07.15.2008 P&Z Minutes•
0
�i
T( VAN OF
PE
1. Call to Order / Roll Call.
The meeting was called to order at 6:03 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 15, 2008, 6:00 p.m.
Commissioners present included: Chair Mark DeMattia, Vice -Chair George Dupont, Secretary Ronni
Gallup, Sam Johnson, Jason Dixon, and Marcus Ruark.
Reno Jones was absent (Prior to meeting, informed Chair he would be absent).
Staff present included: Chris Copple, Senior Planner; and Melanie Videan, Planning Technician.
2a. Consider and act upon minutes from the following Planning & Zoning Commission meetings:
• July 1, 2008 Regular Meeting
Motioned by Gallup, seconded by Johnson to approve item. Motion approved 5-1. Ruark abstained due to
absence from the July 1, 2008 meeting.
2b. Consider and act upon a revised preliminary site plan of Prestonwood Addition, on 127.8f
acres, located on the south side of Prosper Trail, 400f feet east of Dallas Parkway. The
property is zoned Planned Development-33 (PD-33). (D08-20).
Dupont pulled item from Consent Agenda.
Commission Discussion
Dupont: Stated with the addition of the athletic fields, parking remains adequate. Requested staff ensure
adequate parking should structure expand in the future.
Staff Discussion
Copple: Noted the site is currently over parked per the requirements in the zoning ordinance.
Motioned by Dupont, seconded by Ruark to approve item subject to staff recommendations. Motion
approved 6-0.
2c. Consider and act upon a revised site plan and final plat of Prestonwood Addition, Block A, Lot
1, on 36.3f acres, located on the south side of Prosper Trail, 1,600f feet east of Dallas Parkway.
The property is zoned Planned Development-33 (PD-33). (DO8-20).
Dupont pulled item from Consent Agenda.
Discussion on item included in Item 2b discussions.
Motioned by Dupont, seconded by Ruark to approve item subject to staff recommendations. Motion
approved 6-0.
Page 1 of 4
REGULAR AGENDA
3. 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 Suminary
Copple: Summarized staff report noting differences between revised amendment and previous versions of
amendment, which are as follows: 1) Miniinum lot size from one acre to two acres per turbine with two
additional acres for each additional turbine, 2) Increased setbacks from exact height of tower to 1.1 times the
height of tower, 3) Establishment of a minimum setback of 200 feet from a public right-of-way, 4) Sound
measurement from the property line instead of the closest neighboring dwelling unit, 5) Prohibition of
monopoles with guy wires, 6) Prohibition of primary, secondary, or bright colors, 7) Screening of ground
equipment, 8) Prohibition of signs, decorations, banners, and/or flags attached to the system, and 9) Addition
of language prohibiting pooling of energy for multiple properties. Reported Prosper Developer's Council's
(herein called PDC) support of the current draft amendment. Staff recommended approval.
Commission Discussion
DeMattia: Asked staff if the amendment reflects suggestions from the PDC. Suggested approval subject to
the following conditions: 1) One acre lot minimum, 2) Have a maximum number of turbines per lot, 3)
Remove "occupied" from Item D language and revise distance from 1.1 to 1.25 times the height of the tower,
5) Revise Item E to "No wind system in a front yard." Commented that despite the aesthetic issue, he was
prepared to support the amendment, noting his recognition for the need for alternative energy sources.
Dupont: Asked if Item H would also apply to non -dwelling structures, and was concerned about blade
height above a structure whether it be occupied or not. Commented that a subdivision's CCRs could prohibit
the installations of wind turbines. Spoke in favor of the following: 1) One acre minimum per wind turbine
with an additional two acres for each additional wind turbine, 2) Limiting the height of the wind turbine to
the height of the specific zone it would be located in, 3) Item H language revision to refer to all structures.
Debated whether a revision of twenty feet above any obstruction would be positive to the amendment. Noted
the amendment's regulations should not be drafted to cater to any one specific manufacturer.
Ruark: Asked staff to explain the Specific Use Permit (herein called SUP) process. Main concern is for a
neighboring property owner to have the opportunity to voice favor for or against a wind turbine installation
next to their property to the Commission or Council. Asked staff if any mechanism exists other than an SUP
to give such an opportunity to neighboring property owners. Informed Commission he was comfortable with
the 60 foot height limitation, was open for discussion regarding the minimum acreage per wind turbine, and
agreed on a language revision to Item D from "occupied" to "all".
Dixon: Asked staff if an HOA regulation prohibiting a wind turbine would supersede this amendment.
Informed Commission of an article in the Dallas Morning News Business Section which noted wind energy
costs more on average due to mandatory re -starts for conventional methods of energy when wind speeds are
minimal. Suggested turbines be placed in relation to the house, not necessarily the property line. Voiced
support for amendment subject to Item C revision to reflect a minimum lot acreage of 1.5 acres per wind
turbine.
Johnson: In response to Mrs. Atchison's comment on the possible 80% in favor of the ordinance in
Whispering Farms, noted that the Commission's concern was the percentage of Prosper resident's who
would like to prohibit them within Town limits.
Gallup: Recited recommendation from the U.S. Department of Energy on blade height above grade.
Preferred a two acre minimum as this would limit the number of turbines in the Town. Voiced opposition for
the draft amendment based on aesthetics from a real estate perspective.
Page 2 of 4
Staff Discussion
Copple: Explained Item H in more detail. Also explained the SUP process, the notification process, and the
appeals process to Town Council should an SUP be denied by the Commission. Informed the zoning process
is the only other mechanism similar to an SUP that would allow citizens to speak on an issue to the
Commission or Council. Also informed that an HOA regulation prohibiting items would supersede a Town
ordinance which would allow an item. Informed Commssion that should they approved the draft
amendment, it would be placed on the August 12, 2008 Town Council Meeting Agenda.
Public Discussion
Stephen Allphin: Voiced favor for wind energy systems, but voiced opposition for this particular amendment
due to it being too restrictive on citizens. Recited articles, websites, news releases, and quotes from the
following entities who voice favor of wind energy systems, most noting that Texas is the leading state in
wind energy generation: 1) Texas Energy Conservation, 2) Secretary and Assistant Secretary of the
Department of Energy, 3) Texas Land Commission, 4) American Wind Energy Association, 5) Audubon
Society, 6) Texas Tax Code, and 7) Dallas Morning News [March 2007]. Noted that studies have indicated
wind energy systems increase property value, not decrease it.
Tish Atchison: Described past vocation running the United States energy segment at EDS. Spoke in favor of
the amendment with the requested revision from a two acre minimum per wind turbine to a one acre
minimum per wind turbine. Stated that homeowners wanting a wind turbine would still have to conform to
HOA regulations, and requested allowance of wind turbines stating Prosper has the opportunity to "pave the
road" for other cities looking to adopt wind energy ordinances. Informed Commission of T. Pickens pending
future investments in wind energy in Texas. Conveyed belief that approximately 80% of those in
Whispering Farms are in favor of a wind energy amendment. Agreed that a scenario of five turbines on an
acre is not favorable. In response to Commissioner Dixon, offered knowledge on a utility company's limited
• ability to measure energy consumption.
Alan Atchison: Spoke in favor of a wind energy amendment, but requested reconsideration of a one acre
minimum per turbine and public right-of-way setbacks be less than 200 feet. Believed pole height of 50-60
feet should be adequate. Requested favorable vote from Commission on this item.
Stacey Zitntnertnan: Agreed with Comnssioner Gallup on aesthetic issues from a real estate point -of -view
and voiced concern regarding the 60 foot height allowance.
Dale Clark: Spoke in regards to wind energy farms and a need for a grid sometime in the future.
Commented on the use of wind turbines on a commercial level, but has yet to encounter a practicality on a
residential level. PDC would like to prevent the installation of wind turbines on small lots and spoke in favor
of the amendment as it is currently drafted.
Charles Crutnplev/WeKnow Technologies: Noted that wind energy farms with grants do cost more, but
residential wind systems are more cost effective. Requested the height restriction be set at 80 feet as blades
will increase in size, and should the height restriction be set at 60 feet, some of his turbines could not be
installed within Town limits, as they measure 63.4 feet in height. Also, requested revision to Item E
language to not include alleys. Reported that should the height be 20 feet above any wind obstruction, the
turbine would not receive enough wind to operate efficiently. Recited some statistics from the U.S.
Department of Energy and information on wind farm technology.
Motion by Dupont, seconded by Johnson approved item subject to the following revisions:
1. One acre minimum per wind energy system with two additional acres for each additional wind
energy system.
2. Wind energy systems are to not be located in the front yard of a residential lot.
3. Minimum setback distance of 1.25 times the height of the system from a public right-of-way.
Page 3 of 4
4. Delete Item E, which states the setback shall be a distance of 200 feet from all public rights-of-
feways.
Motion approved 4-2. Commissioners DeMattia, Dupont, Ruark, and Johnson voted in favor of
motion. Commissioners Gallup and Dixon voted against motion.
4. Discuss current status of analysis of Town's Non -Residential Development Standards, being
performed by Freese and Nichols.
Commission Discussion
DeMattia: Expressed disappointment that this item is not progressing as planned.
5. Possibly direct Town Staff to schedule topic(s) for discussion at a future meeting.
Commission Discussion
Ruark: Asked Commission and Staff if the amount of time the public may speak should be limited to a fixed
number of minutes for future meetings.
Brief discussion by Commission and Staff on the topic, leaving the possibility open for limitations on
speaking time by the public.
6. Adjourn.
Motioned by Dixon, seconded by Dupont to adjourn. Motion approved 6-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
•
Melanie--Y. Vid an, Pl nning Technician
-� 7
77
Ronni Gaap,, Secre ary
Page 4 of 4