Min - Planning and Zoning Commission - 2014 - 06/17 - RegularI I V�
CITY OF ALLEN
ATTENDANCE:
Commissioners Present:
Jeff Cocking, Chair
Ben Trahan, 2nd Vice -Chair
John Ogrizovmh
Michael Orr
Stephen Platt, Jr.
Absent:
Barbara McNutt
Shirley Mangrum, I" Vice -Chair
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
June 17, 2014
City Staff Present:
Ogden "Bo" Bass, AICP, Director of Community Development
Shawn Poe, PE, Assistant Director of Engineering
1 Tiffany McLeod, Senior Planner
Madhuri Kulkarni, Planner
Lee Battle, Assistant Planning Director
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.
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 June 10, 2014
regular meeting attached.
Consent Aeenda
2. Approve minutes from the June 3, 2014 regular meeting.
3. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Status Report.
Motion: Upon a motion by 2"d Vice -Chair Trahan, and a second by
Commissioner Platt, the Commission voted 5 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED
to approve the Consent Agenda.
The motion carried.
Reenlar Aeenda
4. PD Amendment — Conduct a public hearing and consider a request to amend the development
regulations and adopt a Concept Plan and Building Elevations for the Property, being a portion of
District E in Planned Development No. 108. The property is Lot 2-R-1, Block E, Bray Central One
Addition, an addition to City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; generally located northeast of the
intersection of, and bounded by, Watters Road and Junction Drive. (Z-2/17/14-1 I) [Twin Creeks
Urban Center, District E]
Ms. Tiffany McLeod, Senior Planner, presented to the Commission. The property is a PD amendment to
the Bray Central Addition for Twin Creeks Urban Center, District E, zoned PD -108. The property is
located at the northeast intersection of Watters Road and Junction Drive. The property to the north is
zoned Planned Development PD No. 54 Industrial Technology (IT). The property to the east (across
Junction Drive) is zoned Planned Development PD No. 108 Mixed Use (MIX), Planned Development PD
No. 54 Industrial Technology (IT) and Planned Development PD No. 54 Corridor Commercial (CC). The
property to the south is zoned Planned Development PD No. 54 Corridor Commercial (CC). The property
to the west (across Watters Road) is zoned Planned Development PD No. 54 Multifamily Residential
(MP -18).
The property is 29 acres and a part of District E within Planned Development PD No. 108. This district is
intended for the highest density development for office, commercial, retail uses within a mixed -used
setting.Pedestrian connectivity, urban style architecture, and urban style streetscape are expected in the
development. This proposal, in staffs opinion, meets these requirements through the high-density
residential, senior independent living use, and commercial uses to support the development, all connected
by a centralized pedestrian trail corridor and urban style architecture and streetscape.
The subject Concept Plan shows a123,000 square foot senior independent living facility on the west side
of the property On the east side of the property are a total of I I multi -family residential buildings, with
740 units within the tract. This equates to a density of 32 units/acre. This density is categorized as urban
living within District E. Any density less than 25 units/acre would not even be allowed within the PD
today. At the intersection of Waters Road and Junction Drive is an 11,000 square foot building for retail/
restaurant/office use.
PD -108 provides for uses to be integrated vertically (such as Watters Creek, with commercial on the
ground floor and residential on upper floors) or for integration of uses through multiple adjacent uses,
such as this development. The purpose of mixed-use can be for external pedestrian destination (as a draw)
or for internal functioning development and use. This mixed use fits the latter of both criteria. This
development, thus, includes various buildings for the mixed uses all connected through the civic space.
The trail corridor acts like the main artery for pedestrian connectivity The trail and open spaces adds up
to approximately 1.8 acres. There is an eight -foot trail along Watters Road and a ten -foot trail along
Junction Drive. Attention was given to the open space area and being pedestrian friendly The open space
on the east side of the senior living facility was created with the intent of pedestrian connectivity and has
a widened sidewalk, centralized focal point, and extensive landscaping. Everything is interconnected in
the development Ms. McLeod provided an example of someone walking through the trail from the
apartments to the senior living facility, to the retail area, and then to the amenity center, without leaving
the development or getting in a car. Thus, this development addresses the PD mixed-use intent.
The applicants are requesting to amend some regulations within District E:
1) Permitted Uses — The PD allows for certain uses discussed by Ms. McLeod and shown on the
presentation, with the exception of the senior independent living facility. The applicants now
want those uses that were allowed through a Specific Use Permit to be allowed by right.
2) Screening — An 8 -foot masonry wall is required between residential and nonresidential
development. In this development, screening is required along the entire northern boundary,
provided through an 8 -foot rod iron with landscaping. A fence permit must be issued prior to a
building permit.
3) Dwelling Unit Sizes — The minimum dwelling unit size is 800 square feet. The applicants are
proposing 720 square feet for the multi -family tract, and 350 square feet for the senior
independent living tract (350 square feet is due to units being studio units with no kitchens)
4) Parking Ratio — The parking for the multi -family tract is proposed at 1.77/dwelling unit The
breakdown for the multi -family tract is 60% ]-bedroom, 36% 2 -bedroom, and 4% 3-bedroon
This breakdown is similar to Jefferson Creekstde and Twin Creeks Crossing, with the same
parking ratio of 1 77 Since these projects are already approved, staff is comfortable with this
ratio The parking ratio for the senior independent living tract is I space/senior independent living
tract. This number was derived through understanding that senior housing types have evolved,
evaluating the business model which includes bus transportation to the residents, and because a
similar number is required for an assisted living facility
5) Building Heights — A minimum height for the retail/restaurant/office building is included at 2
stories or 50 feet to ensure that the urban streetscape is consistent
6) Front Yard Building Setback — District E currently requires a setback of 15-25 feet. The multi-
family buildings comply, but the senior independent living and retail/restaurant/office building do
1not meet the standard. The front yard setback will be set at a minimum of 10 feet to offer
flexibility.
7) Street Improvements — Two hooded left turns will be included to serve the site off Junction Drive,
which will need to be completed before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for Phase I of the
multi -family tract
There are eight (8) access points for the site; three (3) on Watters Road and five (5) on Junction Drive.
All the buildings except the retail/restaurant/office building are four stories. The primary exterior building
materials are stone, stucco, and standing seam metal roofing. The architectural style of all of the buildings
within the development carries the same relative theme, a variation of materials/colors/textures, flat roofs
with decorative elements and heavy articulation of the building face.
Ms. McLeod concluded by stating that staff recommends approval. The proposed development keeps with
the intent of PD -108, District E by being mixed-use. The proposal has also been reviewed by the
Technical Review Committee
Chairman Cocking opened the Public Hearing.
Bruce Heller, owner of the northern property, stated he had no objections, but wanted some clarification.
Their development is for office within the IT District. With his use being adjacent to the new residential
use, he was wondering if there will be impacts to his site regarding additional screening, setbacks,
building heights, sizes, and so on. Another question he had was regarding their General Development
Plan, which shows a driveway on Watters Road. This drive would normally be shared, but he wanted to
ensure that there will be a cross -access easement for this driveway
Chairman Cocking closed the Public Hearing.
Chairman Cocking also mentioned that a letter was provided by the school district on their review of the
apartments and the impact of the dwelling units on schools.
Ms. McLeod clarified on the impact on the surrounding property, and stated that this PD amendment is
only for the 29 -acre tract within District E, and will not impact adjacent zoning district regulations.
Chairman Cocking asked if there were any potential impacts from the site being converted into
residential. Ms. McLeod responded that this is considered a mixed-use development, and the screening
wall, if considered and approved, will be the screening between the two properties. Chairman Cocking
then asked about the joint access, which the concept plan does not show Shawn Poe, Assistant Director
of Engineering, stated that there will be a common access for the northern driveway for cross -access.
Commissioner Ogrizovich asked if there would be a masonry wall put in place because of this
development occurring first Ms. McLeod answered no; the screening requirement will be addressed with
this mixed-use development
Commissioner Ogrizovich wanted to know more information about the kitchen -less units.
Mark Lowen, with Lenity Architecture on behalf of Hawthorne Retirement, stated that there is a half
kitchen with sink, countertop, and small refrigerator. He stated that the residents do not have to cook, and
that their meals are provided in a central dining room.
2ntl Vice -Chair Trahan appreciated that the residents would have interaction with each other in that
setting. Mr. Lowen agreed and said that is also a way the health of the residents can be checked.
1 Commissioner Orr asked if the amenity center by the senior independent living area will be available for
the whole development. Ms. McLeod stated that the amenity center and open space will be available for
all of the residents in the overall development (multi -family tract and senior independent living facility
tract).
Commissioner Orr asked about acoustic provisions from the senior living area Mr. Lowen stated that the
building will have a double -pane window and other sound factors. Their residents will not be very noisy,
and this location is important for activity, which will not be an issue for the residents.
2nd Vice -Chair Trahan stated this is a well -thought out design and good location, and liked the stop light
on Watters Road and Junction Drive.
Chairman Cocking asked about the building height with a minimum of two stories and a minimum of 50
feet, and asked if there was an upper maximum. Ms. McLeod stated there was not; only a minimum was
established to keep the vertical scale with the surrounding development. Chairman Cocking suggested
that a maximum height should probably be included. Mr. Bass suggested four stories if a maximum
height was needed
Chairman Cocking then stated that the multi -family development appears to be using external dumpsters
for trash. He asked how high a multi -family development has to be before an internal dumpster is
required Ms McLeod stated that the Community Services Department had no concerns when reviewing
the project, and only the proximity of the dumpsters was reviewed and found acceptable.
Chairman Cocking then stated his concern for the senior independent living facility, and believed that the
one space for one suite seemed too low when there are cooking staff, cleaners, and other support staff.
Ms McLeod stated that that ratio was a compromise after understanding the business model and trusting
the applicant that the ratio would work. The ratio was the minimum that staff was comfortable with.
Mr.Lowen clarified that the parking ratio is ideally 0.6-0.7 per suite. In his opinion, this development is
actually over parked. On an average day, only about 40% of the spaces will be empty based on experience
with 200-300 other facilities. From his perspective and the data, this is plenty of parking.
Commissioner Orr sought clarification on the aesthetics of the development and wanted to know how
accurate the finishes and colors are on the elevations. Ms. McLeod stated that the finishes, textures, and
building materials should be the same. If there is a significant variation, the zoning would have to be re-
done She noted that these plans are conceptual and there is room for minor revisions.
2"" Vice -Chair Trahan stated that the 1.0 parking ratio does seem like too much, but overall, the
development seems like a good project.
Chairman Cocking requested that the maximum building height not to exceed four stories be added to the
motion. 2nd Vice -Chair Trahan asked if the four stories would include the accent. Chairman Cocking
specified that the four stories in height would be added to Section J.
Mr. Bass stated that typically, architectural elements are not included in height. Mr. Bass also mentioned
that the elevations would be built according to the renderings. If there is a huge change, the project will
have to go back through the process.
Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Ogrizovich, and a second by
Commissioner Orr, the Commission voted 5 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED
to approve the request to amend the development regulations and adopt a
Concept Plan and Building Elevations for the Property known as Lot 2-R-1,
Block E, Bray Central One Addition, being a portion of District E and
Planned Development No. 108 for Twin Creeks Urban Center District E,
with the addition of "not to exceed four stories" at the end of Section J,
"Building Height," to the proposed development regulations.
The motion carried.
Adiournment
These
The meeting adjourned at 7:39 p.m.
1 S day of SUk� 2014.
Madhuri Kulkami, Planner
IDirector's Report from 6/10/2014 City Council Meeting
• There were no items taken to the June 10, 2014 City Council meeting.
1
E