Loading...
Minutes P&Z 12/18/2008 TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 18, 2008 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trophy Club, Texas met in a Regular Session on December 18, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 100 Municipal Drive, Trophy Club, and Texas 76262. COMMISSIONERS ATTENDANCE: Chairman Hill Present Vice Chairman Stephens Present Commissioner Reed Present Commissioner Sheridan Present (arrived 7:13 p.m.) Commissioner Forest Present Commissioner Ashby Absent Commissioner Davidson Present STAFF AND GUESTS PRESENT: Carolyn Huggins Planning & Zoning Coordinator Steve Lenart Lenart Development Co., LLC Todd Webb K. Hovnanian Homes Matt Johnson Standard Pacific Homes Wes Homeyer Centex Homes A.1 CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. with a quorum (5 members) present. B.1 REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 20, 2008 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. Commissioner Forest motioned to approve the minutes of the November 20, 2008, Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Davidson. Ayes: Davidson, Reed, Hill, Forest Nays: None Abstain: Stephens (absent on November 20, 2008) Action: 4-0-1, Approved C.1 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 27, KNOWN AS THE HIGHLANDS AT TROPHY CLUB, ORDINANCE NO. 2007-15 P&Z BY AMENDING EXHIBIT “B” – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, SECTION VI. DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS, “C” SCREENING AND FENCING. APPLICANT: HIGH TROPHY DEVELOPMENT, LLC REPRESENTED BY STEVE LENART, LENART DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC (PD AMD-08-029) Chairman Hill opened the public hearing; no one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. Several homeowners came in after the public hearing was closed and later in the meeting Chairman Hill allowed the homeowners to speak. Chris Kelly, under contract for 2208 Aberdeen, scheduled to close on December 23, stated that he would appreciate consideration for including more of his side yard within fencing. Tony English, future homeowner of 2240 Veranda, also stated that he would like some side yard enclosed within a fence which is not allowed by current regulations. D.1 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO PD- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 27, KNOWN AS THE HIGHLANDS AT TROPHY CLUB, ORDINANCE NO. 2007-15 P&Z BY AMENDING EXHIBIT “B” – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, SECTION VI. DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS, “C” SCREENING AND FENCING. APPLICANT: HIGH TROPHY DEVELOPMENT, LLC REPRESENTED BY STEVE LENART, LENART DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC (PD AMD-08-029) The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed this item for the next 90 minutes. The discussion is summarized: Ms. Huggins gave a staff report explaining that as homes are being completed and fencing is being installed at homes in The Highlands there are a couple of situations in which the developer would like to request amendments to PD-27 regarding fencing, specifically, side yard fencing along a side street which also involves key lots, as well as perimeter fencing. Ms. Huggins explained that there are approximately 1500 homes planned for The Highlands, of which 1298 are Lot Types 1 through 4. Of those, 642 lots have been platted. Of those, approximately 65 are corner lots that will have side yards along side streets. Key lots are lots that have a side build line which is the same as the front build line of adjacent lots. The side yard fencing should remain on the build line in order to not project beyond the front build line of adjacent lots. Commissioner Sheridan arrived at 7:13 p.m. The applicant, Steve Lenart, Lenart Development Company, 520 Central Parkway East, Plano, stated that this is a request to clarify the fencing requirements in the PD of The Highlands of Trophy Club. He stated that the goal is to clarify where the side yard fencing needs to sit and then, secondly, maximize the use of those lots and the value of those lots for the homeowners and builders. He stated that this concerns corner lots only in which the side yard setbacks are greater due to the adjacency to the street. For Lot Types 1 & 2, the side yard typically is from 10 to 20-ft. The developer is interested in a visually appealing street scape and, just as important, maximizing the use of the corner lots for the homeowners so that they do not have to maintain a lot of yard outside the fence which they cannot functionally use on a daily basis. This situation is exaggerated as you go into the smaller lots. Mr. Lenart stated that people pick the corner lots because of the larger lot size, which usually will give them more yard space. However, with the current ordinance, these homeowners are not allowed to fence in the property beyond the building line. Mr. Lenart stated that for Lot Types 1 & 2, in working with staff a measurement of 10-ft. from the property line was agreed upon to maintain the good, wide street scape as you turn onto the street. Fences will not be crowding the street on the property line which is 11-1/2 ft. off the back of curb. The fencing begins 21-1/2 ft. off of curb and allows these homeowners to have the same width of back yard as the interior lots so they are not penalized for buying a corner lot in the community. Mr. Lenart stated that in working with staff the agreement was that the fences shall be at least 10-ft. back from the front façade which will allow fencing to wrap the AC units or windows, but maintain a good offset off the front of the home. Mr. Lenart stated that for Lot Types 3 & 4, the developer feels it is important to get as much yard as possible because these are smaller lots. They wish to maximize the value of the corner lots and allow people to make use of the extra land. Mr. Lenart stated that the standard interior building line is 5-ft. On a corner lot against a street there is a 15-ft. side yard building line. They would like to place the side yard fence along a side street at the property line to place the extra 10-ft. within the fence and capture the side yard as well as maximize the back yard. Mr. Lenart stated that there are not a lot of corridors running throughout the neighborhoods of these smaller lot types. He stated that it is typically two lots, back to back, with an occasional key lot. Commissioner Davidson asked if the material used on the front of the house facing fence would be wood or metal. Mr. Lenart stated that the PD doesn’t address this, but in Neighborhoods 3 & 4, they are using wrought iron but with the smaller lots in Neighborhoods 1, 5, and 7 it would be wood. Mr. Davidson asked for the distance from the house to the fence for Lot Type 2. Mr. Lenart responded that it varies. He stated that on a typical 80-ft. lot the side yard is 15-ft. so if the fence is 10-ft. off the property line that leaves a 5-ft. gap between the fence and the house. Mr. Davidson asked if the 5-ft. gap would have sod or concrete. Mr. Lenart stated that 5-ft. side yards are very common throughout the metroplex and typically it is irrigated and sodded. Mr. Davidson stated that it would be difficult to keep anything growing in that 5-ft. gap so the homeowner is almost forced to put some type of material in that space. Mr. Davidson asked if the fence height would be 6-ft. or 8-ft. Mr. Lenart responded that the homeowners have the option of going to 8-ft., but the typical fence is 6-ft. in height. Commissioner Reed asked how key lots should be addressed. Mr. Lenart stated that on a key lot the rear fence of the key lot runs beside the front yard of the adjacent lot. In Neighborhoods 3 & 4, these are large lots, standard 80s and 90s or wider, and it is not nearly an issue as it is with the smaller lot sizes (50s, 60s, 70s width) where the homeowner walks out his front door and 25-ft. away is the neighbors fence. In Neighborhoods 3 & 4, the homeowners own garage or recessed front door may block the view of the neighbor’s fence. Staff and Mr. Lenart discussed a compromise of 5-ft. for the key lots, but more than that entails a discussion of the placement of the house next door – are they walking out to the left to see their neighbor’s fence or are they seeing their own garage door. The developer would prefer that the homeowner be allowed to utilize as much of the yard as possible because typically that is what homeowners wish. Commissioner Reed stated that he agrees that the amount of back yard should be maximized. If the homeowner paid a big price for the lot he shouldn’t have to have a strip of land that he is responsible to care for and mow, but can’t utilize. Vice Chairman Stephens stated that he sees the wisdom of moving out the fence so that homeowners can have that extra property to use, as it is a great place to put lawn equipment. He stated that he put down pea gravel which he doesn’t have to mow, yet that side of the house, the foundation, stays wet. He has found it to be a great place to put the bar-b-que grill, lawn mowers and the other items that homeowners accumulate – and over the years homeowners do accumulate a lot. Mr. Stephens asked for the distance from the curb to the property line for Lot Types 3 & 4. Mr. Lenart stated that the standard setback off of curb is 11- 1/2 ft. He stated that the developer is going to maintain a stain on the fences, but they didn’t request that in the PD because it would be a hard thing for the City to police over the 5 to 7 year life of the development. He stated they will mandate and police that through the HOA. He stated that they recognize that the concern is having the fences tight on the street, but they feel the trade off on the 60s and 70s is worth it in this situation. There are no long corridor runs in these neighborhoods (1, 5, and 7) which will give a narrow tunnel vision look. Vice Chairman Stephens asked how many lots are corner lots with side yard fencing along a side street. Ms. Huggins responded that of the 610 platted lots there are 75 corner lots. Commissioner Forest stated that he feels that something should be done that can help homeowners have a bigger yard. Homeowners are spending a lot of money on a house and should be able to use their ground rather than having to mow ground that they can’t use. He’d like to see a solution that works for the developer and for the homeowners. Commissioner Sheridan apologized for being late and asked for verification of the allowed fence height. Ms. Huggins stated that the allowed fence height is 6-ft. with a maximum of 8-ft., except for yards facing golf course or open space which is limited to 6-ft. Mr. Sheridan asked if the PD is different from the Town fence ordinance. Ms. Huggins responded, “No”. Mr. Sheridan made the following observations -- 8-ft. fencing is allowed along the side. Five foot side yards are not unusual. There are a variety of lot sizes. Drainage issues with 5-ft. side yards are not unusual. He asked what the typical corner is for all lot types – is it not wider? Mr. Lenart responded that it is. He stated that on a typical 60-ft. wide lot the corner lot is 70-ft. wide. Commissioner Sheridan stated that in this Town there is a variety of every type of fence possible because for many decades there have been different controls varying from none to some. He stated that this issue was debated when the Town fence ordinance was finalized. He stated that he lives on a corner lot and his wife would have liked to take the fence to the property line. Mr. Sheridan stated that he voted against it. He stated that his opinion is that there should be one fence ordinance for the Town. Chairman Hill asked to move on to perimeter fencing and key lots. Mr. Lenart stated that perimeter fencing is where there is a lot adjacent to a screening wall. The current ordinance prohibits parallel fencing within 20-ft. of each other. Most of the lots in this PD that are beside a screening wall could not erect a side yard fence without violating the parallel fence regulation. Mr. Lenart stated that this would be 100% benefit to the homeowner to allow connection to perimeter fencing. Chairman Hill stated that the perimeter fence is sitting on a fence easement, correct? Mr. Lenart stated that most screening walls sit half in right-of-way and half on the property line of the homeowners’ property. Commissioner Reed stated that he is in favor of this request. It’s logical. Vice Chairman Stephens stated that he agrees with Commissioner Reed. Commissioner Sheridan asked what type of fence could be utilized. Ms. Huggins stated that staff is recommending wrought iron. Mr. Sheridan asked if the screening wall fencing is HOA or PID controlled. Ms. Huggins responded, “HOA”. Mr. Sheridan noted that some of the perimeter fencing is solid stone. He asked if any perimeter fencing will be against gas well stone walls. Mr. Lenart stated that he believed most of the gas well fences are offset from the property line a good distance. Mr. Sheridan stated that this is unique to the Highland area so therefore an individual PD allowance would not be unusual. He believes this is common sense. Commissioner Sheridan asked how many lots are perimeter lots. Mr. Lenart stated that there are approximately 40 lots. Vice Chairman Stephens and Commissioner Sheridan asked questions and discussed clarification of key lots with Mr. Lenart. Commissioner Reed discussed the possibility of a compromise between the build line and 10-ft. off the property line. Commissioner Sheridan stated that the Town staff has not shown the ability to handle differences. He stated that in just driving out to this neighborhood there are two houses on Veranda that are not in compliance and there is a house with a fence on it, that should have gotten a permit from the Town, that is not in compliance. By creating a variation to the current ordinance dictates something that we’ve shown we can’t handle. Commissioner Reed discussed variations for key lots with Mr. Lenart. Commissioner Davidson stated that 10-ft. off the property line is a nice compromise on the larger lots. He stated that the tunnel effect is not wanted where the fences come way out to the sidewalk, which is completely unacceptable for many reasons, most notably public safety. He has concern about the smaller lots going out to the sidewalk which would create a tunnel effect. Commissioner Sheridan stated that he would rather change the fence ordinance for the Town rather than for the PD. He recommends 15-ft. behind the façade and 5-ft. off the property line. Commissioner Davidson and Commissioner Sheridan discussed revising the Town fence ordinance versus the PD. Commissioner Davidson summarized that if there are going to be fence adjustments, we’ve already proven that it is troublesome to have different ordinances by location and that it needs to be more universal throughout the Town, adjusting across the board. Commissioner Reed stated that there are a lot of regulations in the PD that don’t apply to the rest of the Town so he doesn’t see why the fencing regulations for the PD have to be the same as the Town. A planned development is set up so they can negotiate slightly different situations with us. He would like to set the fencing regulations for the PD. Commissioner Sheridan stated that Mr. Reed has a point, but the other thing is there are three houses out there not in compliance, two of which the garage door would have to be torn off to bring them into compliance. He stated that he is not pointing at Carolyn, there are other people involved, but the differentials are not managed. Commissioner Sheridan asked if three separate motions could be made. Chairman Hill asked for one motion, and recommendation, on all items. After an additional (approximately 25 minutes) of discussion by the Commissioners, Mr. Lenart, and Todd Webb (with K. Hovnanian Builders), Chairman Hill called for a motion. Commissioner Sheridan made a motion recommending approval to the Town Council with the following stipulations: (1) Define a “key lot” as “any lot which has a street adjacent to both its front and side building lines, and its rear property line is also the side property line of an adjacent lot”; (2) the side yard fence adjacent to a side street for Lot Types 1, 2, 3 and 4 may be placed 10-ft. off the property line, and must be 10-ft. behind the front façade; no differential for key lots; (3) homeowners may connect to perimeter fencing and the property owner fence must be located a minimum of ten feet (10-ft.) behind the front façade. The HOA will maintain the perimeter fencing; the homeowner will maintain his fence connecting to the perimeter fencing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Stephens. Commissioner Davidson asked Mr. Lenart if the above motion meets the expectation of the developer. Mr. Lenart responded that it does not meet their desires for the 60 and 70-ft. wide lots. Mr. Davidson stated, “By doing this consistently regardless of the lot type we now eliminate the reverse problem with Lot Types 1 and 2 wishing to take their fencing to the property line”. Mr. Davidson stated that he prefers to see the requirements consistent across the lot types. There was no further discussion and Chairman Hill called for the vote. Ayes: Hill, Reed, Davidson, Forest, Sheridan, Stephens Nays: None Action: 6-0, Approved D.2 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A TEMPORARY USE FOR OFF STREET PARKING FOR MODEL HOMES IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 27, NEIGHBORHOOD 2, PHASE 1A, FOR A PERIOD OF TIME OF NOT GREATER THAN ONE YEAR. APPLICANT: GALLERY CUSTOM HOMES. The applicant was not present and Chairman Hill deferred this item to a future agenda. D.3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A TEMPORARY USE FOR OFF STREET PARKING FOR MODEL HOMES IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 27, NEIGHBORHOOD 2, PHASE 1A, FOR A PERIOD OF TIME OF NOT GREATER THAN ONE YEAR. APPLICANT: CENTEX HOMES. Chairman Hill announced this item and asked the applicant to step forward. Wes Homeyer, Centex Homes, 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 600, Dallas, stated that they wish to provide parking for their model home to be located at 2408 Trophy Club Drive. Ms. Huggins stated that Centex Homes is proposing 8 parking spaces with two handicap accessible spaces. The Town does not have a set amount of required parking spaces for a model home parking lot, although at least one handicap accessible space is required. Staff has determined that eight spaces for Centex’s model home is adequate based on the amount of lots Centex owns. Centex is proposing landscaping on either side of the driveway. They proposed a couple of trees, but staff asked Centex to remove the trees from this landscape plan because those trees would be destroyed when this lot is developed as a single family residence. Staff supports this request and asks the Planning & Zoning Commission to recommend approval to the Town Council. Commissioner Reed made a motion recommending approval to the Town Council. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Stephens. Ayes: Hill, Reed, Davidson, Forest, Sheridan, Stephens Nays: None Action: 6-0, Approved D.4 DISCUSSION AND COMMENT TO TOWN COUNCIL REGARDING CHANGES TO THE TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 13-ZONING, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, AMENDING REGULATIONS REGARDING PERMITTED USES FOR “CG” COMMERCIAL GENERAL ZONING AND OTHER MISCELLAENOUS PROVISIONS AS NEEDED OF CHAPTER 13. (ADM-09-001) Chairman Hill announced this item and asked the Commissioners to discuss and consider whether or not a pawn shop is an appropriate use in “CG” Commercial General zoning in the Town of Trophy Club. The Commissioners should also consider whether a pawn shop should be a conditional rather than a permitted use. The Council is asking P&Z to review all of the uses for CG and provide comment. The Commission discussed these items and Chairman Hill will give comments to the Town Council on January 5, 2009. E.1 ADJOURNMENT Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.