Title
Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss on the Request by Petsche and Associates, Inc., on Behalf of Blue Star Land L.P. and 206 McKinney, L.L.C., on a Petition to Annex Approximately 238.92 Acres, Located on the Southeast Corner of U.S. Highway 380 (University Drive) and Coit Road, and Accompanying Ordinance.
Summary
MEETING DATE: February 15, 2011
DEPARTMENT: Development Services - Planning
CONTACT: Jennifer Cox, AICP, Director of Planning
Brandon Opiela, Senior Planner
Abra R. Nusser, Planner
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
• Conduct the final public hearing regarding a voluntary petition for annexation and approval of the annexation request and accompanying ordinance.
• In accordance with the Texas Local Government Code, the City Council held the first public hearing at a special meeting on January 18, 2011 (4 p.m.), and held a second public hearing at a regular City Council meeting on January 18, 2011 (6 p.m.). This is the final public hearing for action regarding the petition for annexation, and it is being considered concurrently with a proposed zoning request (10-064Z1) and a developer’s agreement (10-574).
• The annexation public hearings were previously held, but the request was tabled at the December 7, 2010 City Council meeting due to incomplete signatures on the associated development agreement. Therefore, the public hearings must be restarted per the Texas Local Government Code.
ITEM SUMMARY:
• The applicant has submitted a petition for voluntary annexation to the City of McKinney for an approximately 238.92 acre tract of land. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of U.S. Highway 380 (University Drive) and Coit Road.
• During the first of three public hearings (held on January 18, 2011) for the petition for annexation (10-063A4), one of the 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 meeting.
• The subject property is located in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) of the City of McKinney. The purpose of the ETJ is to promote and protect the general health, safety and welfare of persons residing in and adjacent to the municipalities.
• The Subdivision Ordinance applies to properties within the ETJ; the Zoning Ordinance does not.
• The subject property is located within the Prosper Independent School District. Prosper ISD has been informed of the proposed annexation.
• The subject property, if annexed, will be zoned pursuant to a pending zoning request (10-064Z1) which is being considered concurrently.
• The proposed zoning request associated with this proposed annexation (10-064Z1) includes the entire subject property. The applicant is requesting the subject property be zoned for single family residential, elementary school, retail/commercial, and park uses.
• Because this annexation is at the request of the property owner, the developer of the subject property will be responsible for extending adequate infrastructure to the subject property as the property is developed.
• Staff and the applicant have drafted a developer’s agreement (10-574) to deal with the provision of services and mitigate anticipated possible costs to the City associated with the proposed annexation. This agreement is being considered concurrently with the petition for annexation and the zoning request (10-064Z1), at the February 15, 2011 City Council meeting.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Annexation and City Services.
• Due to the fact that the proposed annexation is voluntary, the City can annex the land even though it is not currently on the annexation plan (Texas Local Government Code §43.052 (h) (2)).
• The subject property that is proposed to be annexed is unpopulated.
• The McKinney Fire Department currently provides fire and medical emergency services in this area. Currently, police response is from Collin County. The Texas Local Government Code stipulates that police and fire services must be provided immediately upon annexation (Texas Local Government Code §43.056).
• The Texas Local Government Code stipulates that solid waste collection must be provided immediately upon annexation (Texas Local Government Code §43.056).
2. Public Improvements.
• All necessary public improvements will be required at time of platting, unless otherwise specified in an approved development agreement.
• The pending development agreement is the second amendment to the Custer West Development Agreement and has been updated to include provisions for the construction of future water and wastewater capital improvements, both onsite and offsite, as well as the dedication and construction of adjacent arterial roadways and other off-site portions of thoroughfares necessary to adequately circulate traffic throughout the Custer West development.
• The terms of the amended agreement ensure that the proper infrastructure is in place for both the residential component and retail/commercial component, on an expedited timeline, enabling efficient development of the property.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
• N/A
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
• Annexation of additional property has financial implications for the City.
• Elizabeth Morris with Insight Research Corporation has developed a revised financial analysis tool to estimate the economic impact of rezoning requests. She presented this analysis for Planning Area 17 as a case study at the City Council meeting on January 18, 2011.
• These numbers are based on a total of 48.71 acres of retail use and 142.41 acres of single family residential use.
• Although the developer will be responsible for upgrading roads and extending utilities as development occurs, unless otherwise specified in a development agreement, the long-term maintenance of these facilities will be the City’s responsibility.
• The ISO rating determines insurance rates in McKinney. Poor availability of water resources in proposed annexed areas could have a negative impact on ISO ratings.
• An ISO rating is based on a 105 point system:
§ 40 points for water system (supply, distribution, fire flow, hydrants, maintenance, etc.),
§ 50 points for evaluation of the Fire Department itself,
§ 10 points for alarm systems, and
§ 5 points for code enforcement, plan review, etc.
• The effects of additional annexation on ISO ratings are cumulative. The City of McKinney’s current ISO rating is 2 on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the best and 10 being the worst (Plano has a rating of 1; Allen has a rating of 2). The latest evaluation was conducted in 2009. Typically, evaluations are conducted every 10-15 years.
• The Fire Department has indicated that the proposed annexation request may have the potential for a negative impact upon the City’s ISO rating. There will be extended response time to citizens living within the area to be annexed. The Fire Department has also indicated that the current water supply may impact fire fighting capabilities, and current road infrastructure may add to response times.
• Annexed parcels are subject to City property tax. This tract may currently have an agricultural valuation classification with Collin Central Appraisal District (CCAD). An agricultural exemption is given to properties in active agricultural uses, which allows the property to have a lower appraisal value and thus, lower taxes. When property with an agricultural exemption is developed, it is subject to rollback taxes for each of the previous five years. As such, the owner would be required to pay County, ISD, and City taxes which had been exempted during that five-year period. Whenever this proposed tract is developed, the City would receive rollback taxes if the property has such an exemption.
BOARD OR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
• N/A