Loading...
11-06-2001 (Planning & Zoning) Agenda Packet Planning & Zoning Commission f _ lie , , , „ „ , November 6, 2001 Regular Business Meeting AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS WYLIE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX 2000 Highway 78 North Wylie, Texas 75098 Tuesday, November 6, 2001 7:00 p.m. A Pre-Meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. for the staff/Commission review of Agenda items. CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZAN PARTICIPATION CONSENT AGENDA 1. Consider and act upon approval of the Minutes from the October 16, 2001 regular Meeting and the October 29, 2001 Special Work Session. WORK SESSION 1. Hold a Public Hearing and consider a recommendation to the City Council regarding a change in zoning from Agriculture (A) to Planned Development (PD) for Single-Family Residential and Village Center Mixed Uses, for a 470.00 acre tract of land, being part of those certain tracts conveyed to Joanne Venderweele, Successor Independent Administratrix, as described in Executor's Deed as recorded in the Collin County Clerk's File No. 95-0005773 and being part of those certain tracts described in the deed to George S. Richards as recorded in Volume 775, Page 55, of the Deed Records of Collin County, Texas, and being all of a called 1.00 acre tract described in the deed to F.D. Feagin et ux„ of record in Volume 914, Page 697, of said Deed Records, and also being all of Tract 2 and part of Tracts 1 and 4 described in the deed to Jimmie Jane Feagin recorded in Volume 775, Page 58, of said Deed Records, and being part of a called 2.10 acre tract described in the deed to F.D. Feagin et ux recorded in Volume 757, Page 824 of said Deed Records, and being all of that certain tract described in the deed to Edwin Collins Cook as recorded in the Collin County Clerk's File No. 93- 0039237, and being all of that called 69.25 acre tract described in the Quickclaim Deed to Silas M. Hart and Charlene H. Hart described in the Collin County Clerk's File No. 96- 0091287, and being situated in the J.G. Jouett Survey, Abstract No. 475, the Allen Atterberry Survey, Abstract No. 23, and the Aaron West Survey, Abstract No. 979, City of Wylie, Collin County, Texas. (Zoning Case No. 01-13) This item was tabled at the October 16, 2001 meeting, when the Planning and Zoning Commission continued the Public Hearing until November 6, 2001 in order to consider with the applicant certain revisions to the proposal. A Special Work Session was conducted on October 29, 2001 to consider outstanding issues. P&Z Agenda November 6, 2001 Page 2 ACTION AGENDA 1. Consider a recommendation to the City Council regarding a Preliminary Plat for the Southplace Estates Phase IV Addition, generally located east of South Ballard Avenue (F.M. 2524) and the Southplace Estates Phase I and II Additions and south of Stone Road (F.M. 544 and the Wylie Independent School District Complex, being all of a certain 8.674 acre tract of land situated in the Allen Atterberry Survey, Abstract No. 23, City of Wylie, Collin County, Texas. 2. Consider and act upon approval of a Site Plan for the Collision Center Paint & Body, Inc., located at 1201 State Highway 78 South at Century Way, being Lot 1, Block A of the Highway 78 Business Park Addition, a replat of Lot 1, Block A of the Century Business park Addition recorded in Volume K, Page 777 of the Map Records of Collin County, Texas, situated in the D. Strickland Survey, Abstract No. 841, City of Wylie, Collin County, Texas. ADJOURNMENT Posted Friday, November 2, 2001, at 5:00 p.m. THE WYLIE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX IS WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE. SIGN IN OR OTHER SPECIAL ASSISTANCE FOR DISABLE[ ATTENDEES MUST BE REQUESTED 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE BY CONTACTING THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 442-8100 OR TDD AT 442-8170. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WYLIE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX 2000 Highway 78 North, Wylie, Texas 75098 Regular Business Meeting October 16, 2001 7:00 pm Notice was posted in the time and manner required by law and quorum was present. Commission Members Present: Staff Members Present: Steve Ahrens Mary V. Bradley, Secretary William Chapman Claude Thompson, Planner Michael George Mike Phillips Carter Porter Tony Snider Gary Wiseman CALL TO ORDER Chairman George called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. PLEDGE AND INVOCATION Chairman George offered the Invocation and Keaton George and Hayden Neil from Boy Scout Pack 304 Den 6 presented the Colors and led the Pledge of Allegiance. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION No one appeared to speak. CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 1. Consider and act upon approval of the Minutes from the October 2, 2001 Regular Meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Porter, seconded by Commissioner Ahrens to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion passed 6 — 0, Commissioner Phillips not in attendance. P &Z Commission October 16, 2001 Page 2 of 17 Chairman George informed the audience that the request for rezoning along Westgate Way has been withdrawn, and will not be considered tonight as earlier advertised. There will be no public hearing on the Westgate proposal at tonight's meeting. PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA 1. Hold a public hearing to receive public input and consider a recommendation to the City Council regarding certain proposed revisions to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Official Zoning Map of the City of Wylie, Texas, in compliance with Section 211.006 of the Texas Local Government Code. Thompson stated that zoning is a uniquely American process. The purposes of zoning are several. First, it is based on old nuisances laws, primarily to eliminate or reduce nuisances or conflict of land uses by predicting the kinds of activities that those uses would have and then separating competing uses and grouping complimentary uses together in zoning districts containing various compatible kinds of uses. Secondly, zonings major purpose is to achieve the City's long-range goals, to implement the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore to ensure the proper location and sizes of the streets, utilities and other public services. Thompson further reviewed the history of the City of Wylie Zoning Ordinance, dating back to 1962. Zoning is a very dynamic process and it is revised almost monthly as we consider specific zoning changes and implement those. The last major revision to the Zoning Ordinance was in 2000, when City Council adopted the new residential districts terminology and requirements. The Wylie Comprehensive Plan was revised in 1999 and that Plan revision resulted in new terminology of the districts. The current Zoning Ordinance is rather standard, and the major argument against zoning is that it is inflexible with absolute standards anticipate and encourage sameness in development. The recently adopted residential districts introduce a somewhat unique flexibility system of choice, where by all similar development must meet certain base requirements as well as selected choices of desirable additional improvements. The non-residential districts currently under consideration will offer the same flexible choices for development requiring a given number of points to be achieved by adding desirable improvements. Ray Stanland, Consultant, reviewed the changes to the Zoning Ordinance text and map. Dr. Stanland summarized the Articles within the Zoning Ordinance and explained the difference in the existing and proposed districts of the Zoning Ordinance Map. This transition process is simply trying to convert the existing zoning already on the ground to the nearest appropriate district of the new zoning, and conform to the Comprehensive Plan. Future rezoning decisions, based on specific individual requests will refine the map with more in-depth information and deliberations. P &Z Commission October 16, 2001 Page 3 of 17 Chairman George stated that basically what the Commission has done for the past year and a half is study the existing Zoning Ordinance and existing Zoning Map. This has resulted in what the Commission believes is best for the City of Wylie and the best for the citizens of Wylie, and the Commission now wants to hear what the citizens think of the changes. Commissioner George opened the Public Hearing, requesting speakers to limit their remarks to three or four minutes. Britt Volker, 1511 Anchor Drive, Wylie, Texas, asked the Commission who is responsible for maintaining a temporary 15 to 20 foot easement. Thompson stated that the maintenance of utility and access easements is the individual property owner's responsibility. Mr. Volker asked if the changes in the zoning would be retroactive. Thompson responded that the changes would be applied as soon as the new Zoning Ordinance is adopted by the City Council. Zoning allows no grand fathering or retroactivity, and existing use or structures which are contrary to the new zoning requirements will be "legally nonconforming" and allowed to remain in operation and be maintained and repaired but not expanded or reopened if closed for a period of six months. Zoning changes to correct nonconformity to the new requirements will be considered upon individual requests in the manner and schedule as they are currently processed. Raymond Cooper, 301 Dogwood, Wylie, Texas, represented as a property owner of several industrial businesses on Cooper Drive and several other property owners in the same area. Mr. Cooper stated that he was opposed to the proposed rezoning of this area to commercial uses, as it would cause property value to decrease for these nonconforming businesses. Commissioner George stated that Highway 78 and F.M. 544 is Wylie's major front door entryway, and the Commission would like it to develop as our primary retail corridor. The recommended revisions do not envision change of all industrial property into retail, but we would like to guide certain corridors toward retail. Mr. Cooper stated that his property is 110 feet deep and is not suited for corridor retail development, and no one is interested in purchasing his property or any property around him for retail uses. Thompson responded that this concern can be addressed in one of several ways if the Commission agrees that retail is inappropriate: change the map to inappropriate district or add the existing uses to the use chart as permitted by right with special conditions within the new Community Retail or Corridor Commercial district. Don Jackson, 2600 West F.M. 544, Wylie Texas, represented Collision Center that owns property on Century Way at Highway 78. Plans are ready to be submitted for building permits and the proposed zoning change will not allow the proposed automotive repair on the property. Although the new regulations will restrict any kind of auto repair or body shop there are now two auto repair shops within the area. The Collision Center will be an attractive building and will not have cars parked in the front and surrounding the building. The building will be 16,560 square feet. Commissioner George asked if a Plat has been submitted. Mr. Jackson stated that the property is already Platted for the use is P &Z Commission October 16, 2001 Page 4 of 17 currently permitted and the owner is waiting for the architect to complete drawings and submit a Site Plan. If the proposed Zoning change is approved, they will not be able to build the building for which they have expenses for property, engineering, and architectural. The Commission recognized similar additional concerns on other properties and will take these under advisement either to add that type of use to the Business Center District or revise the Business Center District on the map. Art Anderson, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas, represented two clients, Birmingham Farms and Peerless Manufacturing. The Peerless property on Ballard north of the railroad is currently zoned industrial and the applicant is interested in rezoning the property single family residential for starter homes. Mr. Anderson expressed opposition for Single-Family/8.5 and favored a Planned Development District to allow smaller lots and higher density. Thompson stated that the Planned Development District would remain in the new Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner George recommended that Mr. Anderson discuss the issue with staff at a later time, as the Commission is unable to address specifics of a rezoning request at this time as they consider the comprehensive rezoning of the entire City. Mr. Anderson stated that there were several issues on the Birmingham Farms properties. Mr. Anderson stated that he heard Dr. Stanland state that all Multi-Family tracts in the City would be transitioned to the new Multi-Family District except for the one on Birmingham Farms, and expressed the feeling of being singled out for arbitrary change. Dr. Stanland stated that the property was changed from Multi-Family District to Single- Family/8.5 because of its natural limitations and location. Mr. Anderson stated also that it was illogical to recommend a small strip of 10,000 square foot lots next to existing 7,200 square foot lots along the north side of Birmingham. Commissioner George stated that the purpose of the small strip next to a major thoroughfare was to strike a balance and not have all 8,500 square foot lots in that subdivision and the larger lots match those adjacent to the north within unincorporated Collin County without public sewerage. Mr. Anderson stated also that the intersection of Park and Country Club Roads, is currently zoned commercial and the applicant would like to have the southern part be large enough to allow a large grocery store. To do that, there would need to be a 600-foot lot depth and a Community Retail designation. Mr. Anderson stated that another concern is along Brown Street and Westgate Way where a high power line and gas pipeline that cut across the property. It is a very awkward site to develop as single family residential. Mr. Anderson would like the Commission to consider some alternatives, such as assisted living or similar higher density use. It will be very difficult to develop single-family tract in that area. P & Z Commission October 16, 2001 Page 5 of 17 Tony McElroy, Presidential Estates, expressed his opposition to any zoning changes that would allow a grocery store adjacent to Presidential Estates. Furthermore, he is opposed to any change increasing the density in that area. He is especially opposed to rezoning any additional development until Country Club Road is improved to accommodate the traffic. The Commission made mention that the City is not responsible for improvements to roads, especially County and State roads. Mr. McElroy stated that the Highway Department is not taking responsibility of Country Club Road. Until the infrastructure to widen Country Club is in place, there should not be a retail store in that area. Steve Harkins, 412 Fleming Street, Wylie, Texas, requested clarification about facade material for residential construction, stating that under all proposed categories the statement is "brick or stone, or fiber-cement siding." Commissioner George stated that cement EFIS as well as Stucco, and the Code is not limited to just brick or stone simulations of hand laid individual units. Shannon McMasters, property owner of an auto repair shop on Cooper Drive, requested clarification on the proposed Zoning. Currently he is zoned Industrial and the proposed zoning is Community Retail. Would he be required to meet the Community Retail requirement on his existing building? Commissioner George stated that he would be allowed to keep the current business but it would be classified as a non-conforming use and structure. The Commission would not require that non-conforming structures be demolished and rebuild according to the proposed Zoning. Henry Garland, 4131 Skyview, owns property along F.M. Highway 544, which is not within the City limits. He commended what the Commission is trying to do by trying to keep zoning as similar as possible to what it is now and not second-guess on the use on Commercial Corridor. Mr. Garland stated that he heard Dr. Stanland state that a cemetery is allowed in the Commercial Corridor, and encouraged the Commission to look really close at allowing a cemetery along Highway 544. He also expressed concern that the Zoning allowed Sexually-Oriented Businesses in the Industrial and future Industrial Zoning, and expressed opposition for this type of business anywhere in the City of Wylie. Commissioner George stated that the Commission also had trouble with allowing a Sexually-Oriented Business in our community, but by law zoning is required to make some allowance for every type of business. Mr. Garland stated further that the ones living outside the City limits are not being notified of the property changes within the City Limits that are right next to them. Commissioner George stated that it is published in the newspaper to notify surrounding neighbors and signs are placed on the property. Commissioner George closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Ahrens expressed a concern over changing the Zoning Map, which offers the best compromise of choices. Dr. Stanland stated that the proposed transition is intended to limit changes in allowed uses and the boundaries of the existing zoning districts. The exception was made for P & Z Commission October 16, 2001 Page 6 of 17 Birmingham Farms because none of it fit the Comprehensive Plan. Exceptions and alternations can be addressed immediately after adoption of the revised requirements and map. Dr. Stanland recommended that the Commission not make decisions on major changes tonight. Thompson stated that the several issues can be addressed in several ways; look at each individual case by either agreeing to change the map or change the use chart, and he does not recommend doing that tonight. Dr. Stanland stated that the Staff presents all the alternatives to the City Council, once the Commission looks over each individual issue pulled out, if the concerns require additional review or they could be carried over for the Council to pull them out and review. A motion was made by Commissioner Ahrens, seconded by Commissioner Porter, to recommend adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map as proposed. Motion passed 7—0. The Commission took a break at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m. 2. Hold a public hearing and consider a recommendation to the City Council regarding a change in zoning from Agriculture (A) to Planned Development (PD) for Single-Family Residential and Village Center Mixed Uses, for a 470.00 acre tract of land, being part of those certain tracts conveyed to Joanne Venderweele, Successor Independent Administratrix, as described in Executor's Deed as recorded in the Collin County Clerk's File No. 95-0005773 and being part of those certain tracts described in the deed to George S. Richards as recorded in Volume 775, Page 55, of the Deed Records of Collin County, Texas, and being all of a called 1.00 acre tract described in the deed to F.D. Feagin et ux, of record in Volume 914, Page 697, of said Deed Records, and also being all of Tract 2 and part of Tracts 1 and 4 described in the deed to Jimmie Jane Feagin recorded in Volume 775, Page 58, of said Deed Records, and being part of a called 2.10 acre tract described in the deed to F.D. Feagin et ux recorded in Volume 757, Paage 824 of said Deed Records, and being all of that certain tract described in the deed to Edwin Collins Cook as recorded in the Collin County Clerk's File No. 93- 0039237, and being all of that called 69.25 acre tract described in the Quickclaim Deed to Silas M. Hart and Charlene H. Hart described in the Collin County Clerk's File No. 96-0091287, and being situated in the J.G. Jouett Survey, Abstract No. 475, the Allen Atterberry Survey, Abstract No. 23, and the Aaron West Survey, Abstract No. 979, City of Wylie, Collin County, Texas. (Zoning Case No. 01-13) Thompson stated that the subject property is 470-acres. The applicant is requesting rezoning in order to permit a master-planned multi-use community comprising single- family residential neighborhoods of varied densities, multifamily residential apartments, retail uses and private open spaces. The Concept Plan of the Planned Development District envisions a centrally-located retail Village Center, surrounded by residential P &Z Commission October 16, 2001 Page 7 of 17 neighborhoods of varied densities, and linked by parkways and open space corridors. The rural roadway circulation pattern focuses the community inward toward the Retail Center, with limited points of access/egress to and from exterior regional streets. The written conditions of the Planned Development District limit the number of dwelling units by 1,350 single-family units and 250 multifamily units, or a total of 1,395 units if single-family dwellings are developed in place of the multifamily dwellings. The residential lot sizes range from 6,000 square feet to 8,500 square feet, allowing 80% to be 7,500 square feet or smaller. The proposed minimum house size for the 8,500 square feet lots is 1,700 square feet and 1,500 square feet for on the 7,500 and 6,000 square feet lots. The PD requirements also generally comply with the point system of Zoning Ordinance for non-residential and residential areas except for certain variances that have been called out in the packet. The PD allows flexibility in the planning dictated by a parcel of this size and the proposed complexity of uses. The Comprehensive Plan recommends a minimum lot size of 8,500 square foot for the eastern half of the subject property, and the applicant is recommending a minimum of 20% at 8,500 square foot, 45% at 7,200 square feet, and 35% at 6,000 square feet. The proposed lot width is 70 feet for the 8,500 square foot lots, which is the same as the current Zoning Ordinance, but the applicant is recommending 65 feet for the 7,200 square foot and 50 feet for the 6,000 square feet lots. The front yard is currently 25 foot and the applicant is proposing a variety between 15 feet and 35 feet intending to bring the lots closer to the street with 50% of the larger lots could be 15 feet minimum and on the smaller lots 35% could be up to 15 feet. The front yards and street parkway landscape could flow together in that fashion. The rear yard currently is 30 feet and the proposed is a variety of 10% of lot depth, which would be as little as 10-feet for a 100-foot lot, which is lot depth. The side yard currently is 10 foot but the revisions to the proposed Zoning Ordinance recommend 7 feet or 10% of the lot width, and that is what the applicant is proposing with the same for corner lots. The dwelling size of 1,700 square foot is currently required for 8,500 square feet lots and the PD proposes 1,500 square foot lots for the smaller size lots. The residential exterior wall material required by the Zoning Ordinance is 100% brick or stone, and the applicant proposes 75% brick or cementations siding. The applicant also proposes the following changes in the Basic and Desirable Standard point system. Sidewalks are proposed on both sides of only double-loaded streets rather than the required both sides of all streets. The PD proposed painted crosswalks be allowed as well as the required decorative pavers, brick or stone. Masonry screen walls are required in the current Zoning Ordinance as the only alternative for those backing onto major thoroughfares, and the applicant is proposing a choice of either landscape buffer or masonry wall. The Village Center is defined as all the residences within a P &Z Commission October 16, 2001 Page 8 of 17 distance of 1,300 feet of the Retail Center, and the applicant is requesting the distance be 2,000 feet due to the trail connection by a linear park. The Zoning Ordinance currently requires that the same floor plan or elevation not be repeated within 7 lots on both sides of a street, and the applicant is recommending such a sequence for the same or both sides of the street. The applicant is proposing 8.45 acres or 1.8% of the total property to be multifamily residential, with up to as many as 250 dwellings but a maximum density of 18 units per acre and this exceeds the 15 units per acre density required in the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes that façade materials be 75% brick or stone units or cementations siding, whereas 100% brick or stone is required. The height of the building is proposed to be 45-foot instead of 40-foot limit. In the Retail Center the requirements are the same as the existing zoning, however, the applicant is requesting that General Merchandise or Food Store greater than 5,000 square foot and the Motor Vehicle Fueling Station be allowed by right rather than require a specific use permit and Theater and Accessory Outside Sales be added as permitted uses. The height requirement is 36 feet, and the proposed height is 45 feet. The applicant is requesting that the requirement for alleys be waived and no alleys be required within the subdivision. However, the development requirements provide that when alleys are provided that certain conditions such as increased rear yards be met. The applicant is proposing that certain natural features of the site be maintained as part of the Desirable points. Preservation and restoration of wetland areas will be awarded at 10 points per acre. Preservation of historic and archeological sites, such as the cemetery, homesteads and Native American sites will be awarded 10 points per site. Trail linkages to destinations outside of the development will provide 20 points, and provision of interpretive and education elements along the trail system will be awarded 10 points. A Tree Preservation Management Plan must be approved by staff prior to the approval of any development plans for infrastructure within the PD. The goal would be to preserve at least 25% of the existing riparian tree cover, measured 8 inches caliper at a height of 4 V2 feet above the ground. The applicant is also proposing a Homeowners Association that will be responsible for the ownership and maintenance of all non-dedicated common areas and open space improvements within the Planned Development District. P &Z Commission October 16, 2001 Page 9 of 17 Mr. Greg Rich, 5001 LBJ Freeway, Suite 830, Dallas, Texas, represented Siepiela Development Corporation and the Reality Development Trust as the purchaser and developers of the property. Mr. Rich stated that he appreciated the effort the staff of the City of Wylie has provided in the last approximate year. Mr. Rich reviewed the history of his company founded by a partner and himself some fifteen years ago, developing residential communities throughout the Metroplex, including Flower Mound, Coppell, Grapevine, Allen, Frisco, Plano, Austin and Dallas, and stating that the company has developed 40 or more communities in the last 15 years. He presented the Concept Plan and discussed significant reasons for the proposed layout as shown. There are several mobile home parks surrounding the properties, all of which are within unincorporated and largely unregulated Collin County. The intent is to create and provide a partnership between the City neighboring community and the developers. It is intended to be completed in phases over six to eight years so that all lots will not be brought on at one time and not create a service burden on the community at one time. Several significant limitations within the site include the substantial power line easement, gas line easement, converging creeks that flow into Lake Ray Hubbard. Siepiela has attempted to turn these problems into development assets such as greenbelts, lakes and public right-of-way. The floodplain and power line isolate the multifamily and the Village Center, and specific architectural design will minimize the effects of large high voltage transmittal lines and create buffers to allow transition to single-family residences. Commissioner Snider asked the reason for the small lot size. Mr. Rich stated the community needs to offer a wide range of housing, the average square footage is intended to be minimum required in the existing Zoning Ordinance. Specific concerns can be discussed. The intent is to offer public amenities, which are not just for residents of Bozeman Farms but also for the surrounding communities. The parks will be maintained by Homeowners Association, which will offer links to the public by the bike trails and walking trails. There would be a connection between the development and Lake Ray Hubbard. Commissioner Snider asked where the connection and public parking be located. Mr. Rich stated that the connection will be a bike and hiking trail, and as yet to be located. A TIF (Tax Increment Finance District) and State park improvement grants will be discussed with the City Manager and Staff, which will help to pay for such improvements. All the greenbelts will have parking for public access but specific locations will be addressed at a later time. Commissioner Wiseman expressed concern on the pre-funding, if the grant cannot be obtained later. Mr. Rich stated the specifics of funding sources and items are out of the scope of tonight's discussion, but some of the money could be reimbursed by the TIF. Thompson clarified the TIF; the State has allowed several ways for subdistricts and subcity special taxation. One way is by Public Improvement District, where the regular city taxes are increased by some account. For a P & Z Commission October 16, 2001 Page 10 of 17 TIF current tax rates of the appraisal is district continue but the revenue going to city wide improvements are frozen at the beginning of the project and as the project builds and increases tax revenue, the increment goes directly to the projects within that TIF District. The City still gets its tax base that existed at the start of the development and the increase of tax goes directly to the project and for a maximum of seven years. Mr. Rich stated that the request for single loaded streets was because the Zoning Ordinance requires an alley when the house back up to the greenbelt, providing no incentive for residents outside the development to use the open space or walking trails. The alley takes away the feeling of a hometown neighborhood. In a neighborhood with alleys, people do not tend to interact with neighbors, front yards are not kept clean with garages in the rear. People tend to interact with their neighbors, and yards are maintained when garages are located in front. The crime is potentially increased with an alley, and alleys result in a double maintenance from the City on traffic, paving and garbage collection. Commissioner Wiseman expressed concern for parking of cars and length of the driveway with no alleys. Mr. Rich stated that the slip streets along thoroughfares will connect to individual streets. The variable house setback meets all City requirements for off-street parking and a deeper drive is provided where parking is required. Commissioner Wiseman asked the date for breaking ground. Mr. Rich stated that the schedule for closing on the property would be December 10, 2001, and probably break ground in April. The Retail Center will be limited to 20,000 square feet and offer neighborhood service retail. On the Village Center concept there are about 6 acres dedicated to a Community Center. An example is a swimming pool center and typical community recreation facilities. The balance of the site is for floodway easement. Identifying pedestrian guidelines will be provided and addressed later. Mr. Rich presented a Power Point presentation showing some of the developments built by Siepeila. Commissioner George stated the development looks impressive and good for the City of Wylie, but the Commission is concerned with the density, the size of the houses and lot size. Mr. Rich stated that the PD is proposed to follow the SF-8.5 of the Zoning Ordinance, and proposes a gross density growth of less than three units per acre. Mr. Rich stated that the request does not propose across the board reductions. Porches, for example, the current ordinance requires 100% brick or stone, but the PD proposes 25% masonite and 75% will be brick or stone. The patio will require different sizes but then the front porch will be substantial. There could be some potential trade-offs in the proposals. Commissioner Snider wanted to know why the difference in the Building P & Z Commission October 16, 2001 Page 11 of 17 Entry Covers; the requirement is 40 square feet and the proposed is 30 square feet. Mr. Rich stated that there are issues in the scale of what would be considered in the Design Standards. Mr. Rich stated that Desirable Features called out in the Zoning Ordinance, specifically the pedestrian linkage to the Village Center treatment, Village residential street treatment, and separation of units with same floor plans enhance the point system. Commissioner George stated that these items have been taken from the Zoning Ordinance Desired Attributes and applied to the point system, and they have not been adjusted to any of the Desired Items. Mr. Rich stated that the points could be adjusted according to constraints of the property in general. Commissioner Ahrens asked what could draw someone who lives over by Birmingham Elementary to the proposed development. Mr. Rich stated that the development would have the additional features, improving floodplain, enhanced wetland preservation, hardwood forest preservation, providing preservation cemetery and park. Commissioner Snider questioned the impact of traffic along Troy Road, F.M. 544 and Stone Road. Thompson stated that a Traffic Management Plan will be required later, and that both Troy Road and Stone Road are on the Comprehensive Plan to be improved. The applicant will be responsible for the roadway improvements. Mr. Rich stated that there would be improvements to Troy Road, and Stone Road. Commissioner George requested clarification on the background of some of the subdivisions shown in the presentation. Mr. Rich stated the minimum lot size in Coppell was 9,000 square feet, River Springs was '/2 acre and the house price $350,000 to $600,000. The subdivision in Forney has lot size ranging from 5,000 to 7,000 square feet and the cost range $100,000 to $170,000. Commissioner Porter asked what the price range for the development in Wylie. Mr. Rich stated the range could be mid-$130, 000 to $250,000. Commissioners expressed the desire that the proposed lot sizes in this PD be increased closer to the sizes Rick showed for other developments. Commissioners had concerns regarding the future approval of the PD. Thompson responded that the Concept Plan attach to this ordinance will control, and the applicant must come back with a Development Plan/Preliminary Plat which substantially conforms to the Concept Plan. Commissioner George suggested that this be carried over to a work session due to several concerns and issues that need to be addressed. Commissioner George opened the public hearing to comments. Leon Isabell, 106 Beaver Creek Road, opposes the development based on small 6,000 square foot lots. Commenting on alleys increasing the crime rate, he responded that there have been no crimes in that area over the past 20 years because it is not developed and that the new development would bring crime. Commissioner Snider stated that the P & Z Commission October 16, 2001 Page 12 of 17 comment concerned having alleys versus not having alleys, not versus having development and having development. Mr. Isabell stated that the proposed Zoning Ordinance was extremely well done and looks for the growth in the City of Wylie the way we want to see it go, but found it interesting how when applicant could ignore or change the new plan when it is not conductive to them such as reduced lot sizes, waiver of alleys, masonry wall requirements and other associated items. The height allowance of 45 feet and 2 story means someone could look over into his back yard and he finds that quite disturbing. Improving FM 544 will be a burden to the City. He appreciated the comments and pictures of the slide presentation of developments in other cities which show role models of what this development could be like, however this PD has no place for a golf course and a 3,000 square foot house can not fit on a 6,000 square foot lot. Mr. Isabel encouraged the Commission to stick to the wisdom reflected in the new Zoning Ordinance and not make a lot of variances. Commissioner George stated that F.M. 544 is not city road but a State responsibility, but the applicant would widen his half of Stone Road and Troy Road. Mr. Isabell had a question regarding strictly following the guidelines of the new Zoning Ordinance without a lot of variances. Commissioner Ahrens stated that strict compliance is always the first option, but a Planned Development is intended to allow wide variances and create its own code. Mr. Isabell asked if the City always annexed land when it is requested? Thompson stated that several years ago, the City of Wylie was very aggressive in annexation and that resulted in expansion to the northwest, but the State Law has changed and the City cannot be as aggressive on annexation so that now only requests by property owners are considered. Commissioner George stated that this is the type of development that we want to see in the City of Wylie, but obviously there are some issues and concerns. The Commission will need to negotiate the size of lots, height of buildings and other things that we obviously worked so hard and long on putting in the Zoning Ordinance, but not everything in the Zoning Ordinance is perfect and there obviously must be some sort of variances for land constraints and property owner choices and the PD is the best way of addressing these differences. Charlotte Waddell, 2235 Stone Road, opposed the zoning change for several reasons, including increased traffic on Stone Road and Troy Road even if they are widen by the applicant and no schools to serve the development. The East Fork Water District has a plan for growth of 6% a year and this development exceeds this plan, so water cannot be provided for drinking and fire protection of this new development. The high voltage and high gas lines and large areas of this is floodplains dictate that this land should not be developed in lots smaller than 2 or 3 acres each. This currently undeveloped land will be extremely densely populated and developed areas will compromise the lives and property of residents currently located in these areas. Commissioner Snider stated that this statement touched on one of factors that are generating this unusual plan;this property P & Z Commission October 16, 2001 Page 13 of 17 does have high voltage power and gas lines and floodplains, so it requires special consideration to develop but we cannot totally restrict the owners' right to develop it. Ms. Waddell responded that this is the most beautiful area in Wylie, as long it stays undeveloped, so why should that beauty be compromised with 6,000 square foot lots. Commissioner Snider stated that the applicant has the opportunity to do more than what is on the current concept and how to utilize open space and that development of the large lots is not economically feasible. She further asked how are the trails going all the way down to Lake Ray Hubbard. Mr. Rich responded that the flow/take line of Lake Ray Hubbard ownership touches the ownership of the proposed development, and that trails ending at the PD boundary can be extended into the lakeshore as planned. Commissioner George responded that this is a phased development and next year there will not be 1,300 homes on the area but that it would be more like 150 a year over the next several years. Diane Stone, 402 Foxhollow, opposed the zoning and stated that she would like the area left the way it is right now. Judy Ranly, 6 Mallard Pt., congratulated the Commission for updating the Zoning Ordinance, and encouraged the Commission to follow these new requirements or raise the quality but don't lessen the requirement as proposed by this development. The subject area is one of the nicest areas in the City of Wylie, and it should be kept that way. She said that she certainly like some of the concepts and the sensitively that this developer has illustrated toward the environment. But the developer's presentation didn't show any homes or quality of homes that he is proposing to build in the area. Shirley Starr, 2221 Sky Creek, Dallas, owns 2 mobile home parks in Hillside Bay, asked if the 1,500 square foot house size including the garages or just the house? Commissioner Ahrens stated that this includes both the garage and house size. She further asked if these would be 2-story houses or garden homes with 5 feet between houses? Ms. Starr questioned how the fire truck would get to the back of the property, if there were no alleys and the houses are close together? She asked will there be another school built in this area? She welcomes homes being built but objects to the small lots. When will the bike trails come in after the houses are built? Commissioner Snider stated that the bike trails generally come in as the development is coming in. Commissioner George stated that there are issues that will be further negotiated. Bethany Packer, 2175 Stone Road, expressed excitement about the growth of Wylie, but she is concerned about the proposed quality and the small homes. She is concerned for the trees, and asked how much would be lost. Mr. Rich responded that the PD requires an inventory of trees and a management plan to save as much as 25%. P & Z Commission October 16, 2001 Page 14 of 17 Patsy Lander, 1305 Elmview, owns 13 acres adjacent to this property. She asked where is a direct link to Lake Ray Hubbard? Another concern was the 1,500 square foot homes and said that Wylie should not consider this many homes of 1,500 to 1700 square feet. The slides did not show the size of home or the size of lot. She asked that the Commission consider the property owners around the development. East Fork Water District is in the bidding stage of bigger tanks and it will take years before a sufficient water supply is in place. Commissioner Snider stated the City Engineer is planning ahead for the growth and has or will be addressing such issues as water supply and wastewater treatment. Mrs. Lander stated that if the bike and hiking trails will be under a Homeowners Association, citizens living outside this development will not be allowed to access the trails. Mr. Rich responded that the Homeowners Association rules will ensure public access. George Becca, 105 Beaver Creek, said that he recognized that development will be coming. It is a beautiful, secluded area and he loves the thicket. Mr. Becca was curious to see if the developer lived in the places where he developed, and curious to see if the Commission lived in the neighborhood adjacent to the subject property. He asked what is the access to the Lake Ray Hubbard? Commissioner George stated that we want what is best for the City of Wylie and not just for citizens of Wylie or whether the citizens live outside the City. Commissioner Porter stated the citizens of Wylie voted on the Comprehensive Plan in 1999, and once it is adopted the Commission is limited to approving the type of development recommended by the Plan. Mr. Alvin Goats, 74 Hillside View Drive, Hillside Bay Addition, stating that the majority of citizens in the Hillside Bay Addition own multiple lots of property. The acreage is fairly large and there are several with doublewide mobile homes. Mr. Goats stated that he lives outside the city limits and they have no say to what backs up to their back door, which is in the City of Wylie. Thompson explained the notice included signs on the property, and the Comprehensive Plan includes the Wylie Extra Territorial Jurisdiction. The State provides the City ETJ and requires the City to plan for that area. Notification was sent to City of Dallas, Texas Department of Transportation, and Collin County. Commissioner Snider stated that the newspaper contains advertisement for the public notices. Mr. Goats expressed concern with the increase of traffic on Stone Road or Troy Road. Sherwyn Gooch, 121 Beaver Creek, asked where will the sewer lift station be located. Commissioner Snider pointed out the site at the south and low end of the property that is already under construction to serve this entire area. Joe Zimmerman, 24 Hillside View Drive, Hillside Bay Addition, expressed concerns regarding limited water, stating that East Fork Water cannot handle this size of development. Thompson stated that East Fork, which is a Municipal Utility District, is approved by the State in order to provide the water to the designated area, which includes the development. Wylie is covered by three water utility systems, one is the city and the P &Z Commission October 16, 2001 Page 15 of 17 other two are established by the State. East Fork cannot close their doors on growth and claim lack of funds or lack of utilities, they promised the State to serve water to this area. Mr. Zimmerman had a concern over the maintenance of the bike and hiking trails with the weeds or grass over growing. Commissioner Snider stated that would be a code enforcement issue for the City of Wylie. Mr. Rich stated that communities change and mature; lot sizes tend to change with the growth. He stated that style of housing is not a provision for Zoning, and assured that the square footage will range from 1,500 square feet to 3,000 square feet. There will be a wide range of houses and wide range of lot sizes and prices. East Fork will supply all the water in the development and is negotiating lease of property from the applicant. They are working on financial arrangements for expansion, modifications and upgrade their water lines, and they have to provide the water as needed by the development. Mr. Rich stated that the intent was for front-loading streets, which need no alleys in order to protect the natural character of the property as well as the linear parks and the trails being offered. He stated that all the lots would be at least 120 feet deep, with 25-foot front setback and the back yard will 40 to 55 feet deep. Many lots will be larger than these minimums to accommodate slopes and floodplains. Commissioner Snider asked if the schemes of development take into account that some of the lots back up to 1 to 2 acre home sites. Mr. Rich stated that the trees along Beaver Creek Road would not be lost on the applicant's side and these will serve as a buffer. He also concluded that lot size does not designate home value. Mr. Rich stated that a decision on the expansion and widening at Troy Road and Stone Road is under study by the City and County. The applicant will be reconstructing Troy Road as a major thoroughfare as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan and Thoroughfare Plan. Commissioner George stated that all concerns from the citizens couldn't be addressed in the zoning. Some of the comments will be addressed at a later time or when a Preliminary Plat time is reviewed showing the specific lot sizes. He informed the audience that these items will be addressed at a future work session. Thompson stated that a continuation of the public hearing will carry-over to the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on November 6, 2001. No additional notification will be made. Commissioner Wiseman stated that he would like to see where the trees and proposed clearing are located. He said that the PD lot size minimum of 6,000 square foot could allow a house of 3,000 square foot, with some variation. Mr. Rich stated that a two-story house could be a 3,000 square foot, with the first floor of 1,500 and about 1,000 or more on the second floor. He stated that some more specific detail of the lot sizes could be presented to the Commission as part of the PD. P& Z Commission October 16, 2001 Page 16 of 17 A motion was made by Commissioner Ahrens, seconded by Commissioner Chapman, to continue the Public Hearing until November 6, 2001, to allow the applicant to work with staff to address concerns raised tonight, especially the increase in the size of lots. Motion passed 7—0. The Commission took a break at 12:00 a.m. and reconvened at 12:10 a.m. ACTION ITEM 1. Consider a recommendation to the City Council regarding a Preliminary Plat for the Pheasant Creek Addition, being all of a certain 89.122 acre tract of land, situated in the N. Atterberry Survey, Abstract No. 1099 in Collin County, the N. Atterberry Survey, Abstract No. 6 in Rockwall County, and the L.B. Outlaw Survey, Abstract No. 173 in Rockwall County, Texas, and being part of a called 117.149 acre tract conveyed to Leo Wiman as recorded in Volume 3166, Page 632 of the Deed Records of Rockwall County, Texas. Thompson reminded the Commission that a Preliminary Plat is under consideration, and this is a land study rather than a formal final plat. A future final plat will clean up some of the items that are not shown on the Preliminary Plat. The property is currently zoned SF-3 allowing 7,200 square foot lots and will dedicate 6 acres parkland and floodplain as well as the additional rights-of-way widening of Vinson or County Line Road and additional widening of Troy Road. Alleys are required by the Subdivision Regulations and are provided throughout the addition except for the lots backing up to the parkland and floodplain. Screening is required where lots back up to major thoroughfares such as County Line Road, and an easement has been provided for the screening. Commissioner George requested clarification on the number of lots. Thompson stated that there are 292 lots. Dub Duphrate, Duphrate Associates Engineers, represented the development, and stated that dedication of the parkland and floodplain will be discussed with the Parks and Recreation Board next week. He is open to suggestion on the type of screening for the perimeters along the roadways. Commissioner Wiseman questioned public access and parking for the park, requesting that the cul-de-sac is open for parking. Mr. Duphrate stated that he is not sure how many acres of the 5.77 will be classified as floodplain with parkland. Commissioner Ahrens asked how the lots would be maintained along parkland or floodplain. Mr. Duphrate stated that more study will be needed to determine the exact location of the floodplain and required depth of lots, but an option would be shortening lots 43 through 66 and widening the park along the creek. P &Z Commission October 16, 2001 Page 17 of 17 Commissioner George asked about screening along the parkland behind the lots backing up to the floodplain. Mr. Duphrate agreed to require screening along the backside of lots abutting the floodplain with masonry columns and wrought iron, with solid fencing along side yards between the houses. The type of landscape screening along Vinson Road was discussed in length. Bill Wade, C & N Land, wanted to clarify the screening along the backside of the park. Commissioner Snider stated that the suggestion is not to have a long skinny park which is not accessible to the public because of wooden fences on the lot lines. Commissioner Ahrens expressed concern along the back of Troy Road, would this need to be masonry wall or landscaped screening. Mr. Wade stated the screening would be better with solid fencing and solid columns with 8-foot height. Motion was made by Commissioner Phillips, seconded by Commissioner Chapman, to approve the Preliminary Plat for the Pheasant Creek Addition with the stipulations that additional access be provided to the linear park and that lots adjacent to the park be required to have pierced fencing, and that landscape screening be allowed rather than a masonry wall along Vinson Road and a waiver of alleys adjacent to the park. Motion passed 6— 1, with Commissioner Wiseman voting against. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Commissioner Ahrens, seconded by Commissioner Porter, to adjourn. Motion passed 7-0, and the meeting was adjourned at 1:10 a.m. &0A Michael George, Chairman M= V.`:radley, Secretar' MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WYLIE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX 2000 Highway 78 North, Wylie, Texas 75098 Special Work Session October 29, 2001 7:00 pm Notice was posted in the time and manner required by law and quorum was present. Commission Members Present: Staff Members Present: William Chapman Claude Thompson, Planner Michael George Mike Phillips Carter Porter Tony Snider Gary Wiseman Commissioners Absent Steve Ahrens Gary Wiseman CALL TO ORDER Chairman George called the work session to order at 7:02 p.m. Eight persons representing the applicant were in attendance, as were a number of property owners within the immediate vicinity of the subject request. Chairman George reminded the audience that this was not a public hearing but was rather a work session between the applicant and Commission in order to consider concerns raised at the October 16, 2001 Public Hearing. The Public Hearing has been continued until the next meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, November 6, 2001, at which time citizen comments will be received. WORK SESSION ITEM 1. Consider a recommendation to the City Council regarding a change in zoning from Agriculture (A) to Planned Development (PD) for Single-Family Residential and Village Center Mixed Uses, for a 470.00 acre tract of land, being part of those certain tracts conveyed to Joanne Venderweele, Successor Independent Administratrix, as described in Executor's Deed as recorded in the Collin County Clerk's File No. 95-0005773 and being part of those certain tracts described in the P & Z Commission October 29, 2001 Page 2 of 2 deed to George S. Richards as recorded in Volume 775, Page 55, of the Deed Records of Collin County, Texas, and being all of a called 1.00 acre tract described in the deed to F.D. Feagin et ux, of record in Volume 914, Page 697, of said Deed Records, and also being all of Tract 2 and part of Tracts 1 and 4 described in the deed to Jimmie Jane Feagin recorded in Volume 775, Page 58, of said Deed Records, and being part of a called 2.10 acre tract described in the deed to F.D. Feagin et ux recorded in Volume 757, Paage 824 of said Deed Records, and being all of that certain tract described in the deed to Edwin Collins Cook as recorded in the Collin County Clerk's File No. 93-0039237, and being all of that called 69.25 acre tract described in the Quickclaim Deed to Silas M. Hart and Charlene H. Hart described in the Collin County Clerk's File No. 96-0091287, and being situated in the J.G. Jouett Survey, Abstract No. 475, the Allen Atterberry Survey, Abstract No. 23, and the Aaron West Survey, Abstract No. 979, City of Wylie, Collin County, Texas. (Zoning Case No. 01-13) Thompson stated that this work session was intended to address certain issues of the subject proposal raised at the October 16, 2001 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, in preparation for the reconsideration of the request on November 6. He mentioned that the Planning Report as well as proposed Concept Plan and Conditions of the Planned Development District provided to Commissioners is the same as that provided for the October 16 meeting. Commissioners and individual representatives of the applicant and Commission were introduced, and Thompson turned the meeting over to the applicant Greg Rich to present the proposal and suggested modifications in response to the Commission's comments of October 16. Greg Rich, 5001 LBJ Freeway, Suite 830, Dallas, Texas, represented the applicants, Siepiela Development Corporation and the Reality Development Trust. He summarized the applicant's opinion of the major issues raised by the P&Z at the 10/16/01 meeting as including the following as a basis for tonight's discussion: • Minimum average lot size • House size • Preservation of tree buffer along east and south property lines • Density of multi-family apartments • Perimeter street improvements • Other apparently minor deviations/variances from the requirements of the ZO He asked if Commissioners had additional issues which they wished discussed. Commissioner Snider responded that the image or theme of the overall development needs to be better documented and established, and then it needs to be illustrated how the PD's special development conditions, especially variances such as lot and house sizes and mixed uses, are supported or dictated by this image/theme. He wants the site's constraints and assets better documented, and more clearly related to unique aspects of the design which requires a PD and variance from the standard code requirements. P &Z Commission October 29, 2001 Page 3 of 3 Commissioner Porter requested justification for the complete waiver of alleys throughout the development. Commissioner George requested more information on improvements to Stone and Troy Roads. Commissioner Phillips requested justification for the variance of building facade materials, from exclusively unit masonry to include synthetic cementacious siding. Mr. Rich reviewed the characteristics of the property and the overall Concept Plan. The applicant compiled the subject 470-acre property from four separate ownerships in order to develop a master-planned community similar to others they have completed elsewhere. The property surrounds the confluence of two major streams and tributaries as well as an impoundment, and contains significant floodplain which is not available for development. The property is traversed by major gas and electrical transmission corridors, in wide easements which are not developable. The ownership/flow line of Lake Ray Hubbard abuts the southern boundary of the property, providing potential lake access. The varied topography offers both lake views and solar orientation for many of the residences, and the previous sound stewardship has left the land attractive to residential development. He pointed out that the configuration of the overall property, resulting from the streams, utility and ownership patterns, dictates the form of the plan into several clusters of development and fits the Village Center concept of the Comprehensive Plan very well. The "coving" concept earlier presented to the Commission was intended to achieve acceptable overall average densities by combining smaller lots with the undevelopable open spaces, and the submittal currently under consideration offers a more traditional urban layout designed to achieve the same average density goal. The centralized retail complex directs traffic inwardly, the natural open space network guides the circulation system and the limited points of external access limit traffic impact on perimeter roads. The commercial Village Center is not anticipated to contain more than 20,000 square feet of retail floor space and the PD Conditions encourage smaller building. Thompson commented that the potential for 200,000 sq. ft. of retail reported in the Planning Report is based on the maximum allowed 50% coverage of the 10-acre retail site. Mr. Rich stated that the Village Center could accommodate the community park and recreation center recommended by the Park and Recreation Plan, and the applicants have discussed the potential of providing a site of a YMCA in response to an expressed City goal. The internal street and lot layout enhances public access to open spaces which are currently privately held ownerships. The development will also finance if not construct substantial improvements to perimeter roadways, including Troy, Stone and Beaver Creek Roads, as recommended by approved Comprehensive Land Use and Thoroughfare Plans. P &Z Commission October 29, 2001 Page 4 of 4 In response to concern about lot and house sizes, Rich offered to raise the average lot size from 7,200 square feet to 7,500 sq. ft. He is willing to adjust the earlier proposed mix of lot sizes to require 30% be at least 8,500 square feet (rather than the previous 20%), 35% be 7,200 sq. ft., and 35% be 6,00 sq. ft., recognizing that the lot layout will result in a significant number of lots of much larger size than these minimums. The PD limits the number of single-family housing units to 1,350 (or 1,395 if the MF units are replaced with SF) as well as provides for shopping and open space opportunities, when approximately 1,735 lots could be accommodated by straight SF-8.5 zoning. He offered that not less than 80% of the houses within any single development phase will be 1,700 square feet or larger, compared to earlier proposal which could allow as much as 80% of the total houses to be 1,500 square feet. He said that it is not feasible to develop apartments at less tan the previously requested 18 dwelling units per acre, and that this density and the requested side yard reduction from 20 feet to 15 feet recognizes the major open space to be incorporated into and/or adjacent the isolated complex. Commissioner George requested that lots to illustrated on the Concept Plan. Mr. Rich responded that the Concept Plan already calls out how lot sizes will be segregated, but that there will still be some mixture of lot sizes within each neighborhood. Thompson pointed out that the Development Plan/Preliminary Plat, which is the second phase of PD zoning, is the appropriate stage to illustrate lot lines and that this Development Plan must conform closely to the approved Concept Plan. Commissioner George responded that he feels that it is necessary to tie down a lot pattern at this stage due to the large scale and complexity of this development, and requested that more detail be provided either by a lot layout on the Concept or expanded wording in the Conditions. In responded to the issue of the alley waiver, Mr. Rich discussed the problems of alleys, including increased cost for public maintenance, parking along the front street and crime whereas the lack of alleys produce a greater sense of community. Rich noted that the Concept Plan provides for a lot of single-loaded and slip streets to both provide access to open space and create short local streets. All of the lots will be large enough to allow side- or rear-entry garages which achieve the same image as alley-entry garages. Commissioner Porter stated that the code requires alleys and that the current City Council has expressed a clear desire that alleys be provided wherever applicable. Commissioner Snider responded the "where applicable" is the key, and that he did not believe that alleys are applicable in the subject type of subdivision dominated by rural roads and open space, pointing out that the Council has recently approved several other subdivisions without alleys. Thompson said that in subdivisions where some lots are served by alleys and others are not, the engineering for drainage and utilities will normally treat all lots the same as though there are no alleys and that fire and trash pickup treat all lots the same as though there are no alleys. P &Z Commission October 29, 2001 Page 5 of 5 Commissioner George stated that the City has made a clear statements against lots smaller than 8,500 square feet, because the Comprehensive Plan and recently revised Zoning Ordinance establishes a minimum lot size of 8,500 sq. ft. The Planned Development District should allow reductions in the base code requirements in order to achieve innovation and not merely to achieve a variance. It appears that this PD is intended primarily to obtain variances such as the smaller lots rather than creativity. He concluded that the PD should follow the Comprehensive Plan which recommends that the eastern half of the area be 8,500 sq. ft. lots and the western half be larger. Mr. Rich responded that the open space available to the lots results in an average lot larger than 8,500 square feet, and that he has offered to increase the number of larger lots. Thompson responded that the floodplain, gas and power line and thoroughfare divisions of the property allow the development of scattered individual subdivisions which can not protect public access to the open space nor assure the quality of planning and design which the comprehensively planned PD provides, and that is largely why the staff recommends approval of the smaller lots. Rich responded that he has already tonight offered to increase the average minimum lot size to 7,500 sq. ft. from 7,200 sq. ft. as well as the number of lots 8,500 sq. ft. and larger to 30%. The Commission took a break at 8:25 and reconvened the work session at 8:35. During this break, the citizens in attendance discussed specific issues with the applicants and consultants. Commissioner Chapman did not return to the work session. Mr. Rich narrated a revised Power Point presentation which better illustrated the types of houses and amenities provided in other developments by the applicants. Discussion included minimal lots and house sizes and price ranges as well as common amenities similar to the proposed Bozeman Farm Estates development. Commissioner Snider asked if a Traffic Management Study will be required. Thompson responded that a Traffic Study as well as Floodplain Study will be required during the platting process, but these are normally not a part of the zoning process. Commissioner George stated that he recognizes that site constraints dictate the PD concept and flexibility and congratulated the applicants on a quality concept and presentation. His major concerns remain the smaller size of lots and number of these, and he recommends that 100% be 8,500 square feet or larger. He believes that that is in keeping with the original discussions of this development, and the applicants need to move much closer to that. He also wants screen wall rather than landscape buffers, no more than 15 dwelling per acre for the apartments and larger (the required 40 sq. ft.) for single-family porches. He asked if the PD must be followed by future owners of the property. Thompson responded that the approved PD regulations will be in force instead of current or any future Zoning Ordinance. P &Z Commission October 29, 2001 Page 6 of 6 Commissioner Snider expressed support for the concept, but wants more comfort with the applicant's ability to create the promised quality with so many smaller lots. He also recommends larger lots. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Commissioner Phillips, seconded by Commissioner Snider, to adjourn. Motion passed 4-0, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:08 p.m. ,\A, CJ4..2)2)/12341, Michael George, Chairman Claude Thompson, PI ' g Director of Wylie Public Hearing Item No. 1 Rezoning 01-13 Bozeman Farm Estates Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: October 16, 2001 - TABLED November 6, 2001 —REVISED FOR RECONSIDERATION Owner: Birmingham Memorial Land Trust, Edwina Cook, Jimmie Jane Feagan, and George Richards Applicant: Reality Development Trust Location: South of Stone Road (C.R. 382) and north of Beaver Creek Road (C.R. 1105), East of W.A. Allen Road (F.M. 544 and west of Shoreline Drive (C.R. 732) Existing Zoning: Agriculture (A) District Requested Zoning: Planned Development (PD) District for Single-Family Residential (for 6,000, 7,500 and 8,500 square foot lots) and Village Center mixed uses (Multifamily Residential and Community Retail), as well as common open spaces Summary: This item was tabled at the October 16, 2001 meeting, when the Planning and Zoning Commission continued the Public Hearing until November 6, 2001 in order to consider with the applicant certain issues of the original proposal. A Special Work Session was conducted on October 29, 2001 to consider these outstanding issues. This Planning Report and the attached Conditions of Development reflect the applicant's modifications in response to concerns raised at these earlier meetings. 01-13,Bozeman Farm Estates PD The applicant is requesting rezoning of the subject 470 acres in order to permit a master planned multi-use community comprising single-family residential neighborhoods of varied densities, multifamily residential apartments, retail uses and private open spaces. The proposal is intended to create a Village Center community as defined by the Comprehensive Plan, and, through such comprehensive planning and coordinated design, better address several development constraints of the property. The subject property was annexed into the City of Wylie as three separate tracts between April and September of 2001. Except where the subject property adjoins W.A. Allen and Stone Roads, all of the lands abutting directly on to the subject property on all sides remain within unincorporated Collin County and are not subject to the development regulations of the City of Wylie. These adjoining properties are generally sparsely developed in scattered rural acreage patterns, and are not platted except for the Country Roads Addition in the northwest corner of Stone and Troy Roads, the Beaver Creek Addition east of Beaver Creek Road and Shoreline Drive, and the Hillside Bay Mobile Home Park west of Shoreline Drive. The Concept Plan of the Planned Development District illustrates a centrally-located retail Village Center, surrounded by residential neighborhoods of varied densities, linked by parkways and open space corridors. A rural roadway circulation pattern focuses the community inward toward the Center, with limited points of access/egress to and from exterior regional streets. The subarea components will be designed and constructed in complementary phases. Of the total 470 acres, approximately 30% will remain undeveloped open space, 65% will be developed as single-family residential lots and 3% will be allocated to multifamily residential and retail uses. The Development Conditions of the Planned Development District establish a maximum number of residential dwellings of 1,350 single-family units and 250 multifamily units, or a total of 1,395 units if single-family dwellings are developed in place of the multifamily dwellings. Residential lot sizes range from 6,000 square feet to 8,500 square feet, allowing 70% to be 7,500 square feet or smaller. The PD establishes the minimum average lot size is at 7,500 square feet. The proposed minimum house size for all lot sizes will be 1,700 square feet, the currently required minimum for the SF-8.5 district. The PD requirements are based on the Zoning Ordinance's recently-adopted residential and the currently proposed nonresidential regulations, with certain limited modification. The Planned Development District is to provide an overall unified development pattern while encouraging individuality and choice within the neighborhoods. Public Comment Forms were mailed to fourteen (14) property owners within 200 feet of this request. One Comment Form AGAINST the proposal has been returned at the time of posting. Two written comments AGAINST the request have been received from neighboring residents beyond the legal notification area, most of whom are located within unincorporated Collin County rather than the City of Wylie. 01-13, Bozeman Farm Estates PD Issues: 1. The stated purpose of a Planned Development District is to provide for the combining and mixing of uses and regulations allowed in various zoning districts and to permit flexibility and innovation in the use and design of land and development. The large size and mixed- use intent of this request, and the several potential constraints to development imposed by the site itself, support its rezoning by a coordinated PD rather than separate standard zoning categories. 2. The Village Center concept of the Comprehensive Plan focuses residential uses around a central commercial/institutional core. Higher-density residences, including smaller-lot single-family detached or attached dwellings or multi-family dwellings, are to be located nearest to the nonresidential Village Center to encourage pedestrian access. Lower- density residential uses are to radiate outward from this central core, decreasing in density as distance from the Village Center increases. The Comprehensive Plan recommends a Village Center concept for the eastern half of subject property, with the retail center to be located at the intersection of Stone Road and Shoreline Drive surrounded by single-family residential lots of 8,500 square feet. The Comprehensive Plan recommends Suburban Residential, with single-family lots ranging from 8,500 square feet (1/5 acre) to one acre in size, for the properties west of Troy Road. The subject request proposes to relocate the retail center to Troy Road and surround it with residential neighborhoods generally conforms to the Village Center concept and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Over 20% of the subject property is within the 100-year floodplain of Rush Creek and its tributaries. Additionally, major gas and electric transmission lines traverse the property in wide easements. These areas are not available for development, and divide the property into pockets of developable spaces which the Planned Development District anticipates developing into the residential neighborhoods, retail center and apartment complex. 4. The applicant is proposing to develop 302.73 acres or 64.6% of the total property as single-family residential lots. The Planned Development District limits the total number of single-family lots to 1,350, of which 70% will be smaller than the 8,500 square feet recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. The minimum average lot size shall be not less than 7,500 square feet. The general distribution of lot sizes is illustrated on the Concept Plan, but there will still be a mixture of lot sizes within each of the several residential neighborhoods. The minimum house size is established to be not less than 1,700 square feet, the same size as required by the Zoning Ordinance for the SF-8.5 district. 01-13, Bozeman Farm Estates PD The Planned Development District proposes to apply the requirements of the SF-8.5 Single- Family District, with the following modifications: Development Proposed Required Minimums Condition Requirement for SF-&S District Lot Area Overall min. average: 7,500 sq. ft. 8,500 sq. ft.minimum Type A: 30%@ 8,500 sq. ft.min. Type B: 40%@ 7,500 sq. ft.min. Type C: 30%@ 6,000 sq. ft.min. Lot Width Type A: 70 ft. 70 ft. Type B: 65 ft. Type C: 50 ft. Front Yard Vary between 15 ft.and 35 ft 25 ft. Type A: 50%max.maybe 15 ft. Type B: 45%max.maybe 15 ft. Type C: 35%max.maybe 15 ft.. Rear Yard Lesser of 10%of lot depth or 20 ft. 30 ft. 10 ft.,as min.depth is 100 ft. Side Yard 10%of lot width 10 ft.current 7 ft.proposed Type A: 7 ft.min./ 11.25 ft.corner 25 ft. for corner lots Type B: 6.5 ft.min./ 10.5 ft. corner Type C: 5 ft.min./8.25 ft. corner Exterior Wall Material 75%brick or stone laid units or 100%,limited to brick or stone cementacious siding Accessory Build ng 10%of lot size or 2,500 sq. ft.max. 600 sq. ft.maximum 5. The applicant proposes the following modifications to the Basic and Desirable Standard point system of the SF-8.5 District. Development Proposed PD Requirement of the Condition Requirement SF-8S District Trail Lighting& Lighting at destinations&activities Lighting every 200 ft. along trail Furnishing Benches only on trails<6 ft. Benches on all connector walks Pedestrian Crosswalks Saw cut and stained walks allowed Decorative pavers,brick or stone Sidewalk Materials Broom finish saw-cut concrete,with 20%to 50%special paving accent only at crosswalks,ramps and activity centers Screening of Lots Masonry wall or landscape buffer Masonry wall only or no lots Backing to Streets backing onto streets Distance from Village 2,000 feet maximum 1,300 feet maximum Center 01-13, Bozeman Farm Estates PD 6. The applicant is proposing 8.45 acres or 1.8% of the total property to be multifamily residential, with up to as many as 250 dwellings. Although this represents a potential gross density of 30 dwelling units per acre, the PD establishes a maximum permitted gross density of 15 dwelling units per acre which is the same as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The PD proposes to apply the requirements of the Multifamily District with the following modifications. Development Proposed Multifamily District Condition Requirement Requirement Height 45 ft.or 2 stories 40 ft. Screening of Units Masonry wall or landscape buffer Masonry wall only or no lots Backing to Streets backing onto streets Façade Materials 75%brick or stone units 100%brick or stone or cementacious siding 7. The applicant is proposing 10.11 acres of retail uses, or 2.2% of the total property, for retail uses. The 10 acre Village Center could ultimately accommodate as much as 220,000 square feet of neighborhood service-oriented offices and retail uses, based on the 50% maximum coverage permitted by the PD (the Zoning Ordinance limits lot coverage to 45%). The Planned Development District proposes to follow the nonresidential requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with limited modifications. The PD limits nonresidential buildings to 2 stories, although building height is proposed to allow 45 feet rather than the current 36 feet maximum height. In order to locate retail uses and pedestrian spaces closer to the street, the PD proposes restricting parking as well as landscaping from within the nonresidential front yards. The PD proposes allowing landscape screening as well as masonry walls for screening of service and loading areas. Allowed uses are to be the same as specified within the proposed Neighborhood Service District of the Zoning Ordinance (which has not yet been adopted), except that only the following uses will be permitted: • General Merchandise or Food Store greater than 5,000 sq. ft. (currently requires SUP) • Motor Vehicle Fueling Station(currently requires SUP) • Theater • Accessory Outside Sales • Recreational/Entertainment 01-13, Bozeman Farm Estates PD 8. Alleys shall not be required as part of this Planned Development District. Approval of the Planned Development District shall include approval of a waiver of alleys for all future subdivision plats submitted as a part of the PD. 9. The Conditions of the Planned Development District envision the enhancement of several natural features of the subject property, and this enhancement is intended to provide additional Desirable points to residential and nonresidential areas as detailed plans are submitted for consideration. These features include the following: • Preservation and restoration of wetland areas, at 10 points per acre. • Preservation of historic and archeological sites, such as the cemetery, homesteads and Native American sites, at 10 points per site. • Trail linkages to destinations outside of the development, at 20 points. • Provision of interpretive and educational elements along the trail system, at 10 points. 10. A Tree Preservation Manage Plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Director of Planning prior to any grading or construction of infrastructure improvements within the Planned Development District. The goal of this Preservation Plan shall be to preserve at least 25% of the existing riparian tree cover, 8 inches or larger caliper at a height of 41/2 feet above the ground. 11. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any dwelling unit, a Homeowners Association. Shall be established, with City-approved bylaws recorded in the Deed Records of Collin County. This HOA shall be responsible for the ownership and maintenance of all non- dedicated common areas and open improvements within the Planned Development District. 12. The applicant is aware that, if the Planned Development District is approved, a Detailed Site Plan must be approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the property must be platted prior to the issuance of any building permits. 01-13, Bozeman Farm Estates PD Staff Recommendation: Approval of the requested rezoning. The proposed is generally consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, and the Conditions of the Planned Development District will insure the quality of development comparable to the proposed requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The Departments of Development Services, Public Works and Fire concur with this recommendation. Attachments: Location Map Letter Explaining Revisions From Applicant's Design Representative (MESA Design Group) Revised Conditions for the Planned Development District Conceptual Development Plan Notification List and Response Forms MESA design group November 1, 2001 Mr. Claude Thompson Director of Planning City of Wylie City Hall Wylie, Texas Dear Mr. Thompson, Enclosed herewith is the revised document, "Conditions For Planned Development District". Revisions to this document reflect commitments made by Realty Development Trust during the Planning Commission Workshop of October 28, 2001. I think it is important to note that this document includes many elements of the currently pending revised zoning ordinance, which are incorporated without modification. These are intentional inclusions that reflect our desire to implement elements of the pending ordinance with adoption of our P.D. and to make certain that this development can proceed into the future with assurance that conditions critical to the project's success will not be revised with possible future revisions of the zoning ordinance. Therefore, our compendium of conditions, which appears to be a significant modification of your proposed ordinance, contains conditions of the ordinance without modification. Specifically these unmodified inclusions are: 1. Single Family a. Accessory Structure Front Yard b. Accessory Structure Side Yard c. Accessory Structure Rear Yard d. Accessory Structure Minimum Distance from Main Building e. Main Structure Height f. Accessory Structure Height 2. Multi-family a. Lot Area b. Lot Width c. Lot Width Corner Lots d. Minimum Dwelling Unit Square Footage e. Maximum Density f. Main Structure Front Yard g. Main Structure Side Yard h. Accessory Structure Minimum Distance from the Main Building i. Accessory Structure Building area j. Accessory structure Building Height 1.ut tin, I il,;in I)c.tt;it Hammy.; 3100 NILkninun Strcct Suite 905 I)a111,, I,yas C2201 214/S—I 214/S-1-I CO—(fa vI tn,,,I,Irtiignruh.� :i 3. Non-residential a. Number of Stories b. Residential Proximity c. Front Yard Setback d. Side Yard setback e. Rear Yard Setback f. Non-residential use Adjacent to a Single family g. Non-residential Use Adjacent to a Multi-family While our proposed Planned Development Conditions include many requirements of the pending zoning ordinance without modification, it is also true that we have proposed a number of modifications. However, we firmly believe that the amended conditions proposed would enhance development for Wylie and create a better residential community. The areas of amendment are: 1. Lot Size: Variation of the lot sizes (as you define them) is necessary to capture the additional open space provided in our Development Plan which is not otherwise required for flood plain, easements, or streets. There are approximately 40 acres of developable land set aside as open space. Because this land area is not encumbered for development, it is reasonable to add this area to the land available for lots and in so doing attain a lot size which exceeds the minimums required by your proposed zoning ordinance. This principal is common in "Cluster Housing" projects and should be applied here due to the public benefit acquired in preservation of the wooded zoned located on this undeveloped land area. Therefore, our modification of the lot size is not made as a means of putting more lots on less land but as a means of creating an enriched development with ample open space. 2. Setbacks: Variations to the setback requirements are proposed in order to allow greater variation in the streetscape. Large setbacks on relatively small lots define a building envelope that is very rigid, discouraging architectural complexity, and limiting to the creation of projections (such as a side swing garage). For example, a 100 ft. deep lot with a 30 ft. rear yard and a 25 ft. front yard is only left with 45 ft. of building area. This building area is further constrained by two 10-foot side yards. The potential building area ranges from 1800 to 2900 sf. This is a very constricted zone, which will result in a squarish and repetitive house design. Given the intent of your proposed zoning ordinance to promote diversity, this is an inconsistent effect. The setbacks endeavor to regulate through the creation of "space" what should be resolved through "Good Design". 3. Building Height: Our recommended changes to building height reflect our concern that the heights proposed in your pending zoning ordinance will not allow roofs with residential pitches. The large span of retail and multi-family structure will make the ridge of roofs greater than a six/ twelve (6/12) pitch exceed your height envelope. As a result roofs will tend to be flatter, less residential, and more industrial in their appearance. Our objective is to establish an architectural character for the community. This character will include higher pitched roofs and more overall residential compatibility. 4. Lot Coverage: The recommended lot coverages in our P.D. conditions reflect the lot coverage necessary to develop a viable retail project. 5. Treatment of Sidewalks: The issue of sidewalks is "continuity". Therefore, our concern is that the imposition of differing paving textures and patterns will simply obscure a visually coherent circulation system and give visual significance to areas in order to satisfy a zoning requirement rather than establish legibility and visual structure. Our experience has taught us that simple continuities are the threads,which hold a community together. 6. Screening and Buffering: Our modification of screening and buffering standards contained in the pending zoning ordinance is intended to allow the option of landscape screening. It is our firm belief that the reliance upon walls will create a city that completely separated itself from its streets and turned them into channelized flow-ways for cars. Landscape buffers not only achieve an effective screen but also enrich the streetscape. Most communities are moving away from walled developments and embracing the use of "live screens" which protect without the offensive feeling of enclosure. 7. Architectural materials: The restricted materials palette proposed in your pending zoning ordinance will result in a community that has lost richness of detail and the emotional response to visual diversity. It is our strong belief that a wider materials palette will enrich the visual qualities of Wylie. 8. Commercial Area Landscaping: The stated intent of the village center is to achieve the attributes of a village township within the commercial core. Therefore zoning ordinance standards which inject setbacks and buffers between the retail and the street are encouraging a condition that is completely opposite of that of a village center. Instead, it is encouraging development of suburban "strip" centers. Our intent is to develop a more urban retail village in which the street and the store are brought closer together. The above is a general presentation of why we modified the standards contained in the pending zoning ordinance. Our motive is best stated in the closing of your staff recommendation, " the proposed is consistent with the recommendations of the comprehensive plan". I think that your staff summary of our application was very accurate when a relationship between our plan and the community's objectives was identified. However, there are a few facts, which I think need refinement. These are: 1. We have now modified our mixture of lots so that more 8500 sf. lots result. The mixture is now 30% 6000 sf. lots, 40% 7,500 sf. lots, and 30 % 8500 sf. lots. 2. Our commitment to open space is not determined by land area needed for flood plain. Of the 140 acres set in open space, 100 acres is required for flood plain. This leaves 40 acres of developable land set aside for open space enhancements (exclusive of streets and other right of ways). 3. Much of the open space we are offering is public open space, not private open space as suggested on page one of your summary. 4. The chart which summarizes the differences between your pending zoning ordinance and our recommended P.D. conditions, suggests that our proposed 36 ft. height could accommodate 3 stories. Our proposed P.D. conditions clearly state that the height is limited to two stories. 5. We have enlarged our minimum unit size to 1700sf. for all lot types; 6. We have increased the minimum average lot area to 7500 sf. 7. We have increased the accessory structure rear yard on double front lots to 25 feet. 8. We have limited the multi-family density to 15 units per acre. 9. We have increased the multi-family side yard to 20 feet, consistent with the pending Zoning Ordinance. 10. We have further defined landscape screen and provided for city approval of the screen design. 11. We have added uses to the village center to allow the YMCA facility. 12. We have increased the minimum porch size to 40 sf. 13. We have more detailed criteria related to development of a more urban village center. I hope this review of our proposed conditions proves helpful and gives further insight into our plan. If I can answer any further questions, please do not hesitate to call. 44#Sincere ii, Robi H. Mc'/ffrey AIA, AICP CONDITIONS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Bozeman Farm Estates South of Stone Road and East of F.M. 544 Zoning Case 2001-13 Planned Development Requirements: Statement of Purpose: The purpose of this Planned Development District is to permit the development of BOZEMAN FARM ESTATES. II. Statement of Effect: This Planned Development shall not effect any regulation found in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as adopted and amended, excepted as specifically provided herein; III. General Regulations: All regulations providing for a Village Center District as set forth in Section 3.3 Village Residential Districts and Section 4.1 Village Center Non- Residential Districts of the currently pending Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance are included by reference and shall apply, except as otherwise specified under the special provisions hereunder. The conditions contained herein and the conditions of the currently pending Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, which are not amended by this Planned Development, shall constitute all the zoning requirements applicable to this Planned Development. IV. Development Plans: Development shall be in conformance with the Conceptual Plan attached herewith; however in the event of conflict between the detail plan and the written conditions of this ordinance, the written conditions shall apply. V. Specific Regulations: i. General Residential Regulations 1. Density: The maximum number of Single Family Dwelling units permitted in this Planned Development shall not exceed 1,350 S.F. Units. The gross area density of the Multi-family Dwelling Units shall not exceed 250 M.F. Units. The Planned Development shall not exceed an average gross density of 4.0 du/a. If the multi-family site is developed as single family then the gross area density of single family units may be increased to 1,395 units. 2. Lot Mix: A maximum of 30% of the Single Family lots will not be less than 6,000 sf; a maximum of 40% of the Single Family lots will be not less than 7,500 sf.; a maximum of 30% of the Single Family lots will be not less than 8,500 sf. For the purposes of determining these percentages, all calculations shall be on a cumulative basis. 3. Minimum Average Lot Area: The minimum average lot area shall not be less than an average of 7,500 sf. 4. Alleys shall not be required as part of this Planned Development. 1 5. Distribution of the Single Family Dwelling Unit types (as specified in the following text; Type A, Type B, and Type C) shall be distributed within the development as shown on the detailed development plan submitted with each phase. ii. Single Family 1. Lot Area: The minimum permitted lot areas are: a. Lot Type "A": 8,500 sf. b. Lot Type `B": 7,500 sf. c. Lot Type "C": 6,000 sf. 2. Lot Width: The minimum permitted lot widths are: a. Lot Type "A": 70 feet b. Lot Type `B": 65 feet c. Lot Type "C": 50 feet 3. Lot Width of Corner Lots: The Minimum lot widths of corner lots are: a. Lot Type "A": 75 feet b. Lot Type `B": 70 feet c. Lot Type "C": 55 feet 4. Lot Depth: The minimum permitted lot depths are: a. Lot Type "A" 100 feet b. Lot Type "B": 100 feet c. Lot Type "C": 100 feet 5. Lot Depth in Double Front Lots: The minimum permitted lot depths on double front lots are: a. Lot Type "A" 120 feet b. Lot Type `B": 120 feet c. Lot Type "C": 120 feet 6. Minimum Dwelling Unit Square Frontage: The minimum permitted dwelling unit square footages are: a. Lot Type "A" 1,700 sf. b. Lot Type "B": 1,700 sf. c. Lot Type "C": 1,700 sf. 7. Main Structure Front Yard: Front Yard Set backs within each of the Lot Type Zones may be varied between 15 feet and 35 feet with the following percent of 15 foot set backs being permitted within any single block: a. Lot Type "A" 50% (15 foot min.) b. Lot Type `B": 45% (15 foot min.) c. Lot Type "C": 35% (15 foot min.) 2 8. Main Structure Side Yard: The minimum permitted side yards are: a. Lot Type "A": 10% lot width(7.0 foot min.) b. Lot Type "B": 10% lot width (6.5 foot min.) c. Lot Type "C": 10% lot width (5.0 foot min.) 9. Main Structure Side Yard on Corner Lot: The minimum permitted side yard setbacks adjacent to a street are: a. Lot Type "A": 10% lot width (11.25 ft. min.) b. Lot Type "B": 10% lot width (10.5 ft. min.) c. Lot Type "C": 10% lot width (8.25 ft. min.) 10. Side Yard of Allowable Non-Residential Use: a. Lot Type "A": 30 feet b. Lot Type `B": 30 feet c. Lot Type "C": 30 feet 11. Main Structure Rear Yard: The minimum permitted rear yards shall be the lesser of: a. Lot Type "A": 10% lot depth or 20 ft. b. Lot Type `B": 10% lot depth or 20 ft. c. Lot Type "C": 10% lot depth or 20 ft. This minimum rear yard is increased to 18 feet where applicable when a garage and drive face the rear yard, serviced by an alley (when alleys are provided). 12. Main Structure Rear Yard on Double Front Lots: The minimum permitted rear yards on double front lots are: a. Lot Type "A" 30 feet b. Lot Type `B": 30 feet c. Lot Type "C": 30 feet 13. Accessory Structure Front Yard: Accessory structures shall be located behind the building line of the main structure for all lot types. 14. Accessory Structure Side Yard: The minimum permitted side yard for accessory structures shall be 5 feet for all lot types. 15. Accessory Structure Rear Yard: The minimum permitted rear yard for accessory structures shall be 10% of the lot depth for all lot types. 16. Accessory Structure Rear Yard on Double Front Lots: The minimum permitted rear yard for accessory structures on double front lots shall be 25 feet for all lot types. 3 17. Accessory Structure Side Yard on Corner Lots: The minimum accessory structure side yards on corner lots are: a. Lot Type "A" 10% lot width (7.5 ft. min.) b. Lot Type "B": 10% lot width(7.0 ft. min.) c. Lot Type "C": 10% lot width (5.5 ft. min.) 18. Accessory Structure Minimum Distance from Main Building: The minimum separation between the main building and an accessory building shall be 5 feet for all lot types. 19. Accessory Structures Building Area: The maximum cumulative building size for accessory structures on any lot shall not exceed 15% of the lot area or 2,000 sf. maximum. 20. Main Structure Height: The maximum building height of any residential main structure shall not exceed 36 feet on all lot types. 21. Accessory Structure Height: The maximum building height of any accessory structure shall not exceed a maximum height of 36 feet or 2 stories on all lot types. iii. MF (Multi-Family District) 1. Lot Area: The minimum permitted lot area for multi-family development is 43, 560 gross sf. 2. Lot Width: The minimum permitted lot width for multi-family development is 100 feet (at property line). 3. Lot Width Corner Lots: N/A 4. Lot Depth: The minimum permitted lot depth for multifamily development is 150 feet. 5. Lot Depth of Double Front Lots: N/A 6. Minimum Dwelling Unit Square Footage: The minimum permitted dwelling unit square footage is: a. Efficiency 600 sf. b. 1 Bedroom 750 sf. b. 2 Bedroom 900 sf. c. 3 Bedroom 1,000 sf. 7. Maximum Density: The Maximum permitted density for multifamily is 15 units per gross acre of multifamily site area. 8. Main Structure Front Yard: The minimum permitted front yard for multifamily development is 30 feet from any property line. 9. Main Structure Side Yard: The minimum permitted side yard for multifamily development is 20 feet from any interior lot line. 10. Main Structure Side Yard on Corner Lots: N/A 11. Side Yard of Allowable Non-Residential Use: N/A 12. Main Structure Rear Yard: N/A 13. Main Structure Rear Yard of Double Front Lots: N/A 14. Accessory Structure Front Yard: N/A 4 15. Accessory Structure Side Yard: N/A 16. Accessory Structure Rear Yard: N/A 17. Accessory Structure Rear Yard on Double Front Lots: N/A 18. Accessory Structure Side Yard on Corner Lots: N/A 19. Accessory Structure Minimum Distance From Main Building: The minimum permitted separation between the main structure and any accessory structure in a multifamily area is 5 feet. 20. Accessory Structure Building Area: The maximum permitted building area of accessory structures (excluding amenity centers and recreation buildings) is: a. Lots 2 acres or less 10% of lot area or 2500 sf. maximum (which ever is less) b. Lots 2 acres or more 5% of lot area or 2500 sf. maximum. (which ever is less) 21. Main Structure Building Area: The maximum permitted building area for main structure is as approved on the final development plan. 22. Main Structure Height: The maximum permitted building height for multifamily structures shall not exceed 45 feet or 2 stories. 23. Accessory Building Height: The maximum permitted building height for accessory structures in a multifamily area shall not exceed 40 feet. iv. The Village Center non-residential core of the Planned Development shall conform to CR (Community Retail) standards and permitted uses, except as amended below: 1. Height of Main Structure: The maximum permitted height of structures shall not exceed 45 feet. 2. Number of Stories: The maximum permitted number of stories shall not exceed 2 stories. 3. Residential Proximity: Building height in areas of residential proximity shall be limited by a 3:1 height to setback slope extending from the residential lot line. 4. Front Yard Setback: The minimum permitted front yard set back for non-residential structures is 25 feet. 5. Side Yard Setback: The minimum permitted side yard setback for non-residential structures is 10 feet. 6. Rear Yard Setback: The minimum permitted rear yard for non- residential structures is 10 feet. 7. Lot Coverage: The maximum permitted lot coverage for non- residential development is 50% of gross area. 8. Non-residential Use Adjacent to Single Family: Where non- residential uses are adjacent to a single family lot line with no intervening flood plain, common area, gas easement, power line easement, or open space; the side and rear yards shall be doubled. With landscape screening this setback can be reduced to 10 feet. 5 9. Non-residential Use Adjacent to Multi-family: Where non- residential uses are adjacent to a multi-family lot line with no intervening flood plain, common area, or open space; the side and rear yards shall be a minimum of 20 feet. With landscape screening this setback can be reduced to 5 feet from the landscape screen line. 10. Service and Loading Areas: Service and loading areas within a non-residential area shall not be visible from the public street or adjacent residential uses. Landscape screening, which provides a contiguous evergreen leaf mass or solid screen walls, can be used to meet this requirement. 11. Permitted uses: Permitted uses in the Village Center of the Planned Development include the uses specified in an NS (Neighborhood Service) District, except as amended in the following: a. General Merchandise or Food Store greater than 5,000 sf. b. Motor vehicle fueling station c. Theater d. Accessory outside sales e. Recreational/ Entertainment VI. Single Family and Multi-Family Basic Requirements of the Village Residential District (basic requirements of the Village Residential District are the only basic requirements that apply to the single family and multi-family portions of this Planned Development except as amended below, which replace certain of the Basic Requirement Standards). i. Village Land Design Requirements: 1. Connection of Open Space to Residential Development: 4-foot walkway along neighborhood streets to single loaded streets paralleling community open spaces and flood plains. 2. Lighting and furnishing along open space and trails: Pole mounted lighting or landscape tree down lighting shall be provided at destinations, activities, and nodal points. Provide total number of benches (with backs) equal to one bench every 1/2 mile of trail 6 foot wide or wider. Benches can be grouped but the space between benches (or groupings) shall not exceed 3/4 mile. ii. Street and Sidewalk Requirements: 1. Sidewalk locations: Both sides of double loaded streets, one side of single loaded streets, continuous at grade pathway. 2. Sidewalk Lighting: Sidewalks paralleling streets shall be illuminated with ambient street lighting. Pedestrian only sidewalks (sidewalks not paralleling streets) shall have pole mounted lighting or landscape down lighting at destinations and activity centers. 6 3. Location of required alleys: Alleys shall not be required as part of this Planned Development. However, where alleys are determined necessary by the developer and such alleyways are provided adjacent to major thoroughfares, they shall be screened so as not to be viewed from the public street by either of the following: a. 6 foot masonry wall (including masonry thin wall) b. Landscape buffer (provided in addition to any required rights-of-way). The landscape buffer shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and planted with evergreen shrubs (3 to 5 foot centers) and trees (equaling one tree per 50 feet of street frontage and planted in naturalized groups or rows 20 to 30 foot centers). Plans for such proposed landscape screens in any phase shall be submitted for review and approval at the time of Preliminary Plat for each phase. 4. Screening of residential units backing onto major thoroughfares: Residential units that back onto a major thoroughfare, shall be screened so as not to be viewed from the public street by either of the following: a. 6 foot masonry wall (including masonry thin wall) b. Landscape buffer (provided in addition to any required rights-of-way). The landscape buffer shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and planted with evergreen shrubs (3 to 5 foot centers) and trees (equaling one tree per 50 feet of street frontage and planted in naturalized groups or rows with 20 to 30 foot spacing). Plans for such proposed landscape screens in any phase shall be submitted for review and approval at the time of Preliminary Plat for each phase. 5. Village Residential Pedestrian Crosswalks: Crosswalks shall be provided at trail and sidewalk intersections with major thoroughfares and all intersections within the retail area and shall be designated with one of the following (this does not preclude painted crosswalks as required by the City of Wylie): a. Decorative concrete paver b. Brick or stone paving c. Concrete saw cutting and staining 6. Village side walk material: Sidewalks in residential areas shall be continuous in color, texture, and scoring pattern. Sidewalks shall be made of broom finish concrete with accent paving only permitted at crosswalks, handicap ramps, activity centers, bridges, rest areas and within the retail area. iii. Architectural Requirements: 1. Exterior material facade material: All single family residential units shall have a minimum of 75% of the exterior façade as brick or stone laid masonry units or cementacious siding used to articulate an historic style, excluding windows doors and other openings, and glazing shall not exceed 35% of the front elevation 7 of the residence. Dormers or other elements supported by the roof structure are not required to be masonry. This standard does apply to coordinated block elevations, which are intended to convey and historic style or "village" continuity (e.g. Traditional Neighborhood Design). 2. Units with same floor plan, same street elevation and varying street elevation: Units with the same floor plan may be repeated provided that the elevations for those floor plans are visibly different. "Visibly different" can be accomplished with differing materials or architectural details. However the same elevation shall not be repeated over a block spacing greater than 7 lots skipped both sides of the street. 3. Village residential front entry cover: The developer shall encourage builders to design single-family residential units with usable porches. As a minimum, the front entry of any single family residential unit, which is the entry facing the street on which the unit is located, shall have a covered front porch with a minimum area of 40 sf. and a minimum depth of 4 feet. 4. Roof pitch and materials for all single family units within the Planned Development: All single family residential units shall have a minimum roof pitch of 6:12, asphalt shingles, and painted plumbing vents, attic vents, and other roof top accessories to match the roof shingle color. No wood shingles are permitted. 5. Garages: A two-car garage shall be required, however, attached or detached garages shall be allowed to face the street if constructed a minimum of 5 feet behind the front building setback of the house. VII. Single Family and Multi-Family Desirable Features for Meeting Point Requirements of the Village Residential District (point requirements of the Village Residential District are the only point requirements that apply to single family and multi-family portions of this Planned Development except as amended below which replace certain of the Desirable Feature Standards). i. Pedestrian Linkage to the Village Center: 100% of the units not further than 2,000 feet from a linear park that leads to the Village Center 10 points. ii. Village residential street treatment: Providing specialty accent paving at crosswalks, handicap ramps, activity centers, bridges, and rest areas 10 points iii. Units with same floor plan, same street elevation and varying street elevation: Units with the same floor plan and same elevation separated by 9 intervening lots (skipped both sides of the street) 10 points iv. If item "iii" is separated by 1200 feet 20 points v. Units with same floor plan and different elevation separated by 9 lots skipped same side of the street, 7 lots opposite side........10 points vi. If item "v" is separated by 1200 feet ..20 points 8 VIII. Non-residential Basic Requirements of the Village Residential District (basic requirements that apply to the non-residential portions of the Village Residential District are the only basic requirements that apply to the non-residential portions of this Planned Development except as amended below which replace certain of the Basic Requirement Standards). i. Site Design Requirements 1. Access Drives: Access drives shall be located at least 150 feet from an intersection except when the site is too small to met this requirement and alternate means of ingress/ egress are approved with the detailed development plan. Access drives shall be part of a village circulation system that ties the commercial area together in a circulation path. There are no other requirements for medians or treatment of access drives. 2. Location of service and loading areas: Service areas and loading areas shall be screened so that they are not visible from a public street or adjacent residential lots. Landscape providing a continuous evergreen leaf mass or solid screen walls can be used to meet this requirement including a masonry screen wall. Landscape screens shall be planted with evergreen trees and shrubs that provide sufficient leaf-mass to accomplish an effective screen. ii. Landscaping Requirements 1. Landscaping of parking lots: All site plans with required parking in excess of 12 spaces are required to provide a minimum of 24 sf. of landscape area for each parking space. Required landscape shall be grouped or arranged so that no parking space is more than 60 feet horizontally/ vertically or 85 diagonally from the landscape area. 2. Landscaping of street frontages: In an effort to create a "Village Center Streetscape" that brings the people spaces and retail uses into closer contact with the street, landscape buffers at the street shall be limited when the retail use is setback no greater than 25 feet from the street. This maximum setback shall be extended 20 ft. if the developer provides head-in parking from the street. In these cases, front yard landscaping shall be limited to trees in tree grates, streetscape planters, or small pockets of landscaping which do not create a visual separation between the street space and the retail space. Tree planting on uniform centers with trees located in tree grates shall be provided and arranged so that they work with the modulation of parking spaces at the street. Tree planting shall not be less than one tree for every 40 feet of property frontage at the street right of way. When the retail use is separated from the street by parking (other than street head-in parking), a 10-foot landscape buffer shall be provided. In order to achieve an "urban" space, trees are not required in the landscape buffer due to their conflict with the 9 architecture close to the street and retail signage. In order to achieve an "urban" space walkways shall have a geometry that parallels the street front without the use of picturesque alignment. iii. Architectural Requirements 1. Architectural compatibility: Buildings in the Village Center shall be designed to maintain architectural compatibility with residential architectural of the surrounding areas. Architectural compatibility may be achieved through the use of similar materials and responsive forms (including roof form). IX. Non-residential Desirable Features for Meeting Point Requirements of the Village Residential District (point requirements of the Village Residential District are the only point requirements that apply to the non-residential areas of this Planned Development except as amended below which replace certain of the Desirable Feature Standards). i. Site Design: 1. Building placement: Individual buildings with footprints no greater than 15,000sf. shall earn 5 points 2. Access drives: Any development not able to locate access a minimum of 100 feet from an intersection shall earn an additional 10 points 3. Location of service and loading areas: Service and loading areas which are not visible from a public street or adjacent residential lot but which provide screening through the use of enhanced landscape (flowering trees and shrubs) or an enhanced masonry wall shall earn an additional 10 points ii. Landscape 1. Landscaping of parking lots: Parking lots which exceeds 24 sq. ft. of required per space landscape area shall earn .5 points for each additional increase in landscape area equal to 1% of the parking area up to a maximum of 25 points. X. Natural area Desirable Features for meeting point requirements of the Village Residential District (point requirements listed below may be applied to the point requirements of the residential and/or non-residential areas but any point credit must be allocated to only one area requirement) i. Enhanced Wetland Preservation: Preservation and restoration of wetland areas .10 points per 4 acres ii. Hardwood forest preservation: Preservation of native forest areas and forest habitats (of trees with an 8 in. or greater caliper) .10 points per 10 acres iii. Preservation of historical and archeological sites....10 points per site 10 iv. Provision of improved open space 10 points for every 5% of the total site area over 15% v. Trail linkages to destinations outside the development ...20 points vi. Provision of interpretative and educational trails .10 points vii. Provision of open spaces that implement portions of the comprehensive park master plan ....10 points The developer shall provide an overall Trail Concept Plan (for all trails within the boundaries of this Planned Development) for all phases with submittal of a final plat for phase one. The trail Master Plan shall indicate phases of trail development and identify funding sources that may be acquired to implement the plan. XI. Common Area Platting: All non-dedicated/ HOA maintained green belts and common areas shall be clearly delineated as such and the acreage shown for each common area on the final subdivision plat. XII. Tree Preservation: Toward the goal of preserving as many existing trees (8 in. caliper or larger) possible, a tree management plan provided by the owner that preserves at least 25% of the riparian tree cover, shall be approved by the director of planning prior to commencement of any grading or infrastructure or improvements within the area of this Planned Development. XIII. In an effort preserve the agricultural heritage of the Bozeman Farm, as indicated by the existing fence line trees, the developer shall preserve all hardwood trees with a caliper of 8 inches or greater located within an edge zone that extends 3 feet from perimeter property line. XIV. Screening and Landscape: The screening and landscape strip shall be provided along FM 544. A conceptual landscape plan to be provided with the Preliminary Plat. XV. In an effort to make a land use transition from the existing homes fronting Collin County Road 732, the developer shall establish an edge, one lot deep, of lots along the eastern property line of this development that have a minimum lot size of 8500 square foot and a minimum house size of 2000 sf. XVI. Homeowners Association: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any dwelling unit, a set of bylaws and/ or other restrictive and appropriate covenants and/ or homeowner's agreement as approved by the City Attorney and duly recorded in the deed records of Collin County, to establish and maintain a Homeowner's Association for the ownership and maintenance of all non-dedicated common areas and improvements within this Planned Development District, shall be filed with the Building Inspections Department. 11 / / ,ii) _ � / / I ,,ASTONE ROAD / STONE ROAD / / '\------, \) 1 \ 1 �Y \ 79 CITY. / I• ! 1,1 J - REGIONAL / / 7) / V PARK "-^a V- \'--'-/I 1 \ \ r--\ i ...-6- 15.15Ac 1/7:._,,,,,,,ri ( (i , Ili (65'xifcry—--// :J.'," ‘‘. �� C"�27-091AC�� A • I HISTJDRIC! r r /J 1 I / ��_ m ( ) \, ' n ( - 1 C3,PC--ND 7 „B 651•X/16 DA•)) I 1 RAY HUBBARD ` 50X120 p. ITO LAKE —-- 'tilt I III—" "�'�'-�'� � ` l IP�R �&,4_ Y \ .d/I I l /� / .;v/ / � \ �AgjSIF�ELINE EASEMENT" 0� � ,, .t- _ . AIL X1Z0' / Oox� � (7'2920`A` J\-0,....*.l `\ ;l �� r ) �A.e. / / \`J I I 1 / \� (70•xlza 1 yy �� /- —— \ �� "' �� l�� , I 1 \ ( 1 A -r ,,',;'ILA G I ' �\ pp 7 ( L v ..,x 1 • \ NA„ , ' I\ \ -,,,, ,....._ ,...._,,) \ ii.?\\ rop,::,:.,,;fii...:.1‘‘ :,,,.:I.:,,.. , 1 N I 1 i\__..., \ 1 �1 \ '< tiillld1111% • 1 _� ��33•\_ 11' I ■ ,'� 1\ram .le-Hv • '' i \ I A REQUESTED ZONING MJ-7.14:,_ •J•-•r, , Acj,4,t443/..i. _ \ \ C v __i Q© � ' '�,r w Ya �� �) / A PERCENTAGE / - - - '1 } 1 Q \� ■JJJI PROPOSED ACREAGE TOTAL LAND OF SINGLE FAFDI.Y — \_ J I '� y. ` I I I r I \ LAND-USE PERCENTAGE RLSmENTIAL \ TYPE A 56.76 AC 12 10% I8.]OYe I, \\ ` �� YL! I \ / -� \ \ TYPE C 101.SS AC 21.60% s].60°e — / _` 6. ^B"72q8 AC� \I TYPEC IUI.JB AC "'1.60h 73.60°'. \ I �' 4 . \ \ \ OPEN SPACE I43.I3 AC 3050% 1 ;y qµ ) RETAIL 10.11 AC 7.20 e ✓ �Y,� ] (. (�5X12R V / NULTI.FAMILY 3.45 AC 1.80% �'-� —_ TOTAL AREA- CO AG 1 -�`` �1 r '8W S"�i _ • NOTE: APprovtl aileviletl de vwpmeoo pbw hy,he Ciryo[WSG I BEAVER CREEK ROAD I �I 1 motiP/evm-:RE wmrnwlelsmrnu l6A pion. 1 '��1�,, ( \ - / S CONCEPTUAL D VOPMENT PLAN ® MESA """"" BOZEMANPLANNE FARMDE ESTATESEL p�,Gr �z ,m.,.,_,, ---...mar--- WYLIE,TX NOTIFICATION REPORT APPLICANT: Realty Development Trust APPLICATION FILE #2001-13 6032 Richwater Dallas,Texas 75252 # BLK/ABST LOT/TRACT TAX I.D. # PROPERTY OWNER NAME ADDRESS Applicant 6032 Richwater 1 Realty Development Trust Dallas, Texas 75252 Stone Grove Addn 1019 Foxwood Lane 2 B Lot 5 R-2248-00B-0050-1 Peter Zeller Wylie,Texas 75098 Stone Grove Addn 1019 Foxwood Lane 3 B Lot 6 R-2248-00B-0060-1 Peter Zeller Wylie, Texas 75098 Stone Grove Addn 1023 Foxwood Lane 4 B Lot 7 R-2248-00B-0070-1 John Knackstadt Wylie,Texas 75098 Stone Grove Addn 513 S. Foxwood Lane 5 B Lot 8 R-2248-00B-0080-1 Johnny Aldridge Wylie,Texas 75098 P.O. Box 546 6 Abst 475 Tract 13 R-6475-000-0130-1 Birmingham Memorial Trust Wylie,Texas 75098 P.O.Box 546 7 Abst 475 Tract 34 R-6475-000-0340-1 Birmingham Memorial Trust Wylie,Texas 75098 P.O.Box 546 8 Abst 979 Tract 45 R-6979-000-0450-1 Birmingham Memorial Trust Wylie,Texas 75098 2000 Hwy. 78 North 9 Abst 979 Tract 56 R-6979-000-0560-1 City of Wylie Wylie,Texas 75098 1320 E.Stone Road 10 Abst 979 Tract 25-9 R-6979-000-0259-1 George Richards Wylie,Texas 75098 Jimmie Jane Feagan 1095 E.FM 544 11 Abst 979 Tract 24 R-6979-000-0240-1 c/o F.D. Feagin Wylie,Texas 75098 1275 E.FM 544 12 Abst 979 Tract 31 R-6979-000-0310-1 Edwina Cook Wylie,Texas 75098 1275 E.FM 544 13 Abst 979 Tract 21 R-6979-000-0210-1 Edwina Cook Wylie,Texas 75098 13118 Southview Lane 14 Abst 979 Tract 41 R-6979-000-0410-1 Billy Burdine Dallas,Texas 75240 Collin County 210 S.McDonald Street 15 FM 544 Commissioners Court McKinney,Texas 75069 Collin County 210 S. McDonald Street 16 Stone Road Commissioners Court McKinney,Texas 75069 Collin County 210 S. McDonald Street 17 Troy Road Commissioners Court McKinney,Texas 75069 I I J Cyrovt F--------7---1.---1--- / ! I 77-1 1 - 1 1-. _ 1 ._. 1 ._ 111 I Irrrilt- 1 . 11 !! 1 !! I I r-1 ,____________ , , , , „ , i , I f i. l_.---1-- 1 I 1 1 i ! i I i 11 Ili i • ! t L ir 1 i .4., 1 A 4. • ' ...411 NO • 1 i ! 1 il ---1 i _t_rilr-' ji"Li. I L II'll 1 I i 1 1 1 i . ._ .. . • , 64 Hifi r.,,„7,,„ - 1 , '--,.., 4111 !-- ---- - - . , I , , , , . 1 , 1 1 , , , 1 ;',4;?'4.&1,,- .R:`,`-; s '1'4-- I 1 . ...-w.. %.1,,,,. ,.....,,,.,.. •••.,k,-, ti.,..- I _.-1----- ill-7 Ir.' :-.--',,T,-.}p:i' .'.:-'14"...*Xf- i---''"'' . • - --", 1 --I I ! ---I 10 I 1.1111 •-• --..f:, -47, ,.-iiN,.)- it I MIN , 1.:---1 • , ,_,-,..,,,,,.!'7,,...., ..,i,, - pin 1 in 1--- ----1 4 1 i . 1 L itelir :,,,,,-.3?, --••4•04,''4.,,tv.:?"..w-‘,,t-',,,;.,T.?-7:•,'r-.-: ••`- . ts". -., . . .„ ,, 4 - ,..•••%•-,- ... ,,, ,-,•_,-4,-4.--0-•,.. k......, .,•'•.`'.1.4,-;fte''.1.ft';`,W..,', 1•A•.:',-,:;,1:-.,•:"•-'7.1:'-'7./..'!...7-4.'-';',-,j .*:-;Pi,,c1t,**7;,:s.c"7.:*':i1!.6..sticT::::::: :4!„:*•1:14:.::-;;'::c:??-7:4;•'.. .,4:1:i•li:1:.!,:•:,!-_,4*?".::, ...............„ .1,------ ,,,,,owk.4.* A-4.Y•,_-.1. ,-- . ,=,.-.,.-,-,. ,,,, '• :.1'-;,:,,,.,:five.,440,-- ,4,-,,,;(,-5z,-...,-, .-,.,:.-;:,,,.-,7-,, _ .....- - ''''.41.C1-4;..,.-,4L-'442g41,-.0.,F;ti ,,,:':,•2::.fr.-4,, / — :r.. .-„, , ..',,,.--Y:04,,,,,l''.0, .''..'.l'',;:iwaw.-!,04,,t;-, • 11111nlienriittalliVi ,,_...4.,....,,,,,,,iipi.,.1 ..p,,,,i.,v,;,,,,,,,....-,,,,,,., \ / - ,.....z,-, ...t.,. _„,.. ...:„.„,!„,-,„,,,,..„,,.,,, ,,. 7., '- -..7',..,•.-1,..--, '''''''41-''h4L'C' '' --''''''' '-'''-'' ''.4•"5•1'-'7,r4r-d'.4''',;\---'-'..?1•-'''''''''•;'' •,::, •! s r '''-, •-•:'--.0•"-.•,ra':‘7,,,"--':-:-- .t '.,• ',0%••=t,..-,;...3•-•,':•,.-i::. ,•: 4•,-:••,-,- '.44- 'i::;,';`-4. --.-,1:,-.i.v--,,-1:-,:,,,,,-,,.L.,..c,,,,;-'''.•;'ir',,'',''z7 -...._ ...- - ' ''''51'.6 ' '''';'e 7°4.411i1IPIl&'1;:-::;';'447A441W;11 :J '',4i-si4',*-;'74 , i.,'" 4,*-141115.t:ZV''‘ti44117f: * 4' '•'T.:: ",!:tV: ::^1 ' -:- .7'.'": li: t.;; AllegOIC.%.:;-4'''''' ''' ';;;-47.'iY '' i410r41444 '''''- :: : :" 1-!4;" ) III VI •;`,..:,,.•,,;•.;•,7,.;...,- .:,.- IiIP:11.7.1i111.411° •,.../„ _1011111" \ _..., -7"-.a.' ,, .4-,,•A,-,,,'•4' ,.:3,. 4....,... ,. ,,,,,,----1.- .,Ke - ...,.., - .- - ...7,,,•!'‘').,, .••'•- ' %rt., ',..4,tt,..*'4....,..`1,z.-'!•', %.•,' " .,,,%,, ,,. 01110 ;.,,.,,,,;A.-tt-.:;L,.,4 . , i., , ,44,,_,,,_, ,,..A ,.. , , •4:• - , •,-.---=',',-'4'1, .'".'- "' - - -i• --•--.., - OP ...... -^,- • ..:-:* •,,-,: ...fi"•„"-1,...,:'-'' :0:i:;,:,i‘104,, ::: %,?".::;7.`,.':';r..%!..s.,":". ''' .'",';.':',1S-....---. s- i II I 1---1 NOT till airy ._,._ k..,ti..,-,,,,' -':., '...4,-,--;',. ..'.'1-• t L'...- 1.,`,,,,,::-,'!,..1`.,i. 4,, .e,4,•"-'1'. ,,, 01;;C: ,i,i,."11-,cs,'!;-,.,..,.:;„..AV.,,N g-301,..,,,••:4,,,,,,,4.--ip.„•,:.v7;f7,,,, ..., ,--...,,tf.,,-„,„,i,, ,.. .5 1 . -: "..;,_ ,,",.:4 U., . 0 . - ,,7,'?;•, ,..f,••. ,,1 re,..;,,,,, ;;?,,,, ,17. .&.:.„, ,,..L. 1. i," ",,'",-.-,-. , .-",,,, -•,‘,1;;--C-14.,'':-:-.;',L•7-,7.,.7.',7.,".,-..,.'',;?,"1:),.:;-:-",. .;;-';,,t-j , . - ..' - ...:,:' ' , r-;•?•Y;sr.1r91H-- .,"'',...,:,-** •,'4.1'''',',.',.,.-...,: =‘;-•-:: •,,-:;f;••:'•• .., "rst.•.`t'--:41',,-*zA,.'''''',-,:-••:;''''*;' '''''-'.=-111,;4 i'''''--: :•.;,"-j?..`i.J7-VC-1,,Vi:4 4, ...,-,,-... :Yt,ZOf r':,•C:".`:;'.'• -",.NI'--%-'1'41PilE,•i•-4,•.'"--,4t,•4''t,'•v4;14.1.•ti.4?-',t:lek.''`'.elf2f4,',-...,`" • •\,... -• ,. ,.,4,:jy,•,, ,,,,,.i,,,,T_S•44...,,,t-,,,-.,43_00i:1,)4A t---,,r,-"T 4. rt*z-1 A,...,;\s' 4,-",-,'...2; ,..,..----i,-.'`,. 1 101;..,.,.,,A1A-;,-.,.,74•4‘,..-,.:,?,..,,,i,•,,,,.7,441;9,,,.e,,,-.-...,,,,,v.i..„!:,,,,,4-0:•,,,,..?„,,,.-: ,„ .... ill LI /Iii -1Ji ''','-:•-:::74. '•••-•''r:?:,'''''';'1;V,',IT.,-;5r1,7-V,R --- 1.:1,-- - ,'''. : 4,1:',::',1'i'Y-.',-,,-; Yt":, 0 • ''.• Ariy, Ark ,,,, V 4*:-..-" ,$:•9'•••;-4.11'A'-,-?,WA,,4'.,,,.. ..-k?.r0,714,'t-,Illti:•:',.•:,.•;•;•-,,-si1/41, -------- .• t"--- r'• ,-;••'*-, ,,,r."-' .4,4..0- ,, - - • 4..,,,,z ,,,:',-,.....-0,-.),p.4:,;,-1.,,f,.. . . s''''-.-•:''•-''""A`-"A:0T- '':',:-*,-,4•''.•,••vrq--"A`,.7.,`,,•--,:-.,-,,--,-:;,-!--,' ,,,,,...,..:;;,,,t_a.v. 44,i,e,..A.;.f.,:41,,;A:ro,ix.7v,. ...,,„cf„,,,,_,,..,-,..-., _,-t,-cy....r,•;.;*,;.:-.1,,.,,,;..t ,,,,--, 0 Vt.) •- ; „ ,•:Zi..:',- .74 ''',,,,V.W.c.1,'.';',.;:i'-71::, ''',°"4.1q,q.''''ArX.',;,-;1`?S.:,'; 4 • :%"",..•;,:.7,,fe:4:,*;,..tWIJ.P:',•'Z7,•.'r', .:::::;' ,`•‘. .11;-4L f: •,•1.-•;:,-, .'.,7,..-: 4,,,,,*.•- , .:4,•, tki.L1',1,:it ,..:-%-ti•li;,4;'-''''!•- --'•:*•;,'4"V***,• ','"jil'''''421'44''''.** ''''Pet,;3: ,.;•;,,,..i; :'1‘...•'',',"::5'ii: •••=. MI"•••-.''.--''","*.e44,-,-.K*It-5.4,, ,,I.;_:',..: ,_'3-. • , tZ.---.. , - ,,,, - . ',, ..'t,-S.,V1,>,.,:ti;'. ".';'''Ar4,,,i14,1*--•..:_'4--..;,s,77:4:'....;,'Ii.:'‘,,,-.•‘-',--'Af. iV4,1s1,4,41'*-44; ?ig'A'',il:(':,;%T;'t;:::''''.' :: ;.;''K ;';',.".:'--,f:-.`-'q-i.'.'',4:KA.4-5A. ._14M.,,,,,,:,):4- 4T:,:.,-24.ce.,:,,,V15;: -4,4iii*. ,,,,,p,:e4r 7741.6t:,..; ',e', ....:::,,r;-,4-4'.:-:,, '':`,'."q::,,fr:I.,:;4',.' 15'")-S-'r,,-,71„4:•"'[,:„.::14%:15.0'..*','' '').:`y.,1)::::1`',Vyg.,,,,y;,%;,,;";,;(..1*^ti;;".;4' 7t...,,t';,,r'`.t,•:',.'•'•':;• ..i.::,,,"1„•,,•"0.,,,...'„te,'144,1''":--";;:i',4, ,,,r,,,,4;;;14y.,40,•:. ., .,,1 ,4-4,,i'40-,,,',' ix,,.;-...- .,,•,...,",j'.`,"•',',.,- ,", :,..,.. ..j.W,;.•;t4ti,,44 •"'”•"-,e.;,:tri'.A..::'''•;.•-",.:',.iv'p" •,..,,,,',,T,,,t:,.'.,.•"..J,,,',,,f,i7.•:74.;-.4 ti,,4,?,. ..,•'...Ypit,rty,',-,1,1's4,14,,:. -----1-- !'-`-''''''SI'''''4'1";'''''''''''."t5.'!,:afi&S .‘'‘,•ili'Ll ''',11;;V:',T',`%-1'-'.., ..i.::..1-,-.irial-...:,1•52.,..tesk4- ,,,,•4.-&V--..§.,;•'5j6k:;:ki.:.;,,,l'n4.1:*•74-4-';'',c•3',,r,44-t,J2'.f),,,,,,t4,.-'...."4 :::Isrif,!";!.1",r, ,?.4Aki 1[r. 4.4,,,;:!;:, :.,,-,.. ..c, i __ __ _. ., ,:,.„.• . .,,, •1 — ---. - . ,.4--,-,,,,,,,,i,-,,,,,,,,,;,...,...7 L•-•',7 i777...7rf„,,,..,,,,. --,1'..f."1 • •.:.-,.iz•-Ail:.....,7.J,',.'--,..,,••r{"....2*.:A-'4,,s;,i.',."-'!"-t'l•-,..-"•,!,4,,,,,yi,„,,,..,, ,. ,, ,,.. ,,r,.,.,„ ,.. ..,..,.., I i . t i ","' 4'' ;•P',;.'44-k'f- '•%-: 1 ' '7,Vit 1;4,,t-,,!:',".:%V.;•,:i+,,,i0,1,7,1".:44,:,,,-., -:,',:' ,,,,^4,,,C :.3:F.A.„..',,,i, -..s;,::,,,--,.,,,-,w;.... Ni OT I NI c, , : I ; ; . ,, ,, ,,___,,,,...-0 _, -,, --.!4!-?i,t.,,„;.;;.,-,....,.,,,:.,„.,:.:.,...;... :: ; I 4, - - •;.-„,..;;;,,i,i;,..;;-°--..-'-r;;..:..o;. "'i-A'r.',-,. ''''''-!*.. ,,,-Iis,',';;;N,;*,'<.-z,-Wei,41A111,,114, t44',',-..•,e., ,-4i-,,,7:i;',";;',..,*V . -arir,, j 1,1 Wheelie -'' — - Emi• . / i ''1,''''.:1.5+;,01°.Y0 .VN‘," f/ir'''."%.1 ,-V,Il ';'1`,414nlid01:,k,''''W et*i: s'::/tlii,4 i',-;ttelCtit15 1 '''''''''4'"SokVe '44'401.Z.:,, Mk I" 1 1 r..,-J ; ; I t,..:.:•,..,-,*(!;-:. ., .;..% -..-..-%•;:4. 7''`' ''''• ..i,'''.V,A:5-4.1.7:r4-V' ..,:1'."'`Z,4..•=c4?,":,,4•-'':' "...el.'.'...4.'4"N.1.1;.'01 4'Wt''. --- 111111 / . ! --t•Th 4,,,-..!.. ,••!:;:-;•.:; •.'.4- I,. -;. ,i. les),, ,--c1: ,•, ,fs,, ,:t3,0 •*,,,,-:„Ar,, ! / pig _.....L ---•-------.______. "likI0.- .; e'll•;r ‘. ..1..• ..4.5, ,ti•444-.-•,...-gr4, ,..it.;. 4,......,),...,_:-.r..;,•,1-tf, .,. .44,,,,-.1,•••••;.1.4-nittettorft....,i,... ti mi ____._.___..... i .a. .,,,r4,- .1-:',f4,-.-rva 441 ••• ,,..14;"4.0,,,V.,.;r:`,--,.••^,--A.,-.'-,,tw,-.1,1.'4,-,0.--tr.-i-,,,--„At,,,,,,,,,,i%,/41,7-V-4' ,'--.1 4`.-4;-- f.,:' --.. 70 k,,,..,,,,..4i,,ii„,,,,..„1,,,„iny,.,_.,lip.••-,.., ig....ri,,,,Ar.,..:,p,,,icTir,ii..44.7,,,,-,;„.A.0.:. .....--i*:.17,71,?,..4,:.4'-.•:'4;,....,..13,„..-it::: --. :.N.,',,Y--1 .-'-,,,„*.I ' . '1,--V"Arir,N,-,7,..,t,,P--, -,,r4,?..4;rAct•(r.,..•- i•,-''.,..4t---.-..'.,,-•••.`42.,...;,',t,1;1,27,,ei.,...a,-;,:,,,.1 / ! X 0 .••• j:1;h'"41.11:1'-''''Ltc,i,i',1-'f, ,11'IX- :L. "^i'A''it •* WX5'11.•':!'' ''47'.‘4"P'4''''.''t0t40,f444',4% .1.7",'''''7.'''''''!Z-P-r-'t,/17r*--::F."*.'-':'54:5):'4:4..',,,-)4:P'Z.."1",:i ..1 I ,,,A"44.4!" '''''44.1.6..1,.t, ....• -,•4 •1,6,.^-,3- -,,f..1-,,-1,(4`*r•.,,4., v,t,...<•,:c,.....V,4• '',f..4,,t,,te'l-,.,-,t ''.. 4•,,,.a.i-,•,x:-..,:., b: / ! r ! r''',,!:`•.•:•.'4114,,,:%-.!';-.-*....,-.. ..-,...,:: ..,.iltl---,e,... e ,. 4,tr,...!,,..724,t !.. .1413`..-•:1,.Y.,.• •",,..;P"--1:-7,-; ,11,,,.,,,, ..,,,,,t..,,,..,•:,,-!,,.,,<•iv:,..,,,, . .. i.„---------------- -1--->--19iti------------""--- - 4;‘'-t'l'64'14**ills' '' **1.,71;Y3L ,., 't7119:1;'; t•',1kr:•WA.S..; -';', '1 !: ;:f 2',"1 ':•e'61:':4.'' 2 I i 5. c;) , aill MIN .....____ . - • ,,• •aim '', •',':-..' - ,•1'.ft-1,-•--:,:•.,<t•14 ...i.IVA.V- `i--t.•.::::.....-,L'Vt•4'0„eq,`,14-,:-,,f,c•-•51:: .,;,,,-1,,4..e- -" '.;•,- :,4 '1- -•'1L'il4A,14.4.140i!'*-444,i)-."t*:." -,irri•I`i:0:',..14,, ,t•.'1.F4;••-'''- , -- ' e.- ..-•3,- ..-t1-,4• ,,i, •,,,,',,,,A",-...,,-,1,,,,,,z 4-. -,iyisr ,-,.,4'..,..:•;-•--:,:.:4•04-: •' IIIIII il I- -.-, -,-:- -.,,,,,,•-v,,:l..ci,4''..ri "x...4 .y.' ..A.:7'4,..i•.4,•.. -il,w, -..4-4".4c.:-..., _7 I ::'::'-'`,'"::-a, 1 :•ti,',:i;•-*ft,_r"..;...*1.:,e4 ' 44,--A-,A, -w,,,t..--•,,, 1 ii I › 7 / i ..# r-,+.1"...i ,,,., 4:Mr,,-.•,•,-"' , .. -i ,..,, , " '4''':'i-'1"-i'''; 9",-.- Vi,Pfl-k-",4 '-i- ••••,!ltp.,.1.,'.• -_- , .„... L--j 1 r. 1 .•','-f4':!Na,".44';'1`07..'-!,:',.rt(r7-4,34.k.',„--,1?-s*t, ,,,,i,t',..1"7,-C•4,',,' I7 -----,--,.--,:.•- i.'Y'•1-;,,..r--.....- :-,..t.4-••;.,-.•,.:c-----.-..-.<-: „. . , .•-. •--C ,-...,i.Lim-LIS ii • • ; r 1 __ -'----„N T1 i 1-...=_._._. \ 1111 Fed. t 1 taxman id —1\ --- - 1 --- ectoi-/3 I rifil\ \ t i \ __________ _......_______ !--- [1 PUBLIC COMMENT FORM (Please type or use black ink) Department of Planning 2000 Highway 78 North Wylie,Texas 75098 I am FOR the requested zoning as explained on the attached public notice for Zoning Case #2001-13. yI am AGAINST the requested zoning as explained on the attached public notice for Zoning Case#2001-13. • Date,Location&Time of Planning&Zoning Commission meeting: Tuesday,October 16, 2001,7:00 pm Municipal Complex,2000 Highway 78 North,Wylie,Texas Date,Location&Time of City Council meeting: • Tuesday,November 13,2001,6:00 pm Municipal Complex,2000 Highway 78 North,Wylie,Texas Name: --Pd-re e r<L[.C la /f (please print) �'/{ot,— /- Ccov✓r- /1 Address: 1414' f0Xt000D LA Ely) II 12t'Fl02— Signature: • Date: 1 O,$ o I COMMENTS: 13suL 1 "' TRH NVµBcR aG Si Pc I2+1M)vri :ac`L���J4S S140v613 Culu1 - I ttoc 2. — ACV.. 0 A11G'gIIAre: ICO ADS ro •Z_oPPocr TNC_ Abk1.1-.00 C {fir �Nfl. SIC �,. . PPo4r Apa 'r�ow.- `STvt' nPostm D T'�� �` 7� Si N 4 C I= A,M� ` 5,S.v t: q— 7-1 "tit 11(2 oA: a Cv T'o CO /v s rR v c n o A/ C' ITSS Mu•v 10 Al co 1n1 /SSV a Z .r 3 r -Citti Of WV* Action Item No. 1 Preliminary Plat Southplace Estates Phase IV Addition Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: November 6, 2001 Owner: Twin Lakes, LP Surveyor/Engineer: Corwin Engineering, Inc. Location: Generally located east of South Ballard Avenue and south of Stone Road, east of Southplace Estates I and II Existing Zoning: Single-Family Residential- 2 (SF-2) Summary: The Preliminary Plat for the Southplace Estates Phase IV Addition includes 8.674 acres and will create 29 lots. The property is zoned Single-Family Residential— 2 (SF-2), allowing a minimum lot size of 8,500 square feet. Issues: 1. The Preliminary Plat complies with the Subdivision Regulations and all other pertinent code requirements of the City of Wylie, and is a complementary expansion of the earlier approved Southplace Additions. Financial Considerations: Plat application fees—Paid The applicant is aware that a Final Plat must be approved and development impact fees paid prior to the initiation of infrastructure construction or issuance of a building permit. Preliminary Plat—Southplace Estates IV Staff Recommendation: Approval The Departments of Development Services, Public Works and Fire concur with this recommendation. Attachments: Preliminary Plat 00,,,,-,RIGS 0 25 50 100 W�`tE 1N0E�p�o684'PGN8g5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION SCALE 1"= 50' WHEREAS,TWIN LAKES,LP.,is the owner of a tract of land situated in the Allen Atterberry Survey,Abstract No.23,in the City of Wylie,Collin County,Texas,being part of a 10.613 acre tract, as described in Clerks File No.97-0054771,in the Deed Records of Collin County,Texas,being S89°45'23"E 564.00' more particularly described as follows: 70' �i 70' 74' BEGINNING,of a%2 inch iron rod found at the southeast corner of SouthPlace Estates Phase II,an O addition to the City of Wylie,as described in the Plat Records of Collin County,Texas: u� cO O THENCE,North 00°21'38"East,along the east line of said SouthPlace Estates Phase II,Or a r? I'2 distance of 187.37 feet,to a I/2 inch iron rod found: O THENCE,North 89°38'22"West,continuing along said east line,fora distance of 7.63 feet,to a Iy2 12 13t'Ll 1 2 3 ^ 4 5 ^ 6 II, 7 8 - D. Inch iron rod found: THENCE,North 00°00'00"East,continuing along said east line,fora distance of 412.77 feet,to a cV 3 Is inch iron rod found: ° O 25'B.L. CO THENCE,North 89°38'22"West,continuingalongsaid east line,fora distance of 20.37 feet,to a Z ---------------- ---------------.-..-------- ------------ y2 inch iron rod found: N _ 0 ., 0 4, ° THENCE,North 003%421'38"East,continuing along said east line,fora distance of 136.50 feet,to a — ————— ° ° I O 1/2inch iron rod found being the northeast corner of said SouthPlace Estates Phase II also being in N89°38'22"W Itn the north line of said 10.613 acre tract: 20.37' (50'R.O.W.) „ CLOUDCROFT DRIVE - THENCE,South 89°42'23"East,along said north line,for a distance of 564.00 feet,to a 1/2inch iron " rod set being the northeast corner of said 10.613 acre tract: ——--I r———— THENCE,South 00°21'38"West,along the east line of said 10.613 acre tract,for a distance of z°' 5o zo' 2°' S0, ° 187.65 feet,to a I/2 inch iron rod set: N89 38 22 W 43.14'20'B.L. 20'B.L 20'B.L. THENCE,North 89°38'22"West,continuing along said east line,for a distance of 43.14 feet,to a -- 1 1/2inch iron rod set: 1 I THENCE,South 00°00'00"West,continuing along said east line,fora distance of 412.77 feet,to 10 a 1/2 inch iron rod set: THENCE,North 89°38'22"West,continuing along said east line,fora distance of 2.82 feet,to a I/2 inch iron rod set: ' � I THENCE,South 00°21'38"West,continuing along said east line,for a distance of 137.28 feet,to a Iy2 inch iron rod set being the southeast corner of said 10.613 acre tract also being in the north line 2 r 2 „ 2 R 9 of Twin Lakes Phase II,on addition to the City of Wylie,as described in Volume L,Pages 321-322, E51 PSES N in said Plat Records, SO0 0465E 1&11---- j I- 7 i W OFEBEGI NIING a d containi g 8.674 acres ofrlandine,fora distance of 490.04 feet,to the POINT W o •, > I r` Z 3 O I )-Lo CA Icy J 3 O © 3 ml n b � 3 4 8 ,,Ti' 0 4'�o 5 O " "I I" © "I Q 1,J�ry I Q o1� I � 0 00 I � � —�-- � o ��J00 "Preliminary Plat r Review Purpcses Only" ( i i j 0 ��ct�� 'Recommended fo ,�Pproval" 4 4 I 4 ;, 7 j „ (� FA Chairman,Planning&Zoning Commission Date ,Ir ( j j oi --, r I j "Approved for Preparation of Final Plat" 5 5 5 6 Mayor,City of Wylie,Texas Date t°I r 2o'B.L. " n 20,,.. r r 20'B.L. ( n / FM 5aa _-_ ————I 120' 50' 120' r20' ( - TOTAL 29 aouocRo.r o, R P�'ATioN - (50'R.o.w.) 7 63°'38'22"W� ( TOTAL ACCRES 8.674 L—{14 SILVERCREEK DRIVE SIL YERCREEk L4kE iRgVIS n � IIIIIIIII� i gL.gNl CRIME T _ 7— ————_----1 8, I .. $1' N89°38'22'W r — --- — -- °0 2.82' , ? 25'B.L. —_t_-_-_-_-.-_-_-_--_ 25'B.L. N i !W 5s 54 53 W- 1 m 2 3 4 - 5 - 6 I. -_-.. LOCATION MAP N N T.S. M O N PRELIMINARY FLAT Z e O OF to niik -- "EY SOUTHPLACE ESTATES NOTES � N89 38'58 490.04' PHASE I V \ \ I POINT OF BEGINNING \ OUT OF THE 1.Bearing are referenced to Twin,Lakes Phase I \\ ALLEN ATTERBERRY SURVEY,ABSTRACT NO.23 \ 32 33 All lot lines are radial ar perpendicular to the \ 34 35 36 J7 N THE street unless o+her wise Hated by bearing. \\ 38 39 4( CITY OF WYLIE 3.yh"iron rods with"CORWIN ENGR.INC.'caps set at all \\ KEs COLLIN COUNTY TEXAS bounpoints aof tangency,,aock nd angleepori points public c right-of-way \\ -r j�1NpSE ES 322 j pNPSEG 1348 OWNER ' unless otherwise noted. \ i� PN 32� M.P 4.B.L.-Building Line. I \\ �/ \N Vogl 1"'PG �0�' TWINP.O LAKES,8fi4LP. SOUTH LAKE,TEXAS 76092 (214)878-7069 RECEIVED PREPARED BY OCT 1 8 zaol CORWIN ENGINEERING,INC. CITY OF WYO.7. 200 W.BELMONT,SUITE E ALLEN,TEXAS 75013 (972,396-1200 JULY 2001 SCALE 1,50' JI,1 y' City of Wylie Action Item No. 2 Site Plan Collision Center Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: November 6, 2001 Owner: Collision Center Paint &Body, Inc. Land Planner: William Voorhies&Associates Location: 1201 State Highway 78 South at Century Way Existing Zoning: Industrial(I) Summary: The 1.839 acre lot was created by a replat in December of 1998. The owner intends to construct a single 17,750 square feet building for the shop and office of an automotive repair business. The subject property is currently zoned Industrial (I) and the subject use is allowed within the I district. Section 29A.2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that a site plan be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission for any development within a nonresidential zoning district. The purpose of the site plan is to ensure harmonious and efficient development of land, compliance with appropriate design standards, safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and provision of utilities and other services. Site plans shall contain sufficient information related to the site design considerations and shall conform to data presented within the building permit application. Issues: 1. Staff has reviewed the proposed site plan for the Collision Center pain and Body facility and found it to be in compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent ordinances of the City of Wylie. Site Plan—Collision Center 2. The proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance and Map recommend that the property be rezoned to Business Center (BC), as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan, and the proposed Major Automotive Repair is not allowed within the BC district. The applicant is ware of a change to the BC District will make the proposed Automotive Repair use legally nonconforming. Financial Considerations: Site Plan application fees - Paid Staff Recommendation: Approval The Departments of Development Services, Public Works and Fire concur with this recommendation. Attachments: Site Plan - -.s✓ .- / r f.,„a � ,,,r ;+.,7 ,a"`,, ,, 2.•") %, _,... s 'r'._._._,_.-^z-, ,;, _,,..„,- - ^-r^''✓P r 2,71"f ,-.27/mot,/,,,,7, F.-15, � � ',,� � r/� c:�;,.rt!�',�;/,s�"/ /^.��.,„�., >"✓'F/t"/ G'", � ,fir s_....--�'/„ �jr' _�:_ ,�"�;'" der' '. '�� t �,,,� r` � _ ' a1?lam 7,,,G,a2a, v.I?i- //, �l E 1111111 -'5, ,_ ?r 1 1�((/--J£' 17f� �r// ??Nv�sHfa��v:??Tf✓-": 7// �r1 ,,,,,,7� ,,/r� .1.1 ?,,, ,,,yet,,,,,,,,is 3% 1 C� _ / f / a"t '�j l �I6Ct '�% fy ✓y t 4e V ° i'� f / GAG! ,-. � �4Q" � //1 f •�.ta'v=err,.�rntraJ/1�6 6/�>e�o,��'�'�-Y✓r�c+..a't/'''✓.��5G=�r�'�`rr�-'�•aeas'sf�', �y OZ.?: _aZ5'.�Z ti,,,,,y / �r�^,,�/ ,,!,/,,/y1iw zivn-7 .7(y,, ,c4„..,,,,;b",'97,',7,-" 7>J/, Ili GOOZ ti 0 AON0 i Z� , ,mil,,.//„.y,,,Nr r ,,Q�, r.' a'c,,�,,,,,C,r4.2 f,,,#,"'»r,,,,,,, �,7,5ibe?-?/ 2:e."'/, -,,, r j :,,,,, .n,,, ..`., ,, D 047iG 11,t'y",,,,;-/ es/,/l„?/r,-.L,i/?,/'-,, f=` 7rff.,6/.'.:r`.:✓IS'/?j e? P } / c... ! l —., .„vh' /y - r p �� /' r•"� -5/`,�,�^�+,.� r p•/ :..�'�,-.��-c^iG�/.i'...�t ...�' ,...� /` ''�,,a(�•�i c;�,%5:.;,j*1t'1 v,,1y st',77�'/.�try�'�'G' vffj/ ?/Ggti 6 I ✓ / = 4 , fil72//�//�ewH�/^"; ems,?>a� �3� psr,,,,,,/Ivy> ,,c77.57 L��f/T/ay/.2,e,!,,',-,<:7- 1 Q2,,i-5 ib'7 'XrA" !.,'', —, .f,'' `'/''-,,,7, LF,�/:>P",y�`;cr, ' '.CL5.).""-,1�,^'�n /� E it / L_' _c �1,f c, 5_`„,,,,,,b-. ,/,'`6 ' r t', r OG/ L'JJ�4 j,,Z!J i ,/1\,, ;,4-'r'?, r .%w7'7^_ # . ,,,,,�! ; r f'.. ..., z"- 7-/.�(`+^'Gs,� ^,..,.,�,°.', � f,-t°-,.4"l,:f,:! t�'t7 p �� ^rr' �, / '?�r'r1©� �s r. • _ a S�/"/t' .r'� R7C,e> of -s7 .1 r.r:a 5' f:rn �ygvr w -?:fre 't ?/aLf - J© ' 74 % C €a"/l� _G 1�Ud] r ;ca,�j�s -"?/� �:,r.�/c; ,� / /,r#ll/y _ �"�,� ,,A \ ' / ;/ C`, C j/ -}/ ✓ g 2Rr f t.�1Y1/ -,.- _ - R r Q 1�tc r o�,?'o.„ lj r;/ "' _. Ilj !c f _\ - \� .r71�' 'g.E?d'//.� _ f • i (\�.-.., ^^'rj (j� _ \ c.. 1\,,,f�' 5;6-='01 : i4 2?tg C��� (� tL �`, O ^�"� Q 1��, � ,-5,,,,,,, ,,//.--,;.J?sj l_,,-r ..,�t--, r'yes / ,,,,,7 f,,,+Y ,,r Z r 4 '' 717cn /c^3 '--f.N'„"✓.'"` j>/'�j,!y'*.�-�', - /S°'/^"' _r-.i y'-'l /-C'`.�l� 15S - CI . �'-s''C 6' ,,,,.. ,,.°, // ,.5-,> /— ,, 17 Q- t- r a GO 5'`�? of ©� 1,..., ' ' T ".,G7N 'I,%G'f+..:L ,'`:rCCT j + ",�- ✓G+::.. L i_..- (i_, - ‘- , t.,4''y _ fe (� 0_ t r,',4,. I P 7 Z7/:,_Z_-7'.--7,./5-'7-/--.7,--/ \ ''''',-_,/') ''s L ...4 ' I 1 ' \-_ ` 0 � �; ,Q pit 1 _ �tv' JJ Ca`� L C k \ '''� \ `----">i z(•✓7,4 !i -I 'N✓,rrrtirfi' r ; C-L- o -.'�01> _ • 6sue;rvp,� �.5 t. ,7 CJ t \ iCI G i> ,1 rt G a) 1 '� lI�� #s'� 5. ti- �+3? ?/oe//rs't _ Z 1r//' .! / , ' Cn \ ii /•� j dA dry✓�✓t '7,' .____ .,,,, \---7\\„,, \ \ _ __ --,___,\\:%,,,,, _, ...„,_ /,,,,,f,,,L.,,/ (.-,________,,, 7,/-2,..„,„',_,__.„...„, \1 - -,- „: ,...„,,,,,i.i.r 1t7.5,./.4,7,‘ - ' A ft4,'il 6:s � - `• . \1 ▪---- .) \ , 1 w , �.,t a� — ,.:„.. II_ //J/ -he 1 , \ ,\ b 1' :, , , - E 'C.',- 1\ �_- C *' try % 1 + �Qz1 hr_ayr��ra� • ; , ' _ a >w '�i- : ,,-- , 1 e . \\� t. \\:_i__, \ \ ,\ \ \\ , ,, \ \\:: , \ \ \ \\\,\ \ \ \ '-- \ j \\X\ \ \ e co/ u, , s, /7--; cz/z 42;/7417/z.)--j":7„/„.y,:t/e, N mot ,7•02L , _ 6-75-J-©1'o- Yo/i' Q e ems,r t,,,,x , ,r7 / \ _/27 'j? 1 ^ --z.s-C !"c/5/'C" , ,, 7t'b+?/'1s r, r, ) 1/ \II.,1 C\\ 4z.,.• e.,,,, j # nl S1,t//.$9 675--Paz '---,0.L o,,-7,:t 675-'a / 9 5•-,0 Y,S-.2'1. c0;s `D'ol /5*,.c�1 "-6 .P.0:1, 7 , ll,it•.i S?/rv)jy b2 / IVeZ/na \:\ r '/ / s",c-x-r-V--',,?1/3,°,71,06Z 5,00 ,2, LI-7,_.,1_-.-.:Lai.; . ly- A. l /,/r7ft7/?.rt'��O'�,- - /J// �'�y/7/a1s��^-7r�/"✓� ��t lrva�/Lrc7' ___________ ..,7,/,,,,_,'„,,,,31y . ,_._._ ,.._ �. y / A 71 �,�'of - 0 ...e n.,,,,,,t/,„,,,,,a/7 h __ �_ - -� _.„/------,,,,,-,2 ,--'0 _,_-", k, f 1Nazc%t��v/ , ,., Z. 1