Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - Planning and Zoning Commission - 2005 - 08/16 - RegularI ;� CITY OF ALLEN ATTENDANCE: Commissioners Present: Gary Caplinger, Chair Alan Grimes Robert Wendland Douglas Dreggors James Rushing Robin Sedlacek Commissioners Absent: Darion Culbertson PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting August 16, 2005 City Staff Present 1 David A. Hoover, Director of Planning Lee Battle, Senior Planner Kellie Wilson, Planning Technician Joe Gorda, City Attorney Brian Bristow, Manager, Capital Projects and Grants, Parks Department Regular Aeenda 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 August 9, 2005 City Council Action The City Council tabled the public hearing on the Central Business District. E PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 2 AUGUST 16, 2005 Consent Agenda Agenda Item 1: Approve Minutes of August 2, 2005, Regular Meeting. Agenda Item 2: Final Plat — Consider a Final Plat for The Villas at Twin Creeks, being 15.25± acres of land located north of McDermott Drive and east of Alma Drive. Agenda Item 3: Final Plat — Consider a Final Plat for Lot 1, Block B, Starcreek Commercial, being 16.533± acres of land located northeast of Ridgeview Drive and Watters Road. 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 Agenda Item 4: Revised Preliminary Plat — Consider a revised Preliminary Plat for Custer-Hedgcoxe Addition No. 2, Lots 2, 4, and 5, Block A, being 7.504± acres located north of Hedgcoxe Road and east of Custer Road. Mr. Hoover presented the plat to the Commission. The proposal is to develop lot 4 as a dry cleaner. The revised plat creates Lot 2, which will be dedicated to the City as floodplain. The lots dimensions are changing slightly from the previous preliminary plat. Commissioner Dreggors asked why the property line did not follow the contour lines illustrated on the plat. Mr. Hoover stated that this was ok as long as the property line did not include the floodplain. Also, with this alignment, the trail is entirely in the floodplain. Commissioner Sedlacek asked if there was a median cut closer to Lot 4. Mr. Hoover stated the median cut was proposed and approved with the original preliminary plat. The Commissioners discussed and agreed the preliminary plat met the requirements of the Allen Land Development Code. Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Wendland and a second by Commissioner Sedlacek, the Commission voted 6 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve the Agenda Item 4. The motion carried. Agenda Item 5: Public Hearing and consider a recommendation to change the zoning from Agriculture-Open/Space to Planned Development No. 98 for R4 Residential, R5 Residential, TH Townhome, and CC Corridor Commercial Uses for 164.942± acres of land located north of W Exchange Parkway Drive and west of Twin Creeks Drive. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 3 AUGUST 16, 2005 Mr. Hoover presented the request to the Commission. The proposal is for Corridor Commercial zoning north of Ridgeview, townhome units adjacent to and south of Ridgeview, with the remainder being single-family homes. The applicant will develop a park that will include a lake and other amenities, open to the public, and adjacent to the future community park that the City will build to the west of this property. With this proposal, the applicant wants to reconfigure the floodplain. Applicant has met several times with Parks Staff on the park amenities trying to create a product that the City could support. Mr. Hoover explained that the City Council passed a Resolution that will not allow residential development north of Ridgeview The applicant is proposing a realignment of Ridgeview to allow the residential zoning that is being proposed. The applicant was told in prior meetings with Staff, that before the zoning can be approved, the City will require a letter from the adjacent property owner to the west indicating their support of the realignment of Ridgeview The applicant did provide a letter to the City prior to the meeting; however the Staff is not comfortable with the content of the letter. Mr. Hoover requested that the Commission hear the proposal and table the decision until the next meeting. Dick Skorburg representing the Applicant addressed the Commission. He highlighted items and the amenities that are being proposed. Mr. Skorburg stated that the applicant will spend $891,130 to construct the bridges, the park, the fountains, and the lake (also includes the park fees that are required.) • 3 -acre lake • 2 bridges • 3 fountains • 124 townhome units • Lot width of 62 feet— 199 lots • Lot width of 80 feet — 171 lots Lenny Hughes with Halff Associates also addressed the Commission. Mr. Hughes presented conceptual drawings of the layout of Lake Allen Park. He explained the trail will tie-in to the lake, that will provide public access. There will be approximately 120-130 feet as a buffer from the lake to the street. There will be 10-12 on -street parking spaces near the lake. Mr. Hughes will continue to work with the Parks staff to design the on -street parking. At the City's request, a hard edge will be constructed around the pond to allow for easier maintenance. Commissioner Wendland asked about the source of water for the pond. Mr. Hughes responded that they have met with Parks Staff and there has been discussion of a possible well. Mr. Hughes did assure the Commission there will be a constant water level — approximately 7-8 feet, maybe deeper in the middle. However, for citizen safety, they will construct a safety shelf around the pond. Brian Bristow with the Parks Department addressed the Commission. He spoke favorably of the proposal. Mr. Bristow stated that the proposal has been refined, and the Parks Department now sees it as an asset to the Parks System. He also stated that the proposed park will be required to PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 16, 2005 PAGE be an extension of the future community park that the City will construct on the other side of Rowlett Creek. This proposal provides two (2) access points to the future park. After meeting with the City Traffic Engineer and Parks Maintenance staff, Mr. Bristow stated that the Parks Department supports the concept, although there are some issues that need to be worked out. Chairman Caplinger opened the Public Hearing. Peggy Rook (spoke with questions) 1431 Glendover Drive • Will there be apartments? • Who is the developer? • Will the entrances in this development encourage cut-thru traffic from this development to Glendover • Will this development have its own elementary school? • Will this development have similar alleys to Glendover? Debra Felske (spoke against) 631 Lakewood Drive • This development will add 1,000 more students to the already overloaded schools 1 Chairman Caplinger read the names into record of individuals who and had e-mailed or mailed their comments in to Staff prior to the meeting. Ray Tolson (support) Dawn Wilcox (oppose) Jim and Kathy Copus (support) 1423 Lamond Court Mary Logston (oppose) 1429 Glendover Drive Helen Logan (oppose) 1434 McKenzie Court Michael D. Blanchetre (support) 1431 Greenwich Drive Cole and Cristi Paschall (oppose) 1433 McClure Chairman Caplinger closed the Public Hearing. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 5 AUGUST 16, 2005 Br. Hoover addressed the citizen comments. e stated that the school district uses the City's future land use plan when planning for future school sites. Their long range plans are in line with the City's. Also, he stated there is no request for multi -family zoning. The proposal is strictly for single-family and townhome. This plan will use the townhome units as a buffer to the commercial tract. The townhomes are designed for front and rear entry garages, with only one (1) alley proposed. Mr. Hoover stated that many of the issues to be addressed with this proposal are mostly platting issues. The layout of the trails and roads will be later determined after the floodplain study is complete. The Commissioners agreed the zoning concept was good and could support if the City receives the letter regarding the realignment of Ridgeview Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Grimes and a second by Commissioner Sedlacek the Commission voted 6 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to table agenda item 5 until the September 6, 2005 meeting. The motion carried. Agenda Item 6: Tabled Item - Continue Public Hearing and consideration of an amendment to the Allen Land Development Code to amend the Development and Use Regulations of the Central Business District, to remove the Subdistricts and Design Districts, and to amend the Sign Regulations for the Central Business District. Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Wendland and a second by Commissioner Sedlacek, the Commission voted 6 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to remove agenda item 6 from the table. The motion carried. Mr. Hoover presented the proposal to the Commission. He stated the goal of the proposed changes is to provide flexibility to encourage development and redevelopment in the Central Business District. The new ordinance provides for a consolidation of the sub -districts, refinements to the development standards and sign regulations, and creates a Design Review Committee to review architectural design standards. If the ordinance is approved, it will create the new district; however Staff will bring forth the rezoning of the properties at another meeting. The new plan allows for the protection of historical structures, and provides a tax exemption to developers/owners who preserve or restore historical structures. The Commission took a short break at 8:50 p.m. The Commissioners took their place at the bench at 8:55 pm. IChairman Caplinger opened the Public Hearing. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 6 AUGUST 16, 2005 Paula Ross (spoke against) Heritage Guild • Against the Design Review Committee (DRC) consisting only of City staff • You need citizen input • Need input for vision and integrity of the historical district. • Feels there should be a review prior to issuing demolition permits Michael Buckley (spoke against) • Feels the DRC should include citizens • Does not feel the DRC should be able to approve one or more alternatives to development requirements. If something is required, then that is the way it should be developed. Why go beyond the Code? • Don't remove the citizenry that can provide history. Debra Felske (spoke against) • Supports Section 2 (schedule of principal uses) • Wants a representative from the citizens on the DRC • You need a historical representative on the DRC 1 Pat Buckley (spoke against) • The downtown area is the heart of town — Once you change the heart there is no going back — protect our heart. • We need to retain the charm and character of downtown. • Keep citizen input • Preserve the heart of our City. Robert Rodgers (spoke for) • The smaller businesses downtown cannot support the downtown development alone. • Let's clean it up. Peggy Rook (did not speak — undecided) Chairman Caplinger closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Hoover responded to comments from the public. 95% of the development downtown is not required to be reviewed by the existing design review committee. Only two districts require review, and it is limited to roof line pitches, porches, and picket fences. Currently we have no architectural or aesthetic control — the new plan would allow the review of these areas. It is recommended that the Design Review Committee be composed of City staff that have the expertise to review these elements. Commissioner W endland stated that we need to make changes for the revitalization of the Central Business District. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 7 AUGUST 16, 2005 Commissioner Sedlacek had a concern with the demolition permit. Is there a way to add a review process before the permit is issued instead of after — this may prevent the demolition from happening? Mr. Hoover responded that until a developer applies for the permit, we do not know about the demolition. Commissioner Sedlacek agreed that it could be beneficial to have a citizen representative on the DRC. Mr. Hoover stated that the Design Review Committee is not intended to remove anyone from the process. In fact, it adds a step to the process. The Technical Review Committee (TRC) will still be involved in the review of all proposed projects and the Design Review Committee is really a subcommittee of the TRC. Commissioner Grimes supported the proposal by stating, "Our CBD is shrinking. Current codes hinder development." He stated there were a number of clerical corrections that need to be made, such as the numbering. Commissioner Grimes did however state he would like to see a way of receiving citizen input, even if there is no citizen on the DRC. Commissioner Rushing does not support the Design Review Committee as proposed. The citizens need a representative on the committee. Commissioner Dreggors liked the proposal as submitted by Staff 1 The Commission discussed at length how to include citizens in the review It was suggested that Staff could notify the neighbors of the Central Business District of development requests that are received by Staff, and provide the opportunity of input. After considerable discussion and acknowledgement that the DRC was a subcommittee of the TRC, it was determined that notice to and involvement by the citizenry was assured as it is in any other process we now have. Commissioner Grimes stated that Section 2 Design Review Committee — Paragraph 7f — was too strict - "Building color shall match. .using either an appropriate single color scheme or a single color. " Commissioner Grimes suggested being more flexible and allow for a multi color scheme. The Commissioners agreed. Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Wendland and a second by Commissioner Dreggors, the Commission voted 5 FOR and 1 OPPOSED, with Commissioner Rushing casting the negative vote, to recommend approval of agenda item 3 as submitted providing the clerical errors are corrected, and adding the flexibility to paragraph 7f allowing the use of a multi color scheme. The motion carried. Other Business Upcoming Agenda Items: Tabled Item — Boyle Tract • Final Plat — Twin Creek 6B PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 8 AUGUST 16, 2005 • Two (2) preliminary plats Adjournment Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Dreggors and a second by Commissioner Wendland, the Commission voted 6 I FAVOR and 0 OPPOSED to adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 10:15 p.m. These mutes approved this V}� day of Q. (— 2005. / ��� '--V- az Caplinge hairman Kellie ikon, Planning Technician u 11