Min - Planning and Zoning Commission - 1988 - 10/19 - WorkshopALLEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
WORKSHOP MEETING
11
OCTOBER 19, 1988
ATTENDANCE:
Commission Members Present:
Wayne Armand, Chairman
Eileen Karlsruher, Vice -Chairman
Melissa Owen
Harold Biggs
Kenneth Fulk
John Garcia
Commission Members Absent:
Charles Lee, Secretary
City Staff Present:
Tom Keener, Development Coordinator
Sally Leeper, Secretary
The Allen Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by
Chairman Armand at the Allen Municipal Annex, One Butler Circle, Allen, Texas.
Workshop
Session
Review of
CALL
TO
ORDER:
The Allen Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by
Chairman Armand at the Allen Municipal Annex, One Butler Circle, Allen, Texas.
Workshop
Session
Review of
Subdivision
Ordinance
A¢enda Item II)
Chairman
Armand read
the agenda item into
the record as follows:
"Workshop session on Review of Subdivision Ordinance."
Mr. Tom Keener introduced Mr. J. T. Dunkin of J. T. Dunkin Associates to the
Commission. Mr. Dunkin spoke to the Commission regarding subdivision ordinan-
ces and made the following comments:
1. The ordinance should be simple, concise, and to the point.
2. The ordinance will be used a great deal by staff.
3. Design standards and construction standards should be in a companion
document, separated from the procedural document.
4. The ordinance should define policy and procedure.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 19, 1988 PAGE 2
{
5. Some cities adopt a combination zoning and subdivision ordinance. It could
contain:
a. zoning
b. subdivision
C. landscape
d. signage
Possibly an ordinance would be appropriate that would include all the above
except zoning.
6. He discussed the need for landscape standards.
7. He discussed the need for a park ordinance and suggested:
a, divide the city into zones;
b. developer contributes money or land for a neighborhood park;
C. the floodway should not be used for dedication purposes, however, the
floodplain would be appropriate;
d. courts have ruled that the dedication of land or the fees system is a
fair method, the land being dedicated (or the money) should represent
a neighborhood park and not a city-wide park.
8. Impact Fees (pro rata payments) could cover:
a. thoroughfares
b. utilities
C. etc.
The developer should pay his fair share only. If a fee is being charged for
something off-site, it needs to be covered under the impact fees. The City
Attorney should probably look into the issue of impact fees.
9. Capital Improvement Programs:
Mr. Dunkin discussed the importance of this plan. Each project should be
identified by funds necessary and priority. It should be an ongoing process.
This program needs to accompany the impact fee program.
Senate Bill 336 was discussed. If the city is passing on any fees for items
outside the development, they should be done through impact fees.
10. He stated the pro-ratas as they are stated in our ordinance are probably
all right.
11. He stated that a short -form plat should be considered. This is a plat that
does not need to go to the Commission, maybe a single lot subdivision or
corrections.
PLANNING & ZONING CONMISSION
OCTOBER 19, 1988
i
PAGE 3
He added that state law says that only a surveyor can sign the final plat,
not an engineer. That should be corrected in our ordinance.
12. TIF (Tax Increment Financing) was discussed.
13. Fees could be in a separate resolution that could be updated annually and
the Subdivision Ordinance should refer to this resolution.
14. Driveway cuts and median openings should be addressed.
15. In a strip area, common access easements should be used rather than each
parcel having their own drive cut. This should be made a part of the
Subdivision Ordinance.
16. Additional special ordinances that would become a development policy could
be attached to the Subdivision Ordinance.
17. There was discussion regarding a grid street system vs. curvilinear system.
The design has to be subject to the contours of the land. A preconference
meeting is very important and is a place where originality of design can be
encouraged.
18. There is an obligation to approve what is best for the City.
19. He stated the Subdivision Ordinance does not lend itself to assisting
economic development. The city probably does not want to decrease the
standards.
20. Preliminary Plat and general development plan: the preliminary plat is
currently good for only six months. This section should be redone regard-
ing:
a. general development plan
b. preliminary plat
C. final plat
He suggested that the development plan could be very sketchy. The
preliminary plat should include a whole tract of land and could have
additions or variances t the development plan. It should include the
general land use and remain in force for one year with renewal options.
Commissioner Owen questioned the need for standards on cul-de-sac lengths. He
stated the length is not as important as the number of lots that abut that
street.
Mr. Tom Keener introduced Dr. Joel Goldsteen to the Commission.
Dr. Goldsteen spoke to the Commission regarding subdivision ordinances and made
the following comments:
PLANNING & ZONING CONAQSSION
i
OCTOBER 19, 1988 PAGE 4
1.
He discussed the health effects of living near overhead power lines and the
need for wider right-of-way widths.
2.
The procedures for application should addressed from the pre -application to
the end of the process; the ordinance is not clear.
3.
Ordinance should be written for the user; a person that knows nothing
about the ordinance. Everything should be formatted and clearly stated.
4.
Pro -rata share and reimbursements are not clear; how and why should be
specific.
5.
Park dedication is not clear as to what is wanted; any fees in lieu of
dedication must be used to serve residents of that subdivision that is being
built.
6.
Preliminary Plat - entire procedure should be outlined. Timing and days
for action items should be specific.
7.
Regarding the 50% of improvements to be made in one year; what happens
to the rest of it? How about contiguous development?
8.
Cul-de-sacs; he suggested 500 feet is better.
9.
Design standards should be reviewed as to whether this is what is wanted.
10.
Where is the paving standards and base stabilization. This information
should be included in the subdivision ordinance.
11.
Regarding alleys, the City should consider the requirement of alleys.
Consider that alleys tend to be unsafe, and he considers them bad planning
practice. Consider no alleys, at least in some areas of the city. Possibly
side entry garages. Should ask developers to show you different designs.
12.
Bonds and Fees - there should be a separate fee schedule which would be
much easier to change.
13.
Facilities Agreements and Costs - should be carefully thought out. One
possibility would be to require the developer to put the fees in a local
bank.
14.
Sheets for plats should all be the same size rather than requiring two
sizes. Scale is not quite as important as it used to be because of the
current use of CADD systems for drawing; however, he suggested a
1:100-200 scale.
15.
State law for replotting - the public hearing requirements should be in the
ordinance.
16.
Variances should not be allowed. This is not a zoning ordinance.
PLANNING ✓i ZONING CONINUSSION
OCTOBER 19, 1988
PAGE 5
17. He added that the following items should be included in the process:
a. predesign conference
b. conference with sketch plat
C. preliminary plat review
d. final plat review
If the preliminary plat serves as the site plan for residential, then that
wording should be included in the ordinance. The site plan approval should
be retained in the Subdivision Ordinance.
Regarding the general development plan, do we want building footprints or
merely the lot lines; especially on commercial or single family attached
property? Instead of stating 40 acres, change that and state "footprints
for development other than single family detached may be required," or
possibly "shall" be required.
18. He stated that preliminary plat approval for six months is sufficient. This
is good protection for the City. Final Plat approval for one year is
generous with renewal capabilities
19 Alleys were discussed and why they are required at this time. Alternatives
would be side or rear garage entries, and different shaped lots. Allow the
developer to come up with unique designs. Lot sizes would need to be
addressed to accommodate side drives.
20. The requirement for curb and gutter was discussed; especially in large
estate lots. Also, sidewalks were discussed. Possibly the requirement could
be different in certain sections of town; for example, one side of the street
may need sidewalks and not the other.
21. The need for environmental regulations was suggested. The floodplain
needs to be protected.
Adjourn:
MOTION:
Upon a motion by Commissioner Garcia and a second by Commissioner
Biggs, the Commission voted 6 FOR
and 0 OPPOSED to adjourn the
October 19, 1988, Workshop meeting
of the Allen Planning & Zoning
Commission at 9:15 p.m.
aday
These minutes approved this —�"7 of
,
1988.
'Ljcw_,
%A..,,.,�
-
Way L.
Armand, Chairman
Charles L. Lee, Secretary