PDA

View Full Version : Plano: City Council votes to delay urban loft project



CTroyMathis
19 January 2003, 10:21 PM
City Council votes to delay urban loft project

By PAUL MEYER , Staff writer 01/15/2003
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=6698076&BRD=1426&PAG=461&dept_id=186027&rfi=6

The Plano City Council has dealt a setback to developers who hoped to bring a slice of urban living to the northwest section of the city.

The council voted unanimously Monday to send plans for a 120-unit urban townhouse and condominium project, at the intersection of Rasor Drive and Ohio Drive, back to the city's Planning and Zoning commission for further review.

In so doing, council cited the original new-urbanist vision for the area as cause for skepticism about adding new townhomes and condominiums without accompanying retail and office space.

It was in 1997 that developers won approval for an ambitious plan on the roughly 240 acres on the southeast corner of Preston Road and State Highway 121 - a vision that included a multiscreen cinema, shopping center, office space, four-story apartment buildings, and a town center dubbed Haggard Square to anchor the mixture of uses.

But as similar projects have taken flight in downtown Plano and Legacy Park, Haggard Square has been an unrealized dream to date.

"Some of the land there has been sold off. There are three or four owners now, and so the integration concept appears to be falling apart," Councilman Shep Stahel said Tuesday.

"The original project was very aggressive, the original applicant was very aggressive in his dream, and he persuaded the zoning commission to give him permission for high-density residential development, which is an essential ingredient to a town center concept. That was the concept at the time, but it has not come to fruition."

The new urbanism concept tries to re-create the traditional village where people could walk to work, shopping and entertainment.

But as office, retail, and entertainment space has yet to emerge, the City Council expressed its concern Monday about the prospect of nothing but apartments in the area - asking the zoning commission to revisit plans for the district as a whole before approving new residential development.

"This was going to be a development guided by the new urbanism concept," Councilman Ken Lambert said. "We hoped it would not just be an 1,800-unit apartment complex in a cotton field."

Backers of the town home and condominium project, who struggled for months to win approval from a skeptical Planning and Zoning Commission, had hoped to provide the housing amenities of living in Uptown, the upscale part of Dallas in the McKinney Drive area, or Deep Ellum, Dallas' art and nightclub district, while adding to architectural diversity in a city best known for more conservative single-family homes.

Concept plans originally called for the loft portion of the project to be a reinforced concrete warehouse structure with a brick exterior, cast-stone arches, a rooftop pool, and a sparse industrial interior. Those plans were softened to gain preliminary approval.

"I understand exactly what they're saying about not wanting a 20- to 30-acre apartment complex in the middle of a cotton field, but you've got to have more residential development before you can have more retail and non-residential building," Jeff Gibson of Gallery Homes said Tuesday.

"We're not going to pull the plug on this project yet, but if the planning commission decides to re-examine the district as a whole, at that point we would pull the plug."

According to Gibson, new retail development has focused around Stonebriar mall, leaving a bear market for similar development across State Highway 121.

"There simply is no market to do non-residential development there," Gibson said. "Look at all of the retail to the north of 121 with the mall. There's also plenty of opportunity to get retail developed elsewhere around this land, but I don't understand why they're so hell bent on getting retail into this subdivision."

Original zoning for the area had required 30,000 square feet of retail space to accompany any housing project - a condition that the city's Planning and Zoning Commission waived in December when they approved Gibson's project after a series of meeting and work sessions.

The City Council, however, questioned the logic of doing away with the potential for new retail development at the expense of the original town center concept.

"I don't know whether the town center urban concept has a market right now, but if it does, I'd like to see it developed that way," Stahel said. "If it's not going to develop that way, then I think we need to look at entire parcel of property and revisit what better zoning should be."

Plano's Planning Director Phyllis Jarell said the original vision may still be viable if the market turns around.

"The original plans for this area had some new urbanist touches but was never conceived as a truly integrated project like downtown," Jarell said Tuesday. "There was to be separate retail and multifamily development that all came together at town square. I think the concept is still viable, but is like all other development subject to the whims of the market."

But for Gibson, who says his company has invested over $40,000 to date in trying to win city approval for the town home project, frustration is the order of the day.

"Now the City Council will make Planning and Zoning go back and re-examine the entire planned development district, and we're not interested in waiting for that when it could take three months or three years," Gibson said. "Logic would lead us to believe that since the commission supported us once, they would support us again, but logic doesn't seem to be a variable in this equation."

freewaytincan
20 January 2003, 06:07 AM
But of course, the only thing they seem to approve is single family homes, so what do we think will happen? Man, when will the city of Plano get it?

rantanamo
20 January 2003, 12:28 PM
I actually the Plano did a good thing here, and I hope other cities pay attention to this. They set a certain zoning and standard and they want that standard met in the best fashion. Even if the living is dense, up in that location it wouldn't be a functional urban neighborhood. Simply a place that a lot of people live and have to drive elsewhere for everything. Kudos to Plano for standing up for smart development.

aceplace
20 January 2003, 02:36 PM
I agree completely. If the developer can't create an urban village, then the developer can't build.

I suspect that the developer was looking for retail outlets on a level with the immediate malls and strip centers. But the idea of an urban village is to provide residents with life support shops like drugstores, dry cleaners, 7-11s, all within walking distance.

The retail he was going after might have been completely out of the scale of an urban village.

tamtagon
20 January 2003, 02:57 PM
"The new urbanism concept tries to re-create the traditional village where people could walk to work, shopping and entertainment."

The new urbanist should understand one of the reasons enclosed malls are so popular in DFW is because it is oppressively hot in the summer. I avoid open air "traditional village" settings. I would rather see a village attempt in the Galleria.

freewaytincan
20 January 2003, 04:08 PM
On the 7-11 part...take out the Citgo and put all the parking, which must be reduced, in the back. Make it easy for the pedestrians, and that is the key. After all, they have made it easy to drive and hard to walk for fifty years. It's time our feet reclaim the fame.

aceplace
20 January 2003, 05:19 PM
Tamtagon, your comment about the heat is a good one. We have here a special challenge to the ideal of traveling on foot.

I think it's an easily surmountable problem, though. There are small, simple things that can mitigate the summer discomfort outdoors.

I see at least four elements to our summers... heat, humidity, sun and wind.

We're lucky in that our humidity is lower than coastal cities have, our 95 degrees at 4PM is far, far more comfortable than Houston or Miami at 85... I iknow, I've been there.

The only time that humidity is a problem for us is later in the morning, before the sun burns it off.

I think the real problem is actually direct sunlight. And our outdoor designers haven't been particularly clever in mitigating heavy sun loads... our outdoor spaces need heavy sunshades that will block sunlight in the summer, but not in the winter when the sun is lower in the sky...

We need to learn to orient our buildings so there is a good breeze blowing thru the spaces... with all our knowledge of wind tunnel effects we should be able to design patios and courtyards that have a good breeze.

An alternative... use large fans with a little mist in them... the ones at the Fair are wonderful... just think how that would help a small, enclosed outdoor space...

All in all, the best friend that mitigations like these will have is ... urban density... you can't cool off the wide open spaces, but you can do a lot with small intimate urban spaces.

aceplace
20 January 2003, 05:22 PM
Urban Landscape, I agree.

A good example of the principle of putting the parking lots in the back and letting the pedestrians promenade in front is maybe Knox street, just west of Central.

rantanamo
20 January 2003, 06:58 PM
Heat is an excuse. There are plenty of hot and much colder urban places that work. If things are done correctly and people have to walk they will. Spain is just as hot as here. What about colder places like Chicago or New York? Plus, people will walk huge distances around Six Flags or from far away parking spots to the mall entrance even if it's a THI of 110.

mikedsjr
20 January 2003, 07:17 PM
I just don't see it working. Its a grand idea with little potential. Anyone hear want to move into a project like this? Are you sure your job is going to be in walking distance, as developers want you to believe?

To me, this is developers wanting to destroy more land that doesn't make sense.

bloodandpopcorn
20 January 2003, 08:31 PM
They're trying to make this work in an area that is wrong for it. Plano is a SUBURB. It should be a place for people to live who want houses, to drive, etc. People don't try to be ultra-urbanist in long island, they do it in NYC. Developers who want to work on new urbanist concepts should do so almost exclusively within Dallas or the close-in regions of the suburbs touching Dallas. At the very most expansive, new-urban environments around DART rail stations would work because, in that instance, you're connected to all different areas without a car. But up in DFW's equivallent of the middle of no where (Stonebriar!), I think it would fail pretty miserably. Addison did a great job with the Circle, but it's in an area that's already relatively dense. And it's MUCH closer to Dallas than this other development.

gc
20 January 2003, 09:44 PM
I too think it is wrong for that area. period.

Developers are trying to capitalize on the popularity of the area....how can you blame 'em? They see $$$

freewaytincan
21 January 2003, 12:34 AM
Yeah, urban areas belong in cities, or in areas between, like Las Colinas. And the term "loft" has been bastardized by developers. A real loft used to be a warhouse or something. These are new construction. They are not lofts!

mikedsjr
21 January 2003, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by GarrettCarey
I too think it is wrong for that area. period.

Developers are trying to capitalize on the popularity of the area....how can you blame 'em? They see $$$

That is why we need some sort of regional government body that governs the metroplex area and its growth. To control the growth and control developers.

I am all for DFW growing, but it needs to be developed from the inside(by developing Downtown areas) - out(control the sprawl).

JackZeta
21 January 2003, 04:25 PM
What gets me about all this is how the term "loft" is thrown around...

Case in point: Last month, my GF and myself went looking in both downtown(Kirby,1900 Elm,Wilson,Santa Fe) and deep ellum(Adam Hats, Continental,Futura) at properties which would fit into the traditional term of "loft"(Older industrial,office, and commercial buildings that are converted into living quarters). We decided to go over to lakewood for lunch and,as we drove down gaston, saw remodeled apartment complexes being called "lofts". This, in my opinion, is deceiving. I think if you're going to call a building a loft, there needs to be a few ground rules:

1) The building needs to be a minimum of three stories in height

AND/OR

2) The previous use for the building must have been either commercial or industrial in nature.

AND

3) If you call the building "historical", it must be older than 50 years in age and had some TRUE historical significance(i.e. Home of the first Model T dealership in town, famous invention created in the building, First location of a Department Store ect..)as designated by the city,county or state historical comissions.

A few simple rules,IMHO,would clear up the confusion.

Quiz03
21 January 2003, 04:33 PM
a loft is also supposed to be unpartitioned for the most part