06.03.2008 P&Z Minutes1. Call to Order / Roll Call.
The meeting was called to order at 6:03 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: Mike Land, Town Manager; Hulon Webb, Director of Development Services/Town
Engineer; Chris Copple, Senior Planner; and Melanie Videan, Planning Technician.
2. Consider and act upon minutes from the following Planning & Zoning Commission meeting:
• June 3, 2008 Regular Meeting
Motioned by Dupont, seconded by Ruark to approve item subject to revision to motion for approval on item
three from "table item indefinitely" to "table pending further staff review and input from Town Building
Official". Motion approved 7-0.
0 REGULAR AGENDA
3. A public hearing to consider and act upon a request to rezone 1.6f acres, located on the southwest
corner of First Street and Craig Road, from Downtown Single Family (DTSF) to Downtown Office
(DTO). (Z08-8).
Staff Summary
Copple: Staff summarized zoning case saying the downtown office district provides for a variety of
uses for local residents. Noted the Future Land Use Plan shows office uses for these particular
properties. Informed that notification was given in accordance with state law, and four replies from the
public were received, three of which were in opposition, one not in opposition. Recommended
approval.
Commission Discussion
DeMattia: Asked staff if PISD had commented on the zoning request.
Dixon: Asked staff if standards for current structures would change if zoning request granted.
Dupont: Asked staff how soon the applicant planned on using the building.
Page 1 of 5
Staff Discussion
iCopple: Answered that PISD had not commented on zoning request. Explained the process the
property owner would have to abide by should the structure and/or site expand or be altered in that a
site plan would be required to be presented to the Commission for approval. Was unaware of
applicant's time frame, adding the applicant was not present to answer questions.
Motioned by Dupont, seconded by Dixon to open public hearing. Motion approved 7-0.
Public Discussion
Michael Carter: Was not in favor of mixing uses at this time, and believed the zoning request would disrupt
balance and order. Concerned about impact the potential uses for the building would have on the
surrounding neighborhood and that some potential uses could require a fair amount of parking and hours of
operation late into the evenings. Was also concerned regarding current widths of both roadways and how the
roadways would handle traffic generated by potential uses. Suggested that rezoning of the properties be
delayed until completion of the proposed improvements per the Thoroughfare Plan for that area.
Motioned by Gallup, seconded by Dupont to close public hearing. Motion approved 7-0.
Commission Discussion
Rivark: Asked staff if there was a schedule for completion of the proposed improvements per the
Thoroughfare Plan. Assured Mr. Carter the Commission would address concerns of parking, late hours of
operation, and traffic at the time a site plan would be under their [the Commission] consideration, as well
would issues regarding proper lighting and screening so as to retain the balance and order he [Mr. Carter]
desires.
Dixon: Acknowledged the narrow road width was of concern.
Dupont: Stated the request to downtown office would limit what uses would be allowed and noted the
building would not be for multi -use commercial and it's also limited to a residential type structure. Agreed
that codes, ordinances, and guidelines are in place to ensure proper use and development of the property and
voiced favor for the request to rezone.
Gallup/Johnson: Had no objections to rezone request.
Jones: Had no objection to rezone request, but did want to hear from the property owner.
Motioned by Dupont, seconded by Johnson to approve item. Motion approved 7-0.
4. 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).
Staff Summary
Copple: Summarized data prepared by staff and given to Commission (as per their request at previous
meeting) on multi -family development projections and zoning locations for high density residential units in
the Town. Noted applicant's submittal of phasing plan for uptown and downtown subdistricts and revised
language to the development and performance standards of the high density residences in the downtown and
uptown subdistricts, and that no other exhibits had been altered. Recommended approval.
Page 2 of 5
Applicant Summary
. Michael BeatWerty Sylo: Summarized questions/requests from previous Comnssion meeting on
residential unit counts and explained methodology used to reduce residential units by 101. Also informed of
the phasing plan put in place and that the plan was a best guess five years henceforth subject to the market.
Added that the downtown district timing was dependant on the town hall location. Also gave Commission
information regarding the newly developed performance standards and assured Commission that leasing
language would be given to staff. Noted the new uptown renderings show concepts of the lake, landscaping,
and framing of the amphitheater, and that what the project data totals were based on. Also informed of the
downtown phasing of which phase three was previously overlooked and came to an additional 31,610 square
foot of retail.
Commission Discussion
DeMattia: Stated if Prosper West approval granted, that would suggest approximately 32,000 residential
units in the Town of Prosper, of which 25% would be high density (townhome and multi -family). Asked
applicant two questions: 1) What the impact of 2,800 multi -family units would be on the Town, and 2) How
many stories of multi -family units the project would have. Also, requested the applicant prove why 2,800
apartment units were needed/necessary. Noted that four stories of multi -family (instead of five stories)
would take out approximately 25% of the units, and asked applicant to consider: 1) reducing the number of
floors, and 2) eliminating apartments in the uptown section completely. Noted there are many office parks
around water features and could the applicant put office buildings around the lake. Offered support of
project on condition of compromise in regards to the number of residential units. Requested language
amendment to reflect all phases reach leasing threshold, and suggested language such as bonified, arms
length, commercially reasonable, and/or third party leases be used. Also asked applicant if phasing lines
• could change once development occurs if zoning request approved.
Dupont: Commented that he looked at this high density residential aspect with the philosophy that it would
attract empty nesters and young professionals, keeping in mind that these residences would house two people
per unit, where garden apartments would house possibly 2.8 people per unit. Pointed out that this project
would have 2,800 units of high density residential units on 188 net acres, compared to The Shops of Legacy
which has 3,500 units on 150 acres, adding that this project contained more acreage, and therefore, a little
lower density would result more so than The Shops at Legacy. Believed the phasing plan helped to solve
some of the concerns, but reminded Commission that the future of this project would be market driven. Also
voiced that because this type of development is being located at the Tollway Corridor, and not a different
Prosper location, it changes perspective on this particular project due to Tollway Corridor being a specialized
district. Noted that if the buildings were lowered to four stories, the unit number would be reduced to 2,100
and losing 700 units in the big picture wasn't that much. Voiced support for project.
Ritark: Asked staff what their methodology was in obtaining final analysis figures and mentioned that 30%
seemed high for multi -family when viewing things as a whole, but was not concerned with the 70/30% split,
agreeing data given in the charts cited cities that are not yet at build out. Commented that three concerns
associated with multi -family developments include schools, crime, and traffic, with crime and traffic being
localized issues surrounding multi -family areas; however, due to the location and scope of this project, did
not believe these issues would evolve into problems in the future. Commented that project appeared to be a
self contained town and voiced favor. Asked applicant to go through some of the non-residential standards
and if he'd [applicant] be open to discussion regarding such. Examples given were stucco, reducing
reflectivity of windows from 20% to 10%, grey brick mortar, secondary materials such as cedar and/or
decorative wood, and color. Also, asked applicant how much the building standards changed from one
subdistrict to the next.
Page 3 of 5
Joncs: Spoke in favor of project and the suggestion to lower the residences by one story, but was concerned
about the 30% future build out projection in the Future Land Use Plan. Reported that he observed other
cities such as Coppell, Fairview, Highland Park, and Southlake (cities with similarities to Prosper) pride
themselves on a low number of multi -family structures.
Johnson: Commented that crime could be of concern in approximately ten years, citing older, inatured cities
as examples. Pointed out that the charts showed what was current, and to get a true representation, a look at
the more matured cities would be needed. Though he shared concern about the number of apartment units,
he commented that this was a completely different concept and again citied examples of similar
developments in other cities. Voiced the importance of the retail aspect beneath the residences, that said
aspect would need to be protected, and should retail space become vacant, it would be important that they do
not stay as such for a long periods of time.
Gallup: Preferred to have more accurate numbers, and agreed that this development was different from
garden apartments. Liked the suggestion to lower the number of stories by one; however, was unsure if that
approach would solve the issue of unit numbers. Spoke in favor of locating residential buildings around the
lake, instead of office buildings, noting that people would not benefit from the lake if an office park
surrounded it.
Dixon: Main concern was the number of apartments. Noted the exhibits given by staff raised concern
regarding the visual aspect from U.S. 380 which could display mostly townhomes and apartments. Noted
that the town hall element was almost an entire phase equating to approximately 15% of the whole project,
and asked the applicant if garden apartments could replace the town hall, should the that element be
removed. Also mentioned that The Shops at Legacy are successful mainly because of the business aspect
and was concerned about the necessity for the demographics this project might attract.
• Applicant Discussion
Mike Beaty/Jerry Svlo: Noted that the intent was to have this development be a hub for all of Prosper, not
just the Prosper West residents. Stated that in metroplex office parks with a body of water as the focal
feature, the working populations generally do not take advantage of it, which is why the residences are near
the water (so residents can enjoy it). In regards to four stories versus five stories, commented that the 130
million dollar investment during the first phase would best be utilized using the maximum efficiency of the
building code standards. Showed photo samples of buildings to be used as a guide for this project and told
Commission on their [the applicant] preference of building orientations in relation to the roadways to
enhance the visibility and presence of the development. Noted that the preference was for downtown to be
built out and the first floor leased before beginning the uptown. Agreed to modify language. Responded that
the Planned Development ordinance for this location would not permit residential units without a mixed use
on the first floor; therefore, garden style apartments would also not be permitted. Informed Commission that
the town hall is the signature portion/focal point for the project. Agreed that 10% reflectivity would be
acceptable. Requested to not discuss color or brick mortar at this time as trends in those items would change
over time or by the time construction occurs, and informed that the uptown and downtown are practically
identical as far as building materials, that there would be little differences in window amount percentages,
but that there will be a cohesive theme throughout the development so materials would be used throughout
the project.
Staff Discussion
Copple: Responding to Commissioner Ruark, explained methodology used in obtaining final figures for
• multi -family analysis in that staff started with what had been platted, and with those properties that hadn't
been platted, checked their zoning, and for those not zoned, checked the Comprehensive Plan. Also noted
that other than the stucco, the proposed building materials in front of the Commission was the same as the
non-residential guideline proposal sent to Town Council.
Page 4 of 5
Motioned by Johnson, seconded by Ruark to approve item subject to the following conditions:
1. Update performance zoning language as submitted and attached to staff report.
2. Revise window reflectivity from 20% to 10%.
3. Evidence of the lease up of no less than 75% of the current phase of Residential Units available
4. Leasing language that verifies the leases are third -party, arms -length, bona fide commercial and
residential leases
5. Include all revised exhibits submitted by the applicant.
6. Revise to reflect stucco should be at a minimum height of nine feet.
Motion failed 3-4. Commissioners Johnson, Ruark, and Dupont voted in favor of motion. Comnissioners
DeMattia, Gallup, Dixon, and Jones voted against motion.
After first motion failed, discussion between Commission and Applicant on how to reduce the overall
number of units. Applicant opposed reducing the number of stories from four to five and strongly suggested
keeping the downtown subdistrict as designed for viability of the project.
Second motion to approve item:
Motioned by Gallup, seconded by Ruark to approve item subject to the following conditions:
1. Update performance zoning language as submitted and attached to staff report.
2. Revise window reflectivity from 20% to 10%.
3. Evidence of the lease up of no less than 75% of the current phase of residential units available
4. Leasing language that verifies the leases are third -party, arms -length, bona fide commercial and
residential leases
5. Include all revised exhibits submitted by the applicant.
6. Revise to reflect stucco should be at a minimum height of nine feet.
7. Reduce units in uptown subdistrict to 400 residential units and reduce units in downtown subdistrict
to 2,000 residential units.
Motion approved 7-0.
Possibly direct Town Staff to schedule topic(s) for discussion at a future meeting.
Commission Discussion
DeMattia: Requested update on resolution at Town Council to move forward on cost analysis.
Staff Summary
Mike Land: Informed Commission that Council approved spending funds for a five member group to
participate in the analysis hosted by Freese and Nichols which is to be conducted in July 2008. Also noted
that the analysis is not intended to recommend changes to what is already in place.
6. Adjourn.
Motioned by Gallup, seconded by Johnson to adjourn. Motion approved 7-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p.m.
Melanie Y. Videan, arming Technician
Ronni Gallup, Secretary
Page 5 of 5