Loading...
06.17.2008 P&Z Minutes1. Call 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, Reno Jones, Sam Johnson, Jason Dixon, and Marcus Ruark. Secretary Ronni Gallup was absent. Staff present included: 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 meetings: • June 3, 2008 Regular Meeting Motioned by Dupont, seconded by Johnson to approve item. Motion approved 6-0. • REGULAR AGENDA 3. Consider and act upon a preliminary site plan of the Prosper Independent School District Bus Yard, Maintenance Facility, and Small Animal Building on a 73.8f acre tract, located north of the existing Prosper Middle School, south of the existing agriculture building. The property is zoned Single Family-15. (D08-8). Staff Summary Copple: Summarized preliminary site plan noting access had been proposed by the applicant off of Seventh Street and Eighth Street, and the proposed parking was adequate. Directed Commission to two main concerns given in staff report. First concern was access to the property. Due to the current access situation, having access to Seventh and Eighth Streets with no cross access provided, the buses would have to travel Seventh and Eighth Streets each time a trip to and from the bus yard would be made. Informed Commission that Seventh and Eighth Streets are 20 foot wide asphalt roads designed for residential traffic, not heavy amounts of bus traffic. Continued to say that the roads' turning radii are also designed for passenger vehicles, not buses, and added there are no sidewalks to carry pedestrian traffic. Recited one standard of approval for a preliminary site plan per the Zoning Ordinance is safety and efficiency of vehicular and pedestrian circulation, traffic control, and congestion mitigation. Noted staff's recommendation to construct a drive west from the bus yard to an existing drive that extends north from Church Street. The proposed route would lead buses north through the school's property to Eagle Lane and continue west to Coleman Street. Staff s second concern was screening. Recited zoning ordinance in that unless otherwise approved by the Commission, school district bus yards must be screened using either an ornamental fence with a living screen or a brick wall with trees every 20 feet. Noted the current plan had the proposed bus yard being screened by a 6 foot vinyl coated chain link fence without a landscape screen. Explained that neighborhoods surrounding the bus yard were residential uses and buildings; old downtown residential to the southwest, Stonecreek to the southeast, and single family to the east directly behind the bus drive Page 1 of 6 and maintenance facility. Noted two standards for approval of a preliminary site plan are: 1) Affects of proposed use on adjacent properties and land use, and 2) The use of landscaping and screening to isshield light, noise, movement, and/or activity from adjacent properties and to complement the design and location of buildings and parking. Staff recommended to applicant to show one of the two options for screening provided in the zoning ordinance; however, the applicant decided not to provide any screening other than the 6 foot vinyl coated chain link fence. Noted the fence would not adequately screen the bus yard or maintenance facility from the surrounding residential uses. Informed Commission that although staff made recommendations to the district in order to bring the preliminary site plan to the Commission which meets the standards of approval per the zoning ordinance, the District has declined to comply; therefore staff could not support the preliminary site plan as submitted. Noted four conditional approval items (staff recommendations to the applicant) in staff report that were given to the District, and with these conditions met, staff would recommend approval. Town staff recommended approval of the preliminary site plan subject to: 1) The applicant revising the preliminary site plan showing the construction of a drive providing cross access to Coleman Street in order to meet the standard of approval based on "safety and efficiency of vehicular and pedestrian circulation, traffic control, and congestion mitigation" per the Zoning Ordinance, 2) The applicant revising the preliminary site plan providing one of the two screening options per the Zoning Ordinance in order to screen the bus yard from the adjacent residential properties and to meet the standards of approval based on "affect on adjacent property and land use" and "use of landscaping and screening to shield lights, noise, movement or activities from adjacent properties and to complement the design and location of buildings and parking.", 3) Fire Department approval of all fire hydrants and fire lanes including widths, radii, construction materials, and 4) Town Engineer approval of preliminary water, sewer, and drainage plans. Commission Discussion Ruark: Asked staff the following questions: 1) If the proposed traffic route [by staff] would be more • capable of carrying bus traffic than Seventh and Eighth Streets?, 2) If the last two recommendations to the District in the staff report are sufficient reasons to deny request?, and 3) what the appeal process of the Town was in response to a Commission denial? To the applicant asked the following: 1) Why that particular site was selected, noting that ingress and egress issues are one of the most important aspects of site selection, 2) Whether the animal building was for small animals or was just a small building, 3) What type of animals would be housed in the building?, and 4) If it was typical for Districts to be represented at Planning and Zoning meetings by the consultant. Commented that Prosper's regulations are in place to guide the look and feel of the Town and why people want to live here and not be surprised by something suddenly next to their house that wasn't there originally. Felt uncomfortable for the citizens on Seventh and Eighth Streets with all the bus activity. Spoke in objection to the fence. Suggested to Commission to either table the item until the school district could send a District representative to a Planning and Zoning meeting to answer questions and justify their non-compliance with staff recommendations, or to deny the preliminary site plan until the District could match the zoning currently in place. Voiced that to him, it didn't feel right to vote favorably for the preliminary site plan as submitted, but noted he would consider voting to approve the item subject to staff's conditions for approval. DeMattia: Asked the following of the applicant: 1) Why there was no compliance with staff recommendations?, 2) If the road proposed by staff was acceptable?, 3) What the trip estimation down Seventh and Eighth Streets are?, 4) If the screening issue was based on budgetary reasons?, 5) Why the preliminary site plan is being brought before the Commission so late in the process since timing for the District on this project is important?, and 6) If the district had any preference regarding tabling the item until staff and the District could come to an agreement versus a vote? Suggested to Commission to approve the item subject to staff's recommendations/conditions. • Dixon: Asked the following of the applicant: 1) How many buses did the District currently have?, 2) If the District had considered locating this bus yard to a site along a larger, major thoroughfare?, 3) If Page 2 of 6 the applicant was in competition with another firm for doing this multi -purpose facility?, and 4) If the • District had considered taking Eagle Lane due east instead of winding around; thereby safety being less of a concern?, and 5) If the District planned on keeping the existing building? Voiced that he hadn't heard a definitive reason for non-compliance with staff's recommendations, and that the District was asking for a number of concessions. Responded to Ruark that the animal facility was probably for Future Farmers of America. Asked staff the following: 1) If the metal building met code?, and 2) If there was an entrance/exit off of Coleman Street (i.e. a circular drive in front of the existing high school). Asked Commission if any of them had been addressed by any school board members. Suggested tabling the item. Dupont: Explained to applicant the purpose of Commissioner appointments. Cited the preliminary site plan did not conform to the downtown residential zoning district and did not conform to the ordinance (speaking in regards to the chain link fence and the landscape screening). Also noted it did not conform to the thoroughfare plan in that buses would travel a 20 foot wide street that is 4 inches thick and was designed for car traffic, not bus traffic. Noted there were no curbs, no sidewalks, and if two buses were going in opposite directions at the same time, they would have to drive on front lawns and that turning onto Seventh and Eighth Streets, buses would eventually cause the culverts to collapse. Also stated that commercial traffic would begin at 6:00 am through an existing residential neighborhood. Asked applicant about security lighting, noting that the first time something would be broken into, high poles with security lighting would want to be installed and questioned the applicant if the District would be willing to conform to the Town's residential lighting ordinance? Commented that if the District had come to the Town approximately four months earlier when the residential project south of where the tennis courts are now was being developed, the Town may have required the developer to put in a street that would have ran parallel all the way up, and it would have been at no cost to the District or the Town. Asked the applicant why the District couldn't use thirteen acres they • pulled from a 70 acre proposal the County made to the District for a park system for this maintenance facility, citing that the idea was for the bus barn to be centrally located and near the new high school which has a central location. Questioned the applicant on suggestion and a suggestion of using a property north of FM 1461 in Celina which would still be in PISD, and was zoned commercial/industrial, which would be more appropriate to the use and FM 1461 would be a 6 lane divided highway which would provide better access for buses. Noted to the current plan, in back of the current high school, the parking lot is fairly large and when it becomes a middle school, not as much parking would be needed; therefore, could the District re-route the road by going through the existing parking lot, putting the road on their property, and the District would be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the road due to the damage over time by buses which could be as high as 120 round trips per day at 60 buses total. Mentioned that 120 round trips a day on the Town's roads is not a favorable solution. Didn't agree that there would be no impact on the Town's budget. Also noted that by using Seventh and Eighth Streets, the Town would, instead of providing a regular upgrade, there would have to be a higher standard for the roads and the Town was going to have to continue to maintain those roads as the buses would break them down. Voiced no support for this item as submitted; however, he would consider the following: 1) If there were consideration by the District to allieviate concerns and return to the Commission, he would support tabling item, or 2) Willing to approve the plan with conditions, but requested item one also include language that notes to the effect of not using Seventh or Eighth Streets or any existing residential street. Would also like a condition added of conformance to the Town Lighting Ordinance concerning overhead security lighting in a residential neighborhood and any other applicable Town ordinances. Johnson: In regards to the screening issue, commented that the budgetary issue of the screening was not agreeable to him and felt it inappropriate to the taxpayers, noting a high amount of school taxes are paid and a quality product should be given. Asked applicant why this item was before the Commission if discussions are still ongoing. Asked the applicant if a more favorable plan could be presented at the next Commission meeting should the item be tabled. After much discussion, voiced he would support denial rather than tabling so the issues at hand could be resolved in some fashion. Page 3 of 6 • Jonas: Agreed with staff and Commission members that the roads were not designed for this intended use. Commented to the applicant that screening is of importance in the Town and that it should be considered more in depth by the District. Voiced support to deny item. All Commissioners answered that they had not been approached by any school board members. Applicant Discussion Chris Schmitt/Teague Nall & Perkins: In response to Ruark: 1) PISD only informed him that the site was selected because it was already their property, and they wouldn't have to acquire any property, 2) The building would house small animals, but it is also a small building which would be behind the main building, 3) Confirmed it was not uncommon for consultant to be sent to Planning and Zoning meetings by the District, but on occassion, a district representative would attend. In response to DeMattia: 1) Noted ongoing discussions between PISD, Town Staff, and Town Council, 2) Two meetings with staff and a joint session with Council took place to discuss the roads' issue, and there was discussion between Council and Staff to consider alternate access points once a certain number of trips per day began; however, no firm decision had been made in any meeting, 3) A scenario of 18-20 buses was mentioned, but no one had validated that number. At build out, the parking currently provides for up to 37 buses, with ultimately 50 buses possibly in service. Staff's recommendation of the alternate alignment concerned the District with running traffic through the campus. At this time, the road issue was still under consideration between Town Council and PISD, and PISD had not authorized him [applicant] to negotiate terms of approval, 4) Screening was a budget issue. Allocating such a large amount of money towards the recommended screening on the north and south sides was believed to not really screen the immediate residential use. Given the property's location, the need to do wrought iron or a brick wall seemed unnecessary for this use. Agreed with staff that on the east side of property, there was consideration by the District for a living screen of some kind. The District had understanding of the ordinance and its purpose for screening (particularly for this intended use); however, he [the consultant] had not been instructed by the District to show such screening on the plan at this time, 5) In regards to construction, there was a timing issue. The drawings were complete, the contractor had been hired, and the District was working through permitting options on the building, but the District had given him [consultant] no reason why the Commission was presented with the preliminary site plan late in the process, and 6) Stated an understanding that action was needed in order for the process to move forward should the Commission deny the preliminary site plan. Tabling the item would delay their appeal process. In response to Dixon: 1) Currently there were six buses in service, but as the population of the district increases, so would the need for the number of buses, 2) Noted that they were not in competition at this site with another firm, 3) The proposed alignment in Town Staff's recommendation was in response to the original location north of the football field which was too costly to the District and would put the road very close to the north side of the stadium, approximately 3-5 feet off of the 24 foot road which the District is proposing for fire land access, and 4) Attached to the main building, there are currently some pens being demolished. The proposed building would replace those pens. In response to Johnson: Answered that should the item be tabled, the District would probably not return with a different preliminary site plan, that they would probably return with the same plan. Page 4 of 6 M General: Informed Commission the District understands that any improvement on the site would be subject to permitting whether the modifications be to the inside or outside of the is building(s). Staff Discussion Copple: Informed Commission the District would have to follow the site plan process to receive their building permit and the zoning ordinance had standards of approval for site plans. Noted the staff report informed why the proposed preliminary site plan did not meet the standards for approval. In regards to voting versus tabling the item, recommended that based on the time frame of the District to receive a building permit, the Commission take action on the item rather then tabling so in the case of denial, the appeal process could begin. Recited the zoning ordinance in that conditions for a school district maintenance building may be metal with an approved SUP; however, after discussions with the Town Attorney, the Town was recommended not to enforce the SUP on building materials because it would not be an issue associated with health, safety, or welfare. Webb: Informed Commission that the route to Coleman is an existing 24 foot concrete fire lane, and noted one alternative route of which the buses could enter through Coleman Street, loop around to drop off, and circle back out through the parking lot on Coleman Street. Motion by Dupont, seconded by Johnson to deny item as submitted. Motion passed 5-1. After motion, Commissioner DeMattia requested a notation on his preference for a motion to approve item subject to staff s recommendations. 4. Consider and act upon a site plan of the Prosper Independent School District Bus Yard, . Maintenance Facility, and Small Animal Building on a 73.8f acre tract, located north of the existing Prosper Middle School, south of the existing agriculture building. The property is zoned Single Family-15. (D08-18). Staff Summary Copple: Noted that since PISD did not have an approved preliminary site plan, the District could not receive approval on the final site plan; therefore, staff recommended denial. Motioned by Dupont, seconded by Jones to deny item. Motion passed 6-0. Possibly direct Town Staff to schedule topic(s) for discussion at a future meeting. Commission Discussion DeMattia: Asked that at Commissioner Dupont's discretion, he share his findings and the status of the Non - Residential Design Standard Committee, as he [Dupont] is the Planning and Zoning Representative for that Committee. Dupont: Asked staff regarding super majority vote process. Johnson: Asked staff the status of the Wind Energy System ordinance amendment status. Staff Discussion Copple: Informed the Commission there is not a requirement for a super majority vote for a preliminary site plan, but there is one for a zoning case in which only four votes would be needed to overturn the Commission's vote. Also informed Commission that the Wind Energy System ordinance amendment is Page 5 of 6 moving forward with permitting regulations along with other recominendations by the Commission, and an anticipated return date to the Commission is set for July 1, 2008. 6. Adjourn. Motioned by Johnson, seconded by Ruark to adjourn. Motion approved 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Melanie Y. Vi can, /1ajnning Tech- R 1 Ua V'Secretary Page 6 of 6