Loading...
Minutes P&Z 01/20/2000MINUTES OF REGULAR SESSION FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB 20 JANUARY, 2000 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trophy Club, Texas met in a regular session on 20 January, 2000, at 6:00 P.M. in the Boardroom of the Trophy Club Administration Building, 100 Municipal Drive, Trophy Club, Texas 76262. Mike Hamper Chairman Gene Hill Vice -Chairman Donald Cotton Member Rick Gilliland K48[Db8r Clayton Reed David Schaaf Roger Williams Member Member Member STAFF AND GUESTS PRESENT: Kehn{}.Fleck Planning & Zoning Coordinator DonBOutmxe|| Planning Consultant Bill LeGrond Director ofPublic Works Adrian Womack Building Inspector Bi||M8tth8i Council Member Chairman Hamper called the meeting toorder ak0:O0pm. and announced equorum was present. 2' DISCUSSION REGARDING CONSISTENCY BETWEEN LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE LAKES OF TROPHY CLUB, AN EXHIBIT TO PD -15, AND THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF PD -15. Chairman Hamper updated the Commissioners 0nthe issues that have been facing the staff for the past several months regarding this planned development. Chairman Hamper asked Planning Consultant, Dan BOubw8U.ifh8had any information onPD-15. Mr. Boutwx]Ustated that he does in fact have a file on this development, separate from Town staff s files. Hehas a preliminary plat, which is called the developer's plan, which shows the 6'fence with masonry columns. Mr. Boutwell also has the Landscape Development plan, which shows the entryway features and fencing details. Mr. LeGrand addressed the Commission: Mr. LeG[8Dd informed the C0DlDliSSiOn that there one discrepancies between the written word of the Development Standards and the Landscape Plan Exhibit. Also, during the process of development in the subdivision, various items have been brought to the attention of the developer that does not conform tDthe Landscape plans. Briscoe Clark, the developers, respond to the Town's concerns by claiming that the Planning and Zoning Commission gave them awaiver for that particular item, whatever "thot^item may be. Also, when the staff has had meetings with Briscoe Clark over outstanding C0nnerna, and we have referenced the Planning & Zoning Regular Session 20 January 2000 Landscape plans, they claim that they did not submit the plans we have, in fact, they have never seen them. Therefore, the staff would like the Commission to recall any agreements or exceptions that were made for this development. The Commission agreed to go through the Landscape Plan page by page, to see if these plans represent what the Commission required for the subdivision. The discrepancies between the written word and the Exhibit is as follows: Development Standards for The Lakes @ Trophy Club: Section H. FencesMlalls 2. Perimeter Fence. (c) Fencing around Village 2- Meadow Ridge. All fencing surrounding the Meadow Ridge Village, with the exception of the screening wall along Trophy Club Drive, shall be six (6) feet in height and shall be constructed of cedar with masonry columns on the lot corners. Section H. Fences/Walls 2. Perimeter Fence. (d) Fencing around Village 1 -Meadow Lakes. All fencing around the Meadow Lakes Village, with the exception of the screening wall along Trophy Club Drive, shall be six (6) feet in height and shall be constructed of cedar columns at the lot corners. EHXIBIT H. states: 6' Minimum Cedar Fence (Masonry columns 20' o.c.) Chairman Hamper stated that as a practical matter, Section H. (c) and (d) it does not make sense to put the columns at the lot corners because the lots between Meadow Ridge and Meadow Lake do not match up perfectly. Chairman Hamper stated that there were two different hearings for this subdivision. 6 June 1996, was the first, which was the one the Commission approved and made their recommendation with contingencies. Then, the Town Council approved the PD on 18 June 1996, with changes. They changed the P&Z recommendation. For example, one of the changes made was that no lot could be less than 9,000 square feet. Also, ornamental fencing was to be installed on the side and rear lot lines of those lots backing up to the lakes. Mr. Boutwell went through his notes from the, 18 June 1996, meeting and said there were no revisions or comments about perimeter village fencing. Chairman Hamper went through his notes from the development and reminded the Commission that in, May 1996, Briscoe Clark presented the Commission with a concept. Then in June `96, the first official information was received. When the Commission approved PD -15 at the public hearing, 6 June 1996, there were several contingencies such as: (1) PD standards had to set out all amenities that are imposed (2) All types of fencing and portions that are to be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. At no time did the Commission, or will the Commission, grant a perimeter fence to be built on a piece -meal basis. Perimeter fences are to be built as a perimeter before any development is done. (3) The Commission was to have a description of the Homeowners Association for each of the five villages, to ensure that there were no contradictions between the Covenants, Codes and Restrictions, and the Development Standards of the PD. (4) No front entry garages on lots 9,000 square feet or greater, and (5) All lakes and corresponding fences were to be completed before any building permits were issued. (6) A development schedule for each village must be provided, and (7) Fencing requiring wood were to be the material of cedar or better. That applied for every lot and not just the perimeter fencing. Chairman Hamper went on to say that the preceding information was very clear, and N Planning & Zoning Regular Session 20 January 2000 he was not able to see how a misinterpretation came about. Mr. LeGrand said that he felt during the Commission's deliberations with Briscoe Clark, they developed a plan for this area, which was derived from the concept the Commission gave them. They had to produce it, and they drew accordingly. However, when the time came for the plans to be resubmitted for approval, the Town never received them. The Landscape plans differ from the concepts shown in the PD Exhibits, and that's where the staff's concerns are. What is on the ground matches the Landscape pans, more than it does the EXHIBITS. Mr. Boutwell produced a plan (15 August 1996) that showed the fence minimum 6' cedar fence measured 20' on center. Chairman Hamper noted that, 15 August 1996, the Commission tabled the discussion because there was a whole set of items that the developers had not yet satisfied. This was after the PD had been approved. All of the Landscape Plans were to be submitted with the final plat. Commissioner Reed asked Mr. LeGrand if there were a set of plans that showed no fence. Mr. LeGrand said there were no such plans. The developers were claiming that a waiver had been granted for the columns. That was the point of the argument. Mr. Boutwell noted that even if the Commission had granted a waiver for that item, the Commission by law, cannot grant the waiver. Commissioner Gilliland stated that he was appointed to the Commission during this time period, and he distinctly remembers discussing the stone columns. He did not however, remember any discussion over waiving the column requirement. Mr. LeGrand told the Commission that the set of Landscape Plans before them were actually a set of plans given by Briscoe Clark, to the Darling Homes Sales Division, as a visual of what would be done in the subdivision. That is how the Town came about to have the plans. The current staff was unable to locate any other plans. Chairman Hamper said that some of the items in the PD came up after it was approved, for further clarification. One example would be the pathways. It was decided that the material could be asphalt and not the crushed granite. Commissioner Gilliland said that the Commission approved what was given to them. It was the responsibility of the developer to resubmit any modifications, and the Commission would consider. If Briscoe Clark cannot produce any documentation that this body approved anything other than this, then they must conform to the current conditions. Mr. LeGrand said that that was the position he and Mr. Womack had been taking. Commissioner Cotton reiterated that the fact remained; there is still no legal set of plans. Even though the PD was approved, which stated the plans would be submitted, they never were. Currently, there is only the PD, which is the current legal working document. Commissioner Hamper said that with this ordinance, the Commission worked out all the details with the developer, and then referred all the information to the attorney and Dan Boutwell. Also, he had difficulty finding the ordinance after it was approved. He went to Ms. Pauline Shaw and she had no PD. Planning & Zoning Regular Session 2OJanuary 2WO0 K4cBoutwxeU pointedout that the Town might hoveopnob|erneventh0ughth8Cornnnieeion'a intent was 0ohave the masonry columns every 2Ofeet. Section H. FENCES/WALLS' 2' Perimeter Fence. (a) and /b\specifically indicates the masonry columns tobe every 20-30 f88t, respectively, xvhi|B (c) and /d\ indicate the columns to be placed at the lot corners. ThOrefOr8, we were @vvGre of the difference. Commissioner Hamper told the Commission that they all had toagree that if the PD stated something 8certain way, that is the standard that w8have to go by. All Commissioners agreed. CO[nnniSSi0m8r Cotton said that he did not think the C0nlrniSSk]n ShOU|d go through the Landscape plans, and confuse the issue. Chairman Hamper pointed out that the Landscape plans contained information that was not addressed inthe PD. Commissioner Cotton said that the PDshould b8the governing set ofguidelines wegobyand the Landscape plans should b98subset tOthe PD. Mr. Boubw8Ustated that generally @PO zoning ordinance was not very detailed. Usually @ set ofplans is submitted to the Tovvn, which becomes the official set. The point remains; the masonry columns must bSinstalled. UBriscoe Clark does not want t0 install them on the lot corners, then the Commission will allow them to be installed every 20 feet. Commissioner Cotton pointed out that if this ever went into litigation, the Landscape plans may not hold Up in court. If we go by vvh@1 the oPdiO@DC8 states, we will carry more weight for negotiating. The Commission proceeded to go through the Landscape plans, page by page, with Bill L8Gr8ndand Adrian Womack, tOsee ifthey follow the PD, and also k}know what has not been completed. Mr. Boutwell produced a landscape development plan that coincides with the Landscape plan before the Commission. The only way Mr. BoutwxaUwould have received this, was ifwas given to him by Pauline, therefore it was official. Index: moissues SL -0: trail between Craekaideand Lakeview has not been installed reference engineered plans issues still inquestion: pathway plan eeitpertains behind the school (Mr. B0utwxe||feels that this area was given anexception) SL-OA:th8dOSho: Commission agrees that there were tube2(bw0)docks Brick wall: the builder wants tosubstitute for cedar even though across the street iS masonry — pathway ties them together SL -1: duplicate of missing trail SL -2: no comments SIL -3: no comments SIL -4: no comments SL -5: large lake- the Commission agrees that the dock should be built according to the plans need explanation from Briscoe Clark as to why the dock was not built accordingly SIL -6: small lake- dock has not been constructed atall Need explanation from Briscoe Clark 8Stowhy the dock was never built SL -7: no comments 4 Planning & Zoning Regular Session 20 January 2000 SL -8: entryway features: Commission recall this detail SL -9: no comments SL -10: were there two docks on the large lake? If so, what happened to it? outstanding item: additional deck not installed L-1: only installed 5 (five) Bradford Pears and plans call for 8 (eight) Commission said developers must adhere to this item L-2: 4" caliper tree should be 6" caliper tree L-3: entrance medians: the wrong trees have been installed at the wrong size L-4: median entrance to Meadow Lakes: Crepe Myrtle's instead of Oak trees L-5: landscape plan around large lake: some trees have not been installed, some are scattered too far apart L-6: no comments L-7: median details differ that what has been constructed length of median and landscaping is in question Chairman Hamper stated that the Commission has established that the exhibit before the Commission, that shows the landscape plan, along with the plan that Mr. Boutwell had been given by Pauline, correlates with the ordinance and what has been remembered and notes. The whole matter is that the Commission intends that Landscape plan is adhered to. Chairman Hamper said that Briscoe Clark should have the opportunity to address the Commission at the next meeting scheduled for 3 February 2000. 3. DISCUSSION, REVIEW AND APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 98-29. The following changes were made: SECTION 45 — SCREENING AND FENCING F. Perimeter Fencing: 4. Add the following: Construction material for the extension and design of perimeter fences shall be subject to the approval of the Town Council, upon recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Commission. SECTION 28 — "CG" COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS H. Off -Street Parking: 10. Define "decorative street treatment" SECTION 28—"CG" COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS H. Off -Street Parking: J. Landscaping Requirements: 1. A front -set back area shall be devoted to a landscape buffer. Only drive crossings that provides ingress and egress shall be allowed. Motion: Gilliland Second: Hill Ayes: Hamper, Cotton, Reed, Schaaf, Williams Nays: None Approved: 7-0 Motion carried. This item will be recommended for approval to the Town Council. The Town's attorney would like to see public hearings conducted in a different format. This Planning & Zoning Regular Session 2QJanuary 2OOQ format would have the Planning and Zoning Commission conducts their public hearing at their own meeting and make mrecommendation tothe Town Council. Then, 0nthe Town Council's meeting night, they would hold their public hearing. The two separate hearings would ensure that each body makes their decision independently from the other. Mr. BoubweUagrees that format would beneficial. He pointedout that most ofthe cities heie involved with, conduct their meetings by this system. Chairman Hamper did not feel the Commission should change to adopt a new procedure and the rest of the Commissioners agreed to conduct meetings as they had been. 5. REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES. 18November 1SSS—Approved 8Scorrected. Motion: Cotton Second: Gilliland Ayes: Hamper, Hill, Williams Nays: None Abstain: Reed, Schaaf Approved: 5-0 Motion carried. 6' REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONERS, OTHER MATTERS. Commissioner Cotton gave Gnupdate 0Othe Utility Franchise Committee. Vice Chairman Hill gave an update On the Corp. of Engineers and o!OSu[8 of Kirkwood Blvd. Chairman Hamper adjourned the meeting at 8:52 p.m. ene Hill, Vice Chairman K�rin C. Fleck, PlAning & Zoning Coordinator 6