04.01.2014 P&Z MinutesTOWN OF
Pk�DSPER
Prosper is a place where everyone matters.
1. Call to Order / Roll Call.
The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m.
Roll call taken by Melanie Videan, Planning Technician.
MINUTES
Regular Meeting of the
Prosper Planning & Zoning Commission
108 W. Broadway St., Prosper, Texas
Town of Prosper Municipal Chambers
Tuesday, April 1, 2014, 6:00 p.m.
Commissioners present included: Chair Mark DeMattia, Vice Chair Mike McClung, Bruce Carlin, Craig
Moody, Bill Senkel and Chris Keith.
*Commissioner Turner informed of his absence prior to the meeting.
Staff present included: Hulon Webb, Executive Director of Development & Community Services; Chris
Copple, Director of Development Services; Alex Glushko, Senior Planner; Terry Welch, Town Attorney;
and Melanie Videan, Planning Technician.
2. Recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
3a. Consider and act upon minutes from the following Planning & Zoning Commission
meeting:
March 18, 2014 Regular Meeting
3b. Consider and act upon a site plan for Prosper Plaza, Block A, Lot 7 (Burger King), on 0.81
acre, located on the north side of U.S. 380, 300f feet west of Custer Road. The property is
zoned Commercial (C). (D13-0052).
3c. Consider and act upon a conveyance plat of Kids R Kids of Prosper Addition, Block A, Lots
1 and 2, on 15.0± acres, located on the northeast corner of Coit Road and First Street. The
property is zoned Retail (R). (D14-0011).
3d. Consider and act upon a site plan for Grace Academy Temporary Buildings, on 6.6f acres,
located on the north side of Prosper Trail, 500f feet west of Custer Road. The property is
zoned Planned Development-57 (PD-57). (D14-0012).
Motioned by Carlin, seconded by Moody to approve the consent agenda subject to staffs
recommendations. Motion approved 6-0 at 6:03 p.m.
Page 1 of 8
REGULAR AGENDA
4. Conduct a Public Hearing, and consider and act upon a request to rezone 878.9f acres,
located on the southeast and southwest corners of Prosper Trail and Dallas Parkway, from
Planned Development-3 (PD-3), Planned Development-14 (PD-14), Planned Development-23
(PD-23), Planned Development-34 (PD-34), Single Family-10 (SF-10), Single Family-12.5
(SF-12.5), Office (0), and Commercial Corridor (CC) to Planned Development -Single
Family/Office/Retail (PD-SF/O/R). (Z13-0018).
Summary
Copple: Summarized the area's geography, existing zoning, and proposed zoning request. Outlined
permitted commercial and retail uses and maximum number of single family lots allowed. Recited
discussion points in the staff report regarding development standards for each sub -district and single
family lot types. Informed notification was provided in accordance with state law, and the Planning
Division received two public hearing notice reply forms, neither in opposition. Recited staff s list of items
to be considered by the Planning & Zoning Commission prior to taking action on the proposed planned
development (herein called the PD) and staff s conditions of approval.
Discussion with Staff
McClung: Inquired about the following: 1) non-residential building heights, 2) whether such heights will
be compatible with the proposed roof pitch, and 3) if the Tollway District can have heights up to twelve
stories.
Carlin: Inquired about the following: 1) if an eight story structure is allowed in the Commercial District,
2) what the distances are between future Shawnee Trail and Dallas Parkway and between Dallas Parkway
and the eastern property boundary, and 3) lot configuration.
Copple: Answering McClung, noted the slight increase in building height will be compatible with the
proposed roof pitch, and though the Tollway District does allow maximum heights of twelve stories, the
applicant is requesting a maximum height of eight stories. Responding to Carlin, noted 1) eight story
heights are allowed only for office, hotel, and hospital uses; 2) the distance between future Shawnee Trail
and Dallas Parkway is approximately 1,100 feet, and the distance between Dallas Parkway and the eastern
property boundary is approximately 300-400 feet; and 3) deferred to the applicant regarding lot
configuration.
Motioned by Keith, seconded by McClung to open the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0 at 6:21 p.m.
Public Hearing Discussion
Dena DeVoto (applicant): Gave presentation, reiterating development standards, uses, and locations of
sub -districts. Noted the differences between the existing planned developments within the subject
property and the proposed PD. Explained the need to meet housing demands for different lifestyles and
various demographics and provide for an active community with amenity centers, parks, and retail in
appropriate areas. Informed of the property's sale history, their attempt to adhere to the Comprehensive
Plan (herein called the Comp Plan). Noted that lot size does not correspond to home price -point. Provided
photos of existing Blue Star developments.
Carlin: Asked applicant the following questions: 1) if they have a concept plan for lot configuration and
if not, how they know the number of lots to be developed.
Page 2 of 8
DeMattia: Asked applicant for a development timeline. Questioned why over half of the large lots in the
existing PD have been reduced in size.
Keith: Questioned why over half of the development has lots less than 10,000 square feet when the
Town's goal is to have lots no less than 10,000 square feet.
McClung: Asked applicant if they would be willing to revise the height for type C and D lots from 45
feet to 40 feet and if they would accept the Parks and Recreation Board's recommendation.
DeVoto: Answering Carlin, informed the development is phased at this time, that lot configuration will
be submitted during the platting process, and the lot counts are based on calculations of area and lot type.
Replying to DeMattia, informed they would like to develop the property as soon as possible, as Darling,
Highland, Huntington, and American Legend Homes would like to close on the properties soon. Assured
the lot size variations will not increase the number of homes. Directed the Commission to the revised
language in Exhibit F. Addressing Keith, informed they've worked from the zoning that was in place
when Blue Star purchased the land, which called for 5,000 square foot lots; however, in other
developments (in other cities), they've increased lot sizes as development occurs. Responded in the
affirmative to McClung's inquiries.
Scott Shipp (applicant): Informed they would like to retain the existing lot count, the lot count is not
exact but is a maximum allowed, and they patterned the PD after the Windsong Ranch PD, which
specifies minimum and maximum amount of lots rather than tying the development down to exact
numbers. Regarding Exhibit F, noted the renderings are not intended to lock down architectural standards.
Jack Dixon (Prosper resident): Questioned the request for smaller lots since the Comp Plan recommends
10,000 square foot minimum lots. Preferred if multifamily is to be developed, lot sizes increase to 10,000
square feet.
Motioned by Carlin, seconded by McClung to close the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0 at 6:45 p.m.
Commission Discussion
McClung: Commented while the smaller lots conflict with the Comp Plan, the proposal is an
improvement over the existing zoning.
Senkel: Noted the applicant doesn't need to rezone to develop, but the proposal is better than what exists,
as there are the same number of lots and certain lots and homes are larger. Though concerned about the
quality of the development, agreed the applicant's quality shows in existing developments.
Carlin: Commended Blue Star on the favorable development standards, but preferred the smaller lots be
located west of Legacy Drive, the larger lots be east of Legacy Drive, the soft trails be converted into hard
trails, and garage doors be nine feet wide to accommodate large vehicles.
Keith: Believed the request does not conform to the Comp Plan, but recognized the PD matches the
current market conditions and is an improvement from the existing zoning. Requested more time to
review the material provided.
Moody: Agreed the PD is better than what exists but lacks conformance with the Comp Plan. Supported
the removal of multifamily, the integration of lot sizes, the size increase of the smaller lots, and the
development standards, but preferred more larger lots be located in the middle of the single family area.
Page 3 of 8
DeMattia: Favored the architectural styles and removal of multifamily, but preferred: 1) lots decrease in
size from east to west, with the larger lots being east; 2) the number of small lots be reduced, as 80% of
the lots are under 10,000 square feet; and 3) school dedications be addressed. Summarized the Prosper
Center rezoning proposal. Commented more compromise is needed.
Motioned by Carlin, seconded by Keith to table item 4 to the April 15, 2014 Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting.
Shipp: Noted meetings with the Town's Executive Development Team (herein called the EDT).
Acknowledged the Commission's concerns, but noted no clear direction has been given on how to address
such concerns. Uncertain what tabling the request would accomplish. Reminded the Commission the PD
is an improvement to the existing zoning and that developers adhere to market conditions; therefore, if in
the future the market favors larger lots, they will adjust lot square footages accordingly, as the proposed
lot sizes are minimums. Informed they will sell the lots to builders who cater to a certain demographic, so
only the lot size would change, not the product. Noted phasing allows multiple product types to
accommodate market conditions. Asked staff what the percentage was of permits issued on 10,000 square
foot lots in 2013.
Copple: Responding to Shipp, noted the percentage of permits issued on 10,000 to 12,000 square foot
lots in 2013 was approximately two-thirds.
Commissioners individually reiterated their preferences.
Shipp: Requested to compare the Commission's wishes to their proposal, but maintained Blue Star's
desire to integrate lot sizes to allow for an equal community, rather than segregate them, creating separate
communities. Informed Blue Star is not opposed to addressing school sites, but such decisions are not
zoning related and are instead discussed with the school district.
McClung: Supported the integrated lot sizes as opposed to segregating them. Agreed the market may
dictate larger lots in the future. Asked applicant if he would be willing to reduce Type A lots by an
amount of 100 and increase the other lot types by a total amount of 100.
Shipp: Asked the Commission if they agree with McClung's request.
Carlin: Asked Mr. Shipp about the effects on the number of lots should lot sizes increase.
Shipp: Answering Carlin, informed a lot size increase will not affect home size — that whether a lot is
large or smaller, a builder may build the same size house on it, as they have pre -fabricated building plans.
Carlin retracted his motion to table item 4. Keith did not retract his second to the original motion to table.
The Commission discussed voting or tabling the request.
Motioned by Carlin to table item 4 to the April 15, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting.
Keith's second was still in effect. Motion approved 4-2 at 7:26 p.m. with Senkel and McClung in
opposition to the motion.
Page 4 of 8
5. Conduct a Public Hearing, and consider and act upon a request to rezone 621.1f acres,
located on the northeast and northwest corners of U.S. 380 and Preston Road, from Planned
Development-2 (PD-2), Planned Development-3 (PD-3), Planned Development-13 (PD-13),
Agricultural (A), and Single Family-15 (SF-15) to Planned Development -Single Family-
10/Townhome/Multifamily/Office/Retail/Commercial (PD-SF-10/TH/MF/O/R/C). (Z09-
0013).
Summary
Copple: Summarized the area's geography, existing zoning, and proposed zoning request. Explained the
sub -districts within the PD, highlighting their locations within the development; their internal layouts;
development standards; concept architectural renderings; permitted uses and themes; densities; phasing;
timelines for development; unique features for the mixed use and multifamily components; parking
arrangements; and purpose behind the standards, layouts, and themes. Provided language from the Comp
Plan. Informed notification was provided in accordance with state law, and the Planning Division
received fifteen public hearing notice reply forms, eleven being in opposition. Recited staff s list of items
to be considered by the Planning & Zoning Commission prior to taking action on the proposed planned
development (herein called the PD) and staff s conditions of approval.
Discussion with Staff
Carlin: Inquired about the Lovers Lane screening wall and what uses could replace the high density use.
Keith: Asked for confirmation regarding the total number of multifamily units.
Copple: Responding to Carlin, explained Lovers Lane right-of-way dedication and landscape buffer
when Willow Ridge was platted and the Lovers Lane PD amendment, which addressed thoroughfare
screening. Informed Blue Star will dedicate an additional 60 feet for the Lovers Lane right-of-way.
Regarding the uses that could replace the high density use, directed attention to the list of permitted uses.
Answered Keith's questions about multifamily counts and types.
Motioned by Carlin, seconded by Moody to open the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0 at 7:54 p.m.
Public Hearina Discussion
Shipp: Provided the sale history of the property and acreages per use. Informed his team studied the
Comp Plan, and attempted to address concerns, but with concerns conflicting, it will be impossible to
please all parties. Explained the themes and feel they hope to accomplish with the development. Noted the
423 multifamily units being transferred from the Villages of Star Trail to the Gates of Prosper does not
increase the number of multifamily units to the Town's overall multifamily inventory at build -out.
Briefed on screening features along U.S. 380, how detention ponds will be used as amenities, and their
goal to restrict the number and locations of drive-thru facilities and convenience stores along Preston
Road. Provided concept plans of the development.
Carlin: Asked applicant for architectural renderings and what street light styles have been chosen.
McClung: Asked applicant if he agreed with staffs conditions for approval.
Shipp: Responding to Carlin, informed architectural concepts are shown throughout the PD rather than
being in a separate exhibit and neighborhood themes — which incorporate street signs, lights, et cetera —
have yet to be designed. Answering McClung, agreed with most of staffs conditions, citing most of the
revisions are of a technical nature.
Page 5 of 8
Dan Ting (Willow Ridge HOA representative): Informed of meeting with the developer. Listed the
following concerns: 1) the proposed 927 multifamily units, noting the Mansions of Prosper are between
600 and 700 units, which citizens do not favor; 2) unidentified building standards; 3) buffering methods
will be inadequate; 4) light pollution into residents' properties; 5) access for trash and deliveries being too
close to residences, creating noise; and 6) lack of tree preservation when Lovers Lane is constructed,
asking the right-of-way be shifted to protect the trees. Not opposed to the development, but asked for
higher standards and that the unknown standards be communicated.
Clint McCaffree (Willow Ridge resident): Listed the following concerns: 1) inadequate buffer zone
against Willow Ridge (suggested a masonry wall with landscape buffers), 2) noise and light pollution, and
3) total number of multifamily units is too high. Spoke in opposition to Wal-Mart being within
development, but if one must open, requested the architectural standards be raised so it will not look like a
typical Wal-Mart. Referred to the Wal-Mart in Highland Village and the Home Depot in Flower Mound,
both of which do not architecturally show their branding.
McClung: Asked staff if Lovers Lane is part of the PD.
Carlin: Asked staff questions regarding street lighting on Lovers Lane.
Copple: Answering McClung, noted the future 60 foot right-of-way dedication is the only portion of the
request associated with future Lovers Lane, but that existing Lovers Lane itself and east of the roadway is
not part of the PD. Addressing Carlin, deferred street lighting inquiries to engineering staff.
Webb: Explained the recently discussed street lighting standards.
Karen Sholes (Prosper resident): Noted the square footage of a typical Wal-Mart, and if the trigger for
multifamily development is 250,000 square feet, construction of Wal-Mart alone will trigger construction
of the multifamily component. Concerned regarding the crime associated with Wal-Mart.
Robert Dozier (applicant): Informed no binding commitments have been obtained from retailers, but he
does have letters of intent, Wal-Mart being amongst them. Noted factors he and his team consider when
offering retailers to locate within their developments.
Darlene Griffin (Prosper resident): Inquired about the screening between the northern retail area east of
Preston Road and the northern portion of Willow Ridge. Concerned about the safety of children who play
and fish at the Willow Ridge pond.
Travis Kirsch (La Cima resident): Agreed with the statements previously made by Prosper residents,
adding the amount of multifamily will have an impact on the school system. Voiced opposition to big box
retail being located in the development. Questioned if the Town can limit the size of a single tenant.
McClung: Asked staff about the development's northeastern retail area buffer.
DeMattia: Asked staff questions regarding architectural standards for big box retail and whether a
Specific Use Permit can be required for such a use.
Copple: Answering McClung, explained screening requirements set forth by the Zoning Ordinance for
retail that abuts residential areas. Responding to DeMattia, noted the Zoning Ordinance highlights criteria
that analyzes the impact of a use on a given area and that many uses require a Specific Use Permit.
Page 6 of 8
Welch: Indicated he could provide information about requiring a Specific Use Permit for a big box retail
use.
Katie Chatfield: (Willow Ridge resident): Suggested the development complete section lA before
constructing the multifamily component.
David Snyder (Prosper resident): Spoke in opposition to any type of multifamily in the development.
David McGillum (Willow Ridge resident): Opposed to Wal-Mart being within the development. Asked
for the development's standards to be raised.
Motioned by Carlin, seconded by Keith to close the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0 at 8:52 p.m.
Discussion
McClung: Preferred to table the request due to the fact that the associated case had been tabled and to
allow the applicant time to react to staff s conditions of approval and voice whether they would be willing
to allow for a Specific Use Permit for big box retail.
Keith: Asked applicant if there are any conditions in staffs recommendations that he absolutely
disagrees with. Noted the buffer against Willow Ridge is his first concern.
Senkel: Questioned the decision to have a certain amount of retail constructed before building the
multifamily, as typically in development, rooftops are constructed before retail because it is the rooftops
that drive the necessity and/or desire for retail.
Carlin: Asked applicant if there will there be Property Owners Association.
Shipp: Addressing Keith, preferred time to review staffs conditions of approval. Asked the Commission
if the purpose in tabling the item was due to the multifamily component. Responding to Senkel, noted the
direction to build retail before multifamily was a request of the EDT and was a modification to the
existing zoning. Answering Carlin, noted that due to the amount of open space areas, there will be a
Property Owners Association.
Carlin: Opposed to the back of a big box building being against, and therefore seen from, U.S. 380.
Regarding architectural standards, did not support the no -tilt wall and preferred the following: 1)
articulations every 30 feet; 2) larger parking spaces to accommodate large vehicles; 3) larger individual
multifamily units; 4) no outdoor storage; 5) no auto repair out of the big box retailers, but if there must be
auto repair, the vehicles enter and exit through one side rather than having a drive-thru situation; 6) lawn
and garden uses must be behind fencing; 7) increase multifamily garage parking, which currently stands
at 40%; 8) the retail square footage to trigger multifamily construction be raised from 250,000 square feet
to between 600,000 and 700,000 square feet; 9) no painted tilt wall (or limit the percentage of an
elevation with one), and 10) limit other auto repair uses.
Keith: Reiterated the importance of the buffer between the development and the Willow Ridge residents.
Opposed to the multifamily component, and questioned the applicant's desire to have them despite the
residents' opposition to them, which is reflected in the Comp Plan.
DeMattia: Noted the Comp Plan calls for vertical integration between uses.
Page 7 of 8
Shipp: Disagreed with Keith and DeMattia regarding the Comp Plan's guidance on multifamily
developments and vertical integration. Interpreted the Comp Plan's language regarding mixed use and
vertical and horizontal integration. Assured that while some of the development is horizontal integration,
some of it may have vertical integration. Explained the concepts and components of urban -style mixed
use, their unique development standards, and how they function within a master planned development.
Moody: Agreed with previous Commission comments. Appreciated the clarity regarding high density
residential. Favored ensuring high design standards.
The Commission, applicant, and audience members further discussed components of the development,
including but not limited to development standards, location of big box retail, number of multifamily
units allowable, and aesthetics. A gentleman from the audience asked if the Commission would meet with
the developer regarding all the concerns voiced. Commissioner DeMattia encouraged the applicant to
meet with town residents.
Motioned by Carlin to convene in executive session.
Carlin: Asked the town attorney, Terry Welch, questions regarding Commission meetings outside of
their regularly scheduled meeting times.
Welch: Informed the Commission he may legally communicate with them as a political body, but they, as
a political body, cannot legally communicate collectively without posting an agenda.
Carlin withdrew his motion for the Commission to convene in executive session.
Joe Hickman (applicant): Asked the Commission to approve the request, but if they prefer not to, he
would like to know as soon as possible so they can design a development around the existing zoning.
Noted Blue Star developments north of Dallas, their appeal to residents and municipal representatives
alike, and the investment they are making to ensure a quality development.
Motioned by Carlin, seconded by Keith to table item 5 to the April 15, 2014 Planning & Zoning
Commission meeting. Motion approved 6-0 at 9:40 p.m.
6. Possibly direct Town Staff to schedule topic(s) for discussion at a future meeting.
There was no discussion on this item.
7. Adjourn
Motioned by Carlin, seconded by Senkel to adjourn. Motion approved 6-0.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:41 p.m.
Melanie dean, Planning Technician Aickrner, Secretary
Page 8 of 8