August 15, 2011

Transcription

August 15, 2011

NOTICE OF MEETING
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 2 NORTH MAIN STREET
STAFF CONFERENCE ROOM, 1ST FLOOR
AUGUST 15, 2011, 5:00 P.M.
WORK SESSION AGENDA
Staff will present the following items:
1.
Discuss, as may be needed, Regular Meeting agenda items for the meeting
posted for Monday, August 15, 2011.
2.
Discuss requested UDC Text Amendment related to electric fences within the city
limits.
3.
Receive and discuss the Planning Director’s Report containing items for future
meetings regarding subdivision plats, zoning cases, conditional use permits,
annexations, and proposed text amendments to the Unified Development Code
(UDC).
NOTICE OF MEETING
CITY MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 2 NORTH MAIN STREET
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2ND FLOOR
AUGUST 15, 2011, 5:30 P.M.
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
1._____
2. _____
A.
Invocation
Pledge of Allegiance
CONSENT ITEMS
All items listed under this section, Consent Agenda, are considered to be routine by the
Planning & Zoning Commission and may be enacted in one motion. If discussion is
desired by the Commission, any item may be removed from the Consent Agenda at the
request of any Commissioner and will be considered separately. Consider approving
the Consent Agenda for each of the following:
Item 1:
Approval of Minutes: Work session and the regular meeting of July 18,
2011.
Item 2:
P-FY-11-41 – Discuss and take action on the Preliminary and Final Plats of
Hilliard Crossing, a 24 ± acre, 7-lot commercial and multiple-family
subdivision located at the northwest corner of West Adams Avenue and
Hilliard Road. Zoned: General Retail (HPCivil Engineering for Hilliard Corner
Partners, Ltd.)
1
1
B.
ACTION ITEMS:
Item 3:
Z-FY-11-29(A) – Hold a public hearing to discuss and recommend action on
an amendment to the Thoroughfare Plan to realign the proposed “S” curve
on Pea Ridge Road to the north side of Prairie View Road. (WBW
Development)
Item 4:
Z-FY-11-46 – Discuss and take action on an appeal of Sec. 6.7 of the Unified
Development Code related to standards in the I-35 Corridor Overlay Zoning
District for a proposed 4,200 square-foot addition to an existing service shop
at 5508 S. General Bruce Drive. (Gene Doss for Jim Tranum)
Item 5:
Z-FY-11-42 – Hold a public hearing to discuss and recommend action on an
amendment to Section 7.6.5 of the Unified Development Code related to
electric fences within the City limits. (Michael Pate for Sentry Security
Systems, LLC)
C.
REPORTS
Item 6:
Receive and discuss the Planning Director’s Report containing items for
future meetings regarding subdivision plats, zoning cases, conditional use
permits, annexations, and proposed text amendments to the Unified
Development Code. (continued, if not completed in Work Session)
SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS: Persons with disabilities who have special
communication or accommodation needs and desire to attend the Planning Commission
Meeting should notify the City Secretary’s Office by mail or telephone 48 hours prior to
the meeting date. Agendas are posted on Internet Website http://www.ci.temple.tx.us.
Please contact the City Secretary’s Office at 254-298-5700 for further information.
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this notice of meeting was posted in a
public place at 3:15 p.m. on August 11, 2011.
I certify that this Notice of Meeting Agenda was removed by me from the outside bulletin
board in Front of the City Municipal Building at ___________ on the ________ day of
__________ 2011 .
___________________________
Title: _____________________________
2
2
JULY 18, 2011
5:30 P.M.
PLANNING AND ZONING MEMBERS PRESENT
H. Allan Talley
COMMISSIONERS:
David Jones
Derek Martin
Barbara Brown
Bert Pope
Mike Pilkington
James Staats
PLANNING AND ZONING MEMBERS ABSENT:
Greg Rhoads
Will Sears
STAFF PRESENT:
Brian Mabry, Planning Director
Trudi Dill, Deputy City Attorney
Autumn Speer, Dir. of Community Services
Salvador Rodriguez, Asst. City Engineer
Ken Cicora, Dir of Parks & Leisure
Kevin Beavers, Supt of Parks
Kim Mettenbrink, Park Planner
Leslie Matlock, Senior Planner
Tammy Lyerly, Planner
Mary Maxfield, Planning Technician
Leslie Evans, Administrative Assistant
Jacob Calhoun, Planning Intern
The agenda for this meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the Municipal Building,
July 15, 2011 at 8:55 a.m. in compliance with the Open Meetings Law.
The following is a summary of the proceedings of this meeting. It is not intended to be a
verbatim translation.
Chair Talley called Meeting to Order at 5:30 P.M.
Invocation by Commissioner Staats; Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Jones.
A.
CONSENT ITEMS
Item 1: Approval of Minutes: Work session and the regular meeting of July 5, 2011.
Minutes approved by general consent.
Commissioners Rhoads and Sears absent.
1
3
Item 2: P-FY-11-37 - Consider a recommendation to approve the Preliminary Plat of Canyon
Ridge Phase II and III, a 61.784±-acre, 232-lot residential subdivision, located South of
Canyon Creek Drive at Hartrick Bluff Road. Zoned SF-3 and 3F (Applicant: Clark &
Fuller for McLean Commercial)
There being no comments, Vice-Chair Martin made a motion to approve P-FY-11-37 and
Commissioner Staats made a second.
Motion passed: (7:0)
B.
ACTION ITEMS
Item 3: P-FY-11-33 - Consider and recommend action on the Final Plat of Carroll Estes
Industrial Subdivision, a 61.50-acre, 3-lot nonresidential subdivision, with developer’s
requested exception to Section 8.2.7.E of the Unified Development Code requiring fire
hydrants to comply with the City’s Fire Code, located on the east side of I-35 at the
northern City Limits, including a portion of the Temple ETJ. Zoned Light Industrial
(Applicant: BSP Engineers for Carroll Estes)
Ms. Leslie Matlock, Senior Planner, stated this is a three lot non-residential replat associated
with an existing salvage yard on land that abuts I-35 and a parallel set of railroad tracks. The
subdivision has ingress and egress to the Interstate by two 150-foot long driveways and by a
cross access easement along the entire frontage of the property. The plat contains land in and
out of the upper northern limits of the City Limits. The applicant is asking for an exception to the
fire hydrant requirement since there are no plans to build or do anything to the lot. There are no
fire hydrants in the area.
Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat of Carroll Estes Industrial Subdivision, subject to
City Council’s approval of the applicant’s requested exception to UDC Section 8.2.7.E requiring
fire hydrants to comply with the City’s Fire Code.
Commissioner Staats about fire protection for the parked vehicles containing oil and gas. Ms.
Matlock stated there were no hydrants and fire protection would have to come in by trucks.
Commissioner Staats made a motion to approve P-FY-11-33 as stated along with the exception
requested regarding fire hydrants and Commissioner Pilkington made a second.
Item 4: P-FY-11-35 - Consider and recommend action on the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat of
Alta Vista II, a 46.56± acre, 245-lot residential subdivision, with developer requested
exception to Section 8.3.2 of the Unified Development Code related to cash instead of
land dedication, located on the east side of South 5th Street, south of Echo Village
Subdivision and across from Wyndham Hill Parkway. Zoned Single Family Two
(Applicant: WBW Development)
Ms. Tammy Lyerly, Planner, stated the preliminary and final plat have been combined with one
item description since they mirror each other. Since the developer is asking for exceptions to
the UDC for the park fee payment, this matter will go forward to City Council.
2
4
The Development Review Committee (DRC) deemed this matter administratively complete on
July 11, 2011. The proposed development, Alta Vista Phase II, is a 46.56± acres, 245-lot
residential subdivision located on the east side of South 5th Street, south of Echo Village
Subdivision and across from Wyndham Hill Parkway.
Park fees in the sum of $55,125 ($225 per dwelling unit) are required for this proposed
subdivision. The developer requests exceptions to the park fee payment since the developer’s
intent is to provide park facilities within the Alta Vista I park which would equal to or exceed the
park fee required. Staff is recommending payment of the park fees and also that the Parks &
Leisure Director has the discretion as the UDC allows to spend the park fees. Segment from
UDC regarding Parks Director discretion is shown.
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary and Final Plats of Alta Vista Phase II, but Staff
does not support the requested exception.
Chair Talley stated since there is an exception requested, he would allow anyone to speak on
the issue.
Mr. Garrett Nordyke, WB Development, 3000 Illinois Avenue, Killeen, TX, stated in total the
subdivision is over 750 lots and is large enough to necessitate for a neighborhood park, which
has been planned from the beginning. Land has been dedicated for a neighborhood park and
the developer can provide more improvements for $55,000 than the City can since they are
already on site and developing the project. Mr. Nordyke asked that the developer be allowed to
finish the park by allowing the $55,000 in improvements.
Mr. Nordyke shows the Commission two examples of previously built neighborhood parks to
show what could be expected and gives amount information for each.
Chair Talley asked if the Parks & Leisure Department (PALS) would be required for the upkeep
of the park rather than the neighbors and Mr. Nordyke stated this park would be going on
property already dedicated to PALS.
Mr. Ken Cicora, Parks Director for City of Temple, stated the problem with the request is that the
two lots are only 11,000± square feet (less than 1/4 of an acre) and there are over 416 houses in
Phases I and II to be served. There are a lot of homes in the first phase, over 700, and a
neighborhood park by City’s definition is three to five acres and 11,000 square feet is not enough
green space to serve the community and needs to be larger. The fees are being requested to
be dedicated to a place to serve all of the people.
Commissioner Pilkington asked if they would receive credit for the quarter acre and Mr. Cicora
stated that land was credited on the previous phase and for the trail out to 5th Street.
Mr. Nordyke stated they had originally planned for a trail system. In meeting with the PALS
approximately one year ago, it was decided not to improve the trail system immediately and a
more immediate benefit if land were set aside and made park improvements. By changing the
configuration of Alta Vista Phase I, along with several other changes, now that the project is
nearing completion, Mr. Nordyke would like to make the improvements and have park
infrastructure on the land indicated. Buyers of the lots in the subdivision have paid for it and
they would like to provide a park with the money already paid.
3
5
Commissioner Pope made a motion to approve the preliminary and final plats of P-FY-11-35 as
stated by Staff with denial of the exception requested to the Section 8.3.2 of the UDC, that park
fees be paid, and Commissioner Jones made a second.
Vice-Chair Martin voted nay;
Item 5: Z-FY-11-29(A) – Hold a public hearing to discuss and recommend action on an
amendment to the Thoroughfare Plan to realign the proposed “S” curve on Pea Ridge
Road to the north side of Prairie View Road. (WBW Development)
Chair Talley opened the public hearing.
Mr. Mabry stated Staff’s recommendation was to open the public hearing, keep it open, and
table the item.
There being no speakers, the hearing was left open and the Commission moved to the next item
Commissioner Pilkington made a motion to keep the public hearing open and table Z-FY-11-29A
until the next meeting and Vice-Chair Martin made a second.
Item 6: Z-FY-11-39 - Hold a public hearing to discuss and recommend action on an amendment
to Ordinance No. 2010-4398, originally approved October 21, 2010, Planned
Development Single Family One (PD-SF1), to allow a change in the lot layout on a 10acre tract of land in the Maximo Moreno Survey, Abstract No. 14, City of Temple, Bell
County Texas, located on the north side of West FM 92, adjacent to and west of
Ridgewood Estates. (Applicant: Sterling Development)
Mr. Brian Mabry stated this and all other zoning related items would go to City Council on August
18th for first reading and September 1st for second and final reading.
This request is for approval of an existing Planned Development (PD) for a subdivision called
Highland Park. The purpose of the request is to rearrange the lot layout on the existing
approved PD which was approved in October of 2010. The applicant’s request layout would
improve circulation for the proposed development from the original design, however, it does
create six “double frontage” lots in the middle of the subdivision (double frontage lots are lots
with street frontage at the front and at the back). Staff and applicant have discussed and agreed
upon screening along the rear of the double frontage lots.
The subject property is ten acres and adjacent to the Ridgewood Estates Subdivision on
Lakeview Lane. Mostly undeveloped property lay to the north, west, and south and single family
to the east.
The screen will consist of a wood fence with the possibility of gates to provide rear access to
each lot. The gates must match the wood fence and must not interfere with street traffic when
opened. In addition, the screen will consist of a minimum of two 2-inch caliper trees at the rear
4
6
of each double frontage lot. The two trees may either be preserved or newly planted and must
be located on the street side of the wood fence.
Thirteen notices were mailed and zero were returned. One ‘neutral’ response was returned
which stated concerns regarding generated Lakeview Lane traffic as development occurred.
Twenty-seven courtesy notices were also mailed out and zero were received back.
Staff recommendation is to approve the Planned Development amendments request subject to
the revised PD site plan.
There being no speakers, Chair Talley closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Staats asked if there were any regulations regarding the rear gates being opened
or closed and Mr. Mabry stated no. Commissioner Staats’ concern was ineffectiveness of the
screening requirement if no regulations were in place. Commissioner Staats also asked if there
were a size limit for the gates and Mr. Mabry stated not currently, but it is indicated they could
not interfere with street traffic.
Vice-Chair Martin made a motion to approve Z-FY-11-39 and Commissioner Pope made a
second.
Item 7: Z-FY-11-36 - Hold a public hearing to discuss and recommend action on a rezoning
from General Retail (GR) to Multiple Family Three (MF3) on 12.15 ± acres of land,
located on the west side of Hilliard Road, 1,095 ± feet from the intersection of West
Adams Avenue and Hilliard Road. (Applicant: Hilliard Corner Partners)
Ms. Lyerly stated this item would go forward to City Council for first reading on August 18th and
second reading and final action on September 1st.
The applicant is requesting a zone change from General Retail (GR) to a Multi-Family Three
(MF3). The present GR district does not allow apartments and the developers would like to build
apartments. This request is considered as a ‘down-zoning’ because MF3 would not allow the
variety of uses as the present GR allows.
Surrounding properties include some residential uses to the north, agricultural uses with rural
residential to the east, a bank to the west, and undeveloped land to the east.
The applicant is currently going through the platting process and the development is known as
Hilliard Crossing. Boundaries of the MF3 request are shown. The plat proposed the creation of
a local street to the south of the boundary which is appropriate for apartment uses.
The Future Land Use and Character Map designate this area as Suburban-Commercial which is
characterized by extensive landscaping and open space with a variety of uses allowed. The
apartment use is a combination of residential and commercial characterization.
5
7
The Thoroughfare Plan designates West Adams Avenue and Hilliard Road as major arterials.
There are utilities, water, fire hydrants and sewer available to serve the property.
Criteria (height, size, etc.) for the various multiple family districts are given with MF3 being the
most extensive of the designations.
Eight notices were sent out and zero notices were returned in favor and one notice was received
in opposition to the apartment use.
Staff recommendation is approval for Multi-Family Two (MF2) instead of MF3 as requested for
the following reasons:
1.
The request is compatible with the Future Land Use and Character Map;
2.
The request complies with the Thoroughfare Plan Map;
3.
Public facilities are available to serve the property; and
4.
The MF-2 District is more appropriate for the adjacent single-family homes because it
has a height limit of four stories as compared to the applicant’s requested MF-3
District with a height limit of 10 stories.
Mr. Brian Bridgewater, HP Civil Engineering, 5339 Alpha Road, Suite. 300, Dallas, TX, stated
the applicant had no objections to Staff’s recommendations since MF2 would not stop what is
proposed for the area.
There being no further speakers, Chair Talley closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chair Martin made a motion to approve Z-FY-11-36 with the Staff recommended MF2
zoning designation, not the requested MF3, and Commissioner Pilkington made a second.
Item 8: Z-FY-11-38 - Hold a public hearing to discuss and recommend action on a Conditional
Use Permit for the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption with more
than 50% and less than 75% revenue from alcohol sales in a proposed pool hall located
at 102 South General Bruce Drive. (Applicant: Shane Renkel for Pro Ventures)
Vice-Chair Martin stated he had a level of interest in this item and would need to recuse himself.
Ms. Matlock stated this item was for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a pool hall to be located
at 102 S. General Bruce Drive (old Albertson’s building), north of the Ralph Wilson Youth Club.
This item would go to City Council on August 18th for first reading and September 1st for second
and final reading.
The property is currently zoned Commercial (C) and there are some buildings on the lot.
Surrounding properties include Ace Bingo and The Point package store to the north, I-35 to the
east, Ralph Wilson Youth Club to the south, and mixed residential to the west. The proposed
6
8
use is compatible with uses to the north, east and west, however, the apartments and the youth
camp are less compatible and both are approximately 1,000 feet from proposed use, if walking.
Proposed Alcoholic Beverage Use must be no closer than 300 feet of a hospital, public school,
church or residential use measuring from the front door to property line along right-of-way, down
property lines and to the door of the use. There are no uses of this type closer than 300-feet.
The total building size is 15,108 square feet. The front area with the pool tables and the back
storage area will be approximately the same size. The parking requirement is one space per
three people equaling 50 parking spaces minimum. They currently have 72 spaces.
The proposed signage is shown as professionally-produced and in proportion with the size of the
building. The landscaping is shown as mitigation for possible unsightly warehouse-type building
as required by CUP approval criteria.
Five notices were sent out and zero were returned in favor or opposition. Twenty-three courtesy
notices were mailed out.
The CUP criteria is given:
A.
The conditional use is compatible with and not injurious to the use and enjoyment of
the property, and does not significantly diminish or impair property values within the
immediate vicinity.
B.
The establishment of the conditional use does not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of surrounding vacant property.
C.
The design, location and arrangement of all driveways and parking spaces provide
for the safe and convenient movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic without
adversely affecting the general public or adjacent development.
D.
Adequate nuisance prevention measures have been taken to prevent or control
offensive odors, fumes, dust, noise and vibration.
E.
Directional lighting is provided so as not to disturb or adversely affect neighboring
properties.
Mr. Mabry stated Staff is recommending approval of Z-FY-11-38 with the submitted site plan.
There being no speakers, Chair Talley closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Staats made a motion to approve Z-FY-11-38 as presented and Commissioner
Jones made a second.
Vice-Chair Martin abstained;
7
9
from General Retail District (GR) to Commercial District (C) on Lots 1 and 2, Block,
Garden Estates of Temple, Texas, located at the northwest corner of West Adams
Avenue and 205 Loop. (Applicant: Grady Rosier of Temple Real Estate Investments for
Williamette Property Holdings, Inc.)
Ms. Matlock stated the lots are platted as GR and applicant would like to intensify the uses.
Surrounding properties include a retirement/assisted living facility to the north, undeveloped land
and restaurant to the south, multi-family on the east, and undeveloped land and convenience
store to the west.
The Future Land Use and Character Map designates this area as Auto Urban-Commercial which
is a more intense retail than Suburban-Commercial.
A proposed collector trail would go down North Kegley Road and there is an existing City Wide
Spine trail along West Adams Avenue frontage.
The Thoroughfare Plan designates West Adams Avenue as a major arterial, North Kegley Road
as a minor arterial and 205 Loop is a collector road. The rezoning request complies with the
Thoroughfare Plan.
Public facilities are available to serve the area.
Nine notices were mailed out and one response was received in favor; 16 courtesy notices were
also mailed out.
Staff recommends approval of Z-FY-11-40 for the following reasons:
1.
The request complies with the Future Land Use and Character Map,
2.
It complies with the Thoroughfare Plan; and
3.
Public facilities are available to serve the property.
Commissioner Pilkington asked what uses would be allowed that GR does not permit. Ms.
Matlock stated Commercial uses included cleaning plants, cabinet shops, flea markets,
contractor storage and equipment yards, paint shops, storage warehouses, National Guard, and
two family dwellings.
Mr. Thomas Baird, Attorney, 707 W. Thompson, Temple, Texas, representing the applicant,
stated they agreed with the Staff recommendation.
Vice-Chair Martin made a motion to approve Z-FY-11-40 as presented and Commissioner Pope
made a second.
8
10
from Agricultural District (AG) to Commercial District (C) on 29.548 ± acres of land,
located at the southwest corner of West Adams Avenue and South Kegley Road.
(Applicants: Thomas Baird and Grady Rosier of Temple Real Estate Investments for
Bruce Stokes)
Ms. Matlock stated the subject property was located on the southwest corner from the previous
item, contains 29.548 acres, is currently being used for AG purposes with a residential home
and out buildings located in the middle.
Surrounding properties include a fuel sales/office to the north, undeveloped land to the south,
undeveloped property and residences to the east, and large undeveloped commercial area
behind that. The trail system goes up the creek bed across the street from the subject property.
The Future Land Use and Character Map has split uses for Auto-Urban Residential (more
dense), Auto-Urban Multi-Family (denser), and Suburban-Commercial (less dense).
Because this corner is at the intersection of two arterials which are city-wide connectors,
projected for heavy traffic, this corner may be more appropriate for commercial uses.
The Thoroughfare Plan designates Adams Avenue as a major arterial and North Kegley Road as
a minor arterial and the request complies with the Thoroughfare Plan. All public facilities serve
the site.
Eight notices were mailed out and three were received in favor of the request. Ten courtesy
notices were mailed.
Staff recommends approval of a zoning change from GR to C because:
1. The request does not comply with the Future Land Use and Character Map, however,
a modification of the Future Land Use Map for the vicinity of the subject property
appears appropriate for a later date;
2. It complies with the Thoroughfare Plan; and
3. Public facilities are available to serve the property.
Mr. Thomas Baird, Attorney, 707 W. Thompson, Temple, Texas, representing the applicant,
stated they agreed with the Staff recommendation.
Commissioner Pope made a motion to approve Z-FY-11-41 as presented and Commissioner
Jones made a second.
9
11
C.
REPORTS
Item 11: Receive and discuss the Planning Director’s Report containing items for future
meetings regarding subdivision plats, zoning cases, conditional use permits,
annexations, and proposed text amendments to the Unified Development Code.
(continued, if not completed in Work Session)
There being no further business, Chair Talley adjourned the meeting at 6:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Leslie Evans
10
12
JULY 18, 2011
5:00 P.M.
WORK SESSION
PLANNING AND ZONING MEMBERS PRESENT
Chair H. Allan Talley
COMMISSIONERS:
David Jones
Derek Martin
Barbara Brown
Bert Pope
Mike Pilkington
James Staats
PLANNING AND ZONING MEMBERS ABSENT:
Greg Rhoads
Will Sears
STAFF PRESENT:
Brian Mabry, Planning Director
Trudi Dill, Deputy City Attorney
Salvador Rodriguez, Asst. City Engineer
Autumn Speer, Dir. of Community Services
Ken Cicora, Dir of Parks & Leisure
Kevin Beavers, Supt of Parks
Kim Mettenbrink, Park Planner
Leslie Matlock, Senior Planner
Tammy Lyerly, Planner
Mary Maxfield, Planning Technician
Leslie Evans, Administrative Assistant
Jacob Calhoun, Intern
The agenda for this meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the Municipal
Building in compliance with the Open Meetings Law.
The following is a summary of the proceedings of this meeting. It is not intended to be a
verbatim translation.
With a quorum present, Chair Talley opened the work session at 5:02 p.m. and asked
Mr. Brian Mabry, Planning Director, to proceed.
Mr. Mabry stated there were two Consent items: one for approval of the minutes for the
July 5, 2011 meeting and a preliminary plat for Canyon Ridge Phases II and III, 62±
acres, 232 lots, located south of Canyon Creek Drive. No exceptions have been
requested.
1
13
Item 3 is to consider a final plat for Carroll Estes Industrial Subdivision, 62± acre, 3 lots,
with an exception request for the fire hydrant provisions in the Unified Development
Code (UDC). This item went through DRC with no opposition from the Fire Department.
Staff recommends approval of this plat with the requested exception.
Item 4 is a preliminary and final plat for Alta Vista II, 47± acres, 245 residential lots
subdivision located on South 5th Street across from Windham Hill and south of Echo
Village. The applicant is requesting an exception to Section 8.3.2 of the UDC related to
park fees. The applicant would like to install improvements in the Alta Vista park rather
than pay the park fees. Staff does not support this request and would like the applicant
to pay the park fees with the Parks Director’s discretion on allocation of funds.
These two plats do not require a public hearing but any interested party may be allowed
to give input.
Item 5 is the Thoroughfare Plan realignment. This matter involves the ‘S’ curve located
on Pea Ridge Road south of Prairie View Road. The P&Z Commission requested
tabling this item at the last meeting with the request that Staff work with the involved
parties to gather more information and try to come up with alternate alignment ideas.
Belton I.S.D. has still not provided any additional information. Staff is requesting the
public hearing be opened and then vote to table this item.
Item 6 is an amendment to a Planned Development approved by City Council in
October of 2010, called Highland Park Subdivision, located west of Ridgewood Estates
which is an existing subdivision. Any PD has to have a site plan submitted with it. The
applicant needed to change the layout configuration which resulted in creating some
‘double frontage’ lots (frontage along two different streets in the front and the back).
Staff suggested some type of screening device be placed along the back of the double
frontage lots.
No public comments have been received in favor of or against this request and Staff is
recommending approval.
Item 7 is a rezoning request from GR to MF3 for the intersection of Hilliard Road and
West Adams. One response for denial has been received. Staff is recommending MF2
rather than MF3 due to height and intensity concerns.
Item 8 is for a CUP for the sale of alcohol for on-premise consumption at a pool hall.
This CUP is for the alcohol only, not the pool hall. The applicant proposed to add
additional landscaping to the front of the building. No responses for denials or
approvals have been received.
Item 9 is a rezoning request from GR to C at the intersection of Adams and 205 Loop.
One response for approval has been received. The applicant has no specific plans for
development.
Item 10 is a rezoning request from AG to C on 30± acres. The applicant is the same as
Item 9 and has no specific plans for development.
Three responses have been received in favor of the request.
Mr. Mabry stated Z-FY-11-41 is designated as Suburban-Commercial which usually is
not the district that Commercial would match up to on the Future Land Use and
Character Map. However, there are some rationale for potentially amending the Future
2
14
Land Use and Character Map for that area to allow more intense uses due to the
intersection located there and the existing Commercial use across the street (Adams)
from the subject property.
Chair Talley assigns the invocation and pledge.
The Director’s Report include the following:
Preliminary plat for Hilliard Crossing, 24 acres, 7 lots, located at Adams and
Hilliard;
Final plat for Lago Terra Subdivision, engineer is making changes to the
drainage; as
City Council decisions:
O1 to O2 for Tuscan Square was approved at first reading as a O1-PD with the
four uses already established to remain, with a fence along the back. The screening in
of the grilling area was denied but only one grilling area was allowed;
AG to SF2, MF2 and GR for Lake Pointe at 317, Prairie View and Pea Ridge was
approved on first reading;
UDC text amendment for vesting was approved at first reading;
Preliminary plats were approved for a five year life span rather than existing two
and built in some administrative extension criteria to allow the Planning Director to
extend the life upon expiration; and
Final plat of Alta Vista I on South 5th Street with exception of park land dedication
was approved. There will be no second meeting.
Mr. Mabry stated at the next meeting workshop, a proposal for a UDC text amendment
for electric fences will be presented. A business owner in the industrial area is
requesting an electric fence for security reasons. Ms. Autumn Speer stated it would be
an exception to allow an electric fence and alarm and would be very specific for this
request.
There being no further discussion, Chair Talley adjourned the meeting at 5:18 P.M.
3
15
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM
8/15/11
Item #2
Consent Agenda
Page 1 of 1
APPLICANT / DEVELOPMENT: HPCivil Engineering for Hilliard Corner Partners, Ltd.
CASE MANAGER: Tammy Lyerly, Planner
ITEM DESCRIPTION: P-FY-11-41 Discuss and take action on the Preliminary and Final Plats of
Hilliard Crossing, a 24 ± acre, 7-lot commercial and multiple-family subdivision located at the
northwest corner of West Adams Avenue and Hilliard Road. (Zoned: General Retail)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary and Final Plats of
Hilliard Crossing.
BACKGROUND: This proposed development is located at the northwest corner of West Adams
Avenue and Hilliard Road. The land is zoned General Retail, but the northeast portion of the
property is currently going through a rezoning (Z-FY-11-36) from General Retail (GR) to Multiple
Family Two (MF2) for apartment uses. City Council will review zoning case Z-FY-11-36 at First
Reading on August 18, 2011.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the Preliminary and Final Plats of Hilliard Crossing
on August 3, 2011 and deemed them administratively complete on August 11, 2011.
Park dedication fees will be required at $225 per multi-family dwelling unit for residential uses
associated with rezoning request Z-FY-11-36, if approved by City Council. However, if adequate
on-site recreational amenities and open space is provided within the proposed multi-family
complex, fees may be considered at $112.50 per dwelling unit as a 50% credit for on-site
amenities. If the applicant receives approval for his requested rezoning to multiple-family for Lot 1,
Block 1, the applicant must submit a letter of planned amenities in order to receive consideration of
the 50% credit for park fees upon building permit/site plan submittal.
ATTACHMENTS:
Plats
16
17
18
8/15/11
Item #3
Regular Agenda
Page 1 of 5
APPLICANT / DEVELOPMENT: WBW Development
CASE MANAGER: Brian Mabry, Planning Director
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Z-FY-11-29 (A) Hold a public hearing to discuss and recommend action on
an amendment to the Thoroughfare Plan to realign the proposed “S” curve on Pea Ridge Road to the
north side of Prairie View Road.
BACKGROUND: The Planning and Zoning Commission originally met on this request in June 2011.
The Commission voted to table the request so that it could track with a Preliminary Plat for the
property for a subdivision to be known as Lake Pointe Addition. The Commission again voted to table
the request at a July 2011 meeting so that the Belton Independent School District (BISD) could
provide input to City staff and so that the applicant, BISD, surrounding property owners and the City
could work on an agreeable alignment. City staff has been unable to come to resolution with any of
the parties involved.
Associated Rezoning and Preliminary Plat
On June 6, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of a rezoning
request from the Agricultural zoning district to the Single-Family 2, Multiple-Family 2 and General
Retail zoning districts. This request later received final approval from the City Council. On June 20,
2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Preliminary Plat for a portion of Lake
Pointe Addition, which proposes: 387 single-family lots with a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet;
an apartment lot which could contain roughly 400 units based on the requested zoning; and a
nonresidential lot that is 27.8 acres in size.
Another Preliminary Plat for a second portion of the proposed subdivision is pending submittal
depending on the outcome of this Thoroughfare Plan amendment request. This second preliminary
plat could contain up to 350 single-family lots in addition to those described above for a potential
combined total of approximately 1,137 residential units. This lot count may change depending on the
decision of the City Council for this developer-requested Thoroughfare Plan amendment.
Current Thoroughfare Plan
The City of Temple Thoroughfare Plan reflects a future “S” curve alignment of Pea Ridge Road south
of its intersection with Prairie View Road. Pea Ridge Road is a future Minor Arterial on the
Thoroughfare Plan with, ultimately, a 70-foot wide right-of-way and 49 feet of pavement width. This
future alignment passes through the Singe-Family 2 zoning district on the applicant’s property. The
purpose of the alignment shown on the current Thoroughfare Plan is to smooth out the two 90-degree
turns that Pea Ridge takes as it meets Prairie View (another proposed Minor Arterial). The developer
proposes an amendment realigning the proposed “S” curve of Pea Ridge Road, shifting it to the north
side of Prairie View Road onto the property belong to William and Joyce Novak.
The proposed realignment shown below would place the future minor arterial directly along the west
property line of a proposed Belton Independent School District middle school site at the southeast
19
corner of Prairie View Road and Pea Ridge Road. The school district currently has no official position
on the proposed realignment except that whatever the outcome, the district wants to retain access to
Pea Ridge and Prairie View.
Consultant Analysis
City Staff has retained a third-party traffic engineering firm to provide a recommendation for which
alignment of Pea Ridge Road is most beneficial to the public.
The firm’s realignment
recommendation is attached to this staff report. The firm considered the following Comprehensive
Plan policies related to transportation when making his recommendation:
•
Goal 5.1 Planning Consideration 6 - Preserving environmental features and the character of
corridors through “Context Sensitive Solutions.” (City of Temple Comprehensive Plan, p. 5-3)
•
Goal 5.2 Planning Consideration 2 - Maximizing flow and reducing traffic conflicts on existing
facilities through access management and other Transportation System Management (TSM)
strategies. (City of Temple Comprehensive Plan, p. 5-4)
The Engineer recommends denial of the requested realignment for the following reasons:
•
•
•
The current planned realignment was considered during Comprehensive Plan development
and was adopted as part of the plan in order to address traffic safety and operational concerns
typically associated with offset intersections.
Although the requested realignment theoretically addresses the offset issue, installing the
realignment north of Prairie View Road has the potential to directly or indirectly impact visible
water / drainage features that exist near the requested realignment on the Novak property. It
therefore appears that the requested realignment is not fully consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan environmental objectives.
The existence of these water / drainage features could potentially delay or permanently
preclude the development of the realignment north of Prairie View Rd due to drainage or 404
20
•
permitting requirements. These issues, at the very least, would delay the elimination of the
offset or make the solution more expensive.
Under the requested realignment, bordering a school site with two arterial roadways would not
be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objective of implementing ‘context sensitive’
design. Future arterial traffic could complicate access to and egress from the school site and
could potentially present an impediment to pedestrian access to the school.
These considerations, in the opinion of the third-party firm, make the requested realignment inferior to
the currently planned realignment in meeting the traffic operations objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan.
City Staff Analysis
Apart from the Traffic Engineer’s opinion described above, City Staff has three concerns with the
developer-requested realignment of Pea Ridge Road.
The first concern is that the City may be faced with attempts from future land developers in the area
to pass off the alignment shown on the Thoroughfare Plan to other land owners. As the City
experienced with “Arterial A” several years ago, dedication and construction responsibilities for this
road, which was to run east-west and connect S. 31st street with Hartrick Bluff Road, were passed
along from one property owner to the next so that eventually there was no place for the road to go
because new subdivisions were in the way. Allowing the dedication and construction responsibilities
to pass on to another land owner sets a precedent that may increase the likelihood that the next land
owner will be approved to pass the responsibilities on to yet another land owner. The likelihood of the
road ever being built would diminish with each change in responsibility.
The second concern is that if the realignment is approved, there would still be two 90-degree turns
where Pea Ridge and Prairie View intersect until the Novak property (to which the S curve is
proposed to be shifted) is developed. If the realignment request is not approved, and Pea Ridge, as it
runs through the proposed Lake Pointe Addition is improved, the two 90-degree turns would be
eliminated.
Thoroughfare Plan Recommended
Realignment
Applicant Requested Realignment
90 degree
turns stay in
place until
Novak
property
develops
Future BISD
Middle
School
21
Intersection of Pea Ridge and Prairie View
Looking North
Intersection of Pea Ridge and Prairie View
Looking South
The third concern is that if the requested realignment is approved so that the Pea Ridge arterial is
adjacent to the BISD site, the City may have no way to obtain right-of-way and street improvements
through the platting process. Being approximately 20 acres in size, the school property exceeds state
and local thresholds for requiring to be platted. In addition, according to the BISD Superintendent, as
part of the contract to buy the property, the previous property owner has agreed to extend utilities to
the site. The school district would therefore not have to plat the property, since the property is larger
than platting standards require and since it will not be acting to extend public utilities to itself.
Therefore, the City has no mechanism for requiring right-of-way dedication or road construction from
the school district if the requested realignment is approved.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
The newspaper printed notice of the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing on June 24,
2011 in accordance with state law and local ordinance. William and Joyce Novak, the property
owners onto whose property the S curve would shift, if approved, were also notified of the date of the
Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. The property owners have notified Staff in writing
that they oppose the proposed realignment. The Belton Independent Scholl District has no official
position on the requested realignment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the applicant’s requested Thoroughfare Plan amendment to realign the
proposed “S” curve in Pea Ridge Road to the north side of Prairie View Road for the following
reasons:
1. The third-party Traffic Engineer recommends retaining the current realignment shown on the
Thoroughfare Plan because:
a. The realignment recommendation already in place in the Thoroughfare Plan adequately
addresses offset issues;
b. The requested realignment has the potential to directly or indirectly impact visible water
/ drainage features that exist on the Novak property;
c. These water / drainage features could potentially delay or permanently preclude the
development of the realignment north of Prairie View Rd due to drainage or 404
permitting requirements.
d. Future arterial traffic could complicate access to and egress from the school site and
could potentially present an impediment to pedestrian access to the school
2. Passing the re-alignment on to another property owner increases the likelihood that the
realignment will never take place.
22
3. The two existing 90-degree jogs will remain in place if the realignment is approved, until the
Novak Property develops.
4. The City may have no way to obtain right-of-way and street improvements from BISD through
the platting process if the Pea Ridge arterial realignment is adjacent to the school property.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not Applicable
ATTACHMENTS:
Aerial with Thoroughfare Plan Overlaid
Applicant’s Realignment Exhibit
Letter from Adjacent Property Owners
Third-Party Engineer’s Recommendation
23
Thoroughfare Plan - Existing Recommended Alignment
Pea Ridge Road North of Prairie View Rd.
A RI
DG E
83
RD
IEW
RD
A
RD
IE V
A RI
DG E
PRA
IR
A
A RI
DG E
RD
LI
N PE
VIEW
BERR
Y LN
RI E
DEW
PRA
I
LI
N PE
NS
TAT
EH
IGH
WAY
31
7N
STA
T
E HI
GH W
AY
N PE
317
FM
24
RD
Z-FY-11-29-B
:
Feet 0
400
800
1,200
24
1,600
TLyerly 05.26.11
Applicant's Realignment Exhibit
25
Brian Mabry
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Joyce Novak [[email protected]]
Saturday, July 02, 2011 11:14 AM
Brian Mabry
Novak "S" Curve
July 2, 2011
Brian Mabry, AICP, Planning Director
City Hall
2 North Main Street, Ste 201
Temple, TX 76501
William and Joyce Novak
3305 Oakridge Drive
Temple, TX 76502
VIA: Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested and by email at
[email protected]
Re: William and Joyce Novak (hereafter “Landowners”) opposition to a proposed amendment to The City’s
Thoroughfare Plan and Zone Change Application No Z-FY-11-29(A) dated May 5, 2011 (hereafter
“Application”) by Applicant Garrett Nordyke, filed by WBW Land Investments, LP (hereafter “Developer”),
with regard to a 210+ acre tract of land commonly known as Outblock 2018-A, City Addition located at the
southeast corner of FM 317 and Prairie View Road (hereafter, “Developer’s Property”)
Dear Mr. Mabry,
As you are aware, Landowners own approximately 35 acres of land adjacent to and northeast of Developer’s
Property and further described as located at 8120 Prairie View Road (“Landowner Property”). Please be
advised that the Landowners strenuously object to the proposed amendment which would shift the “S”
curve north of the Prairie View intersection and onto Landowner Property as indicated by Developer in
the Application. Landowners request that the Application be denied and that the amendment NOT be
approved and respectfully request that the “S” curve on Pea Ridge Road remain south of its intersection with
1
26
Prairie View Road on Developer’s Property as currently proposed in The City’s Thoroughfare Plan for the
following reasons:
1) The proposed amendment would seriously and negatively impact the value of the Landowner Property, resulting
in a road through the middle of Landowner’s Property, thereby impeding Landowner’s current use and
enjoyment of Landowner Property, as well as Landowner’s future use and enjoyment of Landowner Property;
2) The proposed amendment would preclude Landowner from selling Landowner Property as currently zoned as
Agricultural Property or alternatively, would require Landowner and/or its successors and assigns, to dedicate a
public street right of way to the City if Landowner Property is subdivided and would further require Landowner,
or its successors and assigns, to construct all or a portion of the street if Landowner Property is ever subdivided,
all at significant expense and cost to Landowner or Landowner’s successors and assigns, thereby further
decreasing the value of Landowner Property on the open real estate market;
3) There is currently a drainage issue on Landowner Property and the proposed amendment of the “S” curve on Pea
Ridge Road would further exacerbate the drainage issue causing an additional negative effect on the value of
Landowner Property.
For the foregoing reasons, Landowners respectfully request that the “S” curve of Pea Ridge Road remain
south of its intersection with Prairie View Road as currently stated and that the proposed amendment to
the City Thoroughfare Plan as proposed in the Application by Developer be denied.
Respectfully Submitted,
William J. Novak and Joyce M. Novak
Landowners
CC: By email transmisson to:
H. Allan Talley (Chair)
[email protected]
Barbara Brown
[email protected]
David Jones
[email protected]
Mike Pilkington
[email protected]
Bert Pope
[email protected]
Greg Rhoads
2
27
[email protected]
Will Sears
[email protected]
James Staats
[email protected]; [email protected]
Derek Martin (Vice-Chair)
[email protected]
3
28
Memo
To:
Brian Mabry, AICP, City of Temple
From:
James Harvey, AICP, Alliance Transportation Group, Inc.
CC:
Scott Feldman, PE, PTOE
Date:
7/1/2011
Re:
N. Pea Ridge Road at Prairie View Road - Assessment of Realignment Options
This memorandum, developed by Alliance Transportation Group, Inc. at the request of the City of
Temple Planning Department, provides a planning assessment of two alternative realignment options
for N. Pea Ridge Road at Prairie View Road. The two alternatives are described as follows:
1. Realignment South of Prairie View Road – This alternative is the alignment contained in the
adopted City of Temple Thoroughfare Plan. It consists of an upgrade and realignment of N. Pea
Ridge Rd. beginning approximately 1600 feet south of Prairie View and connecting at Prairie View
at a point directly aligned with the segment of existing N. Pea Ridge Road that is north of Prairie
View Rd.
2. Realignment north of Prairie View Road – This alternative, proposes connecting to Prairie View
Road at a point directly aligned with the segment of existing N. Pea Ridge Road that is south of
Prairie View Rd. The realignment would continue north and west for approximately 1600 feet to
merge into the current segment of N. Pea Ridge Road located north of Prairie View Rd.
During the preparation of this memorandum, Alliance senior staff reviewed the following available
reports and other resources:




City of Temple Thoroughfare Map
City of Temple Comprehensive Plan
City of Temple Geographic Information System (GIS) exhibits related to the subject roadways
Available aerial photography of the subject roadways and properties
Among the other inferences drawn from these materials, review of the documents revealed guidance
on planning considerations that were used in formulating the findings of this assessment. At the
beginning of Chapter 5 Transportation, the City of Temple Comprehensive Plan identifies a set of key
planning considerations related to transportation infrastructure that are relevant to the current analysis.
These planning considerations include:
Goal 5.1 Planning Consideration 6 - Preserving environmental features and the character of
corridors through “Context Sensitive Solutions.” (City of Temple Comprehensive Plan, p. 5-3)
Goal 5.2 Planning Consideration 2 - Maximizing flow and reducing traffic conflicts on existing
facilities through access management and other Transportation System Management (TSM)
strategies. (City of Temple Comprehensive Plan, p. 5-4)
1
29
Using the identified planning considerations, combined with Alliance staff knowledge of the local area
and conditions, the comparison of the previously planned Alternative 1 and the newly proposed
Alternative 2 leads to the following observations:
1. A primary objective of the realignment appears to be to address the intersection offset presented
by the existing segments of N. Pea Ridge Rd. north and south of Prairie View Rd. In general,
although they may be adequate in a rural environment, as traffic increases in suburban or urban
settings, operational issues related to offsets of this type contribute to traffic conflicts, congestion
delays and safety issues. Removing the offset is highly consistent with access management
objectives referenced in the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Existing visible structures or improvements are apparently not significantly impacted by either
alternative. All structures that might have been impacted by Alternative 1 are proposed for removal
during property redevelopment.
3.
The current planned realignment (Alternative 1) was considered and evaluated during
Thoroughfare Plan development and was adopted as part of the plan. The realignment appears to
have been designed to address traffic safety and traffic operational concerns typically associated
with offset intersections. It also appears to be designed to avoid impacts on the visible Creek bed /
drainage features on the north side of Prairie View Rd. This alternative appears to be consistent
with both of the identified planning considerations.
4. Although the proposed change in the realignment strategy (Alternative 2) theoretically addresses
the offset issue, installing the realignment north of Prairie View Road has the potential to directly or
indirectly impact visible water / drainage features that exist in or adjacent to the proposed
Alternative 2 realignment. It therefore appears that Alternative 2 is not fully consistent with the
comprehensive plan environmental objectives.
5. Furthermore, the existence of these water /drainage features could potentially delay or
permanently preclude the development of the realignment north of Prairie View Rd due to drainage
or 404 permitting requirements. These issues, at the very least, would delay the elimination of the
offset or make the solution more expensive, which makes Alternative 2 inferior to the currently
planned solution in meeting the traffic operations objectives of the comprehensive plan.
6. There is a proposed school site in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Prairie View Rd.
and existing N. Pea Ridge Rd. Under Alternative 1, this site would be contiguous to one future
arterial (Prairie View Rd) on the northern edge of the property and a collector roadway (existing N.
Pea Ridge Rd) on the western edge of the property. Under Alternative 2, the future arterial cross
section of N. Pea Ridge would continue along the western edge of this property to the intersection
with Prairie View Road. Bordering a school site with two arterial roadways would not be consistent
with the comprehensive plan objective of implementing ‘context sensitive’ design. Future arterial
traffic could complicate access to and egress from the school site and could potentially present an
impediment to pedestrian access to the school.
The overall assessment of the two alternatives leads to the following conclusions and
recommendations:
1. It is recommended that the City of Temple retain the realignment of N. Pea Ridge Road at Prairie
View Rd contained in the adopted Thoroughfare Plan (Alternative 1 above). This realignment
alternative appears to be the one that is most consistent with the City of Temple Comprehensive
Plan goals and objectives on traffic safety and operations, reduction of environmental impacts and
implementation of context sensitive design.
2. Given that the apparent impacts of the two alternatives are significantly different, with Alternative 2
having potential impacts on water / drainage features and properties that were not affected by the
adopted Thoroughfare Plan, If the city chose to proceed with implementation of Alternative 2, such
action would appear to require a formal amendment to the Thoroughfare Plan with the attendant
notice and public comment period.
 Page 2
30
08/15/11
Item #4
Regular Agenda
Page 1 of 5
APPLICANT: Gene Doss for Jim Tranum
CASE MANAGER: Brian Mabry, AICP, Planning Director
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Z-FY-11-46 Consider and take action on an appeal of Sec. 6.7 of the Unified
Development Code related to standards in the I-35 Corridor Overlay Zoning District for a proposed
4,200 square-foot addition to an existing service shop at 5508 S. General Bruce Drive.
BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes a 4,200 square-foot addition to the existing vehicle service
shop on the subject property. As allowed in Unified Development Code Sec. 3.1.3.D, the applicant is
appealing to the Planning and Zoning Commission the determination from the Planning Director that
this project should comply with the applicable I-35 Corridor overlay standards.
The applicant and owner are aware that the submitted designs show lack of compliance with several
I-35 standards, especially in regard to landscaping. Staff has attempted to work with the applicant to
try to achieve a greater degree of compliance with the I-35 standards, with the understanding that an
appeal of certain provisions may have been necessary and might have been supportable. The
applicant has made some improvements on the original plans that were submitted for this project.
However, the applicant and owner are convinced that the submitted proposal suits the owner’s needs
in terms of current facilities, land, assets, work flow patterns and personnel better than a design
would that full or mostly complies with the I-35 standards.
The subject property had been, until recently, the location of a Volkswagen dealership. The property
is now under the ownership of Mr. Tranum, for the purpose of pre-owned car sales and service. The
total building area for the property is 9,063 square feet (2,450 for the existing service shop and 6,613
for the offices and showroom). The addition is 46 percent of the existing building area. According to
the I-35 Corridor overlay zoning district standards, a 46 percent addition to a property requires
compliance with the following general site design standards.
• Tree Preservation (not applicable at this location)
• Landscaping
• Parking
• Lighting
• Screening and Walls
The addition is proposed to be located behind the existing showroom, as depicted in the aerial photo
below.
31
Kegley/Midway
Existing
service
shop
Proposed
addition
I-35 Service Road
Showroom
/ Office
A 46 percent addition does not trigger I-35 Building Exterior requirements. While not meeting the I-35
Building Exterior requirements, the proposed building exterior for the addition exceeds citywide
masonry standards outside of I-35. The applicant proposes a combination of Exterior Insulation
Finishing System (EIFS) and stone on all three exposed sides, as depicted below. (All graphics
inserted in this report are also attached in the back of the report in enlarged format.)
Rock
EIFS
Additionally, the applicant proposes to re-face the existing showroom and office to compliment the
proposed addition to the service shop. Drawings showing these improvements are not available at
the time of the writing of this report, but they should be ready on Monday, August 15, 2011, in time for
the presentation to the Commission.
32
Below is a site plan for the proposed addition.
I-35 Service Road
The only landscaping proposed for the project is for seasonal planters to be placed in front of the
office and showroom (not currently shown on the site plan or elevations above but will be available by
Monday, August 15).
The intent of requiring compliance with a portion of the design standards of the overlay, even if a
person is only doing an addition to an existing building, is to require a comparable investment in site
beautification whenever a property owner is voluntarily investing in expanding the buildings on his or
her property. While the applicant exceeds the requirements Citywide for building exterior materials,
Staff is concerned that approval of this appeal sets a precedent upon which future applicants may
rely.
In addition, the applicant has also requested a pole sign, which are not allowed in the I-35 corridor.
The sign contractor, applicant and owner have been notified that this needs to be approved through a
separate Planned Development request.
APPEALS: Below is a summary of the I-35 Corridor requirements and how the applicant’s submittal
compares with them.
Summary of Applicable Requirements
Landscaping
• 15 percent of total site must be landscaped
• Areas not covered by building or pavement
must be landscaped
• Foundation plantings required within along
70 percent of the length of any façade visible
to public.
• One three-inch caliper tree per 30 feet street
frontage
Submitted Plan and Elevations Show
No landscaping is proposed.
33
Summary of Applicable Requirements
Landscaping (cont.)
• 25’ landscape buffer along front street; 20’
along side street
• 20% of required landscape buffer must have
native grass beds or wildflowers
• Berming required in the landscape buffer
• Parking are must be screened by a
continuous hedge or shrubs, berm, or
retaining walls
• Landscaping is required within parking area
in the form of islands and medians
Parking
• Curb & gutter 6 inches in height required
around perimeter of parking area and all
landscaped parking islands
• Parking aisles must be perpendicular to the
front of the principal building
• Parking areas must be planned so that
vehicles are not required to back out directly
into a public or private street
• All parking must be landscaped and
screened per the I-35 landscaping standards
• No parking is allowed in the landscape buffer
Lighting
• Light sources must be housed in full cut-off
fixtures
• Outdoor lighting fixtures must be a maximum of
30 feet in height.
Screening and Walls
• Garage & service bays must be located to
rear of principal building or on side of building
not visible to traffic flow on abutting side of I35. Planning Director may approve on traffic
flow side, but doors must be screened.
• Loading zones and mechanical equipment
must not be clearly visible at eye level from
any public street or located within 100 feet of
any public street, unless screened by a
masonry wall matching the architectural style
and color of the building
Submitted Plan and Elevations Show
No landscaping is proposed.
Site has existing lay-down curb along I-35 access
road.
Existing customer parking spaces on-site (not
shown on site plan) are perpendicular to the main
building without requiring backing out onto
service road.
No parking area landscaping is proposed.
No new lighting is proposed.
Existing light fixture height appears to be 30 feet
or less.
Proposed garage doors would be approximately
160 feet from the front property line but no
screening is proposed other than the existing
showroom / office
Staff is less concerned about the parking, lighting and screening requirements. The parking areas
most visible to the public are actually car inventory spaces. Additional lighting is not being proposed.
The bay doors are a significant distance from the frontage road and would be obscured by other
buildings.
Staff’s primary concern is the level of landscaping proposed (seasonal planters in front of the
showroom and offices, as mentioned above). Staff understands that the site is almost completely
paved over, so providing visible landscaping would require cutting into the paving. Having a
standalone new building for the proposed use, that is more visible to the public, would provide more
34
opportunities to integrate some noticeable landscaping at the base of the building and in the parking
area since the paving would need to be demolished anyway for the building itself. The proposed
addition, being significantly screened by the showroom and setback from the service road, does not
have a high level of public visibility so landscaping associated with the building may go unnoticed and
provide little public benefit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff’s recommendation is neutral for Z-FY-11-46, an appeal of the I35 Corridor Overlay standards.
Potential actions by the Commission include:
• Approval of the submitted design, including:
o The proposed addition to the service shop with masonry, EIFS and glass exterior;
o Re-facing of the showroom to compliment the service shop addition; and
o Seasonal landscape planters along the front of the showroom.
• Denial of the submitted design with a requirement to for a revision to the site plan that provides
landscaping visible to the public along the I-35 frontage road and/or Midway/Kegley for P&Z
review at a later date.
• Denial of the submitted design with a requirement to for a revision to the site plan that provides
landscaping associated with the service shop addition for P&Z review at a later date.
ATTACHMENTS:
Letter from Applicant
Aerial of Subject Property
Proposed Site Plan
Proposed Building Elevations
Proposed Floor Plan
35
36
37
38
EIFS
Rock
Glass Bay Doors
39
40
41
08/15/11
Item #5
Regular Agenda
Page 1 of 2
APPLICANT / DEVELOPMENT: Michael Pate, Sentry Security Systems, LLC
CASE MANAGER: Brian Mabry, AICP, Planning Director
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Z-FY-11-42 Hold a public hearing to discuss and recommend action on an
amendment to Section 7.6.5 of the Unified Development Code related to electric fences within the
City limits.
BACKGROUND: The Unified Development Code (UDC) currently allows electric fences only in the
AG, Agricultural, zoning district. In addition to being located in the AG zoning district, the current
standards require that the fence:
• Be designed to retain animals,
• Be inaccessible to the general public, and
• Not pose a hazard to life.
This standard prohibits any use of electric fences for security purposes in nonresidential areas. The
applicant has submitted the attached letter, along with a sample from Tyler, Texas, to the City
Manager requesting that the City Council amend the UDC to allow electric fences as a security device
in nonresidential settings outside of the AG zoning district. Such amendment first requires a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
City Staff has researched electric fence standards in other Texas cities. The results are attached to
this report. Electric fence regulation in other cities ranges from minimal, such as in Waco or Belton, to
more detailed, as in San Antonio.
The attached draft amendment to Section 7.6.5 of the UDC provides the following standards for
electric fences outside of the AG zoning district.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Allowed in association with a permitted nonresidential outdoor storage area in the C, LI and HI
zoning districts
Must be installed in conformance with the City’s electrical code, International Electroctechnical
Commission Standard No. 60335-2-76, and Underwriters Laboratories Standard UL69,
Electric-Fence Controller
Controller and emergency entry key-safe must be located in a single accessible location
Must be surrounded by a non-electrical fence or wall six to eight feet in height
Must be installed minimum of two feet from surrounding non-electric fence or wall, except
along gate.
Along gate, fence must be installed a minimum of six inches from non-electric fence or wall
Prohibited within 10 feet of a public right-of-way, including any sidewalk
Must be clearly identified with warning signs at intervals of not less than 60 feet
42
PUBLIC NOTICE:
The newspaper printed notice of the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing on August 4,
2011 in accordance with state law and local ordinance
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of an amendment to Section 7.6.5 of the
Unified Development Code related to electric fences within the City limits as presented in this Staff
report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Applicant’s Letter Requesting Amendment to the UDC
Applicant’s Sample Standards from Tyler, Texas
Electric Fence Provisions in Other Cities
Proposed Amendment to UDC Sec. 3.7.6.C, Materials for Fences, Walls, Screens and
Enclosures
43
Brian Mabry
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Autumn Speer
Wednesday, July 13, 2011 11:39 AM
Richard Therriault; Brian Mabry
FW: Amendment
TYLER TEXAS AMENDMENT.docx
From: Michael Pate [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 11:37 AM
To: David Blackburn
Cc: Donald McLellan; Autumn Speer; Robin Williamson
Subject: Amendment
Mr. Blackburn, I met with Autumn Speer, Director of Community Services, several weeks ago in an effort to get a permit to operate enhanced security measures in the form of an electric security fence at the United Rentals site, 5345 General Bruce Drive. After conferring with other staff our device was declared a fence and I was instructed to write to you requesting an amendment to the code to allow the use of electric security fences. Please accept this correspondence as a request to amend the code allowing the use of electric security fences in the City of Temple TX. These are inherently safe and effective devices that have been approved to operate all through TX. Houston, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Austin, San Antonio, Tyler, Euless, Balch Springs, and many other municipalities in TX allow the use of electric security fences. The use of these devices actually prevents crime, allows the husbanding of police resources, and makes the businesses that install them safer, as well as the neighborhoods that surround them. I have attached an amendment from a similar size city in TX for your review. I would hope that we could be placed on the earliest possible committee schedules as this is usually a protracted exercise. With warmest regards, Michael Pate Director of Business Development Sentry Security Systems, LLC Electric Guard Dog [email protected] Phone: 803‐404‐6204 Cell: 803‐422‐3600 Fax: 803‐786‐6458 1
44
TYLER TEXAS AMENDMENT Sec. 10‐333. Electric fences. a. The construction and use of electric fences shall be allowed in the City only as provided in this section, subject to the following standards: 1. IEC Standard 60335‐2‐76. Unless otherwise specified herein, electric fences shall be constructed or installed in conformance with the specifications set forth in International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard No. 60335‐2‐76, or successor. 2. Electrification (a) The energizer for electric fences must be driven by a commercial storage battery not to exceed 12 volts DC. The storage battery shall be charged primarily by a solar panel. However, the solar panel may be augmented by a commercial trickle charger. (b) The electric charge produced by the fence upon contact shall not exceed energizer characteristics set forth in paragraph 22.108 and depicted in Figure 102 of IEC Standard No. 60335‐2‐76, or successors. 3. Perimeter fence or wall. No electric fence shall be installed or used unless it is completely surrounded by a non‐electrical fence or wall that is not less than six feet in height. 4. Location. Electric fences shall be permitted in any non‐residential outdoor storage areas only. 5. Warning signs. Electric fences shall be clearly identified with warning signs that read: "Warning‐Electric Fence" at intervals of not less than sixty feet. b. It shall be unlawful for any person to install, maintain or operate an electric fence in violation of this section. (Ord. No. 0‐2010‐__; 3/10/10) 45
Electric Fence Provisions in other Cities
City
Temple
Tyler
(applicant’s
preference –
adopted
3/10/10)
Summary of Land Use Related Standards (not including Electrical Code)
•
•
Allowed only in the AG zoning district.
Must submit proof that fence will be designed to retain animals, be inaccessible to
the general public and not pose a hazard to life.
•
Electric fence must be surrounded by a non-electrical fence or wall a minimum of six
feet in height.
Permitted only in nonresidential outdoor storage areas.
Must be clearly identified with warning signs at intervals of not less than 60 feet.
•
•
Bryan*
No results
Waco
Not allowed in “community gardens”
Belton
Prohibited in Residential Estate district
Killeen
Not allowed in Residential or Office zoning districts
Georgetown
•
•
•
•
Allowed without a Fence Permit.
Not permitted within 10 feet of any public rights-of-way or sidewalk.
Must be placed a minimum of 2 feet from all private property lines.
Must be clearly identified with warning signs at intervals of not less than 50 feet and
located not more than 1 foot away from the fence.
Baytown*
No results
N. Richland
Hills*
Electric fences that are capable of causing harm or death are prohibited in the city. This does
not prevent the use of approved and listed equipment to charge single strands of wires for
the purpose of animal or livestock control.
Double Sided
46
City
Summary of Land Use Related Standards (not including Electrical Code)
•
•
•
•
San Antonio
•
•
•
•
Wylie
Permitted only in outdoor storage areas in LI and HI.
Electric fence must be surrounded by a non-electrical fence or wall six to eight feet in
height and 6 inches from electric fence.
Electric fence has a maximum height of 10 feet.
Must be clearly identified with warning signs at intervals of not less than 40 feet and
located not more than 1 foot away from the fence.
Electric fences may be energized only during the hours when the general public does
not have legal access to the protected property.
Not permitted within five feet of a sidewalk or public right-of-way nor within 300
feet of a property line for a residence, school, day care facility, church or parkland.
Permitted and renewed on an annual basis with a notarized statement attached to
the renewal permit from an authorized representative of the fence or barrier
equipment manufacturer that the installation is currently operating in conformity
with its safety requirements.
$1,000,000 insurance required as a condition of permit approval and renewal.
Allowed only in the AG zoning district.
* Comparable City in Comprehensive Plan
47
Proposed Amendment to UDC Sec. 3.7.6.C, Materials for Fences,
Walls, Screens and Enclosures
Note: Red font indicates deleted or added text.
7.6.5
Materials for Fences, Walls, Screens and Enclosures
A.
Allowed Materials
…
B.
Prohibited Materials
…
C.
D.
Electric Fences
1.
An electrically charged electric fence is allowed only in the Agricultural zoning
district, with proof submitted to the electrical inspector that the fence will be
designed to retain animals, be inaccessible to the general public and not pose a
hazard to life.
2.
An electric fence is allowed in association with a permitted nonresidential outdoor
storage area in the Commercial, Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial zoning
districts subject to the following standards.
a.
Unless otherwise specified in this Section, electric fences must be installed in
conformance with the specifications set forth in the City’s electrical code and
the International Electroctechnical Commission Standard No. 60335-2-76.
In addition, the electric fence controller must meet the requirements of
Underwriters Laboratories Standard UL69, Electric-Fence Controller, and
labeled as such.
b.
The electric fence controller and emergency entry key safe for the electric
fence must be located in a single accessible location for the entire fence.
c.
The electric fence must be surrounded by a non-electrical fence or wall six
to eight feet in height.
d.
The electric fence must be installed a minimum of two feet from the
surrounding non-electric fence or wall, except along the gate. Along the gate,
the electric fence must be installed a minimum of six inches from the
surrounding non-electric fence or wall.
e.
The electric fence is prohibited within 10 feet of a public right-of-way,
including any sidewalk.
f.
The electric fence must be clearly identified with warning signs at intervals of
not less than 60 feet.
Razor Wire Fences
…
E.
Construction
…
48
8/15/11
Item #6
Regular Agenda
Page 1 of 1
APPLICANT: Planning & Zoning Commission
CASE MANAGER: Brian Mabry, Planning Director
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Receive and discuss the Planning Director’s Report containing items for future
meetings regarding subdivision plats, zoning cases, conditional use permits, annexations, and
proposed text amendments to the Unified Development Code (UDC).
BACKGROUND: The Planning & Zoning Commission will consider several items at future meetings
which may also require City Council review for a final decision, shown on the following table.
Future Commission Projects
P-FY-11-27 – Consider and take action on the Preliminary Plat of Highland
Park, a 10.00± acre 30-lot residential subdivision located on the north side of
FM 93, adjacent to and west of Ridgewood Estates. (Applicant: Mark Rendon)
P-FY-11-39 – Consider and take action on revisions to the approved Final Plat
for Lago Terra Subdivision, a 47.36± acre, 78-lot residential subdivision, located
on the west side of Morgan’s Point Road, south of Bonnie Lane. Zoned
Agricultural District (Applicant: Victor Turley for McLean Commercial, LTD)
P-FY-11-42 – Consider and take action on the Final Plat of Lake Pointe Phase I,
1 9.58±, 48-lot residential subdivision, located at the southeast corner of SH 317
and Prairie View Road. (Applicant: WBW Development)
P-FY-11-43 – Consider and take action on the Final Plat of Hills of Westwood
Phase VI, a 8.247 ±, 36-lot residential subdivision, on the east side of Iron Gate
Drive, north of Tarver Drive and Amber Meadow Loop. (Applicant: Kiella
Development)
P-FY-11-44 – Consider and take action on the Final Plat of Wyndham Hill Phase
II, 13.890 acre ±, 66-lot residential subdivision, located on the west side of
South 5th Street, south of Wyndham Hill Parkway. (Applicant: J&B Holdings,
Ltd)
1
Status
DRC 4/20/11
P&Z TBD
DRC 7/05/11
P&Z TBD
DRC 8/24/11
P&Z TBD
DRC 8/24/11
P&Z TBD
DRC 8/24/11
P&Z TBD
49
The following items, which the Planning & Zoning Commission made recommendations for, recently
received a final decision from City Council.
City Council Final Decisions
Z-FY-11-32 – Hold a public hearing to discuss and recommend action on a
rezoning from Agricultural District (AG) to General Retail District (GR) on
Outblock 2064-A and from Agricultural District (AG) to Single Family Two (SF2)
on Outblock 2065-A, Baldwin Robertson Survey, Abstract 17, on 15.922 acres,
located southeast corner of N. Pea Ridge Road and Stonehollow Drive.
Z-FY-11-34 – Hold a public hearing to discuss and recommend action on a
rezoning from Agriculture District (AG) to Commercial District (C) on 4.699 acres being located on the south side of FM 2305, west of Arrowhead Point
Road, more commonly known as 13721 W. Adams Avenue
Status
APPROVED on
first reading
SF2 and GR
APPROVED on
first reading
PD-NS as
recommended by
P&Z
Z-FY-11-28 – Consider adopting an ordinance authorizing a zoning change from
Agriculture District (AG) to Commercial District (C) on 3 ± acres of land not
APPROVED on
presently in the Temple City Limits, being part of Sarah Fitzhenry Survey,
second reading
Abstract No. 312, Bell County, Texas, located along the Northeast side of State
Highway 36, across from the CEFCO Convenience Store
2
50
Fax #298-5624
Phone #298-5668
MEETING EVALUATION
August 15, 2011
Rating Scale
Excellent Average Poor
1. What is your overall rating of the P & ZC’s Meeting?
2. How would you rate the content of the staff’s reports?
3. How would you rate the clarity of the meeting agenda?
4. How would you rate the staff presentation?
5. In what ways did tonight’s meeting meet (or not meet) your expectations?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
6. Please provide any comments and suggestions that you feel would be useful for the next
meeting (content, speakers, materials, resources, etc.).
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
51
P&Z COMMISSION ATTENDANCE
2011
James Staats
Mike Pilkington
Bert Pope
Allan Talley
Derek Martin
Will Sears
Barbara Brown
Greg Rhoads
David Jones
Jan 3
A
P
P
P
P
P
A
A
P
July 5
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
P
P
Jan 18
Feb 7
Feb 22
Mar 7
Mar 21
Apr 4
Apr 18
May 2
May 16
June 6
June 20
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
A
P
P
P
P
A
A
P
P
P
P
P
A
A
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
A
P
P
2
11
12
10
12
8
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
P
P
12
9
9
4
Aug 1
Aug 15
Sept 6
Sept 19
Oct 3
Oct 17
Nov 7
Nov 21
Dec 5
Dec 19
P
13
14
11
14
10
13
11
10
6
July 18
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
A
P
No Meeting Held
Jack Barton
Ashley Williams
James Staats
Mike Pilkington
Bert Pope
Allan Talley
Derek Martin
Marvin Hurd
Will Sears
Barbara Brown
Greg Rhoads
David Jones
A
1
3
1
2
4
2
1
A
1
3
4
1
1
1
not a Board member
52

August 15, 2011

Transcription

Similar documents

Application Form for Degree in Absentia

college official`s report curry college

Cerramiento Ext Antirrobo Publicidad Inglés.cdr

PLAN COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT

Nursing Education Initiative Application Checklist PLEASE

Sole Proprietorship Registration Form A

MLK - Landcroc

application for parts and service account

Our Donation Philosophy. Our Policy for Financial and In

Board of Zoning Appeals Variance Application BEGINNING JULY 1