07.05.2011 P&Z MinutesMINUTES
Regular Meeting of the
Prosper Planning & Zoning Commission
108 W. Broadway Street, Prosper, Texas
Town of Prosper Municipal Chambers
Tuesday, July 5, 2011, 6:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order /Roll Call.
The meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m.
Roll call taken by silent count.
Commissioners present included: Chair Marls DeMattia, Vice Chair Milce McClung, Rick Turner, Chris
Keith, Jim Cox, and Terri McCutcheon.
*Secretary Christopher Blair notified of his absence prior to meeting.
Staff present included: Hulon T. Webb, Jr., Director of Development Services/Town Engineer and Chris
Copple, Planning & Zoning Manager.
2. Recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Consider and act upon minutes from the following Planning &Zoning Commission
meeting:
• June 7, 2011 Regular Meeting
Motioned by McClung, seconded by Cox to approve item 3. Motion approved 6-0 at 6:05 p.m.
REGULAR AGENDA
4. A public hearing to consider and act upon a request to rezone 9.6� acres, located on the
west side of Coit Road, 200E feet south of Frontier Parkway, from Single Family-15 (SF-15)
to Planned Development -Single Family (PD-SF). (Z11-0009).
Summary
COpp le: Summarized request to rezone and briefed on the difference between the existing zoning and the
proposed zoning, as well as the surrounding zoning. Cited recommendations for the property according to
the Future Land Use Plan (herein called "the Plan"), noting the request conforms to the Plan. Informed
notification was given in accordance with State law, and staff had not received any public hearing notice
reply forms prior to the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Recommended approval.
Motioned by McClung, seconded by McCutcheon to open the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0 at 6:10
p.m.
Public Hearing Discussion
Joseph Ar»7ao (Highland Meadows resident): Spoke in opposition to the request. Asked questions
regarding the existing zoning requirements. Concerned about tree removal behind the Highland Meadows
residences, that are adjacent to the request and quarter acre lots abutting one acre lots.
Page 1 of 8
John Dishong (Highland Meadows resident): Spoke in opposition to the request. Gave presentation
highlighting the following: 1) while Highland Meadows is Single FamilyA5, the lot sizes are one acre.
Requested consideration that any lots adjacent to Highland Meadows be transitioned rather than abrupt,
which will occur should the request be approved, 2) building above minimum standards to retain the rural
characteristics for which residents moved here to enjoy, 3) concerns regarding intent of the request, which
would allow flexibility, thereby compromising development standards as opposed to straight zoning, 4)
preservation of the wooded area to the east of Highland Meadows, 5) concerns regarding the increase in
impervious surface and possible drainage problems, 6) concerns that lot sizes will decrease property
values for the adjacent homes in Highland Meadows, 7) concerns the amenity center will negatively
impact the privacy of homes in Highland Meadows adjacent to the request, and 8) concerns regarding
screening issues between the subdivisions.
Bob Wierschenz (Higl�land Meadows resident): Spoke in opposition to the request. Briefed on drainage
issues occurring in Highland Meadows, noting a study conducted regarding the impact of water runoff.
Informed of the amount of water on properties due to runoff and of the detention pond proposed to
alleviate the problem. Narrated themes discussed at the June 27, 2011 Comprehensive Plan Town Hall
Meeting (herein called "Town Hall meeting") that centered on the reason people relocated to Prosper —
the large lot, rural aspect.
Phil Lofton (Highland Meadows resident): Spoke in opposition to the request. Concerned about the
smaller lot sizes will decrease home values in Highland Meadows. Presented photos to illustrate the view
of the subject property from his house. Concerned regarding the loss of privacy, trees, and natural
habitat, the location of future homes in relation to the drainage ditch, and the impact on Highland
Meadows drainage. Noted the discussions at the Town Hall meeting and cited an excerpt from the current
Comprehensive Plan in which he interpreted the recommendation for the area.
Gordon Cameron (Highland Meadows HOA President): Offered an estimate of annual HOA dues needed
to properly maintain the development for the nineteen lots proposed, which could range between $50,000
and $70,000 annually, equating between $2,600 and $3,600 per household. Noted the difficulty the
Highland Meadows HOA has in obtaining their dues from 102 homes. Handed out a list of HOA duties
required, noting its incompleteness due to new state laws. Requested the proposed amenity center be
moved towards the front of the proposed development. Concerned proposed home square footage will
decrease value of existing Highland Meadows homes.
Kent Walterscheid (Highland Meadows resident): Spoke in opposition to the request with concerns
regarding housing prices and tree mitigation.
Bryan Tho»7pson (Highland Meadows resident): Spoke in opposition to the request, mirroring concerns
given by previous speakers. Added his concern regarding the intersection of Coit Road and Frontier
Parkway, noting an increase in traffic could invite dangerous conditions where they already exist.
Requested a traffic study be conducted before any new development occurs.
Kirby Jones (Highland Meadows resident): Spoke in opposition to the request, citing concerns for home
values and tree protection.
Trevor Castilla (applicant): Noted the request's conformity with the Plan and the challenges the property
owner faces once development occurs, which includes the following: 1) dedication ofright-of--way along
Coit Road, 2) construction of dry detention pond, 3) two entrances, which are necessary for fire
protection, and 4) the size of lots 9, 11, and 12 must have the minimum lot size and dwelling area.
Notified of the following regarding development: 1) three large pecan trees have been identified to
remain. In order to remove any protected trees, tree mitigation per Town regulations must occur, 2) the
location of amenity center is to avoid trekking equipment through homeowners' yards when the easement
Page 2 of 8
requires maintenance, and 3) intention is to utilize the existing drainage channel and have a storm sewer
system.
Keith: Asked applicant questions regarding HOA dues and if the minimum dwelling size proposed (2,300
square feet) is an average for all homes or if the homes, on average, will be larger.
Cox: Inquired if an engineer had been consulted regarding drainage.
McClung: Asked applicant to confirm his plan to address drainage issues. Also inquired if he'd be
willing to: 1) increase the minimum dwelling area, and 2) revise language regarding landscaping to:
'landscaping around entire periphery of detention pond consisting of a combination of four inch caliper
trees every thirty feet minimum and fifteen, five gallon shrubs every thirty feet minimum".
Ti°evor° Castilla: Answered questions with the following: 1) analysis nor design of the amenity center has
commenced; therefore, HOA dues are unknown at this time, 2) the request for a 2,300 square foot
dwelling size minimum is based on a target market of empty nesters looking to downsize, with a
preference to use custom home builders, 3) informed he is the engineer for the project and that in
planning for drainage, he is accounting for the entire drainage basin, not just the development (noting the
town's project regarding drainage in Highland Meadows), 4) reiterated his intentions regarding utilization
of the natural channel and detailed the storm sewer system, and 5) agreed a 2,500 square foot minimum
dwelling area would be acceptable.
Webb: Offered information regarding the project to alleviate Highland Meadows drainage problems.
Reported improvements to Coit Road in that area will not occur for another seven to ten years.
Motioned by Keith, seconded by Cox to close the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0 at 7:05 p.m.
Discussion
McCutcl7eon: Noted request appears contrary to those topics voiced by citizens at the Town Hall meeting.
Concerned regarding lot sizes on southern end of properly, the drainage easement, smooth transitioning
from large lots to smaller lots, what tree mitigation will occur, home size, aesthetics for detention pond as
it is near an entry point into town, and the amenity center close to Highland Meadows homes.
Cox: Commented property owner rights regarding tree removal, the developer's responsibility to work
with staff on drainage issues, HOA dues which may take care of itself given the home size anticipated,
and the preference for larger homes, which may necessitate two story homes.
McClung: Noted standards of existing zoning, acknowledging the applicant's attempt for higher
standards, and furthered his preference for concessions on dwelling area and aesthetics surounding the
detention pond.
Turner: Mirrored sentiments on the request's higher standards than what currently exists on the property.
Noted the amenity center is elevated, and while concerned about drainage issues, the developer will be
held to Town drainage standards. Preferred the detention pond not be located in front of the development.
Keith: Agreed with concerns given regarding the need for transition, and while unsure about the HOA
economics, voiced surety they would be worked out at the proper time.
DeMattia: Briefed on his experience at the Town Hall meeting regarding citizen desires which included
large lots and the rural aspect. Recognized challenges developer faces, and to that end, informed the duty
of the Commission is to consider and act on land use, not economics of the HOA or drainage issues.
Voiced non-support for the request based on citizen requests gathered at the Town Hall meeting, but
encouraged homeowners to seek a compromise, as the developer can indeed develop with the Single
Family-15 standards currently in place, which are less compared to that which is being requested.
Copple; Briefed Commission on tree mitigation requirements and at what point in the development
process those issues would be addressed.
Motioned by McClung, seconded by Cox to approve item subject to Lite following: 1) the minimum home
size increase to 2,500 square feet, 2) landscaping around the entire perimeter of the detention pond
include a minimum of four inch caliper trees every thirty feet and fifteen, five gallon shrubs every thirty
feet, and 3) no multiple garage doors facing the front of property — that all garages be turning such that if
it's a 3 car garage, and one has to face the street, that it's 10 feet back from the front elevation wall.
Motion failed 24 at 7:18 p.m. with Commissioners McCutcheon, DeMattia, Turner, and Keith in
opposition to the motion.
Motioned by DeMattia, seconded by Keith to deny the request to rezone 9.6� acres, located on the west
side of Coit Road, 200± feet south of Frontier Parkway, from Single Family-15 (SF-15) to Planned
Development -Single Family (PD-Sf). Motion passed 4-2 at 7:19 p.m. with Commissioners McClung and
Cox in opposition to the motion.
5. A public hearing to consider and act upon an amendment to the Town's Thoroughfare Plan
(Section 13 of the Town's Comprehensive Plan) revising the alignment of F.M. 1385, Gee
Road, and Fishtrap Road. (CA11-0001).
Summary
Webb; Briefed on points discussed at the June 7, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission which included
the following: 1) current and proposed road alignments for F.M. 1385, Gee Road, and Fishtrap Road, 2)
regional thoroughfare plan set by the North Central Texas Council of Governments in 1993 in correlation
with Little Elm's Thoroughfare Plan for a connection between F.M. 423 and F.M. 1385 and the
significance of connecting the two, 3) alternative connections discussed in the past with the Texas
Department of Transportation, and 4) alignments set for Fishtrap and Gee Roads with the preliminary plat
of Three Stones. Informed of two meetings with property owners where a consensus was reached on the
need for continuous roadway connectivity. Topics in said meetings also included alignment locations, the
least amount of impact on existing homes, utilization of existing roadway, economic impact on the Town,
and how, once adopted, to work with the property owners during the design phase.
Discussion
McClung, McCZitcheon, cP� DeMattia: Asked staff for clarification on proposed alignment locations and
existing portions that will remain.
Webb: Clarified the alignment location and portions of Fishtrap Road that will be removed.
Motioned by Turner, seconded by Keith to open the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0 at 7:29 p.m.
Public Hearing Discussion
Cheryl Williar�rs (reps°esentative for• pr°opeT°ty at the nof•theast coNrrer of F.M. 1385 and Fishtrap Road):
Spoke in opposition to the amendment. Narrated discussion points in meetings with staff, noting her
preference for a more northern alignment and the positive aspects of such. Reported the negative impacts
of the proposed alignment, which, combined with a 1,400 foot radius, includes the following: 1) all retail
under one developer, 2) displaces two homes and impacts a third, 3) takes away a hard corner from two
properties, thereby lowering their property values/investment, while increasi
prng the value of one property,
and 4) locates more retail too close to U.S. 380 where big box retail will locate, hence threatening the
sustainability of any future retail development. Noted during meetings with staff, Mr. Berlin (property
owner for case number Z11.0007) would not consider an alternative radius for the proposed alignment.
Suggested the proposed alignment is being driven by Mr. Berlin's request to rezone and opposed setting
the alignment for a short term goal of selling property. Requested a 950 foot radius for the intersection of
F.M. 1385 and Fishtrap Road should the alignment be approved, which is a TXDOT standard, would be
safe, would make the corner larger, and could increase surrounding properties' marketability. Also
requested a note be added to the Thoroughfare Plan upon adoption stating the preferred radius from
Fishtrap Road (future Gee Road) into F.M. 1385 would be 950 feet.
Mandy Brown (Texas Developfnent Services, j^epresentative for property at the northeast coy^ner of F.M.
1385 and Fishtrap Road): Spoke in opposition to the amendment. Commented on row dedication,
acreage acquisitions, floodplain impact, and utilization of existing roadway.
Michael Smith (Dove Creek Estates resident): Spoke in opposition to the amendment, as the proposed
alignment passes through his house and will impact three or four other homes. Noted Berlin had viewed
other alignments and favored that which staff recommends.
Vernon Si�nnzons (Dove Creek Estates resident): Spoke in opposition to the amendment with regards to
the road noise. Also noted opposition to case number Zl 1-0007 in regards to building height and possible
crime.
John Rose (representing zoning case Zl1-0007, the property on the north side of Fishtrap Road, 500�
feet east of F.M. 1385): Noted the appropriate time to discuss technical matters will be during the design
phase. Reported the spacing of the alignment and T-intersections are harmonious with planning concepts,
as there is commercial zoning at the intersection of Parvin Road and F.M. 1385 and an agreement exists
between Comanche Ridge and the Town.
Dirk Leidecker (Prosper resident): Spoke in opposition to the amendment. Noted the alternative
alignment he preferred, which would stretch nearly Lite length of one of his other properties, but the
proposed alignment would impact three other properties he owns.
Eric Berlin (property owner for zoning case ZI1-0007, the property on the north side of Fishtrap Road,
SOOT feet east of F.M. 1385): Spoke in favor of the amendment. Reminded Commission the amendment
is a thoroughfare plan and is subject to change. Commented that no matter the radius, the property Ms.
Williams represents will still not sit on a hard corner.
Stacy Standridge (forn7ef^ pf^operty owner of northeast corner^, current property owner of existing
southeast cornea• of F.M. 1385 and Fishn•ap Road): Spoke in opposition to the amendment, as the
proposed connection into F.M. 1385 would remove his property from a hard corner and place it mid.
)lock. Despite such, approved a more northern connection, stating the viability of additional retail located
so close to U.S. 380 will be lost over time, as big box retailers will prefer to locate on U.S. 380.
Denzattia.• Asked staff why Mr. Leidecker's preference (which was also Ms. Williams and Mr.
Standridge's) was not considered.
Webb: Informed intention is to utilize existing roadway, to impact the least amount of properties, and to
limit additional right of way acquisitions. Noted there are many factors that will affect the design of the
road, all of which will be considered when working with TXDOT on design.
Motioned by Cox, seconded by McClung to close the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0 at 8:03 p.m.
Page 5 of 8
Cox: Commented on the appeal of the alternate alignment to move traffic, noting concerns regarding
such with the two S-curves in staff s proposal. Inferred the cost may increase, but might be worth it with
the tax revenue from the retail flowing back to the Town. Conveyed consideration for an alternate
alignment.
McClung: Voiced support for staffs proposed alignment, noting the alternate alignment may increase the
amount of intersections needed, hindering traffic flow.
Tirrnef : Agreed that adding more intersections would impede traffic flow. Also with regards to alternate
alignment, preferred to not have a second, six lane, north/south route less than a mile away from another
six lane roadway, as the Thoroughfare Plan does show one, adding that residents did not relocate to
Prosper to live amongst that volume of concrete. Conveyed proposed alignment has less impact on the
Town, floodplain, and properties. Noted the State will do as it sees fit with the radius, but regardless, it is
still planned to be a six lane roadway, and the design of such is still years away.
Keith: Voiced support for the staffs proposed alignment.
McCutcheon: Agreed with Commissioners regarding traffic flow on staff s proposed alignment.
DeMattia: Noted the visual appeal of the alternate alignment, but acknowledged the challenges in
creating another right-of-way. Preferred to utilize the existing right -of --way as much as possible.
Motioned by Keith, seconded by McCutcheon to approve item 5 subject to staff recommendations and
staff looking at minimizing the impact to the residents as much as possible. Motion approved 6-0 at 8:12
p.m.
6. A public hearing to consider and act upon a request to rezone 39.4E acres, located on the
north side of Fishtrap Road, 500E feet east of existing F.M. 1385, from Planned
Development-51-Retail (PD-51-R) and Agricultural (A) to Planned Development -Retail
(PD-R). (Zl1-0007).
Summary
Copple: Offered background information on the portion of the property that was recently rezoned and
summarized current request to rezone the same property with an additional portion. Briefed on the
request's correlation with the Thoroughfare Plan. Informed the request does not conform to the Future
Land Use Plan; however, noted it does satisfy criteria given in the Comprehensive Plan which should be
considered when deviating from the Future Land Use Plan. Cited two criteria points listed in the staff
report. Informed notification was given in accordance with State law, and six public hearing notice reply
forms were received by the Planning Division with four being in opposition to the request.
Recommended approval subject to the approval of the amendment to the Town's Thoroughfare Plan.
scussi
Dion
McClung: Asked staff if the Fishtrap Road (future Gee Road) radius into F.M. 1385 would be set in the
event a plat for this property is approved.
DeMattia: Asked staff questions regarding current uses on the properly and differences between the
previously approved planned development and the current request. Also inquired when the recent
rezoning for the property was approved.
Copple: Informed the Fishtrap Road (future Gee Road) radius into F.M. 1385 would be set with a final
plat and/or site plan, and that staff will work with TXDOT and property owners to determine the final
alignment at that time. Conveyed the request is identical to that which was approved by Council on
January 11, 2011, with the exception of the concept plan being added.
Motioned by Keith, seconded by McCutcheon to open Lite public hearing. Motion passed 6-0 at 8:21 p.m.
Public Hearing Discussion
Iohrz Rose (applicant): Showed location of additional acreage (on presentation map). Explained retail
uses expected to develop. Informed attempt was made to conform to Future Land Use Plan regarding
residential development; however, with the floodplain being larger than what is shown on the map and
needing a second point of access, retail was considered and analysis showed acceptable sustainability
given the density in the surrounding area.
Cheryl Williams (repr°esentative for• proper°ty at the northeast corner• of F.M. 1385 and Fishtrap Road):
Requested a note be added to the concept plan stating the Town's preference of a 950 foot radius
connecting Fishtrap Road and F.M. 1385, stating the significance of having such a note documented on a
concept plan rather than in meeting minutes. Also requested for the applicant/property owner to prove a
1,400 foot radius is necessary, as opposed to all other property owners having to prove a 950 foot radius
is acceptable.
Michael Snzith (Dove Creek Estates resident): Echoed Ms. Williams' concerns and requests, adding the
lack of notation on the concept plan would negate any note added to the Thoroughfare Plan with regards
to the 950 foot radius.
Keith: Asked applicant about the space between the floodplain and the development. Asked if residential
road qualifies as a Town thoroughfare and what the screening requirements would be.
McClzrng.• Asked applicant if he'd be willing to remove the indoor gun range and mini -warehouse uses
from the request. Informed Ms. Williams it is not necessary to require notation regarding Lite radius on
the concept plan as it is not a document that will determine the radius.
DeMattia.• Asked staff to confirm when the right -of --way will be set.
•Iolzn Rose: Informed of staffs request for construction of road between floodplain and development,
which will also include open space, and will be subject to Town requirements. Conceded to exclude
indoor gun range and min -warehouse uses from the request. Reminded Commission that no matter what
is noted on the concept plan, engineering studies will still have to consider all factors in determining a
radius, of which will be guided by Town and TXDOT standards.
Copple: Informed the road between the retail development and the floodplain is not part of the Town's
Thoroughfare Plan — it is considered residential with a fifty foot right -of --way, and is therefore not subject
to thoroughfare screening requirements. Clarified the Fishtrap Road (future Gee Road) alignment and
radius would be set during final platting, unless right -of --way is dedicated beforehand.
Webb: Directed Commission to existing notation regarding thoroughfare alignment on the concept plan.
Motioned by McClung, seconded by Turner to close the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0 at 8:38 p.m.
Discussion
Keith: Noted the necessity for retail on the west side of town. Commented that with the alignment
unknown, a notation on the concept plan would not alter any outcome. Preferred. to remove the
warehouse and indoor gun range uses from the request.
Page 7 of 8
Turner: Voiced support for locating retail near high densities in the area. Preferred not to see a daycare
in close proximity to a retention pond, as there are hazards associated with such. Agreed on removing the
mini -warehouse and indoor gun range uses from the request.
McClZing: Voiced support given the removal of the above mentioned uses. Preferred to find appropriate
language for the concept plan requesting the radius connecting Fishtrap Road (future Gee Road) and
F.M. 1385 be minimized.
Cox: Noted that as a past councilmember (for another municipality), decisions are made for the
conditions at the time; therefore a notation on the concept plan regarding the radius would not be
necessary, adding that the statement provided is adequate. Voiced support as the concept plan shows no
opportunity for an indoor gun range.
McCutcheon: Voiced support for the concept plan, uses, general location of retail in the area given
surrounding residential use. Mirrored preference to remove above mentioned uses from request. Agreed
with Commissioner Cox regarding timely decisions for roadway design.
Motioned by Cox, seconded by Turner to approve item 6 subject to staff recommendations and the
removal of mini -warehouse and indoor gun range uses from the planned development. Motion approved
6-0 at 8*43 pm
7. Receive an update on items discussed by the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee
and the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee.
DeMattia: Briefed on Comprehensive Plan Town Hall Meeting, acknowledging Commissioners'
attendance.
Copple: Gave update on schedules of the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee and the
Comprehensive all Advisory Committee meetings.
8. Possibly direct Town Staff to schedule topics) for discussion at a future meeting.
DeMattia: Requested a discussion item be placed on the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
agenda regarding planned development language and/or formatting (Chapter 2, Section 24).
9. Adjourn
Motioned by McClung, seconded by Keith to adjourn. Motion approved 6-0.
Meeting was adjourned at 8:46 p.m.
Melanie Vi tan, Planning Technician
CZ1ri5 l'�ith, ,Secretary