Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - Planning and Zoning Commission - 2014 - 12/16 - RegularDecember 16, 2014 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting December 16, 2014 CITY OF ALLEN ATTENDANCE: Commissioners Present: Jeff Cocking, Chair Shirley Mangrum, I" Vice -Chair Ben Trahan, 2ntl Vice -Chair Luke Hollingsworth John Ogrizovich Stephen Platt, Jr. Michael Orr Absent City Staff Present: Kevin Laughlin, City Attorney Ogden "Bo" Bass, AICP, Director of Community Development Lee Battle, AICP, Assistant Planning Director Shawn Poe, PE, Assistant Director of Engineering Tiffany McLeod, Senior Planner Patrick Blaydes, Planner Madhuri Kulkami, Planner Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present. With a quorum of the Commissioners present, Chairman Cocking called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers Room at Allen City Hall, 305 Century Parkway Director's Repor[ I Action taken on the Planning & Zoning Commission items by City Council at the December 9, 2014, regular meeting attached. Consent Agenda 2. Approve minutes from the December 2, 2014, regular meeting 3 Capital Improvement Progmm (CIP) Status Report Motion: Upon a motion by 1" Vice -Chair Mangrum, and a second by Commissioner Platt, the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to approve the Consent Agenda. December 16, 2014 The motion carried. Reeular Aeenda 4. Public Hearing/Replat — Conduct a Public Hearing and consider a request for a Replat for Lot 2 -R -I, Block F, Bray Central One Addition, being a portion of Lot 2, Block F The property is 2 489± acres generally located north of Village Way and west of US Highway 75. (R-12/4/14-84) [Junction Drive/Hyatt Place] Ms. Madhuri Kulkarni, Planner, presented to the Commission. She stated this item is a public hearing and a replat for Junction Drive/Hyatt Place Ms. Kulkami stated that the property is generally located north of Village Way and west of US Highway 75. The property to the north is zoned Planned Development PD No. 54 for Industrial Technology IT The property to the west (across Junction Drive) is zoned Planned Development PD No. 108 for Mixed -Use MIX. To the south, the property is zoned Planned Development PD No. 54 for Corridor Commercial Finally, to the east (across US Highway 75), the property is zoned Single -Family Residential R-5. A Concept Plan for the property was approved in January 2014 for a limited service hotel. Site Plans for the hotel were subsequently reviewed and approved in September 2014. Replatting the property is the last step in the development process. Ms. Kulkami presented the replat and stated that it plats a portion of Lot 2 into an approximately 2.5 -acre lot. There are three access points; one on the U.S. Highway 75 Service Road, and two through access easements on the adjacent property to the south. The replat also shows right-of-way dedication and various easements required for development. The Replan is consistent with the approved Concept Plan and Site Plan. The Replat has also been reviewed by the Technical Review Committee and meets the standards of the Allen Land Development Code. Chairmam Cocking opened the public hearing. Chairmain Cocking closed the public hearing Chairman Cocking stated that no written notifications were received. Motion: Upon a motion by 2n° Vice -Chair Trahan, and a second by Commissioner Orr, the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to approve the Replat for Lot 2-R-1, Block F, Bray Central One Addition, generally located north of Village Way and west of US Highway 75, for Junction Drive/Hyatt Place. The motion carried. 5 Public Hearing/Residential Replat — Conduct a Public Hearing and consider a request for a Residential Replat for Lots IR and 2R, Block AA, to adjust the shared line between Lots I and 2, Block AA, Lost Creek Ranch, Phase 3, generally located east of Poets Way and south of Stablerun Drive, Allen, Texas. (RP -4/14/14-82) [Lost Creek Ranch Phase 3] December 16, 2015 Ms. Maribor, Kulkarni, Planner, presented to the Commission. She stated this item is a public hearing and a residential replat for Lost Creek Ranch Phase 3. Ms Kulkarni stated that the properties, Lots 1 and 2, Block AA, are generally located on the southeastern corner of Stablerun Drive and Poets Way, and are zoned Planned Development PD No. 69 for Single Family Residential District. The two lots are within the Lost Creek Ranch Phase 3 subdivision, with surrounding properties also zoned Planned Development PD No. 69 for Single Family Residential District. The purpose of the replat is to adjust the shared lot line between Lots I and 2, whereby Lot I would gain additional land, about 692 square feet, from Lot 2. All other conditions remain the same. There are no impacts to existing utilities, setbacks, or structures. The Replat has been reviewed by the Technical Review Committee and meets the standards of the Allen Land Development Cade. Commissioner Ogrizovich asked if there are already houses on the two lots, and Ms. Kulkarni answered yes. He also assumed that the homeowners agree to this adjustment in the lot line. Ms. Kulkarni answered yes. 2"a Vice -Chair Trahan was curious about the reason for the lot lute adjustment, and asked if it was simply to gain more land. Ms. Kulkarni answered yes, the shift in the lot line is for Lot I to gain more land Chairmain Cocking opened the public hearing. Chairmain Cocking closed the public hearing. Chairman Cocking stated that no items were received. Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Hollingsworth, and a second by 1" Vice - Chair Mangrum, the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to approve the Residential Replat for Lost Creek Ranch Phase 3 for Lots 111 and 2R, Block AA; being a Replat of Lots 1 and 2, Block AA, Lost Creek Ranch, Phase 3, and generally located east of Poets Way and south of Stablerun Drive. The motion carried. 6. Public Hearing — Conduct a Public Hearing and consider a request to create a Planned Development, with a base zoning of Single Family Residential R-6, and adopt a Concept Plan, building elevations and development regulations. The property is Lot I, Block A, Fellowship Christian Center Church Addition, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; generally located northeast of Malone Road and Lake Travis Drive (Z-9/16/14-66) [Malone Meadows] Ms. Tiffany McLeod, Senior Planner, presented to the Commission. She stated this item is a public hearing for a request to create a Planned Development, with a base zoning of Single Family Residential R-6 for an approximately 9.9 -acre property for Malone Meadows. Ms. McLeod stated that the property is located east of Malone Road and north of Lake Travis Drive. The property to the north is zoned Agricultural Open Space (AO). The properties to the east and south are December 16, 2014 zoned Single Family Residential (R-2). The property to the south is zoned Agriculture -Open Space (A- O). The properties to the west (across Malone Road) are zoned Planned Development No. 2 Community Facilities (CF) and Planned Development No. 59 Single Family Residential (R-5). The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (R-2). The applicant is requesting to change the zoning by creating a Planned Development for a single family residential subdivision, with a base zoning of R-6 Ms. McLeod stated that staff has received a number of correspondences from surrounding property owners with concerns regarding the change from R-2 to R-6 She touched on three points: 1 The subject property was actually zoned R-2 29 )cars ago in 1985 Every 10 years, the City evaluates its Comprehensive Plan, including updates to the Thoroughfare Plan, Park Plan, Future Land Use Plan, and so on. The City recently went through this evaluation, and with input from citizens, P&Z, and Council, the plan was adopted in October of this year. This Comprehensive Plan now designates this area as "Suburban Residential," which is Single -Family residential with a density of one to five acres. This proposed subdivision has a density of 4.5 units per acre, and meets this category in the current Comprehensive Plan. 2. This is an infill site, and there is development surrounding the site. Infill cases are complicated because of outdated zoning. Other complications can include the site having a number of encumbrances that makes it difficult to develop. The Comprehensive Plan addresses infill — it is stated that as the market evolves, flexibility should be provided. 3 Although the base zoning is R-6, the minimum lot dimensions (width, depth, dwelling unit size) exceed R-6 standards The proposal is for 65' X 110' lots, which is an R-5 standard. This R-5 oning is established in the south, east, and northeast, and across Malone Road to the west. The minimum dwelling unit is 2,200 square feet, which exceeds the R-5 and even R-2 District. urrounding units range from 2,150 square feet to 2,850 square feet. For these reasons, staff believes the proposed development is compatible. The proposed residential development (for R-6) is approximately 10 acres. The original Concept Plan shows a total of 45 front entry lots with a double -sided street on the southern end of the property and a single loaded street on the northern end of the property with access on Malone Road and on the extension of Windmill Crossing. The day prior to this meeting, the developer requested to submit a revised Concept Plan as a result of discussion between the developer and the property owners on the southern end of the property Ms. McLeod presented the new Concept Plan. This Plan still shows 45 front entry lots. She explained that the only change with this revised plan is that the change in the streets; the single loaded street is now on the southern end of the property and the double loaded street is on the northern end, so the plan is essentially flipped. The minimum dwelling unit is 2,200 square feet, with 65' x 110' lots, minimum area of 7,150 square feet, and a density of 4.5 units per acre. There are four (4) access points into the development. There are two (2) access points on Malone Road and two (2) access points on Windmill Crossing Windmill Crossing currently terminates southeast of the site (within The Orchards, Phase 2 subdivision). The roadway will be extended, as shown on the Concept Plan, in conjunction with this development. Other improvements made with the development include a section of Malone Road which will be improved and widened, and an existing sidewalk which will be widened to an 8 -foot trail that would connect to the existing trail of Story Park, which would then connect to the future park on the eastern side of the property For screening, a full row of Red Oak and Cypress trees would be planted on the southern property boundary Along Malone Road, an 8' masonry wall will be built. December 16, 2014 Ms. McLeod then presented the proposed budding elevations. There would be a variation of front entry and J -swing garage products, all with decorative garages Exterior building materials proposed are brick stone and composition shingle roofing. The development regulations require that a maximum of 45% of the lots be developed with front facing garages. The remaining 55% would be J -Swing garages. The development regulations also require that no more than three consecutive lots can have the same elevations in order to create variation of elevations within the subdivision. Ms. McLeod then went through the Development Regulations for the property- - Base Zoning of Single Family Residential R-6 - Lot Design establishing lot width, depth, area, dwelling unit, and coverage, along with building setbacks established. She emphasized that the width, depth, and area of the lots exceed the R-6 standard. However, even though these criteria exceed R-6, staffs practice is that if only some of the criteria meet the higher base district, a lower base district must be used. - Landscaping: Row of trees on the south (maintained by the HOA) - Sidewalks. Not required on the single -loaded street; the language will have to change on the Development Regulations to reflect the Concept Plan change - Public Improvements: Windmill Crossing to be extended and an 8' wide public trail along Malone Road - Building Elevations: Promoting variety through no more than three lots with the same elevation and through the garage orientation (front or J -swing). Garages will be decorative. Ms McLeod concluded by stating that staff recommends approval of this request. She emphasized that this is an infill site. If the market within the last 29 years could have supported an R-2 development, it would have occurred by now The market and the Comprehensive Plan have both changed The proposed subdivision is compatible with the overall area and meets the criteria in the current Comprehensive Plan. Although the revised Concept Plan was submitted the previous day, staff has conducted a cursory review. A recommendation can be made that staff conducts a full review with updated supplemental materials prior to City Council. The case will be on the January 13ih City Council on the agenda. Commissioner Ogrizovich asked about the park boundary on the east side of this development. Ms. McLeod answered that the Park makes an "L" shape, and extends until Lake Travis Drive. Commissioner Ogrizovich then said that there is still a sign on this property that states it is the future home of a church. Ms. McLeod answered she is not sure why that sign is still there, and clarified that the proposal is to change the zoning to single-family residential. Commissioner Ogrizovich asked if the house on that property will be taken down. Ms. McLeod replied yes, the house will be taken down Chairman Cocking opened the public hearing Robert Thurgood, 7 Highpoint Drive, Allen TX, addressed the Commission. He said he was speaking on behalf of E.T Boon and himself. They live on the north side of this proposed development. He said there was nothing mentioned about what is going on with the property line on the north. He said he does not know the setback in that area. He wondered where the church was going to be. It is unclear about what is happening behind his home. He said there has been no consideration about utility easements. This second Concept Plan is less attractive than the first. They would prefer a road. Another concern both Mr. Thurgood and Mr. Boon have is congestion — R-2 to R-6 is 45 lots, which triples what could go there. December 16, 2014 They worry about traffic and crime. He concluded by stating he wishes to know what is proposed on the northern property line of this development. Boutros Andari, 1605 Lake Travis Drive, Allen, TX, spoke to the Commission. He said he and his brother moved to this area because they like the space. With the first design, there would be lots of balconies and doors facing their back yard. He stated he also did not like this design because his brother would have three streets by his property It is not a good idea to have a road behind them and in the front. He really likes the space in the backyard Bron Davies, 1627 Lake Travis Drive, Allen, TX, spoke to the Commission. He said he is a homeowner in the Orchard's neighborhood to the south of this proposed development. He has lived in Allen for 10 )ears. He is an "unofficial" spokesperson for the majority of the people that live on that row directly to the south. He has looked at the plan and met with the budder. The City has had the R-2 zoning for a long time there and has adhered to that zoning. He gave examples of the High Points Estates, The Orchards, Roundrock, and Clearview, and stated that the City has been consistent about enforcing the existing zoning (which is more compatible). The homeowners in the Orchards purchased their lots with the expectation that the zoning would remain. Their concerns include privacy (high-density homes), aesthetic impact (no compatibility maintained), impact on property values, and rush with the last minute change of the plan. He said they met with the developer last week, and are still open to continue discussion for compatible zoning. He requests the City to retain the R-2 zoning. They understand that profit is a motivator for higher density, but in due time, the value of the property on R-2 lots would fit better with the rest of the neighborhood. Eric Free, 1627 Balboa Lane. Allen. TX, addressed the Commission. He stated he lives in The Orchards and is the President of the Orchard's HOA He is not directly adjacent to this proposed development, but wants to provide a voice to his homeowners. The homeowners want to work something out. They realize something will be built on the lot someday He pointed out that when these folks bought their houses 8-9 years ago, they spent time researching the area, evaluated the zoning, and paid a premium. To be told there would be three neighbors instead of one is quite a jump. A lot of progress has been made since meeting with the developer, as indicated by the switch in the Concept Plans. However, the greater concern is regarding privacy — two story homes facing downhill to the residents' private property The main request is for more time and for further negotiations. The City should understand the homeowners' perspective. This is a big hit for the homeowners Marvin Brooke, 1531 Pebblestone Court, Allen, TX, spoke to the Commission. He said he lives across Malone Road, and is against the rezoning. Their lot is a 1/3 acre and the lots south on Travis are '/z acre On the other side, the lots are '/_ acre larger. These are small lots, and would be degrading. They are not against development, but want the R-2 to remain so that surrounding property values would not be degraded. Jerry Carroll, 1615 Lake Travis Drive, Allen, TX, addressed the Commission. He said he's lived in Allen since 1998. He purchased the '/z acre because of open space They have a garden in the back and their family spends a lot of time in the backyard as do his neighbors. These lots would directly look into their backyard. The primary concern he has is privacy The secondary issue is that during school days, Malone Road is highly congested and almost unsafe Adding 45 more homes with about 90 additional cars would pose a safety issue. Mark Guest, 1609 Lake Travis Drive, Allen, TX, spoke to the Commission. He and his family has lived on his property for 28 years. They paid a premium for their property They don't mind neighbors, butjust don't want this plan. They understand that the lot will be developed. He said he understands that markets change, but this plan, if approved, would be permanent. They want something more compatible. Given a December 16, 2014 chance, other developers would go to R-2. Lucas is selling larger lots. More people are looking for larger lots. They are not interested in this plan and are opposed to the change. Gene Myers, 1621 Lake Travis Drive, Allen, TX, addressed the Commission. He stated he is speaking for his son, Greg Myers, who lives on 1613 Lake Travis Drive They would like the R-2 zoning to remain. There is always change. He noticed that there would be trees in to the south, but what about a fence9 They would like to see an 8' secure fence They want more time to see if something can be worked out, If not, they want the project turned down. Riki Salmeron, 1631 Lake Travis Drive, Allen, TX, spoke to the Commission. She said they are located to the south of the proposed development. Her and her husband purchased their (tome in 2006 because of the way the property was zoned. They said this was their ideal location. They had an understanding that the land in the back would be developed, but that the R-2 would not have 40-50 homes as is proposed. They will lose their privacy because of multiple neighbors staring in their yard. Their street is already used as a cut -through. If the zoning is changed, that would mean more traffic. They oppose the change and w ish to see a different proposal. Dr. W L. Stafford Sr_ 2144 Estes Park Court, Allen, TX, addressed the Commission. He is the pastor of the Fellowship Christian Church. They purchased the land six years ago, and since then, have sold a portion to the City for the Park. The best use of this land is for residential use. He said he purchased his house with an airfield nearby He understands the residents' points of view He thinks that whatever would best benefit the area would make sense. He said he understands this land has a better use for residential property. His members are excited not because the land is sold, but because that community would be developed. Michael Buckley, 9 Highpoint Drive, Allen, TX, spoke to the Commission. He moved to Allen in 1986 and has owned a few homes in Allen. His wife started "Keep Allen Beautiful." He focused on two things. D The valuation of the homes (he's skeptical that the homes would be $300,000/home) 2) There's a phase two after Phase I He's concerned about the impact on Story Elementary Two kids per house would mean 90 kids — he was curious if there were any thoughts on additional children in school. An R-6 doesn't seem necessary This is a rushed plan, the valuation is off, and he does not know the impact on the elementary school. Joseph Baker, 1623 Lake Travis, Allen, TX, addressed the Commission. He said he is opposed; he wants to see it remain R-2. He wants to add that when the R-2 lots were put on the market, 8 of the 10 lots had a demand. Asghar Afghani, 503 S. Malone Road, Allen, TX, spoke to the Commission. He said there are five houses backing to his property He has lived in Allen for 26 years and in that house for 17 years. He bought that house because of the surrounding vacant land He knew it would be developed, but not so densely The utility easement is a major issue that needs to be addressed. Fencing and what type or wall/barrier has not been mentioned either. Shane Jordan, 16475 Dallas Parkway Suite #540, Addison, TX, Applicant, addressed the Commission. He said they have been working on this project for four months The project has met the expectation of staff They sought out talking to adjoining neighbors to get feedback. They met December I1" Concerns he heard were on adjacency and proximity of the homes to the backyards. They modified their plan to bring the street to the south for a greater separation between the backyards (back of the existing homes to the front of the houses that would be on Road B). He said he looked at the aerial and the distance would range from 175 feet to 200 feet from back of home to front of home. On the north side, the distance is 144 to 283' from the back of a house to a property line. They wanted to serve both adjoining neighbors, so December 16, 2014 flipped the project. But Inc to the mature tree line on the northern property line, the street to the south (because of greater separation) would be a better option The church that was planned there allows basketball, bowling, and outside activities that could be held. That activity would be more intrusive to the neighborhood and have a great potential for devaluation. He thinks this infill project would help Allen The homes would utilize new technology in construction and materials The average price of a house would be from $300,000 to $350,000. This is a $15 million investment in the City. These products will be $100-150,000 more than the current homes in the immediate area. The project would also increase property values because this project extends the street on the east and connects to the park. The sidewalk along Malone Road would be increased in width Malone Meadows creates a sense of community as well. Mr. Jordan read residential information from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. He said they are connecting parks and neighborhoods that are currently not connected. These homes meet or exceed a lot of the criteria more restrictive than R-6. There is a demand for single-family homes in Allen and Dallas. It is difficult to have larger lots because of the high land prices. They have changed their plans to satisfy both the northern and southern property owners. The zoning request is consistent with the land use plan Jerry Carroll, 1615 Lake Travis Drive, Allen, TX, addressed the Commission again to talk about the linear distance Mr. Jordan mentioned between the properties. The linear distance is provided by their half acre back yards. The concern is not the front to the back of the house. The concern is the distance in the back yard which becomes a lack of privacy Chairman Cocking closed the public hearing. Chairman Cocking stated a variety of letters were provided for the members to read. They will be a part of the case for Council These include Chairman Cocking and Ms. McLeod discussed several of the issues that were brought up Chairman Cocking asked about the property to the east. It is owned by the City and a future City Park. He asked about the timing of that property. Ms. McLeod answered that the park is in the design phase and a public meeting was recently held to propose that design to the neighborhood. The entire "L" shape will be a City Park owned and maintained by the City. Chairman Cocking asked about the utility easements and how they will be defined. Ms. McLeod answered that utilities are worked out at the platting stage. Full utility, grading, and civil plans will be submitted to the Engineering Department. Utilities and easements would be vetted at the platting stage. Chairman Cocking asked about traffic and impact on Malone Road. Shawn Poe, Assistant Director of Engineering, answered that this development is not large enough to require a Traffic Impact Analysis as there are only 45 lots That roughly generates 450 trips per day Traffic on Malone Road has 4,000 Brooke, 1531 Pebblestone Court, Allen, TX — opposed =Jana ET Boon, I 1 Highpomt Drive, Allen, TX — opposed - Susan Guest, Susanguest - Bron Davies, 1627 Lake Travis Drive, Allen, TX — More Time - Greg Myers, Greg_myers@bmecom — More Time - Joseph E Baker, Jebaker350@sbeglobal net — More Time - Jerry Carroll, 1615 Lake Travis, Allen, TX — More Time - Gayle Boon, 1 I Highpoint Drive, Allen, TX — opposed - Harry & Zelma Myers,1621 Lake Travis, Allen, TX — opposed - Eric Free, Eric free(a)att.net— More Time Chairman Cocking and Ms. McLeod discussed several of the issues that were brought up Chairman Cocking asked about the property to the east. It is owned by the City and a future City Park. He asked about the timing of that property. Ms. McLeod answered that the park is in the design phase and a public meeting was recently held to propose that design to the neighborhood. The entire "L" shape will be a City Park owned and maintained by the City. Chairman Cocking asked about the utility easements and how they will be defined. Ms. McLeod answered that utilities are worked out at the platting stage. Full utility, grading, and civil plans will be submitted to the Engineering Department. Utilities and easements would be vetted at the platting stage. Chairman Cocking asked about traffic and impact on Malone Road. Shawn Poe, Assistant Director of Engineering, answered that this development is not large enough to require a Traffic Impact Analysis as there are only 45 lots That roughly generates 450 trips per day Traffic on Malone Road has 4,000 December 16, 2014 cars/day This development would increase traffic by about 10% Engineering thinks that Malone Road can accommodate for the increase. Chairman Cocking brought up the school district and the impact on schools. Ms. McLeod stated that a representative from the school district participates in the Technical Review Committee and he expressed no concern with the additional students entering Story Elementary Chairman Cocking expressed his curiosity about the reference to Phase 2. Ms McLeod stated there is no Phase 2. The 45 lots would all be built at one time. The portion to the east, again, is a City Park, and not part of this development. Chairman Cocking asked about the cement or masonry fence between this property and the Orchards and the standard policy in Allen. Ms. McLeod answered that a masonry wall is not a requirement between two single-family residential developments. On the southern end, there is already a row of wood fences for the properties to the south in The Orchards. The applicant has committed to planting a full row of trees along the southern property boundary for screening and maintenance by the HOA and established in the Development Regulations Chairman Cocking asked about drainage standards. Ms. McLeod answered that drainage was vetted by the Engineering Department. A detention pond will be built on the City Park by this development so drainage will be handled by this detention pond to the east. Commissioner Ogrizovich asked about the wall to the south. Originally the plan showed houses and Commissioner Ogrizovich checked that there would have been no requirement for a masonry fence. Ms McLeod answered yes, it would be street, then row of trees, and then builder fences that exist. Commissioner Ogrizovich confirmed that the developer is only putting the row of trees along the southern end, and Ms McLeod answered yes. Commissioner Ogrizovich asked that if the houses to the south were not built, and there was a road put there, and then the houses were built, would they have had to put a masonry wall? Ms. McLeod answered that there is no masonry wall requirement between single-family residential developments. Commissioner Ogrizovich asked about the street specifically and if that would require a masonry wall. Ms. McLeod answered that a residential street does not require a masonry wall, only main thoroughfares, which is why a wall is shown along Malone Road. Commissioner Ogrizovich wanted to clarify again that there would not be a church there. Ms. McLeod answered correct, there would not be a church on that property Commissioner Ogrizovich wondered about the utility easement comment. Ms. McLeod said the Engineering Department has not looked at the utility easement, but it will be reviewed during platting. Commissioner Orr asked if there was a consideration for a less dense design. Ms. McLeod stated that staff supports the 65' X 110' lots because even if the immediately adjacent property is larger, the surrounding properties include R-5 zoning. Commissioner Orr asked if the developer came up with the zoning they wanted, and where it was generated. Ms. McLeod stated that the developer proposed the lot sizes and standards and through the staff review process, staff determined the criteria. It was determined they would fit under the R-6 zoning district with comparable lots. December 16, 2014 Chairman Cocking stated it is always interesting when there is a vacant property with development around it. The challenge is that Allen is continuing to build out. This vacant property is now desirable by developers. What was planned ten years ago now doesn't work Chairman Cocking said he was actually on the Planning and Zoning Commission when The Orchards came in. He said he pushed the developers at that time to have those half acre lots to the north as it was to develop rather quickly The challenge now, however, is that a house built on a half -acre lot would be in the half million to three quarter of a million dollars - and is not economically viable. That's why the property has not developed as R-2. The question now is if the property becomes denser or if it continues to be vacant. He said there are lots now in Allen that are 30' wide He said he has not seen this larger lot size in a few years as there is a demand for smaller lots now He said this development is compatible with the surrounding area. On a personal level, he said he owns a large lot with five houses that front the back of his property and that it's not so bad. He said he is supportive of this development. Chairman Cocking said this item will go to the City Council on January 13, 2014. Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Platt, and a second by Commissioner Hollingsworth, the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to recommend approval of the request to create a Planned Development, with a base zoning of Single Family Residential R-6, and adopt a Concept Plan, building elevations and development regulations for the property known as Lot t, Block A, Fellowship Christian Center Church Addition, and generally located northeast of Malone Road and Lake Travis Drive, for Malone Meadows, with the conditions of amending the development regulations for the sidewalk on the south side of Road B and City Staff conducting a full review of the new Concept Plan. The motion carried. 7 Public Hearing - Conduct a Public Hearing and consider amendments to the Allen Land Development Code Sec. 4.20.4 "Schedule of Principal Uses" by adding the use "Private Park", amending. 7.09 "Sign Regulations" by amending the definition of "vehicle signs", and the definition of "electronic message board", and amending Appendix A "Definitions" by amending the definition of -Park or playground (public)" and adding the definition of "Private Park." Mr Lee Battle, Assistant Planning Director, presented to the Commission. The Allen Land Development Code (ALDC1 is periodically amended to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the code, address changing development trends and new technologies, and make changes necessary for compliance with state and federal laws. Mr Battle stated that there are three pieces to this amendment The first amendment is regarding parkland. There is one definition in the Code today for public park, but it's not inclusive of all park activities, so it is problematic for when other uses (such as athletic fields) are not included in the definition but exist in the use table. There is a conflict about where it fits in the zoning district. In addition, there is no definition for Private Parks, which are mostly owned by HOAs. An update would modify the definition of Public Park and create a definition for a Private Park to cover parkland owned by entities other than the City Because the new definition of "Private Park" is being added, it is December 16, 2014 also recommended for it to be put into the use chart as it does not currently exist Both public and private parks would be permitted in the same zoning districts. The second item is related to signage, particularly to Electronic Message Boards, which are digital signs that restaurants or businesses might have. These signs cannot be animated or flash or move, and their message can only be changed once every hour. Change of messages used to be permitted to only once a day That was changed to once an hour for more flexibility More of these signs are now used. Mr. Battle stated that time has been spent on researching this type of sign and comparing it to different municipalities. Discussions with City Council have occurred as well. For more flexibility, the proposal is that the sign will be permitted to change every five minutes. The third item relates to vehicular signs. This proposal was brought earlier to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and then to City Council, but the City Council was not comfortable. Vehicular signs are where a business sign is on a vehicle parked in front of a business. The intent of this regulation is to prevent the vehicles from being used as signage The Ordinance today has a 24-hour rule, which is hard to enforce. The only change with this definition would be to take out the 24-hour rule and leave everything else the same to be enforceable. Chairman Cocking asked if this does not prevent real estate agents from having magnetic signs on their vehicles. Mr. Battle answered that is correct. The only regulation of this definition would be to prevent additional signage that would act as permanent signage. Chairman Cocking opened the public hearing Chairman Cocking closed the public hearing. Chairman Cocking stated that there are no letters. This item will go to Council on January 13, 2015 Motion: Upon a motion by ]sr Vice -Chair Mangrum, and a second by Commissioner Hollingsworth, the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Allen Land Development Code. The motion carried. 8. Public Hearing — Conduct a Public Hearing and consider a request to change the zoning to Community Facility "CF" for Public Park use. The properties are currently zoned Planned Development No. 72 for Residential "R-5" use, Planned Development No. 98 for Residential -R-4- use, Planned Development No. 109 for Residential "R-5" use, Planned Development No. 58 for Shopping Center "SC" use, Planned Development No. 58 for Light Industrial "Lf' use, Planned Development No. 63 for Commercial Corridor "CC" use, and Planned Development No. 63 for Multi -Family "MF" use, Light Industrial "Lf' use, and Garden Office "GO" use, Planned Development No. 54 for Garden Office "GO" use and Agricultural and Open Space "AO" use The properties are located south of Ridgeview and west of Bray Central Drive [Watters Branch], south of Ridgeview Drive and east of W Exchange Parkway [Rowlett Creek Park], east of US 75 and north of W Exchange Parkway, [Allen Historic Dam], north of Ridgeview Drive and east of N. Custer Road, [Custer-Ridgeview Park], north of W McDermott Drive and west of Twin Creeks Drive [Bolin Park] and between US 75 and Greenville Avenue, at Chaparral Road, [Molson Fanns]. December 16, 2014 Chairman Cocking stated that it was determined by Staff that there was a notification challenge and that the property owners will have to be re -notified for this item. Staff can make their presentation and the public hearing will be open, and then it will be continued to a date certain for the next P&Z meeting so citizens can get proper notification. Mr. Lee Battle, Assistant Planning Director, presented to the Commission. Mr Battle stated that this is a City initiated zoning for parkland. When the City acquires parkland through land dedicated, purchased, donated, or acquired through other means, it already has a certain zoning designation Over time, the City gets parkland with different zoning designations, so the purpose of this rezoning is to change all the different zoning designations to Community Facility (CF) zoning. The rezoning would only apply to major park sites. Mr Battle explained that as a matter of policy, all parks should be classified as the Community Facility (CF) zoning district to prevent unintended consequences. If parkland is zoned something else, use limitations can occur for that land. For example, athletic fields would not be permitted if a park was zoned as a residential district. Another example is in platting — again, if a properly is zoned residential, and if a replat was required, it would be a "residential replaf' which would require notifications and public hearings. This rezoning, thus, is to clean up the zoning districts. There are six areas as a part of this zoning request' I Custer-Ridgeview Park: Located north of Ridgeview, Drive and east of N. Custer Road; currently zoned CC. MF, and R-6. 2. Rowlett Creek. Located south of Ridgeview Drive and east of W Exchange Parkway; currently zoned R-4 and AO 3. Watters Branch Park: Located south of Ridgeview, Drive and west of Bray Central Drive; currently zoned R-5 and AO. 4. Allen Historic Dam: Located east of US Highway 75 by the railroad track, currently zoned LI, SC, and CC. 5. Molson Farms: Located between US 75 and Greenville Avenue, at Chaparral Road; currently zoned LI and GO. 6. Bolin Park. Located north of McDermott Drive and west of Twin Creeks Drive, currently zoned GO. Mr Battle summarized that the request would be to change the various zoning districts of all of the land mentioned above to Community Facilities as a cleanup. He also stated that because there was an error in the notices, it is requested that this item be continued to the neat Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on January 6, 2015. Chairman Cocking opened the public hearing. Kristen Ogg, 1614 Summer Oaks, Allen, TX, spoke to the Commission. She said she was curious about what uses are permitted in the CF district. She said she moved to a property adjacent to one of the parks six months ago, and wondered what is allowed within the parks Chairman Cocking said we will take her information. Chairman Cocking continued the public hearing to the January 6, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. December 16, 2014 Ad4ournment The mgejing adjoumed at 8.42 p m These m t sI p oved [his day of a�N(�2014 o tairman Madhun Kulkami, Planner j December 16, 2014 • Director's Report from 12/9/2014 City Council Meeting The request to adopt an Ordinance for Specific Use Permit SUP No. 141 for a Fitness and Health Center use (Orange Theory Fitness), an approximately 3,006 square foot portion of a building located on Lot 1 R-2, Block A, Watters Village (generally located south of Stacy Road and east of Watters Road and commonly known as 945 W Stacy Road, Suite 180), was approved A