Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - Planning and Zoning Commission - 1986 - 04/28 - WorkshopALLEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING APRIL 28, 1986 Present: Commissioners• Bobby Glass, Chairman Wayne Armand, Secretary Ken Browning John Garcia (left at 8:45 p.m.) Eileen Karlsruher Charles Akin Commissioners Absent: Charles Lee Staff Present: Bill Petty, Director of Community Development Tom Keener, Development Coordinator (arrived 8:00 p.m.) Sally Leeper, Secretary J The Workshop Meeting of the Allen Planning & Zoning Commission {1rJ was called to order by Chairman Glass at 7:33 p.m. at the City Council Chambers of the Allen Municipal Annex, One Butler Circle, Allen, Texas. Workshop Buckingham Crossing (Agenda Item II) Mr. Craig Curry of The Nelson Corporation, appeared before the Commission and presented an overview of the zoning submission. He discussed the 60 foot private ingress/egress easement that currently exists on this property. They are requesting a secondary thoroughfare running through the property and that would tie into Highway 5. He stated the ROW at Highway 5 would be 110 feet to allow for a divided road at that point. Since the previous workshop meeting, proponent has spoken with the property owners that were not a part of this request, Mr. Dyer and Mr. Duke, Mr. Bennett, and Ms. Parks and Ms. West. As a result of these meetings, proponent has changed the alignment of the roadway. After further talks with Mr. Dyer and Mr. Duke, they have indicated a desire to become a part of this submission. Mr. Curry discussed the deed restrictions that have been submitted for each tract. He stated this plan is within 40 units of that suggested in the Comprehensive Plan. Deed restrictions are as follows: Z ALLEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 28, 1986 PAGE TWO Workshop Buckingham Crossing (Cont.) MF2 - 18 units per acre TH - 10 units per acre R-5 - 3.8 units per acre R-4 - 3.2 units per acre Further deed restrictions on unit sizes would be 1400 sq. feet minimum on the R-5. These deed restrictions would be filed with the County and enforced by the City. Mr. Petty discussed the background of this submission for the benefit of the new Commissioners. The two local retail and the multi -family tracts are not in line with the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan shows local retail at the intersection of two major thoroughfares and multi -family would be used as a buffer. Mr. Petty advised the Commission of the COG study in regard to this secondary thoroughfare. COG stated it would be appropriate at any location from 1/8 to 1/2 mile from a major thoroughfare. If the secondary thoroughfare is deemed appropriate in the location shown by proponent, then the local retail and multi- family would be appropriate uses in these locations. Mr. Petty stated consideration needs to be given to the property imme- diately south of this tract and adjacent to Highway 5. He stated the commercial allowed in this district needs to be spread throughout the neighborhood district. If this ROW is established for a secondary arterial, a procedure is needed to put this into motion. Zoning districts would go to the center line of whatever ROW is in place, and the ROW needs to be established through the platting process. If the ROW is platted, construction needs to be 50 percent complete within one year. Mr. Curry stated that the time -frame for development after dedication of the ROW would be a problem as this property is not ready for development at this time. Mr. Petty suggested the possibility of entering into a facilities agreement. There was further discussion regarding the alignment of the road as shown. Mr. Keener reviewed the zoning analysis with consideration given to the secondary thoroughfare. He stated that even with the secondary arterial, the density and intensity are excessive when compared to that suggested in the Comprehensive Plan. Z ALLEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 28, 1986 PAGE THREE Workshop Buckingham Crossing (Cont.) This submission, as presented originally, is in excess of that suggested in the Comprehensive Plan by approximately 80 units, including the multi -family. Without the roadway, the excess is approximately 140 units. Mr. Keener suggested that the location of the secondary arterial needs to be established before any zoning can be set on this property. After further discussion of the deed restrictions discussed earlier, Mr. Keener agreed that the density is closer than he was indicating to the Comprehensive Plan, but it is still excessive. Mr. Petty questioned those in the audience as to whether they understood that once this property is zoned and platted, the development on the land will need to be in accordance with the development requirements of the City. The area would not be allowed to develop with septic tanks and asphalt roadways. Ms. Billie West questioned whether she and others not a part of this submission would be assessed for the development that is wanted by the other property owners. Mr. Curry stated the construction would occur at no cost to those who are not involved until such time as they do develop their own property. Ms. Chris Parks stated she did not oppose this submission if she were not forced to pay an assessment for the development. Mr. Petty questioned whether all the property owners in this proposal are willing to dedicate the roadway right-of-way. Mr. Dyer stated he and Mr. Duke have agreed to this new alignment of the roadway conditional upon a successful execution of a land swap agreement they have discussed. Commissioner Armand stated he has no problem with the location of the road, but feels the density should be lowered. Commissioner Browning questioned the audience as to their intentions for development. He questioned the intent of zoning the property at this time. Mr. Tom Bennett stated he did not intend to develop the bulk of the residential at this time. The multi -family and retail would possibly be developed in approximately two years. Mr. Dyer stated he was requesting zoning for the purpose of future development. BYa ALLEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 28, 1986 PAGE FOUR Workshop Buckingham Crossing (Cont.) Commissioner Armand suggested that changing the MF2 to MF1 would pick up 38 of the 90 units the submission is over at this time. Mr. Keener stated another method of bringing the total units per acre down would be through open space dedication. Mr. Petty reiterated that the first consideration needs to be the location of the roadway. Three items that need to be examined are: 1. Is this an acceptable location? 2. Are the owners all willing to sign a plat? 3. Are the owners willing to enter into a facilities agreement prior to development? Commissioner Browning stated he had no problem with the location of the roadway. Commissioner Akin stated he had no problem with the location of the road. Commissioner Karlsruher stated she had no problem with the location of the road. Mr. Petty stated that if the roadway goes here, it will mean: 1. The ROW will have to be platted which would require signatures of every property owner. 2. It tends to suggest that a facilities agreement would be agreed upon by all the property owners that no construction or development of the property would occur until all of the utilities, streets, and necessary improvements were constructed and in place for the ROW. 3. Although all property owners agree to not develop their property until this is all in place, on whom do we place the burden of construction of the ROW and utilities? Chairman Glass stated he feels these items need to be part of the submission. There was further discussion as to the responsibility of those owners that are not interested in zoning at this time. Ms. Parks stated that if she is not required to pay an assessment, she does not have a problem with the request. Mr. Petty stated that a private contract might protect the separate property owners not wanting to develop at this time. MK ALLEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 28, 1986 PAGE FIVE Workshop Buckingham Crossing (Cont.) Mr. Petty stated that to consider the zoning on this property, first the ROW must be designated. Once the decision is made that the road does in fact go here, it will go here whether the zoning is granted or not. A facilities agreement would state that prior to development or site planning, the road and utilities will be constructed. This would take the place of the City's requirement of 508 construction within one year. The consensus of the Commission was that this was a good location for the road, if everyone in the submission agrees and the ROW is submitted by plat. Chairman Glass suggested the plat on the ROW should come forward to Commission before the zoning issue appears on the agenda. MOTION: Upon a motion by Commissioner Armand and a second by Commissioner Karlsruher, Commission voted 5 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to adjourn this workshop session of the Allen Planning and Zoning Commission at 9:30 p.m. The motion carried. These minutes approved this p tl/- day of 1986. Bobby Gla Chairman Wayn �~L� . A4rmand, Secretary MW