Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - Planning and Zoning Commission - 1998 - 01/08 - RegularALLEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING January 8,1998 ATTENDANCE: Commission Members Present Jeffery Kelley, Chairman Ross Obenneyer, Vice -Chairman Pamela Smith, Secretary Jeff McGregor (arrived 7:05 p.m.) Susan Bartlemay (arrived 7:15 p.m.) Mark Pacheco Paul Penny Commission Members Absent: None City Staff Present. ® Marcie Diamond, Senior Planner George Conner, Director of Public Works Sally Leeper, Administrative Assistant WORKSHOP MEETING CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM With a quorum of the Commission members present, the Allen Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Jeffery Kelley, at the City Council Chambers, Allen Library, Two Allen Civic Plaza, Allen, Texas. Ms. Marcie Diamond reminded the Commission Members that Pamela Smith, Paul Penny, and Mark Pacheco would be attending a Comprehensive Planning session at NCTCOG on Friday She would also be attending. DISCUSSION REGARDING CONSENT AND REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Diamond provided a revised replat for Allen Lots which includes utility easements on the north and south sides to accommodate existing utilities. Commission Member Pacheco questioned whether the houses currently located on the Allen Lots Addition were occupied. Ms. Diamond stated that they are, and that they are party to the request. E PLANNING 8r ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 1998 PAGE 2 I Commission Member McGregor indicated that he would request the minutes be removed from the consent agenda in order to add the name `Smith" to page 11. Commission Member Pacheco questioned the intended use of the Clay Addition. Ms. Diamond indicated it would be used for office. Commission Member McGregor questioned whether Coats would be brought up to standard Mr. George Conner indicated that the owner will be constructing head -in parking with curb. Further discussion was held as to the requirement to replace the asphalt with concrete and whether not requiring this would be setting a precedent in the Central Business District. Commission Member McGregor discussed issues related to the Toney Addition and the requirement placed on him to bring Ash up to standard. Further discussion was held by staff regarding the facility agreements under consideration for the Allen Lots Addition for Belmont and Century Mr. Conner provided details of each of these properties. Ms. Diamond reviewed the plat for Dollar General Store; staff has requested that lot and block nomenclature be added to the plat and the existing utility line be placed within a designated easement. She added that the fire marshal has reviewed the approved the configuration of the fire lane. REGULAR MEETING Consent Agenda (Agenda Item III) Chairman Kelley read the consent agenda into the record as follows. "Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of December 11, 1997, Regular Meeting. B Final Plat - Consider a final plat for Custer/McDermott L.P and Albertsons of Lots 1-8, Block A, Custer/McDermott Addition, being 16.985 acres out of the John Huffman Survey, Abstract No. 416, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; further described as being located at the southwest comer of McDermott Drive and Custer Road. C. Replat - Consider a replat for Charles E. Reed of the Allen Lots Addition, being a 0.930 -acre tract of land out of Block 8 of Whisenant Addition, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas, further described as being located on the north side of McDermott Drive at Century Drive. D. Replat - Consider a replat for Steven Clay of the Clay Addition, being a 0.273 -acre tract representing the remaining portion of Lot 1, Block A, of the Original Donation to the City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; further described as being located at the northwest comer of Coats Drive and Allen Drive." MOTION: Upon a motion by Commission Member Obermeyer and a second by Commission Member McGregor, the Commission voted 7 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to remove Items A and C from the consent agenda. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 1998 PAGE 3 MOTION: Upon a motion by Commission Member Obermeyer and a second by Commission Member Penny, the Board voted 7 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve Items B and D from the Consent Agenda. Minutes December 11. 1997 (Agenda Item IV -A) Chairman Kelley read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Approve minutes of December 11, 1997, Regular Meeting." Commission Member McGregor indicated that the name "Smith" should be added to the last full paragraph on page 1 I MOTION: Upon a motion by Commission Member McGregor and a second by Commission Member Smith, the Commission voted 7 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve the minutes of December 11, 1997, with the addition of the name "Smith" on page 11. Final Plat Allen Lots Addition (Agenda Item IV -C) Chairman Kelley read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Replat - Consider a replat for Charles E. Reed of the Allen Lots Addition, being a 0.930 -acre tract of land out of Block 8 of Whisenant Addition, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas, further described as being located on the north side of McDermott Drive at Century Drive." Chairman Kelley indicated that a revised plat had been provided to include a utility easement on the south and north property lines. MOTION: Upon a motion by Commission Member Pacheco and a second by Commission Member Bardemay, the Commission voted 7 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve the final plat for Allen Lots Addition. I PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 1 JANUARY S, 1995 PAGE 4 i Final Plat Dollar General Store (Agenda Item V) Chairman Kelley read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Final Plat - Consider a preliminary/final plat for Rick Srygley of the Dollar General Addition, being a 0.651 -acre tract of land in the Peter Wetsel Survey, Abstract No. 990, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; further described as being located at the northwest corner of Main Street and Fountain Park Drive." Ms. Diamond presented the plat to the Commission. It represents a single lot. Staff recommends approval of the request with the following amendments: Nomenclature of Lot 1, Block 1, should be placed on the title block. Existing utility line should be placed within an easement along the south property line. MOTION: Upon a motion by Commission Member Bartlemay and a second by Commission Member Pacheco, the Commission voted 7 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve the final plat for Dollar General Store, with direction to add Lot 1, Block I to the title block, and include the necessary utility easement along the south property line. E j Tabled Item �i Warren R. and Georgia Blackmon (Agenda Item VD Chairman Kelley read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Tabled Item - Consider request by Warren R. and Georgia Blackmon to place permanent zoning of Multi -family 18 (MF -I8), Residential -5(C) (R -5(C)), and Community Facilities (CF) on 61 437 acres of land out of the Jesse H. Gough Survey, Abstract No. 347, in the City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; further described as being located east of Custer Road between McDermott Drive and S H. 121 " Ms. Diamond reviewed the request with the Commission. MOTION: Upon a motion by Commission Member McGregor and a second by Commission Member Smith, the Commission voted 7 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to remove agenda item VI from the table. Ms. Diamond reviewed the request with the Commission The Commission held the public hearing on December 11, 1997 There have been no changes to the proposal since that meeting. She noted that the commissioners had received information from the proponent regarding the multi -family tract in the mail. Mr. Pat Atkins, Tipton Engineering, discussed the request. The purchaser and potential developer, Peter Shaddock, was available for comment. They originally intended to request R-5 on the entire tract; however, after determining that the City required land for three water storage facilities on the site, they felt the request for multi -family as a buffer between the water facilities and the low density is appropriate. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan allows 360 units in the Neighborhood District. They feel 250 units is the minimum PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 1998 PAGE 5 needed to accomplish a quality multi -family development. He added that if the three water storage facilities were not needed by the City, they would not be requesting multi -family on the site. Commission Member Bartlemay reviewed the location of the water storage facilities. Mr. Atkins discussed their intended plans for development of the multi -family with relation to the water facilities. The residential property to the east is zoned at 3.6 units per acre. The flood plain will be dedicated to the City with a trail system constructed. Commission Member Obermeyer questioned the control measures for the quality of the multi -family. Mr. Atkins indicated that the need to develop the 38 acres of residential puts pressure on the developer to sell the multi -family tract to a quality developer. Mr. Peter Shaddock indicated that the multi -family developer will be controlled by himself He feels they will begin development shortly after he begins the low density portion of the development. Commission Member Smith questioned when the water storage facilities will be constructed, and Mr Conner indicated that staff does not have a firm date. The land will be purchased within the current 5 -year Capital Improvement Program, and the construction will probably begin within 5-10 years. The first one will probably be built within 5 years, and the other two to follow as needed. He noted that a sign will be placed on the property when the City purchases it indicating that it is a future site for ground storage tanks. Commission Member Bartlemay questioned if this were recommended for approval, would it be possible to remove the remaining 110 multi -family units from the Comprehensive Plan allowance. Ms. Diamond stated that this should be considered during the review process of the Comprehensive Plan. Commission Member Bartlemay indicated that it appeared that this would be the appropriate location for the multi -family in this district. Commission Member Pacheco stated he has no problem with the multi -family in this district, but he is concerned about clustering the multifamdy development since there is multi -family to the north and to the west in Plano. He indicated he recognizes that a hardship is placed on the property because of the need for water storage facilities, but would like to see other uses considered. Commission Member McGregor stated he felt the same as Commission Member Pacheco, and does not agree with allowing the majority of the multi -family to a single developer. He would like to alleviate the remaining 110 units, but would also like to consider other uses. He had indicated previously that he would be more comfortable with 200 units. Allowing 250 units leaves 110, which would allow a lower -quality development. Commission Member Obermeyer indicated that he felt that this was a good use of the land, being adjacent to the water storage facilities. He stated he felt that the 110 remaining units will probably be removed with the review of the Comprehensive Plan He is in agreement with the R -5(C) He has some concern regarding the multi -family in general; however, he does not feel that this plan is bad. Commission Member Penny feels that this appears to be the best use of the property, given the i circumstances. He stated he would like some assurances as to the quality of the multi -family development. Commission Member Smith stated she feels the same as she did during the previous meeting, and was opposed to the multi -family She is concerned about multi -family and single-family compatibility. She reviewed the following written comments that she had prepared: PLANNING &, ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 1998 PAGE 6 Recent analysis of west side multi -family indicates the city has overzoned if remaining unzoned units in Comprehensive Plan develop. If the city uses multi -family as a buffer adjacent to SF at every possible opportunity, the city will most likely succeed in eventually overzoning multi -family on the west side. Although the Comprehensive Plan, Table 18, p.3.10, lists HDA in a low/moderate intensity mixed use as having high compatibility to residential that analysis could be challenged based on the following: a. Recent neighborhood conflicts indicate precedent of strong opposition from SF residents toward adjacent multi -family zoning. b. Public opinion should be a factor in compatibility of land uses, considering how far the City is from buildout. C. Convenience to present developers should be weighed against long-term impact. d. Multi -family more desirable within high intensity land use areas, where compatibility to residential is low. 1 e Multi -family most desirable when bordered or landlocked by thoroughfares, creeks, and commercial development 4. Alternate buffers would be considered desirable, such as: a. Garden Office b. utilizing the smaller lots in SF proposal to buffer larger lots from CF zoning. 5. Proposed SF density with minimum average lot sizes to assure mixed lot sizes is highly desirable 6. Location of water storage facility deemed necessary and could be acquired by City regardless of adjacent zoning. 7 Recent zoning to accommodate elevated water storage facilities; i.e., Custer Hill and Bethany Creek, has not prevented marketability of adjacent SF lots. 8. Given timeline of 5-10 years for the CF development, its zoning proximity to the SF development would have minimal impact on present marketability of those lots. 9. Future issue of water storage tanks can be substantiated as satisfying a public need. l0. Proposed multi -family does not satisfy a need of the city I1. Proposed multi -family based on convenience to the proponent. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 1998 PAGE 7 Commission Member Kelley indicated that he is in agreement with the proposal, and feels the multi -family is a good buffer in this situation. Mr. Shaddock stated that he has been in this particular business since 1966. He has never developed multi- family; however, he has a record of selling homes backing to multi -family and commercial He does feel that homes will not sell if backed to the water storage facilities. Commission Member Bartlemay questioned Mr. Shaddock regarding the possibility of garden office use. He noted that he did not feel there was a market for garden office. He addressed the issue of assurance for a quality multi -family development by reiterating the fact that he will control the project as he sells the multi- family tract in a way that will protect the SF development. Chairman Kelley indicated that there was a person in the audience that would like to speak to the Commission, although the public hearing is closed. The Commissioners indicated a desire to hear the comments. Mr Kevin Kerr, 1013 Ashland CL, Allen, Texas, discussed the possibility of the developer working with the city in lowering the ground for the water storage facilities, and budding a high bean between that and the property in question He suggested that consideration needs to be given to an alternate use of the property He noted that if the price of the land was lowered, the lots would sell for single family. He expressed �1'" concern about the school in this area. He discussed the need to adopt ordinances for controlling minimum standards for apartments. Ms. Diamond indicated that city staff is in the process of developing a multi -family maintenance ordinance for future consideration by the City Council. Commission Member Obermeyer questioned Mr. Conner as to the issues related to the elevation of the water tower. Mr. Conner suggested that he felt Mr. Kerr was indicating that the tanks could be buried. This is a possibility, but is very expensive. MOTION Upon a motion by Commission Member Penny and a second by Commission Member Bartlemay, the Commission voted 4 FOR and 3 OPPOSED to recommend approval of the request by Warren Blackmon as presented with an average lot size on the single family of 9,000 xf, a minimum of 7,500 s.f, 250 multi -family units, and 130 single family units, with a 3.4 unit per acre density Commission Members Obermeyer, Penny, Kelley, and Bartlemay voted for the request, and Commission Member Pacheco, Mc Gregor, and Smith voted against the request MAJORITY FINDINGS: Appropriate use of multi -family to buffer community facilities from up -scale single family development 2. Proponent, being in partnership with the proposed multi -family developer, will insure a quality Lmulti-family development. 3. Proponent owns the entire property. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 1998 PAGE 8 4. Request is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, and is under the allowable multi -family units for this neighborhood district. S. There is some question of what to do with the remaining 110 units, and the Commission feels these may be removed during the upcoming review. 6. Appropriate density in the single family tract. 7 250 units is necessary for a quality type of multi -family development to encourage amenities. 8. Proponent indicated intent to assure that limited windows would fact the single family tract, and that the setbacks would be greater than minimum as required by the City. 9 Traffic study indicates no traffic issues or concerns. 10. Allen Independent School District representative recently indicated that multi -family development does not adversely impact the school district. Il. Meets all guidelines of the City's Comprehensive Plan. MINORITY FINDINGS' I Recent analysis of west side multi -family indicates the city has overzoned if remaining unzoned units in Comprehensive Plan develop. If the city uses multi -family as a buffer adjacent to SF at every possible opportunity, the city will most likely succeed in eventually overzoning multi -family on the west side. Although the Comprehensive Plan, Table 18, p 3. 10, lists HDR in a low/moderate intensity mixed use as having high compatibility to residential that analysis could be challenged based on the following: a. Recent neighborhood conflicts indicate precedent of strong opposition from SF residents toward adjacent multi -family zoning. b. Public opinion should be a factor in compatibility of land uses, considering how far the City is from buildout C. Convenience to present developers should be weighed against long-term impact. d Multi -family more desirable within high intensity land use areas, where compatibility to residential is low e. Multi -family most desirable when bordered or landlocked by thoroughfares, creeks, and commercial development. Alternate buffers would be considered desirable, such as: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 1998 PAGE 9 a. Garden Office b. utilizing the smaller lots in SF proposal to buffer larger lots from CF zoning. 5. Proposed SF density with minimum average lot sizes to assure mixed lot sizes is highly desirable. 6. Location of water storage facility deemed necessary and could be acquired by City regardless of adjacent zoning. 7 Recent zoning to accommodate elevated water storage facilities, i.e., Custer Hill and Bethany Creek, has not prevented marketability of adjacent SF lots 8 Given timeline of 5-10 years for the CF development, its zoning proximity to the SF development would have minimal impact on present marketability of those lots. 9. Future issue of water storage tanks can be substantiated as satisfying a public need. 10 Proposed multi -family does not satisfy a need of the city 11. Proposed muti-family based on convenience to the proponent. 12. Proponent did not study other possible land uses to buffer the single family and community facilities. 13. Allocation of such a large percentage of the allowable multi -family in this neighborhood district to a single proponent is not appropriate. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Kelley indicated that he has received information regarding zoning of antennas from the Cable Board, and they are requesting the Commission to consider information that they are providing. Ms. Diamond indicated that the NCTCOG has published some suggested guidelines and that staff will be bringing this forward soon. Ms. Diamond reviewed the upcoming agenda which will include the Bishop/Carter preliminary plat. Commission Member McGregor expressed an opinion that he would not meet with prospective proponents on a one-on-one basis. He would, however, talk by telephone. Other commission members agreed with the opinion and requested staff to provide this information to future proponents. They further noted that all information a proponent provides to a commission members should be provided to all. Mr. Conner provided an update on road and public works construction projects. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 1998 PAGE 10 ADJOURN. MOTION: Upon a motion by Commission Member McGregor and a second by Commission Member Obermeyer, the Commission voted 7 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to adjourn the January 8, 1998, meeting at 9'05 p.m. These minutes approved this � day of , 1998. Jeff Ke ley, C airman Pamela Smith, Secretary pf 11