Stop Haggard Farms West Rezoning

On Monday November 10th, the city council will conside zoning ordinance PD-492-RC related to case 2014-33 - the Condo twoer development. On the evening of Friday October 17th, we received the proposed ordinance 2014-33 that was considered at the Monday October 20 P&Z meeting. - The documents include the proposed ordinance, a Zoning Exhibit and a Concept and Preliminary Site Plan.  Here is the October 20 P&Z Agenda and the staff recommendation for 2014-33..

The zoning request involves 10.7 acres at the Southwest corner of Spring Creek Parkway and Parkwood Blvd for a 20 story condo tower on "Lot 1"and two addtional Condo Buildings of 12 and 7 stories on "Lot 2." and (At September meetings this was 8.3 acres - we have asked for clarification of the change). The proposed ordinance to be considered by City council would allow the developer's plan but it also would permit the developer to change the plan to instead build as many as 1500 apartments with only "administrative approval" of P&Z staff rather than requiring a new zoning case. At the September 2nd meeting the P&Z staff stated that all the developer needed was a Specific Use Permit (SUP) to allow residential units to be included in the building and P&Z approved this matter for consideration by City Council.  On September 22nd, City Council approved the SUP but rejected the zoning application because the P&Z staff had since determined that the building did not conform with existing zoning standards and that an actual zoning amendment or variance must be approved in the developer's plan. While this was portrayed as a technical amendment, it is actually much more significant than that and warrants our consideration because it could allow up to 1500 apartments instead.   This is now a new zoning case #2014-33.  At the October 20, 2014 meeting, the P&Z did not address our request to place reasonable limits on the number of residential units that could be built on this site and instead approved #2014-33 as submitted. We are asking our residents to send an email to the city council today to express their concern and if you can show up at the November 10 city council meeting. See the email here. to our group

Following is a Sample email to city council:

__________________

TO: Plano City Council:

I am opposed to P&Z case 2014-33 – One Haggard Place –on this coming week’s agenda unless there is a significant modification.

I believe there needs to be an overall cap on the number of residential units for this parcel, which I believe should be a maximum of 400 units. The modification I am suggesting will still allow the buildings shown in the Preliminary Site and Concept Plan for Lot 1 and Lot 2. The developer, Visions5, has NOT objected to this restriction.

Case 2014-33 is a request for a planned development under PD-RC zoning. If the developer is to receive approval for the exceptional PD zoning, then the community has a right to expect that we get a development consistent with the stated plan, not something entirely different, such as a higher density mid-rise apartment complex. Below are the reasons I believe my proposed modification is appropriate.

The Lot 1 condo tower is 20 stories and the developer publicly states that they are planning 107 units for this building. Lot 2 includes two additional buildings with a slightly smaller foot print that are 12 and 7 stories, respectively. So there is a total of 39 stories to be built between the three buildings. If the layouts were comparable, we appear to be talking about a total of 200 to 250 residential units for the three buildings. That would suggest the City could limit the overall number of units in this planned development to no more than 300. We are proposing a cap of 400 units.

At the September 2, 2014 P&Z meeting, the residents of West Plano made clear that they were opposed to a high concentration of multi-family units at Haggard Farm West and I believe any development that allowed more than 400 residential units in this 10.7 acre tract would be a gross violation of the message from the residents of West Plano.

This modification would NOT preclude the planned development and in fact would allow generous modifications (including adding additional floors to buildings two and three) without a new zoning case. However, any significant changes beyond this threshold would clearly represent a whole new plan and the developer should have to return for a new PD zoning ordinance if such a major change is contemplated.

Thank you for your consideration of this request,

(ADD YOUR NAME(s) AND ADDRESS)

Please send to:

citycouncil@plano.gov;

mayor@plano.gov;

bruceg@plano.gov City Manager Bruce Glasscock;

Chrisd@plano.gov  Planning Department;

Please cc: srlavine@gmail.com So we have a record of your email

__________________ 

What is the amendment about?

The zoning for this parcel is RC (Regional Commercial), which allows buildings up to 20 stories for office and / or retail.

The developer is actually asking for approval for up to three buildings on this 10.7 acre parcel, and to allow residential use in all three buildings.  At the September 8^th P&Z meeting and September 22^nd City Council meeting, a SUP was approved to allow residential occupancy on this parcel.  The developer’s concept plan, however, does not meet other provisions of RC zoning and other provisions associated with residential zoning.  RC zoning includes the following requirements:

• Structured parking is limited to three levels total at or above grade and may be further restricted by the setback requirements
• Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1:1
• Maximum Lot Coverage 70% if parking structure is included
• Minimum Set back from the Street – 50 Feet

In addition, residential zoning requires minimum green space requirements.

The developer’s plan does not meet the following requirements of RC:

• The developer wants rights to build up to three buildings of up to 20 stories.  Therefore the developer proposes an amendment or variance to RC zoning to allow a maximum Floor to Area Ratio of 4:1 – which is 4 times the current zoning.
• The developer wants a 5 story parking garage when current maximum is 3 stories
• The developer wants to construct a pool and amenity area on the top of the parking garage. 

In addition to these identified exceptions, we would like to receive more detailed plans.  It seems that the building and garage plan may exceed the maximum lot coverage of 70%.

What are the issues?

This zoning, if approved, sets the development on a path to achieve the density that the developer is requesting for the rest of the 321 acres of Haggard Farm West.  This is a troubling development.  It was originally portrayed by the P&Z that no change to the existing zoning was required and the building could have been built anyhow.  This may have been true if it were only one building, but the developer wants the rights to build three buildings and an oversized parking garage on this parcel.  The FAR will be four times the allowed FAR of 1:1, starting down a path of high density development.

Actions to be considered.

It was our understanding that the SUP approved at the P&Z meeting only covered the one condo building which is the only planned building to date.  The only way that this conformed to the existing zoning was to allow only one building.  Was this a big misunderstanding by P&Z staff?  After we were told that the only issue was the SUP, there was no objection at the city council meeting.  If our residents had been properly informed of the material change in zoning, there may have been significant opposition to the SUP and certainly to the proposed zoning changes.  These are far from being “technical amendments” that the P&Z intends to vote on with very little public notice.

The three buildings would vary widely from any existing zoning of the city of Plano.  The only existing Plano zoning that would allow a 4:1 FAR is "Urban Mixed Use" zoning.  However, this development does not come close to meeting the requirements of Urban Mixed Use zoning requirements.  Among other requirements, UMU requires a detailed plan, requires inclusion of a minimum of three uses (retail, office, public/ educational and residential), of which the primary use cannot be more than 70% of the total and requires private streets be included in the development with public on street parking before UMU designation is approved.  The concept plan shows the three buildings to be 20 stories, 12 stories and 7 stories of similar footprint.  However this is only a "concept" and it appears that other configurations within the request would be allowed.  For instance the 4:1 FAR would permit a total of 1.86 million square feet on the 10.7 acres when the developer's concept plan is only for 720,000 square feet. We estimate that more than 1500 apartments ( a mix of 1, 2  & 3 bedroom) could be built within 1.86 million square feet.  There is no limitation in the proposed ordinance on the number of residential units that could be built.  The first 20 story building is shown as having 107 units, but at the October 6th meeting, P&Z approved a high density midrise development at 121 & the tollway on 10 acres that allowed 1000 residential units on that single parcel.  Could that be allowed here?  We requested that there be a limit of 400 residential units on the 10.7 acres which appears to be more than the developer is planning, however, the P&Z approved the case with no limits on the number of units.  In response to a question by one of the P&Z commissioners asking whether significant changes in the concept plan would require the developer to return to the P&Z commission, the P&Z director indicated that the P&Z staff could approve the change administratively without returning to the commission and without a public hearing process. We estimate then, that this "administrative change" could easily allow more than 1,500 residential units on the 10.7 acres.  Also, we calculated that the developer's concept plan had an FAR of less than 2:1 for the 10.7 acres, so we do not understand why an FAR of 4:1 was requested and approved.

Accordingly, we are asking our group to express their objections to the ordinance as granted and if they can to join us at the city council meeting opposing these changes.      

Also on October 6th, 2014, P&Z approved for city council consideration, amendments to the Urban Mixed Use zoning ordinance.  This is case 2014-26 and it will have implications to the future development of all UMU developments.  Some of these changes are procedural but others may be a significant revision of standards that are of concern.  Here is Case 2014-26 

contact us at james@stophaggardfarms.com

to sign up