Min - Planning and Zoning Commission - 1982 - 06/10 - RegularALLEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
I Regular Meeting
June 10, 1982
Present:
Commissioners:
Jim Pendleton, Chairman
Jim Wolfe, Vice Chairman
Sarah Chumbley, Secretary
Wayne Armand
Jack Decatur
Winston Stallings
Gary Koch
City Staff:
Bill Petty, Building Official
Sherry Massett, Permit Clerk
The regular session of the Allen Planning and
Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman
Pendleton at 7:32 p.m. on Thursday, June 10, 1982,
at Rountree Elementary School, 800 E. Main Street.
Approval of Minutes:
May 19, 1982, Workshop Session
May 26, 1982, Workshop Session
May 27, 1982, Regular Meeting (Agenda Item II)
Commissioner Armand commented that he would like
to see more detailed minutes.
MOTION: Upon a motion by Commissioner Armand and
second by Commissioner Koch, the Commission
voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed to
approve the minutes as presented. The motion
carried.
Public Hearing - On a Request
for Planned Development Zoning
on 855± Acres by Willard
McDaniel, Inc. & the Cambridge
!■�•9'j Companies Development Corp. (Agenda Item III)
i
-95-
11
D
ALLEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 10, 1982 PAGE 2
Public Hearing - On 855± Acre
Planned Development Request
by McDaniel/Cambridge (Cont.)
Chairman Pendleton read the request into the record
as follows:
"Public Hearing - on a request for Planned Development
zoning on approximately 855 acres by Willard McDaniel,
Inc. and the Cambridge Companies Development Corp-
oration. The request is to change present zoning
of CF (Community Facilities), AO (Agricultural
Open Space), LR (Local Retail), R-5 (Residential),
and R-4 (Residential) to Planned Development. The
855± acres of land is located east of Jupiter Road
and north of Chapparal Road, further described as
being south of Hillside Village and west of Allen
Heights Drive."
Del Morton, of Willard McDaniel, Inc., appeared
before the Commission and presented the request. Mr.
Morton went into the history of the purchase of the
development. He then explained, in detail, what the
development entails. He went over how the development
was divided up and what each Planned Development area
would consist of.
Chairman Pendleton opened the Public Hearing.
The following persons spoke against and/or asked
questions pertaining to the request:
Rick Alexander
Lee Reed
Jerry Eberts
Wanda Hannon
Kim Hudson
Mike Hill
Julie Hill
806 Cypress
Rt. 1
558 Hawthorne
639 Leading Lane
631 Wandering Way
537 White Oak
537 White Oak
Some of the concerns expressed during the Public
Hearing were whether there would be any tract building
of homes; whether there would be any traffic problems
in and around the development; the number and placement
of high density apartments; how this plan fits into
Allen's Master Plan; any potential drainage problems;
and, once zoned, whether or not the zoning would be
changed.
Each Commissioner expressed his or her opinion of
the developer's request.
Bob Allison, of the Cambridge Companies Development
Corporation, came before the Commission to clarify some
points. Some of the things he discussed were the
relationship between density and affordability, some of
the other large developments that Cambridge has been
ALLEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 10, 1982 PAGE 3
Public Hearing - On 855± Acre
Planned Development Request
3 by McDaniel/Cambridge (Cont.)
involved in and the open space as required by Planned
Development zoning.
Mr. Morton asked the Commission for approval of
the request with whatever conditions the Commission felt
they must place upon it.
Chairman Pendleton closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Armand expressed the following points
concerning this request:
1. I have no problem in my own mind with the
Cambridge/McDaniel request of 5/26/82 regarding the
Shopping Center, Office Space, Local Retail, and Com-
munity Facility; with Shopping Center totaling 39 acres,
Office 17 acres, Local Retail of 4 acres, and Community
Facilities of 96 acres.
2. I recognize the change in the real estate
market and the need for moderate priced homes of perhaps
smaller lots and smaller homes.
3. This one concerns their Planned Development No.
3, where they request 600 square foot efficiency units
and to me that is not acceptable. We worked many, many
months on a new Zoning Ordinance which allows, on Page
43, Section 301 (I), 4c, no less than 700 square feet
and I feel that we must allow nothing less than 700
square feet to efficiency units.
4. As I understand it, in the latest Cambridge/
Morton request, dated 5/26/82, there are some 660 units
of MF -1 and 804 units of MF -2, or 1500 units of the total
of the 4,774 or 31.4%. This, in my opinion, is much too
high. In my opinion these should total no more than 10%
of the total rather than 31.4% - now this is number of
units, not number of acres or lots or anything like that.
This 10% would still permit some 477 units of MF -1 and/
or MF -2 units, whichever one the developer wished to put
in. What is left over, in my opinion, could be put into
any other category above that listing.
5. I think we have a wonderful opportunity here
in this greenbelt area, to develop it with great care
and I would hope that, if this does develop as we hope
it does, that we have jogging trails, bicycle trails,
etc. as some of our neighboring cities have done. I
think we have a wonderful opportunity here to do a fine,
fine job here.
-97-
ALLEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 10, 1982 PAGE 4
Public Hearing - On 855± Acre
Planned Development Request
i by McDaniel/Cambridge (Cont.)
6. I believe the developers and the City Manager
have resolved any problems or misunderstandings that
might have been present over a 36 acre park site. We
discussed that in quite some detail at our last Work-
shop meeting. I think it is necessary to mention that
because there did seem to be quite a bit of discussion
at that time concerning that park thing.
7. The growth of a town must be considered for
many aspects. I don't think that we must close the
door and say you cannot come in. I think we owe it
to our friends and neighboring communities to say,
"Yes, come on in". But we need to do this properly,
and I think we have a wonderful opportunity with this
development. If we want tostop all growth and remain
as we are, with a larger tax bill every year, we should
deny this request as it is, however, if we want more
taxpayers to help us defray some of these costs, then
we scold work with our developers and demand the kind
of developments that we want, and grow in an orderly,
programmed fashion. I suggest we continue to work with
the McDaniel/Cambridge companies and approve this over-
all plan with the before mentioned suggestions.
Commissioner Koch agreed with some of the points
expressed by Commissioner Armand.
The other Commissioners expressed their opinions,
including the fact that the development is inconsistant
with the Comprehensive Plan, whether they wanted to
approve it with conditions, and whether or not any more
of a compromise could be made.
MOTION: Upon a motion by Commissioner Wolfe and second
by Commissioner Decatur, the Commission voted
five (5) for (Pendleton, Stallings, Wolfe,
Decatur, and Chumbley) and two (2) opposed
(Armand and Koch) to deny the request as a
result of the fact that it was inconsistant
with the 1977 Comprehensive Plan, as adopted
by this city, the 1982 Update of Planning
District 4, and the Planned Development report.
dated 4/26/82. The motion carried.
There was some discussion as to whether or not
Commissioner Wolfe's report had been voted on to be
a the Commission's recommendation to the developer. It
was determined that the Commission had taken a straw
vote and approved it at the Workshop Session on May
19, 1982.
rra
ALLEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 10, 1982 PAGE 5
Adjournment:
MOTION: Upon a motion by Commissioner Armand and second
by Commissioner Chumbley, the Commission voted
seven (7) for and none (0) opposed to adjourn
the Regular Session of the Allen Planning and
Zoning Commission at 10:40 p.m.
These minutes approved on the 24th day of
1�1. . 1982.
Jim Pendleton, CHAIRMAN
Sarah Chumbley, SErTARY