Loading...
Agenda Packet P&Z 04/03/2008Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 1 of 134 Town of Trophy Club Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Session Agenda 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262 Thursday, April 3, 2008 7:00 P.M. A.1 Call to order and announce a quorum. B.1 Review and approve minutes of the March 20, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. C.1 Discuss and Take Appropriate Action on a Request for Approval of a Temporary Use for Off Street Parking for Model Homes in Planned Development No. 27, Neighborhood 3, Phase 1A, for a Period of Time of Not Greater Than One Year. Applicant: K. Hovnanian Homes - DFW, LLC C.2 Discuss and Take Appropriate Action on a Request for Approval of a Temporary Use for a Real Estate Office (located in a trailer or manufactured housing), Churchill Downs Subdivision, for a Period of Time Not to Exceed Six (6) Months. Applicant: F & R Adams Luxury Homes C.3 Discuss and Take Appropriate Action on a Request for Approval of a Temporary Use for a Real Estate Office (located in a trailer or manufactured housing), for a Period of Time Not to Exceed Six (6) Months, Located on Commercial Recreation (CR) Zoned Property. Applicant: Jacobs Carter Burgess on behalf of Centurion American. Property Owner: ClubCorp Golf of Texas. D.1 Adjournment. Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 2 of 134 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM From: The Office of the Planning and Zoning Coordinator Date: 4-3-2008 Subject: Agenda Item No.A.1 Call to order and announce a quorum. (ch) Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 3 of 134 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM From: The Office of the Planning and Zoning Coordinator Date: 4-3-2008 Subject: Agenda Item No.B.1 Review and approve minutes of the March 20, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. (ch) Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 4 of 134 MINUTES OF A REGULAR SESSION FOR THE TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 20, 2008 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trophy Club, Texas met in a Regular Session on March 20, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room of the Public Services Building, 100 Municipal Drive, Trophy Club, Texas 76262. COMMISSIONERS ATTENDANCE: Chairman Hill Present Vice Chairman Stephens Present Commissioner Reed Present Commissioner Ashby Present Commissioner Sheridan Present Commissioner Sanchez Present (arrived at 7:20 p.m.) Commissioner Forest Present STAFF AND GUESTS PRESENT: Carolyn Huggins Planning & Zoning Coordinator Arthur Selander Attorney, Quilling-Selander-Cummiskey-Lownds Roger Unger Quanah Properties, LP David Johnston Quanah Properties, LP A.1 CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. with seven members present. B.1 REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 21, 2008 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. Commissioner Forest motioned to approve the minutes of the February 21, 2008, Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ashby. Ayes: Hill, Stephens, Reed, Ashby, Sheridan, Forest Nays: None Action: 6-0, Approved Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 5 of 134 C.1 DISCUSS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON APPEAL OF VALUE PLACE HOTEL EAST ELEVATION SIGNAGE. Chairman Hill announced the case and explained that this is an appeal of the Town Council’s denial of the Value Place Hotel east elevation signage. An appeal shall first be reconsidered by the Planning and Zoning Commission with an approval or denial recommendation to the Town Council. Chairman Hill stated the following: On October 2, 2006, the Town Council approved Ordinance 2006-39 which amended Ordinance 2002-41 P&Z, known as PD Planned Development District No. 25, Trophy Wood Business Center, by adding Sign Criteria for the Value Place Hotel. The sign criteria included approval for four signs: 1) A monument sign structure on the south side of the hotel along State Highway 114. 2) A wall sign on the south wall of the hotel, facing State Highway 114, with an Optec LED Electronic Message Center. 3) A wall sign on the west wall of the hotel. 4) A wall sign on the east wall of the hotel. On February 26, 2007, the owner of the hotel, Quanah Properties, LP requested a revision to the rear elevation signage (east wall) to install an electronic message center. This change was administratively approved by Staff. Sign permits for four signs on the Value Place Hotel were issued by Town Staff following this decision. Four signs were installed, inspected and approved by Town Staff. In October 2007, the Town Council requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission review the east elevation signage of Value Place Hotel and recommend to the Town Council approval or denial of the sign. On January 3, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing and public meeting to review the Value Place Hotel east elevation signage. Following discussion, by a vote of 4-1, the Commission recommended approval of the sign to Town Council. On January 21, 2008, the Town Council voted to deny approval of the east elevation signage at Value Place Hotel. On January 24, 2008, a letter was sent to the owner of the hotel, Quanah Properties, LP requesting removal of the east elevation electronic signage at Value Place Hotel, 306 Trophy Branch within 15 business days of receipt of the letter. On February 4, 2008, a letter was received from Arthur Selander, Attorney, on behalf of Quanah Properties, LP requesting an appeal of the decision that the sign must be removed. Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 6 of 134 Mr. Selander or a representative of Quanah Properties LP will present their appeal to the Planning and Zoning Commission tonight. Chairman Hill asked the applicant to step forward and present the appeal. Arthur Selander, Attorney, Quilling–Selander–Cummiskey–Lownds, came forward representing the interests of Quanah Properties Ltd as it relates to this hotel’s signage issue. Mr. Selander stated that he is here merely to assist his clients in evaluating the different courses of action that they have available to them given the Town Council’s action in January 2008 as well as the subsequent letter that was sent to them requesting that this sign be removed in a fairly short period of time or they face the possibility of civil penalties being assessed against them up to $2,000 per day. They consider this a very serious situation warranting professional assistance. He stated that he is not here today to try to be obstructive or divisive. He believes that Quanah Properties truly would like to get this matter resolved with the Town of Trophy Club in a way that addresses everyone’s concerns and he stated that they are still, today, ready and willing to try to attempt that. One of the first things Mr. Selander was asked to do was evaluate what Quanah could do. He told them that they had two courses of action: • under the Town ordinances, to the extent that they construed that the particular letter in question is a revocation of a previously issued permit, there are appellate rights and it was his view that they should try to exercise those rights and so that is why they are here today; • institute litigation against the Town. A lawsuit has been filed and is pending in the 67th District Court of the State of Texas and Mr. Selander stated that he has entered into an agreement with the Town’s attorney, and has established a good working relationship with her, that the lawsuit can be held in abeyance as Quanah works through the hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the subsequent hearing before the Town Council so that neither the Town nor Quanah need expend unnecessary time and effort in the litigation process that may very well not be necessary, which is exactly what they are hoping will be the case. Mr. Selander stated that the Chairman’s recitations of the underlying facts of this case are pretty accurate, but he would like to emphasize the following: With respect to the October 2006 Ordinance No. 2006-39 which amended PD-25 Trophy Wood Business Center, it did, in fact, have sign criteria in it for the Value Place Hotel. That sign criteria provided for four signs: one was a monument sign on the ground; one was an internally lit wall sign on the west side of the building that would be lit up at night and be seen by the people on 114 and from areas west of the hotel; one was a wall sign on the east side of the hotel which was also an internally lit wall sign visible at night by people Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 7 of 134 passing on that side of the hotel; the fourth sign that was approved was also a wall sign on the south side of the hotel, was a fairly large wall sign and it had an optic LED function. What’s important to note, because not on this Commission but citizens seem to have some confusion about whether or not there was ever a sign approved on the east side. In fact, there was, and that’s very important as it was a fairly significant size sign and it was lit. That was part of the original ordinance. Mr. Selander stated that in February 2007, representatives of Quanah approached City staff relating to a desire to change that east wall internally lit sign that had been approved to a sign that had an optic LED function very similar to the function that was approved on the south side of the building. At that time, representatives of Quanah were led to believe, and it was stated, that the matter could be dealt with on an administrative level because an internally lit wall sign had already been approved and it was changing it from just a static internally lit sign to one that had the optic LED function. Mr. Selander stated that he believes the materials presented to the Commission in their packets show that on one there is some handwriting from the then P&Z Coordinator that this had been approved, and also by the then and current City Manager, Mr. Emmons. That happened on February 26, 2007. On June 25, 2007, as the Chairman stated, there were specific permits issued for the erection of all four of these signs. The application that was submitted to the City for the permit on the east wall sign had the LED optic display illustration attached to it of what this thing would look like, which had been approved earlier, and the permit was, in fact, issued. Mr. Selander stated that, based upon the communications that were made to Quanah during the February meetings with City staff, as well as the express issuance of a permit to erect and maintain the east LED sign on that hotel, Quanah did, in fact, do that. When they changed the plan from a static wall sign to one that had an LED display on it they had to incur additional costs associated with that. The optic LED sign itself costs about $60,000. There were structural modifications that had to be made to the east wall in order to accommodate the installation of that sign. Tens of thousands of dollars were expended by Quanah Properties in connection with that effort after communications from the City saying that it was OK and the issuance of a permit allowing it. Mr. Selander stated that November 2007 is when things started becoming a little tenuous. It was at that time that representatives of Quanah were called down to Town Hall to discuss the matter of the east wall LED sign with City staff, at which point they were informed that at least some citizens had expressed displeasure about the Value Place Hotel, generally not liking that type of a hotel in that location and worried about other hotels of that kind being in that location. Also, in connection with some of those criticisms, there was criticism leveled at the east wall LED sign. Based upon that, City staff believed and advised Quanah Properties that they needed, on an ex post facto basis after the thing had already been put up and money expended and the appropriate permits had been issued, to go back to this body for a recommendation as to approval after the fact and then ultimate disposition of the matter by Town Council. On January 3, 2008, P&Z heard this matter and approved the east wall sign by a 4-1 vote. Subsequently, on January 28, 2008, the Town Council heard this particular matter and, Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 8 of 134 after considerable discussion and executive session outside the presence of the public and then back in session in the presence of the public, a final vote was had and the Town Council denied approval of the east wall sign. After that, the letter that really brings us here today came from the P&Z Coordinator stating that, in fact, the sign violated both the 2006 ordinance, the amended PD-25, as well as the Town sign ordinance and that it needed to be removed within 15 business days and stated that Quanah was subject to a $2,000 fine if the sign was not removed. Mr. Selander stated that those are the primarily undisputed facts of this case. He stated that their response to this, again, is to request this hearing to see if something could be worked out but the lawsuit was also filed. He stated that they filed the lawsuit because they construed the January 24, 2008 letter as actually rather than an ex post facto denial of the approval of the sign an attempt to revocate the permit that had been issued to allow Quanah to erect the sign. This remedy is then available. He stated that they also filed the lawsuit against the City under the principles of equitable estoppel, which is simply a doctrine that says when a person or entity by their conduct has induced another to act in a particular manner, that person should not be permitted to adopt an inconsistent position and thereby cause injury or loss to that party. That is a general principal of the common law of the State of Texas as well as the common law of the United States, and it has application to cities when justice requires it to be done. He stated that it is their position that the City ought not to take an inconsistent position now by saying the sign is not allowed when they said last year it was allowed because, first of all, the conduct and actions of the City were justifiably and reasonably relied upon by Quanah and, based in reliance on those representations and conduct, considerable amounts of money were expended by them and it would be considerably unjust and bring further injury upon them if they were now required to not only lose the money associated with the erection of the sign in the first place but then to have to replace it with another sign. It would exacerbate the injury they would experience. Mr. Selander asked how this should be viewed from a more practical point of view in terms of weighing and balancing the interests of the parties. Clearly if Quanah is required to remove this sign they are going to suffer a fairly substantial amount of economic damage. [Commissioner Sanchez arrived and joined the meeting at this point.] Mr. Selander continued, stating that in the original ordinance an internally lit wall sign was approved, and to the extent that the criticism of the public has been that they don’t want to see a sign that’s going to shine light out into the night, it doesn’t make much of a difference whether it is an internally lit wall sign or one that has an optic LED function. He stated that the east wall LED sign cannot be seen from any home located within the limits of Trophy Club. As part of the materials that were distributed to the Commission in connection with this hearing there is an overhead photograph with some line of sight that shows exactly where you would have to be located to see either the south side LED sign or the east side LED sign and clearly if you are in a home in Trophy Club you cannot see it. To the extent that anyone has been led to believe that this shines in Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 9 of 134 anyone’s home and interrupts their quality of life cannot be substantiated. That is incorrect. Mr. Selander stated that the LED signs in and of themselves are not objectionable to the City of Trophy Club. He stated that the Town ordinance allows them, but only allows one, not two. In terms of the City’s interest there, Quanah is wondering a little bit about that because Quanah knows of six sites within the City of Trophy Club that have two LED signs on the property. He stated that Quanah has photographs of three schools within the City of Trophy Club that have monument signs with LED displays on both sides. He stated that they also have photographs of three City signs in Trophy Club that are monument signs that have LED displays on both sides. He does not believe there is any variance granted to any school district or the City itself to its own sign ordinance. If the real issue or objection is the fact that a facility has two LED signs in violation of the City’s sign ordinance, then why do we not have the same objections leveled at these other sites? He doesn’t believe that is the real objection. He believes the real objection has to do with the hotel itself, which is a permitted use under the Town’s Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Selander then asked Mr. Unger to present the photographs, but Mr. Unger did not feel it was necessary as he believes all of the Commissioners are familiar with the signs and sites. Mr. Selander stated that his final point is that Quanah Properties, on its own since this issue arose, has taken it upon themselves to make some operational modifications to the east wall sign. They have dimmed it. David Johnson, Quanah Properties, added that they have dimmed it 70% of its capabilities. He stated that they are down to 25% capability of where it originally was. Mr. Selander stated that they will agree, on an on- going basis, to keep it dimmed to that level. They do not want it to be any brighter than it needs to be to perform its function of notifying people driving along 114 who need a place to stay that Value Place is there. Mr. Selander stated that Quanah has also stopped the flashing feature voluntarily with respect to that sign, so there is no flashing going on at all. The message function has been programmed so that it changes every 30 seconds. That is what they have done so far, and Mr. Selander stated that if there are other things that they can do within the capability of the system they have to make it less intrusive or less objectionable to any citizen of Trophy Club, they are more than happy to talk about that and try to accomplish that. Mr. Selander concluded by saying that Quanah really does want to work this out. They do not want to go forward with the lawsuit if they don’t have to. They view it as a last resort and it is their hope that within a few weeks the matter will be behind them and the lawsuit will be dismissed and they can go about their business. Chairman Hill called on the Commissioners for comments and questions. He asked the Commissioners to recognize and keep in mind that the activities and minutes of this Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 10 of 134 Commission are recorded and will be available for District Court proceedings if necessary. Commissioner Reed stated that he anticipated that the residents of the “Villas” would be present and his comments were directed toward them, so even though no residents are present he is going to give his comments for the record: “One of the complaints by residents of the Villas about this sign was that the flashing bright colored lights were bothering some people in their homes. This isn’t realistic since the sign is actually on the southeast side of the hotel and can’t be seen from homes in the Villa, which are north of the hotel. In fact, the hotel itself is only partially visible from the Villas because of two rows of trees between them. There is an identical sign on the southwest side of the building, but, strangely, there have been no complaints about it. A second complaint was that the sign was an embarrassment to the entire Town of Trophy Club, and that it would cause a decrease in value of homes in the Villas and would make Trophy Club a less desirable place to live. Yet, we have developers moving ahead to build more than 1,500 new homes in our town. I don’t believe one sign is going to affect the desirability of people who want to live in Trophy Club. There are numerous similar electronic type signs throughout the town, including three town bulletin boards, one of which is only a few feet from the entrance to the Villas; at the elementary school, and at the intermediate school. These signs are also in color and have continuously changing messages and some are brighter and more colorful than the hotel signs. The school signs are immediately across the street from many homes, yet no one has complained about them and I’m not aware of any concerns about decreasing value of homes in the area. There have also been comments made about hating the hotel and stating that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town Council should never have approved it. The hotel met all of the Town’s requirements and there were no justification or legal reasons to deny approval. Such denial likely could have resulted in a lawsuit against the Town. The hotel followed the Town’s procedures and requirements in their request for the sign and they were not only granted approval, but later were issued a sign permit for its installation. Approval was given by a Town employee and from some reports it was also approved by the Town Manager. If, in retrospect, this approval was improper, it was the Town’s fault, not the hotel’s fault, and the hotel should not be punished. If developers find from this experience that after approval has been given it may later be rescinded, they are going to have second thoughts about doing business with Trophy Club and will go elsewhere with their business. They aren’t Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 11 of 134 going to come in to the Town office two or three times just to double check to see if their previously approved projects are still on the approval list. In fact, I understand that as a result of this hassle over the Value Place Hotel sign, a potential new developer has recently cancelled his plans to build in Trophy Club. When the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town Council consider any application for a new business or housing development, we consider what we think is good for all of the residents of the Town, not just a few. I strongly supported the Villa residents recently in their objections to a proposed hotel immediately adjacent to Villa homes. They had reason for concern. But, I can’t understand any justification for their concern about the hotel sign and certainly can’t support them at this time. The hotel has now modified the sign so that the colors are less bright and the messages don’t seem to change as often. I can see no reason that the hotel should be not allowed to continue using this sign.” Vice Chairman Stephens stated that he agrees with Chairman Reed and his assessment. He stated that he almost feels that a lot of this negativity has to do with the future development of the commercial property along Highway 114 from a certain segment of the Town. He has an appreciation of that, but the fact of the matter is that the Town has commercial property that allows certain businesses to build on that property and he would hate to see this impact negatively the development of what little commercial property the Town has. He is concerned about the undercurrent of all of this and he appreciates Quanah’s efforts that they have taken on their own to show good faith and lower the lumens and decrease the change factor in their lighting. He stated that there will be, before P&Z, future applications for hotels on that property and the groundwork should be laid for that, otherwise there will be a battle royal to do any future commercial development in the City of Trophy Club. Commissioner Ashby stated that he concurs with Commissioner Reed’s statements. The sign, as far as he is concerned, doesn’t bother him a bit. He would like to elaborate on a couple of issues made by Mr. Selander. He stated that Mr. Selander mentioned structural mounting of the sign and that Quanah incurred an added expense in order to put up a heavier sign. Mr. Ashby stated that he didn’t see any reconstruction go on to beef up the structure. A typical structure of any building will put in a base for mounting any sign of any quality. He stated that the base was already there so the structural expense, to him, is not justified. He stated that this is his opinion on construction. He does not know specifically what Quanah did or didn’t do. Mr. Ashby also stated that the sign illumination is awesome. He asked if there is something that can be done to maintain the current illumination. Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 12 of 134 David Johnston, Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President, Quanah Properties LP, stated that the changes they have made were directly in response to some concerns of the City in conversations they had. They want to be a good partner with the City. They have no intention of having this issue settled and then turning back up the sign. Mr. Johnston stated that they are here for the long term. This is not a hotel that they will have for a year or two only. They want to see further development in that area of Town and in Trophy Club. The sign illumination right now is how the sign is going to stay. He stated that at the current illumination it is easier to read. Part of the reason for having the sign up there is for people to be able to read it. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to turn up the illumination because it then becomes a non-readable sign. Commissioner Ashby asked if a specific illumination max could be established based on the design criteria of that sign. Mr. Johnston stated that they would be willing to talk about that as a possible agreement. Commissioner Ashby stated that he is trying to work toward a compromise for everybody. Mr. Johnston said that they would be willing to work that out with the City. Commissioner Forest stated that he has some real issues with this that are different than what has been brought up. He stated that his issues are with the City on this, in that the City okayed the permit on this in October and then in February the developer came to get permission to change the sign from a straight sign to an LED sign and that was approved. They did what they said they were going to do with the approval from the City. Mr. Forest stated that at this point it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference what the ordinance calls for or what’s happening out there or anything else, because now it comes down to what is right. He stated that what is right is what the City told them they could do. The developer has done that from what he can see. Mr. Forest stated that if the City has a problem it is not with the developer but with their own people. If someone stepped out of line and did something wrong, it is water under the bridge and shouldn’t be the developer’s problem. Mr. Forest stated that the City’s word should mean something and at this point it doesn’t look like it does and that is going to come back to haunt somebody. How will other developers wanting to come in here and the citizens of Trophy Club themselves know what to believe when they can’t believe what the City tells them? Commissioner Sanchez asked if Quanah measured the intensity of the light that the sign is projecting. Mr. Johnston stated that a photometrics study of that particular light was not done, but, “oddly enough, the current illumination is not as bright as the illumination of the original sign approved by Town Council.” Chairman Hill stated that a photometrics study was done. Mr. Johnston concurred that a photometrics study of the whole property was done, but not of individual signs. Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 13 of 134 Commissioner Sanchez explained that the reason he is asking the question is because the brightness of the sign seems to be the issue and measures already taken may accomplish what is appropriate. He stated that if it conforms to the City’s regulations and it can be proven not to hurt anybody, he doesn’t believe it will be an issue. Roger Unger, Quanah Properties LP, stated that he lives in Trophy Club and he sees the sign every night, and not too long after the hotel was up he would come into work the next morning and tell Mr. Johnston that the sign is too bright to read. He stated that they called the sign company twice and asked them to turn it down. He stated that at first it was ugly. It was a big orange outer space eyeball. He explained that the sign is controlled out of the Mid-Cities area, and when the command to turn down the brightness was typed into the computer it wasn’t communicating and the sign actually wasn’t turned down. Some of this goes back to when the sign was first turned on and it was not very acceptable. They had started making adjustments before this became an issue and have subsequently made additional adjustments. He stated that when the sign first went on it probably was objectionable but amendments have been made. Commissioner Sheridan stated that his first comments are to the Town, and that since this is a legal matter and we knew that it was going to be presented by an attorney, that in his standard working practice he does not talk to an attorney without having an attorney. He would like to know why the Town’s attorney wasn’t here. Commissioner Sheridan stated that he really does think that the permit was issued in error. It was wrong to have issued the permit. They had a proper sign. As far as the PD goes it was lit but the LED portion was not proper. The Town does not have a proper disclaimer on its permits that when it conflicts with a PD, a code, a regulation, a rule, that it becomes an invalid permit. Commissioner Sheridan stated that the Mayor mentioned that the LED came into the code with the school signs and that the Town didn’t envision the magnitude of the commercial use of the signs. Commissioner Sheridan agrees with that. He stated that LED didn’t exist until the school district came in and shoved it down our throat. He stated that’s his opinion. Commissioner Sheridan stated that the building, by itself, stands out. There is nothing around it so until the rest of the community is developed it will stand out whether you like it or not. He thinks it will blend in when the rest of the neighborhood gets developed and it will become less of an eyesore to certain people. He stated that as far as he is concerned Solana is an architectural eyesore. Commissioner Sheridan stated that the Town Council should work with Quanah and accept the adjusted sign usage. As there were no further comments, Chairman Hill called for a motion. Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 14 of 134 Commissioner Reed made a motion recommending approval of the signage to the Town Council. Vice Chairman Stephens seconded the motion. Commissioner Reed asked that the sign continue at all times to be operated at no more than 25% of its maximum capability. Mr. Johnston stated that he would like to have the opportunity to talk to his sign company and verify the percentage. He stated that right now, during the evening hours, it is at 25%. During the day it is turned up to about 50%. Further discussion continued between the Commissioners and Quanah. Commissioner Ashby stated that Quanah is running at a current level right now that is reduced by 70% of what it was. He suggested an amendment to Commissioner Reed’s motion in that the sign be maintained at its current illumination because there hasn’t been a whole lot of griping about it. He asked that Quanah provide written, certified documentation from their sign company of the levels and timeframes of the illuminations. Mr. Johnston stated that they would be glad to do that, with the understanding that during the day it is a little bit higher. Commissioner Ashby responded that the issue would be taken care of by providing written time durations. Discussion continued between the Commissioners until a consensus of the motion was reached. The motion is: Commissioner Reed made a motion recommending to the Town Council approval of the east elevation signage of Value Place Hotel with the sign continuing to operate at all times at no more than 25% of its maximum capacity. Vice Chairman Stephens seconded the motion. Commissioner Ashby asked to amend the motion: Quanah must maintain the signage at the current levels of illumination and provide an engineer certified written timeline of the current lumens levels and timeframes; these levels and timeframes to become part of the PD. The motion (Commissioner Reed) and the second (Vice Chairman Stephens) accepted the amendment. Ms. Huggins, Planning & Zoning Coordinator asked for a clarification from Chairman Hill. She explained that Commissioner Sanchez arrived at the meeting at 7:20 p.m. The presentation and discussion of this case has been on-going for 15 minutes and continued for 30 minutes beyond Mr. Sanchez’s arrival. Mr. Sanchez was present for a majority of the case. Ms. Huggins asked if the applicant and the Chairman objected to Mr. Sanchez voting on this case. Mr. Selander stated that the applicant has no objection to Commissioner Sanchez voting on this case. Chairman Hill stated that he has no objection. Chairman Hill called for a vote on the motion and it passed unanimously 7-0. Ayes: Hill, Stephens, Reed, Ashby, Forest, Sanchez, Sheridan Nays: None Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 15 of 134 Action: 7-0, Approved C.2 DISCUSS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A TEMPORARY USE FOR A REAL ESTATE OFFICE. APPLICANT: JACOBS CARTER BURGESS ON BEHALF OF CENTURION AMERICAN. Chairman Hill announced this case and called on Ms. Huggins who explained that the applicant is requesting that this item be tabled to the next Planning & Zoning Commission meeting in order to revise the plans for this temporary use request. Commissioner Ashby made a motion to table this item to the next Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Vice Chairman Stephens seconded the motion. Ayes: Hill, Stephens, Reed, Ashby, Forest, Sanchez, Sheridan Nays: None Action: 7-0, Approved D.1 ADJOURNMENT. Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m. Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 16 of 134 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM From: The Office of the Planning and Zoning Coordinator Date: 4-3-2008 Subject: Agenda Item No.C.1 Discuss and Take Appropriate Action on a Request for Approval of a Temporary Use for Off Street Parking for Model Homes in Planned Development No. 27, Neighborhood 3, Phase 1A, for a Period of Time of Not Greater Than One Year. Applicant: K. Hovnanian Homes - DFW, LLC K. Hovnanian Homes is building two model homes located at 2216 and 2220 Trophy Club Drive. The builder wishes to place a paved parking lot between the two model homes; the parking lot is to be located on Lot 10, Block A, which carries the address of 2218 Trophy Club Drive. This type of request must be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission and then be approved by the Town Council. The builder must eventually remove the parking lot, restoring the lot to a buildable single family home lot as originally shown on the Neighborhood 3, Phase 1A plat. This type of use is regulated under Chapter 13 – Zoning Ordinance, Article V Supplementary District Regulations, Section 5.01 Temporary Uses: A. Permitted Uses: The following uses, which are classified as temporary uses, may be permitted for a period of time by the Town Council, after recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Said period of time shall be determined at the time of approval but shall not exceed the time limit for selected uses as provided herein. … 14. Off street parking for Model Homes in residential districts, provided on one lot which complies with all setback requirements of the district in which it is located for a time period of not greater than one year. However, such temporary use may be renewed annually. … Annual Extensions of the temporary use permit may be issued by the Zoning Administrator upon written request by the applicant. Setbacks: Neighborhood 3, Phase 1A of The Highlands of Trophy Club Planned Development No. 27 (PD-27) consists of Lot Types 1 and 2. The parking lot is proposed on Lot 10, Block A, which is a Lot Type 2, with the following setback requirements: Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 17 of 134 Front Yard: 25 feet minimum Rear Yard: 25 feet minimum Side Yard: 7.5 feet minimum The applicant has complied with all required setbacks. Parking Requirements: Parking requirements for temporary use model home parking is not specified in the Town of Trophy Club Parking Regulations, but the regulations require the following: “The number of spaces required shall serve residents, customers, patrons, visitors and employees.” The applicant conferred with the Town’s Building Inspector and they agreed that the applicant should place the maximum number of parking spaces allowed on the lot to sufficiently provide parking for employees and potential customers. In addition, American Disabilities Act (ADA) standards require twenty percent of total parking spaces must be handicap-accessible. The applicant’s site plan shows 15 single car spaces and 2 handicap accessible spaces. The applicant’s site plan parking spaces were configured for 8-ft. wide spaces. By Town regulations, each space must be nine feet (9’) by eighteen feet (18’) for each angular head-in parking space. The plan will be revised and a corrected copy will be available at the Planning and Zoning Commissioners meeting on April 3, 2008. The revised plan will allow approximately 13 single car spaces and 1 or 2 handicap accessible spaces. The Town Council also has the following parking guidelines authority per Town of Trophy Club regulations: “Unclassified Use: Where the proposed land use cannot be classified within the uses herein specified, the Town Council shall determine the specified use most clearly related to the proposed use and the minimum requirements for the specified use so determined shall apply to the proposed use.” Parking Facilities Construction: Town regulations require that parking facilities be constructed of reinforced concrete on prepared subgrade. Minimum thickness shall be 5” for general parking. The applicant must obtain a building permit and comply with materials and inspection requirements. Landscaping: Landscaping for temporary use model home parking is not specified in the Town of Trophy Club Landscaping Regulations, but the regulations have the following standards: D. General Standards: The following criteria and standards shall apply to landscape materials and installation: 1. Quality: Plant materials used in conformance with the provisions of this ordinance shall conform to the standard of the American Standard for Nursery Stock, or Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 18 of 134 equal thereto. Grass seed, sod and other material shall be clean and reasonable free of weeds and noxious pests and insects. 2. Trees: Trees referred to in this Section shall comply with all applicable regulations and requirements of Article VIII of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Trophy Club, as amended. If any of the requirements of Article VIII regulating trees conflict with the requirements contained herein regulating trees, the requirements of Article VIII of the Subdivision Regulations shall control. 3. Shrubs and Hedges: Shrubs shall be a minimum of two feet in height when measured immediately after planting. Hedges, where installed, shall be planted and maintained so as to form a continuous, unbroken, solid, visual screen which will be three (3) feet high within one year after time of planting. 4. Vines: Vines shall be a minimum of two feet immediately after planting and may be used in conjunction with fences, screens or walls to meet screening requirements as specified. 5. Ground Cover: Ground covers used in lieu of grass in whole and in part shall be of live material and shall be planted in such a manner as to present a finished appearance and reasonably complete coverage within one year of planting. 6. Lawn Grass: Grass areas may be sodded, plugged, sprigged or seeded except that solid sod shall be used in swales, berms or other areas subject to erosion. 7. Credit for Existing Trees: Any trees preserved on a site meeting the specifications herein shall be credited toward meeting the tree requirement of any landscaping provision of this Section. Trees of exceptional quality due to size, large canopy cover, trunk diameter, rareness, age or species may, at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission, be credited as two Chapter 13 – Zoning trees for the herein minimum requirements. 8. Railroad Ties: The use of railroad ties for use as landscaping material shall be prohibited. The applicant has stated in his proposal: “All exposed areas, front and rear of parking lot, will be fully landscaped with appropriate grass and shrubbery.” Staff has asked the applicant to provide more detail to the Commissioners at the meeting on April 3, 2008. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request with clarification at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of total number of parking spaces provided and additional detail of landscaping in the front and rear of the parking lot. Planning and Zoning Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission can recommend approval or denial of this request to the Town Council. The Council will hear this request on Monday, April 7, 2008. (ch) Attachments: Chapter 13 – Zoning; Article V – Supplementary District Regulations; Section 5.01 Temporary Uses Application K. Hovnanian Explanation of Parking Lot Proposal Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 19 of 134 Site Plan Plat Map Location Overall View – Plat Map Location Chapter 13 – Zoning; Article VII – Development and Design Standards, Section 57.04 Off-Street Parking Regulations Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 20 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 21 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 22 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 23 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 24 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 25 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 26 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 27 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 28 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 29 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 30 of 134 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM From: The Office of the Planning and Zoning Coordinator Date: 4-3-2008 Subject: Agenda Item No.C.2 Discuss and Take Appropriate Action on a Request for Approval of a Temporary Use for a Real Estate Office (located in a trailer or manufactured housing), Churchill Downs Subdivision, for a Period of Time Not to Exceed Six (6) Months. Applicant: F & R Adams Luxury Homes F & R Adams Luxury Homes requests permission to place a sales trailer on Lot 19, Block B, which is addressed as 2016 Churchill Downs Lane. F & R Adams Luxury Homes has a permitted construction trailer on this site, but would like to use the trailer as a sales office as well. For permission to use a real estate office located in a trailer, the request must be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation to the Town Council. This type of use is regulated under Chapter 13 – Zoning Ordinance, Article V Supplementary District Regulations, Section 5.01 Temporary Uses: B. Permitted Uses: The following uses, which are classified as temporary uses, may be permitted for a period of time by the Town Council, after recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Said period of time shall be determined at the time of approval but shall not exceed the time limit for selected uses as provided herein. … 15. Real estate offices (located in trailer or manufactured housing), but only for a time period not to exceed six (6) months; however such uses may be renewed one (1) time. Setbacks: The sales trailer conforms to the setbacks of Lot 19, Block B, Churchill Downs Subdivision: Front Yard: 25 feet minimum Rear Yard: 20 feet minimum Side Yard: 7.5 feet minimum Parking: Street parking will be used. Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 31 of 134 Landscaping: Landscaping for temporary sales trailer use is not specified in the Town of Trophy Club Landscaping Regulations, but the regulations have the following standards: E. General Standards: The following criteria and standards shall apply to landscape materials and installation: 9. Quality: Plant materials used in conformance with the provisions of this ordinance shall conform to the standard of the American Standard for Nursery Stock, or equal thereto. Grass seed, sod and other material shall be clean and reasonable free of weeds and noxious pests and insects. 10. Trees: Trees referred to in this Section shall comply with all applicable regulations and requirements of Article VIII of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Trophy Club, as amended. If any of the requirements of Article VIII regulating trees conflict with the requirements contained herein regulating trees, the requirements of Article VIII of the Subdivision Regulations shall control. 11. Shrubs and Hedges: Shrubs shall be a minimum of two feet in height when measured immediately after planting. Hedges, where installed, shall be planted and maintained so as to form a continuous, unbroken, solid, visual screen which will be three (3) feet high within one year after time of planting. 12. Vines: Vines shall be a minimum of two feet immediately after planting and may be used in conjunction with fences, screens or walls to meet screening requirements as specified. 13. Ground Cover: Ground covers used in lieu of grass in whole and in part shall be of live material and shall be planted in such a manner as to present a finished appearance and reasonably complete coverage within one year of planting. 14. Lawn Grass: Grass areas may be sodded, plugged, sprigged or seeded except that solid sod shall be used in swales, berms or other areas subject to erosion. 15. Credit for Existing Trees: Any trees preserved on a site meeting the specifications herein shall be credited toward meeting the tree requirement of any landscaping provision of this Section. Trees of exceptional quality due to size, large canopy cover, trunk diameter, rareness, age or species may, at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission, be credited as two trees for the herein minimum requirements. 16. Railroad Ties: The use of railroad ties for use as landscaping material shall be prohibited. The applicant has included annuals, Japanese Bloodgrass, Dwarf Indian Hawthorn and Pigmy Dwarf Barberry as landscaping in front of the trailer. The applicant does not indicate the size of the plants, which must be a minimum of two feet in height when measured immediately after planting. They are proposing sod on the sides of the trailer and seed in the rear. Flagpoles, Wooden Sign, Fencing: The applicant is asking for flagpoles, a 7’ x 5’ wooden sign and fencing around the lot, none of which require Planning and Zoning Commission approval, but must be properly approved and permitted by the Town Permit Department. Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 32 of 134 Awnings: The applicant has placed awnings on the existing construction trailer (picture enclosed) and is asking the Planning and Zoning Commission for permission to keep the awnings on the trailer. Staff asks that this request be denied as awnings are prohibited by Town regulations (Chapter 5 – General Land Use, Article IV – Sign Regulations, Section 4.06 Commercial and Institutional Signs). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request with denial of the awnings. Planning and Zoning Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission can recommend approval or denial of this request to the Town Council. The Council will hear this request on Monday, April 7, 2008. (ch) Attachments: Chapter 13 – Zoning; Article V – Supplementary District Regulations; Section 5.01 Temporary Uses Application Sales Trailer Elevation Without Awnings Sales Trailer Elevation With Awnings Photo – Sales Trailer with Awnings Site Plan – ALTHOUGH REQUESTED, APPLICANT DID NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH LARGE SIZE COPIES TO PROVIDE TO COMMISSIONERS Construction Trailer Permit Issued February 8, 2008 Town of Trophy Club Sign Regulations, Chapter 5 – General Land Use, Article IV – Sign Regulations. Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 33 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 34 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 35 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 36 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 37 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 38 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 39 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 40 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 41 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 42 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 43 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 44 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 45 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 46 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 47 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 48 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 49 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 50 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 51 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 52 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 53 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 54 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 55 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 56 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 57 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 58 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 59 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 60 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 61 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 62 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 63 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 64 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 65 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 66 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 67 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 68 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 69 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 70 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 71 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 72 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 73 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 74 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 75 of 134 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM From: The Office of the Planning and Zoning Coordinator Date: 4-3-2008 Subject: Agenda Item No.C.3 Discuss and Take Appropriate Action on a Request for Approval of a Temporary Use for a Real Estate Office (located in a trailer or manufactured housing), for a Period of Time Not to Exceed Six (6) Months, Located on Commercial Recreation (CR) Zoned Property. Applicant: Jacobs Carter Burgess on behalf of Centurion American. Property Owner: ClubCorp Golf of Texas. Jacobs Carter Burgess, on behalf of Centurion American, requests permission to place a temporary real estate office on property owned by Trophy Club Country Club (dba ClubCorp Golf of Texas). The property is located just west of the intersection of Trophy Club Drive and Trophy Lake Drive with existing tennis facility, courts, and parking located on the site. In order to move forward with this request, the applicant must have written permission from the property owner. The applicant was informed of the necessity of Property Owner permission prior to tabling this item at the last Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. As of packet cutoff on Thursday, March 27, the applicant had not provided the necessary permission to move forward with this request. If the owner of the property is not in attendance at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for discussion of this item, or applicant cannot provide sufficient written approval of the property owner, the Planning and Zoning Commission cannot hear this case. Centurion American wishes to place a temporary use real estate sales trailer on the south side of the private drive entrance to the Country Club tennis courts. This type of use is regulated under Chapter 13 – Zoning Ordinance, Article V Supplementary District Regulations, Section 5.01 Temporary Uses: C. Permitted Uses: The following uses, which are classified as temporary uses, may be permitted for a period of time by the Town Council, after recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Said period of time shall be determined at the time of approval but shall not exceed the time limit for selected uses as provided herein. … Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 76 of 134 16. Real estate offices (located in trailer or manufactured housing), but only for a time period not to exceed six (6) months; however such uses may be renewed one (1) time. The applicant is requesting an immediate 6-month extension of the time period for this temporary use real estate office trailer. Setbacks: Commercial Recreation (CR) property does not designate setbacks as it is meant to be used for athletic fields, playgrounds, tennis courts, etc., rather than structures or buildings. The applicant is proposing 5-ft. setbacks on the east and west sides of the trailer. This will place the building 5-ft. from the private drive on the east side and 5-ft. from the neighboring Commercial Recreation (CR) zoned property on the west side of the trailer. The setbacks are acceptable to staff. Parking: A parking lot is proposed, which will remain as a permanent parking area for the tennis courts use after the temporary real estate use has ceased. The applicant is proposing 15 parking spaces and one ADA space. The applicant is proposing the parking to remain as a permanent parking area for the tennis courts use after the temporary real estate use ceases, therefore, the parking lot must meet all provisions of Section 7.04 Off-Street Parking Requirements as well as the following: K. Off-Street Parking: Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of Section 7.04, Off-Street Parking Requirements. In addition, the following regulations shall apply: 1. Parking lots shall be designed with compartmentalized parking lots for all areas of over 50 spaces. 2. Access to individual developments shall be obtained through mutual access and cross access drives on-site. Multiple driveway entrances for individual lots shall be prohibited unless it is determined that it is physically impossible to provide shared access to the lot or if extenuating circumstances can be demonstrated and are approved by the Town Council after recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 3. Total driveway entrances shall not exceed 3 entrances for any development. 4. Driveways shall have a minimum separation of 150 feet. 5. Parking spaces shall not be permitted within the building line setback areas. Drive lanes shall only be permitted in building line setback area when crossing setback area. 6. There shall be a maximum of 12 consecutive spaces between islands with at least one 4" caliper tree in each island. Landscaping in the islands shall include a combination of ground cover, shrubs, and flowering plants in addition to the required tree. 7. A raised curb shall be required for all parking and driving surfaces. 8. Curb stops shall be required on all parking spaces that "head-in" to any landscaped area. These curb stops shall be placed such that the overhang of a vehicle is contained totally within the limits of the parking space. 9. A traffic circulation plan and impact analysis shall be prepared and provided with the site plan for all new development. The traffic impact analysis requirement may be excluded from the site plan if the town engineer determines that the analysis is not necessary for the development. 10. All entrance drives shall be accented with decorative street treatment and shall be clearly detailed on the site plan. 11. Paved parking areas shall have at least 10% of the paved surface area dedicated to decorative street treatment as approved by the town Planning and Zoning Commission. 12. Crosswalks, when provided, shall be marked similar to decorative street pavement. Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 77 of 134 The current configuration does not meet the above landscaping requirements (No. 6), nor are raised curbs and curb stops indicated (Nos. 7 and 8). The Planning and Zoning Commission has discretion to require additional improvements (Nos. 11 and 12). By Town standards the parking spaces must be 9-ft. x 18-ft. The applicant’s site plan was configured for 8-ft. spaces. The plan must be revised. Landscaping: The applicant is proposing 40-ft. of landscaping from the property line at Trophy Club Drive to the rear of the trailer. The berm is 3-ft. in height. The applicant did not provide details of the landscaping (types of trees, hedges, ground cover, etc.) and is asked to provide those details to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Besides the General Standards outlined in the Town of Trophy Club landscaping regulations, the following CR regulations apply: I. Landscaping Requirements: Landscaping shall be required in accordance with Section 7.03, Landscaping Regulations. In addition, the following regulations shall apply: 1. A front set back area shall be devoted to a landscaped buffer. Only drive crossing that provides ingress and egress will be allowed. 2. The front landscape buffer shall contain trees of 4 inch caliper measured 12" from the ground and shall be 12 feet in height planted on 30 foot centers. In addition, shrubs, berms, decorative walls, or a combination thereof, shall be provided between the trees such that a screen of a minimum of three feet in height shall screen the parking areas. Flagpoles, Entrance Signage: The applicant is asking for flagpoles, which do not require Planning and Zoning Commission approval, but must be properly approved and permitted by the Town Permit Department. The proposed entry sign on the north side of the drive is signage allowed for the tennis courts only. Where does the applicant propose to place his signage? Exterior Billboard Design Concept: The applicant is proposing to “wrap” the trailer as an exterior billboard. Staff recommends denial of this request as the Town Sign regulations allow billboards only along property that abuts State Highway 114. If the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of this concept, the applicant must have the property owner’s approval as well. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request with clarification of the following: Timeframe of use: 6 months/12 months Parking Requirements Landscape Requirements Signage Billboard Concept Planning and Zoning Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission can recommend approval or denial of this request to the Town Council. The Council will hear this request on Monday, April 7, 2008. Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 78 of 134 (ch) Attachments: Application Proposal Site Plan Chapter 13 – Zoning; Article V – Supplementary District Regulations; Section 5.01 Temporary Uses Commercial Recreation District Regulations Chapter 13 – Zoning; Article VII – Development and Design Standards, Section 7.03 Landscaping Regulations Chapter 13 – Zoning; Article VII – Development and Design Standards, Section 7.04 Off-Street Parking Regulations Chapter 5 – General Land Use, Article IV – Sign Regulations Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 79 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 80 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 81 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 82 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 83 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 84 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 85 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 86 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 87 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 88 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 89 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 90 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 91 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 92 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 93 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 94 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 95 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 96 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 97 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 98 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 99 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 100 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 101 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 102 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 103 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 104 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 105 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 106 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 107 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 108 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 109 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 110 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 111 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 112 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 113 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 114 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 115 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 116 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 117 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 118 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 119 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 120 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 121 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 122 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 123 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 124 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 125 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 126 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 127 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 128 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 129 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 130 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 131 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 132 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 133 of 134 Planning & Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Page 134 of 134 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM From: The Office of the Planning and Zoning Coordinator Date: 4-3-2008 Subject: Agenda Item No.D.1 Adjournment.