City of Richardson City Plan Commission Agenda Packet July 19, 2011

Transcription

1 City of Richardson City Plan Commission Agenda Packet July 19, 2011 To advance to the background material for each item in the agenda, click on the item title in the agenda or click on Bookmarks in the tool bar on the left side of your screen.

2 AGENDA CITY OF RICHARDSON - CITY PLAN COMMISSION JULY 19, :00 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 411 W. ARAPAHO ROAD BRIEFING SESSION: 6:00 P.M. Prior to the regular business meeting, the City Plan Commission will meet with staff in the East Conference Room, located on the first floor, to receive a briefing on: A. Agenda items B. Staff Reports MINUTES 1. Approval of minutes of the regular business meeting of July 5, CONSENT AGENDA All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Plan Commission and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless desired, in which case any item(s) may be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration. 2. Revised Site & Landscape Plans for Society of Petroleum Engineers: A request for approval of a revised site and landscape plans for an additional 5,880 sq. ft. within the existing 51,666 sq. ft. office building. The 5.00-acre site is located at the northeast corner of North Collins Boulevard and Palisades Creek Drive. Applicant: Eduardo Churquina, Architexas, Inc. Staff: Mohamed Bireima 3. Final plat, site plan, landscape plan and building elevations for QuikTrip: A request for approval of a final plat for Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block A of the Belt Line/Inge Addition and development plans for a convenience store with gasoline sales on proposed Lot 1. The site is located at the northeast corner of Belt Line Road and Inge Drive. Applicant: JD Dudley representing QuickTrip. Staff: Israel Roberts. 4. Amending plat and revised site and landscape plans for the Tran Dental Office. A request for approval of an amending plat for Lot 3C, Block A of the Spring Valley business Park Addition and revised development plans for a 3,044 square foot addition to an existing building for the Tran Dental Office. The site is located on the south side of Spring Valley Road, between Central Expressway and Sherman Street. Applicant: Michael Peeples representing Michael Peeples, Engineers and Planners. Staff: Israel Roberts. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Variance 11-08: A request for approval a variance from the Subdivision and Development Code; Article III, Section 21-47(g), Screening and Open Space, to permit additional ground level equipment, storage tanks and utilities with the installation of additional landscaping along Alma Road. The acre site is located at 300 W. Renner Road, northwest corner of Renner Road and Alma Road. Applicant: Mike McCoy representing Page Southerland Page. Staff: Israel Roberts. 6. Zoning File 11-13: A request by Michael Buckingham, representing National American University, for a Special Permit for a private university at 300 N. Coit Road (east side of Coit Road, approximately 1,500 feet north of Belt Line Road). The property is currently zoned LR-M(2) Local Retail. Staff: Chris Shacklett Richardson City Plan Commission Agenda ds/endeavor/cpc/2010/cpc Agenda.doc Page 1 of 2

3 ADJOURN The City Hall/Civic Center is wheelchair accessible. Any requests for sign interpretive services must be made 48 hours ahead of the meeting. To make arrangements, call (972) , or (TDD) I hereby certify that the above agenda was posted on the bulletin board at City Hall on or before 5:30p.m., Friday, July 15, Kathy Welp, Executive Secretary Richardson City Plan Commission Agenda ds/endeavor/cpc/2010/cpc Agenda.doc Page 2 of 2

4 Staff Reports

5 Devel opment Status Report City of Richardson, Texas ٠ Development Services Department Updated: July 14, 2011 # Name/Location ZONING/SPECIAL PERMITS 1 ZF Breckinridge Corners SW corner of E. Renner Rd. & North Star Rd. 2 ZF KJ Auto 405 S. Central Expy. 3 ZF Brick Row NW of Greenville Ave. & E. Spring Valley Rd. 4 ZF National American University 300 N. Coit Rd. VARIANCES 5 VAR TI RAFAB NW corner of Renner Rd and Alma Rd. Project Information A request by Richard Ferrara, representing Moroney Renner 37, LP, Evergreen Richardson Senior Community, LP and SSAA Ventures Corporation for an amendment to the PD Planned Development zoning to remove conditions regarding the maximum number of pad sites for approximately 12.8 acres located at the southwest corner of Renner Road and North Star Road. The property is currently zoned PD Planned Development. A request by Kent Junkert, representing KJ Auto, for a Special Permit for a motor vehicle repair shop major at 405 S Central Expressway (southeast corner of Central Expressway and Phillips Street). The property is currently zoned C-M Commercial. A request by Chris Ray, representing Centennial Park Richardson, Ltd., to revise the PD development rights for the Spring Valley Station District to include 1.9 acres with the PD, allow a maximum of either 95 apartment or condominium units rather than just 95 condominium units for Lots 1A, Block O, McKamy Park Addition and an additional 1.9 acres, to allow surface parking for the proposed 95 units, andd the removal of residential development rights on Lot 1A, Block Q, McKamy Park Addition. The property is located on the north side of Spring Valley Road between the DART Light Rail and Greenville Avenue. The property is currently zoned PD Planned Development. A request by Mike Buckingham, representing National American University, for a Special Permit for a private university office and classrooms at 300 N. Coit Road (east side of Coit Road, approximately 1,500 feet north of Belt Line Road). The property is currently zoned LR-M(2) Local Retail. A request for approval of a variance from Article III, Section 21-47(g), Open Space and Screening, for the Texas Instruments fabrication facility. The 92.4-acre site is located at the northwest corner of Renner Road and Alma Road. Status City Plan Commission July 5, 2011 Recommended Approval City Council July 25, 2011 Tentativee City Plan Commission July 5, 2011 Recommended Approval City Council July 25, 2011 Tentativee City Plan Commission July 5, 2011 Recommended Approval City Council July 25, 2011 Tentativee City Plan Commission July 19, 2011 City Plan Commission July 19, 2011 X:\Publications and Forms\Development Status Report & Map\COR Development Status Report.docx Page 1 of 3

6 Devel opment Status Report City of Richardson, Texas ٠ Development Services Department # Name/Location Project Information PLAT/CONCEPT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVALS 6 Society of Petroleum Engineers 222 Palisades Creek Dr. Revised Site & Landscape Plans for Society of Petroleum Engineers: A request for approval of a revised site and landscape plans for an additional 5,880 sq. ft. within the existing 51,666 sq. ft. office building. The 5.00-acre site is located at the northeast corner of Northh Collins Boulevard and Palisades Creek Drive. Status City Plan Commission July 19, Quik Trip 522 W. Belt Line Rd. 8 Tran Dental Office 327 W. Spring Valley Rd. Final Plat for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block A of the Belt Line/Inge Addition: A request for approval of a Final Plat for the Belt Line/Inge Addition for future development of a convenience store with gasoline sales. The 2.73-acree site is located at the northeast corner of Belt Line Road and Inge Road. Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Building Elevations for Quik Trip: A request for approval of a site plan, landscape plan and building elevations for a single-story 5,688 square foot convenience store with gasolinee sales. The acre site is located at the northeast corner of Belt Line and Inge Road. Amending Plat for Lot 3C, Block A of the Spring Valley Business Park Addition, being an Amending Plat of Lot 3B, Block A of the Spring Valley Business Park Addition: A request for approval of an Amending Plat to accommodate a 3,044 square foot expansionn to an existing building for a dental office. The 1.15-acre site is located on the south side of W. Spring Valley Road, between Central Expressway and Sherman Street. Revised Site Plan and Landscape Plan: A request for approval of a revised site plan and landscape plan for a 3,044-square foot expansion to an existing building for a dental office. The 1.15-acre site is located on thee south side of W. Spring Valley Road, between Central Expressway and Sherman Street. City Plan Commission July 19, 2011 City Plan Commission July 19, 2011 X:\Publications and Forms\Development Status Report & Map\COR Development Status Report.docx Page 2 of 3

7 Devel opment Status Report City of Richardson, Texas ٠ Development Services Department # Name/Location Project Information ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS 9 Fossil Headquarters Revised site and landscape plans to reflect 901 S. Central Expy. building renovations and sitee and landscape enhancements. Status Staff July 11, 2011 Approved 10 Taco Bell 1606 E. Belt Line Rd. Revised site and landscape plans to reflect the installation of a new canopy for the drive-thru on the south side of the building; New decorative wall and landscape enhancementss adjacent to the menu board on the south side of the building; and a new ADA ramp near the northwest corner of the building. Staff July 11, 2011 Approved RECENTLY ISSUED BUILDING PERMITS No significant Building Permits issued recently. X:\Publications and Forms\Development Status Report & Map\COR Development Status Report.docx Page 3 of 3

8 Coit Dublin Waterview Lindale West Shore Floyd Audelia Whitehall Custer Grove Alma Bowser Plano Yale Jupiter Jupiter Shiloh DALLAS Collin County Dallas County Cottonwood 4 Mimosa Frankford Lake Park Jonsson Waterfall Melrose Northlake Campbell Belt Line Dumont Spring Valley Waterview Synergy Park University Newberry TI Weathered President George Bush Turnpike Point North Canyon Creek US75 / Central Expressway 9 8 Sherman Greenside Greenville Abrams Richardson Interurban Renner Fall Creek Municipal Main Lookout Dorothy Polk Prairie Creek Apollo Spring Valley Richland Park DALLAS 5 Buckingham Alma Woodall Collins 6 Palisades Creek Lakeside Frances Galatyn Arapaho Centennial College Park Routh Creek Glenville Infocom Owens Lookout Owens Collins Apollo 10 Spring-Valley Buckingham Wyndham Lookout Belt Line GARLAND PLANO North Spring Clear Springs Renner Breckinridge Research Telecom Zoning/Special Permit Greenfield Sharp Summerfield 1 Holford GARLAND 1. Breckinridge Corners, SW corner of E. Renner Rd. & North Star Rd. (ZF 11-10) 2. KJ Auto, 405 S. Central Expy. (ZF 11-11) 3. Brick Row, NW of Greenville Ave. & E. Spring Valley Rd. (ZF 11-12) Beck 4. National American University, 300 N. Coit Rd. (ZF 11-13) Variance 5. TI RFAB, NW corner of Renner Rd. and Alma Rd. (VAR 11-08) Plat/Concept/Development Plan 6. Society of Petroleum Engineers, 222 Palisades Creek Dr. 7. Quik Trip, 522 W. Belt Line Rd. 8. Tran Dental Office, 327 W. Spring Valley Rd. Administrative Approval 9. Fossil, 901 S. Central Expy. 10. Taco Bell, 1606 E. Belt Line Rd. Building Permit No significant Building Permits issued recently Miles North Star Moroney Brand Hartford µ Carrington Coventry Murphy MURPHY Development Status Map Updated: July 14, 2011 City of Richardson, Texas

9 Agenda Item 1

10 CITY OF RICHARDSON CITY PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 5, 2011 The Richardson City Plan Commission met July 5, 2011, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall in the Council Chambers, 411 W. Arapaho Road, Richardson, Texas. MEMBERS PRESENT: CITY STAFF PRESENT: David Gantt, Chairman Bill Hammond, Vice Chair Gerald Bright, Commissioner Janet DePuy, Commissioner Marilyn Frederick, Commissioner Barry Hand, Commissioner Jim Henderson, Commissioner Thomas Maxwell, Alternate Don Bouvier, Alternate Sam Chavez, Asst. Director of Dev. Svcs. Planning Chris Shacklett, Planner Kathy Welp, Executive Secretary BRIEFING SESSION Prior to the regular business meeting, the Plan Commission met with staff to receive a briefing on: A. Agenda Items The Commission was briefed on the agenda items. No action was taken. B. Staff Reports MINUTES The Commission was briefed on upcoming development items. No action was taken. 1. Approval of the minutes of the regular business meeting of June 21, Motion: Vice Chair Hammond made a motion to approve the minutes as presented; second by Commissioner Frederick. Motion passed 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Zoning File 11-10: A request by Richard Ferrara, representing Moroney Renner 37, LP, Evergreen Richardson Senior Community LP, and SSAA Ventures Corporation for an amendment to the PD Planned Development zoning to remove the condition regarding the

11 Richardson City Plan Commission Minutes July 5, 2011 maximum number of pad sites and/or freestanding buildings for approximately acres located at the southwest corner of Renner Road and North Star Road. Mr. Shacklett advised that the applicant was requesting to amend the existing PD Planned Development to remove Special Condition #8 regarding the maximum number of pad sites and/or freestanding buildings on the 12.8-acre property located at the southwest corner of Renner and North Star Roads. He said the current ordinance allowed only two free standing pads, and with the Kids R Kids and Evergreen Senior Living Center developments those two pads were taken leaving 4.8 acres of undeveloped property along Renner Road. In addition, Mr. Shacklett noted that the PD would maintain the Special Permits granted in Ordinances 3752 and 3781 ensuring any future development on the south side of Renner Road would be in the same design style as Breckinridge Corners on the north side of the road. With no comments or questions from the Commission, Chairman Gantt opened the public hearing. Mr. Ron Walden, 405 N. Waterview, Richardson, Texas, representing the three property owners, complimented the staff on their thorough job and said the request was meant to clean up old language dating back to 1988, and to make the property more developable. There were no other comments in favor or opposition and Chairman Gantt closed the public hearing. Motion: Commissioner Hand made a motion to recommend approval of Zoning File as presented; second by Commissioner DePuy. Motion passed Zoning File 11-11: A request by Kent Junkert, representing KJ Auto, for a Special Permit for a motor vehicle repair shop major at 405 S. Central Expressway, southeast corner of Central Expressway and Phillips Street. Mr. Shacklett noted that a Special Permit was requested for a major motor vehicle repair shop located at 405 S. Central Expressway, and the lease space in question would be among six or seven other vehicle repair businesses in the Texas Automotive Center (TAC). Mr. Shacklett stated he had spoken with the owner about the changes to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance that required almost every auto use to obtain a Special Permit. He added they had discussed the fact that the request would require an exception to Article XXII-E of the Ordinance which states major auto repair facilities would not be allowed in multi-tenant buildings; however, that language was intended to discourage the placement of major vehicle repair shops within typical retail shopping centers. Although the TAC is zoned for retail, it did not develop as such, but as a completely automotive repair center. CPC/2011/CPC Minutes.doc 2

12 Richardson City Plan Commission Minutes July 5, 2011 Commissioner Bright asked about the surrounding retail areas and Mr. Shacklett indicated those on the displayed map. With no further questions for the staff, Chairman Gantt opened the public hearing. Ms. Regina Ferree, 205 Betty, Richardson, Texas, stated she was in favor or the request, but had a concern about the state of the area along Sherman Drive. There were no other comments in favor or opposition and Chairman Gantt closed the public hearing. Chairman Gantt stated he was in favor or the request and suggested the Special Permit be issued to the lessee so he could operate his business until either the City recalls the permit or the business ceases to exist. Commissioner Frederick stated she was in favor or encouraging businesses to come into the City, but would like to have it on record that the overall appearance of the building could be improved and the owner of the building should understand that when a business is located in the City it should be maintained to the City s standards. Commissioner Henderson asked if enhancement and redevelopment requirements were discussed with the applicant. Mr. Shacklett replied that the subject had been discussed with the applicant noting the future land use plan designated the area as an enhancement and redevelopment district. He explained that the plan listed the area among six within the City where reinvestment/redevelopment would be encouraged; however, the plan did not specifically state what would be appropriate for the area, but that there was a need for further study similar to the one for the West Spring Valley Corridor. Commissioner Henderson asked if there had been a date set for the area to be studied for redevelopment/enhancement, and what was the applicant s response when he was told about the future plans. Mr. Shacklett replied there was no date set for further studies, and the applicant stated he understood what the City s future plans were, but asked that in the mean time to have his request approved. Commissioner DePuy asked if the property was located within the Tax Increment Financing District (TIF) and did that mean that once the area was redeveloped it would participate in the TIF, or was there a time limit on the TIF. CPC/2011/CPC Minutes.doc 3

13 Richardson City Plan Commission Minutes July 5, 2011 Mr. Shacklett replied that any improvements on the property increased the value and the taxes obtained from the added value would go into the TIF fund to be used for the reimbursement of any project within the district that improved public infrastructure. Commissioner Hand thanked the applicant for bringing their business to the City and concurred with Mr. Gantt s suggestion that the Special Permit should be tied to the lessee. He also wanted to emphasize that the principal behind the redevelopment/enhancement areas was based on the City s decision that auto uses was not the highest and best use of the property along Central Expressway. With no further comments, Chairman Gantt called for a motion. Motion: Commissioner Bright made a motion to recommend approval of Zoning File with the condition that the Special Permit was limited to Mr. Kent Junkert; second by Commissioner DePuy. Motion passed Zoning File 11-12: A request by Chris Ray, representing Centennial Park Richardson, Ltd., to revise the PD development rights for the Spring Valley Station District to include 1.9 acres within the PD, allow a maximum of either 95 apartment or condominium units rather than just 95 condominium units for Lot 1B, Block O, McKamy Park Addition and an additional 1.9 acres, to allow surface parking for the proposed 95 units, and the removal of residential development rights on Lot 1B, Block Q, McKamy Park Addition. The property is located on the north side of Spring Valley Road between the DART Light Rail and Greenville Avenue Mr. Shacklett advised that the applicant was requesting four amendments to the existing PD Planned Development rights: - Add an additional 1.9-acres into the PD; - Allow either 95 apartments or condominium units to be located in Lot 1B, Block O and the additional 1.09-acres; - Allow surface parking to serve the proposed 95 apartment or condominium units; - Remove the residential development rights from Lot 1B, Block Q. Shacklett explained that the entire development had entitlement rights for 500 apartments, 300 condominiums and 150 townhomes, and between Buildings A, B and C the 500 apartment limit had been reached. He added that there were several townhomes built, with another group under construction, but no condominiums as yet, therefore, the request was to increase the number of apartments allowed by 95 while decreasing the number of condominiums by the same amount and keeping the total number of multi-family units at 800. CPC/2011/CPC Minutes.doc 4

14 Richardson City Plan Commission Minutes July 5, 2011 Mr. Shacklett reviewed the history of the project noting that in September 2010 a similar request had come before the Commission asking to change the development rights of the 300 condominium units to allow for up to 300 apartments on Blocks O, Q, and the two tracts east of the creek. After listening to comments in opposition from townhome owners and individuals from the surrounding neighborhood, the Commission stated they did not want to see apartments east of the creek and made that recommendation to the City Council. In October of 2010, the request was denied by the City Council. In December of 2010 another request was presented regarding Lot 1B, Blocks O and Q and the 1.9-acres of additional land asking for an additional 90 apartments and/or condominium units in lieu of 90 condominium units along with surface parking. The Commission recommended approval of the request subject to removing the residential rights from Lot 1B, Q. The request went forward to the City Council in January 2011 and was again denied with the Council listing three areas of concern: - Condition of the site At the time of the request, Building A was still under construction and the Council was concerned about construction debris and equipment being removed before moving forward. - McKamy Park The park was still under construction with substantial work to be done before it could be turned over to the City. - Leasing of Ground Floor Spaces The Council expressed frustration with the lack of progress in leasing the ground floor spaces in Buildings A and B and did not want to grant additional development rights for more apartments until they saw an increase in the mixed-use part of the development. Mr. Shacklett indicated the applicant was now back before the Commission after addressing the issues mentioned by the City Council: - Condition of the site The site had been significantly cleaned up, especially with the completion of the construction on Building A and residents had started moving in. - McKamy Park The City Parks Department conducted walkthroughs in June and July and the park was expected to receive final City acceptance. - Leasing of Ground Floor Spaces Letters of Intent (LOIs) had been received and negotiations were ongoing with three tenants for retail space along Spring Valley totaling 7,000 square feet. Prior to any questions or comments from the Commission, Commissioner Bright recused himself from the Chamber and Chairman Gantt asked Commissioner Bouvier to take his place during deliberation and voting. Commissioner Hand noted that in previous submissions there had been a plan presented of what would be constructed on the additional 1.9-acre tract and wanted to know if there was more detail available for the current submission. Mr. Shacklett replied that at the time of the earlier submission the applicant had a rendering of what they might do, but it was not something that was required by the City. He said the CPC/2011/CPC Minutes.doc 5

15 Richardson City Plan Commission Minutes July 5, 2011 applicant was simply using the rendering to depict the fact that only the western portion of the 1.9-acres could be developed because of the creek running through the tract. Chairman Gantt asked to confirm that development plans were not required during the zoning process. Mr. Shacklett replied that was correct and the applicant would have to go through a concept plan and development plan stages prior to coming back before the Commission. He added that the earlier rendering was very generic and would not have been attached as an exhibit. Commissioner Hand asked about the composite overlay on the aerial picture of a future bank building. Mr. Shacklett replied that the overlay was simply a concept the applicant was looking at and had not been submitted for review and/or approval and was not an exhibit. In addition, the only exhibit that would be attached to the ordinance was Exhibit B. With no further questions for staff, Chairman Gantt opened the public hearing. Mr. Chris Ray, Winston Capital, 744 Brick Row, Richardson, Texas, said he felt the conditions requested by the City Council had been completed including cleaning up the site, finishing McKamy Park, and moving closer to leasing some of the ground floor space. Mr. Ray noted that the leasing of apartments was exceeding expectations with the market rate at $1.48 per square foot as opposed to their original projection of $1.30 per square foot. He said their plan for the proposed 95 units was to take the most successful floor plans from the 500 apartments already constructed and use those plans to develop the new building. Regarding the proposed building, Mr. Ray advised that under the current zoning they would be allowed to go 6 stories; however, the construction costs for a 6-story building would be prohibitive. Another option would be to scale the plan down to 3 or 4 stories, but a 4-story building would require additional work along the creek so they were leaning more towards a 3-story building with 77 units. Mr. Ray stated that the area located next to the park was originally zoned for condominiums, but they were proposing to build an additional amenity center consisting of a pool and cabana that would be open to the proposed apartment building and the 1.9-acre addition, as well as the townhome owners. He added that the townhome absorption rate had been lower than expected because of economic conditions, but with the addition of the proposed amenity the builder was hoping to increase the sales velocity. Commissioner DePuy asked if there was information available about the townhome sales. CPC/2011/CPC Minutes.doc 6

16 Richardson City Plan Commission Minutes July 5, 2011 Mr. Ray replied that the builder had hoped for 3 sales per month at the beginning of the project; however, in 2010 they were only able to sell 8 townhomes for the whole year. In 2011, the sales had picked up and they were selling approximately 1 townhome per month, and had purchased additional lots to prepare for future sales. He noted that the addition of the amenity center would most likely help the builder increase their per month sales figures. Commissioner Frederick asked to clarify who would have access to the amenity center. Mr. Ray replied the amenity center would have secured entry and be available to the townhome owners and the tenants from the proposed building. He added that 1 sale per month was keeping the townhome builder active and alive, but with 140 lots to be sold an amenity center would probably help. Commissioner Hand asked why the request was being made now when the leasing was going so well. Mr. Ray replied that since the last time he was before the Commission two things had changed: first, the apartment market had improved; and second, the condominium market had declined even farther. He added that the market in Dallas had begun to turn around for multi-family developments and felt their project was in a good position to take advantage of this fact because their infrastructure was already in place. Also, by increasing the number of residents at Brick Row it would help to develop the retail. Commissioner Hand asked about the possibility of doing a 4-story building and the whether the property would allow parking for 92 units as opposed to 77 units. Mr. Ray stated that the area marked on Exhibit B as Additional Acreage to be Re-zoned covered both buildable land and the creek so the footprint of a 4-story building would require retaining walls because of the proximity to the creek. Commissioner Henderson asked if he would recognize the names of the tenants who had submitted LOIs. He also wanted to know how many builders were building in the townhome area. Mr. Ray said two of the LOIs were from a higher-end Chinese restaurant and an Italian restaurant, which matched their vision of local boutique retail; the third LOI was from a local cell phone provider. Regarding the townhomes, Mr. Ray replied that only David Weekley was building in the townhome area and explained the area was designed to have only one builder because more than one could have an adverse impact on the aesthetics of the development. Commissioner DePuy complimented the Mr. Ray on his attempts to bring in higher-end retail tenants. CPC/2011/CPC Minutes.doc 7

17 Richardson City Plan Commission Minutes July 5, 2011 Mr. Ray thanked Ms. DePuy and added that they were eager to complete the vision for the project because the common areas were maintained through homeowner association (HOA) funds and the more people who were actively paying into that fund, the more sustainable the development would be. Commissioner DePuy asked if the townhomes owners had expressed any concerns about the development. Mr. Ray replied the townhome owners were more concerned with some of the construction equipment that had been on site, and the change over from the builder s landscape maintenance to the HOA maintenance. He said the construction issues had been addressed with the completion of Building A; they had taken steps to increase their maintenance of the townhome lots; and temporary irrigation and hydro mulch had been added to the vacant lots. Commissioner Henderson asked if Mr. Ray had had any discussions with the Highland Terrace HOA. Mr. Ray replied they had not had a chance as yet because of his schedule, but had exchanged many s and wanted to meet with them prior to the City Council meeting. Commissioner Bouvier asked if removing the residential rights from Lot 1B, Block Q was intended to increase the developable area in the acreage to be rezoned (1/2 acre net). Mr. Ray said he had not looked at it that way, but honestly felt the common area amenity zone was a better use of that land because of its proximity to the townhomes and apartments. He also pointed out that the additional acreage to be re-zoned was a land-locked piece of property purchased from the Richardson Independent School District and was zoned for office, but stated offices did not have a place in the development. Vice Chair Hammond said he was pleased that the developer had agreed to add the amenity zone, and that the development was unique among the other transit oriented developments in the metroplex by having both for sale and for rent units. Mr. Ray closed his presentation by stating the rents for apartments in the DFW area had gone up 6% in the last year and Brick Row had gone up 13%, which indicated they were doing something right, and construction on for sale multi-family housing (condos) plunged 28% leaving many local condo developers facing default. He added that they had no plans for the remaining pad sites that had been designated for condominiums, but it would be an issue that would eventually have to be addressed by both the developer and the City. Vice Chair Hammond asked Mr. Ray if there was a true comparison between Brick Row and some of the other condominium developments in Dallas, specifically the Palomar development, which was a redevelopment as opposed to the new development at Brick Row CPC/2011/CPC Minutes.doc 8

18 Richardson City Plan Commission Minutes July 5, 2011 Mr. Ray replied that the Palomar would sell faster and have a higher price, and the condominiums were a new development but the hotel was a redevelopment. Also, at the time the Palomar received their financing, the hotel/condominium development was the most highly sought after product to finance, but now if a developer was trying to build a hotel with a condominium section, lenders will not even speak to the developer. Vice Chair Hammond asked about the retail demographics for the Victory development. Mr. Ray replied that the Victory was having trouble with retail, the amount of investors in the project and he was happy his company owned Brick Row and not the other development. Chairman Gantt asked what were the occupancy rates were in Buildings A, B and C. Mr. Ray replied that their original estimate was an average of 30 units leased per month; however, in July and August of 2010 the rate jumped to 55 units per month. In Building A, which opened early in 2011 and had higher rents, 60 units were leased within the first two months and Buildings B and C were at 94% in June Overall, the whole project was leased at 70% and the retention rate was higher than the market average. Chairman Gantt asked if Mr. Ray had any other comments regarding the three recommendations from City Council. Mr. Ray replied that he had addressed most of the recommendations in the applicant statement, but reiterated the construction clean up after completion of Building A, the increase in retail leasing, and the status of McKamy Park. No further comments were made in favor of the item. Ms. Regina Ferree, 205 Betty, Richardson, Texas, stated that much discussion had been made about the three recommendations from the City Council, but noted that a fourth recommendation had been made to work with the neighborhood association. She said no meetings had taken place and felt there had been a lack of communication on the part of the developer. Ms. Ferree said she felt the developer had taken up too much of the City Council and Plan Commission time and could not understand why they could not get retail to come into their development citing the retail growth at the Eastside development. She suggested that if the Commission was leaning towards approving the item, the approval should be for three stories and 77 units, which would be a nice compromise. Ms. Shelly McCall, 538 Highland Boulevard, Richardson, Texas, asked how many of the Commissioners had driven through the development, stopped and looked at the apartments, CPC/2011/CPC Minutes.doc 9

19 Richardson City Plan Commission Minutes July 5, 2011 and suggested that it should be a requirement for every project that comes before the Commission. Ms. McCall said she felt that the residents of the apartments would be short-term based on the size of the apartments, and felt the City was simply moving the undesirable situation from the apartments on West Spring Valley to East Spring Valley. She added that the small amount of available retail space would not bring in the higher-end retail promised by the developer. Ms. McCall concluded her comments by stating she felt the developer had been deceitful in his dealings with the City and asked the Commission to hold him to his promises. Commissioner Hand asked if Ms. McCall was asking if the Commission had driven through the development, or actually gone inside the buildings. He also wanted to know if she was referring to retail or residential when stating the tenants would be short-term. Ms. McCall replied that the Commission should take the time to go inside the buildings and felt the development had not come through with their promise of an aesthetically pleasing development. Regarding the short-term tenants, McCall said she was referring to residential because the apartments were only 875 square feet, but also felt the overall retail space was too small. Commissioner Hand said Ms. McCall had stated what she did not want to see in the development, but asked that she verbalize what she did want to see. Ms. McCall said she wanted high-end apartments and really good retail. She added that if the market was not right for condominiums, then the developer should build larger apartments or more townhomes. Mr. Rahim Shaikah, 711 S. Grove Road, Richardson, Texas, Vice President of the Highland Terrace Neighborhood Association, pointed out that the developers would be involved with the City for only a short time and their main objective was to maximize their investment, but those who live in the neighborhood would be there for the long haul. He asked the Commission to consider the impact of the development on the surrounding neighborhoods. Chairman Gantt asked Mr. Ray if he had any comments in rebuttal. Mr. Ray said that the average length of a lease for the last 15 units had been 13 months, which indicated a higher retention rate. He acknowledged that apartments were definitely a shorter term living arrangement than single-family homes, but pointed out that the demographics for their residents were varied, with the majority being young professionals. CPC/2011/CPC Minutes.doc 10

20 Richardson City Plan Commission Minutes July 5, 2011 Mr. Ray advised that Fossil would be moving into the old Blue Cross Blue Shield campus that was close by, plus they had tenants from the telecom corridor and students that go to the Art Institute in Dallas. Regarding the creek, Ray noted some of the flooding problems in the area had been partially fixed by the work they did on the creek and that the creek was a City and State issue. He added that when they were building the retaining walls for the creek they scraped the creek bed, but those plants will grow back in time, and it would be up to the City and the HOA to make sure the funds were available to maintain the creek. Mr. Ray reiterated that their effective rental rate was $1,124 per apartment per month ($1.30 per square foot) which would almost be equal to a $200,000 house at 5-1/4% interest with good credit and believed that spoke to the quality of their tenants. Mr. Ray said the individual units had some of the same materials used in the uptown Dallas units, but the different in price was the cost they had to pay for the land versus what the uptown developers had to pay. Vice Chair Hammond asked if Mr. Ray was willing to commit to three stories and 77 units. Mr. Ray said he would rather not be limited because of economics and would like the ability to choose. He said that having the option for the larger amount of units would ensure the viability of the project, and assured the Commission the building would be architecturally compatible with the existing buildings. Commissioner Hand asked if the new units would be 875 square feet. Mr. Ray replied that the smallest units, 560 square feet, were located over the retail spaces, had not been the most successful, and would not be part of the make up for the new building. He said he expected the average unit size would be greater than the units in Building B. Commissioner Bouvier asked if the units in excess of 77 would be precluded from being built anywhere else in the development because the limit was a total of 800 units, and that such a plan would actually push density away from the neighborhoods. Mr. Ray replied that they would not be able to add those additional units anywhere else in the development, and Mr. Bouvier s assumption about the density was correct. Commissioner Henderson asked how many 875 square feet units were already built in the development, and how many of each unit would be built in the new building noting that the difference between 77 units versus 95 units left a lot of room. CPC/2011/CPC Minutes.doc 11

21 Richardson City Plan Commission Minutes July 5, 2011 Mr. Ray replied that the average size was 875 square feet, but they had units ranging from 560 square feet to just over 1,400 square feet, with the majority of the units having one bedroom. Regarding the mix of units in the new building, Ray replied there would be less of the smaller units in the new building, but pointed out that the zoning process was not as precise as when they would come through for the concept and development plan processes. Mr. Shacklett stated he also wanted to point out that there was statement in the multi-family development regulations that the average residential floor unit area per building shall be a minimum 800 square feet, so the ordinance calls out what the minimum floor area should be. Commissioner Henderson asked about the hike/bike trail that was planned next to their development. Mr. Ray replied that he was excited about the trail and noted there would be a trail head coming into the development between building C and the new building that was being proposed. He added that the trail would then cross Brick Row and meander through McKamy Park at which point there would be two options: reconnect through the cul-de-sac, or follow the creek to Spring Valley and cross in front of the development s retail spaces. Commissioner Henderson asked about the drainage and parking for the proposed building and how it might impact the trail. He also wanted to know when the current item would come before the City Council and asked if Mr. Ray would meet with the homeowners before the Council meeting. Mr. Shacklett replied that the trail would come down the east side of the DART rail and would not be impacted by the new building and the item was scheduled for the July 25 th City Council meeting. Mr. Ray said he would meet with the homeowners before the City Council meeting. With no other questions or comments, Chairman Gantt closed the public hearing. Chairman Gant stated he perceived this submittal as almost identical to the application received in January and the only change was the removal of residential rights from Block Q. He noted that the completion of Building A, the clean up of the site and status of the park were all positives. Commissioner DePuy stated she had driven through the site and was happy to see the improvements, but noted there were still some items to be finished. She added that it was unrealistic to expect the amenities to be finished before the residential units were completed because once the roof tops were in the retail should follow. CPC/2011/CPC Minutes.doc 12

22 Richardson City Plan Commission Minutes July 5, 2011 Commissioner Frederick reiterated that the issue before the Commission was a zoning issue as opposed to a design issue and wanted to make four points based on statements made during the public hearing: square foot apartments were not only in this development, but many apartment developments in the City. Also, many tenants think their stay in an apartment will only be short-term, but they end up staying longer. - Communication should be a two-way street between the homeowners and the developer. - Regarding larger versus smaller apartments, this might not be a good idea and probably was not what the townhomes and neighborhoods would like to see. - Expectations for higher amenities were unrealistic. Ms. Frederick stated that it will take time to finish the development and suggested to the Commission and audience that they should be in support of the development instead of opposed. Commissioner Hand noted that many of the comments made regarding the development were repetitive, having been made at previous meetings and added that the comments did not match with the reality or the economics of a development. He reiterated Ms. DePuy s statement that retail would follow the creation of roof tops and was bewildered at the comments of let s not build this, but where is the great retail that was promised because those two statements did not go hand-in-hand. Mr. Hand stated that limiting the developer to 77 units would be counterproductive and he would like to see more units and structured parking even though that might not fit with the developer s business plan. He added that mid-level residential and retail was where the market was currently going and to leave the development unfinished would not be appropriate. Commissioner Hand asked the staff if the Commission could limit the size and number of units once the project went through the zoning process. Mr. Shacklett replied the size was regulated by the Planned Development (PD) and the item before the Commission was a request for an amendment to the PD regulations asking to change the development rights from 500 apartments and 300 condominiums to 595 apartments and 205 condominiums. He added that the project would still have to come back through the concept and development review processes at which time the developer would submit their site plans and building elevations for approval. Also, the site plan would lay out the locations of their amenity zones, the sidewalk areas, and build-to zones. Chairman Gantt noted that the Commission had already covered many of the initial requirements for the development and the proposal was simply a modification. He added that one of the key aspects of the current proposal was the addition of the 1.9-acres which made the development larger, lowered the density per acre, and if the land was not included in the PD it would be virtually undevelopable. CPC/2011/CPC Minutes.doc 13

23 Richardson City Plan Commission Minutes July 5, 2011 Mr. Shacklett replied there were so many regulations written into the original PD that the developer had no choice but to follow those exactly. Commissioner Hand asked if there was anything the Commission would not be able to review later on in the development process. Mr. Shacklett indicated that the Commissioner s packets contained a 12 page document that was the non-residential, multi-family, and mixed use building development regulations, which covers unit size and type, materials, service areas, roof-mounted equipment, residential adjacencies, amenity zones, yards, etc. He said that what the Commission would not be able to do was direct that the building had to be built at a certain height with a certain number of units. Motion: Vice Chair Hammond made a motion to recommend approval of Zoning File 11-12; second by Commissioner Bouvier. Motion passed 7-0. ADJOURN With no further business before the Commission, Chairman Gantt adjourned the regular business meeting at 8:57 p.m. David Gantt, Chairman City Plan Commission CPC/2011/CPC Minutes.doc 14

24 Agenda Item 2

25 Society of Petroleum Engineers Attachments: 1. Site Plan Staff Report 2. Locator 3. Site Plan 4. Future Parking Plan 5. Landscape Plan Staff Report 6. Landscape Plan 7. Excerpts from Ordinance #2075-A

26 CITY PLAN COMMISSION BACKGROUND INFORMATION July 19, 2011 Revised Site Plan PROJECT SUMMARY Project: Staff Comments: CPC Action: Society of Petroleum Engineers 222 Palisades Drive The revised site plan reflects the creation of 5,880 sq. ft. mezzanine for additional office space inside the existing 49,300 sq. ft. three-story building and the construction of 82 additional parking spaces on the north side of the building. Final decision BACKGROUND Legal Description: Society of Petroleum Engineers, Lot 1, Block 1 Lot Size: Zoning: Ordinance: Building Area/Use: Existing Proposed Total Site Access: Parking Deferral: 5.00 acres (218,195 square feet) FP-TO-M, Flood Plain Technical Office District 2075-A (Tract D), with special conditions (refer to attached excerpts from ordinance) 51,666 sq. ft., three-story office building 5,880 sq. ft. office space 57,546 sq. ft. The site is served by two existing drives along Palisades Creek Drive. The western drive approach will be relocated 137 feet east of the intersection of North Collins Boulevard and Palisades Creek Drive to meet the current design policy. On November 15, 1982, City Council granted a parking deferral for 127 spaces with the provision that a Page 1 of 2 X:\Development (new)\development Plan Files\Site Plan Files\Palisades Creek Dr - converted\222 (Society of Petroleum Engineers)\Minutes, Staff Reports & Admins\ SITE & LANDSCAPE - CPC\REVISED SITE PLAN.doc

27 minimum of 122 spaces be provided and the stipulation that adequate land area be maintained so a ratio of 1 per 200 sq. ft. can be achieved if required at future time by the City Council. (In 1982, the parking ratio for office use was 1 space per 200 sq. ft.; current office ratio is 1 space per 250 sq. ft.) Under current regulations, 230 parking spaces are required. The proposed site plan shows the construction of 82 new parking spaces in addition to the existing 122 spaces for a total 204 spaces, and reserves land area future parking if required by the City in accordance with the previous deferral. Parking Summary: Spaces Required Spaces Provided Required Screening: 230 spaces Existing: 122 spaces New: 82 spaces Total: 204 spaces (including 7 H.C. spaces) Ordinance 2075-A permitted the natural screening barrier along the creek in lieu of the required masonry screening wall from the residential properties to the north. Page 2 of 2 X:\Development (new)\development Plan Files\Site Plan Files\Palisades Creek Dr - converted\222 (Society of Petroleum Engineers)\Minutes, Staff Reports & Admins\ SITE & LANDSCAPE - CPC\REVISED SITE PLAN.doc

28

29

30

31 CITY PLAN COMMISSION BACKGROUND INFORMATION July 19, 2011 Revised Landscape Plan PROJECT SUMMARY Project: Society of Petroleum Engineers 222 Palisades Creek Drive Staff Comments: The revised landscape plan reflects the addition of 5,880 square foot office space inside the existing three-story building and the construction of 82 additional parking spaces on the north side of the building. The landscape design is consistent with City regulations and policies. CPC Action: Final decision BACKGROUND Landscape Area Summary: Area Required Area Provided Existing Landscaping: Current Proposal: Tree Removal/Preservation: 7% of property (15,273 square feet) 38% of property (82,727 square feet) The current approved landscape plan indicates groupings of canopy and ornamental trees, berms and a public sidewalk within the landscape buffer along the streets and a variety of trees adjacent to the buildings and throughout the property (March 20, 1984 CPC approval). The proposed design features additional canopy and ornamental trees within the landscape buffer along the streets and within the new parking areas. As part of this project. A row of shrubs is provided to screen the parking along Collins Boulevard and the existing berms screens the parking along Palisades Creek Drive. Page 1 of 2 X:\Development (new)\development Plan Files\Site Plan Files\Palisades Creek Dr - converted\222 (Society of Petroleum Engineers)\Minutes, Staff Reports & Admins\ SITE & LANDSCAPE - CPC\REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN.doc

32 Four (4) Oak trees and eight (8) American Elm trees will be removed to accommodate the new parking areas on the north and south sides of the building. However, four (4) Red Oaks and six (6) Cedar Elms will be planted within the proposed landscape island at the new parking area on the north side of the building. Page 2 of 2 X:\Development (new)\development Plan Files\Site Plan Files\Palisades Creek Dr - converted\222 (Society of Petroleum Engineers)\Minutes, Staff Reports & Admins\ SITE & LANDSCAPE - CPC\REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN.doc

33

34 Excerpts from Ordinance No A F. That Tract D be zoned FP-TO-M, Flood Plain Technical Office District, subject to the following special conditions: (a) Setback Restrictions. (1) There shall be a minimum front yard having a depth of not less than twenty (20) feet adjacent to Collins Blvd. and Prairie Creek Drive East with no parking in the front yard. (2) There shall be a 25-foot building side yard setback line from the property line with parking permitted in the area. (3) There shall be an area delineated on the attached map and described in Exhibit A representing the flood plain of Prairie Creek. Construction of buildings, parking areas and structures shall be prohibited in this area. The City Council may, upon receiving a recommendation from the City Plan Commission, grant permission to allow for the installation of sanitary sewerage and storm drainage facilities. Such a request shall be accompanied by a detailed plan. The subject area shall remain in a naturalistic state with native trees, shrubs, vines and ground cover; provided, however, that removal of broken, diseased or dead plants shall be permitted. There shall be a building setback line of sixty (60) feet from residentially zoned property when the portion of the flood plain on this tract is less than sixty (60) feet in width. Parking shall be permitted in the sixty (60) foot setback area or the portion of the sixty (60) foot setback that is not included in the flood plain. (b) Height Regulations. (1) No building or structure shall exceed twenty five (25) feet in height when located between sixty (60) and one hundred feet from property zoned for residential purposes. (2) No building or structure shall be allowed to exceed forty (40) feet in height when located a distance of one hundred (100) feet or more from property zoned for residential purposes. (c) Screening. It shall be the provision of this ordinance, that a natural screening barrier shall preclude the application of the screening provisions in Ordinance 205-A, Section 3, paragraph V, subparagraph a.

35 Agenda Item 3

36 Belt Line/Inge Addition QuikTrip Attachments: 1. Locator 2. Final plat staff report 3. Final plat 4. Site plan staff report 5. Site plan 6. Landscape plan staff report 7. Landscape plan 8. Building elevations staff report 9. Building elevations 10. Zoning concept plan 11. Zoning façade elevations

37

38 CITY PLAN COMMISSION BACKGROUND INFORMATION July 19, 2011 Final Plat PROJECT SUMMARY Subdivision: Location: Staff Comments: Final plat of lots 1, 2, and 3, Block A of the Belt Line/Inge Addition. 514 and 522 W. Belt Line Road, and 509 Lockwood Drive The purposed of this plat is to combine several tracts of land into three (3) legal lots of record to develop a convenience store with gasoline sales on proposed Lot 1. Revised development plans for Lots 2 and 3 will be approved administratively. The plat complies with City subdivision regulations. CPC Action: Final decision BACKGROUND Tract Size: Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Zoning: Right-of-way Dedication: Easements/Setbacks: Existing to Remain Dedicated by this Plat Abandoned by this Plat 2.74-acres (119,308 square feet) 1.64-acres (70,636 square feet) 0.78-acres (34,001 square feet) 0.32-acres (13,733 square feet) C-M Commercial District with a special permit for a convenience store with gasoline sales. 25 x25 corner clips at all right-of-way intersections 40 front yard setback, 10 gas easement on Lot 2, 10 sanitary sewer easement on the north side of Lot 2, Access easement on Lot 2 along Belt Line Road. Variable width street easement along Inge Drive and Lockwood Drive, 10 pedestrian easement on Lot 1 along Belt Line Road, Inge Drive and Lockwood Drive to accommodate a meandering sidewalk, Mutual access easements on Lots 1 and 2. Portion of a 10 sanitary sewer easement on Lot 1 that is no longer necessary. Page 1 of 1 X:\Development (new)\development Plan Files\Subdivision Files\Belt Line - Inge Addition\Staff Reports\Final Plat.doc

39

40

41 CITY PLAN COMMISSION BACKGROUND INFORMATION July 19, 2011 Site Plan PROJECT SUMMARY Project: Staff Comments: QuikTrip 522 W. Belt Line Road The site plan reflects the construction of a single-story, 5,668 square foot convenience store with ten (10) doublesided gas pumps. The site plan complies with all applicable zoning, development regulations, and Ordinance No To accommodate the proposed development, a 2,100 square foot former automotive brake facility located at the northeast corner of Belt Line Road and Inge Drive and two multi-tenant retail buildings will be demolished. CPC Action: Final decision BACKGROUND Legal Description: Tract Size: Zoning: Building Area/Use: Site Access: Lot 1, Block A of the Belt Line/Inge Addition 1.62-acres (70,636 square feet) (C-M) Commercial District with a Special Permit for a convenience store with gasoline sales. 5,668 square feet/convenience store with ten (10) doublesided gasoline pumps The site has direct access to Belt Line Road and Inge Drive. Parking Summary: Parking Ratio 1/333 square feet of building area Spaces Required 17 Spaces Provided 45 Page 1 of 1 X:\Development (new)\development Plan Files\Site Plan Files\Belt Line Rd W\522 (QT)\Minutes and Staff Reports\SITE PLAN.doc

42 Inge Drive (50' R.o.w.) Q Q P N PROJECT NO.: P N N M M L K BELTLINE RD. Vicinity Map W. BELTLINE RD. RICHARDSON, TEXAS L K J J SITE DATA (QUIKTRIP STORE) H H G G ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE, REPRODUCTION, PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR SALE IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN. F PROTOTYPE: P-67 (05/01/11) DIVISION: VERSION: 001 DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: F E E SITE LEGEND D C REV DATE DESCRIPTION ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE: D C SHEET TITLE: B SITE PLAN B SHEET NUMBER: A A

43

44 CITY PLAN COMMISSION BACKGROUND INFORMATION July 19, 2011 Landscape Plan PROJECT SUMMARY Project: Staff Comments: CPC Action: QuikTrip 522 W. Belt Line Road The design is consistent with City regulations, policies, and Ordinance Final decision BACKGROUND Landscape Area Summary: Area Required Area Provided 7% of property (4,945 square feet) 14.5% of property (10,228 square feet) Tree Removal/Preservation: There are no existing trees on-site. Page 1 of 1 X:\Development (new)\development Plan Files\Site Plan Files\Belt Line Rd W\522 (QT)\Minutes and Staff Reports\LANDSCAPE PLAN.doc

45 Inge Drive (50' R.o.w.) Q Landscape Schedule Q P PROJECT NO.: P N N M M L K J Landscape Requirements W. BELTLINE RD. RICHARDSON, TEXAS L K J H H G G ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE, REPRODUCTION, PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR SALE IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN. F PROTOTYPE: P-67 (05/01/11) DIVISION: VERSION: 001 DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: F E E D C N REV DATE DESCRIPTION ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE: D C SHEET TITLE: B LANDSCAPE PLAN B SHEET NUMBER: A A

46 CITY PLAN COMMISSION BACKGROUND INFORMATION July 19, 2011 Building Elevations PROJECT SUMMARY Project: Staff Comments: CPC Action: QuikTrip 522 W. Belt Line Road The proposed design of the convenience store and canopy is consistent with the concept façade elevations of Ordinance No Final decision BACKGROUND Proposed Design: Building Materials The proposed facades reflect the development of a singlestory convenience store with canopy. The building will be constructed of brick and polished CMU with metal panels above the side doors. The elevations comply with the elevations approved with Ordinance No Page 1 of 1 X:\Development (new)\development Plan Files\Site Plan Files\Belt Line Rd W\522 (QT)\Minutes and Staff Reports\Facade Elevations.doc

47

48

49

50

51 QuikTrip Zoning Exhibits Attachments: 1. Concept Plan 2. Building elevations

52

53

54

55 Agenda Item 4

56 Spring Valley Business Park Tran Dental Office Attachments: 1. Locator 2. Amending plat staff report 3. Amending plat 4. Revised site plan staff report 5. Revised site plan 6. Revised landscape plan staff report 7. Revised landscape plan

57

58 CITY PLAN COMMISSION BACKGROUND INFORMATION July 19, 2011 Amending Plat PROJECT SUMMARY Subdivision: Location: Staff Comments: Lot 3C, Block A of the Spring Valley Business Park Addition being an amending plat of Lot 3B, block A of the Spring Valley Business Park Addition. 327 W. Spring Valley Road The purposed of the amending plat is to relocate easements to accommodate an 3,044 square foot expansion to and existing building. The plat complies with City subdivision regulations. CPC Action: Final decision BACKGROUND Tract Size: Zoning: Right-of-way Dedication: Easements/Setbacks: Existing to Remain Dedicated by this Plat Abandoned by this Plat 1.15-acres (50,262 square feet) C-M Commercial District None. 40 front yard setback, TP&L easement on the south side of the site. Various access and utility easements to accommodate the proposed expansion and existing driving aisles. Fire lane, access and utility easements. Page 1 of 1 X:\Development (new)\development Plan Files\Subdivision Files\Spring Valley Business Park\3C, Block A\Minutes and Staff Reports\Amending Plat.doc

59

60

61 CITY PLAN COMMISSION BACKGROUND INFORMATION July 19, 2011 Site Plan PROJECT SUMMARY Project: Staff Comments: Tran Dental Office 327 W. Spring Valley Road The site plan reflects a 3,044 square foot expansion to the existing building with a martial arts studio. The proposed expansion will accommodate a proposed dental office. The site plan complies with all applicable zoning and development regulations. CPC Action: Final decision BACKGROUND Legal Description: Tract Size: Zoning: Variances: Building Area/Use: Existing: Proposed: Site Access: Lot 3C, Block A of the Spring Valley Business Park Addition 1.15-acres (50,262 square feet) (C-M) Commercial District. None 9,286 square feet/martial arts studio and dental office 6,242 square feet 3,044 square feet The site has direct access to Spring Valley Road. Parking Summary: Parking Ratio Spaces Required 35 Spaces Provided 50 1/100 square feet of activity area for the martial arts studio, 1/250 square feet for the dental office Page 1 of 1 X:\Development (new)\development Plan Files\Site Plan Files\Spring Valley Rd W - converted\327 (Oasis Palace)\Minutes & Staff Approvals\ CPC\SITE PLAN.doc

62

63 CITY PLAN COMMISSION BACKGROUND INFORMATION July 19, 2011 Landscape Plan PROJECT SUMMARY Project: Staff Comments: CPC Action: Tran Dental Office 327 W. Spring Valley Road As recommended by the Spring Valley Station Interface Area Design Guidelines, the landscape plans reflects 8 sidewalk and 2 of pavers along the street frontage and the parking area is screened by a combination of shrubs and a 30 high masonry wall. Additionally, the guidelines recommend trees to be planted at 40 on center along Spring Valley Road. The applicant is requesting that in lieu of the five (5) trees that are recommended per the guidelines that the existing three (3) Red Oaks and four (4) Crepe Myrtle trees be permitted in their current locations to meet the guideline recommendations. Final decision BACKGROUND Landscape Area Summary: Area Required Area Provided 7% of property (3,518 square feet) 14.8% of property (7,470 square feet) Tree Removal/Preservation: To accommodate the building expansion and realignment of the driving aisle on the west side of the building, three (3) Red Oak trees will be removed from the site. Page 1 of 1 X:\Development (new)\development Plan Files\Site Plan Files\Spring Valley Rd W - converted\327 (Oasis Palace)\Minutes & Staff Approvals\ CPC\LANDSCAPE PLAN.doc

64

65 Agenda Item 5

66 VARIANCE Attachments: 1. Staff Report 2. Applicant s Statement 3. Locator 4. Photos of existing conditions 5. Variance Exhibits 6. Notice of Variance Request 7. Notification List 8. Notification Map

67 CITY PLAN COMMISSION BACKGROUND INFORMATION July 19, 2011 Variance SUMMARY Owner: Applicant: Project Name: Request: Texas Instruments Mike McCoy, Page Southerland Page TI Fabrication Facility 300 W. Renner Rd. Northeast corner of Renner Road and Alma Road The applicant is requesting a variance from the Subdivision and Development Code, Chapter 21 of the City of Richardson Code of Ordinances, Article III, Section 21-47(g) [Screening and Open Space] to waive the requirement for replacement or installation of additional screening for the existing and future ground level equipment and utilities. In 2004, Texas Instruments received zoning approval to develop the subject wafer fabrication facility. Ordinance No requires that the outdoor service and storage areas shall be buffered from the view of the DART rail line located directly north of the site. In 2007, the Subdivision and Development Code was amended to require screening as high as that tallest piece of equipment for all ground mounted equipment and utilities. As part of the full operations of the fabrication facility, Texas Instruments needs to expand the service and storage area and install additional equipment including storage tanks up to 100 tall. The additional equipment will be located on the northeast side of the existing building within a storage and utility area. The proposed 100 nitrogen tank is approximately 1,371 feet north of Renner Road and 753 from Alma Road. The tank and the subject storage and utility area are visually screened by the existing administration and fabrication buildings from Renner Road and a living screen consisting of Eastern Red Cedars was approved as the required buffer (Ord. 3447) along the DART Rail corridor. Additionally, a Page 1 of 5 X:\Development (new)\variance and Deferral Requests\2011\VAR (TI)\Minutes & Staff Reports\VAR staff report.doc

68 five (5) to eight (8) landscape berm with canopy and ornamental trees, and an seven (7) iron fence provide additional visual screening along both Renner and Alma Roads. To accommodate the operations of the facility, the applicant is requesting that the existing and future storage tanks, utilities and equipment located within the service area be exempt from the screening requirements required by the Subdivision and Development Code. To mitigate the increased utility area and equipment height, the applicant has proposed to install a combination of 25 additional canopy and ornamental trees along Alma Road. The trees will be placed in strategic areas along Alma Road to close the gaps between existing trees. CPC Action: Recommendation to the City Council The City Plan Commission may recommend approval of the request as presented, recommend approval with conditions or deny. City Council Agenda: August 8, 2011 Notification: Correspondence: This request is not a public hearing and specific notification is not required by State law. As a courtesy, adjacent property owners that may be affected by the variance request received written notification. No correspondence has been received to date. DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Land Area: Zoning: Existing Development: acres (4,026,686 square feet) I-M(1) Industrial District Fabrication Facility Adjacent Land Use, Zoning: North (across Cotton Belt rail line) Office/Retail: (PD) Planned Development District East (across Alma Road) Apartments: (PD) Planned Development District South (across Renner Road) Single Family Residential: R-1100-M West High-tech Manufacturing: I-M(1) Industrial District Page 2 of 5 X:\Development (new)\variance and Deferral Requests\2011\VAR (TI)\Minutes & Staff Reports\VAR staff report.doc

69 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Staff Background: VAR Article III, Section 21-47(g) [Screening and Open Space]: To accommodate the operations of the facility, the applicant is requesting that the existing and future storage tanks, utilities and equipment located within the services are be exempt from the screening requirements required by the Subdivision and Development Code. This section of the Subdivision and Development Code states, For nonresidential uses, all ground level equipment, including fans, vents, air conditioning units, cooling towers, fuel tanks and generators, should be screened from the view of streets and adjoining properties by means of a masonry wall or living screen not less than the height of the tallest element of the equipment. This language was added to the Subdivision and Development code in Since 2007, only one (1) variance has been requested and approved for this section of the Subdivision and Development Code. In 2011, the Viawest data center located at 3000 Waterview Parkway received approval of a variance to waive the requirement for the installation of additional screening for existing ground level equipment to accommodate an 1,200 square foot building expansion. Page 3 of 5 X:\Development (new)\variance and Deferral Requests\2011\VAR (TI)\Minutes & Staff Reports\VAR staff report.doc

70

71

72 Fabrication Building (64 ) 1. View of storage and utility area from Renner Road. Fabrication Building (64 ) Storage Tank (62 ) 2. View of storage and utility area from just north of the intersection of Renner Road and Alma Road. Page 4 of 5 X:\Development (new)\variance and Deferral Requests\2011\VAR (TI)\Minutes & Staff Reports\VAR staff report.doc

73 Storage Tank (40 ) Storage Tank (62 ) 3. View of utility and storage area from Alma Road. Storage Tank (62 ) Fabrication Building (64 ) 4. View of utility and storage area from north. Page 5 of 5 X:\Development (new)\variance and Deferral Requests\2011\VAR (TI)\Minutes & Staff Reports\VAR staff report.doc

74 SEC TIO N B BULK GAS PLANT PROPOSED LIQUID HYD R O G E N P L A N T C AMER A ALMA ROAD TO PROPOSED NITROGEN TOWER 340 F U T U R E TA N K S P R O P O S E D D E V E LO PM E N T SECTION A FUTURE BULK C H E M I C A L / G A S YA R D PROPOSED NITROGEN PLANT SEC TION A 55 ALMA ROAD TO FENCE F U T U R E D E V E LO PM E N T EXISTING LANDSCAPING C AMER A 4 PROPOSED LANDCAPING FABRIC ATION BLDG 2 5 N E W C A N O PY T R E E S A N D / O R O R N AM E N TA L T R E E S 1371 RENNER TO PROPOSED NITROGEN TOWER PR OPOSED ADDITIONAL C ANOPY TREES AND/OR ORNAMENTAL TREES FOR SITE SCREENING A L MA R OAD ADMINISTR ATION BLDG 360 RENNER TO ADMIN BUILDING 491 RENNER TO FAB BUILDING 825 RENNER TO FAB BUILDING RENNER R OAD S EC TI ON B + C AMER A 1 N JULY 11, 2011 SITE PLAN L A N D S C A P E S C R E E N I N G D E V E LO PM E N T

75

76

77

78

79

80 NOTICE OF VARIANCE REQUEST RICHARDSON CITY PLAN COMMISSION An application has been received by the City of Richardson for variances to Chapter 21, Subdivision and Development Ordinance. VAR No./Name: VAR Property Owner: Texas Instruments Applicant: Mike McCoy, AIA Location: 300 W. Renner Road Request: Request for approval of a variance from the Subdivision and Development Code: 1. Article III, Section 21-47(g) [Screening and Open Space] to permit additional ground level equipment, storage tanks and utilities with the installation of additional landscaping along Alma Road. The City Plan Commission will consider this application on: TUESDAY, JULY 19, :00 p.m. City Council Chambers Richardson City Hall, 411 W. Arapaho Road Richardson, Texas As courtesy, adjacent property owners who may be affected by this request are receiving written notification of this meeting; as such ownership appears on the last approved city tax roll. PROCESS FOR PUBLIC INPUT: required by State law. This item is not a public hearing and specific notification is not While all interested persons are invited to attend the meeting, those wanting their views to be made a part of the public record, may send signed, written comments, referencing the file number above, prior to the date of the hearing to: Development Services Department, P.O. Box , Richardson, TX The City Plan Commission may recommend approval of the request as presented, recommend approval with additional conditions or recommend denial. Final approval of this application requires action by the City Council. AGENDA: The City Plan Commission agenda for this meeting will be posted on the City of Richardson website the Saturday prior to the meeting. For a copy of the agenda, please go to: For additional information, please contact the Department of Development Services at and reference this variance number. Date Posted and Mailed: July 8, 2011 X:\Development (new)\variance and Deferral Requests\2011\VAR (TI)\Notice Info\Notice.doc

81 M&A TEXAS PRAIRIE LP VENTURA BLVD STE 188 ENCINO, CA DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT 1401 PACIFIC AVE DALLAS, TX OTR 275 E BROAD ST COLUMBUS, OH SUASTE GABRIELA 300 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX JNRC INVESTMENTS LLC 3229 BULLOCK DR PLANO, TX PRYOR CHARLENE V 304 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX BUTLER JEFFREY L & BUTLER NANCY S 418 HIGH BROOK DR RICHARDSON, TX NORMAN STEPHEN T & CLARA ANN 308 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX CLINKENBEARD HAROLD & BOBBIE 310 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX WORSHAM BRANDON 312 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX REIS LINDA S 314 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX PATTERSON RONALD E & PATERSON BRENDA J 316 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX HURTADO ERNEST A ET UX 318 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX LISS MARGO J 7626 WINDMILL LN GARLAND, TX UNWALA EBRAHIM 4519 AVEBURY DR PLANO, TX ROSEWITZ CARLA J 324 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX POPOVICI MICHAEL K J ETUX 326 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX POOLE JAMES L 328 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX SHOWS DAVID ROGER & CHRISTY A 330 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX BEANE TODD R & VALERIE R 332 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX VALASEK JON E 334 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX HANVEY JAMES E & EMOGENE H 336 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX BASURTO MARIA ELENA 400 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX WELCH TERRY B 402 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX LEVENTON ISAAC D & RACHEL P 404 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX OBERST STANLEY & ELEZABETH FAM 406 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX LAINE JOHN W JR 408 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX BRICKNER SAVANNHA 410 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX STEFFEN LAWRENCE A 412 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX BARBER SYNTHIA & SHIRLEY PATRICK 414 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX

82 PIERONI MARC 416 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX MOZZER COFFEY DALVA 418 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX MORSE GLEN A ETUX CINDY G 420 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX LEVY JAY MARTIN & LEVY ANNETTE STOLLER 2827 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX RUBEDE JEAN & CLAIRE 2825 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX HOSSAIN MOHAMMAD M 2823 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX HALLIBURTON II JOHN ROBERT & HALLIBURTON LEIGH ANNE 2821 FOREST GROVE DR RICHARDSON, TX TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR TX LP 2300 NE BROOKWOOD PKWY HILLSBORO, OR TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC %WILLIAM B BLAYLOCK MS 3998 PO BOX DALLAS, TX ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY CO PO BOX DALLAS, TX VAR

83

84 Agenda Item 6

85 ZONING FILE Attachments: 1. Staff Report 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Map 4. Oblique Aerial Looking East 5. Zoning Exhibits (Exhibit B-1 & B-2) 6. Floor Plan (Exhibit C) 7. Site Photos (Exhibit D) 8. Applicant s Statement 9. Notice of Public Hearing 10. Notification List G:\Zoning\Zoning Cases\2011\ZF Natl American Univ N Coit\ CPC Packet Info\ZF 1113 Attachment List.docxe

86 Staff Report TO: FROM: City Plan Commission Chris Shacklett, Planner CS DATE: July 15, 2011 RE: Zoning File 11-13: National American University REQUEST: Approval of a Special Permit for a private university at 300 N. Coit Road (east side of Coit Road between Belt Line Road and Arapaho Road) APPLICANT: Michael Buckingham National American University PROPERTY OWNER: ROC TX Promenade, LLC TRACT SIZE AND LOCATION: 6.8-acre site, east of Coit Road, between Belt Line Road and Arapaho Road. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT: The site consists of a 2-story retail shopping center with a 14-story office building totaling 222,181 square feet. A 2-story parking structure is located on the property as well. ADJACENT ROADWAYS: Coit Road: Six-lane divided arterial; 41,900 vehicles per day on all lanes, northbound and southbound, north of Belt Line Road (May 2011). D EVELOPMENT S ERVICES

87 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: South: East: West: Retail/Commercial; LR-M(1) Local Retail Retail/Commercial; LR-M(2) Local Retail & C-M Commercial Single Family; R-1100-M Residential Single Family; City of Dallas FUTURE LAND USE PLAN: Enhancement/Redevelopment These are areas where reinvestment and redevelopment is encouraged. Further study may be necessary to understand the full potential for redevelopment. This property is located in the Coit enhancement/redevelopment area. Enhancement/redevelopment should include development of a similar type as the existing development with more modern building formats and site design that respects adjacent neighborhoods. Future Land Uses of Surrounding Area: North: Enhancement/Redevelopment South: Enhancement/Redevelopment East: Neighborhood Residential West: Neighborhood Residential; City of Dallas EXISTING ZONING: The subject property is zoned LR-M(2) Local Retail per Ordinance 685-A. TRAFFIC/ INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS: The requested zoning amendment will not have any significant impacts on the surrounding roadway system or the existing utilities in the area. APPLICANT S STATEMENT (Please refer to the complete Applicant s Statement) STAFF COMMENTS: Background: The applicant s request is for approval of a Special Permit for a private university in an approximately 4,500-square foot lease space located on the upper level of the shopping center on the south side of the office tower. The City s Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) requires private schools to acquire a Special Permit before they can operate. A private school is defined as a school under the sponsorship of a private agency or corporation other than a public or religious agency, having curriculum generally equivalent to public elementary or secondary schools. Although it is very similar use, the proposed private university does not a specifically G:\Zoning\Zoning Cases\2011\ZF Natl American Univ N Coit\ CPC Packet Info\ZF Staff Report.docx 2

88 fall under this definition; therefore a Special Permit for a private university (an unlisted use in the CZO) is being requested. In 2007, a similar Special Permit for a private university was approved for DeVry University at 2201 N Central Expy. National American University currently has thirty-one (31) campuses operating or under development in nine (9) states. They are accredited by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) of the North Central Association of Colleges. The proposed university would enroll students in online classes as well as provide on-site classrooms to accommodate up to forty (40) students. The proposed course offerings for this location would include associate and bachelor degrees in accounting, information technology, business administration, and a variety of health care fields. The proposed use would require reconfiguring the lease space to provide offices, meeting space, and classrooms (See Exhibit C ). No changes are proposed to the outside of the building. The applicant expects their maximum occupancy to occur during the evening hours since this would be when classes generally take place. The site provides adequate parking for the proposed university. Correspondence: No correspondence in favor or opposition has been received. Motion: The Commission will be making a recommendation to the City Council regarding this request. The Commission may approve the request, add or amend conditions, or recommend denial of the request. Should the CPC accept the applicant s request as presented, the motion should include the following special conditions: 1. The Special Permit for a private university is limited to the area shown on the attached concept plans, attached as Exhibit B-1 and Exhibit B-2 and made a part thereof, and which is hereby approved. 2. The Special Permit shall be limited to National American University. Council Hearing Date: The earliest possible City Council hearing date is August 8, G:\Zoning\Zoning Cases\2011\ZF Natl American Univ N Coit\ CPC Packet Info\ZF Staff Report.docx 3

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97 Notice of Public Hearing City Plan Commission Richardson, Texas An application has been received by the City of Richardson for a: SPECIAL PERMIT File No./Name: Property Owners: Applicant: Location: Current Zoning: Request: ZF / National American University ROC TX Promenade, LLC / Kim Hill, Agent Michael Buckingham / National American University 300 N. Coit Road (See map on reverse side) LR-M(2) Local Retail District Special Permit for private university. The City Plan Commission will consider this request at a public hearing on: TUESDAY, JULY 19, :00 p.m. City Council Chambers Richardson City Hall, 411 W. Arapaho Road Richardson, Texas This notice has been sent to all owners of real property within 200 feet of the request; as such ownership appears on the last approved city tax roll. Process for Public Input: A maximum of 15 minutes will be allocated to the applicant and to those in favor of the request for purposes of addressing the City Plan Commission. A maximum of 15 minutes will also be allocated to those in opposition to the request. Time required to respond to questions by the City Plan Commission is excluded from each 15 minute period. Persons who are unable to attend, but would like their views to be made a part of the public record, may send signed, written comments, referencing the file number above, prior to the date of the hearing to: Dept. of Development Services, PO Box , Richardson, TX The City Plan Commission may recommend approval of the request as presented, recommend approval with additional conditions or recommend denial. Final approval of this application requires action by the City Council. Agenda: The City Plan Commission agenda for this meeting will be posted on the City of Richardson website the Saturday before the public hearing. For a copy of the agenda, please go to: For additional information, please contact the Dept. of Development Services at and reference Zoning File number ZF Date Posted and Mailed: 07/08/11 Development Services Department City of Richardson, Texas 411 W. Arapaho Road, Room 204, Richardson, Texas

98