Loading...
03-03-1992 (Planning & Zoning) Agenda Packet DATE POSTED 2-28-92 TIME POSTED 4:00 p.m. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TUESDAY, MARCH 3 , 1992 7 :00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBERS WYLIE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX 2000 HIGHWAY 78 NORTH CALL TO ORDER ORDER OF PAGE BUSINESS REFERENCE BUSINESS 1 . ) 1 Consider approval of minutes of January 20 , 1992 meeting . 2 . ) 2-3 Consider recommendation to the City Council of the Final Plat for Spring Creek Parkway. 3 . ) Recess Regular Business Meeting . 4 . ) 4-20 Convene for workshop to review site plan requirement . 5 . ) Reconvene to Regular Business meeting. 6 . ) Citizen Participation. In accordance with the Open Meetings Acts , any Board Commission of the City of Wylie will hear comments of public interest from residents and pertaining to items within the jurisdiction of the seated Board. Remarks will be limited to placing the item on a future agenda for consider - action. Remarks must be limited to not more than five (5) minutes . 7 . ) Adjourn. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION_ CITY OF WYLIE MONDAY, JANUARY 20 , 1992 d - The City of Wylie Planning and Zoning Commission met in regular session at 7 : 00 pm Monday, January 20 , 1992 in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex . A quorum was present and posted in the time and manner required by law. Those present were Chairman; Robert Flint , Vice Chairman; Gilbert Welch, Jerry Ault , Cleo Adams and Billy Staff members present were Building Official ; Rick Herzberger and Secretary; Nita Sims . Those absent : Mike Hawkins and Marvin Blakey, both excused. ITEM NO. 1 CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18 , 1991 : A motion was made by Gilbert Welch to approve the minutes as submitted with no additions or corrections . All in favor . ( 5 votes) ITEM NO. 2 CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING A REPLAT OF WYLWOOD ESTATES, PART OF LOT 1 AND LOTS 2-10 : Chairman Flint opened the Public Hearing . No one attended the Public Hearing . ITEM NO. 3 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING: Chairman Flint closed the Public Hearing. ITEM NO. 4 CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF REPLAT OF WYLWOOD ESTATES, PART OF LOT NUMBER 1 AND LOTS 2- 10 : Rick Herzberger spoke to the members briefly, he stated all parties concerned were notified by mail with no response and that all landowners affected by the replat have signed the approval signature blocks . He then pointed out the area in question on the plat . A motion was made by Gilbert Welch and seconded by Billy Mills to recommend replat of Wylwood Estates , part of lot number 1 and lots 2-10 to the City Council . All in favor . ( 5 votes) ITEM NO. 5 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION: None. ITEM NO. 6 ADJOURN: A motion was made and seconded for adjournment . Meeting adjourned by Chairman Flint . All in favor . (5 votes) Robert Flint Chairman Respectfully submitted, Nita Sims Secretary I MEMORANDUM TO : Rick Herzberger, Building Official FROM: Paul D. Beaver, Director of Planning & Engineering DATE: February 26, 1992 SUBJECT: Final Plat Spring Creek Parkway Please place on the next available Planning & Zoning Agenda for the review and approval of the Spring Creek Parkway Final Plat. This Plat will dedicate a 50' right-of-way for the extension of Spring Creek Parkway from the AT & SF Railroad on the south to the DART railroad tracks on the north a distance of approximately 495' . The total acreage involved is 0. 56 acres. This 50' right-of-way is necessary in order to extend Spring Creek Parkway to provide access to the new National Guard Armory which is under construction at this time. Additional slope, construction, and utility easements will be dedicated to allow necessary construction to take place. This project is on the approved Thoroughfare Plan and will extend a 23' wide section of pavement ( 1/2 of the ultimate road width) from the existing pavement to the south side of the DART tracks. Water and sewer will be provided to the Armory site. The bid opening for this project will be March 5, 1992. The estimated award date is April 1 , 1992, with construction to begin shortly thereafter. In order to meet the above time schedules, it is imperative that P & Z review and approval is accomplished. Thank you for your cooperation. A _- 1 I r0'0,r' I ' , P` R _ 'y 297. I �/ P ��1 , L = 563-18' / °v. AC.' / p cz_ 2.7 9' �� F� (c) � 57'46'28" E. P� �Ps oo� � 56' Q `- G HUH it j I _J / C 1 I L h - _ - ) \ 'I w Z5' \ • � � 15 DRAINAGE � ' \N_,� I ���_ ‘) i, EASEMENT j j ��� I ',,L CENT' ti -' ;6-`: \`"' ,- 20' SLOPE EASEMENT / •;?.' \ ` 10' TEMPORARY �� 1 CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ,2- ..,--"- \..)/olk \.., ''''' ••,,'�' r,r>a. ' = 18°56'08„ �'T / � , v R = 1500.00' .�j,�i �, ' L = 495.73' i°/ \1 8 PUHI iC ROAD s vs ‘ z CB = S. 36'37'51 " E. vo1. 2 o 5, F'q 2.30 • 0�\ � CL = 493.48' � -10' UTILITY 0 = 18°56'S1 " s6o� \ ' �_ EASEMENT \ . 70 '0 S /6'2. 11" W -R = 1450.00' -57c� ,� ,�'' / 51.;8' 74---C CB = N. 37'06'48" W. ‘ , L = 479.51 ' �F LLB i Wck\c' CL = 477.33' \\ c K \-': \ \,\-.4%. _______ __ _--_ 1 1 , PS 15i1A„�- 622�� NC' ,_\ \\\-- i RR \� to F. - " \ \& �j4'n POINT OF eka of "W`�\�> G G A: S 76°23'11 " W 'BEGINNING �p o' R`9r`t7_69 o_- 51 .48' - jik I r 100. R. 1) '4J i Norw-"(i? CCST 1 RI UCK "R" MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: RICK HERZBERGER, BUILDING OFFICIAL DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 1992 SUBJECT: WORKSHOP INFORMATION FOR PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEW CONCERNING PREPARATION FOR A SITE PLAN ORDINANCE . I am submitting to you some November, 1991 correspondence between myself and the City Attorney, which was intended to prepare for a Platting and Site Plan Ordinance addition to the Wylie Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances . I feel that the Platting guidelines outlined in the Local Government Codes are adequate for the City of Wylie, as well as our procedures for subdivision approval , and these do not need addressed at this time . But I am very concerned about the Site Plan requirements and approval procedures . Please refer to the third paragraph of the November 4th memorandum as well as section IIA of the memorandum. Also refer to the attached Plano Site Plan Review vs . the Wylie Site Plan Review procedure. Then look at the November 21st response memorandum by the City Attorney, Section II A. At this time, the Planning and Engineering Department is responsible for nearly all Site Plan Review, and I feel that the Public, by way of at least the Planning and Zoning Commission, should be able to respond to this approval procedure. During the workshop , please remember that we can only review and comment on the subject matter and make no recommendations . If you agree that a Site Plan "amending ordinance" is necessary, then I can schedule some consideration items on the next Planning and Zoning agendas and eventually make recommendation to the City Council . During the workshop, I should have some additional Site Plan criteria from the American Planning Association and the Council of Governments , for your study and reference in making future recommendations . -1 MEMORANDUM TO : Steven Deiter , City Attorney FROM: Rick Herzberger , Building Official rytf- DATE: November 4, 1991 SUBJECT: Platting and Site Plan Questions Reference : Meadows Subdivision, Wylie Subdivision & Zoning Ordinance, Plano Subdivision & Site Plan Rules and Local Government Code Once again, I am asking your interpretation of some pending issues that my department is experiencing, as well as your advice on how to upgrade our Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances relating to Site Plan and Plat Approval . I have attached the Meadows Subdivision (Planned Development) with proposed subdividing of the Retail lot. I am currently experiencing numerous problems with this subdivision as a result of the initial inadequate review of the entire subdivision, which is evidenced by the numerous "revisions" (Reference attached Section I - C, D, and E) . Your timely response regarding the Meadows Subdivision will enable me to complete the Site Plan and issue a Building Permit. Also, your interpretation will guide me through future minor Replatting procedures. I have chosen the City of Plano Site Plan Review and Subdivision Ordinance to pattern the much needed revisions of our Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Our Zoning Ordinance, Section 29, covers Site Plan Review in the simplest form and our Subdivision Ordinance does not directly address the Platting procedures for minor subdivisions. I have reviewed Rowlett, McKinney, Mes uite and G4rla; ,d' s procedures relating to the above, and they are very similar to Plano' s Ordinance. As soon as I finish a complete analysis of proposed additions and changes regarding Site Plan and Plat Approvals, I will submit the changes to you for legal analysis before approaching the P & Z (January or February, 1992) . Section II of the attached reflects my current analysis of our regulations on Site Plan and Plat approval , as this analysis will pattern my research on proposed changes. My main confusion on Subdivisions, Plats, Replats and amended Plats is with the subject of proper public notice before P & Z or 5 City Council action. For instance, why does a Replat require a Public Hearing and individual notice when the original Plat Approval did not require this Public Hearing and Notice? Also, I am not sure whether the City Council would approve a Plano type Subdivision and Plat approval process, since this gives the P & Z and Planning & Engineering more authority over future developments. On the other hand, the Council would receive less agenda items while still having some input on development approvals per the nominating of qualified P & Z members. Anyway, I hope to arrive at some type of compromise regarding our current method and the Plano method of Subdivision, Plat and Site Plan approval . In conclusion, my concerns are based on the need to establish a more efficient, comprehensive and legal method of completing a developers ideas and plans which will benefit both the developer and the City of Wylie. xc : Carolyn Jones , Acting City Manager Paul Beaver , Director of Planning & Engineering I . Questions on Subdivisions and Plats per Local Government Code A. 212. 006 (0065) - allows Plat Approval by P & Z only, so can we ordain the P & Z to approve Plats? ( see suggestions on extent of approval - Section II ) B. 212. 013 - Vacating Plat - why does this need to be done and when or in what case would this be of advantage in Replats? C. 212. 014 - Replat without vacating Plat (reference Meadows Subdivision) 1 ) Do all of the owners (Meadows ) have to sign or does only the owner of the Retail lot have to sign? 2) Does Public Hearing involve written notice to owners in all of subdivision or just owners of the Retail lot? D. 212. 015 - Additional requirements for certain Replats ( reference Meadows Subdivision) 1 ) Subsection (d ) - does this wording indicate that the "retail " lot is exempt for (b) and ( c) concerning notice and hearing procedure? If so, then is the Retail lot also exempt from Section 212. 014 ( 1 ) , (2) and (3) ? E. 212. 016 - Amending Plats 1 ) Considering the 1989 changes , would subsection (a) 1-10, relate to the Meadows Subdivision and proposed subdividing of the Retail lot? If so, then would a hearing and approval of lot owners not be required per subsection (b ) ? II . Analysis of Platting and Site Plan Approval Procedures : A. Referring to Section 29 of the Zoning Ordinance, I find no direct indication of what type of development requires a Site Plan. Also, it appears from subsections ( 1 ) and (3) that the P & Z has authority to approve Plats as well as Site Plans, but what type of Site Plan or Plat needs approval is not indicated. I have attached the Plano Site Plan Review section which is obviously more complete, and one which I hope to include in our Zoning Ordinance. Please check for legality, as I would like to prepare for P & Z in January or February, 1992. 7 B. Referring to our Subdivision Ordinance, it appears that no matter how small the subdivision, a Preliminary and Final Plat must be submitted. Also, I find no rules governing Replats or amended Plats, as far as the appropriate approval methods. I have attached the Plano Subdivision procedure without including Article IV, V, VI and the Index, as these will be reviewed by Engineering for future reviews. At this time, I am only concerned with the Subdivision approval procedures and Plano' s seems to comply with the Local Government Code. Please check for legality, as I plan to submit, in conjunction with Paul Beaver , a Comprehensive Subdivision Revision sometime in March of 1992. Please refer to LGC Section 212. 0065 for minor Plat Approvals. O '2-- CIA I rl vv ' , w - ARTICLE 5 - SITE PLAN REVIEW jQ 5-100 PURPOSE pi This section establishes a site plan review process for proposed development. The purpose of the review is to ensure efficient and safe land development, harmonious use of land, compliance with appropriate design standards, safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, parking and loading, and adequate water supply, drainage and storm water management, sanitary facilities, and other utilities and services. 5-200 APPLICABILITY 5-201 Site plan review and approval shall be required for the following: 1 . Any shopping center. 2. Any apartment development or mobile home park. 3. Any Planned Development, Specific Use Permit, or Redevelopment District. 4. Any Light Industrial-1 or Light Industrial -2 District rt"' ",°,1 ^'° 5. Any development where more than one main building or use is proposed on a single lot or tract. No building permit shall be issued for any of the above developments, unless a site plan is first submitted to and approved by the Planning & Zoning. Commission, No certificate of occupancy shall be issued unless all construction and development conform to the plan as approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission. 5-202 Notwithstanding any other provisions of this ordinance or its amendments, the Planning Director may at his discretion require a site plan for any development to be submitted for approval by the Planning & Zoning Commission if in his opinion it is in the best interest in the City to do so. • 5-300 EXEMPTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS 5-301 Site plan approval shall not be required for any detached one or two dwelling unit buildings or any accessory uses incidental thereto. 5-302 The Planning & Zoning Commission may, at the request of the applicant, waive any of the various requirements of maps and submissions hereinafter set forth. 5-1 A 5-400 SITE PLAN DETAILS The site plan shall contain sufficient information relative to site design considerations, including but not limited to the following: 1 . Location of proposed building(s) and structures 2. On- and off-site circulation 3. Parking 4. Grading 5. Landscaping 6. Placement of utilities 7. Screening 8. Engineering for streets and utilities Provision of the above items shall conform to the principles and standards of this ordinance. To ensure the submission of adequate site plan information, the Planning Department is hereby empowered to maintain and distribute a list of specific requirements for site plan review applications. Upon periodic review, the Planning Department shall have the authority to update such requirements for site plan details. 5-500 SUPPLEMENTAL REQUIREMENTS The Planning & Zoning Commission may require other information and data for specific site plans. This data may include but is not limited to geologic information, water yields, flood data, environmental information, traffic analysis, road capabilities, market information, economic data for the proposed development, hours of operation, elevations and perspective drawings, lighting, and similar information. Conditional approval of a site plan may establish conditions for construction based on such information. 5-2 IC) 5-600 PRINCIPLES AND STANDARDS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW The following criteria have been set forth as a guide for evaluating the adequacy of proposed development in the City of Plano. The Planning & Zoning Commission shall review the site plan for compliance with all applicable Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan; for harmony with surrounding uses and the overall plan for development of the City of Plano; for the promotion of the health, safety, order, efficiency and economy of the City; and for the maintenance of property values and the general welfare. Based upon its review, the Commission may approve, conditionally approve, request modifications or deny approval of the site plan based on evaluation of the site plan details with respect to: 1. The site plan's compliance with all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and other ordinances of the City of Plano including but not limited to off-street parking and loading, lighting, open space and the generation of objectionable smoke, fumes, noise, odors, dust, glare, vibration or heat. 2. The environmental impact of the development relating to the preservation of existing natural resources on the site and the impact on the natural resources of the surrounding properties and neighborhood. 3. The relationship of the development to adjacent uses in terms of harmonious design, setbacks, maintenance of property values and negative impacts. 4. The provision of a safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation system. 5. The design and location of off-street parking and loading facilities to ensure that all such spaces are usable and are safely and conveniently arranged. 6. The sufficient width and suitable grade and location of streets designed to accommodate prospective traffic and to provide access for firefighting and emergency equipment to buildings. 7. The coordination of streets so as to compose a convenient system consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan of the City of Plano. 8. The use of landscaping and screening (1) to provide adequate buffers to shield lights, noise, movement or activities from adjacent properties when necessary, and (2) to complement the design and location of buildings and be integrated into the overall site design. 9. Exterior lighting to ensure safe movement and for security purposes, which shall be arranged so as to minimize glare and reflection on adjacent properties. 5-3 10. The location, size and configuration of open space areas to ensure that such areas are suitable for intended recreation and conservation uses. 11. Protection and conservation of'soils from erosion by wind or water or from excavation or grading. 12. Protection and conservation of water courses and areas subject to flooding. • 13. The adequacy of water, drainage, sewerage facilities, garbage disposal and other utilities necessary for essential services to residents and occupants. 5-601 The decision of the Planning & Zoning Commission to approve or deny a Site Plan shall be final and binding unless an appeal of said decision is made to the City Council . The appeal shall be filed in writing with the Planning Department not more than seven days after the date of the action taken by the Planning & Zoning Commission. The appeal shall state all reasons for dissatisfaction with the action of the Planning & Zoning Commission. If the City Council , by majority vote, deems the appeal to be without merit, it may refuse to accept the appeal , and the action of the Planning & Zoning Commission shall stand. If the City Council , by majority vote, accepts the appeal , the decision by the City Council to approve, conditionally approve, request modifications, or deny a site plan shall be final and binding. In cases where site plan approval includes provisions which must be approved by the City Council , Planning & Zoning Commission approval of the site plan shall be referred to the City Council for this action. 5-4 I - 5-700 EFFECT OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL r. 5-701 If development of a lot with an approved site plan has not commenced with two years of the date of final approval of the site plan, the site plan shall be deemed to have expired, and a review and reapproval of the approved site plan by the Planning & Zoning Commission shall be required before a building permit may be issued. Said review and approval shall be evaluated according to the standards of Section 5-600, taking into account all changes to applicable ordinances which have occurred subsequent to the prior approval of the site plan. 5-702 It is recognized that final architectural and engineering design may necessitate minor changes in the approved site plan. In such cases, the Planning Director shall have the authority to approve minor modifications of an approved site plan, provided that such modifications do not materially change the circulation and building location on the site. 5-5 rj The Major Planning Tools I. Page 11 A Site Plan Checklist* -❑ Names and titles of applicant, owner and person preparing the site plan. D Date, scale and North arrow. -❑ Vicinity map showing location of the site in relation to the surrounding area and existing streets. O Zoning classification(s) of the site and all property within 200 feet. ❑ Dimensions of the site, lots comprising the site, and of setbacks, front yards, side yards and rear yards. ✓ 3 Kind and location of fences. ❑ Size, location, dimensions and details of all signs and exterior lighting including type of standards, location, radius of light and intensity in footcandles. ❑ Locations and outside dimensions of existing and/or proposed principal build- ' - ing(s) and all accessory structures. ,-❑ Storm drainage plan showing location of inlets, pipes, swales, berms and other storm drainage facilities, and existing and proposed runoff calculations. ,A❑ Rights-of-way, easements and all lands to be dedicated to the municipality or reserved for specific uses. ❑ Significant existing physical features including streams, water course, rock out- crops, etc. --❑ Bearings and distances of property lines. ❑ Plans of off-street parking areas and off-street loading facilities, including location and dimensions of individual parking spaces, loading areas, aisles, traffic patterns and driveways for ingress and egress. ❑'All driveways and streets within 200 feet of site. ❑ All existing and proposed curbs and sidewalks. ❑ All existing and proposed utility lines. ❑ Existing and proposed sanitary sewerage disposal systems. ❑ Water supply system(s). ❑ Existing and proposed spot elevations based upon the U.S. Coastal Geodetic datum. ❑ Existing and proposed contours of the site at 2-foot intervals for areas of less than 5 percent grade and at 10-foot Intervals for areas above 5 percent grade. ❑ Location of all existing trees or tree masses, Indicating general sizes and species of trees. O Landscaping and buffering plan showing what will remain and what will be planted, indicating names of plants and trees and dimensions, approximate time of planting and method of planting (base rooted, ball and burlap). -Show any required utility plans, landscaping plans,architectural elevations,etc.,on separate sheets. ELEMENTS OF A SITE PLAN * Name, address and telephone number of the proponent. * Scale, north arrow, date and title of project. * Address, legal description, location map. * Property lines and dimensions; location and dimensions of all streets, alleys and easements; existing and proposed utilities. * Dimensions of all fundamental features such as existing buildings, applicable building setbacks, parking spaces, landscaped areas. * Total square footage of development lot; proposed building location or building envelopes; floor area; total percentage of lot coverage; density or floor area ratio; building height/number of floors. * Access management: Driveways (with dimensions), parking areas, vehicular circulation, sidewalks. * Size, setback, location, height and design features on all advertising signs. * Landscaping plan, together with a description of types and quantity of plant materials to be used. * Elevation view of any required or proposed screening fences, including height, materials, percent of screening; transitional elements. * Refuse collection. * Drainage improvements/grading plan. * Sight clearance at intersections/driveways. * Loading docks. * Exterior lighting. * Provisions for handicapped access. * Fire hydrant location and spacing. 1 `5- a ascertained, the same process outlined in the district in which such use or structure paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) above shall is located was in existence and lawfully be followed. operating prior to the adoption of the previous zoning ordinance and has been operating since without discontinuance. SECTION 29 CREATION OF BUIILDING SITF, (2) When on the effective date of this t' ordinance, the use or structure was in , existence and lawfully constructed, , § 29.1 No permit for the construction of a tilocated and operating in accordance with , building or buildings upon any tract or plot shall 1, the provisions of the previous zoning be issued until a building site, building tract, or ordinance or which was a non- building lot has been created by compliance with ( conforming use thereunder and which use one of the following conditions: or structure does not now conform to the regulations herein prescribed for the (1) The lot or tract is part of a plat of record, district in which the use or structure is properly approved by the planning and located. zoning commission, and filed in the plat records of Collin County,Texas. 1 § 30.2 No non-conforming use or structure may be expanded or increased beyond the lot or tract (2) The plot, tract or lot faces upon a !: upon which such non-conforming use is located as dedicated street and was separately owned i of the effective date of this ordinance except to prior to the effective date of this i provide off-street loading or off-street parking space ordinance or prior to annexation to the , upon approval of the board of adjustment. City of Wylie whichever is applicable, in which event a building permit for § 30.3 Repairs and normal maintenance may be only one main building conforming to I made to a non-conforming building provided that all the requirements of this ordinance t no structural alterations or extensions shall be !' may be issued on each such original made except those required by law or ordinance, } separately owned parcel without first r unless the building is changed to a conforming 1 complying with paragraph(1)preceding. F use. f (3) The plot or tract is all or part of a site § 30.4 Any non-conforming use may be plan officially approved by the planning ^ changed to a conforming use and once such change and zoning commission and compliance is made. the use shall not thereafter be changed has been made with provisions and back to a nonconforming use. improvements approved on such site plan for all utility and drainage § 30.5 Where a conforming use is located in a easements, dedication of streets, alleys nonconforming structure, the use may be changed and other public improvements required to another conforming use by securing a certificate to meet the standards established for the of occupancy from the building official. platting of land. t § 30.6 Whenever a non-conforming use is (4) Any and all plots, tracts or lots must be f' abandoned, all non-conforming rights shall cease provided access via a public street or ( and the use of the premises shall thenceforth be in drive. I conformity with this ordinance. Abandonment shall involve the intent of the user or owner to 4' discontinue a non-conforming operation and the SECTION 30 actual act of discontinuance. Discontinuance of a NON-CONFORMING USES business or the vacancy of a building or premises AND STRUCTURES occupied by a non-conforming use for a period of six (6) months shall be construed as conclusive proof of intent to abandon the non-conforming use. § 30.1 A non-conforming status shall exist Any non-conforming use which, not involving a under the following provisions of this ordinance: permanent type of structure, is moved from the premises shall be considered to have been (1) When a use or structure which does not abandoned. conform to the regulations prescribed in Page 40 16 MEMORANDUM DATE : November 21 , 1991 TO : Rick Herzberger , Building Offi fa FROM: Steve Deiter , City Attorney RE : Plat Amendment , Replatting , Rel ted Questions In response to your memorandum of November 4 , 1991 concerning the above referenced subject . I have attempted to specifically answer all the questions which you set forth in separate document attached to the memorandum . A. The first question presented is whether I interpret Section 212 . 006 of the Local Government Code ( LGC) to allow for the City to provide for plat approvals by the Planning and Zoning Commission without further review or approval of our City Council . I believe it is very clear that this section does allow for P & Z to approve without involvement of the governing body . Therefore we could change our ordinance to where our Planning and Zoning would be the sole authority for approving or disapproving a plat . However , our governing body would have to pass such an ordinance and it would be in their sound discretion whether or not they would want to give up this measure of control . My guess is that they would not . I would however note that the City Charter in Article 9 Section 2B( 3 ) requires the P & Z Commission to " receive and review all platting and subdivision proposals and make recommendations to the City Council for appropriate action" . If the Council would desire to change the present arrangement and allow P & Z to be the sole arbiters or approvers of plats and subdivision proposals then it would also be necessary to change the City Charter . As you are aware the only way the Charter can be changed is by a vote of the people on any proposed amendments . B. The next question presented concerns Section 212 . 013 of the Local Government Code on plat vacation . Your question as to why this needs to be done and when or what case would it be preferable for replats is very broad . In answer to the question I would state generally that a vacation is more or less the doing away with all or part of a previous plat . It seems to me that it would be used in situations where there are going to be wholesale changes to the previous plat , when the owners want to give up all roadway , alley , easement , covenants and other restrictions or perhaps in those situations where the development anticipated by the 1 '7 platting has now been abandoned . This is in contrast to replatting which leaves the original plat intact but just makes changes to certain portions of the plat . In the instant case of Lot 31 in the Meadows subdivision I believe that vacating either lot 31 or other portions is not viable alternative . The reason being that vacation requires the petition of all the persons who are now owners of the land original platted . In this case that would probably be in excess of 30 or maybe any 40 owners which would have to agree to a vacation . It is unlikely that we could get such an agreement and there would not really be any advantage in doing so , since the objective could be accomplished by replat . C . As mentioned above the replat would be much preferable over a vacation in regard to Lot 31 of the Meadows subdivision . Section 212 . 014 of the Local Government Code simply provides that the request for replatting must be signed by the owner of the land to be replatted . In this case it would be the single owner . General notice of a public hearing would be all that is necessary to satisfy the statutory requirements . There is no necessity to mail out written notice nor for a publication type notice . I do believe it is necessary to have a public hearing though . D. I agree with your opinion that the additional requirements of Section 212 .015 would not apply to the Meadows subdivision situation in as much as the lot being replatted is retail and thereby excluded from the extra requirements of this section . Therefore the written notice requirements of this section do not have to be complied with . However , the exclusion of Section D applies only to Section 212 . 015 and does not apply to the requirements of 212 . 014 therefore the requirements of 212 . 014 do have to be complied with . E . I reviewed Section 212 . 016 concerning procedures for amending plats , particularly Section A subparagraphs 1 - 10 . I am of the opinion , that generally speaking amendments to plats are used to correct errors , and particularly those types of errors or adjustments which are set out in the subparagraphs 1 - 10 of Section A of this section . I am of the further opinion that the proposed replat in the Meadows subdivision of Lot 31 does not come within the specific facts set out in the section , therefore the anticipated action is not a "a plat amendment" . If it is not a plan amendment the notice requirements of the section would not be applicable to this situation . if-- Wil•IN.. II . Analysis of Platting and Site Plan Approval Procedures 'r I g a A. Proper analysis and answer to your question concerning site planning , especially as the same relates to Section 29 of our existing zoning ordinance , requires that this said Section 29 be placed into appropriate context with the rest of the zoning ordinance . When the section is taking in context the powers of the Planning and Zoning Commission are , as referenced in Sections ( 1 ) and ( 3 ) are mentioned only in passing as a side bar to the actual meat of the section which provides that the plat must have been approved . The bottom line is that Section 29 does not give Planning and Zoning any authority to approve or disapprove nor for that matter do anything . It just states that if a site plan is approved ( presumably with authority given elsewhere in the code ), then and in that event , the approval can be used as a basis for issuing a building permit . My general interpretation of this section is that it says that no building permit shall be issued unless the property where the building will be placed is either been platted , is part of a site plan , or meets with the other four enumerated requirements . This in itself does not really define the site plan nor does it make any provision for when site plans are necessary . It merely says that if there is a site plan for a particular building site then that site plan will suffice as sufficient basis for issuing of a building permit instead of a plat or preliminary plat . I agree that the existing code is silently as to any requirements or standards for site plans . If yourself , the Panning and Zoning Commission , and the City Council feel that site plans would be appropriate then I think the Plano site plan is acceptable in as far as form and legality . Whether or not you would want to adopt a plan exactly as Plano' s or develop a modified one to suit the City of Wylie needs would be in the sound discretion of the aforementioned departments and boards . B . You are correct in stating that City of Wylie subdivision regulations make no distinction between the requirements and procedures for large subdivisions and small subdivisions . Such a distinction may be legally done such as Plano has done , if it is otherwise deemed advisable by the appropriate bodies and commissions . The proviso that I have is that any division regulations , be it for large subdivision , small subdivisions or otherwise , would have to meet the minimal standards for in Section 212 . 001 of the Local Government Code as discussed above . You are also correct stating that the current subdivision regulations have no provisions concerning replats or amended plats . However , this is not really a problem since state law does provide appropriate procedures in the Local Government Code . Again as discussed above , therefore , the City does have a procedure to follow, albeit that of the Local Government Code rather than our local code . As noted above Section 212 . 014 says that replats shall be considered by the "Municipal authority responsible for approving plats" which for the City of Wylie is the P & Z Board with the approval of the governing body . The same is true for amended plats which considered by the Municipal authority responsible for approving plats as well therefore the City would not have to have separate procedures for replatting and amended plats . However , the City could adopt something separate , such as Plano has done , if in fact it was deemed appropriate . The procedures set forth in the City of Plano division ordinance in regard to platting of general , platting of small subdivisions , large subdivisions , replatting , amending plats and vacating , are all generally acceptable as to legal form . I would note that they do comply with the general requirements of the Local Government Code as referenced above . However , I have not revealed each any individual section in any detail and would reserve doing so until such time as the City was considering adoption of its own at which time I would make a more detailed review and suggestions of the proposed ordinances . I hope this has answered questions which you had on these issues . If it has not or it is not clear how to relate the answers to your specific factual circumstances please let me know and I will be happy to follow up the matter as needed . cc : Paul Beaver , City Engineer V cr\ MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Norwood, City Manager Oe? \ FROM: Rick Herzberger, Building Official /1 DATE: March 4, 1992 SUBJECT: Spring Creek Parkway Final Plat Council Agenda - 3/10/92 On Tuesday, March 3, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Spring Creek Parkway Final Plat. Attached is the Memorandum to the Commission from Paul Beaver as well as a condensed copy of the Final Plat. Please place this item on the March 10, 1992 City Council Agenda. R ?Y' '. ''. ;I �D`‘ • . i v t- = 5ti.> 18' 1'N.` ./ �� 1 l II \\ / • \ 1 / cjj ^C,. .2.79 /E' ig ) (C \, _jP ) / 57'46'28" E. / \ - ,��P -56 5 �\ \ J \ r a 15' DRAINAGE D.I2.i. C . r' r,.� J -, C•�;\ �- I / \„�9 A Vc EASEMENT 1 C i, ' / l' �' r t , \I -'; ) �o ��� / �:: c •, (1 0__ CEN TE FP s s 'J,`;. 20' SLOPE EASEMENT V( / 2• '� �• 10' TEMPORARY CO ' \++d r CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ______,), __ ---- A = 18°56 08 �� , `'v'P/ 2 sa\ \'s� R = 1500.00' .6 � 18' PIJI3I i(; �,�4 \". • ' L = 495.73' ROI\I) s \ Z CB = S. 36'37'51 " E. vol. 2 03, I)9 :),.;0 Cp• \' z CL = 493.48' D.R.c.c. !. \\\\�. ' s � 10' UTILITY 6 \� ' A = 18'56'51 " O EASEMENT R = 1450.00' y 'G `0 S 76'23'11" w L = 479.51 ' c�A�"�GL \ / 51.;s' oC`I CB = N. 37'06'48" W. % 'L \\� (� ` CL = 477.33' to ����� t3'' .. ` Ac 1R,. c1R � P ci �" E_ - fig\ 1 \ _ t1, / S 6 gRtAG 1._ Y - PG' ' ,.—�—i" " F R .FZ . a J-" F to e \ c & Sd'n =f POINT OF a �''� S 76'23'11 " W `BEGINNING p ek • 0..°f, w 0 Y C.0=j- 100' RIy L6`� _ — 51 .48' h �' Imo :. F< _. rfiUnIt f • I Cn►�-pl�� 3 LOT 1 BL „OCK B„ MEMORANDUM TO: Rick Herzberger, Building Official FROM: Paul D. Beaver, Director of Planning & Engineering f DATE: February 26, 1992 SUBJECT: Final Plat Spring Creek Parkway Please place on the next available Planning & Zoning Agenda for the review and approval of the Spring Creek Parkway Final Plat. This Plat will dedicate a 50' right-of-way for the extension of Spring Creek Parkway from the AT & SF Railroad on the south to the DART railroad tracks on the north a distance of approximately 495' . The total acreage involved is 0. 56 acres. This 50' right-of-way is necessary in order to extend Spring Creek Parkway to provide access to the new National Guard Armory which is under construction at this time. Additional slope, construction, and utility easements will be dedicated to allow necessary construction to take place. This project is on the approved Thoroughfare Plan and will extend a 23' wide section of pavement ( 1/2 of the ultimate road width) from the existing pavement to the south side of the DART tracks. Water and sewer will be provided to the Armory site. The bid opening for this project will be March 5, 1992. The estimated award date is April 1 , 1992, with construction to begin shortly thereafter. In order to meet the above time schedules, it is imperative that P & Z review and approval is accomplished. Thank you for your cooperation. a MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission Members FROM: Rick Herzberger, Building Official DATE: March 30, 1992 SUBJECT: P & Z Meetings There will be no meeting scheduled for Monday, April 6, 1992, as our next meeting will be Monday, April 20, 1992, as you will receive an agenda on Friday, April 17th. I am currently preparing a Site Plan consideration item for the meeting, and I do anticipate a full agenda. I will also try to schedule a workshop in relation to the groundwork needed for a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance review, as several Zoning Regulations are in need of possible change. Remember, this is a 1985 Zoning Ordinance and should be "overhauled" at least every five years. Please review your Zoning Ordinance 85-23A and contact me if you do not have a copy of this ordinance. Thanks for your participation.