Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - Planning and Zoning Commission - 2005 - 07/05 - RegularI V� CITY OF ALLEN ATTENDANCE: Commissioners Present: Gary Caplinger, Chair Alan Grimes Robert Wendland Douglas Dreggors James Rushing Darton Culbertson Robin Sedlacek Commissioners Absent: City Staff Present David A. Hoover, Director of Planning Lee Battle, Senior Planner Kellie Wilson, Planning Tech Brian Bristow, Parks Department Robert Dillard, City Attorney Regular Agenda PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting July 5, 2005 Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present: With a quorum of the Commissioners present, Chairman Caplinger 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 June 28, 2005 City Council Action • The City Council approved the 2005-2006 CDBG Action Plan. • Held a workshop on the proposed amendments to the Allen Land Development Cade. I PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 2 JULY 5, 2005 Consent Agenda AIR Item 1: Approve Minutes of June 21, 2005, Regular Meeting. Commissioner Grimes advised that the Motion for the adjournment was incorrect. It indicated the vote was 7 in Favor and 0 Opposed to adjourn. It should have been 6 in Favor and 0 Opposed to adjourn. Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Grimes and a second by Commissioner Rushing, the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion carried. Regular Agenda Item 2: Consider a Preliminary Plat for The Villas at Twin Creeks, being 15.25± acres of land located north of McDermott Drive and east of Alma Drive Mr. Hoover presented the request to the Commission. The preliminary plat has been changed since the approval of the General Development Plan. The "emergency access only" gate is now located off McDermott. It was originally designed to provide access from the Goodyear property This design would have required amending that Good Year plat to accommodate this access. The plat represents 126 townhome lots, with a typical lot size of 24' x 110' with a density of 8.3 units per acre. The applicant has provided almost double the amount of open space than the required 1.68 acres. Commissioner Wendland stated there was a correction needed on Note #1. It states that all common lots, open spaces, etc. on Street Aare to be maintained by the HOA. This needs to be changed to Savannah Trail. There was no further discussion or further questions. Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Wendland and a second by Commissioner Sedlacek, the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to approve agenda item 2, subject to the change in note #1 and all engineering issues resolved and accepted by staff. The motion carried. Item 3: Public Hearing — Consider amendments to the sections of the Allen Land Development Code as follows: Section 4.08.17 Planned Development District to amend Concept Plan and Detailed Site Plan provisions; I PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 5, 2005 PAGE Section 4.20.2 Schedule of Principal Uses to include "Open Storage" as a use allowed by Specific Use Permit (SUP) in specific commercial districts and to prohibit open storage in the front yard in residential districts; Section 5.01.3, to add a definition for Natural State for floodplain land; Section 7.05.3, to require street trees to be planted along thoroughfare frontages in residential developments consistent with those requirements for commercial developments; Section 7.06.6, (1) to provide for mitigation of fence row trees in residential development if approved by the City; Section 7.07 4.a to remove aluminum and wrought iron as screening wall materials; Section 7.074.e.ix , to limit alternate screening wall materials to wrought iron (or aluminum) with masonry columns, board on board fencing with masonry columns, landscaping and berming, or a combination thereof accompanied by supporting elevations and diagrams. Requests for other alternates to require City Council approval, after favorable recommendation by Planning & Zoning Commission; Section 7.094(9) and (17) to allow message centers to be displayed as wall signs, not 1 visible from a public street, and to provide that any sign not specifically authorized by the Code is prohibited; Section 7.09.6 to remove this section and add requirements to Table 7.23 for subdivision signs and civic group signs; Section 8.05.l(1).(c) to require single -loaded streets adjacent to greenbelts and city parks; and Section 8.06, (1).(a).(i ) Lot Design, to require comer clips at the intersection of a local street and an alley Mr. Hoover presented the proposed changes to the Commission and reviewed the comments received from Mayor Pro Tem Fulk on the items. His comments were a result of the City Council workshop and had been circulated to the other Council members for review and were being submitted to the Commission for their benefit in reviewing the proposed amendments. Section 4.08.17 Planned Development District to amend Concept Plan and Detailed Site Plan provisions; Commission Comments: r • There was a concern by some Commissioners that by requiring all the details at ® the Concept Plan stage we might be asking for too much too soon. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 4 JULY 5, 2005 • Other Commissioners expressed approval of requiring the details at the Concept Plan stage, as there is currently not much guidance given. • Concern was expressed that eliminating the allowance of a future Detail Site Plan would be more difficult in the larger PD Developments, as they are usually a work in progress. • Some Commissioners felt that eliminating the Detail Site Plan and requiring the details with the Concept Plan would actually save time and prevent revisiting the Plan several times. • Commissioners questioned whether there would there be enough detail in the Concept Plan to make a decision? Mr. Hoover responded, yes. He referred them to the "Residential Concept Plan" and the "Nonresidential Concept Plan" requirements. • Discussion was held indicating that the reason the Detail Site Plan text was originally incorporated in the ordinance was to save the Developers money, because less detail was required up front. • Commissioners indicated that it would be important for developers to receive feedback from the Planning & Zoning Commission, possibly by holding workshops. • The consensus of the Commission was that the proposal would provide a better process and a better product for consideration. It would require the Concept Plan to be detailed in nature. • The Commission agreed that workshop sessions would provide feedback from the Commission to developers prior to submission of a zoning request for approval. Mr. Hoover explained that currently open storage is allowed through a Specific Use Permit for Commercial use only. By placing this use in the Schedule of Uses, it specifically disallows it in residential. This will make Code Enforcement more direct. Section 5.01.3, to add a definition for Natural State for floodplain land; Commission comments: • It was noted that the definition mentions Developer and that this might be too narrow. Perhaps we should add to the text "Owner, Consultant, or his Agent' — Mr. Hoover responded by stating that in most cases floodplain is dedicated to the City. Therefore 'owner" is sufficient. In other cases when it is not dedicated, there is an easement going through the floodplain or there is a Facilities Agreement in place. • The consensus was that the Commission was not prepared at this time to endorse the new language or definition. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 5, 2005 PAGE 5 Section 7.05.3, to require street trees to be Planted along thoroughfare frontages in residential developments consistent with those requirements for commercial developments: Mr. Hoover explained that currently commercial developments are required to have 1 shade tree for every 40 feet of street frontage, and 1 ornamental tree for every 2 shade trees. The Commission was in favor of adding the new language requiring street trees where screening walls were required in residential developments. After discussion of the proposal, they added an additional ornamental tree, requiring I ornamental tree for every l shade tree. Section 7.06.6. (1) to Provide for mitigation of fence row trees in residential development if approved by the City; Mr. Hoover explained that the fence row would be protected where the property lines come together. However, when the fence row trees go diagonally across the development, it is not always reasonable to save the tree line. With this change, it would allow the possibility of mitigation for the development. Mr. Hoover stated that most of the time these fence rows are mostly Hackberry trees. The Tree Preservation Ordinance does protect this type of free, but developers are not allowed to use them when mitigating. Through the mitigation process, then the City could monitor their removal, and regulate the planting of a more desirable tree. Section 7.07.4.a to remove aluminum and wrought iron as screening wall materials Mr. Hoover stated that he had received numerous calls from developers wanting to use wrought iron as a possible material to screen dumpster areas. The Commissioners agreed that the use of wrought iron should be minimized and not used as the only material for screening wall use. Section 7.07.4.e.ix , to limit alternate screening wall materials to wrought iron (or approval, after favorable recommendation by Planning & Zoning Commission; By approving this amendment, it would limit the alternate provisions for screening wall materials to wrought iron (or aluminum), board on board fencing, landscaping and berming, or a combination there. Any request for alternates would require submitting elevations and diagrams for review and approval by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Requests for other alternates would require City Council approval, after favorable recommendation by Planning & Zoning Commission; PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 5, 2005 PAGE Section 7 09 4(9) and (17) to allow message centers to be displayed as wall signs not visible from a public street, and to provide that any sign not specifically authorized by the Code is prohibited; Staff is recommending that message centers that are not visible from the street to be a permitted sign use. The Commission discussed the possibility of a future need to allow message centers visible from the street. Mr. Hoover stated that there is a possibility that when the new Performing Arts Center is constructed, that a need for such a sign may be required. It was suggested that the Commission address that need when it arises. Mr. Hoover stated that staff recommended adding paragraph 17 for as an enforcement tool. If the sign is not specifically permitted in the Allen Land Development Code, then the sign is prohibited. Section 7 09 6 to remove this section and add requirements to Table 7.23 for subdivision signs and civic group signs, Mr. Hoover stated that currently the Planning staff issues initial permits for all temporary signs. However, those that are required to be renewed have to go before the Sign Control Board. The specifications for these temporary signs are outlined in the Allen Land Development Code, and the proposal is to allow staff to review the renewal and issue the renewal permit if it is determined that the sign is in compliance. The proposal also includes civic group and subdivision signs in the table with their specifications. This will allow staff to review the requirements and determine if the sign can be permitted. The proposal removes the requirement for murals having to go before the Sign Control Board. Mr. Hoover stated that murals are not signs and should not be regulated by the City. The recommendation is also to remove the possibility of public service structures, such as benches, trash receptacles, etc. from including any advertisement. Currently, the Code would allow it tf approved by the Sign Control Board. The Sign Control Board has reviewed all the changes and recommendations, and was in favor of the proposed changes. The Commissioners favored the recommended changes. Section 8.05.1(1)(c) to reouire single -loaded streets adiacent to greenbelts and citv parks: and Only one minor change — changing "may require" to "shall require" single -loaded streets was proposed. The Commission had no questions and agreed to the change. Section 8.06, (1)(a)(i ) Lot Design to require comer clips at the intersection of a local street and an alley PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 7 JULY 5, 2005 The Commissioners favored the recommended change. Chairman Caplinger opened the Public Hearing. There was no one present to speak for or against the request. Chairman Caplinger closed the Public Hearing. With Mr. Dillard's approval, the Commission voted separately on each proposal. Section 4 08 17 — Amend Concept Plan and Detail Site Plan Provisions Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Wendland and a second by Commissioner Culbertson, the Commission voted 6 IN FAVOR, and 1 OPPOSED, with Commissioner Grimes casting the negative vote, to recommend approval of this section of the Allen Land Development Code. The motion carried. Section 4 20 2 — Schedule of Principal Uses to include "Open Storage" Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Grimes and a second by Commissioner Sedlacek, the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED, to recommend approval of this section of the Allen Land Development Code. The motion carried. Section 5.01.03, to add a definition for Natural State for floodplain Is Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Wendland and a second by Commissioner Sedlacck, the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED, to table this item. The motion carried. Section 7.05.3 — Require street trees to be planted alone thoroughfare frontages in residential developments consistent with those requirements for commercial developments Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Wendland and a second by Commissioner Culbertson, the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED, to recommend approval of this section of the Allen Land Development Code, adding the 1 ornamental trees for every 1 shade trees The motion carried. Section 7.06.6 (1) — Provide mitigation of fence row trees in residential development Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Wendland and a second by Commissioner Grimes, the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED, to recommend approval of this section of the Allen Land Development Code. The motion carried. masonry columns, be combination thereof. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 8 JULY 5, 2005 Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Wendland and a second by Commissioner Grimes, the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED, to recommend approval of these sections of the Allen Land Development Code. The motion carried. Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Grimes and a second by Commissioner Sedlacek, the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED, to recommend approval of these sections of the Allen Land Development Code. The motion carried. Section 8.05.1(1)(c) to required single -loaded streets adjacent to greenbelts and City parks Section 8 06(1)(a)(i) — Lot Design — to require comer clips at the intersection of a local street and an alley. Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Culbertson and a second by Commissioner Wendland, the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED, to recommend approval of these sections of the Allen Land Development Code. The motion carried. Item 4: Workshop — Discussion on a proposed development for the Boyle Tract located west of Twin Creeks Drive and north of W Exchange Parkway Mr. Hoover presented the request to the Commission. The proposal consists of some townhome units adjacent to Ridgeview. Staff has met with the Developer on several occasions. However, the Developer has requested a workshop to receive feedback and direction from the Commission. Several items are still unresolved: • Their proposal will require a realignment of Ridgeview Drive • Townhomes adjacent to and south of Ridgeview • Floodplain reclamation • Double -loaded streets • Interconnectivity to the development to the west Dick Skorburg and Ron Betz addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Skorburg stated they are proposing construction of two (2) lanes of Ridgeview, with a cost for them at $100,000 - $125,000. They we proposing that the City help with these costs. The product will be a high end product priced from $200,000 to $500,000. The development consists PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 9 JULY 5, 2005 of 165 acres with 130 Townhomes in the Ridgeview area. There will be a 14 acre HOA park, with pedestrian linkage to Rowlett Creek. Comments and/or concerns from the Commissioners: • The number of townhomes is a concern • Proposed reclamation of the floodplain is a concern • The proposed park is uninviting to the general public • Like to see the flow of the hike and bike trail • Do not like the idea of double loaded streets. • Do not like 5 streets opening to Twin Creeks Drive — too much congestion • Won't support the relocation of Ridgeview • 8% slope will not allow for building an ADA compliance sidewalk • Areas up stream from this development have flooded • Do not want townhomes, but if allowed, likes them placed at the edge of the development adjacent to Ridgeview. • Design pattern does not seem to flow well • Interconnectivity is a problem Mr. Skorburg thanked the Commission for their time and direction on the proposed development and stated that he would be back to discuss their concerns soon. 1 Adjournment Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Dreggors a second by Commissioner Rushing, the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR and 0 OPPOSED to adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 10:10 p.m. Japh f aLt /�2005. nge C a' an Kellie Wilson, Planning Technician I