Loading...
04.15.2014 P&Z Minutesy� TOWN OF PR SPER Prosper is a place where everyone matters. 1. Call to Order / Roll Call. The meeting was called to order at 6:03 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 15, 2014, 6:00 p.m. Commissioners present included: Chair Mark DeMattia, Vice Chair Mike McClung, Secretary Rick Turner, Bruce Carlin, Craig Moody, Bill Senkel and Chris Keith. Staff present included: Hulon Webb, Executive Director of Development & Community Services; Chris Copple, Director of Development Services; 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: April 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 3b. Consider and act upon a site plan and final plat for the Stanton Addition, Block A, Lot 1, on 0.2f acre, located on the northwest corner of First Street and Craig Road. The property is zoned Downtown Office (DTO). (D14-0013). 3c. Consider and act upon a site plan for Temporary Public Works Offices at 601 E. Fifth Street, on 4.4f acres, located on the north side Fifth Street, 200f feet west of McKinley Street. The property is zoned Single Family-15 (SF-15). (D13-0053). Motioned by Carlin, seconded by Turner to approve the consent agenda subject to staff s recommendations and a revision to item 3a, page 4, paragraph 7 to reflect that McClung asked "the 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." Motion approved 7-0 at 6:02 p.m. 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). Page 1 of 6 Summary Copple: Summarized discussions on the request at the April 1, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting and the Commission's reason for tabling the request. Noted the Commission's concerns were emailed to the applicant and revised exhibits were submitted to staff. Listed revisions the applicant made to the request, which includes the table in Exhibit C, correcting the maximum building height for lot Types C and D from 45 feet to 40 feet, and revisions to the language accompanying Exhibit F. Informed the Planning Division had received two public hearing notice reply forms, neither in opposition to the request. Recommended that once the Commission considers minimum single family lot sizes, maximum number of Type A and B lots, conceptual elevations, and side yard setbacks, the Commission approve the request subject to revising the zoning exhibits to conform with the Parks and Recreation Board's recommendation. Discussion DeMattia: Invited discussion regarding the Commission's emailed concerns. Keith: Suggested Type C and D lot counts increase to a maximum total of 400 and Type A lots be located west of Legacy Drive (though noted intermixing lot types does have merit). Clarified his intention for the overall single family lot count within the development would remain at 1,870. Moody: Preferred to eliminate 5,500 square foot lots and increase the total large lots. Commented if Type A lots were converted to Type B lots, the request would be more attractive to him. McClung: Suggested the market will dictate lot size and more than likely, the development will not produce 1,870 total single family lots, which is what the property is currently zoned for. Commented the request is an improvement to the existing zoning. Preferred to accept the applicant's proposal that lot sizes be integrated throughout the single family component. Voiced support for the architectural renderings, as they adhere to the basic town standards and the Commission cannot design builders' house plans. Turner: Agreed with McClung. Preferred a balance regarding house and lot size, citing Prosper is a town for everyone, not just those who can afford large lots. Stated if all lots are 10,000 square feet or greater, it will reduce the total amount of houses within the development. Preferred larger side yard setbacks, but noted such setbacks may affect various factors during the development and/or home building process. Senkel: Stated while the Comprehensive Plan (herein called the Comp Plan) provides clear guidance, the existing zoning needs to be taken into account. Preferred to compromise with the applicant on the Commission's concerns. Agreed with McClung that integration of lot sizes will provide for a better community. Keith: Reiterated preference that minimum lot counts for Types C & D lots be at 800. Agreed integrated lot sizes would make for a more balanced community. Carlin: Explained the challenges should the Type A lot total be reduced and Type C and D lot totals be increased. Voiced support for reducing Type A lots by an amount of 100, which forces larger lots, but the square footages of those lots should be at the developer's choosing. Supported lot size integration, stating the town is already segregated by lot size, and further segregation should be avoided. Page 2 of 6 DeMattia: Reminded the Commission the lot count will not increase. Noted he would support either compromise — increase the total minimum amount of Type C and D lots or reduce the number of Type A lots. Asked Commission if they had previously discussed increasing the minimum dwelling area for homes on Type A lots. Invited the Commission to discuss the concerns they gave staff to share with the applicant. The Commission discussed the following topics: architectural standards in Exhibit F, specifically how the proposed language would ensure quality home facades; ensuring alleyways are prohibited; driveway encroachments for swing -in garages and the purpose for encroachments, which are permitted per the Zoning Ordinance; soft versus paved hike and bike trails, with staff noting all public hike and bike trails are required to be paved. Welch: Provided example language the Commission could request the applicant use for Exhibit F. Motioned by Carlin to approve item 4 subject to: 1) the town attorney's suggested language to replace the proposed language in Exhibit F, 2) a reduction in Type A lots by an amount of 150 to give a total lot count of 1,720, 3) increasing the side yard setbacks for all lot types to eight feet, and 4) require paved hike and bike trails throughout the development. McClung preferred to reduce the total amount of Type A lots by 150 and allow the developer to choose how to distribute the 150 lots, thereby keeping the count at 1,870 total lots for the development. Keith suggested increasing the other lot types by 50 percent. He reiterated his preference to increase the total amount of Type C & D lots. Once Moody concurred with McClung's suggestion (to reduce Type A lots) and Turner commented that future market conditions will dictate the majority of lot size decisions, Keith suggested a revision that 30% of the lots be guaranteed to be above 10,000 square feet. The Commission further discussed reducing Type A lots, how to handle the remaining lots (that were subtracted from the Type A lots), and distribution of lots if a minimum of another lot type is dictated. Welch: Cited the Commission's conditions of approval to ensure their motion is correctly worded according to their intentions. Motioned by Carlin, seconded by McClung to approve a request to rezone 878.9± 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) subject to the following conditions: 1) revise the zoning exhibits to comply with the Parks and Recreation Board's recommendation, 2) revise and replace the existing language in Exhibit F to read as follows: All single family residential elevations shall substantially conform to the depictions contained herein, 3) No alleyways shall be permitted in the Development, and 4) reduce the maximum number of Type A lots to 559 with a total lot count not to exceed 1870 lots. Motion passed 6-1 at 6:54 p.m. with Keith in opposition to the motion, citing a preference that Type A lots be reduced by more than a count of 150, and he preferred a guarantee that more lots than what is proposed will be 10,000 square feet or greater. 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/0/R/C). (Z09- 0013). Page 3 of 6 Summary Copple: Briefed on discussions from the April 1, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Noted the attachments to the staff report and the revision's to staff s recommendations from the previous staff report. Summarized changes the applicant made to the request. Informed the Planning Division received sixteen public hearing notice reply forms with twelve being in opposition to the request. Discussion DeMattia: Summarized the request to rezone for those in attendance. Noted the Town's discussions with the applicant over the months and the progress made, which includes but is not limited to: 1) relocating the multifamily district as far west as possible, 2) lowering the maximum building heights east of Preston Road to two stories, 3) compiling multiple planned developments into one planned development (herein called the PD), allowing the Town better control over the request, and 4) improvements to the request over the existing zoning. Informed the audience the Commission sent their individual concerns to staff, who in turn, shared those comments with the applicant one week prior to this meeting. Commented there are concerns the applicant has yet to address, and invited the Commission to discuss the following points: 1) overall planned development language, 2) the multifamily component, 3) the townhome component, 4) big box retail, 5) non-residential components, 6) buffers against existing residential developments, and 7) landscaping. Commissioner DeMattia requested the Commission adjourn into executive session at 7:06 p.m. The Commission reconvened from executive session at 7:57 p.m. DeMattia invited the Commission to discuss seven concerns, beginning with architectural renderings. Turner preferred the language Welch used for Exhibit F in item 4 on the agenda. DeMattia asked Copple to examine Section 6.1.2 in Exhibit C, inquiring if multifamily could be relocated to sub -district 1. Copple noted the language matches the Town's Zoning Ordinance, clarified the last paragraph in the section, and confirmed multifamily could be relocated to sub -district 1. Moody asked Copple what authorization the Commission has if the multifamily units are relocated. Copple cited the process, which includes a public hearing and approval by the Commission should the change not meet the criteria described in Section 6.1.2. DeMattia opened discussions regarding permitted uses, specifically open storage uses. Carlin questioned why Gunsmith is not a permitted use, yet Indoor Gun Range is, noting the two uses are typically found together. Copple explained that Gunsmith is considered a primary use and described the difference between accessory uses and primary uses. Keith inquired about Open Storage, and Copple informed the requirements for such a use would have to conform to the Town's Zoning Ordinance. DeMattia invited the Commission to discuss the multifamily component. Turner called for a reduction in total units, and Keith questioned if a minimum on townhome units should be set and whether all multifamily units should be capped at 600 units. Furthering the discussion on multifamily, DeMattia addressed the style of multifamily to be developed. Keith commented he did not want garden -style multifamily but preferred urban -style. DeMattia noted a vertical structure is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. Copple cited that both vertical and horizontal multifamily construction in the Town Center District is consistent with the Comp Plan but that during the process of updating the Comp Plan, the citizens voiced a preference for vertical multifamily as opposed to horizontal multifamily. Explained the defining characteristics of wrap -style multifamily developments. Keith commented he liked the wrap -style; however, once the applicant inquired about their Page 4 of 6 - preferences on multifamily, DeMattia asked Welch to not include the wrap -style for multifamily from their list of conditions. The Commission discussed at what square footage retail development should be complete before any multifamily units are built and what sub -districts that square Footage should come from. Carlin asked the applicant, Scott Shipp, how he plans to phase construction. Shipp responded he would prefer to develop east to west and that construction within any development typically doesn't jump around the site. The Commission continued voicing their preferences and concerns on the topic and concluded that for all 600 multifamily units to be constructed, 70% of 500,000 square feet of retail must be issued a Certificate of Occupancy while only 70% of 250,000 square feet of retail with a Certificate of Occupancy will trigger 300 multifamily units. The Commission discussed the minimum percentage of stone product and what materials to prohibit on all non -single family residential buildings, which includes multifamily, townhome, retail, and big box retail. With regards to townhomes, the Commission discussed requiring a minimum of one garage per unit and considered increasing the minimum dwelling area per unit. Next, the Commission conferred on big box retail, specifically manufactured concrete block walls; textured, painted tilt -walls; the minimum percentage of natural or manufactured stone required and which elevations should be required to have natural or manufactured stone; and prohibiting outdoor storage and automobile uses. Buffer areas between retail and existing residential areas and landscaping issues were briefly discussed; however, it was concluded that the proposed language in the PD and the Town's Zoning Ordinance adequately care for these topics. Welch and the Commission discussed and clarified the conditions of approval to ensure the Commission's motion is correctly worded according to their intentions. Motioned by Moody, seconded by Keith to approve 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) subject to the following conditions: 1) all residential and nonresidential elevations shall substantially conform to the depictions contained in the proposed Planned Development Ordinance except to the extent amended or modified by this motion; 2) townhomes and apartments shall not exceed 600 units total; 3) Timing Requirements for Multifamily and Townhome Construction. Upon the issuance by the Town of a certificate of occupancy for at least 70% of 250,000 square feet of retail development in either Subdistrict 2 or 3, the developer may construct up to 300 multifamily or townhome units. Upon the issuance by the Town of a certificate of occupancy for at least 70% of 500,000 square feet of retail development in either Subdistrict 2 or 3, the developer may construct up to 600 multifamily or townhome units; 4) For nonresidential buildings in any subdistrict, no single material shall exceed more than eighty percent (80%) of an elevation area. A minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) of the front fagade and all fagades facing any public right-of-way shall be natural or manufactured stone; 5) For nonresidential and multifamily buildings in any subdistrict, all building fagades shall be architecturally finished with one hundred percent (100%) masonry with an allowance for up to ten percent (10%) secondary materials. Masonry finishes include clay -fired brick, natural and manufactured stone, cast stone, granite, marble, architectural concrete block and stucco and shall exclude exposed textured or painted exposed concrete tiltwall; 6) Townhomes. The minimum dwelling area shall be 1,800 square feet and a minimum of two stories. Each townhome unit shall include a garage; 7) Townhomes and multifamily units shall be constructed of a minimum of twenty percent (20%) natural or Page 5 of 6 manufactured stone; 8) Big Box development. Any Big Box structure shall consist of at least seventy- five percent (75%) natural or manufactured stone on all four (4) sides of such building and shall exclude exposed textured or painted concrete tiltwall. 10) Eliminate any automobile repair uses and any outside storage for any Big Box structure. Motion approved 6-1 with McClung in opposition to the motion, citing his preference to not be too restrictive on prohibiting automotive repair uses within a big box retail use. 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 Turner to adjourn. Motion approved 7-0. Meeting was adjourned at 9:36 p.m. Alex Glushko, Senior Planner 0icurner,4 Secretary Page 6 of 6