Loading...
Agenda Packet P&Z 02/21/2008Town of Trophy Club Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Session Agenda 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262 Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:00 P.M. A.1 Call to order and announce a quorum. B.1 Review and approve minutes. a. January 3, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. b. February 15, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. c. March 1, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. C.1 Discussion and appropriate action relative to a request for a Temporary Use Community Garage Sale Permit granted by Special Privilege. (Applicant: Trophy Club Women's Club) C.2 Discuss and take appropriate action relative to a request for Replat of Lot 3, Block A, Trophy Wood Business Center. Applicant: Highway 114 Prospect, LTD (RP-08-013) D.1 Adjournment. Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 1 of 29 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM From: The Office of the Planning and Zoning Coordinator Date: 2-21-2008 Subject: Agenda Item No.A.1 Call to order and announce a quorum. (ch) Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 2 of 29 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM From: The Office of the Planning and Zoning Coordinator Date: 2-21-2008 Subject: Agenda Item No.B.1 Review and approve minutes. a. January 3, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. b. February 15, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. c. March 1, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. (ch) Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 3 of 29 MINUTES OF A REGULAR SESSION FOR THE TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2008 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trophy Club, Texas met in a Regular Session on January 3, 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 Absent Commissioner Sheridan Present Commissioner Sanchez Absent Commissioner Forest Present STAFF AND GUESTS PRESENT: Carolyn Huggins Planning & Zoning Coordinator Bobby Harrell Harrell Custom Homes, Inc. Roger Unger Quanah Properties David Johnston Quanah Properties A.1 CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with five members present. Mr. Ashby and Mr. Sanchez were absent. Chairman Hill stated the following: “Good evening. Thank you for your interest in the issues scheduled to be heard before the Planning and Zoning Commission tonight. Our regular meetings are public sessions scheduled the 1st and 3rd Thursdays of each month, and you are always welcome to attend. Any persons present desiring to be heard concerning the items listed on tonight’s agenda should sign up on the forms available by the door and present them to Ms. Huggins. Each speaker will be allocated 3 minutes for their statements. Tonight’s meeting is a combined Public Hearing and Regular Session, held to consider and develop the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendations for amendment to Town Ordinances concerning a request to replat Lots 6R and 7R, Block 1, The Knoll, by applicant Harrell Custom Homes, Inc. Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 4 of 29 Following the Commission’s consideration and action on the replat request, at the request of the Town Council we will conduct a second Public Hearing and Regular Session to review Value Place Hotel east elevation signage. The Commission is requested to recommend to the Town Council approval or denial of the rear (or east) elevation signage for Value Place Hotel. The audience is assured that during the Public Hearings the Commission will hear from all persons who have signed up to speak. However, a Public Hearing is not a “town meeting”. There are to be no spontaneous questions addressed from the audience to the Commissioners or to other speakers concerning their statements or positions on these issues. I request that Commissioners take note of the names of tonight’s Public Hearing speakers and any points they make which a Commissioner might desire to pursue further during the Public Session, as we will not interrupt or question speakers or conduct discussions during the Public Hearing. Following this introduction, the Commission will open the first Public Hearing. I will then read into the record the item concerning the request for replat of the two lots in the Knoll. We will discuss and take action in Regular Session on the item as listed in our agenda. It is a matter of routine that items heard and recommended from the Planning and Zoning Commission will appear on future Town Council agendas for final action. When all speakers have been heard, the Public Hearing will be closed and the Commission will convene into Regular Session for discussion and deliberation of the replat. In Regular session, the replat will be called up as listed on the agenda. The Commission may discuss the item among themselves or ask questions of individuals concerning their Public Hearing statements. The Commissioners will finally determine and vote on a recommendation concerning the item under consideration. The second Public Hearing to consider the Town Council request for the Commission to review the east elevation signage for the Value Place Hotel will be conducted in a similar manner and the Commission will make a recommendation to the Town Council.” The Chairman thanked the audience for their patience during the introduction and stated that the first public hearing would be opened shortly. B.1 REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 20, 2007, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. Commissioner Sheridan motioned to approve the minutes of the December 20, 2007, Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Reed. Ayes: Hill, Stephens, Reed, Sheridan, Forest Nays: None Action: 5-0, Approved Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 5 of 29 C.1 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REPLAT FOR LOTS 6R AND 7R, BLOCK 1, THE KNOLL, APPLICANT: HARRELL CUSTOM HOMES, INC. (RP-07- 012). Vice Chairman Stephens made a motion to open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sheridan and approved by all members present. There were no requests to speak. Commissioner Sheridan made a motion to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Reed and approved by all members present. The Chairman moved to Item D.1 for discussion and consideration of this matter. D.1 DISCUSS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION RELATIVE TO A REQUEST FOR REPLAT OF LOTS 6R AND 7R, BLOCK 1, THE KNOLL, APPLICANT: HARRELL CUSTOM HOMES, INC. (RP-07-012) Bobby Harrell, 395 W. Northwest Parkway, Southlake, Texas, Harrell Custom Homes, stated that he has a couple who bought the house at 12 Hunters Ridge, Lot 6R and also bought the adjacent lot 7R and wish to plat the two together in order to add onto the existing new home. They wish to add two 2-car garages and a work area on the first floor, and upstairs they wish to add a game room, a wet bar and a media room. He stated that it will be a very fine addition to the Knoll subdivision. Mr. Harrell stated that he is available for any questions. Chairman Hill asked the Commissioners for questions. There were none and the Chairman called for a motion. Commissioner Sheridan made a motion to approve the replat of Lots 6R and 7R, Block 1, The Knoll. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Stephens. Ayes: Hill, Stephens, Reed, Sheridan, Forest Nays: None Action: 5-0, Approved E.1 PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW VALUE PLACE HOTEL EAST ELEVATION SIGNAGE. Commissioner Reed motioned to open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Stephens and approved by all members present. Mark Collins, 13 Jamie Ct., thanked the Commissioners for the opportunity to speak to them and stated that he is glad they are considering the signage that the Value Place Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 6 of 29 Hotel has. He stated that he moved to Trophy Club about two and a half years ago. He hired a single person from Ohio, who asked him about buying a home in Trophy Club; he told her it is a real nice community. She ended up buying a house in Trophy Club last January and the other day when they were talking about some of the issues going on with the development plans for the area near Value Place she said that if she had driven up here and seen Value Place she would not have bought a house in this community. Mr. Collins stated that the signage they have now looks more like Las Vegas than what is on the website for the Town, which is a nice residential lake community. Mr. Collins stated that if there is anything that can be done about this, he appreciates the Commission’s effort in working in that direction. There were no others speakers and the Chairman called for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Reed made a motion to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Stephens and approved by all members present. The Chairman moved to Item F.1 for discussion and consideration of this matter. F.1 DISCUSS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON REVIEW OF VALUE PLACE HOTEL EAST ELEVATION SIGNAGE. Chairman Hill stated the following: “Before the Commission further considers the agenda item before us, I want to provide some basic points of information to guide our discussion: • Development of the Value Place Hotel took place under criteria set forth in Planned Development Ordinance 2006-39, approved by the Town Council October 2, 2006. • The property is currently in full compliance with PD 2006-39. • Copies of the sign criteria that were attached to the original PD Ordinance 2006- 39 were included in the P&Z packet for tonight’s meeting. • As the Public Hearing agenda item was specific to the Town Council’s request to review the east elevation signage of the Value Place Hotel, the Commission can consider only this sign at this time. No other parts of PD 2006-39 are to be discussed in this meeting. The question is, ‘Should the sign be allowed under the present circumstances.’” Chairman Hill asked the Commissioners for discussion and comment. Commissioner Reed: “I don’t understand all the fuss about this. We have electronic signs for the Town. I don’t see anything wrong with an electronic sign for a business establishment. The two signs they have face Highway 114. The only people who see them are the people who go up and down the highway. That is exactly the people that the hotel is trying to get the word to that they have a place for people to stay on a long Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 7 of 29 term basis. Value Place is a reputable firm. They have hotels like this all around the country. They serve a very special purpose for people here for conferences; to visit sick family members in the hospital; instead of going out and paying $100 a night for a hotel this is a perfect thing for people in that situation. Maybe some of you like to stay in a $100 hotel all the time, but some people can’t do that. I see nothing wrong with the sign whatsoever. I see nothing wrong with the hotel. If it were next to somebody’s house with a flashing sign that flashed in your bedroom, I could understand it, but nobody any place in town can see it unless they are out on the highway. I strongly recommend; I am in favor of leaving it just the way it is. They are in full compliance. All of these things were approved by the Town and I see no reason that we should change it now.” Vice Chairman Stephens: “Chairman Hill, I think it is a little late to be discussing this. They met our Town ordinances and they have a right to put signs up and seek business. I don’t have a problem with it. That’s commercial property. It is one of the 86 uses allowed on that property. They built it according to our Town codes. They signed it according to our Town ordinances. I don’t have a problem with it at this point, nor did I have a problem with it when they made application.” Commissioner Sheridan: “The sign in question does not meet the ordinance so the idea that it is in complete compliance with the ordinance I don’t think is quite there, because this sign in question was not part of the original approved signage for this PD. I’ve been trying to figure out if I would have approved it back then. I think I would have. I don’t like to think that [that I would have approved it] because I don’t like the sign, but at the same time I think that I probably would not have objected to it at the time. The fact is, though, that the sign is not in compliance with the PD. It is an improper sign.” Commissioner Forest: “I was under the impression that it was approved; that it is in compliance with the ordinance. In fact, I wondered why it was even brought up because if it is in compliance how are we going to turn it down or even object to it anyway. If they met the Town ordinance on it, to me it is not necessary to even bring it up. There isn’t anything we can do about it anyway. It is not up to us. It is a recommendation to start with to the Town Council, but if it is in compliance I can’t see that it makes any difference. If it isn’t in compliance then that is a different issue.” Commissioner Sheridan: “That begs the question, is it or isn’t it in compliance with the ordinance.” Chairman Hill: “The sign was installed with a sign permit from the Town which was issued after February 26, 2007, and they installed the sign on the basis of having a permit from the Town which, in fact, said that it was in compliance. That is where we stand.” Chairman Hill asked for further discussion or a motion. Commissioner Reed made a motion recommending that the Town Council approve the signs as they exist now. Vice Chairman Stephens seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 8 of 29 Ayes: Hill, Stephens, Reed, Forest Nays: Sheridan Action: 4-1, Approved G.1 ADJOURNMENT. Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 7:18 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 9 of 29 MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING & REGULAR SESSION FOR THE TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 2007 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trophy Club, Texas met in a Public Hearing and a Regular Session on 15 February 2007, at 7:00 pm in the Boardroom of the Trophy Club Administration Building, 100 Municipal Drive, Trophy Club, Texas 76262. COMMISSIONERS ATTENDANCE: Chairman Hill Present Vice Chairman Stephens Excused Commissioner Ashby Present Commissioner Moss Present Commissioner Reed Present Commissioner Sheridan Present Commissioner Stamos Absent STAFF AND GUESTS PRESENT: Kerin C. Fleck Planning & Zoning Coordinator Jim Wiegert Carter & Burgess Mehrdad Moayedi Centurion American Steve Lenart Lenart Development Beth Ann Gregory Community Development Manager A.1 CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM. 7:00pm Chairman Hill called the meeting to order and explained the format of the meeting for the benefit of the audience. PUBLIC HEARING B.1 PUBLIC HEARING: A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 27, KNOWN AS THE HIGHLANDS AT TROPHY CLUB, BY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF PD-27: IN EXHIBIT "B" - "DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: SECTION III, "DEFINITIONS"; SECTION IV, "LOT TYPE REGULATIONS"; TABLE NO. 4-1, "SUMMARY OF LOT TYPE REGULATIONS"; SECTION V, "NEIGHBORHOOD REGULATIONS"; TABLE NO. 5-1, "NEIGHBORHOOD LOT AND DENSITY SUMMARY"; SECTION VI, "DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS"; TABLE NO. 6-1, "ROADWAY STANDARDS"; SECTION VII, "PARK AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS"; SECTION VIII, "DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE"; EXHIBIT "C", "CONCEPT PLAN"; EXHIBIT "D", "STREET TYPE EXHIBITS"; AND EXHIBIT "F", "PATHWAY PLAN". APPLICANT: CARTER & BURGESS, INC., AUTHORIZED AGENT OF CENTURION ACQUISITIONS, L.P.; 831 TROPHY, L.P.; Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 10 of 29 STANDARD PACIFIC OF TEXAS, L.P.; K. HOVNANIAN HOMES - DFW, L.L.C.; C OIL INVESTMENTS LTD. (PDAMD-07-023) Commissioner Reed made a motion to open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moss and approved by all members present. Jim Wiegert, Carter & Burgess came forward and stated that they are asking for slight amendments to the PD zoning. As the development has moved forward there is more accurate information, surveys and environmental data which prompted changes to the PD. They have revised the lot count to more closely reflect what they expect to build. There are adjustments to the Pathway Plan and more detailed acreage on the open space for dedication to Parks. A major change is lot changes to Neighborhood 8, which will be larger lots and the neighborhood will be restricted to townhomes only. He showed renderings for Neighborhood 8, along with the landscape architects rendering of the entranceway to this neighborhood and the screening materials along Trophy Club Drive and Marshall Creek East. This will be a gated community with a divided entry. There will be a lot of open space and a pool and recreation center with parking. There will be a trail system that will connect through the neighborhood to the golf course. Anyone who lives there and has a golf cart could access the golf path to the driving range. He showed a streetscape with trees and screening that is a combination of masonry, wrought iron, berms and live screening. He stated that Lot Type 5 will be 30- ft. in width with front entry garages. There will be decorative paving at all of the intersections. The landscaping is intended to be more intense than it was before. Steve Gregory, 205 Pebble Beach Drive, stated that he is a member of the Trophy Club Parks and Recreation Board and that Board met just a couple of nights ago and had an opportunity to review the parkland plans. He stated that the Parks and Recreation Board is a resource to the Town and the citizens in that their feedback and input are valuable. Based on what they reviewed the other night they have some concerns: 1) there is a reduction in total parkland of about 10+ acres. The majority of that land was on the northeast corner of the plat adjacent to Marshall Creek Park and the Board wondered if some other land is available to replace that reduction. 2) A majority of the land designated as Northeast Park is a flowage easement which is a drainage area. From a utility standpoint, how valuable is that land as far as quality for park development? Can ballfields, soccer fields, or football fields be developed on any part of it and, if so, what size? Is this the best available land and piece of property for an active use park? Perhaps there is a better piece of land in another location. A question that came up is who evaluates the quality and suitability of the land that is offered for parkland development? Is it Town staff? Is it the developer? P&Z? Parks and Recreation Board? The Parks and Recreation Board would like to be involved in that process if at all possible. J. D. Stotts, One Narrow Creek Ct., is also a member of the Parks and Recreation Board and he is concerned about changes to the trail. He stated that there will be a trail through the flowage easement, which is passive type park property, on the north side. In Neighborhood 8, the trail will duck in between the last home on the left at the end of the cul-de-sac and the gas well pad, and then cross private property to get to the park. Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 11 of 29 He believes this will create issues and problems and that it will not tie in well with the planned trails that the Board is working to improve in Marshall Creek Park. The trail and green space were to be along the top side of this development and come down next to the Northwest ISD high school site and then go into a park and come down by the pool and connect into a neighborhood. It no longer does that. It goes into a Town Center area and dead ends into the back of a home. What could have been a continuous loop trail now dead ends. Mehrdad Moayedi, Centurion American, stated that the change to Neighborhood 8 was prompted by the original mix of 90-ft. lots backing up to townhomes. They did not feel it was a good mix. They found a desire in the town for an active adult community, age restricted, with townhomes on smaller lots, with a master bedroom on the first floor. They chose a 30-ft. lot with a master bedroom on the first floor and age restricted, which means they would have their own community center so the pool wouldn’t have a bunch of kids in it. They want their own community center with activities that pertain to them. Mr. Moayedi stated that they plan to build a 6,000 to 7,000 sq. ft. community center that has different activities for the active adult. It will also be an area close to the golf course so they can take their own golf carts to the clubhouse, restaurant and other things. It will be a gated area. Active adults travel a lot and are concerned about security. They want to be able to lock up and go. He stated that a lot of residents of Trophy Club have given them very positive input about this community because they would like to stay in Trophy Club but they don’t need a 4,000 to 5,000 sq. ft. house anymore, but they want a high grade quality town home with amenities. Mr. Moayedi stated that they will work with the Parks Department to clear up the issues with the trails. The original trails that were there were going to be torn up by the builders as houses were built. He stated that they will work with the Parks Department to make sure the continuity of the trails and pathways are there. He stated that they exceed the amount of park dedication required by ordinance. Commissioner Moss motioned to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Reed. REGULAR SESSION C.1 DISCUSS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION RELATIVE TO A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 27, KNOWN AS THE HIGHLANDS AT TROPHY CLUB, BY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF PD-27: IN EXHIBIT "B" - "DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: SECTION III, "DEFINITIONS"; SECTION IV, "LOT TYPE REGULATIONS"; TABLE NO. 4-1, "SUMMARY OF LOT TYPE REGULATIONS"; SECTION V, "NEIGHBORHOOD REGULATIONS"; TABLE NO. 5-1, "NEIGHBORHOOD LOT AND DENSITY SUMMARY"; SECTION VI, "DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS"; TABLE NO. 6-1, "ROADWAY STANDARDS"; SECTION VII, "PARK AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS"; SECTION VIII, "DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE"; EXHIBIT "C", "CONCEPT PLAN"; EXHIBIT "D", "STREET TYPE EXHIBITS"; AND EXHIBIT "F", "PATHWAY PLAN". APPLICANT: CARTER & BURGESS, INC., AUTHORIZED AGENT OF Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 12 of 29 CENTURION ACQUISITIONS, L.P.; 831 TROPHY, L.P.; STANDARDS PACIFIC OF TEXAS, L.P.; K. HOVNANIAN HOMES - DFW, L.L.C.; C OIL INVESTMENTS LTD. (PDAMD-07- 023) The first item to be considered by the Commission is a definition for “Main Façade”: “The portion of the structure, including the garage or porch that is closest to the front building line”. The “main façade” is referenced several times throughout the PD regarding garages. Chairman Hill stated that in his opinion the requested definition might allow instances where a garage would face the street and in itself be the main façade if it is the portion of the structure including the garage or porch. He stated that he could see a garage sidewall for a swing-in garage possibly being the nearest portion to the front building line, inasmuch as that could be considered the face of the structure in an allowable situation. Commissioner Sheridan recommends that the definition be changed to: “The portion of the structure, EXCLUDING the garage or porch, that is closest to the front building line.” He stated that he doesn’t believe a front J-drive or a California swing drive is applicable to these neighborhoods. Ms. Fleck stated that it would be applicable in Lot Type 1. Commissioner Moss stated that he agrees with Mr. Sheridan’s idea to exclude the garage and porch. Commissioner Ashby stated that he believes the original wording is adequate. The developer was asked to explain why he wants to make the change. Steve Lenart, Lenart Development, stated that the existing PD mentions the term “main façade” throughout the PD but it is not defined, which has caused confusion with the builders. With offsets in the homes such as front porches that stick out rather than being recessed behind the front walls, the developer wanted to get a firm definition so everyone is on the same page. For instance, on the 70-ft. wide lots with a garage facing the street 30-ft. behind the “main façade,” the builders have plans where if you are standing on the street facing the pad, the driveway would be a swing-in, which means it would swing across the front of the yard into a two-car bay that faces the side yard. A third car garage would sit back behind that at the far side of the home. If you are standing on the street you would see a single car garage 30-ft. behind the front side of the sideways garage. They included “garage or porch” in the definition in order to make it clear what is meant by “main façade”. Chairman Hill asked if “face of the structure” could be used. Mr. Lenart stated that it could lead to splitting hairs over the definition of “face”. Some builders, David Weekley, for instance, have some standard plans where they have a 6 to 8-ft. front porch sitting off the front of the home with a covered 4-pitch roof over it but the front wall of the home is at the back of that. Commissioner Reed asked if it would be possible to center it ‘so far back’ from the building line and let it go at that. Mr. Lenart responded that would work too. Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 13 of 29 Commissioner Sheridan stated that this only applies to Lot Type 3. Lot Type 4 says that 75% of the garages have to be set back from the main façade so you can’t have a garage as part of the main façade. He commented that there are 90 pages involved in this request and he likes and appreciates the applicant being here, and in analyzing this he is concentrating on the negative side, not the positive, and he doesn’t mean to be negative toward the whole thing. He is very positive to the overall request but wanted to explain that the Commission is nit-picking the semantics. Mr. Sheridan would like to see this request for the main façade definition applicable to a lot type. He stated that the goal is to avoid a row of garage doors and “main façade” is an important definition. Mr. Moayedi stated that this affects the 70-ft. lots which have 6-ft. side yards. He does not want to have garages facing the street. They want to have 5-ft. side yards with no front garages facing the street. They can do J-swings and have 25-ft. back up space from the garage on a driveway. Commissioner Reed suggested the developer work out the wording along the lines of “no garages facing the street unless they are 30-ft. back from the front building line.” Commissioner Sheridan noted that some lots require 50-ft. He wants to avoid making a blanket change to the whole document. In the definition it should refer to an individual lot type per variations. Mr. Moayedi stated that they are only requesting this for Lot Type 3. Chairman Hill asked for language to be drafted by the developer for the main façade definition. Chairman Hill then asked for an explanation of their request for “proposed Lot Type 3 side yard requirement” to 5-ft. from the current 6-ft. minimum. Mr. Moayedi stated that there must be room for a turnaround area to get in and out of the garage on the side. They are asking to make the side yard 5-ft. and they will commit to not having any garages facing the street for that lot type. Mr. Lenart added that the way they worded their request is that if the double garage did not face the street it would drop to a 5-ft. setback. In that lot type a certain percentage could face the street and those would stay at 6-ft. The intent is to get more radius on the swing in and to make for a more user friendly garage for people. Chairman Hill asked for wording that did not allow two side yard widths for the same type lot. Mr. Lenart stated that he understands what the Chairman is looking for and that it can be changed. Commissioner Sheridan suggested rewording so that the intent is conveyed that in this neighborhood the side yard would be 5-ft. and no garage faces the front street. He stated that when this was originally done the Town wanted separation of houses. He stated that he understands what they mean by the swing of the garage, but his question to staff is does the Town have a code over the concrete depth of a side swing. Years Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 14 of 29 ago Arlington had 22-ft. and Plano had 28-ft. and Garland had 25-ft. out of the garage. Mr. Moayedi stated that 25-ft. is the minimum they want. Mr. Sheridan asked if it is possible to allow the 5-ft. on the garage side and still stay 12- ft. between houses. Mr. Moayedi stated that not all the garages will be on the left side of the house. Chairman Hill stated that it seems that the consensus would be to go with the 5-ft. Chairman Hill asked that reference to golf course lots for Lot Type 3 be removed as there will not be any Lot Type 3 lots on the golf course. Chairman Hill then moved to discussion of the proposed definition of Town Home Structure. The Chairman summarized that the requested change is radically different from what was proposed for Neighborhood 8 and he asked the Developer for an explanation. Mr. Moayedi stated that the concept was to try to have an active adult community. He then went into detail of density, elevations, lot size, and finally, marketability. Chairman Hill responded that the Commission wanted some staggered frontage and he would like to see that return. Mr. Moayedi stated that it is not possible with a 15-ft. frontage. It is designed to have a certain amount of backyard and if they have to stagger the front, they lose the backyards. They could stagger with a 20-ft. front build line. Commissioner Sheridan stated that he is an advocate of town homes and active adults. He stated that in the original public hearings, town homes were highly controversial. It was a compromise to get them and one of the things that made a big difference was rear entry with a nicer front façade. Another plus was the family-look twoplex-type townhome, and the character built by the differential in façade setbacks. He stated that it isn’t that he doesn’t trust this developer, but he doesn’t trust the builder two years from now. He is trying to adjust to the changes: 1) from rear entry to a front entry, and 2) from two houses per building to six houses per building. There is room for movement but he isn’t sure how to move. He is going back to what the citizens wanted when this was first created and even then it was highly controversial and he doesn’t want to raise that controversy again because he thought it was settled. Mr. Moayedi responded that the 55-year old clientele likes a backyard. The garage doors will not be regular garage doors but will be architectural doors. He also responded that, within reason, they are flexible on the setbacks. Commissioner Sheridan stated that if the Commission were to consider front entry, he would want to eliminate No. 1 on page 47 regarding the separation of bays. He would want to concentrate on No. 2, the covered 4-ft. porte-cochere. He would want to try to keep that. Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 15 of 29 Commissioner Ashby is in favor of Mr. Sheridan’s comments regarding Page 6, No. 4, “front yard set back” and “current appearance of structures”. The proposed change would create a row house appearance. Commissioner Reed does not want each unit to be six. Mr. Moayedi suggested that language could be added for instance “25% could be 6, 25% has to be 4”. Mr. Reed stated that he is also concerned about the front entry garages. He believes it will be a horrible appearance. Mr. Moayedi stated that the clientele for this neighborhood wants a backyard which forces the garage to the front. Mr. Reed suggested they have both a backyard and the garage in the back. Mr. Moayedi stated that the usable space would be greatly reduced with both in the back. Mr. Reed stated that the Town traditionally doesn’t have garages in the front since people leave their doors open with their junk in there. Mr. Moayedi stated that they will deed restrict this neighborhood. It is a specific use different from the rest of the Town. Commissioner Moss stated that it would be more acceptable if they went with the 2 and 4. He doesn’t like front entry garages either, however, he understands that it is a gated community and hopefully the fencing in the front of this neighborhood will separate them from the houses across the street. Perhaps some vegetation would help with shielding. Mr. Moayedi asked if just a small percentage of 6’s would be acceptable. Commissioner Moss responded that he has no problem with that. Mr. Moayedi stated that they will have screening all along Trophy Club Drive and they have proposed to have a berm, landscaping and wrought iron with masonry columns. Chairman Hill requested concept designs, house elevations, and a neighborhood arrangement with multiple sizes. Mr. Moayedi agreed. Commissioner Sheridan asked where the 20-ft. right-of-way for driveways will go if the garage is shifted from rear to front. Mr. Moayedi stated that more lots were added, increasing from 207 to 260. The lots are 30 x 105. Mr. Sheridan asked if they could increase the front setback and still stagger. Mr. Moayedi stated that they could. Mr. Sheridan stated that the rear yard would be at a minimum of 10-ft. Is it possible to increase the minimum floor area from 1350 up? Mr. Moayedi stated that he believes they could, but square footage is dependent on the needs of the clientele. Commissioner Sheridan asked if curbs are required for a private community, private street. Ms. Fleck responded that they are required. Are roll curbs allowed? Can the driveway be restricted to 16-ft. and if it is private with minimal streets can the radius be decreased or eliminated? Would you consider increasing the distance between buildings? Mr. Moayedi responded that they will give it their best shot. Commissioner Reed asked if the two-car garages will have two separate garage doors or one large one. Mr. Lenart responded that they would leave it up to the builder Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 16 of 29 provided he follows the PD requirements of an architectural door. Mr. Reed responded that older, retired folks do a lot better with one wide door. Chairman Hill called for a 5-minute recess and then resumed Mr. Reed’s discussion. Commissioner Reed noted that on page 47 he would like to eliminate the reference to two separate bays and require one large garage. Commissioner Sheridan added that he would like the reference to two separate bays to be listed as a requirement rather than as a choice as “one of the following”. Commissioner Reed agreed. Chairman Hill asked Mr. Moayedi to reword the “Garages” section to reflect the Commissioner’s requests. Mr. Moayedi agreed. Chairman Hill moved to the updating of Table No. 4-1 on page 48. Lot 5 should be updated to reflect the Commissioner’s requests that were just discussed. The rear yard setback might need to be adjusted based on tonight’s discussion. Chairman Hill then reviewed changes to pages 49-52, neighborhood lot and density summary. Mr. Moayedi stated that they upped the lot sizes and currently don’t meet the number of 60-ft. lots required because a number of them have been upped to 70-ft. lots at the request of the Council. They are changing (downsizing) the total number of 60-ft. lots in order to meet the Council’s request for 70-ft. lots. These changes are reflected on pages 49, 50 and 51 of the packet. Chairman Hill asked that the reference to an “estate” lot be deleted on page 50 under neighborhood 7. That lot should be referred to as Lot Type 1 rather than as an “estate” lot. Commissioner Ashby recommended that the Commission require a definition for “age restricted development”. Mr. Moayedi stated that it will be “55 or older”. Commissioner Reed asked if that meant that no one younger than 55 would be allowed to buy. Mr. Moayedi stated that no one younger than 55 would be allowed to buy. Commissioner Moss noted that on page 6 “berms” was added to the proposed screening regulations. Many of the residents have a negative connotation concerning berms. Mr. Moayedi stated that they are trying to do something that blocks the view of the garage doors. They do not want it to be a solid wall but a mixture of wrought iron, vegetation, trees and landscaping. They thought that a berm with a rolling hill would be best. Chairman Hill suggested that in developing illustrations for the next meeting date they could show an example of the type of berm that will be used. Commissioner Moss suggested they include maximums (not minimums). Chairman Hill moved to Parks and Recreation. Parks and Recreation Director Adam Adams spoke of the concerns of the Parks and Recreation Board. Mr. Adams noted that the Parkland Dedication Ordinance has been met and exceeded by 14 acres, but the Board is concerned with quantity and quality. The land to be dedicated might not be suitable for the current needs of the Town. The trail system is of great concern to the Parks and Recreation Board. In summary, Mr. Adams stated that: 1) the developer meets the minimum required, 2) there was a loss in acreage, and 3) there was a loss of connectivity in the trail system. Mr. Moayedi stated that he does not feel they are Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 17 of 29 getting a fair shake. There are a certain amount of PID dollars that must be spent on utilities, roadways and things like that, and they are spending a couple of million dollars on the Town’s parks above and beyond the land donated. A community center will be built in the Town. An activity center will be built. Some of the Village Center will be given back to parkland. He stated that every step of the way they have given a lot more to Parks than was here in the past. He doesn’t believe the Parks and Recreation Board is up-to-date on what the developer has done. Chairman Hill stated that parkland is incorporated into the PD and he believes it would be beneficial for the developer to meet with the Parks and Recreation Board to discuss the trail system to see if the continuity could be improved. The Planning and Zoning Commission considers this as a concept plan and looks at how it fits into the town and how it fits into the PD. Mr. Moayedi responded that open space and parks are one of the main amenities that they are selling to their builders and residents so they don’t want to screw that up. Commissioner Moss stated that he is a former member of the Park Board, and as a Planning and Zoning Commission member and as a resident of the Town he feels that discussion between the developer and the town staff has been kept confidential. He feels it would help a lot for the Park Board to have some idea of discussions between the developer and staff. Mr. Moayedi responded that he does not want to keep any information confidential as these are all positive things. He stated that he wasn’t aware of the Park Board and the need to meet with them. Commissioner Moss stated that the Park Board hasn’t been included and doesn’t know “a damn thing” to put it bluntly. He stated that he has looked at the Northeast Park and he doesn’t make any decision as it’s not part of the Planning & Zoning Commission function. But as a citizen of the Town as far as he is concerned he doesn’t like the location or what can be put out there. He believes better arrangements can be made. Commissioner Ashby asked what happened to the municipal facility in between the Village Center and the Northwest Park. Mr. Moayedi stated that this is not the ultimate shape. Since this was first presented a lot of things have happened, with Roanoke taking on Marshall Creek and other things that have caused changes to this document. By the next meeting additional changes will happen. The municipal center has gone away. PID dollars will go toward public improvements. The ring road is very important. A water tower is very important. A ditch in the area is a $2 million project to cover up. We are trying to include that in the budget. There is a lot of give and take on the land side, park side and dollar side. Commissioner Ashby stated that the municipal facility was to provide a buffer between the Village Center and the park, besides providing fire and emergency services, life safety services, etc. Is there a plan to replace it? Mr. Moayedi stated that studies have shown that the existing fire station is somewhat adequate but could use equipment improvements and such. The Town, however, desired a gymnasium/community center and the dollars for the municipal facility were shifted to the community center to be built on parkland. Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 18 of 29 Chairman Hill asked for the width of the road leading out to the Corps property that is used as a leased park. Mr. Moayedi stated that it is a 41-ft. paved section, two lanes, no median, minor arterial, 60-ft. right-of-way, with 41-ft. paving. Mr. Hill stated that it may not be adequate. Mr. Moayedi responded that it would be wide enough for people to park on either side and still have two lanes of traffic going through. [Parking is not allowed.] Commissioner Reed asked how close they would build to the gas well site. Mr. Moayedi stated that it won’t change from what is listed in the PD. He stated that they are concerned about how the gas wells are fenced in because it leaves a lot of open space around them. Maintenance is an issue. Chairman Hill responded that the gas well ordinance requires 8-ft. masonry posts with wooden panels. Ms. Fleck stated that if the developer or Encana wants to do more they can, but the minimum is as stated by Chairman Hill. Mr. Moayedi stated that they will meet the minimum and exceed it. They also will have disclosure with all of their buyers. Mr. Moayedi also re-addressed comments to Commissioner Ashby, explaining that they laid out many different scenarios on what money would be spent on and they would have given it to wherever the Town wanted it, but overall it was indicated to them that the Town wanted a gymnasium. Commissioner Ashby stated that he doesn’t necessarily lean that way because life safety is very important as well as the Town’s current high rating in the state for insurance credit for response times. The current fire facility response time to the northwest side of The Highlands is going to increase dramatically and thus that response time will increase insurance rates across the Town. Beth Ann Gregory stated that an alternate site for municipal facilities is being looked at as there is a fairly sizeable piece of property being donated on the school site for an elevated storage tank and there are some options there. Chairman Hill stated as a final comment that Mr. Moayedi should check with the golf course regarding their rules for private citizens using their own golf carts. Mr. Moayedi stated that they are in discussions with the golf course regarding improvements to their club house and parking lot in trade for golf memberships which can be passed onto homeowners. Homeowner’s carts can be driven to the parking lot of the golf course and then they must switch to a golf course cart. Commissioner Moss motioned to table the discussion on the amendments to the PD until the next Planning & Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for March 1, 2007. Commissioner Ashby seconded the motion. The motion passed. C.2 Review and approve minutes. a. 7 December 2006 b. 4 January 2007 c. 18 January 2007 Ms. Fleck noted that on page 99 Commissioner Sheridan didn’t make the comment about the vicinity map. That comment was made by Commissioner Ashby. Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 19 of 29 Chairman Hill noted that on page 100 Item B.5 the Action was Approved 4-1, rather than 4-0 as Commissioner Ashby voted nay. d. 1 February 2007 Chairman Hill is listed as excused, which should be corrected to present. Vice Chairman Stephens did not call the meeting to order. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order. Commissioner Moss motioned to approve the above minutes as corrected. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Reed. The motion passed. D.1 ADJOURNMENT. Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:05 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 20 of 29 MINUTES OF A REGULAR SESSION FOR THE TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 1, 2007 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trophy Club, Texas met in a Public Hearing and a Regular Session on 1 March 2007, at 7:00 pm 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 Ashby Absent Commissioner Moss Present Commissioner Reed Present Commissioner Sheridan Present Commissioner Stamos Resigned – Effective March 1, 2007 STAFF AND GUESTS PRESENT: Kerin C. Fleck Planning & Zoning Coordinator Beth Ann Gregory Community Development Manager Mehrdad Moayedi Developer, Centurion American Jim Wiegert Applicant, Carter & Burgess A.1 CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. B.1 Continue discussion and take appropriate action relative to a request for amendment to Planned Development District No. 27, known as The Highlands at Trophy Club, by amending the following sections of PD-27: in Exhibit "B" - "Development Standards: Section III, "Definitions"; Section IV, "Lot Type Regulations"; Table No. 4-1, "Summary of Lot Type Regulations"; Section V, "Neighborhood Regulations"; Table No. 5-1, "Neighborhood Lot and Density Summary"; Section VI, "Development and Design Standards"; Table No. 6-1, "Roadway Standards"; Section VII, "Park and Open Space Requirements"; Section VIII, "Development Schedule"; Exhibit "C", "Concept Plan"; Exhibit "D", "Street Type Exhibits"; Exhibit “E”, “Park Concept Plans”; and Exhibit "F", "Pathway Plan". Applicant: Carter & Burgess, Inc., Authorized Agent of Centurion Acquisitions, L.P.; 831 Trophy, L.P.; Standards Pacific of Texas, L.P.; K. Hovnanian Homes - DFW, L.L.C.; C Oil Investments LTD. (PDAMD-07-023) Chairman Hill opened the meeting by explaining that this is a continuation of the February 15, 2007, discussion of PD-27. Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 21 of 29 Chairman Hill asked Parks and Recreation Director Adam Adams to report on the February 27, 2007, action of the Parks and Recreation Board. The Chairman directed the audience to page 60 of the packet. Mr. Adams stated that the Parks Board unanimously approved the trail plan and the parkland adoption as presented. They would like the boundaries of the trail delineated and the 25-ft. buffer off the pathway to the adjacent property noted in writing. They would like the width of the pathway leading into Northeast Park to match the natural pathway width of 8-ft. They asked that the trail go into the high school site and Carter Burgess said that if they could they would cross where the ditch washed out and the high school would then have access to the main trail system. In areas 1 and 5 there was concern that the cul-de-sacs ending in the parkland might create a maintenance problem in the future. Chairman Hill stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission’s responsibility is to see that the land is acquired -- which has been done. He explained that the Town Council will address the other items mentioned by Mr. Adams. The Commissioners and Staff proceeded through the Development Standards page by page discussing corrections and revisions. At the conclusion of the discussion Chairman Hill stated that the Commission would like to see this one final time. Mr. Moayedi responded that they are under time constraints to get this to the Council in order to move forward with the Public Improvement District (PID). Ms. Fleck stated that this must go to Council as a public hearing and notice has not yet been placed in the newspaper for the public hearing. She stated that the earliest possible date would be the 26th and that would require a special session by Council. Vice Chairman Stephens stated that he would be willing to trust staff to review the revisions. He also stated that he would attend the Council meeting and would be speaking up if the documents were not correct as requested by the Planning & Zoning Commission. After further discussion and consensus of the Commission, Chairman Hill announced that the Planning & Zoning Commission will see this one final time at the next meeting, March 15, 2007, and then it will move forward to Council. Ms. Fleck will follow up with the Town Secretary to determine the scheduling of the Council meeting. C.1 ADJOURNMENT. Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 8:44 pm. Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 22 of 29 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM From: The Office of the Planning and Zoning Coordinator Date: 2-21-2008 Subject: Agenda Item No.C.1 Discussion and appropriate action relative to a request for a Temporary Use Community Garage Sale Permit granted by Special Privilege. (Applicant: Trophy Club Women's Club) STAFF COMMENTS: The Trophy Club Women’s Club will be handling the event in the same manner as in previous years. The Spring garage sale will be held Saturday, April 19, 2008. The Fall sale will occur Saturday, October 4, 2008. For each event, no alternate rain day is planned. (ch) Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 23 of 29 Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 24 of 29 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM From: The Office of the Planning and Zoning Coordinator Date: 2-21-2008 Subject: Agenda Item No.C.2 Discuss and take appropriate action relative to a request for Replat of Lot 3, Block A, Trophy Wood Business Center. Applicant: Highway 114 Prospect, LTD (RP-08- 013) CASE SUMMARY: The applicant, Highway 114 Prospect, Ltd., is requesting approval of a Replat of Lot 3, Block A, Trophy Wood Business Center. The applicant is dividing Lot 3 into two lots, Lot 3R1, approximately 2.024 acres and Lot 3R2, approximately 0.938 acres in order to match the concept plan outlined in Planned Development No. 25 (PD-25) regulations, which governs the development and use of these lots. CURRENT ZONING: The site is currently zoned Planned Development No. 25 (PD-25). Lot 3 is designated at Tract 6 (Lot 3R2) and Tract 7 (Lot 3R1) in the PD. The zoning and PD concept plan for this site were approved in December 2002. THOROUGHFARE PLAN: This commercial property located at the southeast corner of Trophy Club has special thoroughfare requirements. Much of the PD-25 property is located adjacent to a one-way frontage road along Highway 114. In order to ensure adequate circulation, the Thoroughfare Plan indicates a commercial collector to extend through the property, providing access to Highway 114 as well as the rest of the commercial development located at this commercial node. These requirements have been previously met by the developer when he built Trophy Wood Drive and Plaza Drive. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN: This site is located within the area identified on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Commercial/Professional uses. STAFF REVIEW: The Town Planning & Zoning Coordinator and Town Engineer have reviewed the plat and determined that it complies with Town ordinances and regulations as well as the obligations outlined in PD-25. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of RP-08-013, a replat of Lot 3, Block A into Lot 3R1 and 3R2, Trophy Wood Business Center. Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 25 of 29 Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 26 of 29 Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 27 of 29 Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 28 of 29 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM From: The Office of the Planning and Zoning Coordinator Date: 2-21-2008 Subject: Agenda Item No.D.1 Adjournment. (ch) Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 29 of 29