Loading...
Min - Planning and Zoning Commission - 2014 - 05/06 - RegularPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting May 6, 2014 CITY OF ALLEN ATTENDANCE: Commissioners Present: Jeff Cocking, Chair Shirley Mangrum, I" Vice Chair Ben Trahan, 2"d Vice Chair Barbara McNutt John Ogrizovich Michael Orr Stephen Platt, Jr. Absent: None City Staff Present: Ogden "Bo" Bass, AICP, Director of Community Development Shawn Poe, PE, Assistant Director of Engineering Tiffany McLeod, Senior Planner Patrick Blaydes, Planner Madhuri Kulkami, 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 I Action taken on the Planning & Zoning Commission items by City Council at the April 22, 2014 regular meeting attached. Consent Aeenda 2. Approve minutes from the April 15, 2014 regular meeting. 3 Final Plat— Consider a Final Plat for Morgan Crossing Phase 4, being 24.653± acres, out of the D B. Hearne Survey, Abstract No. 427; City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; located west of Angel Parkway between Shelley Drive and Chaparral Drive. (FP -3/19/14-18) [Morgan Crossing, Phase 4] Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Platt, 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. Regular Aeenda 4. Public Hearing — Conduct a Public Hearing and consider a request for a Specific Use Permit SUP for a Restaurant (Drive-in or through) use. The property is Lot 5, Block A, Wal-Mart Supereenter, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; located west of US75/Central Expressway and north of Exchange Parkway (and commonly known as 790 W Exchange Parkway) (SUP 4/8/14-21) [Allen Exchange] Ms. Tiffany McLeod, Senior Planner, presented to the Commission. The subject property is located on the west side of US75/Central Expressway and north of Exchange Parkway The approximately 1.6 -acre property is currently zoned PD No. 108 for Mixed Use. Surrounding zoning includes PD No. 108 to the west, PD -54, IT zoning to the north, to the east PD No. 54, Corridor Commercial, and to the south across Exchange Parkway, PD -54 Corridor Commercial. She stated that the applicant has submitted a request for a Specific Use Permit for a restaurant with a drive through use. The Specific Use Permit site plan shows a one-story, 11,000 square foot budding for proposed medical -office, retail, and restaurant tenants. One of the restaurants will have a drive through, and the PD requires a Specific Use Permit for the drive-through use. There is one access point to the site off the Wal-Mart private drive to the west A second point of access, if needed for emergency, will be provided to the east — this is acceptable by the TRC. The site is designed for the building to front Exchange and the private drive, and is intentionally designed to keep with PD No. 108 streetscape standards (street and buildings to be built close together). Parking is provided to the rear, and meets standards of the ALDC. The SUP landscape plan also complies with the ALDC. The SUP elevations show that the building materials will primarily he composed of stucco, stone, and brick, and the north/south elevations have been designed to provide a look of building fronts on both ends. Both ends also have access. This is a similar design to the Jimmy John's nearby The Specific Use Permit request has been reviewed by the Technical Review Committee, meets the standards of PD No. 108, and meets the standards of the Allen Land Development Code (ALDC). Staff recommends approval. V Vice -Chair Mangrum asked if staff was comfortable with one access point. Ms. McLeod answered that TRC (Fire and Engineering Departments) looked over the traffic circulation and the ability to access the budding, and staff is comfortable with the one point of access. Commissioner Orr asked if the four -foot walkway along the drive through goes all the way up to the northern end of the property Ms. McLeod answered that it runs along the drive-through aisle, and that it starts at the dumpster location and ends at the ADA ramp. Commissioner Orr asked what the purpose was. The applicant, Matt Moore, 1105 Check Sparger Road, Colleyville, Texas, stated that the purpose of the sidewalk is essentially service — to provide the tenants a safe route to the dumpster location. Commissioner Orr asked if there was a door at the back, and Mr. Moore answered yes. Commissioner Orr asked if the southern five foot walk would also be on the western side, to which Mr. Moore stated he did not see the benefit of the sidewalk on that side. Commissioner Orr stated the patios on the elevations are different than on the site. Ms. McLeod stated that would be changed prior to Council. Commissioner McNutt asked if the rear of the budding is considered on Exchange. Ms. McLeod stated that the elevations show that the desire is to have building fronts on the northern and southern ends. Mr Moore clarified that the building would be entered through the north side, while the south side is dressed up architecturally. Commissioner McNutt expressed her concern to maintain the back -of -house functions (garbage cans, boxes). Mr. Bo Bass, Director of Community Development, answered that PD No. 108 intended to push the buildings closer to the streets, but would not have effective fronts because of lack of space for parking. The concern raised would be a code enforcement issue. 2"" Vice -Chair Trahan asked about the queuing line, and to consider adding a turning lane on Exchange Parkway. Shawn Poe, Assistant Director of Engineering, stated the median has been removed, and there will be additional turn lanes Another lane to the north will be built for Exchange Parkway —totaling four lanes. Commissioner Platt had similar concerns, but was satisfied with four lanes. Chairman Cocking opened the Public Hearing. With no one wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. A written notification from Charles Yelverton, 801 Baumgartener Way, was received in support of the item. The Commissioners had no further discussion. Motion: Upon a motion by 2" Vice -Chair Trahan, and a second by Commissioner Orr, the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to approve the Specific Use Permit for the Restaurant (Drive-in or through) use, for Allen Exchange. The motion carried. 5. Alternative Screening Request — Consider a request to approve an alternative screening for McDermott Business Park, Lots 2, 4 and 5, Block A, for McDermott Business Park pursuant to ALDC §7.074. The property is located south of McDermott Drive and east of Butler Drive. [McDermott Business Park] Mr Patrick Blaydes, Planner, presented to the Commission. The subject property (McDermott Business Park) is located south of McDermott Drive; between Greenville Avenue and Central Expressway Mr. Blaydes stated that this is not a usual request for the Commission. The authority of this request comes from the ALDC, Section 7 7.2 that either a masonry screening wall is required or an alternative design approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Blaydes described the property as being zoned for Central Business District The areas to the west, north, and east are also zoned CBD. To the south is an R-3, Single Family, District. The aerial shows this is not a new development. It was started in 2004. In 2005, it was final platted and construction began on the four buildings that house professional office suites. At the time, the ALDC stated that any non -single family property be screened by an 8 -foot masonry wall from single-family property, which would have occurred along the eastern and south property line abutting the single family residential. Staff has done exhaustive research and have been unable to find documentation that provides an alternative material to the applicant. Staff could not find permission granted by either the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, so requirement is still in place of the masonry wall. The applicant is aware of the requirement, but is proposing an alternative screening material The applicant proposes that the screening be the existing tree line along the property line (about 35 trees), and to add hedge shrubs. Physical difficulties exist because of easements, particularly sanitary sewer. Engineering has stated that there is no possibility that an 8 -foot masonry wall can be built in the easement. If it was required, it would have to pushed back to the property line, and to do so, the tree row would have to be removed. Staff considered several items while looking at site, including a unique history of the site — that it was built 10 years ago and existing screening has received no complaints or issues from Code. The applicant has committed to planting additional shrubs, and there are constrains on building the 8 -foot screening wall as it cannot be built on the easement. Staff recommends approval of the request. Chairman Cocking invited the applicant to speak. Mike Villalobos, 7621 Hope Court, Plano, Texas, and property owner at 1680 E. McDermott, spoke. He said that ten years ago, the same constrains existed, and the City Forester fought to keep the trees. This was effective at the time. The trees provided neighbors with shade. Ten years later, the trees have gaps between them. This area was always left as natural screening. 2"d Vice -Chair Trahan clarified that normally there would be a masonry wall between the commercial and residential area, but that there cannot be one because of trees and because of the sanitary easement. Mr Villalobos also added the constraint due to the power line. Commissioner McNutt asked if there were any complaints from neighbors, and Mr. Blaydes stated there were none. Commissioner Ogrizovich asked what is triggering this request. Mr. Blaydes stated that staff was made aware that the development was not in compliance, and when notified, Staff researched how to rectify the situation. Commission Ogrizovich wondered if it was due to the sale of the surrounding property Mr. Blaydes stated if the property were to develop later, an 8 -foot masonry wall would be a requirement. Commissioner Ogrizovich asked if the masonry wall issue would be revisited again for the surrounding property Mr. Villalobos said his vacant property is independent, and that Lot 10 is for sale. Mr. Bass stated that if the alternate request is granted, and a building is built on a vacant lot, it is subject to the decision made. The southern area will be held to the 8 -foot masonry wall when they develop. If this alternative request is granted, then the property to the south may also want an alternate screening. Chairman Cocking and Mr. Villalobos discussed that the property line is at an angle rather than what was depicted in the drawing presented. Commissioner Ogrizovich stated that there are two undeveloped pieces in the area He also mentioned a 6 -foot chain link fence is embedded in the trees with homeowner wooden fences in some cases Mr. Villalobos stated that was the homeowner's fence on the east side of the screen line. Mr. Ogrizovich also said there were some stones stored, to which Mr. Villalobos responded that those will be removed. Commissioner Ogrizovich asked about the plant material Mr Villalobos stated a different, native type of plant material was chosen that would not grow into a tree. The Nellie Stevens was used and will be continued, and drip irrigation will be provided. 2"d Vice -Chair Trahan asked if the southern area would have the tree line continued. Mr. Villalobos stated that five neighbors were contacted, and with the exception of one, heard back from all to keep the existing tree line. Chairman Cocking stated this is not a public hearing, but invited a resident to speak. Linda Newman, 4 Ellis Circle, Allen, Texas, stated she was the affected residential neighbor. She understands the issue to protect the trees, but many of the trees are on her property She said it is untrue that there have not been any complains. She did not complain about code violations because the area was initially quiet. She said she trusted the City to monitor code complains, and it never occurred to her that the City had allowed a non-compliant building. However, there were conflicts between her and the business neighbors. She reported the noncompliance to the City, and she insisted the buildings be brought into compliance. She said what she is supposed to have is an 8 -foot screening wall. She said she never met Mr. Villalobos. She is opposed to the bushes because it is not what she is supposed to have, and it does not address the problems. There are pass-through issues and issues with sound barrier. The masonry screening wall should have provided her protection. She does not approve of this solution because she feels it is inadequate. 2"d Vice -Chair Trahan asked if the trees are on her [Ms. Newman's] property Mr. Blaydes stated the trees are on both the resident's and business's properties. 2"d Vice -Chair Trahan said if the trees are hers, she can tear them down Commissioner McNutt said there is an easement for the sewer, and asked if there needs to be a specific distance between the trees and the easement. Mr. Blaydes stated that the trees would have to be built beyond the easement. Chairman Cocking reminded the Commission that there is flexibility in the decision and that there is a lot of leeway. 1 Mr. Villalobos stated there are two easements abutting each other — the electrical and sewer easements. The tree line is outside the power poles, which marks the center of the electrical easement. Commissioner Ogrizovich asked if this property has been like this for ten years without any issues. Mr. Bass stated there were no complaints with Code, but probably with Animal Control Commissioner Ogrizovich didn't think the applicant can build a masonry wall there. He also mentioned that the applicant didn't work with all of the neighbors. He suggested that the applicant and Ms. Newman spend time to consider alternatives. Mr. Villalobos clarified that he found out in October that the screen wall was out of compliance, which is when he wrote the neighbors a letter and heard back from four, who were in favor of the vegetation. Commissioner Ogrizovich believed that there should be an adequate amount of time to work together (applicant, neighbor, and staff). A compromise has to be made. Commissioner Our asked if this was a functional visual or sound barrier. Mr. Blaydes stated that an 8 -foot masonry wall is the best barrier. Commissioner On asked if there were other options that would be acceptable. Mr Blaydes said it is up to the Commissioners discretion. Commissioner Platt said that more coverage would be provided, and [this] is a good solution to the situation. 1" Vice -Chair Mangrum agreed, and said she could support what is being presented tonight. 1 Chairman Cocking stated that alternative screening has always historically been an upgrade in Allen. He looks at alternative screens in three ways. The first is cut -through traffic. This screening does not reduce walk-through traffic, because this property has paths where people have walked through. This plan does not solve that issue. The second is light — of vehicular traffic to not invade other people's property; two houses get Flooded from Ash. The third is noise. Light and cut -through traffic are the biggest concerns. The usual solution would be a solid masonry wall, and this is what he would recommend if this was a new property But the challenge is that there is no room for a masonry wall, but also to not pull out 120 trees. 2nd Vice -Chair Trahan suggested a living wall — to have a metal fence along with the vines as a good median. Commissioner McNutt stated the access is the biggest concern, and to maybe adding wrought -iron as it's fairly thin and does not have to be solid or a straight line. She would like to consider a wrought -iron fence to integrate with landscaping. 1" Vice -Chair Mangrum stated the bushes would grow side by side, and it would be harder for access, to which Commissioner McNutt responded that there would still be access as the bushes would be as permanent as a rod -iron fence, which would ensure separation. Commissioner Ogrizovich also agreed that the recommendation ought to include a barrier. Chairman Cocking stated there are several options on the table: to let the applicant have a two-week time period and come up with a viable solution, to deny, approve, or approve with modification. 2n" Vice -Chair Trahan stated each side should have their own protection and areas of enjoyment He would be in favor of a motion to put in a wrought -iron fence for a good, symbiotic conclusion, without the 8 -foot wall and cutting trees. Commissioner Platt and Chairman Cocking discussed the gap between the chain-link fence and wood fence. Commissioner Platt stated that the gap would have to be covered in the residential property Chairman Cocking stated it is the business's responsibility to provide the fence and there is no ability to control the surrounding residential property Chairman Cocking wanted to discuss the alternative of the living screen with the inclusion of a physical barrier. Commissioner Ogrizovich liked the idea, but also wanted to give the applicant a few weeks to come up with a proposal as there is no urgency to make a decision tonight Chairman Cocking stated that is up to the applicant. Kevin Laughlin, City Attorney, interjected and stated the case cannot be left open-ended. He recommended that the item be deferred to provide that opportunity to get a clear motion. There is no urgency of this compliant as that is in discretion with staff and the city attorney's office — and these parties are willing to defer. Chairman Cocking asked if City staff had enough information from the Commissioners' discussion. Mr. Bass stated he received very clear direction and can find a reasonable solution. Mr. V illalobos stated that there is a third party, and that perhaps they need to bring them in to fix the problem. Chairman Cocking stated that the date would be May 20" for the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to table the item. 2"d Vice -Chair Tmhan asked if whatever is decided would be projected to the nest development. Mr. Laughlin stated it would be premature to do so. Motion: Upon a motion by t" Vice -Chair Mangrum, and a second by Commissioner McNutt, the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to table the Alternative Screening Request for McDermott Business Park to the May 20, 2014, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. The motion carried. Adjournment Chairman Cocking introduced and welcomed new Planner, Ms. Madhuri Kulkami. The meeting adjourned at 8:15p.m. this QD day of 2014 �1A�A"a K A kaAAAf. Madhuri Kulkami, Planner J