Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - Planning and Zoning Commission - 1985 - 04/11 - RegularALLEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 11, 1985 Present: Commissioners: Bobby Glass, Chairman Jerry Wilson, Vice Chairman Wayne Armand, Secretary Jack Pennington John Garcia Scott Hoover Doug Braun Staff: Bill Petty, Director of Community Development Tom Keener, Development Coordinator Kellie Fishell, Secretary The Regular Meeting of the Allen Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Glass at 7:39 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Allen Municipal Annex, One Butler Circle, Allen, Texas. Minutes March 28, 1985 (Agenda Item No. II) Chairman Glass read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Approve minutes of March 28, 1985, Regular Meeting." MOTION: Upon a motion by Commissioner and a second by Commissioner Wilson, the Commission voted 7-0 to approve the minutes of the March 28, 1985, Regular Meeting. The motion carried. Tabled Item Shelley Realtors (Agenda Item No. III) Chairman Glass read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Tabled Item - Consider a zoning request by Shelley Realtors on approximately six acres in the William Perrin Survey, Abstract No. 708, Allen, Collin County, Texas, and delineated on the Official Zoning Map as a portion of "PD" Planned Development No. 3. This property is further described on the north side of Bethany Drive, and extending approximately 850 feet to the north adjacent to the western boundary of the shopping center district of "PD" Planned Development No. 3" ALLEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 2 APRIL 11, 1985 Tabled Item Shelley Realtors (Cont.) MOTION: Upon a motion by Commissioner Hoover and a second by Commissioner Armand, the Commission voted 7-0 to remove agenda item from the table. The motion carried. Craig Curry, of The Nelson Corooration, presented the plan to the Commission. He pointed out that the plan was the exact same plan presented at the last meeting. John Poer, Vice President of the First National Bank of Allen, addressed the Commission and stated that he was in favor of the proposal. Allowing the statement in favor of the proposal, Chairman Glass asked if there was anyone to speak against the request. Dick Bode, Vice President of DLM, came before the Commission and stated his objections to the request. MOTION: Upon a motion by Commissioner Pennington and a second by Commissioner Armand, the Commission voted 4-3, with the opposing votes being Commissioners Braun and Garcia, and Chairman Glass, to approve Agenda Item No. III on the grounds that Commission believes that it would accommodate a center more desirable to the City. The motion carried. FINDINGS: ° There are four corners at the intersection of the two major thoroughfares. The corner immediately south of this proposal is zoned light industrial, and neither of the two corners on the opposite side of State Highway 5 from this proposal, are large enough to accommodate this type of an anchor store in a shopping center. ° By taking the land of the shopping center district and revert- ing the land along State Highway 5 to the light industrial, we will make a more equal distribution of that light industrial tract to the north of this proposal. ° The City will pick up an additional 100 ft. of greenbelt in the area to be reverted back to the light industrial that cannot be developed to extend the greenbelt further to the south. I L E ALLEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 3 APRIL 11, 1985 Development Plan Allen Business Centre (Agenda Item No. IV) Chairman Glass read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Consider development plan for Allen Business Centre as revised from original site plan approval for Paragon." Bill Petty addressed the Commission on the request. He explained the reason for the plan's coming back. Proponent is asking to develop only their part of the roadway which is on their property. They want to bring the utilities from Bethany Road instead of Highway 5 as originally proposed. Their part of the roadway is 750 feet in depth. MOTION: Upon a motion by Commission Garcia and a second by Commissioner Braun, the Commission voted 7-0 to approve Agenda Item No. IV. The motion carried. FINDINGS• ° It is the intent of the Commission that when the rest of this street or any other tract of the adjacent property in the light industrial tract develops, that the entire street and utilities will be put in at one time. ° Also that request meets the approval of the Fire Marshal. R.O.W. Plat Bethany Road Phase B (Agenda Item No. V) Chairman Glass read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Consider right-of-way plat approval for Bethany Road Phase B. Being 2.126 acres of land owned by Cottonwood Partners situated in the William Perrin Survey, Abstract No. 708, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas, and further being that tract conveyed to Landtex Development, a Texas Joint Venture, as recorded in Volume 1171, Page 280 of the Deed Records, Collin County, Texas." Pat Atkins, of Don Tipton Engineering, presented the plat to the Commission. He stated that the plat is for the section of Bethany from Jupiter to the Bridge, up to the creek. Bill Petty stated that staff had no problem with the plat. ALLEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 4 APRIL 11, 1985 R.O.W. Plat Bethany Road Phase B (Cont.) MOTION: Upon a motion by Commissioner Wilson and a second by Commissioner Garcia, the Commission voted 7-0 to approve Agenda Item No. V. The motion carried. Zoning Utal Development (Agenda Item No. VI) Chairman Glass read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Zoning consideration for Ural Development on 293 acres of land located in the James H. Wilcox Survey, Abstract No. 1017, Collin County, Texas, and further being all of a tract of land out of those certain four tracts Conveyed to Connie Holt, Baker and Betty Holt Smith, as described by Gift Deed, dated December 28, 1976, and recorded in Volume 1031, Page 880 of the Deed Records of Collin County, Texas." Steve Kanoff was present to answer any questions from the Commission. Bill Petty stated that if approved, the approval would be an amendment to the request previously sent forward. An analysis was done two ways on the proposal. 1.) in relation to the new plan, and 2.) try to do it under the old standards. There is a great deal of problem with the proposal in regard to the new plan. The problem are the uses above Bethany Road. Mr. Petty stated that is wasn't really the uses, but what those uses will generate. He also stated that under the old guidelines, he still had a problem with some of the proposed zoning and how it would affect future zoning on adjacent property. The new plan does not allow office use in District 21. The proposed land uses do create good transition for their development, but they create a problem for the City's future development. Mr. Petty asked the Commission to think about this and see if this was really a good trade-off for the dedicated park site. He stated that the City would eventually pay for it. The City would pay for it in dollars, or will pay for it in good land use planning and protection above Bethany Road of the new Comprehensive Plan. ALLEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 5 APRIL 11, 1985 Zoning Utal Development (Cont.) Mr. Petty stated that under the old plan, he cannot find anywhere in the histroy of Allen that we've taken 55 acres outisde along the corridor of Highway 75, and put all high intensity uses on one corner. He also stated that staff is not taking a position in making any recommendation, but he wanted the Commission to be aware of what could happen to that roadway. There was discussion about the purchase of the park, time factors, when will the money be available, and the price of the park at that time. Steve Kanoff was asked to address this issue. Mr. Kanoff's comments were as follows: "What if we did dedicate the park - the City's policy may be to pay cost plus carry on a zoning piece of property as Community Facility, and they pay in five years or whatever. We have been discussing this with the company and our attorneys and all, I think that the park acquisition policy is not exactly correct. This particular case is on our property, 10 1/2 acres as Community Facilities, you will in effect be taking our property and depriving it of any value of any use. We would expect to be compensated at that time. We would also expect to be compensated at the appraisal value of the property, not cost plus carry, because cost plus carry does not tell the true picture. We had to buy all the property including 50 acres of flood plain, and that all has to be added in, so I think it is not exactly accurate to think that you would simply be paying us cost plus carry, whatever anybody think that may be. I want to get that out of the way. I would look at the trade-offs accurately. I think the cost is much greater than you all may have been led to believe Secondly, there are funds, he didn't specify how much, there are funds to buy two 50 acre parks. I think you are much better off, those funds may and may not be available. The bond funds may be approved. There may be matching funds available in the future, you know may, may, may. We are offering you now an 18 1/2 acre park for sure. You can take the funds when, or if they are available, and put it in to developing the park or another park, and not have to acquire the park at whatever price that may be. I think everybody is beginning to debate about the price of the land. Single family is not a fair comparison. We now have an 18 1/2 acre park, and everyone has acknowledged that you need to adjust the land uses bordering the park. It is not accurate, or fair to say the City will buy the park, and just keep all those other land uses the same. That is not really good land use planning in terms of our development." ALLEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 6 APRIL 11, 1985 Zoning Utal Development (Cont.) Commissioner responded by asking what the difference was in dwelling units from this plan and the previous plan. Mr. Kanoff stated that there are 74 more units in this plan, but there is less office and retail acreage. Commissioner Wilson presented his findings to the Commission. ° Consideration on this tract of land was that it needed to be a planned development. There are very sensitive environmental areas that have been addressed such as the tree preservation policy, the increase of lot sizes in wooded areas. ° There has been offered a community park site to be donated that meets the approval of the parks director. ° There is a bridge to be constructed over on Alma over the Creek that not only have they offered to build the four lanes that would normally be required of the developer that owned both sides of the property, but they have offered to build all six lanes including two center lanes that normally would be the responsibility of the City. ° They have donated a tremendous amount of land over the entire project particularlythe flood plain that is being donated to the City in the Rowlett Corridor so that we cannot conflict with the Rowlett Corridor Study that is under way, because it only deals with the flood plain of Rowlett Creek. ° They are donating a 20 acre tributary which is outside the flood plain independent of the community park that will enhance the single family residential area, and also the medium density residential area that is coming down into the south. ° They have offered to complete a roadway to McDermott from the south which will be completed before any construction ° will be allowed in the southern part of this development. The commercial corner at Hedgcoxe and Alma Road is an appropriate size at an intersection of two major thorough- fares which is believed to be good planning practice. ALLEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 7 APRIL 11, 1985 Zoning Utal Development (Cont.) ° Tract 7, the low density residential, addresses the sensitive environmental areas in that area which we have had alot of comments from the public, with some unique platting requirements that we've talked about, and tree preservation policy to limit the loss of trees, and also the wish that we have expressed to them to provide some very large lots in the City. ° Tract 5A is in a correct location surrounding a shopping center district as long as it doesn't go over the policy of having no more than 200 units of any one type in any one location. Tract 6A, the medium density residential, is in the correct location because it allows for a gradual step down between the higher intense uses of the commercial corner down to the low density residential. Basically is the same with Tracts 10A, 11, and 9. This also addresses the request we have asked them to allow for different size lots and home sizes in the development. Not only do we have the large lot sizes in Tract 7, we have got some smaller lot sizes down in those districts. In Tract 4A, the flood plain community facility addresses the wish that we have had to avoid any development in the flood plain, and to donate land to the City for use in the linear park system, and also the donation of the tributary between those residential districts of approx- imately 20 acres is outside the flood plain, and would also allow for direct communication of all the residential areas directly up into the linear park system. ° Tract 4B, the park site, addresses the issue the reason the proposal was sent back to Commission in the first place. Proponent has offered to the City 18 1/2 acres outside the flood plain for construction of a community park, and the design of that park has been worked out between the developers and our parks director and Commission in a workshop meeting, and the location provides for all the major activities that Mark Thornton wants in a Elcommunity park. Also, the community park will be located next to a area of open space - the Rowlett Creek Corridor - to allow for a tremendous amount of passive recreation area. ALLEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 8 APRIL 11, 1985 Zoning Utal Development (Cont.) ° On the opposite side of the creek, Tract 6B, the medium density, allows for uses that are compatible with the higher intense uses of the community park directly across the street. ° The tree preservation policy as sent forward to the City Council is adequate as far as enforceability, and for the preservation of the sensitive environmental area. Also wants to request that Council consider zoning all of the community park as soon as possible so that it will be possible to tie down the entire location. ° Recognizing that District 21 will need special consideration in the future from this retail and office tract that is under consideration, but believes it is something that can be worked with. ° Commission was only presented the Use Regulations at the meeting, and recognizes that although the districts may have changed, the Use Regulations being approved tonight are exactly the same as the first submission with the exception of quantity of acreages and location of acreages. MOTION: Upon a motion by Commissioner Wilson and a second by Commissioner Garcia, the Commission voted 6-1, with the opposing vote being Chairman Glass, to approve with the understanding that this is a revision to the amendment to the plan that has previously been sent to Council. Also, the findings of Commissioner Wilson be made the official findings of the Commission. The motion carried. Chairman Glass stated that he voted against the proposal because of the impact it will cause on District 21. Other Business Comprehensive Plan (Agenda Item No. VII) Chairman Glass read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Other Business - Staff report of joint Comprehensive Plan workshop meeting." ALLEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 9 APRIL 11, 1985 Other Business Comprehensive Plan (Cont.) Bill Petty addressed the Commission on the agenda item. He stated that the new Comprehensive Plan is now in effect, and will be used from now on. He also stated that it would not do any good to do an analysis on District 21, for it no longer exists. He requested that in the future that the Commission take careful consideration on other proposals on the analysis that is done. Adjournment: MOTION: Upon a motion by Commissioner Garcia and a second by Commissioner Hoover, the Commission voted 7-0 to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. The motion carried. These minutes approved this �_ day of , 1985. Bobby Glass, Chairman Wayn Armand, Secretary