Loading...
07.01.2008 P&Z Minutes• • 9 TOWN OF T:: S P E 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 605 E. Seventh Street, Prosper, Texas Prosper Middle School - Library Tuesday, July 1, 2008, 6:00 p.m. Commissioners present included: Chair Mark DeMattia, Vice -Chair George Dupont, Secretary Ronni Gallup, Reno Jones, and Sam Johnson. Jason Dixon and Marcus Ruark were absent. Staff present included: Chris Copple, Senior Planner; and Melanie Videan, Planning Technician. 2. Consider and act upon the appointment of a Chair, Vice -Chair, and Secretary of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Motion by Dupont to nominate Commissioner DeMattia for Chair. Appointment approved 5-0. Motion by Johnson to nominate Commissioner Dupont for Vice -Chair. Appointment approved 5-0. Motion by Johnson to nominate Commissioner Gallup for Secretary. Appointment approved 5-0. 3. Consider and act upon minutes from the following Planning & Zoning Commission meetings: • June 17, 2008 Regular Meeting Motioned by Dupont, seconded by Johnson to approve item. Motion approved 5-0. REGULAR AGENDA 4) A public hearing to consider and act upon a final plat of Whitley Place, Phase 1, Block P, Lots 3R, 4R, 10-12R, being a replat of Whitley Place, Phase 1, Block P, Lots 3, 4, 10-12, on 2.1f acres located on the northeast corner of Chimney Rock Drive and Arches Lane. The property is zoned Planned Development-9. (D08-17). Staff Summary Copple: Briefly summarized location, purpose, history, and zoning of lots of final plat. Noted that the public hearing for this item had been notified to the public according to state law, and recommended approval. Motion by Gallup, seconded by Jones to open the public hearing. Motion passed 5-0. No discussion on the item. Motion by Gallup, seconded by Johnson to close the public hearing. Motion passed 5-0. Page 1 of 5 Motion by Gallup, seconded by Jones to approve item as submitted. Motion passed 5-0. 5. A public hearing to consider and act upon a request to rezone 0.3f acre, located on the north side of First Street, 100f feet west of Field Street, from Single Family-15 (SF-15) to Downtown Office (DTO). (Z08-11). Staff Summary Copple: Briefly summarized staff report. Recited definition and purpose of Downtown Office zoning district. Informed Commission the request to rezone was notified in accordance with state law, and the Planning Department received five reply forms, three of which were in opposition. Noted the zoning request conforms to Future Land Use Plan. Recommended approval. Motion by Johnson, seconded by Gallup to open the public hearing. Motion passed 5-0. Public Discussion Paul Thunderbird: Requested public reply forms mailed to the Planning Department be read. Motion by Dupont, seconded by Gallup to close the public hearing. Motion passed 5-0. Commission Discussion DeMattia: Read comments from reply forms the Planning Department received from the public for Mr. Thunderbird. Asked staff what the Zoning Ordinance allows to be built on the site in terms of redevelopment. Inquired about parking ratios and whether a loop type fire lane would be required with a lot of this size. • Jones: Commented on conformity with Future Land Use Plan and voiced support. • Johnson: Voiced support. Gallup: Voiced support. Dupont: Commented on conformity with Future Land Use Plan. Staff Discussion Copple: Informed Commission that that once a site plan is submitted, the type of structure and amount of parking would be reviewed at that time. Noted the fire lane requirement is typically satisfied by the nearby street. Informed there is a house on the property. Explained that the Downtown Office District does have requirements and architectural standards to ensure structures conform with the style of the surrounding area. Applicant Discussion Aaron Lenhart: Responding to reply forms read, informed Commission there would be no equipment trucks stored on the property, there would only be two employees on site, and there would be no customers visiting the site. Motion by Jones, seconded by Gallup to approve item as submitted. Motion passed 5-0. Page 2 of 5 6. 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: Summarized amendment and history of amendment discussion with the Commission. Also, summarized revisions that were requested by the Commission during the May 20, 2008 Planning & Zoning meeting. Noted that comments from the Prosper Developer's Council (herein called PDC) given to staff had been given to all Commissioners in attendance. Commission Discussion DeMattia: Asked/commented the following to staff: 1) If draft amendment before the Commission this night was similar to the item on the June 24, 2008 Town Council Agenda, 2) If Council had any comments on the item, 3) Would more time be needed to review PDC comments?, 4) If any PDC comments were of concern to staff, and 5) Why the draft amendment didn't expand on abandonment requirements. Inquired about the difference in time frames between the draft amendment and PDC comments. Asked the applicant if the current draft amendment would apply to commercial sites. Conveyed no support for a wind energy farm, and suggested the following revisions to staff: 1) Exclude wind energy farm language, 2) Remove forty foot height restriction, and 3) Revise from one acre minimum to a two acre minimum per wind turbine. Requested the draft amendment be discussed at the next Planning and Zoning meeting. Dupont: To staff, requested the following revisions (citing items in staff report): 1) Item B Add language to refer to residential lots, 2) Item C — Requirement of one acre minimum per wind turbine, 3) Item D — Minimum setback of 110% which is the height of the wind turbine plus 10% of the property width setback (the 10% being a building code requirement), 4) Item I decibel measurements be taken . from the property line not the dwelling unit (as suggested by the PDC), and 5) Item M — additional language be added prohibiting decorative features on wind turbines. Suggested landscape screening requirements for all ground equipment be added to amendment. Commented that the requirement of turbines to be located behind the rear building line of the house was not included in the draft amendment. Asked Mr. Clark (in attendance for Agenda Item 4) about City of McKinney regulations and third party review. Johnson: Preferred not to address the issue of wind energy farms as there is no immediate demand for such. Agreed with PDC on a two acre minimum, but would also support a revision for two units on two acres, as a likely case would arise where a large structure on two or more acres would have need for more than one wind turbine; however, any more than two wind turbines would constitute a turbine farm which is not an agreeable occurance. Asked applicant if the monopole towers could be installed with guy wires and if it is normal to have a turbine without guy wires, as was suggested in the PDC comments. Reno: Preferred a two acre minimum with one turbine per household. Concerned about aesthetic impact versus property values. Voiced a preference to speak with and receive feedback from more citizens and H.O.A.s, and asked Commissioner Gallup her opinions from a real estate point -of -view. Also, asked applicant where the nearest physical example is so he can visit the site. Gallup: Noted she would not consider a wind energy farm, and was not prepared to support this draft amendment; however, if had to support amendment, preferred a two acre minimum, with a limit of one turbine per household. Shared that over the last two weeks, five of the seven potential buyers she spoke with mentioned they would not purchase a property with a wind turbine on it nor would they purchase a property neighboring a property with a wind turbine (due to aesthetics). Believed the aesthetic aspect would decrease home value. Asked Mr. Mousel to share PDC concerns regarding aesthetics, asked the applicant what the cost would be to remove a wind turbine, and asked Mr. Clark his thoughts on the matter. Page 3 of 5 Applicant Discussion Charles Cruniplev/WeKnow Technologies: Believed ordinance amendment written by staff was thorough and acceptable. Informed Commission that the amendment's application to commercial structures cannot be determined as different uses require different types of wind energy systems. Responding to Commissioner Johnson, noted that guy wires were used before 2006, but that monopoles can be erected without them. Suggested additional amendment language stating monopoles are to be engineerd for the wind zone the turbine is located in. Reminded Commission that with turbines meeting setback requirements, from a distance, they would look proportionate to the amount of property they are on. Also noted that the farther one is from an object, the smaller the object. Responding to Commissioner Jones, suggested to Commission to speak with Mary Starrett who resides in Bradford Farms and has a wind energy system on her property. Noted that he has never removed a turbine from a property, but the cost would potentially be $2,500. Public Discussion Doug Mousel/PDC Representative: Noted PDC's main concerns were aesthetics and noise pollution. Regarding aesthetics, referenced Item M in staff report, and was concerned should the manufacturer offer turbine paint/finishes in bright, bold colors, and suggested to staff to add language to address such. Concerned about decibel levels being measured from dwelling units instead of property lines, which he felt the measuring from property lines would be more beneficial to neighboring properties. Commented that suggestions on height restrictions and setbacks from right-of-way lines were intended to minimize negative impacts, not restrict installation of turbines. Believed that language addressing wind energy farms was not necessary, but any turbine farm should be located in an industrial zone with an SUP requirement. Dale Clark/CC Joint Ventures — Whitley Place: Concerns included effects on neighboring properties, • including shadow and strobe light effects. Had no information to offer regarding City of McKinney's stance on the issue. Staff Discussion Copple: Informed that item on Council's agenda was to establish definitions, processes, and building regulations based on Commissioner Dupont's suggestions. Agreed that should suggestions for additional revisions be presented, tabling the item would be an option. Noted that should the issue of energy farms need tending to, tabling the item would be needed to create separate definitions, regulations, and draft amendment. Informed Commission that PDC comments were not given to Town Staff until June 30, 2008. Responding to DeMattia, noted that abandonment and maintenance language is in the building ordinance, and it is preferred to not include such language in the zoning amendment; however, once the building ordinance number is created, it will be added to Item N in the staff report which will reference abandonment issues, but not discuss them in detail. Explained staff's main concern regarding PDC suggestions were maximum height restrictions. Other concerns include setbacks from property lines and from other turbines, where one lives in relation to the sounds a wind energy system may create, where decibel levels would be measured from, and distances of turbines from public right-of-ways. Motion by Dupont, seconded by Johnson to table item until July 15, 2008 Planning & Zoning Meeting. Motion passed 5-0. 7. Possibly direct Town Staff to schedule topic(s) for discussion at a future meeting. • Commission Discussion Dupont: Directed Commission to non-residential standards meeting highlights hand-out. DeMattia: Requested discussion on non-residential standards be placed on next Planning & Zoning agenda. Page 4 of 5 • 9 8. Adjourn. Motioned by Gallup, seconded by Jones to adjourn. Motion approved 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Melanie Y. Videa ing Technician �Ronxai'GSecretary p, Page 5 of 5