Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - Planning and Zoning Commission - 2016 - 01/05 - RegularJanuary 5, 2016 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting January 5, 2016 CITY OF ALLEN ATTENDANCE: Commissioners Present: Jeff Cocking, Chair Ben Trahan, 1" Vice -Chair Luke Hollingsworth Shirley Mangrum John Ogrizovich Michael Orr Absent: Stephen Platt, Jr , 2"d Vice -Chair City Staff Present: Ogden "Bo" Bass, AICP, Director of Community Development Shawn Poe, PE, Assistant Director of Engineering Brian Bristow, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation +1 Madhuri Kulkarni, Planner David Dodd, 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.m the City Hall Council Chambers Room at Allen City Hall, 305 Century Parkway Director's Report I Action taken on the Planning & Zoning Commission items by City Council at the December 22, 2015 regular meeting, attached. Consent Agenda (Resume P&Z business Consent Agenda is approved by a single majori8; vote. Items maybe removed for open discussion by a reques( from a Commission member or member ofstaff) 2 Approve minutes from the December 15, 2015, regular meeting 3. Request for Extension — Consider a request for a 60 -day extension to file the Replat for Park View Addition, Lots 2RR, 3RR and 4R, being 8296± acres situated in the David Weisel Survey, Abstract No. 977, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas, generally located east of Greenville Avenue and south of Main Street. (RP -7/6/15-44) [Park View Addition] January 5, 2016 Motion: Upon a motion by I" Vice -Chair Trahan, and a second by f Commissioner Hollingsworth, the Commission voted 6 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion carried. Regular Agenda 4 Combination Plat — Consider a request for a Combination Plat for Lot 1, Block A, The Learning Experience, being 3.482+ acres situated in the R.C. Whisenant Survey, Abstract No. 1012, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas, generally located south of Bethany Drive and west of Allen Heights Drive. (FP -12-18/15-91) [The Learning Experience] Ms. Madhuri Kulkarni, Planner, presented the item to the Commission. She stated that the item is a Combination Plat for The Learning Experience The property is generally located south of Bethany Drive and west of Allen Heights Drive. The property to the north is zoned Planned Development PD No. 22 Shopping Center SC The property to the west is zoned Planned Development PD No. 22 Community Facilities CF The properties to the south are zoned Planned Development PD No. 22 Community Facilities CF and Planned Development PD No. 22 Single - Family Residential District R-6. To the east (across Allen Heights Drive), the property is zoned Shopping Center SC. Ms. Kulkarni stated that the property is zoned Planned Development PD No 22 Shopping Center SC. A Site Plan for a daycare use was approved in December 2015. Platting the property is the last step in the development process The Combination Plat shows one (1) lot, which is approximately 3 Y acres. There is one (1) access point for the site on Allen Heights Drive. The plat also shows various firelane, access, and utility easements required for development The Combination Plat has been reviewed by the Technical Review Committee and meets the standards of the.411en Land Development Corle Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Hollingsworth, and a second by Commissioner Mangrum, the Commission voted 6 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to approve the request for a Combination Plat for Lot 1, Block A, The Learning Experience, generally located south of Bethany Drive and west of Allen Heights Drive. S. Public Hearing/Replat — Conduct a Public Hearing and consider a request for a Replat for Lots 4R and SXR, Block A, Twin Creeks Crossing, being a replat of Lots 4 and 5X, Block A, Twin Creeks Crossing: being 14.540+ acres of land situated in the Michael Lee Survey, Abstract No. 544, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas, generally located west of Bray Central Drive and north of Exchange Parkway (RP-ll/19115-85)[Twin Creeks Crossing] Ms. Madhun Kulkarni, Planner, presented the item to the Commission She stated that the item is a public hearing and a Replat for Twin Creeks Crossing. January 5, 2016 The property is generally located west of Bray Central Drive and north of Exchange Parkway. The property to the north is zoned Planned Development PD No. 54 for Single -Family Residential SF and El Planned Development PD No. 54 Community Facilities CF as well as Planned Development PD No. 54 Industrial Technology IT (across Bray Central Drive). The property to the west is zoned Planned Development PD No. 54 Single Family Residential SF and Planned Development PD No. 54 Medium Density Single -Family Residential MDSF The property to the south is zoned Planned Development PD No 108 for Multifamily Residential MF -24 (Phase 1 of Twin Creeks Crossing). The properties to the east (across Bray Central Drive) are zoned Planned Development PD No 54 Industrial Technology IT and Planned Development PD No. 108 for Mixed Use MIX. Ms. Kulkami said that the zoning for the property (previously called Ablon at Twin Creeks) was approved in June 2012 and a Preliminary Plat was approved in December 2012, A Final Plat consisting of two (2) lots (Lots 4 and 5X) was approved in September 2015. This purpose of this replat is to dedicate new utility easements. All other conditions remain the same. There are no impacts to existing utilities, structures, setbacks, or zoning regulations. The Replat has been reviewed by the Technical Review Committee and meets the standards of the Allen Land Developmew( Code. Chairman Cocking opened the public hearing. Chairman Cocking closed the public hearing. Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Orr, and a second by Commissioner Ogrizovich, the Commission voted 6 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to approve the Replat for Lots 4R and 5XR, Block A, Twin Creeks Crossing, generally located west of Bray Central Drive and north of Exchange Parkway. 6 Public Hearing — Conduct a Public Hearing and consider a request to change the base zoning relating to a 74.601± acre portion of Planned Development PD No. 105 from Agriculture Open Space AO to Single -Family Residential District R-7, and adopt a Concept Plan, Development Regulations, and Building Elevations, said portion consisting of a tract out of the T.G. Kennedy Survey, Abstract No. 500, and Lot IR, Block 1, Williams -Old Bethany Addition, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas, generally located south of the Bethany Drive and east of Brett Drive. (Z-4/14-15-19) [Montgomery Farm Estates] Mr. Bo Bass, Director of Community Development, presented the item to the Commission. He stated that the item is a request to amend a portion of the exiting PD -105 from AO to Single -Family Residential R-7 for Montgomery Farm Estates. The property is approximately 74.6± acres. Mr. Bass said that although this is not the last undeveloped piece for Montgomery Farms, it is the last largest undeveloped piece. The property is generally located south of Bethany Drive and east of Brett Drive. The property to the north (across Bethany Drive) is zoned Planned Development PD No. 76 Single -Family Residential R-5. The properties to the west are zoned Planned Development PD No. 96 Single -Family Residential R-4 and Agriculture -Open Space AO The property to the south is zoned Agriculture -Open Space AO. The properties to the east are zoned Planned Development PD No. 105 Single -Family Residential R-5 and Planned Development PD No. 74 Single -Family Residential R-7 Mr. Bass stated that surrounding subdivisions include Montgomery Ridge Phase I (under construction), Angel Field West (under construction), The Park at Montgomery Farms (with a variety of lot sizes), The Meadow at Montgomery January 5, 2016 Farms, and Bethany Mews/Pecan Grove. Other projects include Hamilton Hills, Connemara Crossing ()et to be developed), and the Farm Headquarters (yet to be developed). Montgomery Farms has set several unique standards in Allen, including public art such as windmills, lake systems, Bethany Road itself, diverse architecture, and environmental related infrastructure such as rain gardens and swales; which other projects have not brought to Allen. Mr. Bass also said that Montgomery Farms, from early on, has provided an opportunity for choices in lot sizes Various portions of Montgomery Farms have varying lot and house sizes to provide diverse market choices for customers. Mr. Bass cited the example of The Park, which has a base zoning of R-5, but includes lot variability He also cited Montgomery Ridge Phase I which ranges in lot sizes from 40' wide lots up to 60' wide lots The precedent of vary ing lot/house sizes even varies within a single block itself. Planned developments include three components — the Concept Plan, Elevations, and Development Regulations Mr Bass went over the Concept Plan, and stated that the proposed residential development is approximately 74.6± acres. The Concept Plan shows a total of 215+ front and rear entry lots of various lot sizes This proposed development only includes single-family detached homes — not lownhomes or retail or multi -family The principal point of access is on Brett Drive, off Bethany Drive. There is another point of access on Spencer Street from the Angel Field West subdivision. Mr. Bass said that the street layouts are non- standard and unique in this proposed subdivision, and include open spaces, vanishing points, and curves This site has many trees and the designers have gone through various lengths to protect the tree resources Streets and alleys are provided for the lots; some lots have alley access, some have street access, some have both. Mr. Bass said that there are five basic lot types — Type A, 100' X 140'— comprising up 27% of the total 215 lots Type B, 75'X130' — front loaded Type C, 62'X 120' — front loaded Type D, 50'X120'— 24% of the lots Type E, 3 I' X 100' — alley loaded Mr. Bass said that some of the smaller lots have alley access. Staff does not want the smaller lots to have driveways on the streets in order to protect the streetscape from looking like one large driveway Thus, all lot types that are 50' or less will be required to have alley access. Mr. Bass repeated that there is variability and some lots have both front access and alley access. The smallest lots have green space access pnews), such as Hamilton Hills. Mr. Bass discussed the trail system and said that there are two trails proposed as part of this project to be funded by developer. One is a 10' trail that runs east/west. There is also a 12' hike and bike trail in a 14' easement that runs from the northwest to southeast portion of the property The timing of the construction is currently being worked out between the developer and the Parks and Recreation Department. For open space, residential developments require one acre of land for every 75 units. In this case, 2.878 acres is required This development will have 10.5 acres Mr. Bass summarized the project by stating the access points, five lot types, the minimum dwelling unit size of 1,800 square feet, the variability in the streets, and the incorporation of trails as part of the overall concept January 5, 2016 The second part of the Planned Development is Elevations, which show the architecture and materials. The style being shown will have to match what is built There may be some slight variability as determined or acceptable by staff, or, if the changes are major, would go through a zone change once again Mr. Bass showed the elevations for each of the lot types and emphasized the variability in architecture He said that the materials include stone, stucco, some siding, heavy timber, and masonry Mr. Bass discussed the lot sizes. He said that although there are a variety of lot types being proposed, the smallest one rather than the average size is advertised. 55% of all the lots shown are R-5 or better. 79% of all lots are R-6 or better (cumulatively). The remainder of the lots are R-7 or slightly less. The third component of a Planned Development is Development Regulations. Mr. Bass summarized the regulations: - Base Zoning District Single -Family Residential R-7 - Lot Standards: Minimum lot width, depth, setbacks, lot coverage, and dwelling unit size as indicated in the chart of the development regulations, including: Product Minimum Minimum Type Lot Width Lot Depth A 100 feet 140 feet B 75 feet 130 feet C 62 feet 120 feet D 50 feet 120 feet E 31 feet 100 feet - Maximum Density 3.5 dwelling units per acre (This meets the Comprehensive Plan which shows this area as suburban residential to have a density between one to five units/acre). - Screening Montgomery Farms does not have the typical 8' masonry screening wall as the rest of developments in Allen. There are extensive uses of berm, living screening walls, masonry walls, and a combination of all types, which has served Montgomery Farms well. Lots adjacent to the Neighborhood/Commumty Reserve Area may have decorative metal fencing. - Thoroughfares: All internal rights -of -ways shall be a minimum of forty-five (45) feet. The standard is 50', but the right-of-ways are 45' in many other Montgomery Farm communities. The utilities are still provided in easements. - Floodplain Reclamation: The P&Z considers Floodplain reclamation. In this case, it is not known for certain if a reclamation is required, but it is still included in the development regulations. Mr. Bass concluded that staff has reviewed the project and vetted it thoroughly Many changes have been made to end up with this plan as presented, and staff recommends approval Commissioner Ognzovich asked about front loaded product Types A, B, and C, and if they have an alley, whether the builder would have the flexibility of either front or rear entry homes Mr. Bass said that that would be clarified in the Development Regulations. If a lot is front loaded, it will be just a front loaded lot. The alley will be used primarily for waste service. For lot types D and E that have both street and alley, because of their width and narrowness, only alley access (not front access) will be permitted. Commissioner Ogrizovich clarified that the front loaded lots with alleys would have their waste services through the alley Mr Bass said yes and said that the question should also be posed to the applicant to see how they want to market those lots January 5, 2016 Chairman Cocking said that a correction needs to be made on the draft Development Regulations in Section D. An asterisk was not included in the minimum side yard setback chart. The number on the left is the standard side yard setback, and the one on the right is for a setback if the side yard faces a street An asterisk with a note needs to be added and that will be included as part of the P&Z recommendation. Mr Bass further explained that as an example, the 31' foot lots have a 3' side yard on both sides (the number on the left) unless it sides on a street, in which case, the side yard would be 15' (the number on the right). Chairman Cocking said that the elevations that were presented on the screen are different from the elevations included in the P&Z packets, and wanted to know which ones to use. Mr. Bass answered that the elevations presented on the screen will be used. The quality of the elevations included in the packet was not very crisp, so staff requested clearer graphics, which is shown on the PowerPoint presentation. Chairman Cocking opened the public hearing Dr Dale Ehmer, 1206 Monica Drive, Allen, Texas, spoke in opposition of the request. He said that he is a resident of The Meadow He has been there about seven years and bought into the Montgomery Farms' open space concept. His only issue is the median on Brett Drive. He said that the median has gotten a lot bigger than the drawing they were provided with when they bought their property This new plan moves the houses on the western side closer to his neighborhood The wide median on Brett Drive does not provide as much buffer between the two neighborhoods. They want more of a buffer zone to have more green area The current 15' is not much green space This narrow area is also a drainage area, so sometimes it might not even be possible to walk there. Dr. Ehmer said they were the first to buy, into the Montgomery Farm concept and now feels crowded out of the green space. Dr. Ehmer said that the original plan (that was passed to the P&Z Commissioners at the meeting) has a narrower median than the median proposed in this Concept Plan. Dr. Ehmer also disused the 31' wide lot elevations and said he has a hard time believing that the homes would only be 25' wide That would be a narrow structure, and the structures shown on the elevations do not look like that. Mike Nettleton, 1222 Monica Drive, Allen, Texas, spoke against the item. He said the elevation change is unclear to him (between this proposed development and the subdivision to the west). He said the primary reason they moved to Montgomery Farms is the unique aspect of the area. He said that behind his house, there is a creek They were shown a two-story house in the original plan, but now there is an 8'-10' wall. He wondered if these seven lots are going to be at ground level or if the lots will be elevated 6'-8,' similar to what happened behind his house. His second question is regarding the maintenance of the trails - will the City or the developer maintain those? He also asked about the legal responsibility of who is supposed to maintain the trails as they are not being maintained today Major Thomas, 1246 Monica Drive, Allen, Texas, spoke in opposition to the item He said he is directly adjacent to this property in The Meadow He said this area is really encroaching into his neighborhood. This proposal includes open spaces and open vistas such as the vista in the middle of Brett Drive. He said that if the median size on Brett Drive was decreased, the houses adjacent to his can be pushed further away He said that the elevation increases from the back of his house. The ground level of the proposed houses will be towering over their houses. Because the neighbors might have wrought iron fences, those houses can look into their homes He asked whether the grading/topography of the proposed homes will J be elevated or similar to his neighborhood. Mr. Thomas said they could plant trees in their backyard for privacy, but that defeats the purpose of wanting open space in the first place. Mr. Thomas also mentioned January 5, 2016 Ile I P lots and said this is a density issue The houses on Monica Drive are 5,000 square foot houses, and these small lots are less than half that area. Those ninety-seven 31' lot homes will be there when driving through Brett Drive. He said there is no reason to have those additional small homes to satisfy some notion of the market. Another point he stated was regarding the maintenance of this area, and said that "being one with nature" cannot happen when there are 4'-5' weeds on the trails Mr Thomas said that the original plan he was shown included a community center in this area, which is now gone. The community center idea was offered to the neighborhood (to be at the location of the old farm house) as recently as 2013 when the apartment complexes were considered at Angel Field East. Mr. Thomas' final point was that it is not fair to subordinate the existing stakeholders. He is okay with new families moving into Allen, but their "rights" should not trump the rights of the existing stakeholders. Ben Johns, 1234 Monica Drive, Allen, Texas, spoke to the commission. He said he has been a resident in this area for less than a year. There was a detailed plan that was put into place when he moved in, and now this plan has changed quite a bit. He said that although this was an impressive presentation, the bottom line is that this isjust population density Mr. Johns said that the developers did great laying out Bethany Drive which sets the standard for Allen. With such narrow homes, however, the area will not look very attractive. He does not understand why alleys are needed. He also said that there are currently terrible runoff problems in his neighborhood because of some supposedly underground river which has not been addressed. Montgomery Farms has done a terrific job so far, but it is closing out, and now the developers are making a `good" business decision, but it is unfair to those that are currently living there. Christopher Walls, 1226 Monica Drive, Allen, Texas, spoke in opposition of the item. He said that there is an investment and emotion behind their neighborhood. He said he knew that something would be built in this area, but that it does not look like anything that was proposed before. This is all economics and it seems that the developers are squeezing everything out of this area This type of congestion will prove to be a problem over time when this is something that can be rectified right now. Chairman Cocking closed the public hearing. The following letters were also received. Celeste Walz, celeste.walz@gmail.com, Allen, Texas— Support WM G. Dickie, 1236 Monica Drive, Allen, Texas—Opposed Datie Brooks, 1360 Francie Way, Allen, Texas — Opposed There was a technical audio issue and the remainder of the agenda item, except for the last five minutes, was not recorded. Mr. Bass proceeded to answer the concerns that were both brought up by the citizens and the Planning and Zoning Commissioners Mr. Philip Williams, 1204 Bethany Drive, Allen, Texas, Developer, also answered questions from the commissioners. Discussion ensued among the commissioners, including discussion regarding the 31' wide lots. Motion: Upon a motion by Chairman Cocking, and a second by Commissioner Mangrum, the Commission voted 5 IN FAVOR, and 1 OPPOSED to recommend approval of the request to change the base zoning relating to a 74.601± acre portion of Planned Development PD No. 105 from Agriculture January 5, 2016 Open Space AO to Single -Family Residential District R-7, and adopt a Concept Plan, Development Regulations, and Building Elevations, generally located south of the Bethany Drive and east of Brett Drive, with the following items: 1. That the side yard lot standards on the proposed development regulations be clarified to reference side yard lots facing streets. 2. That all Type E lot types be converted to Type D lot types, so that the minimum lot size in the subdivision is 50' wide lots. 3. That the applicant will reduce the size of the median on Brett Drive to provide additional green space between the seven Type A lots and the Meadows at Montgomery Farm. Executive Session (As Needed) Chairman Cocking said that they will be taking a recess and moving into the conference room for an Executive Session as authorized by Section 551.071(2) of the Texas Government Code, this meeting may be convened into closed Executive Session for the purpose of seeking confidential legal advice from the City Attorney on any agenda item listed herein • Executive Session pursuant to Texas Government Code Section 551.076: Deliberation Regarding Deployment of Security Personnel and Devices. Chairman Cocking reconvened the meeting and said that there are no action items coming from the Executive Session. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 943 p.m. this 14 day of Wup 2016. Madhuri kulkami, Planner A January 5, 2016 Director's Report from 12/22/2015 City Council Meeting • No meeting was held by City Council on December 22,'_'015