Loading...
09.02.2014 P&Z Minutesr -TOWN OF P I,. 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 was taken by Pamela Clark, Planning Technician MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Prosper Planning & Zoning Commission 108 W. Broadway St., Prosper, Texas Town of Prosper Municipal Chambers Tuesday, September 2, 2014, 6:00 p.m. Commissioners present included: Chair Mark DeMattia, Vice Chair Mike McClung, Brian Barnes, Craig Moody, and Chris Keith. "Commissioners Turner and Senkel informed of their absences prior to the meeting. Staff present included: Hulon Webb, Executive Director of Development and Community Services, Alex Glushko, Senior Planner, Pamela Clark, Planning Technician, and Terry Welch, Town Attorney. 2. Recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA 3a. Consider and act upon minutes from the following Planning & Zoning Commission meeting: • August 19, 2014 Regular Meeting 3b. Consider and act upon a preliminary plat of Twin Creek Estates, being 28 single family residential lots on 39.6f acres, located on the south side of Frontier Parkway, 4,300f feet west of Custer Road. The property is zoned Planned Development-59 (PD-59). (D14-0050). 3c. Consider and act upon a final plat of Lakes of La Cima Estates, Phase 7B, being 55 residential lots on 22.4f acres, located on the southwest corner of La Cima Boulevard and Mountain Creek Lane. The property is zoned Planned Development-6 (PD-6). (D14-0053). 3d. Consider and act upon a conveyance plat of GST Prosper, Block A, Lot 1 for one lot on 16.1f acres, located on the north side of US 380, 4,000± feet west of Dallas Parkway. The property is zoned Planned Development-43 (PD-43). (D14-0055). Motioned by Keith, seconded by Moody, to approve the consent agenda subject to staff recommendations. Motioned approved 5-0 at 6:03 p.m. REGULAR AGENDA 4. Conduct a Public Hearing, and consider and act upon a request for a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a New Automobile Sales/Leasing facility, on 16.1f acres, located on the north side Page 1 of 7 of US 380, 4,000± feet west of Dallas Parkway. The property is zoned Planned Development- 43 (PD-43). (S14-0003). Summary Glushko: Summarized the SUP request and the zoning of the surrounding properties. Stated the applicant has proposed to adopt a series of exhibits and described the exhibits as they were presented. Described the rendering of the facade plan and the materials that would be used. Stated the building consists of an entry portal element, which services as a corporate identity, and primary exterior materials consisting of stone and split face concrete masonry block. Listed the four criteria to be considered in determining the validity of a SUP request. While the SUP request generally conforms to the Future Land Use Plan (FLUP), the incorporation of increased landscaping and architectural elements is recommended, to protect the visual appearance of US 380. The impact on the single family residential district has been significantly minimized. Summarized that the use is overall harmonious and compatible with the eastern and western adjacent properties, but without adequate screening and buffering along the northern property line, the proposed use is not harmonious and compatible with the single family residential district adjacent to the north. Suggested that additional landscaping would further mitigate the impact on the northern adjacent property. Informed Commissions that Town staff has not received any public hearing reply forms. Recommended approval subject to the conditions outline in the staff report. Discussion with Staff McClung: Inquired about the probability that the City of Irving will allow planting in the easement along US 380. Webb: Stated the Town met with the City of Irving in April to do a landscape analysis for planning purposes along the easement. Stated that generally planting is allowed in the entire 75 foot easement, we are proposing only planting in the first 5 feet in exchange for the planting of large trees. McClung: Asked what type of timeline should we expect to hear back on their decision. Webb: Stated the City of Irving has a new City Manager and that position will be a large deciding factor in the amount of time it takes to receive a response or decision. Motioned by Moody, seconded by McClung, to open the public hearing. Motion passed 5-0 at 6:17 p.m. Public Hearine Discussion Rob Moss (Applicant): Described the Gulf States Toyota (GST) industry and the location of the dealership locations within the United States. Gave a presentation that included the following items: anticipated gross income, estimated tax contributions, support of local organizations, site selection process, traffic analysis and appearance of the proposed facility. Also provided information on lighting, energy efficiency, vehicle maintenance procedures and that they do not use outdoor paging systems. Described the showroom and stated it will display the history of Prosper and information about the area. McClung: Asked if GST would buy the property and then sell it to a franchisee after completing construction. Asked how long the list is of possible candidates and how the selection is made. Asked if the applicant had a chance to review the comments provided by staff and if the applicant is willing to consider the changes suggested by staff. Expressed his concerns with the facade plans on the west side of the property that would be facing Mahard Parkway. Expressed he would like to see a diversity in the design of the building. Page 2 of 7 Moss: Answered once we received the CO the business will be handed over for management. Stated he hoped that the renderings would help with displaying their intentions and desire to assist with required landscaping on the northern adjacent property. Stated that they are willing to upgrade the stone being used for the facade of the building. DeMattia: Asked if there is anything that makes this dealership one of a kind and unique. Moss: Answered that this store would be an "Image II" store which would upgrade the interior and environment of the dealership. The image component would include local materials to give this dealership a unique appearance. Whoever gets this dealership would acquire an additional cost for the upgraded features in the facility. Stated that GST is willing to discuss and take design suggestions into consideration for this development. DeMattia: Stated they were concerned that this dealership is being designed just like every other dealership. He stated that Prosper would prefer for this location to be a flagship store. Moss: Responded that the Burleson, TX location is their flagship store and has a completely different design environment than any other location. McClung: Asked about an expected timeline for the construction of the store. Moss: Answered they expect to begin construction in approximately two years. The prospect of Toyota Corporate moving into the area has sped up the timeline. DeMattia: Asked if any information about signage was available. Glushko: Answered that signage would be review and permitted by the Building Inspections Department. McClung: Stated he still has concern about the approval from Irving on the trees and asked about the access points into the dealership. Webb: Stated that even if Irving denies the request, the Town would still ensure that adequate landscaping and screening requirements are met. Moss: Described how customers would enter and how they would be serviced. All repairs would be done within the building with the garage doors closed. Clint Richardson (Representative of northern adjacent property): Thanked Toyota for coming and speaking directly with adjacent property owners. Expressed concern with the lighting, noise and the desired use of the property. Gave a history of the zoning of their property and the surrounding properties of the site. Described the zoning of their property and what has been required of them to obtain that zoning. Expressed concern with the lights on the dealership and the signage lights that generally illuminate dealerships. Stated concern about the noise that would be created during vehicle maintenance and concern about an outdoor paging system. Questioned the requirements of adequate screening to make the application harmonious and wanted the Commissioners to consider the homeowners that would be located north of the property. Concerned about the creation of a car row and stated that if this application where to be approved it would be the beginning of a car row by setting a precedent. Expressed their opposition for this SUP application and suggested the Commissioners deny the request. Henry Knapek (Property Broker): Described the distance of the main building to the northern adjacent property. Described what the current zoning allows and types of businesses that could be located within Page 3 of 7 that zoning district. Provided examples of possible business that could develop at this location, such as Lowe's or Home Depot. Listed the hours of operation for the dealership the maintenance shop and wanted to ensure that noise would not be an issue. DeMattia: Inquired of Richardson what they would anticipate to be developed in this zoning district. Richardson: Stated that he could not make that determination since it would be the decision of the property owner. Motioned by McClung, seconded by Moody, to close the public hearing. Motion approved 5-0 at 7:11 p.m. Commission Discussion Barnes: How specific do we need to be to ensure there is an additional buffer zone on the northern side of the property? Asked if the information would be incorporated into an agreement. Welch: Answered that they could include the revisions requested in their motion. DeMattia: Asked if the screening wall was only on the northern side of the property. Glushko: Answered it is only on the northern side of the property. Keith: Asked if the submittal is like the SUP for the batch plant that has been reviewed in the past. What is the expiration timeline for the approval of this SUP submittal? Asked if lighting, screening and landscaping could continue to be monitored and addressed after construction had taken place. Glushko: Answered that there is not an expiration timeline for SUP submittals. Webb: Stated at that point it would become a Code Compliance issue. Moody: Responded once this business was constructed it would be permanent and could not be removed like a batch plant. Keith: Expressed support for the request and stated it could be a welcomed neighbor as long as we make certain it does not adversely affect the neighboring properties. McClung: Expressed support and stated he still had concerns about the landscaping and screening. Expressed that he appreciated that the applicant was already willing to install an 8 foot screening wall, which is above the 6 foot that is generally required. Would like to include a condition requiring the large trees along US 380 as long as the City of Irving agrees. Inquired if a binding precedent would be set for future automobile dealership uses in the area with approval of the SUP. Moody: Expressed support for the SUP, wanted to ensure design is unique and ensure high standards in the design. Expressed concern on the east side of the property and the masonry being used on that side of the building due to the view from future Mahard Parkway. DeMattia: Wanted confirmation that this decision would not obligate decision making on future SUP applications. Page 4 of 7 Welch: Expressed that this SUP case and future SUP cases should be treated and reviewed as separate applications and that a precedent would not be established by approval of this request. Kevin Wier (Applicant): Described the type of trees that would be installed on each side of the property. Listed the types of trees and the size of the trees that would be initially installed. McClung: Asked about the probability of a double row of trees being installed. Also asked for a timeline for the northern property to be developed. Expressed the desire to limit the split face concrete masonry block usage and limit it to stone and brick. Richardson: Stated the timeline construction is expecting to commence at Legacy Parkway and work east and could be anywhere from 3-12 years off in the future. Keith: Requested if City of Irving does not approve trees that additional language be included to ensure the planting of large trees? Welch: Reviewed the language of the motion and the requested conditions for Commissioners to consider and comment on prior to the motion. Motioned by McClung, seconded by Moody, to approve the request for a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a New Automobile Sales/Leasing facility, on 16.1f acres, located on the north side of US 380, 4,OOOf feet west of Dallas Parkway, subject to the following conditions: 1. Revise Exhibit C to provide for an additional row of large trees and shrubs on the north side of the Atmos easement, to ensure large trees will be planted along US 380; 2. Revise Exhibit C to provide for additional landscaping along the north side of the property adjacent to the single-family district which shall consist of a staggered double row of 6 inch caliper, minimum 12 foot high, live oak trees; 3. Revise Exhibit D to replace the split face concrete masonry block (CMU) exterior material with stone or brick; 4. The north, east and west elevations shall be revised so that there are alternating divisions of stone and brick between points of articulation; however, the minimum percentage of stone shall be 75% on the East elevation, and 50% on the North and West elevations; and 5. Town Council consider approval of a development agreement with the applicant to provide for additional landscaping in the existing Irving water easement in the event Irving enters into an agreement with the Town to allow landscaping in said easement. Motion approved 5-0 at 7:47 p.m. 5. Conduct a Public Hearing, and consider and act upon amending Section 8, "Changes and Amendments to All Zoning Ordinances and Districts and Administrative Procedures," of Chapter 1, "General Provisions, Administration and Procedures," of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 05-20, as amended, regarding procedures for denial recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, written protest procedures and petitions in opposition to a zoning amendment, and officers of the Board of Adjustment, their appointment and duties; and repealing existing provisions related thereto. (Z14-0014). Page 5 of 7 Chair DeMattia left the meeting at 7:53 p.m. Discussion with Staff Glushko: Stated amendments to Section 8.4, 8.5, and 8.6 of Chapter 1 of the Zoning Ordinance are being proposed. Section 8.4 regarding the procedures for denial recommendations by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Section 8.5 regarding written protest procedures and petitions in opposition to a zoning amendment. Section 8.6 regarding officers of the Board of Adjustment, their appointment and their duties. McClung: Regarding Section 8.5, expressed concern that property owners would not be given an adequate amount of time to respond with opposition. Barnes: Stated he had more concern with the notice requirement only being 200 feet. Welch: Stated that the 200 feet is in the State statute. McClung: Stated he wanted to give property owners as much time as possible to file an opposition. Stated he believed that a deadline one day prior to the meeting would be sufficient for staff to determine if a three -fourths vote would be required. Welch: Stated that would not give an applicant the opportunity to respond to the opposition or address any concerns the opposing property owner may have. Suggested the deadline by Thursday at 5 p.m. which would be three (3) business days prior to council meetings. Moody: Stated he wanted to make sure the deadline information would be included on the reply form and asked about the language regarding the process for requesting an appeal in the event the P&Z denies an application. McClung: Regarding Section 8.6, suggested delegating someone to sign the minutes. Welch: Stated the minutes are only a reflection of what took place at the meeting. Once a Board or Commission approves minutes during a meeting, at that time they are officially approved. The signature is not required to approve the minutes only the action taken during the meeting. McClung opened the public hearing at 8:04 p.m., and McClung closed the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. Motion by Moody, seconded by Keith, to approve, an ordinance amending Section 8, "Changes and Amendments to All Zoning Ordinances and District and Administrative Procedures," of Chapter 1, "General Provision, Administration and Procedures," of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 05-20, as amended, regarding procedures for denial recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, written protest procedures and petitions in opposition to a zoning amendment, and officers of the Board of Adjustment, their appointment and duties; and repealing existing provisions related thereto, subject to: 1. Revise the language in Section 8.5.0 to read; "The proposed ordinance requires opposition to be filed with the Planning Department before 5:00 p.m. on the third (P) working day preceding the advertised Town Council public hearing date." Motion approved 4-0 at 8:14 p.m. 6. Possibly direct Town Staff to schedule topic(s) for discussion at a future meeting. 7. Adjourn. Page 6 of 7 Motioned by Keith, seconded by Moody, to adjourn. Motion approved 4-0. Meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m. Name€a Clark, Planning Technician I 'V- tcl. Turner, Secretary Page 7 of 7