Loading...
11.16.2010 P&Z Minutesi 1� TOWN OF 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 Street, Prosper, Texas Town of Prosper Municipal Chambers Tuesday, November 16, 2010, 6:00 p.m. Commissioners present included: Chair Mark DeMattia, Vice Chair Mike McClung, Secretary Herb Trenham, Christopher Blair, Chris Keith, Rick Turner, and Jim Cox. Staff present included: Hulon T. Webb, Jr., Director of Development Services/Town Engineer; Chris Copple, Planning & Zoning Manager; Wade Harden, Parks and Recreation Senior Planner; 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: • November 2, 2010 Regular Meeting 3b. Consider and act upon a final plat of Hunter Gateway Centre, Block A, Lots 4 and 7, and a conveyance plat of Hunter Gateway Centre, Block A, Lots 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8 on 17.2f acres, located on the northeast corner of U.S. 380 and La Cima Boulevard. The property is zoned Planned Development-2 (PD-2). (D10-0026). 3c. Consider and act upon a final plat of Barnes Addition, Block A, Lots 1 and 2, on 2.6t acres, located on the east side of Parvin Street, 200t feet south of Seventh Street (304 N. Parvin Street). The property is zoned Single Family-15 (SF-15). (D10-0027). Motioned by McClung, seconded by Trenham to approve item 3a, and items 3b and 3c subject to staff recommendations. Motion approved 7-0. REGULAR AGENDA 4. A public hearing to consider and act upon a request to rezone 24.5t acres, located on the north side of Fishtrap Road, 500t feet east of F.M. 1385, from Agricultural (A) to Planned Development -Retail (PD-R). (Z10-0019). Summary Copple: Summarized request to rezone, and briefed on conditions surrounding the subject property including the densities of Savannah & Glenbrooke. Informed on items proposed in the planned development which includes the following: 1) permitted uses, 2) building height and distance from residential districts, and 3) requirement of conceptual plan approval before development of the property. Advised the request does satisfy criteria set forth in the Comprehensive Plan to deviate from the Future Land Use Plan, and the Page 1 of 6 Commission should evaluate whether a Specific Use Permit should be required for certain uses as noted in the staff report. Informed notification was given in accordance with State law, and six reply forms were received by the Planning Division with none in opposition to the request. Recommended approval. Discussion Trenham: Asked staff if past questions regarding building height had been asked or addressed. Blair: Asked staff how the concept plan would be presented. DeMattia: Commented on the preference to have a concept plan included with the zoning request, as there would be an opportunity at a later date to alter the said plan. Copple: Explained town standards regarding building height and the purpose for the applicant requesting to postpone the concept plan, which is typically Exhibit D in the zoning request. Motioned by McClung, seconded by Blair to open the public hearing. Motion passed 7-0. Public Hearing Discussion Scott Norris (applicant): Extended explanation on purpose for postponing submittal of Exhibit D (concept plan), noting they will, at a later date, submit a detailed concept plan. Gave presentation showing future thoroughfare configurations and surrounding area from an aerial perspective, noting an expected higher traffic count for F.M. 1385 once the general area is populated with a higher density. Answered Commission questions with regards to the following: 1) open storage as a secondary use to compliment the primary use (such as a Lowe's or Home Depot), 2) the indoor gun range use is included as there may all ready be a user, 3) the proposed height would be to accommodate hotel or office uses, noting proper screening would be constructed, and 4) explained the benefit of a four story or sixty foot structure for hotel or office uses, noting optimal use of square footage and elevator expense. McClung: Concerned with the mini -warehouse, open storage, and indoor gun range uses. Commented the building height appears undesirable near residential uses. Asked what role a four story or sixty foot structure plays in the success of the development. DeMattia: Asked for clarification on which uses would consist of four stories, or sixty feet in height. Blair: Asked applicant if the intention of the development is to be similar to Frisco Square in regards to the height of the buildings. Mike Smith (resident): Concerned with the building height, noting his level of concern hindered on the location of the hotel. Also concerned with the indoor gun range use, but as long as it meets the Town's noise ordinance, does not oppose the use. Motioned by Keith, seconded by McClung to close the public hearing. Motion passed 7-0. Discussion Keith: Concerned with the building height. Voiced interest that only one reply from the public hearing notices appeared to be from a resident, while the other replies were from developers. Supported request to rezone and the possibility of requiring a Specific Use Permit for certain uses. Turner: Concerned with the two hundred foot separation between the residential areas and the non- residential buildings that would be four stories or sixty feet in height. Also concerned with the open storage use being in proximity to residential areas. Mirrored Commissioner Keith's interest on who replied to the public hearing notice. Page 2 of 6 Trenham: Concerned with the two hundred foot separation, as the uses on the property are unknown at this time. Noted that while a Specific Use Permit does allow some control as to what use goes on the property, it is unfair to the developer. Commented on the ease of settling the building height issue now instead of later. Supports the mixture of business and retail, commenting on his experience with residential above office or retail, noting such uses of less than three stories tend to be unsuccessful. DeMattia: Preferred to eliminate mini -warehouse and indoor gun range from the list of uses. Suggested allowing four stories or sixty feet for building height, but restrict such heights to hotel or office use only, and eliminate open storage from the list of uses. Cox: Commented that the presence of one use will drive the presence of the next use and so forth. Shared concerns of other Commissioners; however, asked Commission about their objections to the indoor gun range. Blair: Asked Commissioner McClung to clarify which type of open storage he objects to. Voiced support for the request in general, given the realignment of F.M. 1385, but concerned with the four stories or sixty foot height and the potential for open storage as a primary use, but not as a secondary use. Relayed no objection to an indoor gun range, and agreed on limiting the four stories or sixty foot building height to hotel or office use only. Noted the preference to view a concept plan. McClung: Voiced support and reiterated his concerns regarding the three uses he previously noted and regarding the building height. Answered Commissioner Blair that he would support an open storage use as a secondary use to the primary use, such as that seen with a Lowe's or a Home Depot retail store. Scott Norris (applicant): Suggested the mini -warehouse use is a good one, provided that additional screening is required per the planned development. Noted the planned development requires a Specific Use Permit for an indoor gun range. Indicated such buildings with height of four stories or sixty feet would have a retail use between it and the residential areas, noting the line of site would be hindered by screening and the use between. Commission members and the applicant discussed right-of-way, setbacks, usability, and availability of land. Copple: Noted the Zoning Ordinance does have certain requirements for open storage, especially with regards to screening. Informed the proposed setbacks exceed requirements for the Commercial Corridor district, which is a common district along US 380 and the Dallas North Tollway. Informed on certain uses with regards to open storage. Motioned by McClung to approve item subject to revisions in the planned development to eliminate indoor gun range, mini -warehouse, and open storage as allowable uses, and to restrict building height to two stories or forty feet. Motion died due to lack of a second. Motioned by Blair, seconded by Cox to approve item subject to revisions in the planned development to eliminating open storage as an allowable use, and limit building heights of four stories or sixty feet to hotel and office uses only. Motion approved 5-2 with Commissioners Keith and McClung in opposition. 5. A public hearing to consider and act upon an amendment to Sections 10.5 (Sidewalks) and 10.13 (Thoroughfare Screening) of the Town's Subdivision Ordinance. (SA10-0001). Summary Copple: Summarized recommended amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance including the purpose of such, providing background information on the Visioning Committee and items they discussed and current standards and options developers have. Presented examples of thoroughfare screening and sidewalks, including berms seen throughout the town. Addressed the Prosper Developers Council (herein called the Page 3 of 6 PDC) comments to the proposed amendments. Presented the Commission with a revised redline to address comments one through four of the PDC's comment letter. Discussion DeMattia: Commented on items one through four on the PDC's comment list as adequate. Asked questions regarding thoroughfare screening material. Blair: Asked about language on item one on the PDC's comment list. McClung: Asked for clarification regarding sidewalks. Copple: Affirmed items one through four of the PDC's comments are adequately addressed by the revised redline. Clarified what is currently allowed and what would be allowed with the proposed amendment. Motioned by McClung, seconded by Turner to open the public hearing. Motion passed 7-0. Public Hearing Discussion Matt Robinson (PDC President): Noted the PDC comments are taken from experiences in the field and briefed on PDC, concerns which included limits on screening with certain types of residential uses, and screening on collector roads (preferring to not categorize such roads with thoroughfares). Noted that a planned development can cite specific criteria with regards to thoroughfare screening and landscaping. Shawn Gillian (LandPlan): Commented on experienced success with eight foot sidewalks, but noted meandering of such causes a "race track" feel. Commented the proposed amendment locks the locations of large and small trees, and can pose certain restraints, especially along collector road. Suggested the amendment does not address culverts, transformers, et cetera. George Dupont (Visioning Committee member): Summarized purpose, activities, and results of the Visioning Committee meetings, explaining the difference between a "thoroughfare feel" versus a "parkway feel", adding the proposed twenty five foot setback allows for the "parkway feel". McClung: Asked staff the following: 1) to explain the difference between a collector road and a major thoroughfare, and 2) where these amendments would apply at. Cox: Asked if issues which concern the PDC could be addressed with a planned development rather then in the proposed amendment. Blair: Commented on collector roads. Copple: Explained the difference between a collector road and a major thoroughfare, noting the amendment would apply to all road types in the Thoroughfare Plan, and that developers can voluntarily choose to have collector roads through their development, citing Three Stones as an example with their planned development. Clarified a property not platted would not have vested rights, and would therefore be subject to the amendment, unless otherwise specified in their planned developments. Motioned by Keith, seconded by Trenham to close the public hearing. Motion passed 7-0. Discussion Cox: Supported the open feel of thoroughfares, but concerned with the wrought iron fences with regards to children. Preferred to see the issue addressed with a planned development. Agreed the amendment should be further discussed. Page 4 of 6 Blair: Supported the plant selection, but felt the need to for radii to be straightened. Preferred to keep the requirement for landscape approval three months rather than six months as suggested by the PDC. Not in support of the wrought iron fence, suggesting more discussion on the matter to consider alternatives. Understood the need for flexibility, as each development is unique. Trenham: Supported an approval timeframe of three months, and supported the amendment, noting any deviations can be corrected with planned developments. McClung: Supported amendment as written with revisions to include PDC comments one through four, but not five and six on the PDC comment list. DeMattia: Clarified to the Commission the document of which they need to reference and comment on, which is the amendment, not the PDC comment list. Agreed the amendment needed further study and consideration. Asked staff to email PDC comments to the Visioning Committee members and solicit for feedback. Turner: Commented on the amendment's ability to limit a homeowners options, noting the wrought iron fence could allow pets and children to go through the wall to the thoroughfare. Understood the desire for an open feel, but noted the need for privacy and security. Preferred to not have such a uniform regulation on these matters, and instead would like to see them addressed in planned developments. Keith: Cited items five and six on the PDC comments appears ambiguous, and asked for clarification on what was to be approved. Agreed the amendment may need to be studied further before approval. George Dupont: Explained that lot depths would remain as required by the planned development. Matt Robinson: Noted having wrought iron fencing would force Homeowners Association (herein called the HOA) deed restrictions. Scott Norris (PDC member): Requested the Commission specify an appeals process for staff to adhere to as a part of the amendment, otherwise, appeals would, by default be heard by the Board of Adjustment whom would deny such requests as no developer would meet the requirements to warrant a variance from the amendment. Informed that rezoning to a planned development for the purpose of deviation from the thoroughfare screening and sidewalk requirements would not financially be worth it to a developer. Kenneth Dugger (Visioning Committee member): Commented on item four of the PDC comment list. Asked staff to add language to the amendment to address the issue of material behind a wrought iron fence being the decision of the HOA. Cited Whispering Farms as an example of wrought iron fencing along a thoroughfare. Webb: Explained the task the Visioning Committee was charged with, noting the desire for flexibility in making parkways their own, but to have a consistency about their character. Cited the screening along Prosper Trail as an example of existing fencing that is open. Asked the Commission to keep in mind the landscaping will eventually grow to cover the wrought iron fence. Committee members, staff, and PDC members discussed wooden fencing being adjacent to to ornamental metal fencing. Copple: Clarified the Commission can recommend other materials for thoroughfare screening to the Council. Briefed on the appeals process, agreeing the matter could be further explored by the Commission. Informed should the item be tabled, staff will deliver the same recommendation as that suggested by the Visioning Committee, and then the Commission can recommend approval to the Council subject to their suggested revisions. Motioned by Cox, seconded by Blair to table the item until the December 7, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Motion approved 7-0. Page 5 of 6 6. Possibly direct Town Staff to schedule topic(s) for discussion at a future meeting. Discussion McClung: Requested a discussion item on the December 7, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting agenda to gain a consensus on what the Commission would like to discuss with Town Council. Adjourn Motioned by McClung, seconded by Turner to adjourn. Motion approved 7-0. Meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Melanie Y. V"n, Planning Technician Herb Trenham, Secretary Page 6 of 6