Loading...
Min - Planning and Zoning Commission - 1999 - 02/25 - RegularALLEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION r REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 1999 ATTENDANCE: Commission Members Present: Ross Obermeyer, Chairman Jeff McGregor, Vice -Chairman Pamela Smith, Secretary Mark Pacheco Scott Neice Kevin Kerr (arrived 7 12 p.m.) Commission Members Absent: Jeffrey Kelley City Staff Present: Marcie Diamond, Senior Planner Pam Conway, Secretary George Conner, Director Public Works Dan Tracy, Civil Engineer Don Horton, Director of Parks and Recreation Bob Hager, City Attorney's Office CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM With a quorum of the Commission Members present, the Allen Planning & Zoning Commission workshop was called to order at 7.10 p.m. by Chairman Obermeyer, at the City Council Chambers, Allen Public Library, Two Allen Civic Plaza, Allen, Texas. WORKSHOP MEETING Chairman Obermeyer noted a clerical error in the minutes and Ms. Pam Conway stated that it would be corrected. Agenda Item IV — Public Hearing regarding the Zoning Ordinance - Commission Member Neice questioned if the goal tonight regarding the Home Occupation section of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was for the Commission to make a recommendation or approve this item. Chairman Obermeyer stated that it is for a recommendation to the Council. Agenda Item V — Public Hearing regarding the Comprehensive Plan - Ms Diamond stated that the Commission has been requested by the City Council to hold a public hearing on Neighborhood District No 29 of the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that this is for a recommendation to El amend the Comprehensive Plan, not to rezone at this time. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 2 February 25,1999 Ms Diamond stated under Other Business, Training Opportunities, there is a training session in Houston. She stated that she needs their response on that as soon as possible. N.C.T.C.O G. also has a series on March 12'" regarding subdivision regulations, to be held in Arlington. She highly recommended anyone who has not attended to the past to make every effort to attend. She stated that the information is very valuable. Ms. Diamond stated that the next packet would contain reformatted memos to be consistent with the format that will be utilized in the City Council communications. Also, it was agreed by the Commission Members that the Planning and Administrative checklists no longer needed to be a part of the packet. REGULAR MEETING Consent Agenda Agenda Item II Chairman Obermeyer read the consent agenda into the record as follows. "Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of January 28, 1999 B. Approve Minutes of February 11, 1999 C. Final Plat— Consider a request by Centex Homes for a Final Plat for Brookside Addition Ph. 3, being 23.086 acres of land out of the R.C. Whtsenant Survey, Abstract No. 1012, in the City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; further described as being located northwest of Allen Heights Drive and Chaparral Road. D. Final Plat— Consider a request by Villa Custom Homes, Inc for a Final Plat for Villas at Suncreek, being 13.74 acres of land out of the Alfred Slack Survey, Abstract No. 854, Josh Butler Survey, Abstract No. 47, Joseph H. Wilcox Survey, Abstract No 1018 and 1017, in the City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; further described as being located southwest of McDermott Dr and Suncreek Drive." Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Smith and a second by Commission Member Pacheco, the Commission voted 6 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve the Consent Agenda with changes to the minutes as noted in the workshop. PRELIMINARY PLAT The Crossing at Watterford Agenda Item III Chairman Obenneyer read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Consider a request by Wynne/Jackson, Inc. for a Preliminary Plat for The Crossing at Waterford, being 86.57 acres located in the J. W Parsons Survey, Abstract No 705, Henry Brandenburg Survey, Abstract No 110, in the City of Allen, Collin PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 25, 1999 PAGE County, Texas; further described as being located at the southeast comer of Alma and Ridgeview Drive." Ms. Diamond presented the item to the Commission Members. She stated that a fire station site was required to be acquired by the City prior to the plat and that the city's negotiations have been successful to acquire a tract for the fire station on an adjacent tract. She presented the details of the plat and further stated that the engineering has been approved and staff is recommending approval as submitted. Jeff Linder, Dowdey Anderson, 5225 Village Creek Drive, Plano, stated that this is Planned Development No. 67 with R5 zoning. There are two phases planned at this time. The first phase will include an amenity center. The north/south street to the east along the creek aligns with the sanitary sewer easement to minimize the tree loss. Commission Member Pacheco stated his only concern is the very southeast corner The street is over the existing floodplain area. Mr. Linder stated that the floodplain is per FEMA floodplain map and is very preliminary. The walls of the creek are very deep. He anticipates that it will not actually be a part of the floodplain after final evaluation from FEMA. Commission Member Pacheco asked Mr. Linder to reevaluate the tree survey regarding Lots 12 and 13, Block 1, in an attempt to preserve more of those trees. Commission Member Pacheco also questioned the construction of Ridgeview, Mr. Linder discussed the phases that Ridgeview would be built with the subdivision. Ms. Diamond stated that the facilities agreement will address the timing and construction of the various thoroughfares. Commission Member McGregor asked if Creek Way Drive was a single loaded street. Mr. Linder stated, as per zoning, it is a single loaded street. Mr. Don Horton stated that the developer will build and the City would maintain the hike and bike trail. Commission Member McGregor stated that Lot I , Block B has no alley access. Mr. Linder stated that there will be alley access to this lot indicated on the final plat, it was an error. Commission Member Smith asked the size of Creek Way Drive and which streets were the collectors. Mr. Linder stated that Watterford Way, Arbor Park and Cartier Crossing would serve as collectors Mr. Linder stated with 270 lots and 3 points of access, the traffic would be disbursed rapidly No traffic additional study was required Mr. Conner stated that an analysis was done and an agreement was achieved upon working with staff and the proponent. Mr. Linder stated that if this were a larger development it would necessitate a collector. It really doesn't appear to be necessary here. Commission member Smith stated that she would like to see a plan that included a collector. Ms. Diamond stated that a collector may actually encourage higher speed traffic on this relatively straight street. E PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 25, 1999 PAGE Commission Member Smith questioned the lot sizes in the zoning, she asked Mr. Linder if they were all 9,000 square feet to the street adjacent to the flood plain. Mr. Linder stated that at final plat all the lots would meet the square footage required by zoning. Commission Member Smith stated that on Creek Way drive, at the southeast corner where it dead ends at lots 13 and 14, she expected the single loaded street to continue the length of the development. Mr. Linder stated that the zoning was worded that the street could be "discontinuous." Commission Member Smith requested clarification of"discontinuous " Mr. Hager, City Attorney's office, stated that it would be contained within the development and not continue into another development. Commission Member Smith stated that the property to the south was a zoning action that City Council had tabled in order to see a concept plan and to allow for street connections. She stated that this plat wouldn't allow for the street connections, and she could not support it. She stated that she raised these questions at zoning. Mr. Linder stated that the biggest problem is the sanitary sewer easement. Mr. Conner stated that NTMWD already had an easement running through the property. To try to get more usable land, the easement was moved over to the flood area along Creek Way Drive. The benefit is more developable land. The City agreed to allow for the street to be built over the sewer line. Ms. Diamond stated that a major issue is the linkage to the hike and bike trail Mr. Horton stated right now it may be tight to fit in the hike and bike trail. If Creek Way Drive continues to the south or not, the hike and bike trail will continue. Mr. Linder stated that they would provide that 15 feet of buildable area for the hike and bike trail. Commission Member Smith stated that she will not support this, based on the questions she has raised. She stated that the proponent could remove Lot 14 and bring Creek Way Drive to connect to the south. Mr. Linder reminded Commission Member Smith that per zoning this is a "discontinuous" street and not intended to continue into the next development. He also stated that less than half of the trees would removed if the lot remained; however, all the trees would have to be removed if the street was continued. Ms. Diamond stated that per the zoning of the Fitz -Gerald tract south of this property, lots shall not back but are allowed to side to the creek Commission Member Smith stated that there is some flexibility here on what can be done and she wants to see what is best for the City of Allen. Chairman Obermeyer stated that this plat meets the zoning requirements Commission Member Smith stated that if we request Creek Way Drive be turned into a cul-de-sac to the southern most end, it would not be contrary to zoning. Clyde Jackson, 600 No. Pearl, stated that "discontinuous" is something that they requested. He stated that they want to see the hike and bike trails continue. He stated that the lots in question will produce some of the finer homes in the addition. He stated that they are trying to stay within the four comers of what they have bargained for. Commission Member Smith stated that per the City Attorney she is not asking for anything contrary to zoning. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 25, 1999 PAGES Commission Member Smith stated she doesn't remember the "discontinuous" street and maybe that word was interjected along the way somehow. Mr. Jackson stated that some consideration was given regarding moving the sewer line. He stated that a better plan has been accomplished by moving the sewer line. Mr. Linder stated that given the location of the sewer easement, it would cause the lots that Commission Member Smith has referred to (Blk J, Lots 12, 13 and 14) to be disjointed if Creek Way Drive came on through to adjoin to the southern development. Commission Member Pacheco stated that he could not support the cul-de-sac proposed on Creek Way Drive. He could not justify the loss of 50-60 trees to gain an additional 200 feet of a single loaded street. He could not support anything but the plan that is before him tonight. Commission Member McGregor stated that he is in agreement with Commission Member Pacheco. He agrees somewhat with Commission Member Smith regarding the collector streets. He also stated that they conform to approved zoning. Commission Member Kerr stated that he supports the submission, he is not concerned about the collector. He stated that this is in accordance with the ordinance. Commission Member Smith stated that what she wants to see is not out of line with the ordinance. She stated that she will not support this request. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member McGregor and a second by Commission Member Pacheco, the Commission voted 5 FOR and 1 OPPOSED to approve the request with the correction of Lot 1, Block B to have alley access (made at Final plat) and as submitted with the notes on the plat per the staff recommendation (see below). Commission Member Smith was opposed. Motion carries. Plat Notes: 1. The lots adjacent to the single -loaded collector paralleling Watters Creek shall meet the area requirements of P.D. 72. 2. The Developer shall provide two points of access to the site. These are anticipated to be an Alma Drive Extension to the south and an asphalt chip extension of Ridgeview Drive west to CR 146. 3. The area of the Floodplain, minus floodway acreage, shall be identified during final platting to insure compliance with City of Allen open space requirements. 4. The developer will construct a Hike and Bike trail along Watters Creek. A minimum of 15 feet buildable area will be provided between the back of curb and the creek along the entire length of the Hike and Bike Trail. 5. Pedestrian Bridges) are needed to provide access to the proposed City Park east of Watters Creek. The cost of providing this access will be credited toward Park fees. PUBLIC HEARING Comurehensive Zoning Ordinance Agenda Item IV Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda item into the record as follows. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 6 February 25,1999 "Hold a Public Hearing and consider a revision to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 3 10 Home Occupation" Ms. Diamond presented the item to the Commission She stated that the revision to the existing Home Occupation provisions was produced from the Ad -Hoc Committee, which was comprised of Ross Obermeyer and Jeff McGregor from the Planning and Zoning Commission, and Ken Fulk and Doug Gallagher from the City Council. A majority of the changes are "word-smithing" and clarification. The most substantial changes are the inclusion of 46 which allows for sales activities, if the orders are filled off-site and the removal of the word "periodically" from condition #4. Ms Diamond stated that she presented these changes to the Home Based Business subcommittee of the Chamber of Commerce, and they appeared to be generally in support of the revised ordinance. Chairman Obermeyer read item number 6. "Sales incidental to a service shall be allowed provided orders previously made by telephone are filled off the premises of the person conducting the home occupation, or at a sales party conducted off the premises of the person conducting the home occupation." Ms. Diamond stated that it would allow home based businesses such as Avon, Tupperware and Mary Kay type sales to occur but that those products would be delivered to the homes by the business owner. Chairman Obermeyer opened the Public Hearing With no one wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Commission Member McGregor stated that at previous meetings the consensus of the Commission was not to make any changes at all at the last Public Hearing on this item. These changes balance all the concerns expressed at the previous public hearing. Commission Member McGregor asked Code Enforcement Officer, Audrey Smyth if these changes are agreeable to her Ms. Smyth stated that initially she liked the wording of the proposed changes; however, upon visiting with a code enforcement officer from another city and discussing the proposed amendments, Ms. Smyth indicated that she now feels problems could arise. She stated, however, that she would like to see it implemented and then if any problems occur, revisit it at that time. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Pacheco and a second by Commission Member Smith, the Commission voted 6 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to recommend approval as submitted (attached.) Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING Comprehensive Plan, N.D. 29 Aeenda Item IV Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Hold a Public Hearing and consider a revision to Neighborhood District 29 of the Comprehensive Plan." PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 25, 1999 PAGE Ms. Diamond presented the request to the Commission. She noted that this is not a request for revision in zoning, just to review the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for this area. She stated that Neighborhood District 29 is one of our largest districts. The current land use designation is a mix of high and medium density residential. High density residential could be appropriate at this location, considering the surrounding land use and zoning patterns, however two complexes already exist in this neighborhood district, this would exceed the Comprehensive Plan's recommendation for maximum of two per neighborhood district. Ms. Diamond stated that in terms of good planning, several uses could be appropriate. She stated that office, retail and commercial could also be appropriate for this tract. With the appropriate restrictions, these could be appropriate buffers between Highway 5, light industrial and the residential. Letters were received regarding this public hearing and will be a part of public record on this request and attached to these minutes. Chairman Obermeyer opened the Public Hearing Speaker cards received (copies are attached): Denvil Mixon, 910 Spring Brook Drive, Allen, TX - Opposed to changing the multi -family designation and inquired as to why the Commission would change their mind on this He stated he was hoping to use this for retirement Bruce Sanders, 920 Tyler Ct., Allen, TX — Opposed to multi -family (in favor of removing the HDR designation). He stated that he is in favor of reducing the number of apartments Sandy Sanders, 920 Tyler Ct., Allen, TX — Opposed to apartments (in favor of removing the HDR designation.) She spoke asking if the City would allow all the areas zoned for apartments to actually be developed as apartments? She asked where does the City stand on apartments in this town? She asked if at some point are we going to think of who would move to Allen with apartments being built. Jerry Green, 501 C R. 157, McKinney, TX —Opposed (opposed to removing the HDR designation) He also spoke stating that he is the buyer on this tract. This would involve more than the Mixon's property to get a quality development. He has structured his plan with the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. He read a statement and quoted from the Comprehensive Plan (attached.) He stated that his belief is that apartments are the highest and best use for this property Mike Williams, 2303 Forest Grove Estates, Allen, TX — Opposed (opposed to removing the HDR designation) He stated that he supports Mr. Green's statements. He also stated that Mr. Green builds quality product and requested that the 1998 Comprehensive Plan remain unchanged. Mr. Floyd Dusler, 606 Harvest, McKinney, spoke in favor of leaving the multi -family in this district Stacy Brown, 606 Meadowbrook, Allen, Tx —opposed to changing from multi -family She also stated that she lives close to the property. She feels that the apartments need to stay in the plan. She noted that Allen needs a diversity of housing and urged the Commission to keep the Comprehensive Plan as it is. I PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 8 February 25, 1999 Peter Larson, 1126 Bellevadere, Allen, Tx — In favor of removing the apartments from the Comprehensive Plan. He spoke stating that Allen has plenty of land for apartments and supports changing this district from the existing designation for multi -family Sue Boyette, 513 Riverside Ct, Allen, TX —In favor of removing the multi -family zoning. With no one else wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Ms. Diamond stated that during the 1998 revision to the Comprehensive Plan each Neighborhood District was studied and multi -family was adjusted, which in most areas actually reduced the number of multifamily acres. If build -out occurs as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, approximately 20 percent of our housing stock would be apartments, which represents only 3% of our land use in the city Apartments are scattered throughout the city, and we are significantly lower than our neighboring cities. Ms. Diamond stated that this is the last tract of land in this Neighborhood District that is not developed. There are a total of 20 acres and 362 units of multifamily existing in this District Commission Member Kerr stated that with the exception of two residents, who spoke in favor of leaving the multifamily designation in the Comprehensive Plan, and one of those had a financial interest in the property, all others who spoke were opposed to apartments in that area. Commission Member Kerr stated that he supports staff s recommendation to remove the multi -family designation for this Neighborhood District from the Comprehensive Plan. Commission Member Smith asked if a commercial user could come in requesting zoning on this tracts Would he be able to bring that forward to the Commission? Ms. Diamond stated that they could. Commission Member Smith stated her concern about this request coming from the City Council Ms. Diamond stated that the City Council has directed the Planning & Zoning Commission call a public hearing to determine appropriate zoning. However, staff felt it prudent to first analyze the Comprehensive Plan and consider appropriate land use for this tract prior to any zoning action. Chairman Obermeyer stated that his job is to look at each item on its own merits. His job is to look at the property and what is the best use for that property and make a recommendation to the Council as to the Commission's findings. Is multi -family the best use for this land, or what would be a better use? Commission Member Neme stated that he needs to understand why we are being asked to review this by the City Council. Commission Member Smith stated that she had requested from staff a map showing the multi -family units, which are existing, zoned and under construction. She stated that she doesn't see commercial as inappropriate for this location. She stated that we are not stopping a commercial use from coming here. Commission Member Smith stated that if we look at this Neighborhood District, we should then look at every multi -family section in the city Commission Member Smith stated that she is an apartment dweller by choice She does believe that multi -family serves a purpose She does not want it imposed PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 25, 1999 PAGE9 on people who are looking for high dollar homes. She feels her complex is land locked and surrounded by commercial and not an imposition on residential. She stated that apartments used for buffering she does not support. She stated that most of the multi -family zoning has been zoned for a long time. Commission Member Smith stated that we are singling out this piece of property Instead, if we believe the Comprehensive Plan is in error, we need to revisit all the multi -family in the Comprehensive Plan. Commission Member Neice asked Ms. Diamond to restate the information about that neighborhood district. Ms. Diamond stated that the existing complexes are smaller and therefore the number of units is less, however, the numbers of complexes we over the suggested number indicated in the Comprehensive Plan for Neighborhood District 29 Commission Member Neice stated in he is in agreement with Commission Member Smith. He stated that if we look at one we should look at them all. He opposes the recommendation to reevaluate the Comprehensive Plan. Commission Member Pacheco stated that this property has never been zoned for Multi -family. It is a land use plan, not zoning. He remembered from past meetings that a discrepancy was found in the Comprehensive Plan in this neighborhood district regarding the number of complexes. The intent of that was to keep the apartments from clustering in the City. Based on the public input received from this and other public hearings, he stated that commercial land use is planned all along S.H. 5 and staffs recommendation for commercial tract is something that he can support He also stated maybe the piece that is currently in Plano and planned to be in Allen, should also be reviewed for appropriate land use. Mr. Hager stated that the city can recommend land uses for property that is not currently within the city limits, but is proposed to be annexed. Commission Member McGregor stated he has been troubled about this from the beginning. He is opposed to government intervention with what can be done with someone's property. Should we look at what might be abetter use for this property? He stated that there is not overwhelming evidence that this needs to change from the currently designated multi -family land use. He is troubled by the City being the proponent in a zoning case. He cannot support the change from the multi -family designation in the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Obermeyer stated to the audience that the Comprehensive Plan was revised in 1998 and he believes it is correct and is a guideline. He still believes that Multi -family is not inappropriate for this property. The current zoning on the property is Arigiculture/Openspace (AO) and is appropriate zoning for this property He also does not see enough evidence to change the Comprehensive Plan. He certainly does not want to zone land with the City being the proponent. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Smith and a second by Commission Member Neice the Commission voted 4 FOR and 1 OPPOSED and 1 ABSTAINED to leave the designation for Multi - Family in the Comprehensive Plan. Commission Member Pacheco was Opposed and Commission Member Kerr Abstained. The motion carried. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 25,1999 1. Multi -family is appropriate land use. 2. Not sufficient evidence to change the current land use. 3. Concern over what could be selective discrimination A desire to look at all multi -family districts. 4. Prefer to take a pro -active approach as opposed to being in a reactive position on a specific property 5. Comprehensive Plan just updated recently (1998) which indicated this was appropriate use Minority Findings: I Revision would have brought the land use map into conformance with only 2 allowed complexes in the neighborhood district. 2. Staffs recommendation for the commercial use would have been compatible with the uses along S.H. 5 3. Numerous letters were received supporting the removal of the multi -family land use from the plan. Commission Member Kerr stated that the request that the Council's making was not understood. Based on his understanding of their request, it is up to the Council to form their opinion based on the pubic hearing results. Other Business Agenda Item V I Items of Interest to the Commission: 2 Training Opportunities. Review Tentative Agenda PAGE 10 Chairman Obermeyer requested that from now on, Public Hearings should be put at the beginning of the agenda when possible. Adiourn. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member McGregor and a second by Commission Member Pacheco, the Commission voted 6 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to Adjourn the January 28 meeting at 10:22 p.m. These minutes approved this 10� day of N W Ch 1999 oss Obermeyer, Ch, finnan Pamela Smith, Secretary I S-t&-fe,nei975 I'e0d hj 97R, GreEn, CHAPARRAL CROSSING APARTMENTS d I We have structured our development plan for Chaparral Crossing apartments in accordance with the 1998 City of Allen Comprehensive Plan. A plan we believe is excellent and well conceived 2 Page in - Housing slates "The overriding goal of the city is to develop as a high quality residential communary Thus concept of quality includes a balance of types of housing amts, good neighborhoods, services and sufficient tax base." 3 Page 3 1 (Land Use) under Goals and Policies 1.020 Specific Goal Develop a well balanced community 1021. Plan for a diversity of ages and income levels in the city 1 024 Encourage a mixture of housing product and housing that various income groups can afford 1025. Provide an opportunity for the people who work in Allen to also live in Allen 1027 Multifamily density should encourage an average of 18 dwelling units per acre not to exceed 360 units per development. (We couldn't agree more with each of these stated goals and policies.) 4 Page 3 4 - No 4 second paragraph "Strip commercial should be discouraged, particularly on S H 5 and F.M. 2170." (Again, We agree fully. The Mixon tract tract is ill suited for retail of any kind. There is no hard corner and the closest one does not meet your recommended standards in your 1998 Comprehensive plan anyway. There is insufficient roof tops around to support it and it is much too deep in places (North Boundary 735' deep and the South boundary 1,036' deep. Three to four hundred foot depths would be what is needed for neighborhood retail.) The Kindel tract rvns from 735' deep on the South side to a long triangle of only a few feet to the North. Thus too deep at one end and quickly becoming too narrow at the other. Any retail that actually got built would suffer considerably poor land usage and over time become a problem and an eyesore. Light manufacturing is a poor choice for several reasons. The property is not shaped properly, it conflicts with the neighborhoods to the East and the property across the street is properly targeted for light manufacturing. Office development would at best be secondary and of lower quality. There is too much land to absorb into garden offices and, again, much of it is odd shaped. Its our opinion that no institutional lender, or investor would construct first class office on the site. Office developers (users, lenders, investors etc) want to be on Central Expressway or close to the other employment centres. (Along Central Expressway, McDermottfMain Street etc). However, if the Mixon tract (said a porton of the Kandel tract - say six acres) were developed into multifamily, then there could be usage for the remaining acres to the North (day care, medicalldental, small local owner -occupied garden office). In other words - we believe you got it right the first time with your conclusion in the 1998 City of Allen Comprehensive Plan. 5 Page 3 11 (Details of the Plan) - third paragraph first sentence- "Multifanuly land use, where deemed appropriate, should be encouraged to be an average of 18 dwelling units per acre, and no complex should i exceed 350 units " (While this statement contradicts the one on page 3.1 (1.027) by ten dwelling units 360 instead of 350, the point is that our plan is in that range. We are asking for 376, simply because that is the highest and best use for our land.) 6 Page 3 14 - Table 3.b SUMMARY OF LAND USE ALLOCATIONS This table tells a lot about the thinking that went into our subject tract of land The following is how we read of A review of the plan shows that the 1985 Comprehensive plan had a high density allocation of 52 acres ( 936 apartment units). It was reduced by 21 acres (378 units) to leave 31 acres (558 units) Currently, there are 362 exiling units built on 20 acres (in this Neighborhood District 29) That leaves our subject tract of approximately 1 I acres left with the possibility of building 196 units. That means to us, that much thought has gone into tins particular parcel of land The adjacent properly in Plano (approximately 10 acres - South - fronting on Chaparral Drive - will ultimately be in the city of Allen In our planning meetings with the cities of Plano and Allen we were informed of the boundary agreement in existence since September 27, 1990 What this means to us is that the planners knew that another ten acres of multifamily land was coining into Allen adjacent to the existing ten acres (subject tract) The umt allocation would then be squarely within the framework of the overall comprehensive plan (approximately 376 units). Once again, we agree - and that is what we have been working toward all this time. I have little to say about individual members of this committee or the city council or any other citizen of this city and county in reference to their like or dislike of apartment communities. That is our business, providing quality apartments to markets that need them Our third party market study by Roland D Freeman, shows that this site is ideal for apartments Re Freeman is recognized in the Dallas/Ft Worth metroplex multifamily community as the best of the Dallas based research firms It even shows that by the time the units come on line in the year 2000 the other units currently under contraction on the West side of Allen as well as the neighboring cities will be well absorbed Itis our belief, and we believe n is the belief of the majority tins council that the tughest and best use for the site is apartments Not only is the site ideally suited for apartments, it is needed to help support all of thejob growth that is going on in Allen and Northern Collin County Not everyone can afford a house nor do they necessarily want one No one prefers a commute to another city when they can live in the city they work in (which is one of vour stated goals). 7 On the last page of the City of Allen 1998 Comprehensive plan is a usage map. Our site is labeled High Density Residential. Our company has been actively working on this project since August of 1998 - a total of seven months in accordance with the planning of this zoning commission as well as the Allen City Council. It was not originally our project. We were invited in by a developer who presented a site plan to this P&Z commission and to the Allen City Council. Their plan was approved by this commission. When we reviewed the plan we rejected it. It did not work for us. Our end product we have in mind is of a much higher quality. Our product requires institutional financing and professional management by a third party management company. The ultimate owners of the apartments will more than likely be a Pension Fund or a Real Estate Investment Trust. That insures the highest quality of maintenance, with reserves set aside each year for on- going maintenance of the property. Unlike smaller, often undercapitalized and under managed units that do become eyesores, Chaparral Crossing Apartments will maintain integrity for its whole economic life. Looking back, if we had accepted the previous plan, we would have been in far better position than today. We could have at least filed for a revision with zoning in place. We have currently spent hundreds of hours and many thousands of dollars in conceptional planning, market studies, lender inquiries etc. We would certainly not have believed that a vastly improved apartment product would not be accepted by the very same people who approved the last one. I D We believe that we have still have a unique opportunity to work together, with this commission as well as the city council of Allen. We basically have two options to pursue. We can initiate the annexation of the ten acre Plano tract into the city of Allen at this time and connect it with the subject tract (10 acre/Mixon tract) or we can possibly purebase soother six to ten acres to the North (Kande) tract). Either way, we work toward a first class apartment community that serves the city of Allen well. We ask that you do the right thing and support your own plan for land usage. I D I.UKH I iVt A I 972 967 9842 ItL 911-9U(-`1254[ feu LL 99 i25:U2 NO.UUb Y U1 Paul & Terri Turner 736 Ridgemont Drive Allen, TX 75002 (972) 390-7269 February 22, 1999 Ms. Marcie Diamond City Planner City of Allen One Butler Circle Allen, TX 75013 Re: Apartment Zoning Designation Dear Ms. Diamond: Via Facsimile (972) 727-0165 Please let this letter serve as a written "vote" for removing the apartment Zoning designation from the City's comprehensive plan for the land located at Greenville Avenue, south of Bethany Drive. We are unable to attend the meeting due to work schedules and small children living al home. My family and I favor the removal of apartments from the City's comprehensive plan. We favor a City that thrives from people who are willing to make an investment in the community, i.e. buying a home. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Tem Turner 214 770 0066 02/23/1999 14 02 214-770-0066 ORIGIN TECHNOLOGY PAGE 01 lag W-,- d t uun All., 1 % 741 1 JE EW -I -R a - l Ycbmary 23, 1999 M, Marcie Diamond Pity Planner ('try of Allen (072)727-0165 Dcar Marc., I am writing you to voice my support for removing the apartment coning designation from the City's Comprehensive Plan for the land nn Greenville, South of Bethany I am not ahle m attend the meeting scheduled for this Thursday, so I'm fazing you my opinion and support for mmovmg the apartment zoning deatgnation Thank you for your support and for the diligent work you do as nor City Planner Sincerely, PaW Daniels, Jr. E TO: MARCIE DIAMOND, ALLEN CITY PLANNER FROM: CHERYL HOGSTON RE: UPCOMING PLANNING R ZONING HEARING DEAR MS. DIAMOND, I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING THIS THURSDAY EVENING HOWEVER, I WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT I SUPPORT REMOVING THE APARTMENT ZONING DESIGNATION FOR THE LAND IN QUESTION. OVERALL, I WOULD LICE TO SEE AS FEW APARTMENTS IN ALIEN AS POSSIBLE. IF YOU NEED MY ADDRESS, IT IS: ONE VICTORIAN CIRCLE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, CHERYL HOGSTON I00 d MI M EL6 131 ON[ NOSSOIN3 _h 01 103MI66,K- 83 7681 225 E66 214 443e137 P-02 FEB -25-99 TMU 05:50 PM KRNDEU-DAUURS 214 443013T To CitN of Allen_ From Barbara Molsen Kandel and Frederick G Molsen Subj. Appioximately 11 acres on East Side of Hcuy 5 North of Chaparral Date February 25, 1999 ATT Marcie Diamond Regarding your Public Hearing on the land planning of the above subject tract please allow this letter to serve as notice that both of us do not feel that low density residential zoning is the highest and best use of our propertw We strongly feel that commercial zoning along the frontage of Hwv 5 is far more suitable Regrettabh . we are unable to attend the meeting tonight to voice our objections to any use of the frontage other than commercial Hmwever, we do feel that some multifamily use between the commercial frontage and the residential to the East is appropriate. We both would appreciate notice to any futw e meetungs regarding any proposed planned use of our property Frederick G. Molsen Barbara Molsen Kandel 6116 North Central Expresswaw 3427 Drexel Drive Suite 617 Box 9 6 Dallas, Texas 75205 Dallas, Texas 75206 Home214-528-6573 Office: 214-373-4343 Fax: 214-443-0137 Fa\.214-373-4235 Thank wou for your attention in this matter Sincctelw Barbara M. Kandel Frederick G Molsen I § � s Uw 2U za: N§ w g$ � @§ § IL a � \ } \ % E } !❑ \c j}\§j E E* .0 M (a g {BB�k (£/ o (D•m`) E- a) }ƒ{S -|;§ !)27w ig \}\CL ) ig 0 & 0 u 0 § N a J 0 § § IL 0 � � 0 0 C) 0 § \ & § CL 0 � L) w LU LU w � .� / $ /!§§ �§ f \ � £ / 72 } E E§/�( §a 3 f ƒ ,� . gLu Co - �k f E k� |■fu( ®/ §§ 02 (4 oa | 15 0. / j \ f \ } ])0 k2 E >— ,=a % I(L§ E §[\R ])i 4c; ) ) kb E CLZ _ �D E_ ) )jk /2( 0 a 0§!i° / / CL 0\ 2 ;)� : 0 Or f } b ) o �o .� / /!§§ �§ f \ � £ 4 72 } E§/�( §a 3 f , ,� . gLu Co - �k f E k� |■fu( ®/ §§ 02 (4 oa | 15 0. (L� j \ f \ } ])0 k2 E >— ,=a % I(L§ E §[\R ])i 4c; ) ) kb E CLZ _ �D E_ ) )jk �\2§LL) 0 a \//\ / } ,2� \ \k}j .� / /!§§ �§ f §°te2 � £ 72 } E§/�( §a 3 ia _ � ,� . gLu Co - �k E k� |■fu( ®/ §§ 02 (4 oa 15 0. �/ ¢0)`§ j \ f \ } ])0 k2 E >— ,=a % I(L§ E §[\R ])i 4c; ) kb L) CLZ E { / E_ ) )jk �\2§LL) 0 a w \\kj �/ f � £ _� ( G §�Z LL # 3: |■fu( §§ ) 0. i 60 a k2 I(L§ E x � ) kb L) CLZ E_ ) o CL 0Lu 6 0 a w {/� ,2� 0\ 2 ;)� : f!f%� |0ou \)) r } !k\#LU -\\/ % F- § ` 0\ { ( \\)§� /( 3 s ® ■ ma)'LL� 22 \ 0 0 \ 2m=co a§ 3 Z ° ( _ }\g 7z a w 2 v > a 2 I(L§ (/ k2 z � _ ) E o! ®/ o - M4 r- ko 06=0 z a & G / 22 ) $ g § ƒ \/0. }\/}) \)) % z ® |�={o §mE \ \ | k /k/{\ -\j} i } / . ! 2 3 \ \ !/ ƒo )k2$§ /)a � -- — — — -- - § 7 (� 16 2 \4i= �\ / \ \ \ \ALL }{ \ o ) \m\�( | 2 ° 2 "C f} = Q o )(§ EE )2 z \ } = G! ~7 0 U ` \..\ 0 0 N'm \/ « $ - ° ;��-) �® o z /E E�{kms }�k \ & k ��!!�o (f'S )a) \ 2 £ k /_00 -■4) } r ) ! 2 ! \ \/�)0 ILoI#w r}a 0 — / \\k\ uE / \ A )/)§m � $ E 2 i} \ 0 0 / s EE/w( §§ a `i -j f» &§ z u v f t \ \�§ (/ )� w } \ 0 ! o! ~7 a \ k 0 \\} \ � z w , , e w \ « ■ `°}°�� `- ^ a . \�/ �.2=E m/� 2 { / 2 \ / fk -«C CL`i» ,W! % g ■ ° - §!: 0 \ \2 M k�k \ ) | k CL CD E { r 2 ! ) 2 \ \ }/ /❑ CL f\a -1� Tj / .,�z 0 �\)a 2\ / $ 3 ®0> § a l2M w s \ 0 0 LL FL ; ( # B o a \ �r/w( §§ f ° K / _ \/\\ .2 a q ° ! {maoc k\) oz k\ § W j / 0 | \ � of *LL N � @ % 5 e ; a = i a� f2 �/ 2E ^� ^ k 2 0 /�/ NM )_ 4 , 2 f�°°� ,r 0-o &=G) ƒ ƒ //� !k/]ƒ /�$ % 5 ! |!I } ■)\a0 7k7 ) © ` °°[7{) ® !/» E/} / 2 k ) k \ \ \//)2& / )\22§ J§a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ALLEN, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1425-5-96, AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTION 2.10(6) DEFINITIONS TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF HOME OCCUPATION; BY AMENDING SECTION 3.10 BY AMENDING THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING A HOME OCCUPATION; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A REPEALING CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Allen, and the governing body of the City of Allen, in compliance with the laws of the State of Texas and the ordinances of the City of Allen, have given the requisite notices by publication and otherwise, and after holding due hearings and affording a full and fair hearing to all the property owners generally and to all persons interested and situated in the affected area, and in the vicinity thereof, and in the exercise of its legislative discretion, have concluded that Zoning Ordinance No. 1425-5-96 of the City of Allen, as previously amended, should be amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALLEN, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, THAT. 16 SECTION 1. That Zoning Ordinance No. 1425-5-96, of the City of Allen, Collin County, Texas, as previously amended, be amended by amending the definition of Home Occupation in Section 2.10 in pan to read as follows: "2.10 DEFINITIONS 67 Home Occupation - A "home occupation" is an occupation or activity that is incidental and secondary to the primary use of the premises as a residence, and customarily conducted in a residential dwelling unit by a member of the residence, entirely within the main structure. SECTION 2. That Zoning Ordinance No. 1425-5-96, of the City of Allen, Collin County, Texas, as previously amended, be amended by amending Section 3.10 Home Occupations in part to read as follows: "3.10 HOME OCCUPATION -A "home occupation" ksfollowing shaffiefArisfies! Ordinance No. Page 1 1. The activity shall be conducted wholly within the main buildinadweHing a,,,,-o;-,�„---'-aR and not in arty accessory bui/dinc Total floor area to be used for a home occupation shall not occupy more than twenty percent (20%) a(the total floor area of the main building not to exceed 400 square feet, - - . Outdoor activities shall be allewed-b"I limited to instructional activities conducted in the back yards and screened ¢am the neighboring propem 2, r-2,eshall be Niw outside storage of materials goods supplies vehicles. trailers or equipment connected with the home occupation shall be allowed; . 3, `aR+e-Lno advertisement, sign, or display, on the premises shall be allowed. No oeff premise advertisements sign or display shall -net include the gee address of the premises. 4. There shall be no activity which regularly a TeriedieeHy-attracts persons other than the residents to the location of the home occupation, except those related to instructional activities only. Inswctional activities shall be limited to a maximum of six (6) students at any time. Parking, picking up, or dropping off students is prohibited in City alleys. 5. Merchandise or products of the home occupation shall not be offered or displayed for sale at or onRd' fie 11 the j dwelling unit. 6. Salesincidental to a service shall be allowed provided orders previously made by telephone are filled of( the premises of the person condurnng the home occupation or td a sates party conducted off the premises of the person conductive rh home occupation. 7 There shall be no external evidence of the home occupation. No actives shall indicate from the exterior of rhe structure. that the premises are Pelf; used for anything other than a dwelling unu. 8 The activiry shall emptov only members of the immediate family that reser in thein the r�WKL Q}, ANe home occupation shall rrooduce loge &!:ew d whi='.= offensive by fessen--et-odor, noise, dust, smoke, fumes, glare, vibration, electrical disturbance, or heat in excess of those normally found in reslderttia( Ordinance No. Page 2 10. No traffic or parking of vehicles shall be -venerated by a home occupation in greater volumes than normally expected in a residential neighborhood and am need for parking must be accommodated within the required off street parking for the dwelling unit. 119. Child care in a registered family home will be allowed and shall be limited to the number of children allowed under applicable state law or L5N Ordinanc . 129 Any business, occupation, or acavi conducted within a dwelling unit and which does not meet the aforesaid characteristics shall be construed to be a commercial activity and shall therefore be cause for the City to order a cease to all such activity within said dwelling unit." SECTION 3. That all ordinances of the City of Allen in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance shall be, and the same are hereby, repealed; provided, however, that all other provisions of said ordinances not in conflict herewith shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4. That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions or terms of this ordinance shall be subject to the same penalty as provided for in Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 1425-5-96 of the City of Allen, as previously amended, and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine not to exceed the sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000) for each offense. lb SECTION 5. That should any word, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this ordinance, or of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinances, as amended hereby, be adjudged or held to he void or unconstitutional, the same shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of said ordinance or the Code of Ordinances, as amended hereby, which shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 6. An offense committed before the effective date of this ordinance is governed by prior law and the provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as amended, in effect when the offense was committed and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. SECTION 7. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and publication in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Allen, and it is accordingly so ordained. DULY PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALLEN, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, ON THIS THE _ DAY OF '1999. APPROVED AS TO FORM Peter G. Smith, CITY ATTORNEY (PGS/N 2/4/99) (SW659) Ordinance No. APPROVED: Stephen Terrell, MAYOR ATTEST: Judy Morrison, CMC, CITY SECRETARY Page 3