The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda Packet P&Z 01/19/2012Planning & Zoning Commission Trophy Club Entities Meeting Agenda 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262 Svore Municipal Building Boardroom7:00 PMThursday, January 19, 2012 Call To Order and announce a quorum. Approval of Minutes 1.2011-673-T Review and approve minutes of the December 15, 2011, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. MeetingMinutes 121511.pdfAttachments: 2.2011-674-T Review and approve minutes of the January 5, 2012, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. MeetingMinutes 010512.pdfAttachments: REGULAR SESSION 3.2011-675-T Discussion and recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Temporary Use for Off Street Parking for Model Homes in Planned Development No. 22, Waters Edge at Hogan’s Glen for a Period of Time of Not Greater Than One Year. Applicant: Ashton Woods Homes Staff Report - PZ 011912 - Ashton Woods.pdf Plot Plan.pdf Hogan's Glen HOA Support.pdf Application.pdf Attachments: 4.2011-677-T Discussion and Recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Final Plat of Lot 1R, Block A, Trophy Club Plaza being a Replat of Lot 1, Block A, located on Trophy Lake Drive between State Highway 114 and Trophy Club Drive. Property Owner: Regency Centers, L.P. Staff Report - PZ - Replat.pdfAttachments: Adjourn *THE BOARD MAY CONVENE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS POSTED ITEMS AS ALLOWED BY THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 551.071. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 1 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 January 19, 2012Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Notice is hereby given that a quorum of the Town Council may be in attendance at this meeting. CERTIFICATION I certify that the above notice was posted on the front window of the Svore Municipal Building, 100 Municipal Drive, Trophy Club, Texas, on January 16, 2012, by 5:00 P.M. in accordance with Chapter 551, Texas Government Code. Carolyn Huggins Community Development Director If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disability that requires special needs, please contact the Town Secretary’s Office at 682-831-4600, 48 hours in advance and reasonable accommodations will be made to assist you. I certify that the attached notice and agenda of items to be considered by this Board was removed by me from the front window of the Svore Municipal Building, 100 Municipal Drive, Trophy Club, Texas, on the __________ day of ______________________, 2011. ________________________________, Title: ___________________________ Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:12011-673-T Name: Status:Type:Agenda Item Regular Session File created:In control:1/11/2012 Planning & Zoning Commission On agenda:Final action:1/19/2012 Title:Review and approve minutes of the December 15, 2011, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Attachments:MeetingMinutes 121511.pdf Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Review and approve minutes of the December 15, 2011, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission 7:00 PM Svore Municipal Building BoardroomThursday, December 15, 2011 Call To Order and announce a quorum. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Vice Chair James Stephens, Commissioner Mike Davidson, Commissioner Dennis Sheridan, Commissioner Dale Forest, Chairman Gene Hill, Commissioner Clayton Reed, and Commissioner Gary Richert Present:7 - STAFF PRESENT: Carolyn Huggins, Community Development Director Danny Thomas, Fire Chief Scott Kniffen, Police Chief GUESTS PRESENT: Bill Dahlstrom, Representing the Applicant Mike Twichell, Architect for the Applicant Councilman Bill Rose REGULAR SESSION 2011-569-T1.Discussion of a zoning change request for a 26.354 acre tract of land located at the northeast corner of State Highway 114 and Trophy Club Drive, from the current zoning of "PO" Professional Office and "CR" Commercial Recreation to a Planned Development "PD-30" mixed use of multi-family, retail, professional and recreational type uses. Applicant: Jackson Walker, L.L.P. on behalf of JSB Properties, L.P. Chairman Hill asked the applicant to make an opening statement. Bill Dahlstrom, Jackson Walker, L.L.P. stated that they appreciate all the time everyone, from the community as well as the staff, have put into the application. He stated that they have made some changes to the document and he will go over them briefly. A definition for garden apartments has been added and they are prohibited as they do not wish to have that type of apartments in the development. A definition for a vendor kiosk and signage has been provided. Dry cleaner plants have been prohibited. A Performing Arts Center has been prohibited. An SUP requirement has been added for restaurants with alcohol sales. The heights of structures have been reduced. Provisions have been added for architectural features for the rear of buildings along Trophy Club Drive and Indian Creek Dr. so that the rear of the building matches the front architectural style. The multi family density has been reduced from 1,000 to 500 units. There cannot be a stand-alone residential building; Planning and Zoning Commission Page 4 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 December 15, 2011Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes it must be done in conjunction with a non-residential building. The clock tower will remain on the property (although it may be moved to a different location). Environmental standards have been added – specifically to noise, air, and glare to comply with the Town’s standards. The supergraphics signs have been removed. The minimum unit size for multi family has been increased. Chairman Hill then asked each Commissioner to express his thoughts about the PD-30 document. Vice Chairman Stephens: I am for the commercial development of the 26.354 acres better known as PD-30. I think the residents are for that, I think P&Z is for that, but I want to go on record to say that I am for the commercial development of that piece of property. I want to help move this project forward. I don’t want to hinder it. Having chaired two lengthy working sessions of P&Z, going over PD-30 line-by-line, I am mystified by the applicant’s recent submittal of PD-30 which is basically its initial form without any consideration of our comments and those two lengthy sessions. I recall PD-27, better known as The Highlands, when we worked for months and months and months on that project and their planners wanted a European feel for that development, with shops and residences above. Their initial densities were 5,000 residences in almost 600 acres of land. This was rejected by P&Z. Densities were just way above anything we have allowed in our Town. So, we fought that battle and now The Highlands is being developed and what is being developed out there, to my knowledge, to this day, has no naysayers. It’s really nice and it has added to the quality and fabric of our lives here in Trophy Club. Now then, PD-30 initially asks for approval of 1,000 multi-family units and we’ve heard they reduced that in this updated PD-30 draft document to 500 on 26.354 acres. P&Z has said no. No multi-family residential components in the two meetings I chaired. To my knowledge these gentlemen have not changed their minds. Now then, regarding procedures, that’s Section 3 of this PD, P&Z has said no to that because it will take accountability from the hands of the City of the Town. My email has burned up. My wife is tired of transferring them to my account. However, they have been very informative; one in particular that impressed me was the one from Chris Mammon. He has only lived here two and a half years but he had some insightful things to say having had experience in the City of Irving where apartments are now a blight on that City. Regarding procedures, current Town procedures have served us well from my knowledge. I’ve been on the Commission for a number of years, not as long as Chairman Hill or Mr. Reed, and P&Z to my knowledge, during my tenure of service, we have not drug our feet on any project that has been brought to us. We ask a lot of questions, we think it is our duty and obligation to not just roll over and say go do it, and we look at the details, as they say the devil is in the details and so we look at that. That’s our responsibility so that when we make a recommendation to Council they have something that has been filtered, if you want to say it like that, or it’s been looked over, they don’t have to deal with something that is just bing out of the bag. We are not perfect up here and Council certainly has the right and they sometimes do something that we didn’t recommend, but that’s their responsibility, not ours. We are non-political. We try to keep it that way. We look at the facts, nothing but the facts, and then we make recommendations to the Council to take action on. So that is what is going to happen with this PD. Now then, in order to keep this project moving in the regular session after the public hearing tonight, I will move that we strike all references to multi-family residences, the new terminology is urban residential; I will move that we strike that in the updated PD-30 draft document dated 12-8-11. I will also move at that same time to strike the whole procedures section, which is section 3, of the updated PD-30 document. Those have been the two major sticking matters for us on P&Z and, I think, the Town. In doing that, what it is going to do is retain accountability through the standard operating procedures that have served this Town well. I think the public, the citizens, are demanding that of us and it is something that I feel strongly about. Now then, let me say this again. I do look forward to a Performing Arts Center, something similar in size to the Scott Theater Planning and Zoning Commission Page 5 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 December 15, 2011Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes out in the Seven Corners District of Ft. Worth. I’ve been there several times. I’m a country western blue grass fan. Don Edwards, probably the greatest living cowboy troubadour in America today, the world today, I’ve seen him perform there and the beauty of going to something like that as opposed to going to Texas Stadium to see Garth Brooks, which I did once, I’ll never do that again… he’s that big [indicating with his hands ‘very small’], the sound is terrible, the heats terrible, but at Scott Theater Don Edwards is sitting right there [indicating with his hands ‘very close’]. I get to hear that great tenor voice of his and his expert fingers work the frets on that acoustical guitar. It’s just exhilarating to me to attend something like that, to take my grandchild to something like that. I look forward to that in this PD. I also look forward to dining with my wife. She likes to eat out. I like to eat. I like nice places to eat. I like white linen tablecloths and white linen napkins. I like that. I like taking my extended family. This little 15-year old granddaughter of mine, she has got me lock, stock and barrel. We took her out to Pappadeaux last Monday night to celebrate that 15th birthday. I look forward soon to celebrating that 16th or 17th birthday with her here in the Town of Trophy Club at a new restaurant in PD-30 instead of having to drive and play what’s my lane trying to get from my house to Dallas. Planner Lyle Schaller said, many years ago, if it is not necessary to change, it is not necessary to change. The only difference between those two statements is that subjunctive “if” in the first statement. My conclusion at this point is it is necessary to change PD-30 as it is submitted to us. That’s the purpose of the motion I will make in the last session, that’s the actionable session of our meeting tonight. Now then, in light of past meetings, unless you guys have really changed, I expect the same. Commissioner Sheridan: I would like to be the one to second that motion to approve it. That’s my goal. In the meantime, though, I’ve reviewed the document and with the proviso that there is zero residential in the document and that all procedural staff approval has been removed, I went through it and I would like to have a dialogue, a back and forth on both of us, to resolve any issues I’ve got remaining so that I can be the second of that motion. As an example of the complexity that is remaining, on page 4 of the 12-8 document that I’ve reviewed, there is a definition of hardscape and hardscape includes streets and driveways. Then you go to page 5 and there is a definition of open space and in the definition it has that it is an amenity and the open space definition includes hardscape. It says that amenity includes streets and driveways and parking. Then you go to page 13 where it defines how much is calculated in open space and I’m concerned with the open space in that calculation including the streets. I’d like a dialogue between us to resolve my issues and I’m only using this example as a microcosm of the issues. I’d like to go through the whole document and say these are my concerns and talk back and forth and try to get some type of agreement so that we can recommend approval to the Town Council of a document tonight. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Reed: I pretty much concur with their comments. When we got this latest draft, I was not only stunned but I was disgusted to see that they had completely ignored all of the things that P&Z had spent five or six hours on reviewing this project. I expected to see a draft come back from them that took into consideration what we expected them to do. All we are asking them to do are follow the rules and regulations that every developer for the past 25 years has followed here and it’s worked just fine and there is absolutely no reason to change the process. I’ll be brief and let the others talk. Commissioner Davidson: Well Gentlemen, I have to say the current document was a bit of a disappointment but at the same time I think it is worth articulating to yourselves, the Commission, and the residents that you have in fact made several concessions along the way. Some are fairly significant. There are other pieces that fundamentally adjust what we do within this PD over any other PD that we have. We’ve agreed to many of those points in our previous sessions and I think that speaks to the Commission being insightful enough to understand that maybe some of Planning and Zoning Commission Page 6 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 December 15, 2011Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes our current conditions don’t necessarily apply; however with that said, I think the overwhelming majority of the residents feel that certain pieces and parts didn’t necessarily reflect Trophy Club and I believe, Mr. Twichell, you stated very clearly in one of the early meetings that if you don’t have buy in from the residents then the project is just not going to fly. I think the residents have been pretty clear in their displeasure at least in the current offering. With that being said, what is encouraging to me is the amount of effort that both of you put into previous developments. They are very good developments. They are representative of what needed to happen in those areas and have been very successful and they continue to do so. Trophy Club is considerably different than many of those places. In order to do something similar, it would require you to dig deep and find those changes that need to embrace the business side of it yet still maintain the quality of life in Trophy Club that everyone came here in the first place expecting to retain that. So, I by no means want to keep development from taking place because we need that, but it can’t come at the expense of the taxpayers. There are more than just a few examples of where you bring in a development, it’s good for 5, 10, 15, maybe even 20 years, and then bad things start happening. I think we only have to look to the current malls around the country to see that exact type of turn take place where it’s all exciting at first and then it falls apart so being able to maintain that unique aspect of that area and make it desirable so that it is something that will continue to prosper along the way and benefit the residents instead of being a burden, that’s what we are all looking for. Now, given the fact that there’s been a lot of compromises along the way here, even with that I would ask, is it still possible to meet all of these requirements where the residents can be proud of the end result where the Town does in fact benefit from the higher tax revenue but without incurring excessive overhead and really stretching our limited resources beyond what they are capable of today. And, will you be able to, as a developer and land owner, achieve your goals and objectives for this project. It’s a balance and that balance is going to be reflected in this PD so thus it has to be stated such. Commissioner Forest: I agree with everything people have said except I don’t think any of us have gone far enough on this. My feeling on this is that the whole PD-30 should be voted down and a new proposal brought to P&Z by the developer. There are just so many issues that we can’t agree on that we are getting from the public that we are going to spend more time fooling around trying to adjust this PD that we start off from scratch again and I realize that’s not what the applicant wants to hear but if they come out with what we’ve been talking about and agreed to it could happen very quickly. How high are we talking about with the height of the buildings? Garden apartments… Residential… the signage… drainage problems… mixed use…. I look at that and I’ve read it so many times I’m sick of it. Really bothers me. These issues have not been addressed. I’m going to make a motion whether it gets a second or not, when it comes time to make a motion that the whole thing be turned down. I’m not against the developer on this at all. That’s fine. But I think our job sitting up here is to look after what the people in Trophy Club want, and what we are hearing from the people in Trophy Club… I can’t even go to church anymore. Commissioner Richert: As the newest member of the Planning and Zoning Commission I was very excited when I first heard there was a planned development being considered for this piece of property, something that has been needed for a long period of time. I’m not being facetious. I enjoyed the statements that were made at that time that there was a spirit of cooperation that would be shown in this and that all parties would be heard, that there would be several public meetings, and a lot of discussion about what was best for the community. I’ve been very disappointed in this last draft that I’ve seen. As we painstakingly went through item by item, our concerns and we think the citizens concerns on all the items within this 57 page document, I’ve been very disappointed that those have been virtually totally ignored except where some have been changed to be even possibly more difficult to work with. I agree with those that we need to go back to our document that we Planning and Zoning Commission Page 7 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 December 15, 2011Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes provided and the information we provided of things that we think need to be changed and discuss those in detail so we can reach a mutual agreement. Until then I’m very disappointed and will probably second one of the motions proposed. Chairman Hill: My feeling on this is that the Commission, through a couple of very lengthy and detailed meetings with the developer expressed our problems with a number of the items in the original document. We submitted a copy of all of the proposed modifications to the developer and what we got back 10 days ago essentially reverted to the initial documentation that was furnished to us with some minor modifications in regard to some apartments being eliminated and I don’t feel we’ve gained anything in the several months we’ve been involved. So unless some of the Commissioners have any second statements they’d like to make I believe we’ve concluded the first part of our regular session. At this time we’ll move to the Public Hearing. Discussion Only - No action taken PUBLIC HEARING 2011-599-T2.Public Hearing regarding a request for a zoning change for a 26.354 acre tract of land located at the northeast corner of State Highway 114 and Trophy Club Drive, from the current zoning of "PO" Professional Office and "CR" Commercial Recreation to a Planned Development "PD-30" mixed use of multi-family, retail, professional and recreational type uses. Applicant: Jackson Walker, L.L.P. on behalf of JSB Properties, L.P. Rufus Nicholson, 235 Oak Hill Drive: I am glad to hear the opinions of the Commission and I’m very encouraged. I’m going to limit my comments to just one area – regarding the multi-family units. I understand the developer has made some concessions going from 1,000 to 500. If 1,000 is bad, why is 500 good? If 500 is only half bad I cast my ballot for saying let’s not have any bad at all. There is another comment I just heard about, increased tax revenue from the development and if that is considered to be part of the multi-family I have a comment on that. I googled the cost for a public school student just before I came over this evening and it looks like it’s about $10,000 per year per student in Phoenix which is the lowest in the country, up to $27,000 per year in New York which is the highest. I figure we probably fall somewhere in the $12,000 per year per student, I’m not sure how that fits in, but has this been considered in the statement that they are going to increase the tax base? Maybe we’re going to have more expenses than we are going to gain by it. Joel Quile, 350 Quorum: I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I want progress. Obviously it is important to me as it is to most people here and I want the Town to grow. Of course I want to make Beck happy because I rent from that property so definitely want to stay in their good graces and I think they’ve been pro-Trophy Club, they have done a lot for us, but I love this Town and long after many of us will be gone I believe I’ll still be here. My position is this. I would urge P&Z to follow Mr. Forest’s lead and table this or shut it down and I would go even a step further than that, I think we don’t need to fast track it, not that you guys haven’t done due diligence and I appreciate it greatly, you’ve worked hard, but a couple of meetings and some powwows with you and some garage sale signs out on the property is probably not enough in my opinion. I don’t want it to go the way of the roundabout or the Mormon Church. I think my thought is that we put a committee together with people on committees and Town Council as well as just citizens; I served on a citizen board for the charter with Councilman Rose and it was highly productive. Every Monday for a year we fought and argued with the likes of Ben Brewster and all kinds of people and it was valuable and it helped. So that’s my idea. Take six months or a year and really communicate well with the Town and what we are trying to do. I preach for a living and how you start a sermon counts and how you end it counts. Same with flying. Trophy Club started really strong. This is the last big deal for Planning and Zoning Commission Page 8 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 December 15, 2011Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Trophy Club. I hope we end it really really well. I would urge us to take our time, not rush it, and get something that is good for everybody, everyone is excited about, and we’ll end it really really strong. I’m hoping that Mr. Stephens and I will have dinner in a nice restaurant and he can introduce me to some country music and so I’m looking forward to what’s going to come, but let’s take our time. John Caldwell, 255 Oak Hill Drive: Mr. Stephens took away most of my thunder. I do realize there are a number of reasons to be very thoughtful about how this is approved and what we do with that 26 acres because it is the gateway to our community. I passed out pictures of the Quorum and the disrepair of the Quorum and my thought on that when I did that was to have people understand what can happen with multi-family dwellings with an absentee landlord and also recognize that the pictures are not just of those in the floodplain, those pictures are others that need to be improved as well. I also recognize that property was there 20 or 30 years ago. I don’t know how many of you play golf but anyone who plays golf in Trophy Club and particularly plays the Hogan, and there are thousands of people every year who play in tournaments here, and the first 13 holes of the Hogan are beautiful, well kept single family dwellings, people out working in their yards and keeping their gardens, and on 14 you drive along and there are woods on the right, beautiful, well kept homes on the left all the way down, you go across the creek and you look over to your right and there is the Quorum. I’m not saying that I know what the answer to that is, but I know that must be an absentee landlord and I was told there are issues here as far as getting that resolved, however, an absentee landlord 30 years from now, and I think the majority of us won’t be here, I think the odds are not very good that we will still be here; we’d love to still live in Trophy Club, but from a longevity standpoint we aren’t going to make it. Those new homes that are being built out there are younger families and they are going to be here 30 years from now. They will want to see the gateway to Trophy Club, and I think that 26 acres is the gateway to Trophy Club, they will want to see that as something that represents this Town and everything that it stands for. Ya’ll said a couple of times when you were going through this that we’ve got rules and I think one of the rules for that property is that there are no multi-family dwellings in that property so what the hay? Why not just follow the rules. Thank you, Mr. Stephens. I appreciate you taking all my thunder away, I had another 15 pages here but you took it all from me. Susan Edstrom, 269 Oak Hill Drive: I would like my remarks made a part of the public record. I want to commend and thank the Commissioners for their hard work on our behalf and for hearing what residents said, listening to what we did and didn’t want, and working to make this development something that is good for all residents. I share in your disappointment in the lack of responsiveness to the input. The developer and landowner clearly either didn’t hear us or you or they ignored it. So, in my mind that verges on an insult. We’ve been asked by Council to clearly define what we do and don’t want. They unfortunately may not have been listening well enough to delineate between the two because at the meetings I’ve attended, both desires have been pretty clearly stated. So, to begin with, we do not want apartments. I don’t care if you call them an apartment, a work life unit, an urban unit – it’s an apartment. I disagree with the developer and those working with him that this development can’t work without them. I think part of the disconnect is they don’t understand what Trophy Club is. We are not an urban neighborhood or a development of disconnected gated communities. We are a cohesive bedroom community who desires commercial development that will provide convenience to us and those communities that surround us. We would also like to see destination type businesses that would draw people into our community. We like the idea of a development that would allow for walking throughout. In the last meeting the architect referred to this as an urban development. That is not what Trophy Club is and it makes absolutely no sense to me to say that this last 26 acres of commercial development should be something wholly different than what we are today. Maybe he should come out during the light of day and drive around and really see and Planning and Zoning Commission Page 9 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 December 15, 2011Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes understand what we are and what Trophy Club is. 500 or 1,000 units in my opinion will not make an iota of difference when you talk about the residential numbers already available in this area and of people eager to shop and dine. We are in the neighborhood, Trophy Club, of about 8,000 residents. Roanoke approximately 4,000. Westlake about 1,000. And Southlake 27,000. If the businesses on that 26 acres cannot survive with those numbers for night time business, adding 500 apartments will not make or break,. So you have to ask the question, who needs the apartments? The businesses or the land owner? Second, we should not abdicate viewership of changes out of the public eye. That is not open government. If changes are made they should not happen behind closed doors between staff and the land owner or developer. We have had recent cases of issues that have occurred after decisions were made and ordinances, PDs and such were in place. Eliminating the public accountability opens up the opportunity for additional issues if that should come to pass. Having served on Council, I know firsthand that what we see on a concept plan can and does often turn out to be two very different things. If anybody would like to sit down for about 30 minutes or so with me I can give you a half a dozen examples of what I’m talking about. So to end, I’d like to say that I hope your recommendation to Council will not include any apartment, work life unit, or unit by any other name that is an apartment. I hope that you will not allow abdication of changes not to be made through the process that we have today because it keeps it in the public eye, through your eye and through your lens before it goes to Council and before anything is done. Lisa Hennessey, 45 Panorama Circle: I agree with everything Susan Edstrom has said. I’m totally on board with that. I’d like to thank Planning & Zoning for listening to the residents concerning what we do and don’t want because it doesn’t appear that the Town Council is, because Mayor White was quoted in the paper last week as saying, we know what the residents don’t want, but what do they want? I don’t know if any of you are aware, but two days ago in our local news a newscaster stated, it looks as if apartments in Trophy Club are going to go through. This should alarm everybody here because that means that somebody they interviewed at our Town has led the news to believe it. If that is the case, does it really matter what the residents want and what Planning & Zoning recommends -- if you recommend no multi-family or urban residential? Because if the Town Council has already made up their mind about this will you be able to make a difference? Can you change their minds? They are elected and hired officials and they need to understand that the residents of our Town do not want any type of multi-family dwellings and if they get passed they can pretty much be assured that they won’t be reelected to represent the best interests of our Town. I would also encourage Planning & Zoning to change the wording of the hotel to include a full service restaurant so we can get a quality hotel. The present definition of hotel as noted in the document would actually qualify property such as a Studio 6, which is another extended stay hotel, Days Inn, Microtel & Suites, as well as other numerous hotels of this class. I personally contacted these hotels. They all had 24-hour staffing, a lobby and a meeting conference room. I do not believe that Trophy Club residents are going to be comfortable with those types of hotels being built at another Town entrance that could be up to ten stories in height. If we really want to rebrand our Town, why not consider an upscale hotel and spa. We love Trophy Club and it is a great place to call home and we would like to keep it that way. Having more low income multi-family dwellings or another low income hotel will not help our Town image. However, I say this in the absence of a formal plan which has not yet been offered to the community. It is very disturbing to me that the professional representation of Trophy Club would even consider moving ahead on approvals without firm documented design concepts. While the Shops at Legacy are very nice, they are not at the entrance to a golf course community and they do not back up to our neighborhoods. I would encourage you all to stay firm and say no to the multi-family dwellings. Danny Mayer, 2201 Prestwick: By now you have probably figured out that I am Planning and Zoning Commission Page 10 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 December 15, 2011Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes retired and I write a lot of letters because you get a lot of them. I moved out here about a year and a half ago from Southlake and absolutely love the community. I’m an old northeast Tarrant County boy, I grew up out here, like country music. First of all I’d like to say to these two gentlemen [indicating Mr. Dahlstrom and Mr. Twichell], we do not need to vilify them, they are just the messengers. We do understand that folks, we do understand that you are just the messengers. We have a wonderful community. I was very distressed, as you were, when I saw that last document posted. I was coming tonight and my request was going to be to reject the entire thing and send it back because obviously they are not listening to us. Failing that, I think the next best option is long as it doesn’t have residential in it, I’m all for it. I have been all for it from the day it came about. We need commercial development. We need retail space there. We need restaurants. We need hotels. Whatever. But it is so convoluted and I certainly agree with you Commissioner Sheridan it is so convoluted I don’t know how you can take the document that is there and just take out the multi-family and make it work. There are just too many questions that I don’t think you are going to be able to vote on it tonight. Just a couple of other things. Trophy Club has 91.4% owner/residents. We have 6.3% multi-family. When you add those two together, there are not many homes out here that are rented. I live in Turnberry. The second phase of Turnberry is just opening. There is not a home being built in there right now that is less than $500,000 and they go up to $800,000. That is not an apartment style community. We don’t need multi-family here. The developer says it won’t work without apartments but you guys are not stupid, obviously. You can drive around. There are lots of developments in all of these suburban towns around here that don’t have a parking stacked on top of them. I certainly would like to see the 26 acres become something that is good to us. In my letter that you got yesterday or today I made four points. We have yet to see a site plan. I remember in the first meeting Mr. Stephens said that we would never approve anything without seeing a site plan. We haven’t seen one and I spoke to the Mayor about that last week when we were at a Christmas party; I buttonholed her and she said that she has asked for a site plan and Mr. Beck says he won’t give us a site plan until he knows what is being developed. So, my suggestion is to go with Commissioner Forest. I’d just like to see it done away with and start over again and maybe they’ll listen this time. Gary Mellama, 11 Hayes Court: I’ve been here 33 years. I was part of the first development of this city. We all met over at Dale White’s house and we put the beginning of this city together. This city, in my mind, was designed, implemented, the thought pattern was we would be a bedroom community, we would be a recreational community based on golf, based on tennis, based on a good residential family. I agree whole-heartedly with Mr. Forest. I agree with Mr. Stephens. I agree with Susan. I agree with most of the people who have talked here. This thing has gone to the part where, I don’t like coming to these things, but you’ve finally got me up because I’m a little upset. So please Mr. Forest you can jam it through, do it. Mr. Stephens, I love country music too, but I don’t want multi-family. I don’t want the problems that entails. Please take that into consideration. Daniel Donegan, 2211 Prestwick: Similar to Danny Mayer, I’ve lived in Turnberry for a year and a half. My wife and I moved here because my wife was transferred here and we have two 11-year old twins. One of the reasons for coming to this community was for their future. It’s a great community. My kids go to Medlin Middle School. We started a community service project. When I was in the air force I lived in multi-family communities off base. I was active in the community but when I would ask people for help I would never get it. When I go to my neighbor and ask their kids for help, I get it. My kids at Medlin, we’ve already provided the city with 200 hours of free community service and that’s what kind of community I want to live in for my kids’ future. I do not want multi-family development. I’m definitely for thoughtful commercial development. I don’t just want something dropped there and not thought out. I do want you guys to pass on to the Mayor and the people making the final Planning and Zoning Commission Page 11 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 December 15, 2011Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes decision that the residents do not know enough about this. I found out about it within the last two weeks. As a resident, they need to send out letters to everybody and say this is what is on the block and this is what is going to affect you. The rest of the city needs to know about this. I definitely think I’m going to be more involved. I can guarantee you 20 of my friends will be at the next meeting, if not more. Again, we need to let everybody know about this and you guys need to let the information spread to the community that it is going to affect. Robert Hoch, 245 Oak Hill: I’ve lived in Trophy Club since 1989 and I’ve been on Oak Hill since 1992. This application for a change in zoning is a farce. The P&Z Commission to recommend to the Town Council, Mr. Forest stole my thunder, that the entire application be rejected and the Council should honor that recommendation and consign the entire 59 page document to the recycling bin which is tomorrow. This property has been zoned for professional offices for years and that zoning classification is what home buyers expected when they bought homes here. Agreeing to this proposed zoning change would create an indelible blot at the main entrance of our community and would provide nothing of value to those of us who live here. The proposal, with its minimal setbacks, multi-family housing and over tall buildings seeks to enrich the developer at the expense of the environment that has attracted people to this town for many years. If granted, it will adversely affect the appearance of our town; diminish property values for everyone and not just for those who live in adjoining properties. I see no earthly advantage to the approval of this zoning change and I defy anyone to argue convincingly that there is any benefit to our community in granting its approval. I ask that the Council reject it and maintain the zoning as it is. Should the Council decide in favor of this request, over Mr. Forest’s upcoming motion I presume, I offer my full support to those who will begin the effort to recall the Council members who voted for it. Christina Cari Pearlman, 6 Hamper Ct.: I love Trophy Club. Earlier a gentleman spoke about an absentee landowner and showed us the results using photos of the Quorum. A picture tells a thousand words. This is rental property and rental property is income producing property and investors are always looking for the bottom line – profits. On the other hand, homeowner property is not a depreciable item. Income producing property is. Rental property investors require profit. Yet, it also requires additional investments. Those investments require additional funds for repairs, for maintenance, for obsolescence of design, for unplanned emergencies and repairs and etc. On the other hand, homeowners have a love and pride for their homes and the quality of life is utmost important. Do not be offended that homeowners do not want multi-family apartments, work live arrangements, or whatever you want to call it, because rental property investors have different objectives than homeowners. Ms. Huggins: There are 20 residents within 200-ft. of this property, all of whom were notified of this public hearing. The next speaker, Linda Gray, is one of the residents who lives within 200-ft. of the 26-acre property. Linda Gray, 11 Jennifer Ct.: I live within 200-ft. of this property. I want to thank P&Z for your considerations to the residents. I think you guys and all of us are on the same page. I am in favor of the retail commercial development. When we bought here in 2003, it was obvious then, as it is now, that that land will be developed for commercial reasons. I love the idea of the Performing Arts Center, the upscale restaurants, the retail, even an upscale hotel. However, I am totally against any multi-family housing and any building over four stories tall. Many people in here have spoke about the multi-family housing so I don’t need to go on about that, but I haven’t heard much about the heights of these buildings. I’ve driven around and everywhere I go I am counting one, two, three, one, two, three, one, two, three, four, how tall are the buildings around here. Most of them are between two and four stories tall. You don’t get ten story buildings until you hit Dallas and Ft. Worth. To put a 10-story building on this property would be… I don’t know, some sort of beacon or something. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 12 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 December 15, 2011Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes I don’t know what it would be, but I just would not fit. It would not be congruent with anything else that is going on around here. Chairman Hill closed the public hearing. Referred to the Town Council due back on 1/9/2012 REGULAR SESSION 2011-632-T3.Discuss a zoning change request for a 26.354 acre tract of land located at the northeast corner of State Highway 114 and Trophy Club Drive, from the current zoning of "PO" Professional Office and "CR" Commercial Recreation to a Planned Development "PD-30" mixed use of multi-family, retail, professional and recreational type uses. Applicant: Jackson Walker, L.L.P. on behalf of JSB Properties, L.P. Chairman Hill asked if the applicant wished to make any statement. Mr. Dahlstrom did not wish to make a statement and Vice Chairman Stephen asked to make a motion, citing Robert’s Rules of Order when other Commissioners asked for discussion, i.e., Mr. Stephens stated that Robert’s Rules of Order – you make a motion and you can only discuss what is considered before the body via a motion. Therefore, Chairman Hill, I move that we strike all multi-family residences under any other names mentioned in PD-30, dated 12-8, urban residential, we strike all of that and we also strike Section 3 which deals with procedures. Commissioner Sheridan seconded the motion and then asked to amend the motion to include all references to staff approval – not just Section 3 – because there is reference to staff approval all through the document. Vice Chair Stephens agreed to the amendment. Commissioner Forest stated that there are too many other things needed to amend. I can’t list all the items that would be needed to amend a motion so I am voting against it. Commissioner Sheridan asked if it is feasible to continue with that amendment. He stated that he would like to have a dialogue and go over the rest of the document to discuss it as a commercial property, but if there is no compromise on the amendment then there is no reason to keep going. But, I would like to keep going. Mr. Dahlstrom: We really believe that a residential component is integral in this kind of development. I understand what the community is saying and I believe that what we are proposing is not a garden variety apartment and if anybody would have visited any of the developments that we’ve shown you could see that the quality of residential is there. Keeping the dialogue open is always favorable. The procedures section is advantageous; your consultant said that’s advantageous also for the types of developments we’ve worked on so I believe it would be desirable to remain in, but obviously we will deal with the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation as far as both of those issues go. Commissioner Sheridan: If there is no agreement to that then I would not vote for my own second. Commissioner Reed: I’m just waiting for Mr. (?)[can’t hear] recommendation. Commissioner Davidson: As part of this amendment to what we are talking about, we still have several pieces that were not included in this document and it would take the better part of an hour probably to go through each and every piece that we’ve already gone through before so in my view we have an incomplete document based on our previous discussions. We’ve brought up several issues by the Town’s folks so Planning and Zoning Commission Page 13 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 December 15, 2011Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes now I’m between a rock and a hard spot here. Commissioner Sheridan: I have six pages of discussion items to correct that. Vice Chairman Stephens: My motion does not preclude other motions and other items of discussion. My motion is simply to get to the heart of the matter and those are the two sticking points and there are no doubt some other issues that we would want to look at tonight, but these are the major points and if we can get past this then we can deal with the other. This is not the last motion, no doubt, tonight. Commissioner Reed: I agree with James’ idea of those things, but the point is those are two major things, but there are dozens and dozens of minor things that we covered during those five hours of discussion we had in P&Z. So if we follow James’ idea we haven’t resolved the problem. We still have those dozens and dozens of other items that have to be cleared up. Beck Properties was notified of what we did in P&Z, as we’ve mentioned two or three times already. Beck completely ignored them. I don’t think James’ proposal goes far enough. There is too much to do. We’ve got to get back to Mr. Forest. Commissioner Davidson: It is clear that it is incumbent upon the P&Z Commission to put forth to the Council a complete document. This is anything but. I think trying to amend what we have is problematic at best. If the changes that we had suggested in this document, and it was reviewable at that point, and we were to come to a consensus as I believe we did on a couple of sticking points, so thank you for that, then I think we could in fact move forward with it. As the document sits, if this is what we hand over, we have no guarantee that it is going to represent what the P&Z recommended in the previous meetings. If it was going to, it would have been in there right now. I have a distinct problem with that piece. Commissioner Richert: I agree. I have a serious problem with not going over those items that were submitted by P&Z as recommended changes. There is a lot of detail involved in that. We have a lot of concerns about some very small items because they do affect what will be the city’s role in supporting this property 10, 15, 20 years from now. I see a number of instances on the negative side where things that are stated in this document seriously impact the ability of the city to, frankly, take care of the property and support the Town’s mission statements. Chairman Hill: We have an amended motion before us. Commissioner Sheridan: That was the primary point, but all I was trying to do was get to a point of having a dialogue to go over the rest of the document. Without going over the rest of the document to discuss height, to discuss FAR (which is density), to discuss open space – that’s where I was trying to get to. I was just trying to move it along so we could continue the conversation. I think the property needs to be developed. I think it needs to be developed commercial. I think that would benefit the Town. I would like to see it developed in a high quality and with a boutique hotel. The question is the terminology. How do you put high quality into language that is legally enforceable and how do you put boutique into a hotel that is legally enforceable. If I listen to the architectural styling that they’ve asked for I would basically agree I just have a problem, and would like to talk to them, about how to put it into good language that would create a final document. If we are just going to say, hey you didn’t go a good job and go back and start over again, where at sometimes I felt that was the way to go, at the same time we have the gentlemen here and I would like to continue talking. Commissioner Forest: I’m not bringing this up to postpone this thing and drag it out or anything else, but there are so many issues on there that are brought up… number one height. Hotel – how high is that going to be. Parking garage. Signage. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 14 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 December 15, 2011Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Drainage. There are so many things that we are not able to… why can’t the developer… he knows what we want or at least he should know what we want and what we don’t want. Come on. Bring us something we can take a look at and go from there. For us to sit here and tell the guy what to do I don’t think that’s our position at this point. If he wants to do it then he can bring it and present it to us. If we like it, fine. If we don’t then we can turn it down, but I’m not sure it’s our place to sit here and tell him whether he should have a one story building or a two story building. Commissioner Sheridan: Along those lines, when we’ve had previous developers in here and I’m thinking very specifically of D.R. Horton, they had the option and the ability, and we had the ability, to sit there… there were tables, we were here, we went back and forth over the whole thing, we went through densities, we went through quality, we went through issues, and it was a conversation. It wasn’t here’s my comments go back and redo it. It was an open dialogue and that’s what’s not here right now. We had a meeting on the 3rd and made a lot of recommendations. We raised a lot of issues that we were concerned with and unfortunately they weren’t able to attend for some reason. I would like to offer them the opportunity that we had with D.R. Horton to at least one-on-one go back and forth with us. They don’t have to. They can go back and just either take this to revise it to our previous meetings, which all of my comments will include the November 3 meeting… ok, I don’t mean to belabor the point. Chairman Hill: From my viewpoint, what has happened here is the document was brought to P&Z, which was considered at the meeting on November 3 and then a second meeting on November 17, I believe, and suggestions were made about modifications, reduction in multi-family housing and all this, yet when we get a document back here in early December it has reverted essentially to what was presented the first time with very little consideration of those several hours of meetings in November. Either it wasn’t expected to be accepted by the Commission and the Council, or we were supposed to belly up to the developer’s desires to putting whatever he wanted out there. There’s where I see where we are now. If you are willing to go back and review the points that were made previously and make modifications, then we would have something to consider. As it is I don’t think we have anything here to consider. Commissioner Davidson: I think we’ve all made the point pretty clear but I think we’re to the junction with this process that it’s very broken right at the moment and I don’t think that’s fair to everybody that’s concerned. I agree with Commissioner Sheridan that having that dialogue I think is important and doing that as a small group in executive session or however it makes sense that we did it with Horton going forward to get that input, understanding what the sticking spots are, what it’s going to take to have the development be successful, but incorporating what we understand clearly from the residents and what goes into our own zoning ordinances. I think we could come up with a document that represents all parties concerned here and we don’t need to do it in an adversarial way. Everyone stands to benefit in some way shape or form here but also we stand to be burdened with something that is less than desirable if done improperly. To force this through in its current form is not acceptable. It doesn’t fit the Town. It’s not going to fly with the residents and I think that’s a danger. I don’t think we want to go there, but we do want to develop it and I hope that part is very clear. We want to do that with you, not against you. So there’s lots of latitude in here and I think that when you get the agreement from the Town and from the rest of the residents and even from the Council members on what items are in play and what aren’t in play then that helps narrow down the parameters as to where you can exercise your creative license and really come up with something that represents what I think the majority of people are looking for. You are very talented folks; you have proven that over the years. We need to leverage that talent and I don’t want you to think that we are pushing you away because that is not the intent. I Planning and Zoning Commission Page 15 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 December 15, 2011Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes view this as it’s a correction or small adjustment in direction. You’ve compromised on multiple items here and done so maybe reluctantly at times, but you have done it and I commend you for that. That is a very important step and that should go a long ways towards the residents as well to show that there is some good faith here. I trust in you guys ability to do this. I think we have an environment here that is different than what you had before and I think working together to make it the proper PD representation so you can hold that document up with pride and say yes this is the model going forward that is where we need to be. That I will support whole-heartedly. Commissioner Reed: I understand Dennis’ idea. It’s great to have dialogue with people but we, in essence, presented our side of the dialogue with the results of our two meetings. Their dialogue coming back to us completely ignored it. So where do we go from there. They know what we want and we get nothing back from them that even relates to it so I think it is a dead horse. Vice Chairman Stephens: I want to go back and give a rational for my motion. We need to know, as a Commission, if applicant is willing to continue the dialogue in light of this motion before this group tonight. I hear Mr. Dahlstrom saying we will continue to talk. I like that because we want to continue the conversation, but we are not interested in continuing the conversation as long as there are multi-family residential words in this document. Zero. There is no need in continuing the conversation if they will not accept the city maintaining its standard operating procedures which serve us well and will serve you well. We will help you. We are for you. So I made that comment beginning the meeting tonight to give everybody a heads up and hopefully by doing that we would avoid any apoplectic comments from anybody around here or out there. I’m testing the waters. At least it begins the dialogue where we want to begin it and that is at the heart of the matter – the commercial development of the property sans residential and your procedures. If you are willing to continue that then I think I’ll call for the question. That is a non-debatable motion and we have to vote at this time. I move the previous question. Chairman Hill called for the vote. The motion failed 2-5 (Chairman Hill and Vice Chairman Stephens voted for, all else opposed.) Commissioner Sheridan asked to explain that he voted no because he wished to be able to go over the rest of the document with the applicant and without that he can’t vote for the motion. Chairman Hill recognized the applicant. Mr. Dahlstrom: First of all I would like to say that this is not an adversarial procedure. In discussing this with the architect, I just don’t know if we can live without the residential component and I believe the procedural issues are important to us if that helps you in making your decision tonight. Vice Chairman Stephens: I make a motion that we recommend to the Town Council denial of Planned Development No. 30 (PD-30). Commissioner Sheridan seconded the motion and then withdrew his second so that Commissioner Forest could make the second. Chairman Hill called on Commissioner Reed who stated: This pretty well fits my feelings. Chairman Hill called for the vote and the denial passed unanimously. A motion was made by Vice Chair Stephens, seconded by Commissioner Forest, that this Agenda Item be Denied. The motion passed by the following vote. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 16 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 December 15, 2011Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Vice Chair Stephens, Commissioner Davidson, Commissioner Sheridan, Commissioner Forest, Chairman Hill, Commissioner Reed, and Commissioner Richert 7 - Adjourn Mr. Dahlstrom thanked the Commission for its time. Meeting Adjourned at 8:30 p.m. _________________________________________ Gene Hill, Chairman _________________________________________ Carolyn Huggins, Community Development Director Planning and Zoning Commission Page 17 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:12011-674-T Name: Status:Type:Agenda Item Regular Session File created:In control:1/11/2012 Planning & Zoning Commission On agenda:Final action:1/19/2012 Title:Review and approve minutes of the January 5, 2012, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Attachments:MeetingMinutes 010512.pdf Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Review and approve minutes of the January 5, 2012, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 18 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission 7:00 PM Svore Municipal Building BoardroomThursday, January 5, 2012 Call To Order and announce a quorum. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. with a quorum (6 members) present. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Vice Chair James Stephens, Commissioner Mike Davidson, Commissioner Dennis Sheridan, Commissioner Dale Forest, Chairman Gene Hill, and Commissioner Clayton Reed Present:6 - Commissioner Gary RichertAbsent:1 - STAFF PRESENT: Carolyn Huggins, Community Development Director COUNCIL PRESENT: Councilman Bill Rose PUBLIC HEARING 2011-653-T1.Public Hearing regarding an Amendment to Ordinance No. 1999-17 P&Z, Planned Development No. 21 (PD-21), Plaza Shopping Center, to allow a fuel station as a permitted use. Applicant: Regency Centers, L.P. on behalf of Tom Thumb Grocery Store. (PD AMD-11-038) Chairman Hill opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. Dorothy Parks, Regency Centers, L.P., stated that the proposal is to allow a fuel center as a permitted use. The location of the fuel center will be north of the Bank of America Center in the existing Tom Thumb parking lot. The location was determined based on consideration of the other retail tenants as well as the proximity to Tom Thumb’s front door. The proposal is to allow for four (4) fuel kiosks which would be a total of eight (8) pump stations. Ms. Parks showed stone/EFIS elevations for the kiosks and stated that they believe they are consistent with the façade of the existing center. A kiosk would be manned during store hours which are currently 6 a.m. to 1 a.m. There were no requests to speak for this item. Ms. Huggins informed the Chairman and Commissioners that a letter of support was received from a resident, Joseph Hill, 3 Shasta Drive, a copy of which was given to each Commissioner at the meeting this evening. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 19 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 January 5, 2012Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Chairman Hill closed the public hearing and moved to Item 6 of the agenda to have the decision of the public hearing item. Referred to the Town Council due back on 1/23/2012 REGULAR SESSION 2011-633-T2.Discussion and recommendation regarding granting a Special Privilege Request to the Trophy Club Women's Club to hold two Community Garage Sale Events, the first on April 21, 2012 and the second event to occur on October 20, 2012. Applicant: Sally Freeman on behalf of Trophy Club Women's Club. Ms. Freeman thanked the Commissioners for their time and stated that she is here to seek authorization for the garage sale dates of Saturday, April 21, 2012 and October 20, 2012. She stated that the dates have been coordinated with Town Staff – April Reiling, Carolyn Huggins, Stephen Seidel and Mike Slye via emails with Joyce Frey the President of Trophy Club Women’s Club. She asked for waiver of the $25 fee so that there will be an extra $25 to submit to charitable causes. Commissioner Forest made a motion recommending approval to the Town Council to grant a Special Privilege Request to the Trophy Club Women’s Club to hold two Community Garage Sale Events, April 21 and October 20, 2012 and to waive the fee. Commissioner Davidson seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous 6-0. Aye:Vice Chair Stephens, Commissioner Davidson, Commissioner Sheridan, Commissioner Forest, Chairman Hill, and Commissioner Reed 6 - 2011-634-T3.Discussion and Recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Final Plat for Neighborhood 6, Phase 2F (7.722 acres) located in The Highlands at Trophy Club, R. Allen Survey, Abstract No. 5 and Abstract No. 17. Applicant: Kyle Salzman, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. on behalf of High Trophy Development LLC. (FP-11-044) Kyle Salzman, Jacobs Engineering, introduced himself and stated that he is available to answer any questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Davidson asked if Sheet 12 of the construction plans was included in the packet. Ms. Huggins stated that it was not. The construction plans are reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer, Tom Rutledge, who is in attendance this evening if the Commissioners have any questions. Mr. Rutledge confirmed that he would review the final plans and ensure that the discrepancy on Sheet 12 is corrected. Commissioner Sheridan asked why Note 4 is different on this plat from the other two plats under consideration. Ms. Huggins stated that Staff will be asking that the note be added to the other two plats. Vice Chairman Stephens recommended approval to the Town Council for the final plat of Neighborhood 6, Phase 2F. Commissioner Reed seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous 6-0. Aye:Vice Chair Stephens, Commissioner Davidson, Commissioner Sheridan, Commissioner Forest, Chairman Hill, and Commissioner Reed 6 - 2011-637-T4.Discussion and Recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Final Plat for Waters Edge at Hogan's Glen, Phase 2B-2 (3.913 acres) located in Hogan's Glen, J. Michael Survey, Abstract No. 821 & the M. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 20 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 January 5, 2012Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Medlin Survey, Abstract No. 832. Applicant: Jaison Stephen, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. on behalf of BDMR Development, LLC (FP-11-042) Jaison Stephen, Jacobs Engineering, came forward and asked for approval. Sheridan: Can you confirm that the Developer is paying for the continuation of the Indian Creek pavement. Ms. Huggins: That’s correct. Ms. Huggins: On page 35 of the packet there are a number of stipulations that staff is requesting for this plat: (1) Revise the side building line from 10-ft. to 15-ft. for Lot 2, Block M and Lot 42, Block L. (2) Update year to 2012 in Owner’s Dedication, Notary, and Approval signature blocks. (3) Add a note that the Homeowners Association is responsible for maintenance of all common areas. (4) Remove extra space between “Improvements” and “Associated” in Note 3. Mr. Sheridan: Note 3 will include an item that if the HOA doesn’t maintain all common areas…. What happens? Mr. Lenart: We’ll refer to whatever has been done on previous plats. Mr. Sheridan: I’m looking for the verbiage on the previous plats. Ms. Huggins: We’ll add it. Chairman Hill: Correct a misspelled word – “separate” needs to be corrected just above Block N, Lots 1 and 2. Commissioner Reed recommended approval to the Town Council for the final plat of Waters Edge at Hogan’s Glen, Phase 2B-2. Commissioner Forest seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous 6-0. Aye:Vice Chair Stephens, Commissioner Davidson, Commissioner Sheridan, Commissioner Forest, Chairman Hill, and Commissioner Reed 6 - 2011-652-T5.Discussion and Recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Final Plat for Canterbury Hills, Phase 1A (11.165 acres) located out of the M. Medlin Survey, Abstract No. 832 in the Town of Trophy Club, Denton County, Texas. Applicant: Jaison Stephen, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. on behalf of BDMR Development, LLC (FP-11-043) Ms. Huggins: This is straight zoning, R-12, but the neighborhood will be gated and part of the Hogan’s Glen HOA. However, these are not estate lots or villa lots like the rest of Hogan’s Glen. They will be built to R-12 district standards. As part of the Hogan’s Glen HOA, the streets will be private and maintained by the HOA, therefore, two notes will be added to the plat. A “private street” notation will be added and also a note that the streets will be maintained by the Homeowners Association. Vice Chairman Stephens recommended approval to the Town Council for the final plat of Canterbury Hills, Phase 1A with the stipulation that two notes regarding the private streets be added to the plat. Commissioner Davidson seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous 6-0. Aye:Vice Chair Stephens, Commissioner Davidson, Commissioner Sheridan, Commissioner Forest, Chairman Hill, and Commissioner Reed 6 - 2011-654-T6.Discussion and Recommendation regarding an Amendment to Ordinance No. 1999-17 P&Z, Planned Development No. 21 (PD-21), Plaza Shopping Center, to allow a fuel station as a permitted use. Applicant: Regency Planning and Zoning Commission Page 21 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 January 5, 2012Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Centers, L.P. on behalf of Tom Thumb Grocery Store. (PD AMD-11-038) Vice Chairman Stephens: What is the anticipated number of customers on a day-to-day basis? What is the anticipated revenue? Ms. Parks responded that Tom Thumb finds this a convenience that is an expected use in their stores. Mr. Stephens: My question relates to traffic. We do have a lot of traffic in that area and now we’ll have more traffic. Perhaps it will just be the grocery store customers who use the fuel station… Ms. Parks: They have a reward program and customers can save up to $1.00 per gallon of gas based off of the card you swipe so generally a majority of their customers are the grocery customers using the fuel station. Chairman Hill asked if Ms. Parks works for Tom Thumb. Ms. Parks responded that she works for the property owner, Regency, not Tom Thumb. Ms. Huggins stated that a request for an amendment to a planned development must come from the property owner, not the tenant. Although this request is for Tom Thumb grocery store, it must have the approval and support of the property owner and the property owner must make the request. Regency is the property owner; Tom Thumb is the tenant. Also, the PD document allows staff to request, if determined necessary, a traffic impact analysis submittal with the site plan for this use. Mr. Sheridan: The current hours of operation are 6 a.m. to 1 a.m. but the grocery store is allowed to be open 24-hours, correct? Ms. Huggins: Correct. Mr. Sheridan: I’m wondering if we want to limit the number of hours. I’m for the gas station. I don’t know if I’m for it for 24 hour operation. I’m leaning toward 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. because those are the hours of operation of most of the tenants in that shopping center. Does the Police Department have any preference? Ms. Huggins: No. Mr. Sheridan: My preference would be 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. and manned. Why is the location so far away from the store? Ms. Parks: They didn’t want to take away convenience from their grocery store parking. Ms. Huggins: Staff also asked for that location for circulation purposes. In looking at the current use of the shopping center, that is an area that is used the least. Mr. Sheridan: That takes away a location for a future pad site. Does this interfere with the coverage? Ms. Huggins: It does not. Mr. Sheridan: Is there any other sales besides fuel at the station? Ms. Parks: No. Vice Chair Stephens: Chips? Butterfingers? Ms. Huggins: There is a restriction in the PD for no outdoor sales. They can’t place a rolling cart outside the kiosk for food or beverage sales. The merchandise would have to be inside the kiosk – cigarettes, perhaps? Ms. Parks: They are not set up to handle merchandise that way. They don’t have the equipment in the kiosk to do that. Mr. Sheridan: Do we get any sales tax revenue for gas? Ms. Huggins: Not sure. I’ll have to check on that. Mr. Forest: I’m concerned for traffic flow and the ingress/egress to the station. It seems congested. Ms. Parks: The existing curb cut, the existing ingress/egress will make it fairly easy to access the station. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 22 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 January 5, 2012Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Vice Chair Stephens: To get out to go to Highway 114 means circling the bank or coming down to the main driveway in front of Tom Thumb. The median cuts are there. Ms. Huggins: Staff discussed the ingress/egress with Regency, suggesting changes to the shopping center main in/out, but they did not want to change the entrances. Eventually staff agreed to leave the entrances/exits as they are so that the closest entrance and exit is a right in, right out so if the customer wanted to go left out of the shopping center to go south to Highway 114, they would have to go between Walgreens and the Bank of America or down to the Tom Thumb. Mr. Forest: Right now they cut through the parking lot of the bank. Ms. Huggins: Correct, that’s how it is right now. Mr. Forest: So its causing problems even now. Chairman Hill: My primary concern is getting a fuel tanker in there to get the gas tanks full. That’s a semi-trailer and I don’t see a traffic flow that allows a tanker truck that carries 8,000 gallons of fuel a way to get in there. Ms. Parks: There is a program that we use, called Auto Turn, and we’ve done the analysis on this and I’d be happy to give that to you to show how the trucks will get in and out. Chairman Hill: I’d like to see that with the site plan because the hours of delivery are 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., daytime hours, to try to get the truck in there with the grocery store and the bank and all other retail customers there at the same time. That’s a concern. Ms. Parks: That’s a concern of ours too. We’d like to be able to deliver earlier, but because of the restricts, we can’t. We’ve taken all of that into consideration regarding the location. Mr. Reed: My main concern is traffic safety. I think the location makes sense in order to move the station away from the store so that it will be away from the bulk of the traffic. Most of the parking is up toward Tom Thumb. I can see that putting it any closer to the grocery store would complicate the situation. I think someone should be working there anytime that it is open and I suggest setting the hours of the station the same as the store. Mr. Sheridan: What if the store goes 24 hours. Do you have a problem with that? Most of the Commissioners responded that they did not have a problem with 24 hour grocery and fuel store hours. Mr. Reed: I’m also concerned, like Chairman Hill, of how the tanker truck will get in and out of the location. Mr. Davidson: Carolyn, does that bump our restriction from five buildings to six buildings? Ms. Huggins: It does change the density, yes. Mr. Davison: How does that change the parking requirement in this PD? Ms. Huggins: I don’t know specifically how many parking spaces will be removed until the site plan is completely reviewed. Preliminary review suggests that about 40 spaces will be removed by this request. We can specify the number of parking spaces for the PD on the site plan and in the PD amendment we can state that the required number of spaces will be as shown on the site plan. Chairman Hill: As it is now, the number of spaces exceeds the required amount of parking. Ms. Huggins: Yes sir. Mr. Davidson: As Mr. Sheridan stated, there are potentially two other pad sites available in this shopping center, but with the parking now possibly below the minimum it won’t allow moving forward with any of that. So the decision here is putting in the gas kiosk and foregoing further development. I don’t have an issue with Planning and Zoning Commission Page 23 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 January 5, 2012Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes that, I just want to make sure we are clear what we set forth in the PD. In addition to that, if they decide to go 7/24, I don’t have a problem with that. If you want to make it 6 a.m. to 1 a.m. right now that’s fine as well. Vice Chairman Stephens: Should we change the hours of delivery? Mr. Davidson: I think it then becomes a noise issue to the surrounding community. Obviously a truck does not necessarily tread lightly. Vice Chairman Stephens: I don’t see noise as big of a problem as the big delivery truck becoming a traffic issue problem. Mr. Davidson: Understand, but at the same time you see that same activity take place at countless other gas stations where they bring trucks in whenever the whim calls for it and it could be in the middle of the day and it’s not necessarily convenient for everybody else but they have no qualms about blocking traffic and mixing it up in the middle of the day so I don’t know that it really will cure that particular issue. I don’t think they will take advantage of it as frequently as you think. Ms. Parks: The good news in this particular situation, unlike other gas stations around the area, Tom Thumb is very aware that if they bring big trucks in and fill their tanks at an inconvenient time, they are inconveniencing their own customers so that’s not an issue they want to get into. They want to make it as easy as possible for their customers to get in the door to buy groceries and then stop to get gas, or vice versa. Vice Chairman Stephens: I was thinking about getting on the plus side of safety. It’s rare that you have any instances, but I think if we can err on the side of safety, we need to think about that. I don’t have any problems with the hours of operation. I have a rewards card… come on down. Mr. Sheridan: Any special lighting? Ms. Parks: The lighting will follow the rules and regulations of Trophy Club. It’s a balance because we want everyone to feel safe and we want the station to be well lit, but we also don’t want it to be a nuisance. Mr. Sheridan: Our current ordinances protect the residents living across the street from any ambient light? Ms. Huggins: That’s correct and that’s the balance Tom Thumb will be required to work to achieve. Commissioner Sheridan made a motion to recommend approval to the Town Council to amend PD-21 subject to limiting the sales to fuel only, manned only, and specifying six buildings maximum density. Vice Chairman Stephens seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 6-0. Aye:Vice Chair Stephens, Commissioner Davidson, Commissioner Sheridan, Commissioner Forest, Chairman Hill, and Commissioner Reed 6 - Adjourn Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 7:41p.m. _________________________________________ Gene Hill, Chairman _________________________________________ Carolyn Huggins, Community Development Director Planning and Zoning Commission Page 24 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:12011-675-T Name: Status:Type:Agenda Item Regular Session File created:In control:1/11/2012 Planning & Zoning Commission On agenda:Final action:1/19/2012 Title:Discussion and recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Temporary Use for Off Street Parking for Model Homes in Planned Development No. 22, Waters Edge at Hogan’s Glen for a Period of Time of Not Greater Than One Year. Applicant: Ashton Woods Homes Attachments:Staff Report - PZ 011912 - Ashton Woods.pdf Plot Plan.pdf Hogan's Glen HOA Support.pdf Application.pdf Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Discussion and recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Temporary Use for Off Street Parking for Model Homes in Planned Development No. 22, Waters Edge at Hogan’s Glen for a Period of Time of Not Greater Than One Year. Applicant: Ashton Woods Homes Planning and Zoning Commission Page 25 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 SUBJECT: Discussion and Recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Temporary Use for Off Street Parking for Model Homes in Planned Development No. 22, Waters Edge at Hogan’s Glen for a Period of Time of Not Greater Than One Year. Applicant: Ashton Woods Homes Ashton Woods Homes is requesting permission to build a parking lot which will provide parking for customers and employees for the Ashton Woods model homes located in Waters Edge at Hogan’s Glen subdivision. The parking lot is to be located on Lot 11, Block L, which carries the address of 5 Reading Ct. 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. The builder must eventually remove the parking lot, restoring the lot to a buildable single family home lot as originally shown on the Waters Edge at PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT January 19, 2012 Off-Street Parking for Ashton Woods Model Home 5 Reading Ct., Lot 11, Block L Waters Edge at Hogan’s Glen Planning and Zoning Commission Page 26 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 Hogan’s Glen, Phase 2A plat which was approved by Council on September 13, 2010 and filed in Denton County on April 18, 2011. FINAL PLAT: Waters Edge at Hogan’s Glen, Phase 2A Setbacks: The setbacks for this lot are: Front Yard: 25 feet minimum Rear Yard: 20 feet minimum Side Yard: 5 feet minimum The applicant has complied with all required setbacks. Parking Requirements: Town of Trophy Club parking regulations do not specify a definitive number of parking spaces required for this use. The regulations state the following: “The number of spaces required shall serve residents, customers, patrons, visitors and employees.” In addition, American Disabilities Act (ADA) standards require twenty percent of total parking spaces must be handicap-accessible. The Building Official was asked to review the plan presented by Ashton Woods. He noted that the 9-ft. x 18-ft. parking spaces meet the Town’s requirements and that the handicap spaces must be revised to meet the requirements of 17-ft. x 18-ft. with a minimum 8-ft. of hash marks within each handicap space. With these changes, the Building Official recommends approval Planning and Zoning Commission Page 27 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 of the parking lot for the Ashton Woods model homes within the gated community of Hogan’s Glen. 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: The applicant is required to meet the “General Standards” of the Town of Trophy Club Landscaping Regulations, which include … 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 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. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 28 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 The applicant intends to plant ten (10) elaeagnus, which are gray evergreen shrubs that tend to grow well in any soil and are fairly drought tolerant. Eight (8) Indian Hawthorne will be planted which is also an evergreen shrub with showy white or pink flowers in the spring and blue-black berries in the fall. Blocks of seasonal color are planned on either side of the driveway entrance to the parking lot. Two crape myrtle Deciduous trees and one wax myrtle tree are planned for the site. As required by the Landscaping Regulations, each shrub will be a minimum 2-ft. in height at time of planting and each tree will be a minimum 3-caliper inches at planting. 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, February 6, 2012. (ch) Attachments: Chapter 13 – Zoning; Article V – Supplementary District Regulations; Section 5.01 Temporary Uses Application Parking Lot Plot Plan Planning and Zoning Commission Page 29 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 P l a n n i n g a n d Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n P a g e 3 0 o f 3 5 M e e t i n g D a t e : J a n u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 2 P l a n n i n g a n d Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n P a g e 3 1 o f 3 5 M e e t i n g D a t e : J a n u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 32 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 P l a n n i n g a n d Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n P a g e 3 3 o f 3 5 M e e t i n g D a t e : J a n u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 2 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:12011-677-T Name: Status:Type:Agenda Item Regular Session File created:In control:1/15/2012 Planning & Zoning Commission On agenda:Final action:1/19/2012 Title:Discussion and Recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Final Plat of Lot 1R, Block A, Trophy Club Plaza being a Replat of Lot 1, Block A, located on Trophy Lake Drive between State Highway 114 and Trophy Club Drive. Property Owner: Regency Centers, L.P. Attachments:Staff Report - PZ - Replat.pdf Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Discussion and Recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Final Plat of Lot 1R, Block A, Trophy Club Plaza being a Replat of Lot 1, Block A, located on Trophy Lake Drive between State Highway 114 and Trophy Club Drive. Property Owner: Regency Centers, L.P. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 34 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012 Planning and Zoning Commission February 21, 2008 Page 1 of 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 19, 2012 Discussion and Recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Final Plat of Lot 1R, Block A, Trophy Club Plaza being a Replat of Lot 1, Block A, located on Trophy Lake Drive between State Highway 114 and Trophy Club Drive. Property Owner: Regency Centers, L.P. CASE SUMMARY: The applicant, Regency Centers, L.P., is requesting approval of a Replat of Lot 1, Block A, Trophy Club Plaza. The purpose of the replat is to dedicate right-of-way for future construction of a roundabout at Trophy Lake and Trophy Club Drive intersection. A utility easement has also been added beside the right-of-way to potentially move a water line in association with the roundabout construction. CURRENT ZONING: The site is currently zoned Planned Development No. 21 (PD-21). The zoning and PD concept plan for this site were approved in July 1999. 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 Staff 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-21. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of RP-11-018, a replat of Lot 1, Block A into Lot 1R, Block A, Trophy Club Plaza. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 35 of 35 Meeting Date: January 19, 2012