Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - Planning and Zoning Commission - 1999 - 01/14 - RegularALLEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 14, 1999 ATTENDANCE: Commission Members Present: Ross Obermeyer, Chairman Jeff McGregor, Vice -Chairman Jeffrey Kelley Pamela Smith, Secretary (arrived 7:30 pm) Mark Pacheco Commission Members Absent Kevin M. Kerr Scott Neice City Staff Present Marcie Diamond, Senior Planner Pam Conway, Secretary George Conner, Director Public Works Carolyn Thomas, Planning Intern Don Horton, Director Parks & Recreation (arrived 8:24 p.m.) Peter Tian, Traffic Engineer 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 7:04 p.m., by Chamnan Obermeyer, at the City Council Chambers, Allen Public Library, Two Allen Civic Plaza, Allen, Texas. Ms. Marcie Diamond stated that Item VIII, Allen Central lI Joint Venture, on tonight's agenda, might be requested to be tabled. She stated that the Chairman would need to open the public hearing this evening and this item could be tabled and the public hearing could he continued until the next meeting. Chairman Obermeyer thanked Vice Chairman McGregor for chairing the December 10, 1998 meeting. Chairman Obermeyer reminded the Commission that every case on the tonight's agenda is zoning. Ms. Diamond reviewed the last City Council meeting, and stated all the cases recommended for approval by Commission were approved with minor revisions, and the ordinances will be adopted at the January 21, 1999 City Council meeting. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 14,1999 Chairman Obermayer reminded the audience that anyone desiring to speak should fill out a Speaker Card. The minutes from the January 14, 1999 meeting were amended as follows (underline indicates words added, strikeout indicates words deleted): Page 2, Paragraph 8: "Mr. Tracy also stated that TXDOT has not requested or indicated the need for additional right of way for the service roads." Page 2, Paragraph 11. "Commission Member Smith continued to express concern about reserving R.O.W. for additional service road lanes, and stated that TXDOT would not request additional R.O.W. , we would have to do that."" she Page 7, Paragraph 3: " .they would not request the additional R.O.W. from us, we would have to request it from them' Commission Member Pacheco questioned the Summerfield case in regard to a collector street. Ms. Diamond stated that there is no need for a collector street in this addition. The collector street system will be provided north of the existing drainageway through the Cameron tract at F.M. 1378 and continue to the west through P.D. 61 to Malone Road. Chairman Obemneyer stated his only concern is on Allen No. Addition Ph. 5, the transition needs �4 to be more consistent with the surrounding zoning. REGULAR MEETING Consent Agenda Agenda Item II Chairman Obermeyer read the consent agenda into the record as follows. Consent Agenda I. Approve Minutes of December 10, 1998, Regular Meeting. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Kelley and a second by Commission Member McGregor, the Commission voted 5 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve the consent agenda including the corrections to the minutes as noted in the Workshop meeting. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARING Specific Use Permit for Helistop Agenda Item III Chairman Obermayer read the agenda item into the record as follows: PAGE "Consider a request for zoning action by Koll Development Company to approve the extension of a Specific Use Permit (SUP) No. 55 for a Helistop, for a permanent time period. The property is 13.649 ±acres of land located in the William Perrin Survey, Abstract No.708, Lot I -A, Block 1, Enterprises No. 2 Addition, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas: further described as being located southeast of U.S. 75 and Bethany Drive." PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 14, 1999 PAGE Ms. Diamond presented the item to the Commission and stated that due to the fact that the ordinance establishing the S.U.P approved in November, 1997, did not specify the procedure by which the City i Council could extend the specific use permit prior to its expiration date, this SUP may only be extended through the normal zoning process. As of this date, staff has not received any complaints due to the operation of this helistop. Staff recommends approval of this S.U.P for a permanent time period, subject to site plan and determination after the public hearings that this use has not caused a safety hazard or noise nuisance. Chairman Obermeyer Opened the Public Hearing. With no one wishing to speak for or against the request, the Public Hearing was closed. Commission Member Smith stated that she recalled discussion regarding a sign to be placed on the property (warning type) as part of a condition of the SUP She asked staff to research this Eric Langford, Koll Development Company, the proponent, stated he did not recall the discussion about a sign, but he would be agreeable to further study on this issue if needed. Ms. Diamond stated that the actual ordinance that was passed is in the Commission's packet, and it does not state that a sign should be placed on the property Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member McGregor and a second by Commission Member Pacheco, the Commission voted 5 FOR and 0 El OPPOSED to approve as submitted. Motion passed. Findings: 1. Operation over the past year has created no adverse problems for the city. PUBLIC HEARING First Christian Church of Allen Agenda Item IV Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Consider a request for zoning action by the First Christian Church of Allen for Community Facilities (CF) for a church and related facilities, being 10.0985 t acres of land located in the Mary Standifer Survey, Abstract No. 812, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; further described as being located at the northwest comer of City Road 146 and City Road 113 (proposed Exchange Parkway)." Ms. Diamond presented the item to the Commission and stated that the First Christian Church is the prospective purchaser of the property, and the establishment of CF zoning is required prior to the closing on the property. There are currently private deed restrictions on the property which restrict its use to residential until October 1, 2001. However, construction is not scheduled to begin until after PI the year 2001 This use would be compatible with the CF zoning to the east, and residential to the E, north and south. Staff recommends approval of the request for a Community Facility (CF) District. I 11 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 14, 1999 PAGE Chairman Obermeyer Opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Bill Woodfin, 1530 Rowlet Road; lives on the west side of the development. His main concern was how this development would affect water flow, since they are on the creek. He questioned what kind of runoff would be expected from a church and what kind of fill would be permitted. With no one else wishing to speak for or against the request, the Public Hearing was closed. Ms. Diamond stated that through the process of platting, engineering would be required and studies would be required to address the water flow questions. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Smith and a second by Commission Member Pacheco, the Commission voted 5 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve the request as submitted. Motion passed. Findings: 1. Appropriate land use 2. Compatible with the surrounding land uses. PUBLIC HEARING Kwik Industries, Inc. Agenda Item V Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Consider a request for zoning action by Kwik Industries, Inc. to amend Tract 2 of Planned Development No. 31 (PD -31) to allow a "Cleaning Plant/Laundry" by Specific Use Permit (SUP); and to attach a Specific Use Permit with Site Plan approval for a Cleaning PlantlLaundry on 1.14 ±acres of land located in the Tatum Drive Retail Addition, Lot 2RA, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; further described as being located at the southeast corner of McDermott Drive and Suncreek Drive" Ms. Diamond presented the item to the Commission and stated that the site plan in the Commission's packet provides for a drive-through, and at the time of platting they will be providing an additional 11 feet for a right tum lane. The site plan also indicates access to the property will be via a mutual access easement to the property to the east and one driveway on Suncreek Drive. This request is similar to requests recently granted on Main St. and Allen Heights and on McDermott and U.S. 75. It was determined that this use is appropriate in neighborhood serving retail areas, given the changes in the chemicals used in the cleaning process and the proper safeguards that are imposed through the approval processes of the Fire Marshall and Building Official. Staff recommends approval to amend the uses in Tract 2A of PD 31 to permit a cleaning plant/laundry by S.U.P, and further to approve this S U.P subject to the attached site plan. Sid Hollingsworth, 4725 Nall Road, Dallas TX; presented some drawings, and stated that he has brochures addressing environmental issues, etc. if anyone would wish additional information. Chairman Obermeyer Opened the Public Hearing. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 14,1999 PAGES Alex Plotkin, 106 Tatum Drive, Allen, owner of the Primrose Day Care which is southeast of the proposed development. Mr. Plotkin stated that, while the chemicals used are better than in the past, they are still hazardous He stated that he is not against commerce, but that this is not a compatible use. He stated that he also understands that this proponent will build this and then sell to an individual owner. He stated that the current systems for cleaning are toxic and can eat through pipe and concrete. This can, over time, get into your ground water supply and into the creek. Chairman Ober neyer stated that he would like documentation regarding his statements. Mr. Plotkin stated that he does have that documentation and would be happy provide to copies to the Commission. Rev Burt Palmer, 1214 Shadetree Lane, Pastor of United Methodist Church; the speaker card he completed stated he is opposed to the request, and that he did not receive a public hearing notice from the City regarding this case. He was not present to speak at this time. With no one else wishing to speak for or against the request, the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Hollingsworth addressed the concerns of Mr Plotkin by stating that he has been in this business about 3 or 4 years, and the EPAITNRCC has laws and once a year they check sites, without notice, and currently, they have had no citations. He does not feel there is an environmental danger for the children at the daycare. He stated that they do sell the businesses, but they do provide training and they have a continued relationship with the owners. Mr. Hollingsworth distributed information on the processes of the cleaning plant. He addressed the chemical mentioned by Mr. Plotkin, which can eat though cement and pipe. There is a waste product, called sludge that comes from this chemical. They continue to use the chemical over and over and then at certain point, the filter is removed which contains the sludge. The EPA controls all this, and the person who performs this is licensed. It would not be the owner of the business. He also stated that City standards are strict. Commission Member Kelley stated that he is sensitive to the concerns regarding the day care and the children. He stated that safeguards seem to be in place. Commission Member Smith stated that she is also sensitive to the opposition expressed by the daycare and church. She questioned what uses are not permitted in this district? She noted some of the zoning districts where this use is permitted. Ms. Diamond presented to Commission Member Smith the uses permitted in this district (LR). Ms. Diamond recalled a couple of locations where this use has recently been permitted. Main and Allen Heights, and McDermott and U.S. 75. Commission Member Smith stated that in light of the opposition from the adjacent property owners, she would vote to deny the request. Commission Member Pacheco stated that he remembers when this Planned Development came in for zoning, although he was not on the Commission at that time, he was in the audience. He stated that there are more appropriate locations than this one for the cleaning plant He expressed concerns with the site plan also, regarding fire lanes and proper circulation. He stated that there appears to be a potential traffic problem. He stated he would not support the request. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 14, 1999 PAGE Commission Member McGregor questioned what would be developed in tract 213. Mr. Hollingsworth and Ms. Diamond were unaware of any development on 2B at this time Commission 3 Member McGregor stated he has no problem with this request, or the location. Commission Member McGregor stated that this submission is very similar to the request on Allen Heights and Main for the same use to be permitted, which the Commission approved. Ms. Diamond stated that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance currently does not allow a cleaning plant/laundry except for commercial and industrial districts. This is one of the uses to be considered during the up coming review of the current Zoning Ordinance. Commission Member Kelley questioned if the landscape ordinance regulations were being followed in this request given the reduction in the landscape area along Suncreek Drive. Ms. Diamond indicated that this is specifically permitted in the Subdivision Ordinance when an additional tum lane is required Commission Member Smith stated that at the time of the original zoning, a great deal of time was spent on the allowable uses for this district. Chairman Obermeyer agreed. Rev Burt Palmer, representing the Suncreek United Methodist Church called for point of order and stated that he did not receive a notice in the mail and he would favor tabling of the request so he could further study this request and gather his full opinion on this matter. Ms. Diamond stated that Pete Smith, City Attorney, has given us legal advice on this subject which stated that notice has, in effect, been given if the person who did not receive the notice appears at the public hearing. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Smith and a second by Commission Member Kelley the Commission voted 5 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to TABLE the item to allow the Commission to study and for Rev. Palmer to have time to consider the request. The following items are also requested from staff: 1. Minutes from the City Council meeting(s) regarding the Site Plan approved for the adjacent shopping center. 2. Any interest, regarding development, on Tract B (if available) 3. List of examples of the reduced landscape requirements being allowed. 4. Fire access — get Fire Marshall's approval on access/circulation. 5. Any material provided by the Day Care owner should be presented to the Commission (at staff's discretion.) 6. A list of permitted and not permitted uses in this P.D. The Motion passed. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 7 January 14, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING Summerfield Agenda Item VI Chairman Oberrneyer read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Consider a request for zoning action by WPC Acquisition, Inc. (Summerfield) for a Planned Development District (P.D.) for Single Family Residential. The property is 113.247 i acres of land located in the John Miller Survey, Abstract No. 609, City of Allen, Collin County, Texas; further described as being located east of Malone Road and south of Stacy Road." Ms. Diamond presented the request to the commission. She summarized the history of the Planning and Zoning Commission's and the City Council's actions on the previous request. This request, as revised, is proposed to have an overall density of 3.0 dwelling units per acre, and a maximum of 399 dwelling units. The 6,000 square foot lots have been eliminated from the request, as has the extension of Forest Grove Estates Road. This request also includes a combination of private open spaces and public park areas. Per the P.D. requirements, 5.32 acres of open space will be required. This open space requirement will be fulfilled through a combination of the amenity center, park and trail systems. In the event the trail connection cannot be provided within this easement (subject to approval by NTMWD), then the required open space will be provided internal to the development. Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the development standards and the concept plan which indicates: curvilinear street design; a combination of public park and trail system and private open spaces and parks; enhanced screening and landscaping, etc., based on its addressing the various goals of the Comprehensive Plan. David Blom, Wilbo Corp. 9330 LBJ Freeway, Dallas; stated that along the eastern edge of the development they have provided for larger lots due to the concern by the adjacent homeowners. He stated that they are not opposed to prohibiting the extension of Forest Grove Estates Road Chairman Obermeyer Opened the Public Hearing. Gene Scott, 1804 Green Meadow Circle; stated that his home is on one acre plus, and other neighbors are on seven acres plus. His request is that 7500 square foot properties may not be as elegant in years to come as the 9,000 square foot properties. He suggested to the Commission Members that the 7,500 sq. ft. lots be replaced with 9,000 sq. ft. lots. Boyd Cockrill, 2190 Rockridge Rd., his concern was water drainage. At Malone Road it starts out as a bar ditch and by the time it gets to his home, it's a creek. It runs fast and hard. He stated that it is his understanding that no development can add to a creek's drainage (per the law). He stated that his property is the largest section that this creek crosses. His spillway is approved by the State of Texas. He is concerned about the garbage filling up his creek. How will it be handled? John Burnett, 2170 Rockridge Road, also expressed concern about water drainage. Based on past development, it comes down the ditch and creek, and adds to the problems. His part of the creek has an "S" curve and that also adds to the problem. He would like to agree with the comments made by Mr. Cockrill. r1 L PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 14, 1999 PAGER Byron K. Nielson, 604 Meadow Lane; also stated his concerns about drainage. They have had to dump numerous loads of white rock to maintain the road (to keep it from washing away due to the rain). The water, after the rain, has gone over the top of Exchange. His concern is that a development of this nature will add to the quickness of the water. He stated that additional water added would require someone to redo the drainage ditch. He is 2 blocks south of Exchange and when it mins, it backs up to his home and is destroying his road base. Additional water will wash Meadow Lane out. Larry Norgaard, 601 Meadow Lane; the density of the dwellings proposed along the eastern boundary is too high. One -acre lots would be more appropriate. Roy O'Neill, 2102 Forest Grove Estates; stated that it does nearly match the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the Comprehensive Plan calls for somewhat less than 3.0 density One -acre buffering was approved for a development south of Lovejoy. He would like this to be consistent with that, or they could put up a six-foot privacy wall to protect livestock on the east side of the trail system. Robert Beard, 602 Meadow Lane; mined in a speaker card, which was read into the record as follows: "High Density lots next to rural lot 2 plus acres. Recommend 1 acre lots on the east side next to low density lots. Drainage questions. Current drainage next to Exchange already maxed - out and additional concrete will overload existing drainage." Mr. Beard was Opposed. With no one else wishing to speak for or against the request, the Public Hearing was closed �^ Mr. Blum stated that he would like to try to address the questions raised by the people who spoke. Regarding the density, he did reduce his density to something he thought was very reasonable The lots to the west are mixed. The homeowners to the east are not being ignored. He stated that the 60 foot rear yard setback plus the 60 foot greenbelt provides a very good transition. Regarding drainage, they fully intend to provide drainage, because they are prohibited by law to increase drainage onto adjacent properties. They recognize that drainage is an issue, and that will be addressed in the final engineering. They have kept the curvilinear design, and will include a pool, and screening wall along Malone Road and open space. The 6 -foot masonry wall would prohibit open space which the homeowners want to prevent. If the greenbelt were not developed, then that area would be incorporated into the back yards. They have tried to address the concerns of the homeowners as best they can. Commission Member Pacheco recalled that the 3.0 density discussed at the last meeting would be acceptable. The lot layout is a good plan. He would like to see some stipulation that the lots Mr. Blum discussed (by the proposed greenbelt) would indeed become larger lots if the greenbelt is not provided, whereas, the lot widths will not be reduced. Mr. Blum agreed. Commission Member Pacheco would also like to see the wording that no alley would be located in that area. Commission Member Pacheco stated also that regarding drainage, the City is well aware of the problems, which will be addressed in the engineering phase of this project. Commission Member McGregor noted that we are approximately three -tenths over density However, 3.0 is appropriate and will transition nicely Front loaded streets next to parkland are very desirable. He questioned if detention ponds are common and effective ways to handle drainage? Mr. Conner stated it is the only approved method. He indicated that in unusual circumstances, such m this Summerfield request, you can retain water. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 14, 1999 PAGE Commission Member Kelley stated his faith in the staff that the drainage issue would be addressed properly. Commission Member Smith stated that the Commission has already spent considerable time on this case, and it is her opinion that the 9,000 square foot lots mixed with 7,500 square foot lots is unusual As far as the drainage, we do have requirements. Mr. Conner stated that the ditch referred to earlier crosses Rock Ridge Road. He would have to look at a contour map to see which way the water flows. Commission Member Smith stated that this request is above and beyond the city requirements Don Horton stated that they are still working on another development regarding the trail system adjacent to this property Chairman Obermeyer again questioned Mr. Conner about the drainage. Mr. Conner again stated that he would have to look at all this when the engineering is submitted. Commission Member Smith stated that although some comments might indicate drainage isn't being addressed, it is indeed being addressed. She asked Mr. Conner to again restate the procedures in place. Mr. Conner stated that he would look at the master plan, calculate the run off of water into every creek system and then develop the 100 year flood plain Then we try to take into consideration existing development. The example given was the Shelley property water running into the City of Parker. In state law there is no requirement to detain the water up stream. If you build in the flood plain in an unincorporated area, you are at risk. Erosion control plans are developed through EPA, the success is debatable. Within the city, we can control the water successfully. Filters are in place. However, homebuilders do take liberties, but precautions are in place. Mr. Conner stated that there are things that fall through the cracks, however they are doing a good job of keeping out the silt. Chairman Obermeyer stated that the proponents have met the requirements with this request, and he has no issues. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Pacheco and a second by Commission Member McGregor the Commission voted 5 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve the request per the concept plan attached and subject to the development standards to be revised to include: 1) In the event that the 60 foot wide trail system adjacent to the east property line is not developed, the lots are not reduced in width and the lot sizes are increased to incorporate this additional 60 feet; and 2) no alleys will be constructed adjacent to the greenbelt areas. Motion passed. Findings: I Curvilinear street design in request is good. 2 Larger lots adjacent to north and east (adjacent properties) 3 Overall density desirable 4 Drainage issues will be adequately addressed by engineering. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 14, 1999 PAGE 10 5 Potential detention pond would also help address be drainage issues. PUBLIC HEARING Land Advisors, Inc. (Allen North Addition No. 5) Agenda Item VII Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Consider a request for zoning action by Land Advisors, Inc. to place R4- Single Family Residential zoning on 3.36 acres of land and R6 Single Family Residential zoning on 40.43 acres of land. The property is 43.79 t acres of land situated in the James T Roberts Survey, Abstract No. 777, Collin County, Texas; further described as being located north of Exchange Parkway east and west of Allen Heights Drive." Ms. Diamond presented the request to the Commission. The current request would establish straight zoning, R6 and R4, on the property In reviewing this request staff considered the existing zoning on the property which includes office, retail, town homes as well as single family, the surrounding zoning patterns as well as the unusually high infrastructure needs of this tract. The proposed rezoning appears to be appropriate if the western tiers of lots are changed from R-6 to R-5 to be more compatible with the lots proposed in the Allen North Subdivision. Chairman Obermeyer opened the Public Hearing With no one wishing to speak for or against the request, the Public Hearing was closed. Commission Member Smith discussed the summary of surrounding zoning patterns included in the packet. Ms. Diamond stated they are net densities (because they are developed), except for Parkland Heights which has yet to be developed. The density on this tract is higher due to the burden of developing Allen Heights. Mr. Robert Porter, land Advisors, stated that the land is under contract. He stated the cost of construction and price of the land (and stated that he is down zoning.) He stated he is actually increasing the number of lots by 26 over the existing zoning. Allen Heights causes the cost increase, as well as the water and sewer development. Ms Diamond noted the surrounding zoning and development patterns. Average density in Parkland Heights (overall) is 3.6 gross. Allen North is 3.8 as platted (net) Commission Member Kelley questioned the lot sizes next to Buckingham. Why the change? The proponent stated that in other phases of their development, they utilized 9,000 square foot lots as the buffer size and they are continuing that pattern. Commission Member Kelley supported this request. He supports staffs recommendation. Commission Member McGregor stated that they are giving up commercial property, and some town homes from the existing zoning. The proponent is also faced with constructing the street. He is somewhat concerned with the density He stated he would like the density reduced to be more consistent with the density to the east. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 14,1999 PAGE 11 !� Ms. Diamond reminded the Commission that this request is for straight zoning. The attached exhibit is a concept plan only. We need to talk about zoning districts and not number of lots. Commission Member Pacheco stated that based on the fact that no homeowners have come to voice opposition, he has no concerns with the request as it is Commission Member Smith questioned Ms Diamond about this neighborhood district. Ms Diamond stated that this is actually divided into 2 neighborhood districts, and that the Comprehensive Plan recognized this as medium density. Commission Member Smith continued to express concern with the density, stating that the density is too high. Ms. Diamond stated that in the existing zoning the density is higher. She stated it seems to be a reasonable trade-off. Chairman Obermeyer stated that the infrastructure costs makes this an interesting piece of property to develop. He would support this request. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Pacheco and a second by Commission Member Kelley the Commission voted 3 FOR and 2 OPPOSED to approve as submitted, except lots adjacent to Allen North, south of Providence Drive, containing approx. 2.1 acres be zoned R-5 to be compatible with the zoning established to the west. Commission Members Smith and McGregor opposed. Motion passed. Majority Findings I. Compatible with surrounding land uses 2. Eliminating the non-residential zoning 3. Excepting a burden of infrastructure cost Minority Findings I Density is high 2. Loss of desirable very low density 3 Increase of total number of units on property 4. Uncertain to the factors of the thoroughfare in relation to density 5. Density in relation to the property to the east PUBLIC HEARING Allen Central II Joint Venture Agenda Item VIII Chairman Obermeyer read the agenda item into the record as follows: "Consider a request for zoning action by Allen Central II Joint Venture, to amend the uses permitted in Tract IE of Planned Development District No. 26 to add private recreation facilities as an allowable use in this commercial district, subject to the attached concept site plan. The property is 5.36 ± acres of land located in the Michael Lee Survey, Abstract No. 543, Collin County, City of Allen. Texas, further described as being located south of McDermott and west of Walters Road." PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 14, 1999 PAGE 12 Ms. Diamond presented the item to the Commission. It is Ms. Diamond understands that the proponent would like to table the item. She stated that staff would not support this requested rezoning to allow for the private recreational uses on this property to serve the multifamily property to the southeast The uses do seem to be compatible, however, there are other uses for this tract, like office or restaurant, that would also be compatible. The accessory uses should be provided on site for the multifamily development. Bill Dahlstrom, the proponent, stated that they are developing the multifamily property He stated that they we planning to develop the office on the property where office is currently a permitted use. They also want to add the recreation and health facility They are not doing it to maximize the density He also stated that the front of the tract would have a retail site. Chairman Obermeyer and Commission Member Smith questioned the proponent as to why they were wanting to do this? The proponent stated that open space is one issue. Management and maintenance are other issues. This would allow for the amenities to be right next to the leasing office. Mr. Dahlstrom also stated that it would allow for better circulation of traffic. Patrick Ramey, proponent, also indicated a desire for the amenity center to be supervised by the office. Commission Member Kelley asked if this was approved would they develop the same number of units? Mr. Ramey stated yes, they would. He stated that they want the leasing office to have access �r to McDermott Drive. Commission Member Smith stated that although this has not been done in Allen before, she has seen it recently and understands the concept. Mr. Ramey stated that they are doing a low density, town home type community. This will allow more flexibility. He feels this request will make the apartment development better. Chairman Obermeyer opened the Public Hearing Sherwood E. Blount, 16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 360, Addison; representing Allen Watters L.P., the adjoining property owner. They support the request however, the proposed service drive on their tract is so close to the proposed driveway on this tract it could create traffic issues. From a use standpoint, they have no opposition, ifs the location of the access road adjacent to the adjoining 12.3 acres to the east. Mr. Dalstrom stated that he is willing to work with Mr. Blount on this issue. With no one else wishing to speak for or against the request, the Public Hearing was closed. Commission Member Pacheco stated that he has concerns. He stated we are zoning more property as multifamily This could be used for something more appropriate. He supports staff recommendation to deny the request. Commission Member McGregor questioned the swimming pools, tennis courts, being counted as open space. He believed that they did not count toward open space. Again he asked Mr. Dahlstrom if he would build additional units. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION January 14, 1999 PAGE 13 Mr. Dahlstrom again stated, no, they are not going to build any additional units. Commission Member McGregor stated that he would agree with Commission Member Pacheco and with staffs recommendation to deny the request Commission Member Kelley stated that this is a better use than a multi -story office building, or a shopping center. He stated this would be a good buffer for Watters Ccrossing. He could support this request. Commission Member Smith stated she also supports the request. The open space requirements will still have to be met. Watters Crossing residents have come in time and time again, we know their concerns. This is better than more commercial development. She stated that this is not a significant impact (loss of office/retail) Commission Member Pacheco does not share the concern regarding office development. He lives in Watters Crossing. He is more concerned that this is an expansion of the multifamily. Chairman Obermeyer agreed with Commission Member Pacheco The proponent's stated they would still like to table the request. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Smith and a second by Commission Member McGregor the Commission voted 5 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to Table the item to the January 28, 1999 meeting. Other Business Agenda Item IX. Ms. Diamond noted the items scheduled for the next agenda. Mr. Conner reminded the Commission of his memo included in their packets which addressed some of the road concerns expressed at the last meeting. Adioum. Motion: Upon a motion by Commission Member Pacheco and a second by Commission Member McGregor, the Commission voted 5 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to Adjourn the January 14 meeting at 11:02 p.m. These minutes approved this Mdayof�fl ILUt1999. oss Obermeyer, Chairman Pamela Smith, Secretary