05.01.2012 P&Z Minutesr
WN OF
PFEPER
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
605 E. Seventh St., Prosper, Texas
Prosper ISD Administration Building
Tuesday, May 1, 2012, 6:00 p.m.
Commissioners present included: Chair Mark DeMattia, Vice Chair Mike McClung, Secretary Chris
Keith, Bill Senkel, Bruce Carlin, Jim Cox, and Rick Turner.
Staff present included: Hulon Webb, Town Engineer/Director of Development Services; Chris Copple,
Planning Director; and Melanie Videan, Planning Technician.
Consultant team present included: Eddie Haas and Brandon Gonzalez with Freese and Nichols.
2. Recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Consider and act upon minutes from the following Planning & Zoning Commission
meeting:
• April 17, 2012 Regular Meeting
Item 3 was not acted upon due to lack of receiving draft minutes prior to the meeting.
REGULAR AGENDA
4. A public hearing to consider and act upon the 2012 Town of Prosper Comprehensive Plan
Update. (CA12-0001).
Discussion
DeMattia: Introduced the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (herein called CPAC), the purpose
of the Comprehensive Plan (herein called the Plan), and the need for the Plan's update. Educated audience
on the procedure of the public hearing process.
Copple: Summarized the section of the Town Charter that defines the Plan and the requirements for
updating it. Offered a brief history of the Town's process in updating the Plan.
Jason Dixon (CPAC Chair and Council member): Announced the task given to the CPAC and briefed on
the actions taken by the CPAC that led to the revisions now seen in the Plan, which included the
following: 1) meetings between the CPAC, Freese & Nichols, and town staff, 2) two town hall meetings;
and 3) participation in the visual character survey. Noted Freese & Nichols' role in the revision process
and introduced the topics that were discussed by the CPAC. Reported how decisions were made during
the review process. Encouraged the Commission to provide feedback on the various aspects of the Plan.
Eddie Haas: Summarized the history of the review process and the reasons for updating the Plan.
Explained the purpose of the Plan, emphasizing its role as a tool to assist in guiding decisions regarding
land use, actions for capital improvements, growth, and protections for those values the citizen's deem
Page 1 of 6
vital. Introduced the growth pattern of the northern portion of the metroplex and how Prosper fits into the
growth pattern. Gave presentation on the following areas that were examined by the CPAC:
1) Community Snapshot — highlighting population projections to the year 2040, existing land uses
and their percentages, and land left to be zoned;
2) Community Vision — highlighted town identification, the visual character survey, town hall
meetings, issues most important to citizens, and what the community goals are;
3) Community Character — highlighted preferable physical attributes of the town, the updated Future
Land Use Plan (herein called the FLUP), land use percentages on the FLUP, residential densities
and their locations., existing multi -family zoning, preferred multi -family design styles and
locations, and non-residential land uses and locations. Briefed on the characteristics, purpose, and
possible uses of neighborhood services, the Dallas North Tollway corridor, the U.S. 380 corridor,
the town center area, the business park area, and Old Town Prosper.. Noted the primary
adjustments from the 2004 Comprehensive Plan, which includes lower single family densities,
reduction in garden -style apartments, the addition of a business park, and the removal of the
industrial strip along U.S. 380.
4) Livability — highlighted aesthetics and design concepts, which includes incorporating themes of
openness, public spaces, parks, public gardens, town centers, and the varieties of housing to
accommodate the life cycle of living. Offered examples of mixed uses seen throughout the
metroplex. Reported on locations, types, and themes for gateways.
5) Transportation — highlighted minor recommendations that deviate from the current Thoroughfare
Plan regarding the southern section of Preston Road, Hays Road, the southern and middle portions
of Coleman Street, the portion of U.S. 380 between the two intersections with Lovers Lane, the
Dallas North Tollway, and the Old Town Core District. Noted the Plan does not indicate support
or non-support for transit oriented development; rather it addresses a strategy in the event such a
development does occur.
6) Economic Analysis — highlighted fiscal balance and the need for flexibility to allow for a range of
services and businesses. Noted the analysis was based on the FLUP and the build -out population
pro) ection.
7) Infrastructure Assessment — highlighted the association of water, wastewater, and storm water
development.
8) Implementation — highlighted the short and long range goals and action plans.
McClung: Concerned about the economic analysis that bases the tax projections on population build -out.
Concerned the projections are more generous than what the reality will be. Asked questions about the
projections that call for an increase in ad valorum taxes. Asked Mr. Gonzalez if the Plan is reasonable,
aggressive, or conservative.
DeMattia: Asked consultant to address the economic issues on page 97 of the Plan.
Carlin: Asked consultant questions regarding the values of medium density residential homes at build -
out. Questioned whether the reduction in densities and the increase in park area had been factored in.
Brandon Gonzalez: Answering McClung, explained how the assumptions were derived, which includes
complete build -out of projected retail acreage and the assumption that the population will patron the retail
stores in Prosper rather than those in other municipalities. Noted that non-residential developments
generate more tax revenue than residential developments, and as non-residential developments increase
Page 2 of 6
Matt Robinson (Prosper Developer's Council President and representative of Prosper Partners):
Summarized a letter from the Prosper Developer's Council to the CPAC. Commented that while
lot sizes are important, so is density. Offered examples of small lots with quality products.
Concerned about the following: 1) density ranges are not a broad enough; 2) existing zoning is
not reflected, which can lead to confusion; 3) the gap in lot sizes and explained that many lot
sizes in existence are not accounted for, which could cause issues with infrastructure; 4) the
Parks Master Plan and the Capital Improvements Plan do not match the newly projected
populations; and 5) the appraisals of medium density residential to not make sense. Commented
that the language does give flexibility. Noted the population projected will not support the
amount of retail predicted, which may result in tracts of undevelopable land between
developments. Continued reporting that undevelopable tracts of land drop in value, which causes
surrounding properties to drop in value as well. Explained that typically, apartments are
developed on those tracts of land to fill in the gaps. Questioned the expenditures by the Town,
noting that if Prosper is planning for a high level of parks and trails, they will require more funds
from the Town's budget.
Loretta Baker (town resident): Preferred for retail to be located in Prosper so she doesn't have to
shop elsewhere. Voiced the need for Prosper to have a variety of housing and retail shopping for
the average person, not just for those who have higher incomes.
Motioned by Carlin, seconded by Keith to close the public hearing. Motioned passed 7-0 at 7:59
p.m.
Discussion
Carlin: Commented that the Plan still needs some revisions regarding the trans -oriented
development, the organization of the document, and wording inconsistencies.
Senkel: Noted there is nothing the Town can do about the existing multi -family zoning.
Preferred to see a plan that addresses how to handle the concerns of the citizens. Stated that
growth goes where growth is welcomed; therefore, before retail and commercial development
occurs, the Town will need to produce housing. Concerned that if a developer sees a Plan with
large lots, they may re -consider locating in Prosper.
Keith: Commented that aside from lot sizes and square footages, the Plan does address the
Town's concerns and that from a Planning & Zoning perspective, which focuses on land use, the
Plan addresses those issues as well.
McClung: Voiced that the Plan is good overall, but noted his three recommendations:
1) Vision Statement: While the Plan's vision statement does capture the preferences of the
residents, the multiple vision statements in existence may cause confusion.
Recommendation — The vision statement in the Plan should coincide with vision statement
from Council and those of other Boards and Committees. Also, the vision statement
should be on the Town's website.
2) Lot sizes: Noted that sixty-eight percent of building permits are for 12,500 square foot or
less lots. Stated that people are not relocating to Prosper for large lots; rather they are
moving here for high value homes. With the population number reduced in the Plan by
twenty-two percent, retailers may reconsider developing here if the population is too low.
Concerned that the low density area in the northwest corner of town may be difficult to
Page 4 of 6
develop with medium density surrounding it. Also, concerned that too many large lots,
which equates to lower population, will have an impact on taxes generated by the Town.
Recommendation — review and revise densities while creating an open feel.
3) Light Rail: Commented that the possible development of light rail is years away, and
while the citizen's of today may not want it, there is no predicting what future residents
will want. Therefore, the language referring to light rail should be left in the Plan.
Turner: Agreed with Commissioners that the Plan is a good document, but that some review and
revision is needed. Reminded the audience that the Plan is a guide, and that minor amendments
can be made in the future. Commented on three issues:
1) The Plan is void of housing for all the life cycles, especially housing for young families.
Concerned that Prosper may become a community in which one cannot live, work, and
shop in.
2) Large lots may prevent a segment of the population from living in Prosper, as the cost of
living will be too high.
3) Not concerned with the crime should a rail station be developed; however, acknowledged
that the pros and cons of such a development have not been analyzed.
Cox: Commented that the overall Plan is good. Noted the main function of the Commission is
with future land use. Reiterated that the Commission cannot prohibit multi -family on those
properties that are already zoned for such. Informed that developers understand the development
standards in Prosper, and that the Town needs to ensure that developers now know that the Town
does, in fact, want development. Agreed with the following: 1) residents don't necessarily want
one acre lots; 2) the need for life cycle housing, particularly for young families and seniors,
exists; 3) light rail language should remain in the Plan to allow future residents to decided if they
would like a station developed; and 4) housing is necessary to attract retail development.
Concerned with the population projection presented in the Plan.
DeMattia: Voiced support for the Plan as written. Commented that the Plan does not satisfy
every citizen's wants and desire's, but that having a benchmark for densities and lot sizes allows
for the projections presented. Regarding multi -family zoning, noted the language indicates non-
support for garden -style apartments and encourages negotiation between a developer and the
Town to find other solutions. Noted the Plan is clear on the major corridors of town, and the
FLUP makes sense, as it places commercial and multi -family developments where they belong
along those corridors. Concerned about the high acreage of retail and would like that revised;
however, is willing to approve the Plan as written. Preferred the Plan not be re-evaluated by the
CPAC. Cited voting options to the Commission. Asked staff when the Town Council public
hearing for the Plan will take place.
Copple: Noted that with a recommendation of approval this night, the Town Council hearing
would be on June 12, 2012. Suggested Commission members are welcome to email any revisions
to the Plan they deem necessary to staff and the revisions will be incorporated into the Plan
before the Town Council public hearing; however, to do so, the item would have to be tabled.
Meigs Miller (CPAC member and Deputy Mayor Pro-Tem): Suggested the Commission present
their recommendation to Council in the same manner they do with zoning cases.
Page 5 of 6
Two residents, who did not offer their names, spoke. One gentleman noted that the Plan does not
offer an executive summary. The other gentleman asked if any changes to the Plan will be
available to the public.
Copple: Assured that recommended changes to the Plan will be reflected in the meeting minutes
and that the changes will be available to the public.
Motioned by Carlin, seconded by Cox to table item 4 until the May 15, 2012 Planning & Zoning
Commission meeting. Motion approved 7-0 at 8:39 p.m.
5. Possibly direct Town Staff to schedule topic(s) for discussion at a future meeting.
There was no discussion on this item.
6. Adjourn
Motioned by Keith, seconded by Turner to adjourn. Motion approved 7-0.
Meeting was adjourns at,8:39 p.m.
1ani ,Planning Technician Chris Keith, Secretary
Page 6 of 6