Loading...
Min - Planning and Zoning Commission - 2016 - 08/02 - RegularAugust 2, 2016 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting August 2, 2016 CITY OF ALLEN ATTENDANCE: Commissioners Present: Jeff Cocking, Chair Ben Trahan, 1" Vice -Chair Stephen Platt, Jr., 2ntl Vice -Chair John Ogrizovich Luke Hollingsworth Michael Orr Shirley Mangmm Absent: City Staff Present: Ogden "Be" Bass, AICP, Director of Community Development Lee Battle, AICP, LEED AP, Assistant Director of Community Development Madhuri Kulkami, AICP, Senior Planner ' Shawn Poe, PE, Assistant Director of Engineering 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 7:02 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 July 26, 2016, regular meeting., attached. Consent Agenda (Routine P&Z business. Consent Agenda is approved by a single majority vote. Items may be removed for open discussion by a request from a Commission member or member of staff:) 2. Approve minutes from the July 19, 2016, regular meeting Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Mangrum, and a second by Commissioner Hollingsworth, the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion carried. August 2, 2016 ' Regular Agenda 3. Public Hearing/Replat — Conduct a Public Hearing and consider a request for the replat of Lot 1-R, Block A, Allen Watters-NTB Addition, generally located south of McDermott Drive and west of Watters Road. (FP -6/8/16-45) [Allen Watters NTB Addition] Ms. Madhuri Kulkami, Senior Planner, presented the item to the Commission. She stated that the item is a public hearing and a Replat for Allen Watters NTB Addition. Ms. Kulkami said that the property is located south of McDermott Drive and west of Watters Road; and commonly known as 270 S. Watters Road. The properties to the west and south are zoned Planned Development PD No. 55 Office/Multi-family Residential CAW. The properties to the north are zoned Shopping Center SC. The properties to the east are zoned Shopping Center SC, and further east (across Watters Road), zoned Planned Development PD No. 55 Commercial/Office C/O. The property is currently zoned Planned Development PD No. 122 Multi -Family Residential MF -18. A PD Amendment for an urban style multi -family residential development, known as Vera Watters, was approved in January 2016. A Site Plan for the development was approved in June, 2016. Platting is the last step in the development process. Ms. Kulkami stated that the Replat shows an approximately six -acre lot. There are five access points into the development. Two access points are located on Watters Road. The remaining three access points are provided through existing firelane, access, and utility easements. The plat also shows easements required for development. ' The Replat has been reviewed by the Technical Review Committee, is consistent with the PD Amendment Concept Plan and Site Plan, and meets the standards of the Allen Land Development Code. Chairman Cocking opened the public hearing. Chairman Cocking closed the public hearing. Motion: Upon a motion by 1" Vice -Chair Trahan, and a second by Commissioner Mangrum, the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to approve the Replat for Lot 1-R, Block A, Allen Watters-NTB Addition, generally located south of McDermott Drive and west of Watters Road. 4. Public Hearing/Replat — Conduct a Public Hearing and consider a request for the replat of Lot 3R, Block A, Texet Addition, generally located north of Ridgemont Drive and west of Greenville Avenue (RP -6/27/16-50) [Allen IntelliEpi Addition] Ms. Madhuri Kulkami, Senior Planner, presented the item to the Commission. She stated that the item is a public hearing and a Replat for Allen IntelliEpi Addition. Ms. Kulkami said that the property is generally located north of Ridgemont Drive and west of Greenville Avenue. The properties to the north, west (across the DART right-of-way), south (across Ridgemont Drive), and east are zoned Light Industrial LI. August 2, 2016 ' The property is zoned Heavy Industrial HI. The Site Plan shows one building for office, manufacturing, and warehouses uses (for Intelligent Epitaxy Technology), and is currently being reviewed. Platting is the last step in the development process. Ms. Kulkarni stated that the replat shows an approximate 7.5 -acre lot. There are two access points into the development, both on Ridgemont Drive. The plat also shows various easements and right-of-way dedication required for development. The Replat has been reviewed by the Technical Review Committee, is consistent with the Site Plan, and meets the standards of the ALDC. Chairman Cocking opened the public hearing Chairman Cocking closed the public hearing. Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Hollingsworth, and a second by Commissioner Orr, the Commission voted 7 IN FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to approve the Replat of Lot 3R, Block A, Texet Addition, generally located north of Ridgemont Drive and west of Greenville Avenue, for Allen IntelliEpi Addition. 5. Public Hearing — Conduct a Public Hearing and consider a request to amend the Development Regulations and adopt a Concept Plan and Building Elevations for Lot 2R, Block 1, Allen Station ' Business Park #2, commonly known as 1379 Andrews Parkway; generally located north of Exchange Parkway and west of Andrews Parkway, and within the Planned Development PD -58 Light Industrial LI zoning district. (Z-5/18/1640) [Simply Storage] Ms. Madhuri Kulkami, Senior Planner, presented the item to the Commission. She stated that the item is a public hearing and a PD amendment for Simply Storage. Ms. Kulkami said that the property is generally located north of Exchange Parkway and west of Andrews Parkway. The property to the north is zoned Planned Development PD No. 103 Shopping Center SC. The properties to the east (across Andrews Parkway) and south are zoned Planned Development PD No. 58 Light Industrial LI. The property to the west (across the DART right -of -of -way) is zoned Planned Development PD No. 58 Shopping Center SC. Ms. Kulkami mentioned that the applicant is proposing to develop the roughly 3.5 acre lot for a mini- warehouse/public storage facility. The property is zoned Planned Development PD No. 58 Light Industrial LI. The applicant is proposing to amend the Development Regulations, and adopt a Concept Plan and Building Elevations for the property. Ms. Kulkarni said that the proposed mini -warehouse building is approximately 143,901 square feet, with a 1,000 square feet being dedicated for office use. The building will be 3 stories with a maximum height of 40 feet. She further stated that the parking provided exceeds the ALDC parking requirement. Additionally, two loading areas are proposed for the building. There is a loading area on the southern side of the building, with three loading spaces, which meets ALDC standards. There is also an additional loading area on the northern side. Both loading areas are screened with an 8' masonry screening wall and enhanced landscaping. August 2, 2016 ' Screening for the property will consist of an eight foot (8') wrought -iron screening fence on the northern and western property lines. Ms. Kulkami then discussed access points and said there are two points of access into the development; both on the 24' Fire Lane, Access, and Utility Easement on the eastern side of the property. Next, Ms. Kulkarni presented the building elevations and said the primary exterior building materials include brick and glass. She pointed out that this is a storage building, but looks more like an office building. She said the building will have all internal access and will be climate controlled. Ms. Kulkami summarized the development regulations as follows: - Additional Permitted Use: Mini-Warehouse/Public Storage - Concept Plan: The property shall be developed in general conformance with the Concept Plan - Building Elevations: The exterior fsgades of buildings shall generally conform with the Building Elevations - Screening: The property shall be developed in general conformance with the Concept Plan. - Hours of Operation for the Office use: Monday—Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Sunday, 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. - Auctions: Auctions related to sale of private property held in storage units shall be permitted 2 times/year with a Temporary Use/Special Event Permit. - Special Zoning Provisions: In addition to the stipulations in ALDC Section 6.06.5, the following ' modifications and/or additions apply: 1. An on-site caretaker office and residence is not required. 2. Maximum building height shall be 3 stories or 40' 3. Roof -mounted mechanical equipment (not visible from adjacent public streets) is permitted 4. Storage of combustible and explosive materials is prohibited (in addition to odorous, hazardous, or toxic materials) 5. Conduct of sales, business, or any activity other than storage, including the conversion of any individual storage units to an office, retail, or other non-residential use, is prohibited 6. No portion of the Property may be used for residential purposes (except for manager of business) Commissioner Magnum asked if this use is similar to most storage units where customers have 24/7 access with a code. Ms. Kulkami answered that is correct. Chairman Cocking asked if there would be a gate around the property or if the firelane will be open. Ms. Kulkami said there will not be a gate. Chairman Cocking opened the public hearing. ' Chairman Cocking closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ogrizovich said this is a nice looking storage facility. August 2, 2016 ' Chairman Cocking commented that the next door neighbor (Caliber Collision) parks 9-15 cars on the proposed Simply Storage property. He thinks there will be parking challenges, and wants neighbors to work together. He said that the applicant can work with staff, especially Code Compliance, if and when necessary. Kevin Laughlin, City Attorney, said that on the proposed development regulations, the hours of operation related only to the office and were not clear regarding the 24 hour access by customers. He said this language will be revised and clarified on the ordinance. Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Ogrizovich, and a second by 2nd Vice -Chair Platt, the Commission voted 7 I FAVOR, and 0 OPPOSED to recommend approval of the request to amend the Development Regulations and adopt a Concept Plan and Building Elevations for Lot 2R, Block 1, Allen Station Business Park N2, commonly known as 1379 Andrews Parkway; generally located north of Exchange Parkway and west of Andrews Parkway, for Simply Storage. 6. Public Hearing — Conduct a Public Hearing and consider a request for an amendment to the Allen Land Development Code, Section 6.06.11 "Solar Panels'. Mr. Lee Battle, Assistant Director of Community Development, presented the item to the Commission. He stated that the item is an ALDC amendment regarding requirements for solar panels. He said in 2012, ' initial requirements were adopted for solar panels; there was nothing related to solar panels in the ordinance before that time. For the past four years, these initial set of rules have been followed. Technology changes and market evolution has prompted the amendment. Recently the City was approached by a group including solar panel installers, advocates and residents, requesting that the ordinance be amended to reduce the level of regulations and provide more flexibility for solar panel installations. Staff has reviewed the existing ordinance and recommended some changes. This item was presented to the City Council on July 12 and staff received direction to bring forward an ordinance amending some of the requirements. Mr. Battle said the commission usually receives a marked up red -lined version, but since there were many changes in this case, the entire section would be replaced. Many elements are being removed from the original regulations. Mr. Battle started the presentation by stating that solar panels are permitted by right in all zoning districts in Allen. Solar Panels would continue to be an accessory use permitted anywhere through a building permit There is a separate checklist specifically for solar panel installation. Mr. Battle said the number of these building permits have increased over the last year. Mr. Battle discussed rooftop instillations, including: a. Primary & accessory structures: This would be an expansion of the current Code as accessory structures can now have solar panels as well (such as patio covers or accessory buildings) ' b. Shall not directly face public street: Mr. Battle said this element has been in the Code to help mitigate any negative aesthetic concerns in the City. He pointed out that this is the area on which most comments from the public were received. Some advocates want to see this regulation August 2, 2016 ' removed to increase the area and location in which solar panels can he placed. The most efficient location for solar panels are those facing south, so this regulation may hinder south street -facing houses. Concerns about aesthetics, however, have also been brought up. Many individuals are concerned with how solar panels look and how property values might be affected. Both of these are opposite views, and this ordinance tries to keep a balance. The intent of the ordinance is to regulate the side of the roof that faces streets. c. parallel to the roof: Solar panels cannot be cantilevered (due to wind load and aesthetic concerns) d. Flat roofs — height & screening: Solar panels can be on flatroofs but have to be screened by a parapet wall Mr. Battle then explained ground -mounted installations, a new element in the Code. Solar panels were previously limited to roofs, but ground mounted solar panels will provide another opportunity. Two requirements for ground -mounted installations include: a. Applicable setbacks must be met (backyards and side yards) b. Separated by solid fence — the equipment needs to be fenced in for an aesthetic barrier (to limit the visibility) and for safety and security reasons. The intent is not to make the product invisible, but to mitigate aesthetic concerns. Finally, Mr. Battle presented some additional requirements — a. Building & Fire Code compliance: Mr. Battle said the 2015 Building and Fire Codes were referenced as these include specific language regarding roof coverage and spacing. The 2015 Building & Fire Codes will soon be adopted. b. Glare: Mr. Battle said language regarding glare is included in case an issue occurs, but glare is not a common problem c. Maintenance: As solar panels are installed, they are subject to wear and tear with the potential to deteriorate. Most people take care of the equipment, and this section would give the City a tool for enforcement (especially for abandoned or vacant houses) Mr. Battle said comments were received from the public, and include reference to the North Texas model COG which is creating an ordinance for best practices. COG has great guidelines, but it is a model ordinance for the entire region, so pieces have to fit the community for Allen. Mr. Battle also said staff researched other cities. Some cities are hands-off and rely solely on their building codes with minimum regulations. Other cities have elements in their land development codes. Allen would be in the minority regarding the front facing solar panels, although other cities do have similar language. Commissioner Mangrum asked about maintenance and referenced a section in the draft ordinance that stated unused solar panels shall be disengaged to prevent accidental charges to property or people. She asked how is this being done. Mr. Battle said it is not something that the City would do proactively, but would address or enforce this if a property was vacant or abandoned to avoid a potential harard. Commissioner Mangmm confined that that there is not really a way to regulate this unless the City knows about it. Mr. Battle said that is correct. August 2, 2016 Commissioner Ogrizovich asked if a Homeowner's Association can restrict something that the City permits by right. Mr. Battle said that deed restrictions are an independent set of rules from City Ordinances. In this case, the state has passed legislation that limits what HOAs can do with regards to solar panels, which essentially states that HOA cannot limit the placement of solar panels on private property. Commissioner Ogrizovich sought clarification on roof -facing public street and asked if it is limited to the front elevation. Mr. Battle said the language is "directly facing" a public street. This applies to any roof slope directly facing the street, regardless of whether it is in the front, side, or rear. The regulation is not intended to just be the "front" of the house, but any side that faces the street. Some interpretation will be required. Commissioner Ogrizovich asked about non -roof mounted panels, and confirmed that they need to he enclosed by a fence, but the fence is not required to be as high as the equipment. Mr. Battle said yes. 1" Vice -Chair Trahan said it has to be a solid fence. Mr. Battle said correct. Chairman Cocking said the equipment has to be screened with a normal, 6' privacy fence. ' Commissioner Ogrizovich asked if the fence had to be 6'. Mr. Battle said no, the screening just has to be a solid fence la Vice -Chair Trahan said he noticed that several neighbors have circular airflows mounted on their roofs. A majority are square. He asked if there needs to be an additional provision for these. Mr. Battle said the smaller applications are exempt from Code regulations. 1" Vice -Chair Traha r asked if there is a percentage of a roof that can be covered in solar panels or can an unlimited number of solar panels be placed on a roof. Mr. Battle said the current ordinance has a percentage, but it would now depend on the building and fire codes, which have certain distance requirements. This will limit the percentage of a roof that can be covered. 1" Vice -Chair Trahan said one of the pictures presented showed an "A" frame roof with the shingles facing both sides, and asked if this is counted as "front facing." Mr. Battle said every roof is different. There is a system in place where every roof is evaluated on a case- by-case basis. Generally, staff makes a decision based on individual roof type. ' Mr. Off wanted to know about corner lots with a secondary street. Mr. Battle said that a secondary street would be considered as well. August 2, 2016 ' 11 Vice -Chair Trahan asked about houses that have a view to a street and if those solar panels would be restricted as well. Mr. Battle said the "front' is anything facing a "public street." Chairman Cocking said, as an example, a house on the comer with three streets would not allow the solar panels on those three sides. Mr. Battle said it is a challenge, but there is a question of balance between having solar panels but also ensuring aesthetics. Interpretations will have to be made for some roofs. Commissioner Ogrizovich asked if there is an association of HOAs. Mr. Battle said the City does not have any organized HOA associations. Commissioner Ogrizovich asked if staff had solicited opinions from any HOA groups. Mr. Battle said since HOAs cannot regulate solar panels, opinions were not asked. Commissioner Mangmm commended Mr. Battle on his work. Chairman Cocking said HOAs have self-imposed rules and regulations and are an independent body that the City is not involved in. Chairman Cocking said HOAs used to be able to control solar panels, but there was a multi-year fight with the legislature, and mles have now changed. ' Chairman Cocking opened the public hearing. Lauren Doherty, 713 Longwood Drive, Allen, Texas, addressed the commission. She said she has been in Allen for 11 years. She is an advocate of solar energy, especially roof mounted. Solar energy is an option for people to "go greed' and is affordable. Due to recent technological advancements, many more requests for solar panels are now evident. She thinks Allen should encourage this technology. She pointed out that City Hall includes solar panels, and that too, which are visible from the street. Sadly, Allen enacted an ordinance four years ago that restricted solar panels from being viewed on streets. However, solar panels are not effective on all directions. This is unfair to those whose homes face south or include a street on the southern side. She said she does not understand the argument regarding aesthetics as this means thousands of dollars are potentially lost for neighbors who would want to utilize this technology. She asked the commission if they fear that the value of the community would diminish. She also wanted to know if a sample of the population could be surveyed to see what the majority thinks. She said some cities have done surveys and many people have no objections. She said that solar panels increase property taxes. Homeowners are willing to pay a premium for homes with solar panels. She said information about solar energy is found in the Department of Energy. Everyone can benefit if given the same opportunity of access, but when denied, everyone loses. NTCOG is in the process of releasing a model ordinance to recommend cities do not restrict street -facing solar panels. HOAs also cannot restrict placement The opinion of what is "attractive" should not outweigh what is beneficial for the City Lary Hocue, 1717 Cathedral Drive, Plano, Texas, addressed the commission. He is a board member on the Texas Solar Energy society, a non-profit organization. He is glad to see the City is making an effort to ' update the 2012 ordinance. He stated that the HOA legislation was passed in 2011. He stressed that the placement of solar panels is not arbitrary. Homeowners work with installers to get the maximum production. In the US, the most output is on the south. Half of the citizens would not get maximum production if this restriction is placed. This restriction will limit who can and cannot install solar panels. August 2, 2016 ' Aesthetics are subjective and the visibility of solar panels is more common, so it would not be very out of character. He gave an example of how neighborhoods used to require wood shingles because asphalt was not aesthetically pleasing, but that has changed over time. Other cities have street facing restrictions and over time, removed those restrictions. Board of Adjustments override the ordinance in some cities. He also said "street facing" is arbitrary because many neighbors spend more time in the back of their house than the front. The COG has said it is hard to prove glare. The goal of solar panels is to absorb sunlight, not produce glare. Omar Abdalla, 1113 Carson Drive, Allen, Texas, addressed the commission. He thinks of Allen as a forward -thinking City. Plano has captured Toyota and Chase and it was probably because they accepted sustainable green energy. He said the biggest concern is regarding aesthetics. He compared aesthetics to healthcare and said it did not make sense. He said a bill was recently signed where 119 European countries acknowledged global warming as an issue. Allen is a great place to start a family. He wants the commission to reconsider regulations for street -facing panels and to allow them. James Orenstein, 1802 Rocky Creek Drive, Duncanville, Texas, addressed the commission. He has been doing volunteer work to promote solar energy, and is on the side of the citizens. He said there is a group called the North Texas Renewable Energy group which collects data on instillations with permit data from cities. Overall, in the north Texas region, the installations are almost doubling. In Allen, there is a 64% increase from 2014 to 2015. Mr. Orenstein then went over a list of cities and their ranking for solar panel installation. Carol Hohmann, 902 Ashley Lane, Allen, Texas, addressed the commission. She has been in Allen for 17 years. She wanted to point out what Commissioner Mangmm said about upluging solar panels that might ' need to be unplugged. She said perhaps the ordinance needs to include language for vacant properties. Allen is known for being a "Tree City" with awards with Keep Texas Beautiful. There are more Allen residents adding solar panels, which is beneficial for energy to return to the grid. Solar panels attract homebuyers to those cities. Some homes have street facing panels as shown in some of the pictures. The City [City Hall] also has street facing solar panels. She wondered if street -facing solar panels are going to be grandfathered or if existing panels have to be removed. A home cannot be oriented a different way or moved just to get the maximum value of a solar panel installation. It is not fair to penalize people because their home faces a certain direction. She is not in favor of that piece of the ordinance. She said that the overall benefits outweigh the aesthetics as long as the panels are properly installed and maintained. Mohamed Abdalla, 1822 Okford Court, Allen, Texas, addressed the commission. He said he moved to that location in October 2015. He installed a roof -top solar panel on his mother's roof. Plano has a four stage process with structural, electric, and building inspections. Then utility meters need to be swapped as well. Several studies show energy companies are using different energy sources for energy needs. He cares about this City. He understands the benefits solar panels bring to the City long term. Progress is very slow. The future generation, tax base, and economic development, is on the line. Chairman Cocking closed the public hearing. Chairman Cocking said a series of letters were received. Commissioner Hollingsworth asked about language regarding grandfathering. ' Mr. Battle said anything existing today would be considered "grandfathered" or legally non -conforming if it does not comply with the new ordinance. Most of these rules have been in place for a few years, so many items would probably not be in conflict. Mr. Battle pointed out solar panels on the City facility and said they do not directly face the street. He also clarified the variance process; a request can be submitted August 2, 2016 ' to the Board of Adjustment, but reinforced that the BOA has specific criteria under which they can grant variances. 2"d Vice -Chair Platt said he related to the comment about the shingles versus asphalt He mentioned how quality of life facing a neighbor's house is not relevant. One may not like a neighbor's brick colors, but that does not mean the neighbor cannot have brick. Cell towers were also not permitted, but those are now permitted. He thinks that prohibiting certain people with solar panels due to the way their home faces is difficult. There is always room for interpretation. If solar power takes off, people that have homes facing the south may experience decreased property values. He has been in homebuilding for 23 years. Regulations always change. Allen should embrace the new and lead the way instead of follow. This regulation does seem fair - it would mean penalizing those whose homes face south. 1" Vice -Chair Trahan said technology is always changing. Someone will figure out how to make solar panels blend into the roof. The ordinance will change with it. This amendment does not prohibit anyone from putting solar panels on the roof. There are other options. In his opinion, the City is not being overly restrictive. Commissioner Mangrum agreed with 1" Vice -Chair Trah m. The ALDC can always be amended in the future. Commissioner Hollingsworth asked if there was any way to make an exception for south facing homes. He thought this would be the best of both extremes. Mr. Battle said the intent is to mitigate visual impacts. He said to imagine a street with solar panels on both sides of the street. This might look good to some people, but would definitely have a visual impact on the neighborhood. That is the basis for the concern. If south -facing homes can have solar panels, there would be no reason to have this restriction. I" Vice -Chair Trah m said solar panels could still be on accessory buildings. Commissioner Orr said he is a LEED Certified Architect and is interested in anything sustainable. He understands both sides — he said this is a matter of aesthetics and functionality. There are many options to be "green," but the question here is on the direction of a house and whether one can take advantage of solar power or not. Chairman Cocking said there was a concern that houses are being segmented on who can and cannot install solar panels, but that segmentation already occurs with electricity providers. He gave an example of Co -Op and Oncor. 2nd Vice -Chair Platt said that solar power can still be received, and it is not the City who is saying which provider to choose. Chairman Cocking said it is the state that has defined the electricity boundaries. He also said that the state legislative only restricted HOAs, not cities, to control solar panels. Cities have the power to legislate solar panels. Chairman Cocking said one of his requirements was to buy a southern facing home understanding where technology was going. He said this truly is a question of aesthetics versus benefits. Chairman Cocking said being a Tree City is an earned recognition, but when solar cells are put in the front of a house, trees will be destroyed or cut for efficiency of solar panels. Aesthetics go further than sight — it also means considering trees and stmetscapes. 2nd Vice -Chair Platt said he saw rows of solar panels on every direction in Maui. August 2, 2016 ' Chairman Cocking said this is Allen. People came here because it is Allen. Commissioner Ogrizovich said he agrees with I° Vice -Chair Trahan that at some point in time, aesthetics would be less of a concern. He said if he took the pictures of solar panels and presented them to his neighbors, people would be upset. They would not say it is a great "benefit' for the community. He said he is on the aesthetics side. Chairman Cocking said he is also on the aesthetics side. Technology will keep improving. Many technological advances are in the works. Technology is just not there yet although the concepts are great. 0 Vice -Chair Trahan when the City gets inquires, staff always does the research. If technology is already changing, more changes will come before this becomes a big issue. Commissioner Mangrum said Allen is a leader, not a follower. Motion: Upon a motion by Commissioner Mangrum, and a second by Commissioner Ogrizovich, the Commission voted 5 IN FAVOR, and 2 OPPOSED (Commissioners Platt and Orr) to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Allen Land Development Code. Executive Session (As Needed) ' 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. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. The in to pproved this 16 �1 day of 2016. Je r, Chairman Madhuri Kulkami, AICP, Senior Planner August 2, 2016 ' Director's Report from 7/26/2016 City Council Meeting • There were no items taken to the July 26, 2016, City Council Meeting.