Loading...
06.03.2014 P&Z Minutesr 1� TOWN OF Pk SPER Prosper is a place where everyone matters. 1. Call to Order / Roll Call. The meeting was called to order at 6:01 p.m. Roll call taken by Alex Glushko, Senior Planner. MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Prosper Planning & Zoning Commission 108 W. Broadway St., Prosper, Texas Town of Prosper Municipal Chambers Tuesday, June 3, 2014, 6:00 p.m. Commissioners present included: Chair Mark DeMattia, Vice Chair Mike McClung, Secretary Rick Turner, Craig Moody, Bill Senkel, Chris Keith, and Brian Barnes. Staff present included: Hulon Webb, Executive Director of Development & Community Services; Chris Copple, Director of Development Services; and Alex Glushko, Senior Planner. 2. Recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA 3a. Consider and act upon minutes from the following Planning & Zoning Commission meeting: • May 20, 2014 Regular Meeting • May 28, 2014 Special Called Meeting 3b. Consider and act upon a final plat for Whitley Place, Phase 7, being 82 single family residential lots on 41.0± acres, located 900f feet north of First Street and 5,000± feet west of Custer Road. The property is zoned Planned Development-49. (PD-49). (D14-0015). 3c. Consider and act upon a final plat for Whitley Place, Phase 8, being 32 single family residential lots on 22.4f acres, located 2,000± feet north of First Street and 3,000± feet west of Custer Road. The property is zoned Planned Development-49. (PD-49). (D14-0016). 3d. Consider and act upon a final plat for Lighthouse Church Addition, Block A, Lot 2, on 6.6f acres, located on the north side of Prosper Trail, 600f feet west of Custer Road. The property is zoned Planned Development-57 (PD-57). (D14-0024). 3e. Consider and act upon a conveyance plat for Prosper Road Community Park, on 58.1f acres, located on the north side of Prosper Road, 3,500f feet east of Teel Parkway. The property is zoned Planned Development-40 (PD-40). (D14-0025). Motioned by Keith, seconded by Moody, to approve the consent agenda subject to staff s recommendations. Motion approved 7-0 at 6:02 p.m. Page 1 of 8 REGULAR AGENDA 4. Conduct a Public Hearing, and consider and act upon a request to rezone 80.7f acres, located on the southeast corner of Dallas Parkway and Frontier Parkway, from Single Family-15 (SF-15) to Planned Development -Single Family/Retail (PD-SF/R). (Z14-0006). Summary Copple: Summarized the surrounding properties and the rezoning request, including deviations from the straight zoning districts, development standards which exceed the Town's requirements, Conceptual Development Plan requirements, and conformance to the Future Land Use Plan (FLUP). Recommended approval subject to revising Exhibit C to delete Automobile Sales / Leasing, New, with pre -owned sales as an accessory use only, and Motorcycle Sales / Service from the list of permitted uses. Discussion with Staff McClung: Inquired about the Conceptual Development Plan requirements and influence the Planning & Zoning Commission would have when reviewing and approving one in the future. DeMattia: Inquired about the limitations that would result in requiring a Conceptual Development Plan in the future, as opposed to in conjunction with the rezoning request. Barnes: Inquired about the limitation of land uses that would result in approving the rezoning request. Copple: Described the Conceptual Development Plan requirements, stating that the proposed rezoning would establish use, in conjunction with the development standards identified in Exhibit C, and that a Conceptual Development Plan will address site design and layout in the future. Indicated that the development standards will defer to the straight zoning district in place at the time of development, unless otherwise specified in the PD. Motioned by Turner, seconded by Keith, to open the public hearing. Motion passed 7-0 at 6:12 p.m. Public Hearine Discussion Frank Abbott (Applicant): Described the rezoning request. Stated that he is in agreement with Town staff recommendations and requested approval. Indicated that he had intended to pursue straight zoning districts, but the districts desired were not in line with the Comprehensive Plan, therefore a PD was being requested to meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. DeMattia: Inquired why no Conceptual Development Plan had been provided. Abbott: Stated that there are no plans for development therefore a Conceptual Development Plan would be guesswork and not necessarily correspond with future development. Turner: Inquired about lot counts and sizes. Abbott: Stated that because there was not layout they did not have a lot count, and that the lot sizes were an attempt to meet the vision of the Comprehensive Plan and to be compatible with the southern adjacent subdivision (Lake of Prosper), as well as address adjacency with lit ball fields. Indicated that they were proposing to meet the density of the Medium Density Residential District of the FLUP. McClung: Inquired if the applicant was agreeable with staffs recommendation. Inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to limiting the Single Family-10 (SF-10) lots to the east and south sides of Tract 2. Page 2 of 8 Abbott: Stated that he is agreeable with staff s recommendation, but that limiting the SF-10 lots to the east and south would limit future builder's flexibility. Jack Dixon (Lakes of Prosper Resident): Stated that the southwest corner of Frontier Parkway and Dallas Parkway is currently zoned commercial, and that there is no need for additional commercial zoning. Equated this request to the recent rezoning request at the southeast corner of Frontier Parkway and Coit Road, which resulted in residential property being rezoned to commercial. Inquired about the basis for the requested Single Family-12.5 (SF-12.5) lots. Cap Parry (Lakes of Prosper Resident): Voiced concern with zoning residential property to commercial. Inquired about the amount of existing retail zoned property in the Town. Mike Bennett (Chandler Circle Resident): Inquired about the acreage of existing retail zoned property in the Town. Motioned by Moody, seconded by Turner to close the public hearing. Motion passed 7-0 at 6:26 p.m. Commission Discussion Moody: Expressed concern with adding more retail zoning to the Town and that no Conceptual Development Plan had been provided. Stated preference with existing Single Family-15 (SF-15) District. Turner: Expressed concerns with not having a Conceptual Development Plan. Stated that adjacency to existing lit ball fields and the southern adjacent subdivision warranted varied lot counts, and that adding retail zoning along Dallas Parkway is appropriate, and in conformance to the Comprehensive Plan. McClung: Stated philosophical support for the request due to conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically commercial uses along Dallas Parkway and the density of the single family tract. Stated concerns with not having a Conceptual Development Plan, which is needed to ensure that development is appropriate at such a major intersection. Suggested waiting until development is proposed before requesting to rezone so that a Conceptual Development Plan could accompany the request. Senkel: Stated that the existing amount of retail zoning does not provide a basis for not adding retail zoning to areas where it makes sense and is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Stated concerns without having a Conceptual Development Plan. Stated he would like to see more office uses proposed in the Tollway District. Keith: Stated concerns with not having a Conceptual Development Plan. Voiced support with regard to the proposed density cap and additional development standards. Barnes: Stated that commercial zoning is appropriate along Dallas Parkway, but stated concerns without having a Conceptual Development Plan. DeMattia: Inquired if applicant was willing to table the item until a Conceptual Development Plan could be provided. Abbott: Stated that he could provide a Conceptual Development Plan, but expressed concerns that it would not likely correspond with future development and that he preferred to let the market drive the development of the property. Described why the property is currently zoned SF-15. Stated that future development will need to meet the Town's standards and the time of development. Described how the proposed standards create various use buffers. Stated that getting zoning entitlements in place now, even without a Conceptual Development Plan, could spur development to occur sooner rather than later. Page 3 of 8 McClung: Reiterated concern with not having a Conceptual Development Plan, but did not have concerns with the proposed uses. Abbott: Stated that the original application was for straight zoning, but after working with staff, determined that there were too many uses that were not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan; therefore a PD was being sought as a way to be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. McClung: Inquired about Conceptual Development Plans for properties in the vicinity. Copple: Stated that Conceptual Development Plans are not applicable to straight zoning, and that if the applicant were to modify the request to be for straight zoning, a Conceptual Development Plan would not be required. Explained the basis for various PD exhibits. DeMattia: Indicated a preference to either table, or to address elements of the PD that would ensure appropriate development at such a major intersection of the Town. Senkel: Stated concern that a realistic Conceptual Development Plan could not be provided without associated development proposed. Turner: Stated that he would prefer to move forward with the decision making process. McClung: Stated options for moving forward with the decision making process. Keith: Voiced support for retail tract, but inquired of the Commission about the aspects of the proposed PD that should be modified or added to ensure appropriate development. Moody: Stated concerns about applying additional development standards to a PD request without a Conceptual Development Plan to work from, which may not be effective. Copple: Stated that the straight zoning district standards in place at the time of development will apply, with the exception of the modified development standards outlined in Exhibit C; therefore this request could be perceived as a modified straight zoning request. Keith: Inquired about opportunities and limitations with the Conceptual Development Plan requirement. Copple: Stated that this zoning request addresses uses and the development standards outlined in Exhibit C. Described typical Exhibit D components, and how the Commission could influence future development and development standards by adding conditions to approval of this PD, as opposed to during the Conceptual Development Plan process. DeMattia: Indicated that if the Commission were to move forward with approving this request that typically considered development standards such as permitted uses, building materials, lot counts, etc. should be considered and addressed at this point in order to ensure appropriate development. Senkel: Stated concerns that adding too many provisions to this PD request which could force the applicant to modify the request and purse straight zoning. Abbott: Stated concerns with overburdening the zoning and thus not being able to be market competitive at the time of development. Page 4 of 8 McClung: Inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to subjecting big box retail to a Specific Use Permit (SUP). Abbott: Stated that if a SUP for big box retail is consistent with straight zoning districts then he would be agreeable to the requirement. Moody: Inquired about building height requirements. Copple: Explained building height requirements. Motioned by McClung, seconded by Senkel, to approve the request to rezone 80.7f acres, located on the southeast corner of Dallas Parkway and Frontier Parkway, from Single Family-15 (SF-15) to Planned Development -Single Family/Retail (PD-SF/R), subject to the following 1. Revising Exhibit C to delete Automobile Sales / Leasing, New, with pre -owned sales as an accessory use only, and Motorcycle Sales / Service from the list of permitted uses. 2. Revising Exhibit C to limit the Single Family-10 (SF-10) lots to within 300 feet of the southern and eastern sides of Tract 2, as shown on Exhibit A. Motion passed 6-1 at 7:06 p.m. Commissioner DeMattia voted in opposition to the request citing the need for a Conceptual Development Plan. 5. Consider and act upon an amendment to the Town's Future Land Use Plan. (CA14-0001). Summary Copple: Described the agenda item. Explained the relationship with Item 6 on the Agenda regarding the rezoning request for the northeast corner of Preston Road and Prosper Trail. Stated that the item had been tabled with the recommendation that a meeting be held with the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC). Indicated that a Special Called Planning & Zoning Commission meeting was held on May 28, 2014 with the CPAC. Recommended consideration. Discussion DeMattia: Stated that a public hearing for this item was held and closed at the May 20, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, and that the public hearing was now closed. Indicated that a meeting was hosted on May 31, 2014, by the applicant of Item 6, with property owners of the subdivisions in the vicinity of the northeast corner of Preston Road and Prosper Trail. Invited the applicant to discuss any changes to the proposal that occurred as a result of the meeting. Donald Silverman (Applicant): Stated that there may have been some miscommunication regarding the intent of the meeting on May 31, 2014. Stated that he encouraged residents of Chandler Circle to continue the dialogue needed to mitigate any concerns with future development. Stated that decreased lighting standards and added landscaping on the north and south sides of Prosper Trail had been discussed. DeMattia: Confirmed with applicant that lighting and landscaping provisions were changes to the development that the developer has agreed to provide in conjunction with the development. Stated that the public hearing was closed and that he would entertain a recommendation from the Commission. Stated that there will be another public hearing at an upcoming Town Council meeting. Audience: Expressed concerns with not being able to address the Commission stating that not all property owners of nearby subdivisions had been notified of the previously held public hearing. Page 5 of 8 DeMattia: Invited anyone who had not spoken during the public hearing on May 20, 2014 to address the Commission. Laura Longmire (Chandler Circle Resident): Expressed concerns with safety, security, water consumption, and light pollution. Stated that she wants to preserve the rural character of Prosper. Brian Beasley (Saddle Creek Resident): Stated concerns with the size of the subject property and the number of pad sites in addition to the grocery store. Stated that much time and money was spent to create the Comprehensive Plan and that it should be followed. Michael Adamec (Saddle Creek Resident): Voiced opposition to the request. Stated that development was expected, but that he anticipated the corner would remain residential. Georgia Anderson (Saddle Creek Resident): Voiced opposition to the request. Stated concerns with small pads and fast food restaurant development, requested added landscaping is provided to the development. Curt Mooney (Saddle Creek Resident): Stated the cost of creating the Comprehensive Plan was high and that it should be followed. Stated that the Comprehensive Plan calls for commercial on only two corners of an intersection. Stated a desire to keep the rural character of Prosper. Stated opposition to the rezoning request due to the impact on nearby residential neighborhoods. Randy Bivens (Chandler Circle Resident): Stated that there is already existing zoning that would allow for a grocery store and that those locations should be considered. Expressed desire for a mixed -use development if development occurs. Athena Bivens (Chandler Circle Resident): Stated the school district needs the added tax revenue, but expressed concerns with keeping the rural character of Prosper, as well as keeping the character of Preston Road. Ryan Anderson (Saddle Creek Resident): Voiced opposition to the request. Stated that he formerly resided in another municipality at a location where commercial development negatively impacted the area, which caused him to move to Prosper. Stated that he based his relocation on the FLUP. Petitioned that if the rezoning is approved, to ensure that it is done with the character of Prosper in mind and have heightened development standards included in the PD. Commission Discussion Moody: Stated that he was on the CPAC. Questioned whether or not the northeast corner of Preston Road and Prosper Trail, specifically, was considered during the adoption process, but generally recalled that the vision was to keep it residential. Stated desire to see a layout for the entire property. Turner: Stated that the Comprehensive Plan is a guide, which also includes information about how to change the Plan. Stated concerns with the amount of retail and the strip nature of the layout. Recognized that the Town and school district need the tax dollars. Indicated that the Town has changed since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. McClung: Stated that he cannot support changing the Comprehensive Plan based to the fact that the Commission has relied heavily on it for its decision making. Indicated that the Comprehensive Plan is a guide and enumerates seven points for consideration of a change, and that this case does not meet six out of those seven criteria. Stated that residents should expect the Commission to weight their input into the decision making process. Page 6 of 8 Senkel: Stated that the Comprehensive Plan is a guide. Voiced opposition to the request, stating that it is primarily from the concerns of the neighboring residents. Reminded that the role of the Commission is to keep the interests of all citizens of Prosper in mind, not only those in close proximity to a development. Keith: Stated opposition to this request. Barnes: Stated that the Comprehensive Plan will change, and that this corner may change in the future. Indicated that the development as proposed could compromise the intersection, and that he could not support a change to the Comprehensive Plan due to the associated case. DeMattia: Stated that he was on the CPAC. Stated that he is in support of the request, noting that the Comprehensive Plan is a guide. Indicated that all plans are subject to change. Stated that the majority of citizens he spoke to were in support of the request. Motioned by Keith, seconded by Moody to deny an amendment to the Town's Future Land Use Plan. Motion passed 6-1 at 7:53 p.m. Commissioner DeMattia voted in opposition. 6. Conduct a Public Hearing, and consider and act upon a request to rezone 33.2f acres, located on the northeast corner of Preston Road and Prosper Trail, from Single Family-15 (SF-15) to Planned Development -Retail (PD-R). (Z14-0007). Summary Copple: Summarized the surrounding properties and the rezoning request. Explained staff has currently received 7 public hearing notice reply forms in opposition to the request. Noted Town staff has provided two recommendations, dependent upon approval or denial of the FLUP amendment. Discussion Turner: Indicated the acreage of retail proposed is too large for the intersection. Barnes: Indicated the acreage of retail proposed is too large for the intersection. McClung: Indicated that the proposed rezoning is in contrast to the Comprehensive Plan. Keith: Stated that the Comprehensive Plan is guide and subject to change in the future. Motioned by McClung, seconded by Turner, to deny a request to rezone 33.2f acres, located on the northeast corner of Preston Road and Prosper Trail, from Single Family-15 (SF-15) to Planned Development -Retail (PD-R). Motion passed 7-0 at 7:58 p.m. 7. Possibly direct Town Staff to schedule topic(s) for discussion at a future meeting. Copple: Provided the Planning & Zoning Commission with a copy of the Subdivision Ordinance Diagnostic Report. Indicated at the June 17, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting staff and the consultant team will be presenting information regarding the Diagnostic Report. 8. Adjourn Motioned by Moody, seconded by Turner, to adjourn. Motion approved 7-0. Meeting was adjourned at 8:01 p.m. Page 7 of 8 Alex Glushko, Senior Planner t ck urner, Secretary Page 8 of 8