Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - Planning and Zoning Commission - 2008 - 04/15 - RegularPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting CITY OF ALLEN April 15, 2008 ATTENDANCE: Commissioners Present: Robert Wendland Alan Grimes Jeff Cocking Douglas Dreggors Shirley Mangrum James Rushing Marcetle Jones Commissioners Absent: None City Staff Present: David Hoover, Director of Planning Lee Battle, Assistant Director of Planning Pam Conway, Senior Administrative Assistant Tiffany McLeod, Planner Chris Flanigan, Assistant Director, Engineering Amber Slayton, Attorney 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 from 4/8/08 Council Meeting The Council held a workshop for Hamilton Hills — no action was taken. The State of the Planning and Zoning Commission was also presented. Consent Agenda Agenda Item 1: Approve minutes of April 1, 2008, Regular Meeting The Commission requested one correction to the motion for Item 5. Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Grimes, and a second by Commissioner Dreggors, the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED, to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion carried. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 2 April 15, 2005 Regular Agenda Agenda Item 2: Preliminary Plat — Consider a Preliminary Plat for Lot 1 & 2, Block A, Family Video Addition. The property is 3.913± acres located at the northwest corner of Malone Road and Main Street David Hoover, Director of Planning, presented the request to the Commission. He discussed the commercial separation wall that would be constructed and said the applicant may request it be built in stages. He requested the Commission's feedback. Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat. Commissioner Rushing questioned if that would mean that it would be unscreened until something else was built to finish the screening wall. Mr. Hoover said that was correct Chairman Wendland suggested a time frame for finishing the construction could be determined, to insure that it would be finished at some point. Mr. Hoover stated that was a possibility but it might be an enforcement problem. Chairman Wendland stated when it comes back to the Commission, there needs to be a proposed solution. He desires some kind of screening for the residential. Commissioner Cocking stated his concern is the lights from the cars coming in off of Main Street Some screening from that is needed. By the time they do that, they may as well go ahead with the complete screening wall. Commissioner Grimes added if we allow a natural screen it would need to be large enough to screen the headlights as necessary Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Rushing, and a second by Commissioner Grimes, the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR, 0 OPPOSED, to approve Item 2. The motion carried. Agenda Item 3: Public Hearing - Conduct a Public Hearing and consider a request for a SUP Specific Use Permit No. 104 for a Car Care Center. The property is .92± acres situated in the McCoy and Roth Addition, located at the southwest comer of Stacy Road and Goodman Drive. David Hoover, Director of Planning, presented the item to the Commission. He stated that the Allen Land Development Code requires a Specific Use Permit for Minor Auto Repair in Shopping Center zoning Districts. The traffic generated by this type of use is generally less than other types of retail uses. East and south of this location is residential zoning. Mr. Hoover noted that some citizen comments received by email requested the same type of exterior for this building as the existing bank. Since this is an SUP request, the Commission can require that if desired. He also discussed the screening proposed along Goodman Drive — which included a berm and other landscaping that would help deflect noise and be a barrier from headlights. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 3 April 15, 2008 Staff is recommending approval Chairman Wendland opened the Public Hearing. Pert Virtanen, 1807 Baltimore Drive, spoke in opposition to the request. He stated after seeing the plans presented tonight, he doesn't have as many concerns. He stated it would be better if it wasn't on a comer lot. Maybe construct a wall along Goodman Drive. He doesn't have a big concern with this since the entrance is off of Goodman. He requested a right tum lane from Stacy onto Goodman Drive. Ken Krogems, 1802 Stacy, spoke in opposition to the request. He stated that his home is 48 feet from this property This would not be an attractive building and he suggested moving the development to the west, next to the bank. He also said the tire dust, etc., accumulates over time and will drain onto the field which is an open flow across to his yard. That is a huge concern for the future and his family's well being due to those chemicals that may be present. He requested the applicant find another location for this development. He stated that the City Council said they would have zoning protection upon annexation. This is not a proper use for shopping center district. A restaurant would be better. Paul Taylor, 17950 Preston Rd., 4700, Dallas, spoke in opposition to the request. He stated that a tire center is not appropriate for the surrounding residential. Noise pollution is also a concern and not good for an upscale neighborhood that he has plans to build. Issa Boucri, 7117 Lyons Rd., Garland, applicant, spoke in favor of the request. Mr. Boned passionately stated his desire to assure everyone that he has heard their concerns and that this will increase the value of their homes. This will only be a quick lube and new tire shop. He will be using beautiful stone on the front and will also have a nice patio for customers. The landscape along Goodman Drive will be beautiful, trees, flowers etc. The bays will be very fancy — all first class. Regarding storm drainage — there will be filters for any accumulations from the tires, etc. — no dirt will run off into the field. He also stated the noise would be very minimal. He said he may talk to the property owner next to the bank and move the location to that site. He stated if the surrounding owners don't love it, he won't build it. Todd Stein, 4631 Elsbt Ave, Dallas, Jordan Realty Advisors, applicant's representative, spoke in favor of the request. Mr. Stein stated that this property needs a mix of uses for proper development — this will be a first class facility. The hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday — Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday They will not be open on Sunday. Sheri Griffin, 1607 Country Brook Lane, spoke in opposition to the request. She expressed concern about the additional traffic on Goodman from this use. She also questioned if they would use it like a "test tract" for testing the balance of tires, etc. Traffic is already speeding in this area and is a big concern for safety With no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Wendland closed the Public Hearing. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 4 April 15, 2008 Chairman Wendland stated that written comments were received by email and will become a part of the record (attached). Chairman Wendland stated that the Commission must either table this request or the applicant could withdraw the request, if he desires to move his development to another location. The Commission discussed the concerns. Commissioner Mangtvm was in favor of the request stating the landscaping and berm will help with the separation from residential. Commissioners Dreggors and Cocking stated that the noise pollution is a major concern as it is very close to residential. A wall would be helpful. Commissioner Rushing and Jones stated that the corner location was a concern — too close to the residential, and traffic concerns on Goodman Drive. Commissioner Grimes added that a restaurant use could potentially be fast food 24 hours, which would be added traffic. The proposed use is low -impact — limited hours, etc. Chairman Wendland stated that since this property is zoned shopping center, this is an appropriate use. He stated that noise pollution is a valid concern, but added that the noise from this development will be minimal compared to the noise from Stacy Road. The Commission agreed to continue the public hearing, giving the applicant time to bring in some additional information, such as pictures of the building and bay design, industry standards regarding the dust and dirt accumulations and drainage, details on the fence and landscape buffer plans, no lighted signage on east side of the building, as well as meet with the adjacent property owners to address their concerns. Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Cocking, and a second by Commissioner Rushing, the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR, 0 OPPOSED, to re -open the Public Hearing and continue the Public Hearing to May 6, 2008. The motion carried. Other Business Mr. Hoover introduced Tiffany McLeod, Planner, to the Commission. Adiournment Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Dreggors and a second by Commissioner Rushing the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR and 0 OPPOSED to adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 8:30 p.m. T ese ute ap rove this day of ✓ 2008. Obert en 1 airman Pam Conway, Sr. Admin. Assistant / T-1 \\\j 76 » (b , \k§ ) 22 / ; ) 0 ) ,r/(n[ B; 2 - a -!-[o �+�i o ,* & Q , \e\ o )2 - L ®/ OE )o L. */o 000 _ / \o 2= E §o *W J 0 q \ ) \ {}� - :3I E §)a , % EN'E Eg\M (ma=\ ƒ\f f _\}ƒ \\0 ( ! \ / \ \ /){ §� 2« LU 2 JB f o ° k o Z - \)0 \ / \ ) /\\ LLj / \\\j 76 (b \k§ ) 22 / ; ) ) ,r/(n[ B; 2 - a -!-[o �+�i o ,* & Q \e\ o )2 - 3! ®/ OE )o L. */o 000 _ / \o 2= $ *W 0 q \ ) \ {}� - :3I E §)a , % EN'E Eg\M (ma=\ ƒ\f f _\}ƒ \\0 ( ! \ / fj/)§ /){ \\\} )E (b \)k§ / \ ) Er/j[ B ± - 2 �+�i o a[ E E j / 3! ®/ );b \o 2= / \,.0cc7)w :3I % (Da_a) Eg\M \\0 ( \\\ a\ 04 0 § \ ��� \E a� ;$i) (� ! m :)§ ® co w LLJ a 0 a / w 0 EE Lu {� § k \ m \ / -! [° } \}% // z� 2 ) y § 7 / z \ ) - )\b \_ f ¥ LU \ d \ (2J \ f \ & { \{� }\{)} \\) 2 / / \ ) °0;i©\ 2!/{S jIy \ ) | k { x\000 _22 LmE IL G 2 7 / < /nk)an ))k§§ /0- + / < !)< \E 0 _ , 2 e \\( ) \ m LLJ�i § / \ } '^Z ® »( i> 00 w {r\�( B \ ~ 4§}§M \ % $ J !\\/ #0 ® z o \ \ \ \\)\ §' kj ƒ ��- m < ; . -z 2 )k& * q o f 4) -: {_ §\ \�`&_ 0 %\ o \ / ® . \\ I \_ © - ,ra±`,� �[ ƒ % § ° ° \\°\�\)\\} \�\ \ k ^ \ \ a &;7&§:gji\7/:S {)r ; e \ < § [) \rlN 2 \ ) ) 6 / 0Ll 7!®ƒƒj\6 /e- a . © ® - --� ,7 z ° y 44>= �f ) & u�>Zuj\§ E § c ^ 2 0E E �LL cm Lu }�g)ƒ \ _ 2 v _ \ §(§ E )\ K� r Eo ®< 2 § IL \ \ ��\�\ \� \/ / � ` » g ({ / Dom=U ] {: \ G Z { E { =E f){ice ] * z 7Q 0L) f\2 j r - ±&7i\§ \ \ | ) D )/07){ _{}± ! } / a « \ / < E) 15d, )\/§[ /){ I -- z s §/< w \ \#iz Q)2 / / § \ \ {/\§ \ \ ¥�[ 0 ) § c . EE\w( w o ° £ \ \/[S #} 2 02 § =»! E E Z3 2 �' ) 2 L/ § b §§K 0) N ~ { / 7= \o _ ® » ® c w - \ } § J� / g ¥0 {}©®( j6 (`n ;{� } +_{ a 2 _ Eos w y e 5:;i°w .-0 0 §©':S \ E \)E E 3 , EL / ) \ =\(ƒ/\ r CL a 2 7 6 < }0K=gn ƒU§ui F- Pam Conway om: Lee Battle nt: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 124 PM Pam Conway Subject: FW Good Year Cee Battle, AICP Assistant Director Planning & Development City of Allen (214) 509.11163 From: Matt Robinson[mailto:mrobinson@txlandresources.com] Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 3:24 PM To: Pam Conway Subject: RE: Good Year Pam, Ivera111 hke the look of building compared to other Goodyear prototype buildings it a parapet walls vs low pitched roof) there anyway the City could ask/require them to match the same exterior colors and materials as the Comenca Bank on e same cornero It would be nice to have a consistent architectural theme rather than a hotchpotch of different bricks and stone colors as they parcel off the different pad sites I personally feel all the standard face CMU block looks cheap and wouldn't be harmonious with the bank and surrounding community Secondly, will the City require the mechanical systems be hidden behind the parapet wall and not seen from street level? Thank you again for your time and assistance Sincerely, Malt Robinson 1718 Mossbrook Lane Allen, Texas 75002 Phone 214-697-8763 From: Pam Conway [mailto:pconway@atyofallen.org] Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:23 AM To: Matt Robinson Subject: Good Year Matt — this is the concept/site plan they've submitted —they may have some revisions still to make on this plan as our review process isn't complete— but hopefully this will help you out. am Conway Senior Administrative Assistant Planning/Code Enforcement Pam Conway mom: Lee Battle nt: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1 24 PM Pam Conway Subject: FW REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT AT STACY & GOODMAN Lee Battle, AICP Assistant Director Planning & Development City of Allen (214)509-4163 From: PERTV@aol.com [mailto:PERTV@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 7:31 AM To: Lee Battle Subject: REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT AT STACY & GOODMAN Dear Mr Battle: The following thoughts came to my mind as to the appropriate recommendation for a City Planner to make at a P&Z Commission meeting In this case, the property in question is a portion of a larger area of Commercial Zoning. In my E)inion, an urban planner would consider the southwestern section of that property more suitable for SUP than the rtheastern section The reason is that there is a wall on the south On the east there is a street that is primarily sidential My point has to do with visibility, and the effect it has on the value of homes. In addition to that, there is the matter of road traffic. Angel Parkway is a 4 -lane thoroughfare Stacy Road is a 2 -lane thoroughfare There is no current plan to widen Stacy Road east of Angel Parkway. No doubt it ultimately will happen, but it may be close to a decade before it actually occurs It makes a lot more sense to me to get development underway and completed on Angel Parkway prior to making any recommendations regarding development on Stacy Road east of Angel Parkway. Sincerely, Pert Virtanen 1807 Baltimore Drive Allen, Texas 75002 Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. D Pam Conway om: Stephen Scott [sscott@manosinacola com] Tuesday, April 15, 2008 12 20 PM David Hoover, Lee Battle Cc: Pam Conway Subject: P&Z Meeting Agenda Item 3. SUP Permit # 104 Attachments: Concept Plan pdf Importance: High Dear David / Lee I am writing you to express my concerns regarding the proposed Goodyear Tire Center at the SWC of Stacy Road and Goodman Lane Generally, I am concerned about the use at this location It appears very remote and not generally located around or by larger retail density. For example, you tend to see many similar uses located by higher retail concentrations along Main St / McDermott from Malone to Alma I question whether this will be successful in the long term However, that may not be for us to determine at this point so if we have to consider it, then I would respectfully suggest the following issues be taken into consideration 1. It is important that the building be complementary in design and materials to the Comerica Bank We should avoid any structures that are oddly out of character to avoid creating a long-term eyesore I think the retail development at Stacy / Angel Parkway did a nice job with the design and use of materials for that type of center I believe the SUP process affords us the opportunity to "encourage" better design efforts 1 2 Again, specifically looking at the concept plan, at a minimum, the building should use similar materials and colors as the Comerica facility 3 1 would avoid using any smooth -faced CMU product It is too institutional looking Again, Comerica has a nice mix of brick, stone, glass and metal 4 1 am concerned about the number of doors facing Goodman Lane They will look directly at residential developments If it has to be, they should be as attractive as possible 5 1 would suggest the dumpster be re -oriented for the same reason I can imagine the amount of debris, tires stacked up, etc over time across from the residential areas 6 Roof Screening I think this facility will look better than others as it does not have the typical pitched standing - seam metal roof However, the flat roof may afford the developer the opportunity to put equipment on it I would suggest that any equipment (HVAC or other) be mounted on the ground OR that it be screen sufficiently by the parapet itself The parapet would have to be 4 +/- feet tall at a minimum to do this and they should submit sightline studies to confirm equipment is screened sufficiently Another thought is that if the parapet needs to be that tall, will it negatively affect the design of the budding too? I would avoid using a separate fiberglass / aluminum screen similar to what you might see on some office buildings. That would be too different of an element and may conflict with the proposed design 7 Signage I would encourage to developer not to use the standard size Goodyear signs as used on other facilities A monument sign, ground kt and made with the primary building materials would be better suited for the location I would avoid any internally -illuminated signage anywhere on this protect I am sure you receive plenty of opinions of these issues and I appreciate any consideration that you and the commission In provide mcerely, Stephen Scott 1915 St Johns Avenue