy economic engine for the City Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Cocking and a second by Commissioner Rushing, the Commission voted 6 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED, to recommend approval of Agenda Item 6. The motion carried. Upcoming Agenda Items: • Final plats and maybe a zoning case in late May Adjournment Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Dreggors and a second by Commissioner Rush' the Commission voted 6 IN FAVOR and 0 OPPOSED to adjourn tela ing and Zoning Commission meeting at 9:33 p.m. These no ges roved this nd day of Ma 2006. W dland, Chairman Kellie Wilson, Planning Technician I