Loading...
Agenda Packet P&Z 12/18/2013Planning & Zoning Commission Trophy Club Entities Meeting Agenda 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262 Fire Station Training Room7:00 PMWednesday, December 18, 2013 CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM 1.2013-759-T Review and approve the minutes of the November 21, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. MeetingMinutes 112113.pdfAttachments: REGULAR SESSION 2.2013-760-T Discussion and Recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Replat for Trophy Wood Business Center, Lot 3-R-3, Block B, being a replat of Lot 3R2, Block B of Trophy Wood Business Center. Owner: Raj Patel, Shri Shidhi Vinak Hospitality, LLC. Staff Report.pdf Application - Replat.pdf Holiday Inn -Southlake Permit.pdf Attachments: 3.2013-761-T Discussion and Recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Site Plan for a Holiday Inn Hotel to be located on Lot 3-R-3, Block B, Trophy Wood Business Center. Owner: Raj Patel, Shri Shidhi Vinak Hospitality, LLC. Staff Report.pdf Application - Site Plan.pdf Attachments: 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. Notice is hereby given that a quorum of the Town Council may be in attendance at this meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 1 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 December 18, 2013Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda 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 Sunday, December 15, 2013, by 7:00 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 ______________________, 2013. ________________________________, Title: ___________________________ Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:12013-759-T Name: Status:Type:Agenda Item Regular Session File created:In control:11/19/2013 Planning & Zoning Commission On agenda:Final action:12/18/2013 Title:Review and approve the minutes of the November 21, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Attachments:MeetingMinutes 112113.pdf Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Review and approve the minutes of the November 21, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission 7:00 PM Svore Municipal Building BoardroomThursday, November 21, 2013 CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM Chairman Senelly called the November 21, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and announced a quorum present (6 members). COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chairman Richard Senelly, Commissioner Fred Allen, Commissioner Mark Sadley, Commissioner Dennis Sheridan, Commissioner Brent Card, and Vice Chair Larry Vowell Present:6 - Commissioner Garrett ReedAbsent:1 - STAFF AND GUESTS PRESENT: Carolyn Huggins, Community Development Director Tom Rutledge, Town Engineer, TNP Robbie Killingsworth, Recording Secretary Rian Maguire, Trophy Club Village Centre, LLC Clay Cristy, Claymoore Engineering, Inc. Matt Green, Architect Greg Lamont, Councilman Philip Shoffner, Councilman 2013-753-T1.Review and approve the minutes of the October 17, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. MeetingMinutes 101713.pdfAttachments: A motion was made by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Vice Chair Vowell, that this agenda item be approved. The motion carried by the following vote. Aye:Chairman Senelly, Commissioner Allen, Commissioner Sadley, Commissioner Sheridan, Commissioner Card, and Vice Chair Vowell 6 - REGULAR SESSION 2013-754-T2.Discussion and Recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Preliminary Plat and a Final Plat for Trophy Club Village Centre located in the J. Henry Survey, Abstract 529, having 2 lots and being 2.532 acres of land. The applicant is ClayMoore Engineering, Inc. represented by Matt Moore, on behalf of Trophy Club Village Centre, represented by Rian Maguire. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 4 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 November 21, 2013Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Staff Report.pdf Application - Preliminary Plat.pdf Town Engineer - Preliminary Plat Approval.pdf Application - Final Plat.pdf Town Engineer Approval - Final Plat.pdf Attachments: Chairman Senelly announced the case. We have a preliminary plat and a final plat. Later on the agenda we have a site plan. All have been submitted for our deliberation. Each of these will require a separate motion. Commissioners, when something is already zoned, as you know, as long as what has been submitted in the plat validates or conforms to that zoning it is really our duty to approve it. We really don’t have any other choices, and it’s part of our process in this Town to do this so that all the i’s are dotted and all the t’s are crossed before it goes to Council. It is a chance for questions if you have any. It is also a chance for the applicant to make a brief presentation if they so desire. At this point, concerning the preliminary plat, I ask Rian Maguire, representing Trophy Club Village Centre, to come forward. Rian Maguire: Good evening, my name is Rian Maguire. I actually don’t have a presentation for the preliminary plat or the final plat. I do have a short presentation for the site plan. It walks you through some of our plans. I can go through that presentation now. Chairman Senelly: I think it is great if you do it now because it is contextual. Rian Maguire: Our company is a full service commercial real estate development company. We not only develop the properties, we also manage them. In this particular case, we want to be long-term owners of the property. We are structuring long-term leases with our tenants. In the first phase we are identifying the property as a medical office property. We have leased 30% of the building to an orthodontist. This will be his fourth location that he has opened in the metroplex over the years. He has sold the others and this is where he will practice. When he saw the site he jumped on it right after we purchased it. We have been working over this last year to attract another tenant in order for us to be able to start construction. We are now in final negotiations with a gentleman who is a general dentist. This will be his second practice. He sold his previous practice and has recently moved here. He is eagerly waiting for us to start construction. He has requested that we start as soon as we can. And so we are hoping we can start at the first of the year. The site has three entrances. One entrance is off Bobcat and two entrances are off Parkview Drive. Phase 2 is off of Bobcat Boulevard. We believe it will be about a similar size building to our first phase, and just as soon as we have the first building full, and we have tenants ready to go, we will follow up with Phase 2. The first phase is on the south side of the site. A fire lane comes off Parkview Drive and wraps around the building. The building is approximately 8,700 square feet. The orthodontist is taking one end of the building. The dentist is taking the other end of the building. I would be happy to answer any questions that you have. We are excited to be here and have this thing moving. Vice Chairman Vowell asked how many more tenants are anticipated? Mr. Maguire responded that in the first phase they anticipate having one or two more. Chairman Senelly: First item of business is a preliminary plat. You have the mapping for that in front of you. Are there any questions or comments specifically on the preliminary plat? Yes, Commissioner Sheridan. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 5 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 November 21, 2013Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Sheridan: Most of my comments were derived from your site plan and the final plat. But, it is important to the preliminary because what’s approved in the preliminary flows up to the final submission. I measured your entrance by Medlin. According to the submission, you have about 59.5 feet between the two entrances -- one to Medlin and then one into Phase 1. In actuality, it is a little bit deceiving to me because of the big curve on Parkview. All of your entryway is on a curve. My opinion is that is super close. I was thinking there was a commercial code as to how far away curb cuts had to be from each other. In that same realm, that’s also where the dumpster is. I object to the dumpster being right there in front of public view and with everybody going into the school. So specifically in regard to the preliminary plat, I’m objecting to the entryway and how close it is to the Medlin drive. Chairman Senelly: May I ask our town engineer to comment on the distance between the driveways. Tom Rutledge: My recollection is that on the town standards you are supposed to be 45 feet from the first point of the curb to the PI of the next drive. They do exceed that. Commissioner Sheridan: Alright. That answers that question. Commissioner Sheridan: Dumpster is another question. Page C7. You’ve got your drainage and I appreciate that. Regarding the construction of the drainage, you are going to a curb outlet that drains to the inlet on Medlin Middle School drive. You’ve got it labeled as a public inlet but because it is on school property I am considering it a private inlet. Is it public or private? Mr. Rutledge: The curb inlet is on school property. When Parkview Drive was vacated, it was dedicated as a drainage utility easement. Commissioner Sheridan: So, there is an easement allowing access to that. Mr. Rutledge: Yes, because there were always public utilities in there when it was a public street. So, when the right-of-way was vacated we needed to maintain those as public easements except for the pavement portion. So all the water, sewer, and drainage system that is in there does remain as a public system. Good question, and that is how that is set up. Commissioner Sheridan: Those are my questions on the preliminary and they follow through to the next set. Since that is not identified anywhere I will bring that up again on the next set up. Thank you. Commissioner Allen: Has anybody done a traffic survey/analysis on the right-of-way? Tom, does the school own that property now, that vacated portion? Tom Rutledge: Yes sir they do. Commissioner Allen: It is a little confusing. I drove it. There is only one access, and then it’s a loop. Have there been any traffic studies done to find out the congestion level during the school year as well as the summer months and so forth? And then the park is on the other side of Parkview and that gets a lot of play. I just wondered if there was any traffic analysis done and what did it show? Where’s the overflow going to go? Will it go back to Parkview? Chairman Senelly: Let’s get a little background. When was PD-27 created? Ms. Huggins stated that the initial zoning approval for PD-27 was in 2006. There was not a traffic impact analysis study required for this particular site in Village Center of Planning and Zoning Commission Page 6 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 November 21, 2013Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes PD-27, but traffic was a huge discussion while this was being reviewed -- and, not just this piece of Village Center, but also the Latter Day Saints, and also when the Montessori School project is submitted and starts review traffic impact will be discussed. We have always considered “traffic” for these projects because of what Commissioner Allen just stated -- There is a park right across the street and there are schools. There is an elementary school down the road. The middle school is right across the street to the west and the high school is across the street to the north. It isn’t the high school that creates problems; it is the middle school and the elementary school. Traffic to those two schools is intense in the mornings and afternoons. We have added crossing guards. We are constantly monitoring the traffic to the park. We have some problems going on right now with the practice field/green space being used right across from this site. The parents are parking along Parkview in the evenings which create traffic problems. This is an ongoing discussion and situation where we are trying to decide what the best solution is. For this property the type of use it will be because it is going to be a medical office building, we believe that the use of this building won’t drastically impact traffic in the mornings and afternoons for school. It is still an ongoing concern of traffic along Parkview. We are experiencing a bigger problem with the park across the street and the parking by the parents in the evenings along Parkview rather than using Independence Park East parking lot. There is plenty of parking in the parking lot of Independence Park East. It is not as close as the street and so the parents park on the street. We have a lot of discussion with the police department and the town management about whether or not to put No Parking signs along there. The Council is involved in this discussion as well. We also are heavily involved with the school system, having NISD involved with these discussions as well. It is an excellent question, because it is a big concern for not just this site but the schools, the park, and all of that parking along Parkview and the access on Bobcat and Parkview. It is an ongoing discussion and will continue until we hopefully find a resolution for it. Chairman Senelly: When all of these things were approved that we now call our Village Centre, including the LDS church, the future Montessori school next door, this project, and so on, were there any stipulations for traffic improvements by the town? Ms. Huggins stated that Village Centre was required to do traffic improvements for the Town but each site must provide adequate parking and adequate ingress and egress for their site. Chairman Senelly: To meet our current code. Ms. Huggins: Correct. Chairman Senelly: But no lane changes, signage or crosswalks or anything like that has been proposed by the Town at this time. Ms. Huggins: Not for Village Centre properties, no. There was a lot of discussion about that when the original Bobcat Boulevard was built in 2007. Commissioner Sheridan: Correct me if I am wrong. When this was zoned the park wasn’t there, nor was it planned. Ms. Huggins: The park was planned. Commissioner Sheridan: There was a rough plan to it. Ms. Huggins: Yes. Commissioner Sheridan: There were still a lot of nebulous parts to it so they were not done continuously which would answer some of these questions. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 7 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 November 21, 2013Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Chairman Senelly: The reason I am asking is that clearly such traffic improvements can only be undertaken by the Town and not by the applicants. So I wondered if the Town had plans to improve anything regarding traffic patterns, lanes, speed limits, speed bumps, and any other mechanisms. And the answer is no. Ms. Huggins: Along Bobcat and Parkview and those schools, especially Medlin and Beck Elementary School, it is an ongoing discussion right now. Beck Elementary is getting ready to submit another addition to the elementary school. Already, we are discussing with NISD and Town Staff the parking, the traffic along the Parkview, how it accesses Bobcat, how it accesses Durango. This is going to become even more of an issue as Beck Elementary is added onto -- another 6,000 square feet to that school. We have even talked to Roanoke about adding access along the back of Beck Elementary into Roanoke. It is not very realistic at this time. But Parkview, Bobcat, and Durango on the south end; it all is an ongoing discussion. It does not directly impact this piece of property. It is a much bigger issue with the schools and the park along Parkview. Chairman Senelly: Is Town Council aware of all of this? Ms. Huggins: I believe so, yes sir. Chairman Senelly asked for any other comments or questions about the preliminary plat. Commissioner Sheridan: The dumpster is shown on the preliminary plat package, page C6. I object to the location of the dumpster. My recommendation is that it be moved to where the dumpster is shown for Phase 2. Rian Maguire: When we were subdividing this property and platting two different lots, we wanted to be able to keep everything separate – water meters, dumpsters. Each lot has its own and is going to pay for its own. Doctors do not create a lot of trash. In fact a lot of the trash that they do create they would not put in a dumpster anyway. They would have it professionally removed. We would really like to have one for each site. In our experience a dumpster hidden in the back can get filled up every weekend and become a maintenance issue. A trash provider won’t pick up any trash sitting beside the dumpster. It is a huge maintenance issue. What we have tried to do is set the dumpster at a convenient location, screen it, and have the doors open inward instead of swinging out so that it won’t impact traffic. Commissioner Sheridan: I understand that if you take Phase 1 by itself. But I’m looking at it in the total context to where the school is and having the two drives right there. Also, there are 3 trees proposed around the dumpster and those will take a long time to grow to hide the dumpster. I was not aware that dental is proposed here so later on I was going to ask about medical waste because the plans indicate medical facility and that is a broad spectrum. You are going to be splitting the fire lane anyway. You are going to be driving the fire lane up there which is going to split the lots. That is going to be part of your Phase 1. Chairman Senelly: Is the grading plan a part of the plat? Ms. Huggins: The grading and drainage is provided as part of the preliminary plat package for your review. It used to be we just brought the preliminary plat without the grading and drainage sheets for the Commissioners to look at, but a request was made to include those in the future, so we do. But, the Commission is “approving” just the preliminary plat. Chairman Senelly: So we can deal with these details at the site plan level. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 8 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 November 21, 2013Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Ms. Huggins: Right. The Sheet C6 is not a part of the preliminary plat that is kept on file. It is just the plat that is kept on file. The dumpster will become part of the site plan package. Commissioner Sheridan: That’s fine. Chairman Senelly: Thank you. Commissioner Sheridan you are very thorough and we appreciate that. Thank you. Commissioner Sadley: I do have one question. Commissioner Reed: Has there ever been a problem with children from any of the elementary schools entering the dumpster or getting things out of dumpsters… since these are medical offices. Ms. Huggins: Not to my knowledge. We do have dumpsters on all of the school sites. Where this dumpster is located there is one on the Medlin Middle school site not too far from it. We did take a detailed look at this dumpster location. We consider this driveway to not a secondary driveway. We don’t anticipate that most of their clientele will come in and exit through that. We think they might exit more than enter, but with the location and the proximity to the Medlin Middle School driveway being fifty feet or so away, the traffic pattern is going to be more beneficial for using the middle driveway as the primary driveway for in and out. That driveway by the dumpster will be a secondary ingress/egress, and we believe mostly exit. With the times that the dumpster is picked up, we don’t believe it is really going to impact that site much. Commissioner Sheridan has a point regarding the trees. It is going to take a while for those to grow and hide the dumpster, but we did think the tress around it would eventually be good screening for it. Of course they will be required to have masonry on three sides and a gate on the fourth side. It should be gated at all times on the front. Chairman Senelly: A solid gate? Ms. Huggins: Yes sir Commissioner Sadley: Didn’t you mention that HAZ MAT- type material won’t be in it? Rian Maguire: Right, no. Chairman Senelly: Are there any other questions on the preliminary plat? If not, I call for a motion. A motion was made by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Card, that this agenda item be recommended for approval to the Town Council. The motion carried by the following vote. Aye:Chairman Senelly, Commissioner Allen, Commissioner Sadley, Commissioner Sheridan, Commissioner Card, and Vice Chair Vowell 6 - Chairman Senelly asked the Commissioners to consider the final plat. Commissioner Sheridan: I have three things. (1) The fire lane easement. The arrow is in the wrong spot. (2) The utility easement needs to be labeled. (3) The abandoned right-of-way needs a label. I would like to ask some questions about Phase 2 in the amended plat section. It Planning and Zoning Commission Page 9 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 November 21, 2013Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes indicates that we would automatically do an amended plat. That is not necessary, is it? Ms. Huggins: Absolutely right, it may not be necessary. I wanted to put that comment in the staff report just to put the applicant on notice that it might be required. We are not going to say “okay your final plat is done and that’s it, you are good”. Depending on what happens with Phase 2, it is possible that the plat may need to be amended; it may need a replat. Not sure at this point. We just wanted to put the applicant on notice, and you are right it may not be needed. Commissioner Sheridan: Got it. Lot 2 does not have a fire lane. They may not need a fire lane. Certain fire codes could be met without it. And, you do not need to go through an amended plat to have a driveway cut. Chairman Senelly: Other questions or comments concerning the final plat? If not, I call for a motion. Motion: Commissioner Sheridan Second: Commissioner Sadley Uananimous: 6 votes aye 2013-755-T3.Discussion and Recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Site Plan for Lot 1, Block B, Trophy Club Village Centre. The applicant is ClayMoore Engineering, Inc., on behalf of Trophy Club Village Centre, represented by Rian Maguire. Staff Report - Site Plan - PZ 11-21-13.pdf Application - Site Plan.pdf Attachments: Chairman Senelly: Now we are considering the site plan. Commissioner Sheridan: Dumpster fully visible of a public street. There are schools. I recommend it go in Phase 2. Where it’s at right now is going to be a favorite cut-across by kids coming out of that school going to that sidewalk. Watching the parents line up to pick up their kids, I am anticipating this to be a very good parking lot for the school. Regarding signage, on your site plan, you have excellent signage on your building. When those trees get going your signage just went out the window. You are prepared for your parking lot to be used for school events and for the Independence Park? Rian Maguire: Yes sir, we are well aware. Commissioner Sheridan: The easement for that inlet, does that go on the final plat? You said there is an easement and it is off property. Tom Rutledge: The easement goes from the old right of way line which would encompass that. Commissioner Sheridan: I’m asking for it to be written somewhere. Your water is going off site into an inlet. Ms. Huggins: I will double check but I thought with the abandonment of old Parkview that improvements were done by separate instrument. We’ll check to see if that needs to be on the plat or noted by separate instrument and have that included on the plats that go to Council. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 10 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 November 21, 2013Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Chairman Senelly: Good. Any other questions or comments about the site plan, knowing that it is just Phase 1. Phase 2 is going to be a thirty story high rise. [laughter]. Just kidding. Don’t get any ideas. Chairman Senelly: I call for a motion. A motion was made by Commissioner Sheridan, seconded by Vice Chairman Vowell, that this agenda item be recommended for approval to the Town Council. The motion carried by the following vote. Aye:Chairman Senelly, Commissioner Allen, Commissioner Sadley, Commissioner Sheridan, Commissioner Card, and Vice Chair Vowell 6 - Commissioner Sheridan: Thank you Rian. Chairman Senelly: Thank you for your presentation. Thank you for your time. Rian Maguire: I appreciate it. Ms. Huggins: Chairman Senelly can I get a clarification? Chairman Senelly: Yes Ms. Huggins: Did we just approve with the dumpster location as shown on the plan? Chairman Senelly: Yes Ms. Huggins: Thank you Chairman Senelly: Stipulation, however, that if the notation is required regarding the drainage inlet on the plat and/or site plan it is so noted. Ms. Huggins: Thank you. 2013-758-T4.Presentation of proposed revisions to Town Sign Ordinance relative to ballfield sponsorship signage, real estate signage and political signage; discussion of same. Ms. Huggins: Probably sometime in January we will be bringing to you some changes to the sign ordinance. Specifically three areas -- political signs, real estate signs, and ball field sponsorship signage. Those are the three areas we have been asked to look at and suggest changes to. On Monday at the Council meeting, the Council gave me some direction on these three categories and I just wanted to have the same very brief discussion with you that I had with Council. For ball field signage we are looking at the perimeters of the ball field. Do we want to allow sponsorship signage? We are looking at allowing this on town property as a revenue generating stream, but most likely in partnership between sports associations and the town. And so the Parks Department would create a document where there would be an agreement between whoever might purchase a sign that’s going to be on the ball field for a year, and then changed out year to year. This is all just very preliminary. Just throwing out ideas here as to what might or might not come forward. We are looking at also whether or not ball field sponsorship signage should be allowed on school property. The schools would like to be able to sell sponsorships on their ball fields as well. And then also private commercial recreation zoned property. I think it was at a council meeting on Monday I kept saying commercial general, but I meant commercial recreation property. Do we want to allow any sort of ball field Planning and Zoning Commission Page 11 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 November 21, 2013Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes sponsorship. For instance, the sports associations use Mr. Back’s property beside Tom Thumb. Do we want to allow that field to have some sponsorship on it. It does not have quite the same field availability as some of the town owned parks property or the schools. These are some of the areas we are looking at. Would the sponsorship signage be facing in or can it also face out. For instance, along Bobcat Boulevard there are ball fields at the high school and the high school NISD would like to sell sponsorship on the outside of the fence. That could really change the look of Bobcat Boulevard and the look of the town if we were to allow that. Also we have had requests for banners to be able to be placed on park property or on school property -- free standing banners just hung between two poles out in front of the ball fields to sponsor certain businesses or vendors that are not necessarily sponsoring the teams but are selling to the parents. Do we want to look at free-standing like that? Do we want to allow very large banners to be strung across the entryway to Independence Park East? We will be bringing you some ideas like that to see your thoughts on that. What about awning signage over seating areas? This is something that also could be allowed. Also along the perimeters of scoreboards, signage could be placed along the scoreboard. And then also, swooper flags. We get requests for these types of flags to be allowed on park property while the tournaments are going on. So, these are what we would be bringing in as far as ball field sponsorship signage. Chairman Senelly: Anybody want to offer any comments or have any questions? Vice Chairman Vowell: On the ball fields we are talking hard signage not banners. Ms. Huggins: On the ball fields we are talking hard signage. The mayor suggested something that would have to be refreshed every year. They would only get a one year permit and I think that is probably a good idea. Some of those signs out there can begin to get pretty worn looking pretty quickly. Vice Chairman Vowell: Banners get worn looking very quickly and need to be short term. Ms. Huggins: Yes sir, and some of the Council suggested that as well, that it be a temporary sign. Commissioner Sadley: The schools have LED signage and have real estate ads. As staff researches signage, would Council consider the option of maybe having nice score boards, electronic scoreboards, on the ball fields? It could perhaps be a more professional approach to signage. Ms. Huggins: I would need to check with the parks department. I believe that would require some additional approval. The park board might need to be involved to change out that type of signage. We are proposing adding to what is already there whereas that would be changing what’s there. Something such as you are suggesting would be more along the lines of changing out the scoreboards that are there for a different type. Chairman Senelly: There are a number of issues about sign regulations that are very difficult to regulate. It is a slippery slope of a very interesting nature. Once you go down the road of permitting signs of any kind, someone wants to do more – more of whatever it is – to the point that now as you watch a ball game on television what you see is constantly changing, rotating, flipping, electronic you-know-what signs everywhere and that‘s highly regulated because it’s a private industry regulation. They can decide the limits as they so wish, including the naming of the ballpark and so on. When you get into the public arena, I know from my experience elsewhere in places where signs are highly regulated, that there are two basic considerations. One is whether or not the signs are going to be of a uniform type with uniformity as to Planning and Zoning Commission Page 12 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 November 21, 2013Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes the kinds of messages that could be delivered even down to lettering style and color and everything else, or whether it’s going to be wide open to the point that Joe’s Liquors can put up whatever sign he wants. There is a difference between a sign that says this park is sponsored by such and such family, corporation, church, tastefully said, and some garish colorful aerial sign that’s on a tether that looks like a blimp. There’s a huge difference. I think that’s the first cut one needs to look at in terms of regulation. Whether they’re going to be signs that have been by ordinance designed by the town, and folks who want to put up signs get to fit in those regulations, or whether you are going to open it up. That’s the first thing. Second, there are signs that are, as you would put it, permanent whether they are changed every year or not that’s still a permanent sign as opposed to signs that are erected for an event. I think one can be a little more lax with regulation of event signs sponsored by whatever club, etc., with awnings and all the things that you are showing, than with permanent signs. I think there needs to be a strong distinction between these two types of signs. So on one hand you get to decide at the outset whether you are going to have a sign ordinance that stipulates how you want every sign to look in some uniform way that fits in the image of the town that you are trying to present or whether you are just going to allow signs for the sake of whatever revenue you can get. And I would suggest to you that those who are enticed by the revenue really need to look at the dollars and cents involved. I think you are going to find it’s not much. Are you willing to sacrifice the look of your community for a small amount of money is a question that folks need to answer. As an architect and a person who has been involved in sign design and has done communities where signs have been highly regulated, I know that sometimes it’s looked at as almost a communistic effort, but on the other hand, if you drive through a place like Solana, the signs are all uniform. Every sign has the same kind of lettering. Every sign post is not just a galvanized thing stuck in the ground, but it is something of substance with a specific coloration. You go to Fidelity they have the same signs. It’s all uniform. It looks good. It doesn’t compete with the environment. That is really the reason people are there in the first place. They are not there for the signs. People don’t come to play ball because of the signs. If I were playing ball and what I had to look at was not the outfield with the player out there but a series of billboards, I might think of the community in a different way than if it were otherwise. Commissioner Sadley: With signage like this in public places in the middle of a family oriented town in a setting where we just approved the building of a large morally sensitive denominational church sitting across from two high schools, I can just see how some sign coming out that some group thought was inappropriate for some reason would wind up in front of the City Council, in front of everybody else, and in the papers. I think we need to take into consideration the profit margins vs. the potential headache for city staff. Ms. Huggins: Yes sir, in fact the Council did say that we have to have a discussion about content and regulating content because of some of those things you just stated. We are not sure exactly how we are going to do that. We are going to look at other cities and see what they do. And of course we are going to have the legal department take a look at it. That was part of the discussion on Monday is that we do have to consider content because of the location of the signs. Vice Chairman Vowell: On ballparks, I’m not sure that I could support putting signs on the outside of the fence. Ms. Huggins: I don’t know that we had unanimous consent but I know we had more than one Council person stating that they were not in favor of that. Vice Chairman Vowell: Signs like these that are on the inside, you could paint the back of those all the same color and it’s not as visible from the street. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 13 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 November 21, 2013Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Ms. Huggins: On our ball fields, and I believe also on the high school ball fields, they have a mesh that you can’t see through. So if they were allowed signage on the outside, they would actually be selling two signs -- one on the inside and one on the outside. So, I think we can avoid that by only allowing it on the inside of the ball field and we won’t be able to see those from the outside. Commissioner Allen: Just a comment that I think due diligence would necessitate comps from other communities. If you go down to The Woodlands in and around Houston and stuff like that it’s controlled very strictly. I think that our community has a good opportunity here and we need to err on the side of conservative-ism. Chairman Senelly: What were the other areas, Carolyn, besides the parks and sports? Ms. Huggins: For ball field sponsorship it was also on property zoned for commercial recreation property. Chairman Senelly: So billboards on the golf course? Ms. Huggins: They would like to be able to put banners, large banners, free standing, hooked between two poles at different holes of the golf course. They also would like to be able to sell sponsorships, especially during charity events and such. That would be the golf course as well as any other CR zoned property. Chairman Senelly: As previously mentioned, the event-driven signs need to be handled differently than permanent signs. Commissioner Sheridan: CR would also include possible access to 114 where they have been trying to put a billboard for years, and also the tennis courts. I would be definitely against, except for events, any CR being included in the conversation. Regarding the LED lighting, in other places we have restricted it to on-site advertising. When it was approved for the school, they said it was only for their purposes, and now we have outside advertising on it. I would be against anything that would be shown from the street on the high school. Chairman Senelly: There is a big difference between commercial signage and informational and sponsorship signage. They are not the same. A sponsorship sign is not about advertising your products. Joe’s Liquors may be a wonderful outfit, and maybe I want to put their name on my bowling shirt, but I’m not sure that you want that on a ball field where the kids are playing ball. However, a small note on a sign on the side that says this area is being cared for by Joe’s Liquor, there’s nothing wrong with that unless it’s advertising his wares. Ms. Huggins: Thank you very much, I appreciate that. And so the next area is real estate signs. This came up because of the real estate agents themselves over a year ago started asking town management to allow some larger signs. Our current regulations allow two-sided signs limited to six square feet, one per lot. The six square feet also includes riders, with a maximum height of four feet measured from the ground. Each lot is limited to one advertising sign, one open house sign, and one directional sign. I don’t know why you would have a directional sign on your house for sale I guess to show where your front door is, I’m not sure. Golf course lots can have one additional advertising sign facing the golf course. That’s what ‘s currently allowed. It is suggested to change the signage to allow larger signs. I actually think the larger signs are prettier and would look much better than what we currently allow. Placement of directional signs is currently allowed on Trophy Club Drive, Indian Creek, Village Trail, Durango Drive, and Trophy Wood Drive. Directional signs are Planning and Zoning Commission Page 14 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 November 21, 2013Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes allowed by the builders and by realtors from noon Friday to noon Monday on those streets just mentioned. It has been suggested that Village Trail and Durango Drive be removed from this list and that Bobcat Boulevard be added if we want to continue to allow directional signs. With residential being closer to being built out at this point -- in the Highlands we are at about a thousand homes built with maybe four hundred or so to go -- but the builders are beginning their last phases of all of the neighborhoods out there and I don’t know that the directional signs are as needed as they once were. That doesn’t mean that the builders won’t push really hard for them for a few more years. Also the roundabout should be clarified as a no-signage area. The Mayor suggested that some other streets in the Highland might possibly be added to that list. I’m not sure we’d want that or not. For instance, Trophy Park Drive. Is it beneficial to add that to the list? We plan to have some discussion with the real estate companies to get some more feedback on the type of signage they want to use. There is a council person who is a real estate agent and there were some real estate agents in the audience at the Council meeting which generated a discussion of corporate real estate signs. There are certain real estate corporations that have predetermined types of real estate signs that they ask all of their agents to use. We will be looking at that and talking to them to see what those are and whether or not that would be something we’d want to allow in the sign ordinance. And then there was some discussion about clarification of the location of where signs are allowed on a piece of property that’s for sale. There is an item in the ordinance that says a sign cannot be closer than 3-ft. from the curb and so we are going to look at location and placement on the lot. That’s it for real estate signs. Chairman Senelly: Questions. Commissioner Sadley: I noticed a for sale by owner sign that somebody had bought at Walmart. This isn’t going to exclude that type of sign, is it? Ms. Huggins: I’ll make sure that we have a provision for that. Chairman Senelly: Carolyn could you clarify for us on the directional signs. How many? Ms. Huggins: They are allowed up to six total per builder. Chairman Senelly: Can they all be in one place. Ms. Huggins: They cannot. They are supposed to be four hundred feet apart. Especially along 114, a builder, let’s us Pulte, for instance, will put 6 altogether. That is not allowed by our sign ordinance. It is up to six and they should be 400 feet apart. Chairman Senelly: Second question concerning commercial real estate. What are the limitations? Ms. Huggins: That’s a different type of sign. They can have a ground sign. Chairman Senelly: I don’t mean that. I mean a real estate sign for commercial real estate -- “for sale” -- “for lease” -- that sort of thing Ms. Huggins: Right, and that’s what I mean. We regulate that as a permanent sign. It typically is considered to be a ground sign that can be 5-ft. in height and 32 sq. ft. For instance there’s one on Mr. Beck’s property next to Tom Thumb. There’s one on the medical office building site for tenant space that’s for sale inside the building. Those could be of a certain height and width, much larger than anything that we are talking about for residential real estate. But they are not considered real estate signs, they are considered ground signs. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 15 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 November 21, 2013Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Chairman Senelly: Since you brought up the sign behind Tom Thumb, is the owner required to maintain those signs? Ms. Huggins: They are. Chairman Senelly: So, for example that one is kind of rickety looking and needs repainting. Ms. Huggins: In our sign ordinance, right now, we don’t address that problem. We don’t have anything clarifying the condition that a sign needs to be kept in. That is actually a really good point because code enforcement runs up against a problem with that all time. I’ll use a different example. There is a sign out on 114 that for a long time was in terrible shape. The owner refused to do anything about it. We even offered to remove it for him if he would give us permission. He said, “No, I want it to stay there, I’m going to use it eventually.” Our regulations don’t say anything about the paint or the wood or give any specifications of maintenance of a sign, so that’s something that we might want to consider. Chairman Senelly: I remember there was sign on the property that I believe was the future Holiday Inn site, one leg of which had been broken for almost a year, and it was hanging on by a thread. Ms. Huggins: When some of these issues came up, we looked at our ordinances in detail trying to find a way to get some of these signs better maintained. Some of the center median signs and directional signs really needed some help a while ago. There just was not anything in there that we could hang our hat on. Chairman Senelly: Regarding residential real estate signs, if a sign on a vacant piece of property that is for sale has been there for five years, is that okay? Ms. Huggins That’s okay. If it meets the size and doesn’t violate any of the current ordinances, a real estate sign for residential property can stay. There is no duration. Chairman Senelly: What if it falls over? Ms. Huggins: If it falls over, then we can deal with it. Code enforcement can handle that one right away. Chairman Senelly: If it “happens” to fall over. Commissioner Allen: There should be a condemnation ordinance to give the city jurisdiction to go in and do what they need to do on signs that are old, decrepit, and falling down. Ms. Huggins: That’s a tough one for towns and for the Town Council. Condemnation is a tough subject to bring up and a tough thing to carry out. Commissioner Sadley: How about put a monthly fee on signs? Ms. Huggins: I am for that. Vice Chairman Vowell: On the Pulte type sign, the directional sign, like you said is on Highway 114, are we enforcing the one sign every 400 feet. Are we going out and pulling up signs. Ms. Huggins: We do not enforce along 114 unless its property we can specifically show as Trophy Club. Remember, from the access road of the pavement on, that’s Westlake. So, anything on Trophy Club property we can deal with. But we try to be Planning and Zoning Commission Page 16 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 November 21, 2013Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes cooperative. For instance, between Trophy Club Drive and Trophy Lake Dr on Highway 114, there’s an area along there that all of the builders love to put their signs on. We discuss with TXDOT all the time about whose responsibility it is to pick those signs up, to mow that area, etc. If we were to start enforcing the sign ordinance along 114, TXDOT will want us to take over all responsibility for it and we don’t want to do that. We also don’t enforce that for another reason. Twice a year, during race weekends, Tom Thumb puts a lot of signs along there for business. It’s very good for our Tom Thumb. If TXDOT doesn’t mind then we tend to let it stay there on that particular strip. Now, on other areas of the town we will immediately take a look at it. If that’s unfair and we need to address it differently than we will. But, sometimes you have to look at what works for our builders and businesses. Chairman Senelly: Concerning political signs. Ms. Huggins: Political signs. We are looking at three signs. Size. Location. How long should they be up. Size, currently up to a maximum of thirty-six square feet and eight feet in height is allowed. Location, only one per lot on private residential property. How long. Right now, generally, the signs can be up about sixty days and removed within three days after the date of election. On size, is 36 sq. ft. too big? Is 8-ft. in height too big? Should political signs just be small real-estate-type signs? Should those be the only type sign allowed for political candidates. Location, should it only be on private residential property and should it not be allowed on town property at all. Should we remove the right-of-way regulation allowing any political sign in the right-of-ways – not in the center medians, but in the right-of-ways. Where is the right of way, and on some commercial properties where are the lots? The property owner has the right to remove any sign. In the recent political election that went on, there were a lot of signs put on NISD property. That’s one lot. NISD didn’t object to signs being on their property and so we did not address the problem of more than one sign per lot. Typically, in fact, during political campaigns we try not to address any signage for political candidates until people start complaining. If a home owner calls and says “I have a sign on my property and I don’t want it there”, we tell them “remove it, immediately, you have the right to do that.” If it is one that they want us to come and take down, we will. So we react immediately to any complaints about signs during political campaigns. We also, if a church, a school, any of the commercial properties say that they don’t want signs on their property then we immediately notify the candidates and let them know that they should not put those signs on the property. We do have some churches and some other properties that say they don’t want signs on their property. One year the property owner for the Tom Thumb Shopping Center, the Plaza Shopping Center, they were in the process of selling their property and they said “we don’t want any political signs on our property”. We told them that if any show up they should take them down immediately or give us the opportunity to notify the candidate and have them removed. A couple of them at that time were large signs and the candidates would want those back as those are not cheap signs. So, we try and be as responsive to the property owners as possible. But, it’s a very confusing issue. It’s frustrating for the candidates, frustrating for the staff. If we can clarify, if we can come up with a good plan for what should be allowed for political signs, that would be great for the Town and for the staff. And, also, the Town Attorney needs to be involved to make sure that we are also following state law and what’s allowed for candidates. And remember this isn’t just Trophy Club. We have to allow political signs by the state for certain elections. So we are going to bring you some ideas and would really appreciate your input and guidance on where to go with political signage. Vice Chairman Vowell: I think the city of Allen has some good signage and rules. If Planning and Zoning Commission Page 17 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 November 21, 2013Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes you put a garage sale sign in the wrong place, they would take it down and bring it to your house. Ms. Huggins: The Mayor made a comment on Monday that the regulations have to be such that we make it clear to the candidates at the beginning of each campaign from now on what is and isn’t allowed, because it really does become a problem for the staff to enforce. The mayor had said, look, this would be onerous for the staff to go out and regulate signs. She is absolutely right. In this recent campaign we would have had someone out every day responding to complaints. We got complaints every day about the signs. And again, like I said, if it was a property owner, we went out immediately. Either they could take the sign down or we would take it down, or we would contact the candidate. Every day we had complaints about the signs. It became really tedious to have one staff member constantly fielding those calls. Sometimes we can handle it just by the phone call, by saying ”here’s what’s allowed, that’s okay, we will check that one out, we know there are six signs on the NISD property but NISD has said that’s okay they don’t mind.” Like you, staff would love to see this cleaned up a bit. Chairman Senelly: Are there any other questions about signage at this time? Carolyn, thank you for the information. A motion was made by Commissioner Sheridan, seconded by Vice Chair Vowell, that this agenda item be recommended for approval to the Town Council. The motion carried by the following vote. Aye:Chairman Senelly, Commissioner Allen, Commissioner Sadley, Commissioner Sheridan, Commissioner Card, and Vice Chair Vowell 6 - 2013-756-T5.Staff liaison update of current and future items; questions and/or discussion. Ms. Huggins: There is a bridge being built on Veranda Avenue and you can now walk across it. You can’t drive across it yet, but you can walk across it. It is moving along. All the way back on October 21st, the action taken by Council on some items that P&Z saw: The PD-21 amendment to allow the electronic cigarette supply store has been approved. That was approved by Council. The permit is pending. We expect to issue that any time. They are moving forward with their store. PD-22, the Villas preliminary and final plats were approved by Council. Mr. Beck is selling that property to a new buyer. The new buyer is doing their due diligence and so a new developer will be coming forward to actually build those homes in the Villas of Hogan’s Glen. That sale is currently scheduled to close the first week of December, just after Thanksgiving. If that happens then a new Subdivider’s Agreement will be taken to Council when the purchase is complete. The only thing that will change is the ownership, the name, and that’s it. Everything else will be as P&Z and Council approved it. Dr. Crumpton’s tree mitigation appeal was heard by Council on October 21st. They did approve what the Tree Board recommended which was payment over four years for $31,600.00. He was allowed to have a $20,000.00 reduction in his tree mitigation requirement. Neighborhood 7 Phase 3C final plat was approved by Council on November 4th. The pre con is scheduled for the week after Thanksgiving. The Neighborhood 4, Isle of Turnbury final plat -- the 14 lots that will be available after the bridge is built -- those 14 lots were approved by Council. By the way, those two things -- some of you were concerned about the stipulations when P&Z recommended approval -- those were all completed by the time it went to Council. Staff tried very hard tonight to bring you complete projects. So, I hear you. We are trying. Neighborhood 4, Isle of Turnbury final plat was approved, pre con will be held Planning and Zoning Commission Page 18 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 November 21, 2013Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes tomorrow for those 14 lots. They actually want to start doing some grading in order to use some of the dirt to move toward the bridge. The Trophy Wood Medical Plaza site plan for a new monument sign was approved by Council and the permit has been issued for that. On the next P&Z on December 5th, hopefully you will see the Holiday Inn replat and site plan. We are working very hard with them this week to try and get that finalized. The sign ordinance will come back to you sometime in January – probably the 16th. 2013-757-T6.Items for future agendas. None for discussion this evening. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m. _________________________________________ Richard Senelly, Chairman _________________________________________ Carolyn Huggins, Community Development Director Planning and Zoning Commission Page 19 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:12013-760-T Name: Status:Type:Agenda Item Regular Session File created:In control:11/19/2013 Planning & Zoning Commission On agenda:Final action:12/18/2013 Title:Discussion and Recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Replat for Trophy Wood Business Center, Lot 3-R-3, Block B, being a replat of Lot 3R2, Block B of Trophy Wood Business Center. Owner: Raj Patel, Shri Shidhi Vinak Hospitality, LLC. Attachments:Staff Report.pdf Application - Replat.pdf Holiday Inn -Southlake Permit.pdf Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Discussion and Recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Replat for Trophy Wood Business Center, Lot 3-R-3, Block B, being a replat of Lot 3R2, Block B of Trophy Wood Business Center. Owner: Raj Patel, Shri Shidhi Vinak Hospitality, LLC. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 20 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 SUBJECT: Discussion and Recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Replat of Lot 3R3, Block B, Trophy Wood Business Center being a replat of Lot 3R2, Block B. Applicant: Mozar Islam, Civil Urban Associates, Inc. on behalf of Raj Patel, Shri Shidhi Vinak Hospitality, LLC EXISTING CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY: This property is currently vacant. It is surrounded on two (2) sides with existing roadways, Plaza Drive to the south and T.W. King Road to the east. The property to the west is undeveloped and maintains the same PD-25 zoning that exists on the subject property. The property is generally open and clear with several trees located in the middle of the property. The PD-25 zoning for this tract allows a hotel use. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT December 18, 2013 Case No. RP-13-021 Replat Lot 3R2, Block B to Lot 3R3, Block B Trophy Wood Business Center Planning and Zoning Commission Page 21 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 ADJACENT ZONING/EXISTING LAND USES: North: Vacant Land (zoned for single family uses) and Municipal Utility District Water Tower Site South: Plaza Drive, Value Inn Hotel East: T.W. King Road, City of Southlake West: Vacant Land (PD-25) STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting approval of a replat of Lot 3R2, Block B, Trophy Wood Business Center (to Lot 3R3). The purpose of the replat is to abandon the existing fire lane and add a new fire lane to accommodate the proposed site plan for consideration on this agenda. The Town Engineer has reviewed and approved placement of this replat on the Planning and Zoning Commission agenda. The replat provided to the Commissioners in the previous packet is not the most up-to-date plat. A new plat will be provided to the Commissioners on or before December 18. The up-to-date plat should correct the following: 1. The northeast corner of the boundary of the plat – the “Point of Beginning” shows ½” IRF with “Pate” Cap. The legal description says 5/8” IRF. Change to correct IRF. 2. Show center line of TW King and provide dimensions at northern and southern corner, rather than stating “variable width”. 3. Remove any or all unnecessary notes d through k on the right side of the first page of the plat. 4. The location map in the upper right corner of the first page of the plat should show the town limit and indicate the names of the municipalities. 5. Show the correct owner of the property to the north -- Harmony Homes Tex LLC, Doc 74627, 6/18/2013 filed in Denton County. [This property is located in Tarrant County but the sale deed was filed in Denton County – a common error occurring when property transactions take place in the southeast corner of Trophy Club.] 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. The applicant has requested permission from the City of Southlake to have an ingress/egress to T.W. King Road. The applicant has indicated that they have Planning and Zoning Commission Page 22 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 received approval from the City of Southlake. A copy of the Southlake permit is attached. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN: This site is located within the area identified on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Commercial/Professional uses. STAFF REVIEW: Staff and the Town Engineer have reviewed the plat and determined that it complies with Town’s subdivision rules and regulations as well as the obligations outlined in PD-25. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of RP-13-021 a replat of Lot 3R2, Block B into Lot 3R3, Block B, Trophy Wood Business Center. ch Attachments: Application Southlake Permit Planning and Zoning Commission Page 23 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 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 2 4 o f 3 3 M e e t i n g D a t e : D e c e m b e r 1 8 , 2 0 1 3 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 25 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 26 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:12013-761-T Name: Status:Type:Agenda Item Regular Session File created:In control:11/19/2013 Planning & Zoning Commission On agenda:Final action:12/18/2013 Title:Discussion and Recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Site Plan for a Holiday Inn Hotel to be located on Lot 3-R-3, Block B, Trophy Wood Business Center. Owner: Raj Patel, Shri Shidhi Vinak Hospitality, LLC. Attachments:Staff Report.pdf Application - Site Plan.pdf Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Discussion and Recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Site Plan for a Holiday Inn Hotel to be located on Lot 3-R-3, Block B, Trophy Wood Business Center. Owner: Raj Patel, Shri Shidhi Vinak Hospitality, LLC. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 27 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 SUBJECT: Discussion and recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Site Plan of Lot 3R-2, Block B, Trophy Wood Business Center. Applicant: Raj Patel / Shri Shidhi Vinak Hospitality, LLC. APPLICANT: Mozar Islam Civil Urban Associates, Inc. 9401 LBJ Freeway, Suite 305 Dallas, TX 75243 OWNER: Raj Patel Shri Shidhi Vinak Hospitality, LLC 1718 Cockrell Hill Road Dallas, Texas 75211 LOCATION: Northwest corner of Plaza Drive and T.W. King Road ADJACENT ZONING/EXISTING LAND USES: North: Vacant Land (zoned for single family uses) South: Plaza Drive, Value Inn Hotel East: T.W. King Road, City of Southlake West: Vacant Land (PD-25) EXISTING CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY: This property is currently vacant. It is surrounded on two (2) sides with existing roadways, Plaza Drive to the south and T.W. King Road to the east. The property to the west is undeveloped and maintains the same PD-25 zoning that exists on the subject property. The property is generally open and clear with several trees located in the middle of the property. However, these trees are not protected under the current tree ordinance and can be removed. No tree mitigation is required. W inslow PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT December 18, 2013 Case No. SP-13-023 Site Plan Lot 3R-2, Block B Holiday Inn Planning and Zoning Commission Page 28 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 There are no water courses or floodplains associated with the property, however, a portion of the land area to the north does drain across the property and will be maintained within a public drainage easement. ZONING: The property is zoned Planned Development No. 25 (PD-25), with mixed uses including retail uses, retail and hotel uses and office uses. The property is shown within Tract 9 of the approved Concept Plan for PD-25. The general purpose of PD-25 is to provide locations for local neighborhood shopping and personal service needs of the surrounding area to accommodate general retail shopping and to accommodate low intensity businesses or professional offices that are designed and sited to be compatible with nearby residential uses and which primarily provide services to residents of the community. PD Development Standards exist for any property developed within PD-25. These standards include guidelines on uses, area building and site regulations, parking and loading requirements, landscaping, building materials, lighting, screening/fencing and signage. Planned Structures The applicant is proposing to construct a four (4) story full service Holiday Inn brand hotel with a footprint of approximately 28,600 square feet and a gross building area of 92,665 square feet. Building area includes hotel rooms, a full service restaurant, meeting rooms, fitness room, and an indoor swimming pool. Setbacks PD-25 has an approved Concept Plan as well as approved Final Plat which provides the following setbacks: Roadway Frontages: 30-feet Side and Rear: 10-feet Building line measurements adjacent to the roads are taken from the existing thirty seven (37) foot Access Easement. The plan complies with all setback requirements. Area and Height Regulations The Development Standards for PD-25 regulate area building and site improvements. Building coverage shall not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the site while maintaining a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the site for open space. Impervious areas may not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the total site. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 29 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 The proposed site plan provides approximate area coverage as follows: building at 23%, open space at 20% and impervious area at 58%. Building heights for hotels shall not exceed sixty five feet (65’) or four (4) stories in height. Building height proposed for the hotel building is sixty feet (60’). Parking Requirements Approximate square footage and room count for the building is as follows: Square Footage of Building – Hotel: 92,665 Total Number of Rooms - 123 Based on the total number of rooms, 123 parking spaces are required. The applicant has provided 123 parking spaces, five (5) of which are handicap accessible spaces. The total number of handicapped spaces exceeds the Town's regulations of three (3) spaces. Photometrics Plan The site plan package provides information on exterior lighting for the building and the parking lot. General details for each of the three (3) light fixture types has been provided as well as location of fixtures, elevations, lamp type, and average illumination of each fixture. As shown on the signed and sealed Photometric Plan exhibit, there appears to be minimal spread of light from proposed fixtures. Foot candle limitations at adjacent property lines were at or less than 0.1 foot candle. This appears to be in compliance with the Development Standards and zoning ordinance. Exterior lighting fixtures shall not exceed a maximum height of twenty five (25) feet. All lighting shall direct light toward the ground and shall be shielded. Parking lot lighting shall have fixtures mounted on poles with a maximum height of twenty five (25) mounted on twenty four (24) inch concrete bases. The plan appears to comply. Landscape Plan The Development Standards for PD-25 include the landscape regulations for this tract. Planting is provided adjacent to perimeter roads, surrounding the building, surrounding the dumpster enclosure and neighboring property. A minimum landscape setback of ten (10) feet is provided adjacent to Plaza Drive, T.W. King Road and the common access drive as required by the approved Concept Plan. A screening fence is proposed along the north property boundary adjacent to property that was recently rezoned from commercial (hospital use) to single family residential. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 30 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 Additional requirements regarding plant placement and setbacks have been provided. The Development Standards require that the front setback areas contain landscaping to screen the parking areas. With the exception of the parking entry or open lawn areas, all screening is proposed to include shrub rows and trees. Shrubs will be aligned between the trees to provide a screen of a minimum of three (3) feet in height adjacent to the parking areas. The applicant’s landscape plan appears to meet the minimum Town requirements. Tree Mitigation This property contains approximately 16 Cottonwood trees with caliper inch widths ranging from eight (8) inches to forty two (42) inches. Per the current ordinance, Cottonwood trees are not included on the Protected Trees list and can be removed without mitigation. The Landscape and Tree Removal Plans, as proposed, comply with Town regulations. Building Elevations Building elevations have been provided as required. These elevations provide details on materials, signage and lighting. The Development Standards regulate building materials and require all main and accessory buildings and structures to be of exterior fire resistant construction having one hundred (100) percent of the total exterior walls, excluding doors, windows and porches, constructed of brick or stone including the area above the first floor ceiling plate line. The applicant's plans call for a combination of manufactured stone, brick and stucco. These materials, as proposed, meet the Town's masonry requirements. Ingress/Egress Primary access to the proposed project will be from two driveways located on Plaza Drive and one driveway on T.W. King Road. A common driveway is to be constructed along the west property line with one half of the pavement to be located on the adjacent property per the existing platted access easement. No Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was required for the proposed project. Sight Line Study A sight line study (Sheets 34 and 35) is included as required by the PD-25 development standards. Development Schedule A development schedule has been provided as an insert to the plans. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 31 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 Sign Criteria Specific sign criteria for building signage and monument signs have been included with the site plan package as shown on Sheet 36 (G-1.06). Signage, as proposed, meets the requirements of PD-25 and the Town’s ordinance. OUTSTANDING ITEMS: The site plan delivered to the Commissioners for the December 9 meeting needs the following corrections: Sheet C6 – Site Plan 1. Show the correct owner of the property to the north -- Harmony Homes Tex LLC, Doc 74627, 6/18/2013 filed in Denton County. 2. Street lights should be shown on the site plan. Sheet G-1.06 Signage Details 1. Revise the following sentence (which occurs in 3 places on the sheet) to show the changes noted in RED: COLORED ILLUMINATED SIGN AS PER IHG SPECIFICATION. SIGN CONTRACTOR TO PROCURE SEPARATE SIGN PERMIT FROM THE TOWN AS PER APPROVED SITE PLAN. [(1) Separate is misspelled. (2) Trophy Club refers to itself as a “town”. (3) The signage will not meet the Town’s sign ordinance – the signs are larger than allowed and need to be approved by P&Z and Council. A permit will be required and the Town Staff will issue the permit based on what is approved by Council with the Site Plan. 2. Correct misspelled word in: CONCRETE SIGN PAD BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR With these corrections, the Site Plan package is complete and ready for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission. STAFF FINDINGS: Staff and the Town Engineer have had four (4) reviews of the Site Plan submittal. The applicant is requesting overall site plan approval for a single-phase project. The development proposed by the applicant is appropriate for the PD-25 zoning district. SUGGESTED MOTION: Recommendation of approval to the Town Council of the Site Plan for the Holiday Inn. ch Attachments: Application Planning and Zoning Commission Page 32 of 33 Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 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 3 M e e t i n g D a t e : D e c e m b e r 1 8 , 2 0 1 3