Loading...
12.07.2010 P&Z MinutesAi 8SPER OWN OF I Prosper is a place where everyone matters. 1. Call to Order / Roll Call. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 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, December 7, 2010, 6:00 p.m. Commissioners present included: Vice Chair Mike McClung, Secretary Herb Trenham, Christopher Blair, Chris Keith, Rick Turner, and Jim Cox. *Commissioner DeMattia informed staff of his absence prior to meeting. Staff present included: Chris Copple, Planning & Zoning Manager; 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 16, 2010 Regular Meeting 3b. Consider and act upon a preliminary site plan for Westfork Crossing Addition, on 64.6t acres, and a conveyance plat for Westfork Crossing Addition, Block A, Lots 1-3, on 101.6f acres, located on the northwest corner of U.S. 380 and Gee Road. The property is zoned Commercial (C). (D10-0028). 3c. Consider and act upon a site plan and final plat of Westfork Crossing Addition, Block A, Lots 1 and 2, on 3.5f acres, located on the northwest corner of U.S. 380 and Gee Road. The property is zoned Commercial (C). (D10-0029). 3d. Consider and act upon a revised conveyance plat for Westfork Crossing Addition, Block A, Lot 3, on 97.5f acres, located on the north side of U.S. 380, 300f feet west of Gee Road. The property is zoned Commercial (C). (D10-0030). Motioned by Cox, seconded by Turner to approve consent agenda subject to staff recommendations. Motion approved 6-0. REGULAR AGENDA 4. A public hearing to consider and act upon a site plan and final plat of Prestonwood Baptist Church, Phase 2 (Block A, Lot 1R), being a replat of Prestonwood Baptist, Block A, Lot 1, on 35.3t acres, located on the southwest corner of Prosper Trail and Cook Lane. The property is zoned Planned Development-33 (PD-33). (D10-0031). Page 1 of 5 Summary Copple: Summarized and recommended approval subject to staff recommendations. Motioned by Trenham, seconded by Turner to open the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0. Motioned by Blair, seconded by Herb to close the public hearing. Motion passed 6-0. Motioned by Blair, seconded by Cox to approve item subject to staff recommendations. Motion approved 6-0. 5. 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 and gave background on the previous public hearing, noting the public hearing was closed and not continued, though the Commission is welcome to hear comments from the public. Briefed on presentation materials. Recommended approval. Public Discussion Jason Dixon (Visioning Committee Member): Gave background information on Visioning Committee (herein called the Committee) discussions, noting areas of concentration which included thoroughfare open space/setbacks and medians, right-of-ways, monuments at major intersections, park signage, et cetera. Cited examples of thoroughfare open space, landscaping, and screening: 1) The area between Willow Ridge and First Street with its tall berms, homes well off the roadway, and living screens was the vision the Committee preferred, and believed it to be a twenty five foot setback as that footage was what was presented by staff and Studio 13; however, the Committee did not realize at the time the space between Willow Ridge and First Street is indeed a sixty foot setback with six foot berms, and 2) The areas between Gentle Creek and Coit Road and Frontier Parkway with ornamental metal fences gives those thoroughfares, which are less than 60 feet, retain an "open feel" due to the lots being larger, as opposed to Willow Ridge, who's lots are smaller in size, and 3) The area between First Street and the houses on the north side of First Street do not have a buffer, and though they have an ornamental metal fence, it offers a feel the Committee did not care for. In noting the Committee's impression Willow Ridge was a twenty five foot open space with two foot berms, but the preference is the look and feel of the open space between Willow Ridge and First Street, suggested a compromise of a forty foot open space — being that between the sixty foot open space (between Willow Ridge and First Street) and the proposed amendment's twenty five foot open space, conveying the twenty five foot open space does not provide the "open rural feel" the Committee sought, and that "feel" lies in the setback footages, not fence type. Relayed prohibiting wooden fences parallel to the ornamental metal fence was not a topic discussed during Committee meetings. Mentioned a developer does have the option of deviating from the proposed requirements with the submittal of a planned development, and that this proposed amendment applies to future developments only, reminding the Commission most existing developments are planned developments. Voiced no opposition to the requirement for screening (Section 10.13.3) and landscaping (10.13.4) installations to six months. Kenneth Dugger (Visioning Committee Member): Conveyed the preference of the Committee was to allow Prosper to have an "open feel". Informed the Committee did not want wooden, board on board fencing along right-of-ways, citing the fencing along Prosper Trail at the Trails of Prosper and Lakes of Prosper subdivisions as examples; however it may be acceptable given sixty feet of open space with a six foot berm, but not a twenty five foot open space with a three foot berm. Cited Stonecreek as an example where wooden fences were constructed against the open fencing. Referring to item four from the Prosper Developer's Council (herein called the PDC), letter, noted franchise utility easements in the landscape setback could be in the at the discretion of staff, but does not support utility easement counting towards a developers landscape setback requirement because required landscaping cannot be installed in the utility easements. Page 2 of 5 Matt Robinson (PDC President): With regards to fence type, answered that metal fencing is less expensive than masonry. Explained the ordinance will apply to a planned development unless the developer specifically addresses each aspect they wish to deviate from. Informed the majority of developers do not prefer wooden fencing. Asked for flexibility regarding allowable fencing type. Informed developers have given no objection to the twenty five foot setback, but may want to comment should it be changed to forty or sixty feet. McClung: Asked Mr. Dixon the Committee's preference regarding the prohibition of wooden fence erection parallel to ornamental metal fencing, noting the proposed amendment would ultimately prohibit such an action. Cox: Conveyed his understanding of what the Committee's directive to staff was. Noted at some point, a metal fence along a thoroughfare would not be visible due to the growth of the living screen. Asked Mr. Robinson the PDC's position on fence type versus setback width. Turner: Asked Mr. Robinson if masonry or any solid fence would be acceptable. Blair: Asked Committee members where the twenty five foot setback derived from, and if that setback honored the Committee's intention. Trenham. Commented on the word "parallel" in reference to fencing, and asked staff what mechanism is in place to prevent a resident from erecting an irregular shaped fence around a swimming pool, for example. Copple: Informed the sixty foot open space is outside the right-of-way, and from the curb to a residence's wooden fence would be approximately eighty feet. Briefed Commission on the legalities of regulating development items in a Subdivision Ordinance (which is technical in nature) as opposed to a Zoning Ordinance (which is discretionary in nature). Also, informed the Committee directed staff to amend the Subdivision Ordinance based on examples and renderings provided by Studio 13. Commission & Staff Discussion Cox: Supported the following: 1) eliminating wooden fencing parallel to metal fencing, 2) ornamental metal, wood, or masonry fencing subject to specifying restrictions on such, 3) forty foot setbacks from thoroughfares, noting it's not overly restrictive, but offers the Committee's intent, and 4) higher berms. Preferred to not restrict fencing to only ornamental metal. Blair: Concerned not all Committee members had opportunity to provide feedback on newly proposed setback footages. Supported the twenty five foot setback, noting such is adequate. Suggested revising the screening and landscape installation time frames from six months to three months, and preferred to see a development add a "finished look" to attract homeowners. Concern about Section 10.13.5c(iv), as it may not belong in the ordinance. Did not object to the language, but concerned about the enforceability, as it maybe better fit in Homeowners Association regulations. Clarified with Turner if a forty foot setback that included easements would be acceptable. Trenhain: Asked staff their opinion regarding language in Section 10.13.5c(iv). Agreed the Committee made their best recommendation provided they did not have correct information. Supported staffs recommendation as proposed. Copple: Informed Commission the language in Section 10.13.5c(iv) has been reviewed by the Town Attorney, is appropriately worded, and is best suited within the Subdivision Ordinance. Turner: Suggested flexibility regarding plantings and sidewalk radius (two hundred feet is acceptable). Commented sidewalks and trees within a twenty five foot buffer, creates a "boxed in" feel, as the sidewalks may become clogged when landscaping mature, citing sidewalks on Willow Ridge Drive as an example. Page 3 of 5 Noted collectors and larger thoroughfares should be treated equally. Supported the following: 1) screening and landscape installation period of three months as opposed to six months, 2) an increase in the setback to forty feet, and 3) solid fencing, as people like their privacy; however suggested excluding stucco as an allowable material for any solid fencing. Preferred not having easements within the thoroughfare's open space, and in response to Blair's inquiry, found a forty foot setback with easements included acceptable given the "open feel" is achieved. Keith: Supported a screening and landscape installation period of three months versus six months and the prohibition of parallel fencing to the required metal fencing, noting homeowners can find other options for privacy. Commented the twenty five foot setback may not be appropriate. McClung.- Supported the following: 1) screening and installation period of six months, commenting the three months could force developers to plant in an undesirable time of season, and 2) ornamental metal fencing with required landscaping, as it would offer the open feel sought. Felt Council should make the decision regarding a larger setback footage along thoroughfares and whether to prohibit parallel fencing. Supported the amendment as proposed. Commissioners continued to discuss what portions of the amendment Council should exclusively decide upon and what recommendation they would like to give Council. Motioned by Keith, seconded by Trenham to approve item subject to an increase in the setback to forty feet and revisions to Sections 10.13.3 and 10.13.4 to reduce installation periods from six months to three months. Motion failed by a vote of 3-3, with McClung, Turner, and Blair opposed. Motioned by Blair, seconded by McClung to approve item subject to revisions to Sections 10.13.3 and 10.13.4 to reflect an installation period from six months to three months and remove 10.13.5c4(iv) regarding parallel solid fencing. Motion failed by a vote of 3-3, with Keith, Turner, and Cox opposed. Commission members discussed their individual concerns and which concerns were most important. Motioned by Blair to table the item. Motion failed due to lack of a second. Motioned by Keith, seconded by McClung to approve item subject to revisions to Sections 10.13.3 and 10.13.4 to reflect an installation period from six months to three months. Motion approved 5-1, with Cox opposed. 6. Discuss potential items to be placed on an agenda for a future point work session meeting with Town Council. Discussion Turner: Listed the following: 1) how Council would prefer the Commission to handle situations as experienced this evening with item four, regarding a potential impasse, and 2) how and/or how much, if any, does the Council wish the Commission to deviate from the Future Land Use Plan. Trenhana: Listed the following: 1) what the Council's top three goals are for the next two years, 2) what areas of the old town core district the Council wishes to concentrate on, and 3) what steps does the Council wish to take to achieve any goals for the old town core district, and 4) what does the Council expect or need from the Commission, adding if the Council isn't keen to an action/actions the Commission takes, the Council would probably inform them. Offered his experience as a Commissioner with the City of McKinney on how their boards and commissions operated, noting an open dialogue is needed to remain apprised of what they (the Council) wishes. Page 4 of 5 Keith: Listed the following: 1) what the Commission can do to ensure things are being built upon things done in the past, 2) what are the Council's top 5 projects, 3) what is Council's role in attracting development to Prosper and how does the Commission learn of what development is in the works? Cox: Listed the following: 1) what is Council's perception on how the Commission should function, and 2) what liberties the Commission should feel free to take. McClung.- Listed the following: 1) Council to give direction on preference as to what the Commission should and should not do, 2) Council's preference on the economics in Prosper - does the Council want Prosper to be pro -business, or to be more restrictive to protect the rural aspect of Prosper, 3) what are the goals of the Economic Development Corporation (herein called the EDC), so the Commission's actions doesn't contradict their objectives, 4) Council's assessment of the Comprehensive Plan — is it relevant and does it need to be updated, 5) Does the Council prefer strict interpretation of Comprehensive Plan, or can the Commission be flexible to accommodate business development, and 6) what framework should the Commission adhere to when making recommendations on discretionary items. Requested the list be emailed to Commission members. Copple: Explained the legalities of the Open Meetings Act in regards to Commission commenting on the list over email. Blair: Noted the Council expects a recommendation from the Commission, and perhaps the Commission can offer guidance to the Council as well as the Council giving guidance to the Commission. Preferred not to force the issue on Council, but chose the following from those lists already given: 1) knowing EDC objectives is useful, 2) how the downtown district relates to the vision for Prosper, 3) what are the top two or three goals of the Council is good, 4) knowing the Council's position on the Future Land Use Plan would be helpful, 5) does the Comprehensive Plan need to be revised. 7. Possibly direct Town Staff to schedule topic(s) for discussion at a future meeting. No discussion on this item. Adjourn Motioned by Cox, seconded by Turner to adjourn. Motion approved 6-0. Meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. •am- ��� �.-��--�" Melanie . id n,l �Pl�nni�g Technician Herb Trenham, Secretary Page 5 of 5