Loading...
01.06.2009 P&Z Minutesn U • PIISPER OWN OF 1. Call to Order / Roll Call. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 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 ISD Central Administration Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 7:00 p.m. Commissioners present included: Chair Mark DeMattia, Vice -Chair George Dupont, Secretary Ronni Gallup, Sam Johnson, Reno Jones, Jason Dixon, and Marcus Ruark. *Commissioner Ruark arrived at 7:11 p.m. after the vote for items 3a and 3c. Staff present included: Hulon Webb, Director of Development Services/Town Engineer; Chris Copple, Senior Planner; and Melanie Videan, Planning Technician. 2. Recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA Motioned by Dupont, seconded by Gallup to approve balance of consent agenda subject to staff recommendations. Motion approved 6-0. 3a. Consider and act upon minutes from the following Planning & Zoning Commission meetings: • December 2, 2008 Regular Meeting 3b. Consider and act upon a preliminary site plan of Hunter Gateway Centre, on 80.7t acres, located on the northeast corner of U.S. 380 and La Cima Boulevard. The property is zoned Planned Development-2 (PD-2). (D08-34). DeMattia pulled item from consent agenda and requested this item be discussed after item six on the Regular Agenda. Staff Summary Copple: Summarized staff report noting the conditions of approval. Recommended approval. Commission Discussion Dupont: Noted that on the preliminary site plan, a Specific Use Permit was not needed for a mini -warehouse use. Asked applicant (Nathan Nash) the certainty he will have a mini -warehouse built within the development given that there is another mini -warehouse slated for development within close proximity. Ruark: Asked Mr. Nash if there is market demand for such a quantity of storage facilities. Also asked applicant if he is aware of the building standards the mini -warehouse competition will be building to. Staff Discussion Copple: Informed Commission that the use of mini -warehouse is an allowable use under Planned Development-2. Page 1 of 6 Public Discussion isNathan Nash (applicant): Informed Commission he is not locked into having a mini -warehouse, however, the demand for such may exist in the future, noting that with current demand down, this type of structure will probably be one of the last to be built. Conveyed he would like to have the flexibility to build a mini - warehouse because they are low maintenance and cost effective to construct. Informed Commission he is unaware of the building standards the other mini -warehouse will be built to. Motioned by DeMattia, seconded by Dupont to approve item subject to staff recommendations and to revise masonry screening wall height from six feet to eight feet. Motion approved 7-0. 3c. Consider and act upon a conveyance plat of Whitley Place -Tract B, Phase 2, Block A, Lot 1 and Walnut Grove Cemetery, Block A, Lot 1 on 28.0± acres, located on the northwest corner of First Street and Custer Road. The property is zoned Planned Development-9 (PD-9) and Single Family-15 (SF-15). (D08-38). REGULAR AGENDA 4. A public hearing to consider and act upon an amendment to the Town's Thoroughfare Plan (Section 13 of the Town's Comprehensive Plan) regarding the alignment of Richland Boulevard and Hillcrest Road. (CA08-01). Staff Summary Webb: Gave Commission background information on this item regarding meeting with developers and property owners, concerns by all parties, and the end result of which is the amendment before the Commission. • Commission Discussion Dixon: Asked staff questions regarding the alignment of Hillcrest Road on both the Prosper and Frisco side of U.S. 380. Ruark: Asked staff questions regarding concerned citizens about Richland Boulevard. Staff Response Webb: Answered Commission questions regarding the alignment of Hillcrest Road and citizen concerns for Richland Boulevard. Motioned by Johnson, seconded by Ruark to open the public hearing. Motion passed 7-0. Public Discussion David Kochalka (representative for property owner Grace Hage): Began with concerns that current alignment will impact the development capability of his client's property in that the current alignment may leave a half acre triangle of land undevelopable. Requested the item be tabled to discuss alignment options of Richland Boulevard with staff. Torn Blaney (resident): Asked questions regarding alignment of Richland Boulevard west of La Cima Boulevard. Nathan Nash (applicant): Introduced self and noted a support for the proposed alignment. . Commission Response Johnson: Asked Mr. Kochalka if he has contacted staff regarding his concerns. Page 2 of 6 Ruark: Asked Mr. Kochalka if he was contacted by the Town regarding the realignment and noted that the letter received by staff by his client appeared inaccurate, as staff did provide adequate notice of the • thoroughfare amendment. Dixon: Asked Mr. Kochalka if there was a property owner between his client and the development. Staff Response Webb: Informed Commission staff had met with Mr. Folsom and Mr. Nash, and did attempt to contact Ms. Hage. Summarized the talking points of said meeting and summarized the results of such. Also noted this amendment is conceptual at this point. At a later date, the alignment will be set once meetings with property owners has concluded. Public Response David Kochalka: Answered Commission in the affirmative that 1) he had contacted staff regarding his concerns, 2) staff had contacted the property owner through standard procedures, and the property owner contacted him to represent her, 3) Mr. Folsom is the property owner between his client's property and the development, and Mr. Folsom did support the Planning & Zoning Commission tabling the item. Nathan Nash: Informed Commission of meeting that took place in August with Mr. Folsom and requested this item not be tabled, as this amendment was slated to be heard at the December 16, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, which was cancelled due to inclement weather. Motion by Ruark, seconded by Gallup to close the public hearing. Motion passed 7-0. Commission Discussion • Jones: Noted his preference to see approval on this item at this time instead of tabling item for a later date. Johnson: Commented that tabling item would not alter the alignment, moving the thoroughfare south is a safe decision, and voiced confidence in staff to work with Mr. Kochalka's client to address her concerns. Gallup: Agreed with Commissioner Jones. Dupont: Asked staff if the thoroughfare will alter between Lovers Lane and Preston Road. Dixon: Asked staff if alignment is adjusted west of Lovers Lane. Ruark.- Asked staff to elaborate on the inclusion of Hillcrest Road in the amendment. Staff Response Webb: Answered Commission that 1) all Town standards regarding alignment will be met, 2) Willow Ridge and the Blue Star development will be the control point, but Richland Boulevard will continue westbound through the Blue Star development, and 3) the inclusion of Hillcrest Road in the amendment is to, A) clean up the Thoroughfare Plan, and B) show the support from the City of Frisco on the proposed alignment. A public hearing to consider and act upon a request to amend Planned Development-2 (PD-2), Sections 1.05 (building height), 1.10 (screening), and 1.12 (parking), located on 80.7t acres on the northeast corner of U.S. 380 and La Cima Boulevard. (Z08-19). . Staff Summary Copple: Summarized amendment and noted meetings were held on December 11, 2008 and December 22, 2008 with the applicant and citizens. Informed notification was given in accordance with state law, and the Page 3 of 6 Planning Department received four public notice reply forms, one in opposition. Recommended approval of this item subject to approval of case number CA08-01 (Thoroughfare Plan Amendment). Motion by Dupont, seconded by Dixon to open public hearing. Motion passed 7-0. Public Discussion Nathan Nash (applicant): Informed Commission staff requested additional restrictions, he agrees with those restrictions, and requested approval. Conveyed the need for Planned Development-2 to remain under the 1984 ordinance as it allows more flexibility for a development of which its style will be determined by the market. Daryl Hoffman (resident): Requested an increase in screening wall height from six feet to eight feet; however, should that option not be available, lower the building height instead. Steve Bell (resident): Requested an increase in screening wall height from six feet to eight feet, restrictions on uses north of Richland Boulevard to office only, and limitations on buildings north of Richland Boulevard to one story. Doug Trumbull (resident): Requested language be added to the planned development amendment in regards to roof pitch. Sundaratn Setau (resident): Spoke of concerns the impact of this development on his property value. Mrs. Norman Gound (resident): Spoke with regards to an eight foot masonry screening wall and concerns of odors from the dumpsters and non -desirable uses north of proposed Richland Boulevard. • Cathy Blo.:is (resident): Asked questions regarding proposed Richland Boulevard with regards to layout, apartments, stop signs and traffic lights, street lights, and speed limit. Commission Response DeMattia: Informed Mr. Nash the Town has revised its non-residential standards of which issues of roof lines are a part of. Asked Mr. Nash is thoughts on the matter. Staff Response Webb: Answered questions posed by the public. Motioned by Johnson, seconded by Jones to close public hearing. Motion passed 7-0. Commission Discussion Ruark: Reminded Commission that if amendment is not approved, Planned Development-2 remains with no restrictions. Asked applicant how he felt about an increase in wall height from six feet to eight feet, and asked whether there was a consensus an eight foot screening wall during his meetings with the citizens. Dixon: Asked staff about a denial scenario of this item given that Commission has already approved the Master Thoroughfare Plan Amendment. Commented that 1) market driven building style can yield undesirable results, 2) an eight foot masonry wall may not make much difference; however, more mature trees such as those planted within the Willow Ridge subdivision along with a wider landscape buffer may have a greater impact on the division of uses, assurance of privacy for the residents, and offer more pleasing • aesthetics to the development. Voiced support of a pitch lined roof. Page 4 of 6 DeMattia.- Asked staff if roof pitch can be addressed under the height section of the amendment. Voiced support of a one story restriction for those structures north of Richland Boulevard. Dupont: Commented the increase in cost for an eight foot screening wall could run approximately $45,000, but that the cost could be spread out to buyers. Asked staff what the ramifications would be should the Commission vote to require an eight foot screening wall. Noted that a restriction of one story structures north of Richland Boulevard could allow an opportunity for restaurant uses which would increase weekend traffic and more offensive odors close to residences. Allowing a two story structure north of Richland Boulevard could encourage office use which could lessen the residents' concerns. Gallup: Commented on a preference of an eight foot screening wall verses a six foot wall. Johnson: Commented that more than likely, most residents would prefer an eight foot wall over a six foot wall, and for the developer, the issue is not as important as it is to the residents living along Amistad Drive. Jones: Agreed with Commissioners Johnson and Gallup regarding the construction of an eight foot screening wall. Staff Response Copple: Informed Commission of the following: 1) Staff recommended a six foot masonry screening wall as this is our current standard in the Town's zoning ordinance, 2) Should the Commission choose to deny approval of this item, the applicant or Town staff could be directed to appeal the denial and recommend approval to the Town Council, 4) Development will occur under the 1984 Zoning Ordinance as stated in Planned Development-2; therefore, the only items of which can be acted upon are those items which were noticed to the public. • Public Response Nathan Nash (applicant): Answered Commission with the following: 1) Is not in favor of an eight foot increase in screening wall height as this would increase the cost of development, 2) no consensus at the meetings with the citizens were drawn, and 3) A one story restriction would hinder development as it would impose restrictions that are out of line with Town ordinances. Offered to develop an eight foot screening wall. Motioned by Gallup, seconded by Johnson to approve item subject to staff recommendations and a revision to Planned Development-2, Section 1.10 (screening) to reflect a masonry screening wall of eight feet instead of six feet. Motion approved 7-0. 6. Discuss the Town's requirements related to Non -Conforming Uses and Structures (Chapter 1, Section 7 of the Zoning Ordinance). Commission Discussion Commissioners Dupont, Dixon, Gallup, and DeMattia: Discussed this item briefly and when it will be seen by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Staff Discussion Webb and Copple: Briefly discussed topic and when the Commission will next see this item on the Agenda. Possibly direct Town Staff to schedule topic(s) for discussion at a future meeting. • Commission Discussion Commissioners DeMattia, Dixon, and Dupont: Asked questions to staff regarding planned development amendments and the Planning & Zoning's authority over such matters. Page 5 of 6 Commissioner Johnson: Asked staff questions regarding the progress of the Forest City development. Staff Discussion Copple: Answered Commission questions. 8. Adjourn Motioned by Gallup, seconded by Dixon to adjourn. Motion approved 7-0. Meeting was adjourned at 8:51 p.m. Melanie Y. Videan, Plarfning Technician FJ • retary Page 6 of 6