Title
Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on the Request by Petsche & Associates, Inc., on Behalf of Blue Star Land, L.P. and 206 McKinney, L.L.C., for Approval of a Request to Zone Approximately 238.92 Acres, Planning Area 17, to “PD” - Planned Development District, Generally for Single Family Residential, Retail, Elementary School, and Open Space Uses, Located on the Southeast Corner of U.S. Highway 380 (University Drive) and Coit Road, and Accompanying Ordinance.
Summary
MEETING DATE: October 18, 2011
DEPARTMENT: Development Services - Planning
CONTACT: Jennifer Cox, AICP, Director of Planning
Brandon Opiela, Senior Planner
Abra R. Nusser, Planner
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
• Staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning request with the following special ordinance provisions:
1. The subject property shall develop according to “PD” - Planned Development District No. 1621, and as amended, except as follows:
a. The subject property shall generally develop according to the attached Zoning Exhibits “A,” “B,” “C,” “D,” and “E.”
b. The side yard setback for lots within Parcel 1705 shall be a minimum of five feet.
2. The front elevation of all residential structures shall be 100 percent masonry, and each side and rear elevation shall be a minimum of 75 percent masonry. Required masonry percentages shall be calculated excluding exterior wall areas built on top of a roof. “Masonry” shall be defined according to Section 146-139 (Architectural and Site Standards) of the Zoning Ordinance, and as amended.
3. For all single family parcels, there shall be three canopy trees required per lot, and at least one of the trees shall be located in the front yard. “Canopy tree” shall be defined according to Section 146-135 (Landscape Requirements) of the Zoning Ordinance, and as amended.
ITEM SUMMARY:
• The zoning request was previously considered by City Council on both December 7, 2010 and February 15, 2011, but the request was tabled at the meetings due to incomplete signatures on the associated development agreement. All signatures have been attained for the associated development agreement so the zoning request is up for consideration, discussion, and action by City Council again.
• During one of the previous public hearings for the associated annexation (10-063A4) held on January 18, 2011, one of the nearby residents (Ms. Andrea Gale) living in the Redbud Estates subdivision (located directly adjacent to the eastern property line of the subject property) spoke in opposition to the project, with items related to the zoning request (10-064Z1). Ms. Gale’s concerns included the potential for a masonry wall along the shared property line in lieu of wood privacy fences, additional provisions to protect existing trees and require additional landscaping along the shared property line, and to limit the height of homes adjacent to the eastern property line to one-story. Three other property owners within the Redbud Estates sent emails to Staff supporting Ms. Gale’s concerns, and were handed out to the members of Council at the meetings and have also been attached for reference.
• The applicant is proposing to zone approximately 238.92 acres of land, located on the southeast corner of U.S. Highway 380 (University Drive) and Coit Road to “PD” - Planned Development District, generally for retail/commercial, single family residential, elementary school, and open space uses. The planned development district that the applicant is proposing to join contains 16 planning areas, 10 within Stonebridge Ranch and six within Custer West. The subject property would become Planning Area 17 within the Custer West Master Development Agreement. The proposed plan is consistent with other developed areas within the Custer West development.
• The applicant has submitted this zoning request in conjunction with a petition for annexation for the subject property (10-063A). In accordance with the Texas Local Government Code, the petition for annexation only requires approval by the City Council. The first two public hearings for the annexation were held on September 20, 2011 (in addition to the other six public hearings previously held). The third and final public hearing for the annexation is being held concurrently with the zoning request and associated development agreement at the October 18, 2011 City Council meeting. Should the subject property not be annexed by the City Council, the applicant will not be required to obtain zoning and may be permitted to move forward with development plans for the subject property, in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of McKinney.
• As mentioned above, an amendment to the existing Custer West Development Agreement, dealing with the timing and provision of public services and infrastructure associated with the proposed annexation, is being considered concurrently with the proposed zoning request. The terms of the amended agreement ensure that proper infrastructure is installed for the project on an expedited timeline which will enable efficient development of the property.
• Staff believes that the proposed zoning request is both appropriate and compatible with the surrounding properties and feels that the development will have a positive impact on the surrounding area and the City as a whole. Approval of this zoning request will stimulate development through the provision of infrastructure in the area and will provide for a significant amount of commercial development along one of our highway corridors. In addition, the development will provide neighborhoods with a school and park site with significant open space which can all be incorporated into the already successful planned developments of Stonebridge Ranch and Custer West. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning request with the special ordinance provisions listed above.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
• The zoning request was previously considered by City Council on both December 7, 2010 and February 15, 2011, but the request was tabled at the meetings due to incomplete signatures on the associated development agreement. All signatures have been attained for the associated development agreement so the zoning request is up for consideration, discussion, and action by City Council again.
• Subsequent to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on October 26, 2010, Staff worked with the applicant to modify the second special ordinance provision regarding masonry to more clearly identify where masonry would be required on the sides and rear of each unit, as intended by the applicant. The phrase “of the first floor” was included to ensure that the top plate line referenced for the placement of masonry be at the first-floor top plate line.
• Subsequent to the City Council meeting on February 15, 2011, Staff continued to work with the applicant to further enhance the quality of the development regulations. The second special ordinance provision has been modified to reflect the applicant’s revised proposal to require additional masonry on each residential structure, and the third special ordinance provision, requiring three canopy trees per residential lot, was added to provide additional trees within the development. The special ordinance provision regarding the additional trees is a new special ordinance provision since the previous City Council meetings and the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
• Elizabeth Morris with Insight Research Corporation has developed a financial analysis tool to estimate the economic impact of zoning requests. She presented this analysis for Planning Area 17 as a case study at the City Council meeting on January 18, 2011, and the presentation is attached for reference. The analysis is calculated utilizing a total of 48.71 acres of retail use and 142.41 acres of single family residential use.
BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
• On October 26, 2010, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the proposed zoning request as conditioned by Staff in the Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report as attached.