05.20.2008 P&Z MinutesCall to Order / Roll Call.
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll call was taken by Chris Copple, Senior Planner.
Commissioners present included: Chair Mark DeMattia, Vice Chair George Dupont, Secretary Ronni
Gallup, Reno Jones, Sam Johnson, Jason Dixon, and Marcus Ruark.
Staff present included: Hulon Webb, Director of Development Services/Town Engineer; Chris Copple,
Senior Planner; and Melanie Videan, Planning Technician.
Commissioner Dixon arrived at 6:10 pm, after the votes for agenda items 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d, but arrived for
all of agenda item 2e discussion and vote.
CONSENT AGENDA
Ruark pulled items 2b, 2c, and 2e.
• Motioned by Ruark, seconded by Gallup to approve balance of Consent Agenda. Motion approved 6-0.
2a. Consider and act upon minutes from the following Planning & Zoning Commission meeting:
• April 15, 2008 Regular Meeting
2b. Consider and act upon a preliminary site plan of Whispering Farms Commercial Center,
Block A, Lots 4R-C, 4D, and 4E, on 3.3f acres located on the southeast corner of Prosper Trail
and Coit Road. The property is zoned Planned Development-5. (D08-16).
Ruark pulled item from Consent Agenda.
Commission Discussion
Roark: Inquired about landscaping, control measures for light pollution for the neighboring residents, and
whether dumpsters would be located on site or not. Also asked what the plan was for the triangular building.
Staff Discussion
Copple: Informed Commission that landscaping is approved by staff.
Applicant Discussion
• Mike Beaty Informed Commission that intentions had always been for mixed use on that corner, and the
screening requirements are included in the Planned Development ordinance. Stated the trees that line the
Page 1 of 7
hike and bike trail were intended to serve as a buffer at thirty-five feet wide, and the design is such that the
back of the building would look like a residence; however, the rear door would have no windows, while the
• front door is automatic. Described that placing buildings to the rear of the property near the trail would
create a buffer with the parking where overhead parking lights would be located, and that the lighting plan
conformed to the night sky ordinance. Noted the dumpsters would have masonry screens and have been
located away from the trail which should assist in shielding it from public view as well, and the triangular
property would fit a 12,000 square foot, single story retail building.
Motioned by Ruark, seconded by Dupont to approve item. Motion approved 6-0.
2c. Consider and act upon a site plan of Whispering Farms Commercial Center, Block A, Lots 4D
and 4E, on 1.4f acres located on the east side of Coit Road, 200f feet south of Prosper Trail.
The property is zoned Planned Development-5. (D08-13).
Ruark pulled item from Consent Agenda.
Commission Discussion, Staff Discussion, and Applicant Discussion for this item was included the
discussion for item 2b.
Motioned by Ruark, seconded by Dupont to approve item. Motion approved 6-0.
2d. Consider and act upon a preliminary plat of Whitley Place, Phase 2, Tract B, on 19.8f acres
located on the west side of Custer Road, 100f feet north of First Street. The property is zoned
• Planned Development-9. (D08-9).
2e. Consider and act upon a conveyance plat of Prosper Trails Office Center, Block A, Lots 1-4, on
4.5f acres located on the southwest corner of Prosper Trail and Coit Road. The property is
zoned Office. (D08-15).
Ruark pulled item from Consent Agenda.
Comnussioner Dixon arrived.
Commission Discussion
Ritnrk: Posed questions regarding trails, screening, lighting, and who the tenants would be.
Applicant
Seth Kelly: Informed Commission the plans did meet the ordinance. Noted the property on the south
property line would have a masonry fence, while on the southwest corner, a large granite wall similar that
which is currently there, will be constructed between the properties. Continued, saying the adjacent property
screening wall was six to seven feet higher than the screening would be on the lots being developed, and the
tenants for three lots are undecided, while one lot would be a golf tenant.
• Motioned by Ruark, seconded by Dupont to approve item. Motion approved 7-0.
Page 2 of 7
REGULAR AGENDA
3. A public hearing to consider and act upon an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 3,
Sections 1 and 2) creating a definition and development standards for a Wind Energy System.
(Z08-9).
Staff Summary
Copple: Began with a brief summary of amendment description and reminded Commission that the topic
was briefly discussed at the April 15, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting where Charles
Crumply gave a presentation on the subject. Recited amendment criteria and recommended approval.
Motioned by Johnson, seconded by Ruark to open public hearing. Motion approved 7-0.
Commission Discussion
Ruark: Inquired as to whether there exists a type of technology that can limit the wind energy system's
visibility and if such a system would require additional homeowner liability insurance. Conveyed his
support for the draft amendment.
DeMattia: Concerned about `real life' application for residents and that the amendment may pertain to less
than five percent of the typical lots in Town. Recalled from April 15"' meeting that each turbine was a
acre minimum lot size and a single turbine could only power a 2,000 square foot home. Inquired the
• following: 1) allowance of a wind turbine in an HOA and whether HOA would have existing documents that
would govern such a system, 2) if a wind turbine would yield a 40% reduction on electric consumption on a
home of 3,500 or 4,000 square feet, and 3) what the average cost of a 50 foot turbine would be. Requested
for staff to consider the following amendment revisions: 1) two acre minimum per wind turbine, 2) address
issues surrounding cost and enforceability, 3) tighten language in regards to abandonment, responsibility,
installation and maintenance.
Gallop: Concerned that a residence on the market with a wind turbine would lose its sale appeal and/or
value, and could be construed by potential home buyers as a negative. Inquired to the applicant if he had
ever witnessed a scenario such as this, and what the removal process was for a wind turbine. Also concerned
that one, possibly two turbines would affect the quality of living for a neighboring household.
Dupont: Noted the output from a wind turbine would be between 400 and 700 kilowatts per month, and an
average 2,000 square foot home consumes approximately 1,000 kilowatts per month. Requested for staff to
consider the following amendment revisions: 1) tightening of regulations more so than what the
manufacturer suggests, 2) to treat turbines similar to aerobic septic systems in that UL, IEEE, and FAA
approval is needed, 3) requirement for wind turbines to conform to the uniform building code, 4)
mechanisms to ensure the installer is factory trained, licensed/certified, and bonded, 5) requirement for an
annual maintenance agreement of the wind turbine and that maintenance is performed by a certified installer,
6) specifics on where wind turbines can and cannot be placed on a property, and 7) regulations on prohibition
of decorative items on wind turbine. Stated that in discussions with staff, some items fall under the
responsibility of the Town Building Official, and suggested to the Commission to table the item until the
• Commission has received written guidelines and discussed issues with the Town Building Official. Pointed
out that should a subdivision not wish to have wind turbines within, they would govern the issue through
their CCRs or through their HOAs.
Page 3 of 7
Dixon: Concerned that a residence with a turbine would eliminate a neighboring residence's opportunity to
• install a wind turbine due to distance, acreage per wind turbine, setbacks, etc. Requested from staff that a
consideration in regards to setbacks be given.
Johnson: Asked for consideration in limiting the number of wind turbines per lot to only one turbine. Stated
that he is not in favor of several turbines on a '/z acre lot, but is in favor of adoption of an ordinance
amendment, and agreed on a one acre minimum.
Jones: Voiced in favor of an ordinance amendment. Requested to see more examples from other similar
cities, to view more detail on the percentages of residents this ordinance amendment would apply to, and
inquired whether or not that percentage would be lower if the requirements were increased from '/2 acre to
one acre.
Staff Discussion
Copple: Conveyed to Commission that the issue wasn't so much the acres per wine turbine, but was more so
the setbacks not only from the structure and property line, but also from other wind turbines and that the
setbacks themselves would limit the size of the lot in which a wind turbine could be had. Stated the current
setback is dependent on the height of the turbine. Informed Commission of the Town's building permitting
and contractor registration processes through the Building Inspections Department. Confirmed that the draft
amendment will be revised and brought before the Commission in the near future.
• Applicant Discussion
Charles Crtnrzply (WeKnow Technologies): Informed Commission that one system could reduce electric
consumption by forty percent for a 2,000 square foot home (not eliminate it), but for a 3,500 or 4,000 square
foot home, two wind turbines would be recommended. Noted that a sky screen could reduce visibility.
Reported a warranty timeframe for a wind turbine was 5 years, and in regards to insurance, it would depend
on the power company. Conveyed that should a resident or new home buyer want the wind turbine removed,
the foundation would stay, but the poll would be removed, but that he had not witnessed such a scenario.
Added that should a home fall into foreclosure [and power turned off], the turbine would lock rendering it
dormant, and power would have to be restored in order to unlock the turbine. Concerned with setback
requirements from property line and from other wind turbines in how those two issues may limit the lot size
on which a turbine would fit. Informed Commission that the cost of a 50 foot wind turbine would run
approximately $15,000 and a 33 foot turbine would cost approximately $13,000, both on the high end of the
scale, which also includes installation and warranty. Assured Commission that 1) IEEE standards and UL
standards would be met along with many other standards, 2) the mono -pole is specifically engineered to
withstand 90 mile per hour wind speeds, and 3) a wind turbine would be installed in accordance with the
manufacturer's recommendations.
Public Discussion
Dale Clark (Whitley Place): Concerned about the aesthetics, and in turn, the marketability and perhaps the
devaluation of property within the subdivision should the residents of either of the two, one acre lots that lie
on either side of the main drive into the subdivision wish to have a wind turbine installed. Suggested a two
• acre minimum so as to offer enough separation between wind turbines in that, 1) the turbines would not have
the need to be located close to the setback line, and 2) the wind turbine would not be as much in the
Page 4 of 7
neighbor's line of sight as it would be if the minimum was an acre. Appealed to staff and Commission to
gather input from the Developer's Council before draft amendment is revised.
Motioned by Gallup, seconded by Dupont to close public hearing. Motion approved 7-0.
Motioned by Johnson, seconded by Jones to table pending further staff review and input from Town Building
Official. Motion approved 7-0.
4. A public hearing to consider and act upon a request to rezone 202.6f acres, located on the
northwest corner of U.S. 380 and Dallas Parkway, from Single Family-15 (SF-15) to Planned
Development -Mixed Use (PD-M). (Z07-16).
Motioned by Dupont, seconded by Ruark to open public hearing. Motion approved 7-0.
Staff Summary
Began with brief summary of development's four sub -districts. Reported the major attributes of each: 1) the
downtown area with a town center, theater, hotel, and vertical integration of retail, office, restaurant, and
high density residential units, 2) the office park would include small buildings with the primary building
being a twelve story, 180 foot structure, 3) uptown, located to the north, would comprise retail, office, high
density residential units, a large detention pond, and an amphitheater, and 4) the neighborhood retail district
located to the far north of the development would be the typical suburban retail area. Noted that due to the
unique design and its location at U.S. Highway 380 and Dallas Parkway (which is the gateway into the
Town), the applicant proposed detailed development and design standards, some of which do, and some of
which do not conform to the ordinance. Pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance did not incorporate a mixed
use district; therefore specific standards would have to be set. Recited the Future Land Use Plan's
recommendation that this particular area be used for retail, multi -family, office, and integration thereof, and
that it makes a specific recommendation that high density developments be located in close proximity to
retail access and to comprise of no more than twenty percent of the total land area of the Tollway District.
Reminded the Commission that the Future Land Use Plan was a guide for Town growth, and not a rigid code.
Apprised the Commission that currently, five percent of the Tollway District is zoned for multi -family.
Recited portions of the staff report in terms of number of units existing, under construction, and currently
allowed, and informed that the development does following the Comprehensive Plan guideline
recommendations for the Tollway District. Recognized that the applicant submitted a thoroughfare plan, that
is was reviewed and supported by staff. Informed that the zoning request was notified to all property owners
within 200 feet of the subject property in accordance to state law and that a copy of the one response letter
received by the Planning Department has been given to each Commissioner. Staff recommended approval of
the zoning request.
Commission Discussion
DeMattia: Asked staff to confirm (from earlier work sessions) whether development was 188 acres. Asked
applicant for confirmation on: 1) methodologies used, and 2) the total build out projection was
approximately 28,000 for single family, and currently the Town is at approximately 3,000 multi -family units
and with future cases, could be up to 10,000. Concerned that this project would yield 2,900 multi -family
units in itself and asked why this development was designed so dense. Concerned about building materials
and asked staff if a sample of construction materials would be required of the applicant to submit for review.
Also asked staff if a TIA had been performed and if a developers agreement would be drafted.
Recommended to Commission tabling of the item.
Page 5 of 7
Dupont: Cited the plan was for up to twenty percent high density in the Tollway District and that five
percent is already zoned for multi -family. Asked what the percentage would be based on the applicant's
proposal. Also asked how many phases this development would comprise of and voiced concern that
inconsistency would arise in development aesthetics with Prosper having a 12 story structure while one must
travel practically to Beltline Road (soutlibound on the North Dallas Tollway) before seeing a 5 story
structure. Asked applicant if this project will continue to thrive fifteen to twenty years from now.
Ruar-k: Raised questions regarding single family housing and multi -family ratio and what the predicted total
housing was in the Future Land Use Plan and what the ultimate population would be for the Town. Also,
asked applicant about proximity issues regarding the residential units. Commented that once the zoning for
this development is established, it would influence all surrounding zones and developments and that two of
the same development type would not work next to each other.
Dixon: Asked why people would come here instead of going to Plano where major employers are located.
Asked if the restaurants would accommodate enough patio seating, and inquired about sidewalks.
Johnson: Asked how the Town can support two competing town centers, but noted that he would approve
this item as presented by the applicant and recommended by staff.
Gallup: Requested to view more maps and figures in regards to multi -family developments within the Town.
• Staff Discussion
Copple: Responding to Commissioner DeMattia: net acreage was 188, while the gross acreage was 202, and
that the Comprehensive Plan did not recommend single family and multi -family ratios, but did offer build out
projection of 27,932 single family and that currently there exists 3,428 multi -family units. Also informed
Commission that the high density residential style is completely different than typical garden style
apartments and mentioned the discussion on the Future Land Use Plan's multi -family build out is based on
garden style apartments, not vertical integration of mixed uses, of which this project was of. To
Commissioner Dupont, said the applicant proposed eighteen acres of multi -family, which would bring the
total area of the Tollway District used for multi -family to 5.5% - 6%.
Webb: In response to Commissioner DeMattia, noted that the TIA would be addressed later in the
development process, but that at this time, he didn't see any traffic issues. Informed Commission that the
development is in conforniance with the Town's Thoroughfare Plan and that the proposed development had
proper mobility throughout and around the site and explained the logic behind thoroughfare routes and
connectibility success. Continued in adding that U.S. 380 will assist in making the development and its
mobility successful, as future plans include a six lane divided highway with service roads and that TXDOT
and Denton County will work together on the project.
Applicant Discussion
Mike Beaty/Jer-iy Sylo/Garry Pitts: Reiterated some of the points found in the presentation packet given to
the Commission. Noted that the source of information given in presentation was from NCTCOG (North
Central Texas Council of Governments), and that their methodologies differ in that they classify single
Page 6 of 7
family and duplexes as single family, while all other residential dwellings are considered multi -family
(which skewed the numbers a bit). Discussed that obtaining the build out number would be impossible and
that the numbers given were only a projection and were based on the future land use plan which calls for up
to 20% multi -family zoning for the entire Tollway District, of which less than 10% would be from this
development. Narrated methodologies that the applicant's team preformed to ensure a quality and workable
development, citing other metroplex cities in which this type of development thrived and thus developed a
framework, using other metroplex cities' regulations as a guide, and researched what would work and set
Prosper apart. Noting their findings that a balanced mixed use would work, they also noted that if the high
density residential element were removed, the development would be completely different as the residential
aspect allows for after 5:00 pm activity, but without that after 5:00 pm activity, the development becomes
nothing more than a basic strip retail center. Informed Commission that this type of development targets a
certain demographic and appeals to a preferred lifestyle, not affordability as garden -style multi -family units
do. Showed Commissioners renderings of similar developments, including facades, in other cities and how
the density influences each development. Noted that this Prosper location allows for success due to its
separation from Stonebriar Mall in Frisco. Voiced that this project would be a fifteen to twenty year build
out, and to hold the development to today's architectural style would not be advisable as styles will change
throughout the years. Informed Commission that the EDC was attempting to bring major employers to this
northern region of the metroplex. Explained that development of this project would occur in phases and
would be market driven. Also noted that the Town Engineer had secured with TXDOT highway ramps
which is another factor influencing the success of the project.
Motioned by Johnson, seconded by Dupont to close public hearing. Motion approved 7-0.
Motion by Johnson, seconded by Dupont to table item until the June 3, 2008 meeting. Motion approved 7-0.
5. Possibly direct Town Staff to schedule topic(s) for discussion at a future meeting.
No discussion on item.
6. Adjourn.
Motioned by Gallup, seconded by Dupont to adjourn. Motion approved 7-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
Melanie. Videari nin Technician
,-�ng Technic
•
Ronn all* Secretary
Page 7 of 7