Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - Planning and Zoning Commission - 2015 - 06/02 - RegularJune'_, 2015 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting June 2, 2015 CITY OF ALLEN ATTENDANCE: Commissioners Present: Jeff Cocking, Chair Shirley Mangrum, 1" Vice -Chair Ben Trahan, 2"" Vice -Chair Luke Hollingsworth John Ogrizovich Michael Orr Stephen Platt, Jr. Absent: City Staff Present: Ogden `Bo" Bass, AICP, Director of Community Development Chris Flanigan, PE, Director of Engineering 1 Tiffany McLeod, Senior Planner Madhuri Kulkarii, Planner Kevin Laughlin, City Attorney Call to Order and Announce a Quorum is Present: With a quorum of the Commissioners present, Chairman Cocking called the meeting to order at 7.00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers Room at Allen City Hall, 305 Century Parkway Director's Report 1. Action taken on the Planning & Zoning Commission items by City Council at the May 26, 2015, regular meeting attached Consent Aeenda 2. Approve minutes from the May 19, 2015, regular meeting Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Trahan, and a second by 1" Vice -Chair Mangrum, the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion carried. IReeular Aeenda June 2, 2015 3 Public Hearing — Conduct a Public Hearing and consider a request to amend the development and use regulations applicable to Tinct 4 of Planned Development PD No. 53, from Community Facilities CF to Townhome Residential District TH, and adopt a Concept Plan, Building Elevations, and Development Regulations for the Property The Property is Lot 2, Block A, Allen Stake Center, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas, generally located west of Alma Drive and north of Exchange Parkway (Z-2/4/15-3)[Allen Stake Center] Ms. Tiffany McLeod, Senior Planner, presented to the Commission. She stated this item is a public hearing and a PD Amendment for PD -53 for Allen Stake Center, converting from Community Facilities zoning to a Townhome development The request is to adopt a Concept Plan, Building Elevations, and Development Regulations for the property. Ms. McLeod stated that the subject property, north of Exchange Parkway and west of Alma Drive, is approximately 5.6 acres. She then explained the surrounding zoning. The property to the north is zoned Planned Development No. 53 Single Family Residential SF The properties to the east are zoned Planned Development No. 53 Single Family Residential R-6 and Planned Development No. 53 Shopping Center SC. The properties to the south, across Exchange Parkway, are zoned Planned Development No. 54 Single Family Residential SF The property to the west is zoned Planned Development No. 53 Community Facilities CF and is currently owned by the Church of Jesus Christ LDS. Ms. McLeod pointed out on the aerial that staff considers this property an infill site as there is existing development on all sides — a church to the west, an elementary school to the north, single-family to the north-east, and commercial development to the east. In addition to the site being infill, she pointed out that the shape of the site is long and narrow Typically, there can be difficulty if office or smaller retail choose to locate on long and deep properties because the frontage of the property is usually parceled and developed, leaving the interior vacant and undevelopable Staff considers the townhome use an appropriate use for the site. The Comprehensive Plan was referenced as well, and the site is forecasted for compact development, including townhome or higher density residential. Thus, staff is supportive of the use. The property is currently zoned Planned Development No. 53 with a base zoning of Community Facilities CF The property to the west is owned by the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints. They also own this subject property The base zoning will change from Community Facilities to Townhome and a Concept Plan, development regulations and elevations will be adopted. The attached Concept Plan shows 43 front -entry townhome units clustered into 5-6 unit buildings and 2 acres of open space. The density of the development is approximately 8 units/acre. This density complies with Allen Land Development Code (ALDC) requirements for a townhome development (maximum is 10 acres). The proposed minimum lot width is 25 feet. The proposed minimum lot depth is 115 feet. The proposed minimum dwelling unit size is 1,350 square feet. All three of these proposed minimum standards exceed ALDC townhome requirements. The existing shared driveway on Exchange Parkway is the single point of access for the development There is no connection to the subdivision on the northeast. The street is 31' wide and will be designated as a fire lane at the time of platting. The Fire Department and Community Services Department reviewed the property and have both verified that an emergency or waste service truck can maneuver their vehicles through the development The existing driveway was initially planned to extend onto the property once developed The driveway will be shared between the existing church and this property With this development, there will be two alterations to the driveway 1) the driveway pavement configuration will be modified (new pavement June 2, 2015 constructed on the Church property) to form a T -intersection for better turning and stacking, and 2) the portion of the driveway on the Church's property will be dedicated as right-of-way as the existing driveway today does not grant public access. With these changes, the townhome development will have full access off Exchange Parkway There will also be a deceleration lane on Exchange to mitigate negative traffic impacts. A letter from the Church has been received committing to the driveway dedication. There are approximately 2 acres of open space in the development; which exceeds ALDC requirements. The majority of the open space is on the northwestern portion of the property. Ten foot gaps on the west and east of the property will be Open Space and maintained by the HOA, and will remain turf. The purpose of these is for ingress/egress and requested by the Fire Department The rear of these lots will all have gates. A significant landscape buffer is also shown along Exchange Parkway The screening for the property will consist of tubular steel fencing with landscaping along Exchange Parkway, an 8 foot masonry wall along the western and southeastern boundaries, tubular steel fencing along the northern boundary and tubular steel fencing with eastern red cedar trees along the northeastern boundary A change was recently made — the eastern red cedar trees will also be added along the northern portion. Ms. McLeod pointed out that there will be gates along the rear portion of the northern lots There is no graphic currently, but will be provided for the tubular steel fencing for City Council. Ms. McLeod then presented the building elevations. All of the units will be two stories with two car garages. The front elevation will be replaced with all two -car garages, also to be modified prior to City Council. The primary exterior building materials are brick, stone, standing seam metal and composition shingle roofing. The driveways will be treated with a decorative finish. Next, Ms. McLeod summarized the Development Regulations: Base Zoning District Townhome Lot Width 25' Lot Depth: 115' Garage Setback: 20' from the property line Elevations: Two car garages for all units, cement broom finish for all driveways Minimum Dwelling Unit Size: 1,350 square feet Right -of -Way Dedication. To be executed and filed prior to replatting On -Street Parking: Street A will be a fire lane with no parking Cluster Mailboxes: To be provided Drainage Coefficient: 0.8 Screening: To be developed as shown on the Concept Plan, with the change of Eastern Red Cedars with Tubular Steel Fence on the northern boundary Ms. McLeod stated that staff recommends approval. She also stated that a representative from the school district sits in the Technical Review Committee meetings and had no concerns for Story Elementary or ingress/egress along the school. Commissioner Ogrizovich asked if the property to the west is owned by the school or the Church. Ms. McLeod referenced the property and stated it is owned by the Church. Mr. Ogrizovich then asked if it will remain as vacant property Ms. McLeod stated there is a chain-link fence on the back. Chairman Cocking stated there is a pavilion there for Church use only. Commissioner Ogrizovich asked about existing drainage and if Engineering is comfortable. Ms. McLeod stated that Engineering has reviewed the drainage. June 2, 2015 Commissioner Ogrizovich then asked if all the units are to be owner occupied or potential rental properties. Ms. McLeod answered they would all be owner -occupied Chairman Cocking asked if this was a deed restriction. Bevin Laughlin, City Attorney, answered he recommends against that level of minutia to control the use of people's property Ms McLeod stated that all of these will be platted lots. Commissioner Ogrizovich asked if near the entry there are designated parking spots Ms. McLeod answered yes, there is designated visitor parking. There is no on -street parking on Street A. She pointed out various parking spaces along the development, and stated that the parking provided complies with the ALDC — 1 spaces for every 2 units. Commissioner Hollingsworth stated that Street A is a firelane — is that the same as an apartment complex? Will there be signage? Ms. McLeod answered yes — either through striping, signage, or both. Mr. Laughlin said incorporation of the firelane was considered during the drafting of the development regulations, but "no parking" designation can be enforced through "no parking" ordinances rather than zoning. Commissioner Ogrizovich noticed that some lots are larger than others, and asked if it is because of the structure orjust extra space. John Arnold, 8214 Westchester Suite 710, Dallas, TX, developer at Skorburg Company, answered the question by stating that it is not an indication of a larger building — there will be a larger side yard. Commissioner Platt expressed concern about the entrance to the subdivision and said he is very concerned about that intersection. He said the design of the point of entry looks awkward and is not comfortable with it Ms. McLeod pointed out that the AISD representative was comfortable with a deceleration lane— the school bus pickup will occur in that lane. Chris Flanigan, Director of Engineering, also addressed Commissioner Platt and stated that the purpose of the deceleration lane is to get motorists turning into that lane off Exchange and to have a pick-up/drop-off for AISD Auto -tum exhibits were also reviewed and vetted by the Fire and Engineering departments that the turn can be made Commissioner Platt said that he understands it has been vetted, but he has seen several wrecks in that area over the years. This seems like a hard maneuver even with the deceleration lane — to go 180 degrees in that small area. He said it seems awkward and hasn't seen anything like that. It is a potential area for concem. Commissioner Hollingsworth asked if there would be anything in the median. Mr. Flanigan answered that the street connection is right -in and right -out with no median cut 2nd Vice -Chair Trahan said that he noticed a similar driveway situation by Cabela's and Target and that there is a 180 degree turn that has to be taken. He then asked why this development does not have two points of ingress/egress and if that driveway configuration is the best that can be done. Ms. McLeod answered that there is a minimum spacing requirement between driveways. With the existing driveways on Exchange, adding one for this development was not an option. A second point of June 2, 2015 1 access is not conducive on the northern portion of the property as the Fire Department does not like to use alleys as a second point of access. 2nd Vice -Chair Trahan asked if this is the best that can be offered for entry/exit. Mr. Flanigan said the best solution would be a straight driveway, but infill developments require compromises. The Church wants to keep the existing drive. The geometry used to look like a "Y" as initially proposed. The current plan now presented is better than what was initially shown. It's not ideal, but is acceptable Chairman Cocking said the driveway is the best that is shown, but that the Commission has the ability to say "try again." Staff has said technically the driveway configuration will work. Commissioner Ogrizovich asked if the ideal would be a straight entrance, then why is this not possible along with keeping the Church's entrance? Mr. Flanigan answered that the spacing is too close together. This distance may be 100', but the minimum standard for spacing along Exchange is at least 200-250' The Church wants to maintain their shared access point. John Arnold, the representative from Skorburg Company, presented to the Commission. He said the name of the project will be Glendover Gardens. He described some of the projects they have done in Allen — Cumberland Crossing with a wide range of lots and Cambridge at Watters Crossing, a smaller infill piece with garden homes. Mr. Arnold stated the property is on the northwest corner of Alma and Exchange and described the various uses surrounding the property He provided details of the property: 5.5 acres, zoned Community Facilities, proposing Townhomes, and 43 lots. The Comprehensive Plan calls for compact 1 residential with 5-12 units/acres, and they are at around 7 units/acre. Mr. Arnold next showed the proposed Concept Plan and stated they agreed to put in the decel lane to slow traffic which would tum into the site. He then showed elevations — 2 stories, 2 car garages. He mentioned that the rear elevations were recently modified and additional architectural elements were added. He also stated that they are planning on adding a sign on the southeastern comer of the property Mr. Arnold went over the development regulations and stated that they are exceeding many of the ALDC requirements, which include open space, minimum lot width and depth, and dwelling unit size. Mr. Arnold then went over the setbacks for the lots. Street A will be a fire lane and adequate parking for guests is provided. Commissioner Ogrizovich asked about anticipated price points for the units. Mr Arnold answered that the range will vary on the unit size. The smaller units are anticipated to be at $240,000 with larger units up to $280,000 Chairman Cocking opened the public hearing. Greg Jacobs, 1421 Salado Dr., Allen, TX, addressed the Commissioners. He said he is on the southern side of Exchange. He noticed the Church is the owner and asked whether the townhome units will be sold to individuals and not rentals, and asked about discrimination based on religion, and if the lots would be sold to those belonging to the Church. Secondly, he asked about the 28.5' landscape and trail easement and if that would be all along the southern property line. He said he drove through the Villas at Twin Creeks and noticed they also had "no parking" areas, but still saw vehicles parked in the driveways, which were blocking sidewalks. He asked if that could be prevented in this development. Renee Hernandez, 1439 Kingsley Dr., Allen, TX, spoke to he Commission and said that she is opposed. She thinks the City needs to have more of a balance in the types of uses because there have been several residential projects lately She believes that land is being overdeveloped with residential uses. June 2, 2015 Peggy Rook, 1431, Glendover Dr., Allen, TX, addressed the Commissioners and stated she is opposed to the project. She is concerned about the access and the loop on the northern end of the property She also did not understand how 22 parking spaces for 43 units would be enough for guests to keep them off the streets. Dena Soliman, 1223 North Alma Dr., Allen, TX, spoke to the Commission. She is the owner of Kids R Kids behind this proposed development Her biggest concern is safety Her playground will be adjacent to the property and wants to know what kind of barrier there would be. She thinks there would be a lot of traffic next to them. School busses need a wide radius and even on her property, buses can't tum properly She is also concerned about the residents who will be in the community who will have a problem with her noise level. Some people may not want kids in their backyards, and is worried about residents having issues with her kids being loud She is worried about complaints. Chairman Cocking closed the public hearing. Commissioner Cocking stated that one written letter was received from Rene Robinson, 12500 TI Boulevard, Dallas, TX, who expressed concerns over density Chairman Cocking stated several questions were brought up. He asked Mr Arnold to discuss ownership. Adam Bucek, Skorburg Company, addressed the Commission. He said there is no ownership interest. Their company will buy the property from the Church. No units are being reserved for the Church — it will be open to anybody He then addressed some of the other concerns that were raised. He said again that this will he a for -sale product, not deed -restricted. The landscape buffer will be all along Exchange for aesthetics. They will have picture examples for Council to attach to the PD. He said there is 20' on the driveway before the sidewalk, and they comply with ALDC They also have deeper lots, and want to keep the depth to have larger backyards, but if the Commission wants a longer driveway, they can shorten the backyards due to the extra depths. Given the depth of the property, a townhome use is a higher and better use than other types of uses. In Mr. Bucek's opinion, the townhome use is a great fit for this vacant property He addressed the Kids R Kids owner and answered that there is an 8' masonry wall on the entire east edge and there are not rear garages. Units will be fully fenced along that edge. Chairman Cocking asked about guest parking and if the I to 2 ratio would be enough Mr. Bucek said they have 22 parking spaces for visitors on this plan, and comply with the ALDC Chairman Cocking added if each unit has the ability to park 2 cars in their driveways, 2 inside the garage, and an additional 22 parking spaces for guests. Mr. Bucek said yes Mr. Bucek then discussed access and said there was a compromise on the access during staff review With the decel lane, it would be a built-in traffic buffer. The curve would force drivers to drive slower, which is a good speed control mechanism of the layout. 2"s Vice -Chair Trahan said that as long as public service and emergency vehicles can get in, the free market will control the property — whoever wants to make that turn will buy the properties. Commissioner Hollingsworth asked about what the possibility is to make the sidewalks a little bit wider due to the smaller street for safety as parked cars cannot be controlled Commissioner Platt stated he did not see how a track could get into the development. He is usually a fan of infill, but said that this seems like a square peg fitting into a round hole. A church, daycare, and June 2, 2015 1 medical use surrounding this does not feel right, and it does not seem like a good fit. His biggest concern is the drive and turn which will cause problems. Commissioner Orr also stated that the entrance is his biggest issue. 1" Vice -Chair Mangrum stated she agreed with Commissioner Platt about the property She stated that there is a Church, school, daycare, Legacy ER, and then there's this infill lot. She is concerned about safety She said it seems like the townhomes are being pushed to fit this area, and would like to see more creativity. She does not see how she could support this. Chairman Cocking asked if this development is required to be sprinkled due to the length of the cul-de- sac or if the cul-de-sac is not long enough. Ms McLeod answered that the lots will not have to be sprinkled. The distance is adequate to service the homes from the fire lane. Chairman Cocking asked about the cul-de-sac provision and fire suppression again. Mr. Bucek stated that if the City Ordinance requires it, they will do it. Mr. Bucek requested to table their project to work with the landowner. Commissioner Platt said that if the units were all considered one, then they would have to be sprinkled due to the square footage. Chairman Cocking clarified that none of the other provisions from PD -53 would remain and that this is a new ordinance. Ms. McLeod stated that the base zoning will be converting from Community Facilities to Townhomes and will not carry any other provisions from PD -53. 1 Chairman Cocking asked about enforcements for parking encroaching on the sidewalks, and if that would be an HOA provision rather than City enforced. Be Bass, Director of Community Development, answered that the sidewalk falls within the public right- of-way, so it would be a traffic violation with police enforcement. He also does not want to see the backyard space reduced for front space. Chairman Cocking asked again about whether this is an HOA concern or City concern. Mr. Laughlin answered that it is difficult, although it can be done, to place this provision in covenants. State laws now have gotten very anti -HOA. He said enforcement through HOA may be possible, but it would be easier to just write a police ticket for people blocking the right-of-way Chairman Cocking then asked about Lot 24, Block B, and stated the fence would be tubular steel with red cedar. Would that landscaping be maintained by the HOA? Ms. McLeod stated there would be a maintenance easement for any of the landscaping on private property on the eastern side. She said this would be platted within a maintenance easement. Chairman Cocking asked who is responsible for maintaining landscaping trees that die. Ms. McLeod answered that the HOA would be responsible. Mr Bass stated that wall and landscaping maintenance easements will be on the plat. Chairman Cocking said that the easement is not on this plat on the eastern side. Mr Laughlin said it will be on the plat. Chairman Cocking said that there is an easement on the northern side. Ms. McLeod stated the northern side includes a maintenance easement not only for screening, but also to maintain the open space area for ingress/egress. It is a utility easement as well June 2, 2015 Chairman Cocking asked about the plan for the Open Space area on the northwest. Mr. Arnold answered that they do not have a plan yet, but probably a circular trail and landscaping. Chairman Cocking asked if there was a landscape plan for the front or the rear of the property, and staff said not at this time. Chairman Cocking then asked about the rear tubular fence (lots 19-24) and why there would be gates He said usually when there is perimeter screening, it is to curtail movement of people. Should there be gates between subdivisions? Ms. McLeod stated the gates provide ingress/egress similar to the western and eastern property boundary to access the property from the front and the rear sides. Chairman Cocking asked if gates have ever been allowed on perimeter fencing between subdivisions. Mr. Arnold said that the issue is with the 10' utility easement on the north. He said they are willing to move that fence to the property line to have consistency around the property, so lots 19-24 have their own access point with fences behind their homes. They are willing to move the fence back to the property line. Mr. Flanigan stated that the gap is required there to exit off neighboring lots Ms. McLeod pointed out that there is an existing chain link fence on the school property, so the chain-link fence urns along the northern boundary, then there's the 10' utility maintenance easement, followed by 1 the tubular steel fence. Chairman Cocking said he is uneasy having gates between subdivisions. There's about 6-8 gates there, which would break up landscaping. There wouldn't be a natural hedge then between the properties. Chairman Cocking asked why trash pads are called out for certain lots. Ms. McLeod answered that it is due to the turning radii of waste service vehicles for full servicing for all of the lots. Commissioner Cocking then verified that the other lots would use poly -carts. Commissioner Ogrizovich asked if the people who would have to use the poly -cart space farther away would need to roll their own carts to that location. Ms. McLeod said yes, they would have to roll them there, and then place them back after pick-up. Chairman Cocking listed his overall concerns. - Masonry wall is stopped at end of Lot 19 It should continue on the east side on the comer of the "Point of Beginning" where Glendover Park Phase I connects. There are children back there and a tubular fence with landscaping is not an appropriate barrier. - Entrance: Chairman Cocking stated he would like to see an updated document with the deceleration lane, sidewalk, and another configuration if possible as he also has concerns with the entrance. - Fencing: Chairman Cocking said he wants a fencing diagram and a landscaping plan of the front and back of the tubular steel fence. He said he does not just want the "tubular steel" label as this term is vague. - Chairman Cocking said he wants the following updated elevations to show 2 car garages, concept plan, fencing diagram, landscaping plan. June 2, 2015 Chairman Cocking stated he is uneasy sending this plan to City Council with so many loose ends and with the amount of items. He suggested tabling the item to allow the developers more time to complete the project with the changes. The Commissioners agreed that the developer can have another chance to revise the project addressing the concerns. Chairman Cocking asked the applicant that if the item can be tabled to the June 16' meeting if that is enough time to complete the various items. Mr. Bucek answered yes. Chairman Cocking reopened the public hearing Motion: Upon a motion by 1st Vice -Chair Mangrum, and a second by Commissioner Platt, the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to table the request to amend the development and use regulations applicable to Tract 4 of Planned Development PD No. 53, from Community Facilities CF to Townhome Residential District TH, and adopt a Concept Plan, Building Elevations, and Development Regulations for Lot 2, Block A, Allen Stake Center to June 16, 2015. The motion carried 1 Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8.21 p.m. I _I )Ki,� 2015. Madhuri Kulkami, Planner June 2, 2015 1 Director's Report from 5/26/2015 City Council Meeting • There were no items taken to the May 26, 2015 City Council Meeting. C� L