Loading...
Minutes P&Z 11/20/2008 TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 2008 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trophy Club, Texas met in a Regular Session on November 20, 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 Absent Commissioner Reed Present Commissioner Sheridan Present Commissioner Forest Present Commissioner Ashby Present Commissioner Davidson Present STAFF AND GUESTS PRESENT: Carolyn Huggins Planning & Zoning Coordinator Chris King Building Inspector Tom Rutledge Town Engineer, Teague Nall & Perkins Larry Stewart Owner, Lot 3, Block B Rick Horn Pate Surveyors Raj Chudasama Hydra Hotels, LLC Juan Vasquez Tomden Engineering Jeff Morrison Tomden Engineering A.1 CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with a quorum present. B.1 REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 6, 2008 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. Commissioner Davidson asked for a correction of the spelling of his name in Items B.1 and C.1. Commissioner Sheridan motioned to approve the minutes of the November 6, 2008, Planning & Zoning Commission meeting as corrected. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Forest. Ayes: Hill, Reed, Forest, Sheridan, Ashby, Davidson Nays: None Action: 6-0, Approved Planning & Zoning Commission Page 1 of 11 November 20, 2008 Minutes C.1 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 27, ORDINANCE NO. 2007-15 P&Z TO CORRECT AN INCONSISTENCY IN THE ORDINANCE. (PD AMD-08-028) C.2 DISCUSS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON AN AMENDMENT TO PD- PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 27, ORDINANCE NO. 2007-15 P&Z TO CORRECT AN INCONSISTENCY IN THE ORDINANCE. (PD AMD-08-028) Chairman Hill announced the item and then stated to the Commissioners and the audience that documentation provided in the packet concerning P&Z consideration in February and March 2007 for various amendments to PD-27 verifies the Commission’s action to provide Lot Type 3 side yard setbacks of 5-ft. The 6-ft. value shown in Table 4-1 on Page 31 of Ordinance 2007-15 P&Z was inconsistent with the Ordinance’s text and the Commission’s decision for a 5-ft. side yard. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing, noted that there were none wishing to speak, and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Hill asked for a motion recommending to the Town Council approval of a correction to Table 4-1 on Page 31 of Ordinance 2007-15 P&Z, changing the Lot Type 3 side yard value to 5-ft. Chairman Reed so moved and Commissioner Sheridan seconded the motion. Commissioner Sheridan thanked Mrs. Huggins for researching this for correction of this item. Commissioner Ashby stated that he believed the Commission had intended to approve this change provided the 5-ft. applied if the garage was not facing the street, but 6-ft. if the garage was facing the street. Chairman Hill responded that the Commission did discuss dual side yard widths for this lot type, but eventually the Commission dropped the dual width side yard to have a single width throughout Lot Type 3. Commissioner Ashby stated that he was not present at the meeting where the dual side yard width was dropped and therefore when he voted for this change on March 15, 2007, he thought he was voting for the dual side widths. He would prefer to see it that way. There was no further discussion and the Chairman reminded the Commission that there was a motion and a second and he called for a vote. Ayes: Hill, Reed, Forest, Sheridan, Davidson Nays: Ashby Action: 5-1, Approved Planning & Zoning Commission Page 2 of 11 November 20, 2008 Minutes C.3 DISCUSS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING A REQUEST FOR REPLAT OF LOT 3, BLOCK B, TROPHY WOOD BUSINESS CENTER INTO LOTS 3R1 AND 3R2, BLOCK B. APPLICANT: LARRY STEWART, OWNER, REPRESENTED BY PATE SURVEYORS. (RP-08-016) Chairman Hill announced the case and asked Ms. Huggins for a staff report. Ms. Huggins stated that this is a replat request for Lot 3, Block B, which is designated as Tracts 8 and 9 on the 2002 zoning concept plan for this property. This request is to subdivide the lot into two lots matching the zoning that was approved in 2002. There are a couple of minor corrections needed to the plat. There is a 37’ fire lane, drainage and access easement which is not consistent from Lot 3R1 to Lot 3R2 which will be corrected by the applicant prior to taking this plat to Council. Also, in the dedication and notary blocks the owner’s full name was not properly written and that has been corrected as well. Ms. Huggins stated that this plat meets the Town regulations for plat approval and staff recommends approval. Chairman Hill asked the developer for a statement. Rick Horn, Pate Engineers & Surveyors, 6000 Western Center II, Fort Worth, stated that they appreciate the work Carolyn has done on this plat. A couple of minor corrections have been discussed and they believe Carolyn is comfortable with approving this plat and they hope that the Commissioners also are comfortable with moving this on to Town Council. He is available to answer questions. Chairman Hill reminded the Commissioners that this item is for replat consideration only. Although the owner is platting with fire lanes and easements to match a potential site for a Holiday Inn concept plan, it may be necessary for the property owner to amend this replat if a Holiday Inn is not brought forward for development on Lot 3R2. The Holiday Inn concept plan is not a topic for discussion in this replat hearing. Commissioner Davidson asked if it is necessary to have fire lanes on this plat since the current plan does not show a second means of egress out of the plat. Chairman Hill responded that it is not a requirement, but the applicant requested that the fire lanes be included. Ms. Huggins added that a second ingress/egress will be required for a hotel and the applicant is willing to put that on the plat before this item goes before Council. Commissioner Sheridan mentioned a right-of-way dedication on the 2003 plat (that was included with the packet for reference only) that might need to be abandoned. The right-of- way Mr. Sheridan was referring to is not part of the replat being considered but will be noted for future reference. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 3 of 11 November 20, 2008 Minutes Mr. Sheridan stated that a concept plan for a Holiday Inn was included in the packet and he wishes to make it clear that the concept plan is not part of his thinking as far as recommending one way or the other on this replat. Mr. Sheridan asked for better identification of the 37-ft. private drive. He noted that in the 10-ft. landscape easement “by the time we put a 5-ft. sidewalk in there isn’t any landscaping. You’re correct in the way you did it, but I’m disappointed that we didn’t identify that pavement shouldn’t be included within a 10-ft. landscape easement. That’s a lesson learned.” He would like to see access to Lot 4B from the fire lane. He would also like to see access from the fire lane to the 28-ft. access easement shared by the two lots. He stated that he does not consider an entrance/exit to Southlake/T. W. King to concern Trophy Club so the two entrances to this project should be in Trophy Club, not Southlake. Ms. Huggins stated that access to Lot 4, Block B, will be provided through the 28-ft. access easement that is shared by Lots 3R1 and 3R2. The current owner of Lot 4, Block B, has indicated that they will not be interested in having an entry or exit along the south side of their property, but the PD requires an access option at that point so it will be provided. Also, an ingress/egress from the fire lane to the access easement will be added to the plat before this item goes to Council. Commissioner Sheridan noted that the dedication includes allowing the “public use forever the streets and easements thereon”. He stated that this is a private street and asked if that means that because it is for public use it can remain private but never gated, or does that alter the private road status and who is maintaining it. Ms. Huggins stated that it is a private drive that cannot be gated as it is for the public’s use. She stated that in discussing this with the applicant they added a note on the first page to make that clear. Mr. Horn added that the change has already been made on the replat and will be reflected on the copy that goes to Council. Commissioner Sheridan made a few comments regarding the Holiday Inn concept plan and Chairman Hill reminded him that the concept plan is not part of the consideration this evening. Commissioner Davidson made a motion to recommend to the Town Council approval of a replat of Lot 3, Block B, Trophy Wood Business Center into Lots 3R1 and 3R2, Block B. Commissioner Reed seconded the motion. Ayes: Hill, Reed, Forest, Sheridan, Ashby, Davidson Nays: None Action: 6-0, Approved C.4 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO TOWN ORDINANCE NO. 2002-41 P&Z, THE SAME BEING PD-25, TROPHY WOOD BUSINESS CENTER FOR FINAL DETAILED SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR TRACT 7 (LOT 3R1, BLOCK A), INCLUDING A LANDSCAPE PLAN AND PLANT LIST, BUILDING ELEVATIONS, SIGHT LINE STUDIES, CIVIL SITE PLAN, PHOTOMETRIC PLAN & LIGHT Planning & Zoning Commission Page 4 of 11 November 20, 2008 Minutes FIXTURES, SIGN CRITERIA, AND DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE. APPLICANT: HYDRA HOTELS, LLC (SP-08-009) Chairman Hill announced the case and asked for a staff report. Ms. Huggins stated that this request is for site plan approval of a Hampton Inn & Suites. On the site plan, the applicant shows all proposed structures, parking, and ingress/egress. The hotel will contain 94 rooms and the applicant is providing 95 parking spaces which meet the Town requirements of 1 parking space per room. The hotel is 4-stories in height at 56’-5-1/2” which meets the PD height restriction of 4 stories or 65-ft. in height. Access to this property is from both Trophy Wood Drive and Plaza Drive. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan that proposes planting of 85 trees and 254 shrubs. They are removing 10 trees on the site, 5 of which are considered protected so the applicant must give 1-1/2 caliper inches in exchange for removal of the protected trees. With the landscape and irrigation plan that the applicant has submitted, those requirements have been met. All landscaping will be irrigated. Front, rear and side building elevations are provided. The building will be constructed of simulated stone and E.I.F.S. (exterior insulation and finish system) which meet the minimum requirements for building materials in the Town of Trophy Club. The applicant provided a color legend, showing the stone and E.I.F.S. colors of the building. The colors are subject to Planning & Zoning Commission and Town Council approval. Normally, the color selection for roof materials would also be subject to your approval, but the hotel will have a flat, rather than pitched, roof. The lighting plan must provide street lights that do not exceed 25-ft. in height as well as 12-ft. tall ornamental street lights at the perimeter drives. The current plan doesn’t specify which light poles are 25-ft. in height and which are 12. We’ve asked the applicant to make this clear on the documents that will go to Council. The applicant is asking for 3 signs on the property: A wall sign on the front or south side of the building; a wall sign on the east elevation of the building and a monument sign in the southeast area of the property. The applicant has agreed to place stone around the base of the monument sign which is not reflected in the small color sheets in your packet but is indicated on the 24x36 plans, which is what becomes part of the ordinance upon approval of this project. This is a public hearing and notice was placed in the newspaper as well as notification sent to all property owners within 200-ft. of this site. The site plan meets or exceeds the minimum requirements set forth in the PD-25 Development Standards, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Tree Preservation/mitigation provisions of the Subdivision regulations and staff asks for approval. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 5 of 11 November 20, 2008 Minutes Ms. Huggins stated that the Town Engineer, Tom Rutledge, is present to answer questions as well as Chris King, the Building Inspector. Chairman Hill opened the public hearing. Richard Beaty, 18 Hillcrest Ct., stated the following: “I just don’t get it. How come we are continually being forced and almost railroaded into these pet projects that the overwhelming majority of the residents are vehemently opposed to? Colleyville, Southlake, Roanoke, Westlake and Keller have no multiple floor hotels built next to existing homes and back yards. Why us? Have all of you gentleman been to the property and stood on that lot? Hopefully you have. That’s pretty close to those houses there. It’s real close to the houses. Have any of you walked down to 114 and looked back up to see the kind of view that you are going to have? That hotel is right on the property. Also, have you gone to the Value Place Hotel and gone up to the 4th floor and looked out at the view? It’s got a great view. You can see forever. Just think of what that view is like right next to those property owners. They are looking right down on their yards. I visited the hotel that we have as a business and three things came out real quick as I was talking to the people there. The first one is I asked them how full they were. They said they only fill up twice a year – NASCAR. Other than that, they have a very low occupancy rate. Why do we need another hotel if the one we have existing in Trophy Club is not even being utilized? No. 2, they already knew that there were two hotels going in. It wasn’t until I talked to Carolyn earlier that I found out that there is a proposed Holiday Inn in the area. They already knew weeks in advance from their owner that other hotels were coming into the area. I’m just wondering if there is some sort of collusion between the builder and government that this is coming in and the citizens don’t know about what is going on. No. 3, Value Place Hotel is very concerned about these hotels going in because these are name hotels coming in and what are people going to do? They are going to get on the internet and find the name hotels and go there. They are going to take business away from the Value Place Hotel. What is that going to force them to do? They are going to have to lower their prices. So, next to you do you want to have somebody who is renting a room for $120 and next door you have someone for $20 a night so that they can stay competitive? There is going to be a difference in the kind of clientele you are going to have there. A new hotel will not only lower the property values of our homes, but put a strong financial burden upon our Town’s commercial businesses. They are already starting to sweat it out with this coming. Now, if you go to the lobby of the Value Place Hotel and walk out of the lobby, across the parking lot, across the road that leads to 114 and go maybe 20-ft. past that and there is a fire hydrant. I went on the property itself and measured with a tape measure to the center of that property straight to where the homes are. It is an average area – some homes closer, some homes further away. Go to that hydrant, turn around and look at that hotel and you tell me that you can live with having that hotel that close to the property, especially having windows from a 4th floor that is looking down onto our properties. I encourage every one of you to go to that spot and take a look, right there at that fire hydrant, and see if this is what you envision as far as a Trophy Club and our backyards. If you do look at it, and you do accept it, and they’ve done a great job, and I think it is a beautiful job, and it seems they’ve done all the requirements that need to be done, however, it’s right next to people’s properties. It’s incredible. Why weren’t they built further out on 114 instead of being right next to our properties? By saying ok to this you are setting a precedent to have multiple story buildings next to our properties and houses. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 6 of 11 November 20, 2008 Minutes If you had said 5 or 10 years ago that there would be a multilevel hotel going in behind me I would have said you guys are absolutely insane. But, it’s happened. So, in time what is going to happen? How about putting a 4-story office building right next to the dentist office right around the corner? We could use the Country Club parking lot for parking. How about right in front of Hogan’s Glen entryway? Let’s put a 4-story hotel there. Do you think the Hogan’s Glen people will enjoy looking at that as they are coming out of their places? Let’s put a 4- story office building by First Baptist Church. Finally, how about the wooded area next to the Methodist Church? Let’s level that and put a 4-story storage area in. It sounds ludicrous, but at one time we never thought we would be able to put a man on the moon. I never thought that almost to my backyard I would see 4-stories of building. If you go back there and sit down and look at the hotel in existence, if you are real quiet and you can listen you can hear the residents of Southlake and Westlake laughing their asses off at us because we are the ones who decided to build this stuff in our backyard. They won’t. They keep the integrity of their communities. They will be able to keep the property values of their communities. They will even be able to prevent the environmental degradation of their communities. They will be able to keep the quality of their living while we will not. Finally, as you are sitting there and contemplating what decision we should be making on this thing as you are looking up at this building, maybe we should change the name of Trophy Club to Marshall Creek. At least, maybe we need to change the motto to “Trophy Club, a nice place to live except for you who live near hotel alley, then you are screwed”. Thank you for listening to us tonight. I was hoping there would be more people other than myself saying something about this. Remember, tonight, go down to where that fire hydrant is and look at the hotel there and that is what you are going to be looking at, that is what the people behind are going to be looking at. Don’t worry, you’ll be able to find the hydrant very easily because it is lit up by the hotel.” Bob Martin, 21 Jamie Ct., stated that he appreciates the changes that the applicant made to the landscape plan in adding trees on the northwest corner. He stated that Jamie Ct. curves and those residences around that curve are right there at the northwest corner. The two or three trees are not sufficient. The sight line is going to go over the top of that. “I’m wondering if you could give consideration to putting some more trees in the 30-ft. buffer closer to the fence line where they will grow up and actually create a site buffer so those residents on that curve aren’t staring at the back of the hotel rooms.” There were no others wishing to speak and the Chairman closed the Public Hearing and moved to discussion of this item. C.5 DISCUSS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION RELATIVE TO AN AMENDMENT TO TOWN ORDINANCE NO. 2002-41 P&Z, THE SAME BEING PD-25, TROPHY WOOD BUSINESS CENTER FOR FINAL DETAILED SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR TRACT 7 (LOT 3R1, BLOCK A), INCLUDING A LANDSCAPE PLAN AND PLANT LIST, BUILDING ELEVATIONS, SIGHT LINE STUDIES, CIVIL SITE PLAN, PHOTOMETRIC PLAN & LIGHT FIXTURES, SIGN CRITERIA, AND DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE. APPLICANT: HYDRA HOTELS, LLC (SP-08-009) Planning & Zoning Commission Page 7 of 11 November 20, 2008 Minutes Commissioner Sheridan thanked Mr. Beaty for his comments and told him that he has been on the site. He stated that he has walked it and sat there and driven around the area. He asked when this area was zoned for hotels. Ms. Huggins responded that the PD was approved in December 2002. Chairman Hill stated that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan that established that area as a commercial district was approved in 1997. Mr. Sheridan stated that the zoning was created a long time ago past what any of these commissioners can do. He stated that they are concerned but they must follow the law and the law allows it. He stated that they will ask for some cooperation from the applicant. Mr. Sheridan noted that there is an outfall in the northwest corner of the lot which is a 27” concrete pipe coming out of Lot 16. That outfall should go underground and help eliminate a problem, but he wonders if 27” is enough for Jamie Ct., Lot 3R2, the pool area, and the curb inlet. Is that acceptable? [Tom Rutledge, Town Engineer, reviewed and approved the engineering documents prior to placement of this site plan on a P&Z agenda. Mr. Rutledge was not given an opportunity to respond.] Mr. Sheridan asked for clarification of the arrows indicating where the 15-ft. drainage easement is located. Juan Vasquez, Tomden Engineering, indicated that they would make the arrows clearer on the site plan. Mr. Sheridan stated that this plan eliminates the turnaround and he would like to know if the Fire Dept. is going to accept that “as is” or will another turnaround be created. Ms. Huggins responded that they are going to accept it as is. The Fire Chief has not indicated that anything further needs to be done with this project, but if that need changes with future development it will be addressed at that time. Mr. Sheridan stated that he hasn’t measured how long the street is, but the fire truck won’t be able to turn at the end of that street so he strongly advises the Fire Dept. to comment on whether or not they can accept that. Mr. Vasquez responded that the fire lane that goes through the Hampton Inn & Suites site will get the fire trucks in and out of that street. Mr. Sheridan stated that this plan shows a sidewalk right at the curb. Most every place in Town has a parkway between the curb and the sidewalk. He would like to see the sidewalk centered in the easement. [The sidewalk at the curb was established as part of this PD and is the way that the Value Place Hotel site was approved and developed. Staff would like the sidewalks to remain at the curb so that the PD is developed consistently throughout the site.] The PD requires the dumpster to be screened on three sides and per the PD the minimum height of the enclosure is determined by the height of the dumpster. Mr. Sheridan stated that dumpsters can vary in height and he would rather see a set height of 8-ft. for the enclosure around the dumpster. [The applicant agreed to this request.] Mr. Sheridan moved to Sheet L1, Landscaping, and asked that in Note No. 1 the applicant provide more than an “estimate”. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 8 of 11 November 20, 2008 Minutes Mr. Sheridan would like the Live Oaks around the monument sign to be moved to the north side of the property line. He would like the Chinkapin Oaks on the west side of the property moved to the north side. Mr. Vasquez stated that there is a public sewer line that runs through that area and placement of trees would be important. He asked Mr. Rutledge for advice on how much separation is needed. [Mr. Rutledge was not given an opportunity to respond.] Mr. Sheridan asked the applicant to talk to the northern neighbor and get permission to put trees on Mr. Stewart’s property in the triangular piece of property in the northwest corner of Lot 3R1. [Staff does not recommend this as the applicant would not get landscape credit for trees placed outside the property boundary and there would be no irrigation and maintenance provided for those trees.] Mr. Sheridan stated that Chinkapin Oaks are great trees that are disease resistant; however, they are not evergreen. He would like to see evergreen trees in the northwest corner of the property. “Live Oaks are evergreen trees that are slow growing so trade out the Chinkapin Oaks with the Live Oaks in that corner.” Mr. Vasquez asked how far east along the north property line should they go with the trees. Mr. Sheridan responded that he would like to concentrate the trees in the northwest corner and at a minimum halfway across the north property line, but, if possible, to keep going all the way across the north property line. He asked for at least three quarters of the north property line to be covered. Mr. Vasquez stated that the code requires so many trees along the street. Mr. Sheridan would be willing to waive that requirement in favor of trees along the north side of the property. Commissioner Ashby stated that the ultimate goal, as expressed by Mr. Sheridan, is to try and create as much of a visual buffer on the north and northwest for the residences. Commissioner Sheridan asked if the parapet is satisfactory to hide equipment on the roof. Mr. Vasquez stated that there should not be any equipment visible from the roof. Commissioner Ashby asked for the height of the parapet. Mr. Vasquez responded that it is approximately 4-ft. Mr. Ashby responded that if they have R-2’s, 4-ft. will not hide them. He stated that a visual screen will be needed. Mr. Vasquez stated that if there are any units on the roof, they will be properly screened so that they are not visible from the street or from the adjacent residential properties. Commissioner Sheridan asked for confirmation that the right (east) elevation has a sign, but that there is no signage on the left (west) elevation that faces Maguire Partners property and would be visible from Hillcrest. Mr. Vasquez confirmed that is correct. Commissioner Sheridan asked if there is any rooftop wall lighting above an 8-ft. level on these elevations. Mr. Vasquez stated that there are no lights on the building other than emergency lighting on the doors. He explained that there are ballard lights around the perimeter which are uplights to illuminate the building. Mr. Sheridan stated that the color of the building is light in tone. He asked how the ambient light will reflect off a lighter colored building. Mr. Rutledge stated that a photometrics study was included which measures the level of light at the property line which is part of the requirement and part of the PD and they have met that. Mr. Sheridan asked if that measurement includes reflective light. Mr. Rutledge responded that it does. The Planning & Zoning Commission Page 9 of 11 November 20, 2008 Minutes photometric cell measurement reading is taken from the property line and that reading reflects the lighting coming off the site at the property line. Commissioner Sheridan asked the applicant to consider reducing the height of the light poles in the rear parking lot. He would be willing to exchange poles taller than 25-ft. in the front of the building for poles less than 25-ft. in the rear of the building to reduce the lighting on the side of the hotel closest to residences. Mr. Vasquez did not think that 5-ft. would make a lot of difference in illumination. Mr. Vasquez stated that lighting below 25-ft. does not work as efficiently as they do at 25-ft. and higher. He is concerned that there would be too much of a dark area in the rear of the hotel. Raj Chudasama, Hydra Hotels LLC, came forward and asked Mr. Sheridan what would be a recommended height for the three poles on the north side. Mr. Sheridan responded that Lots 15, 16 and 17 on Jamie Ct. are the closest affected by the lighting. Would it be possible to take the middle light fixture and move it to the south side of the parking lot? Mr. Chudasama stated that between those two choices, lowering the light poles might be a little bit better. He asked for a recommendation on height. Commissioner Ashby responded 20-ft. Mr. Vasquez stated that in order to meet the light levels needed, it might create the need for another pole. Commissioner Sheridan suggested they put the other pole on the other side of the parking lot. Mr. Vasquez responded that they’ll see what they can do. Commissioner Davidson asked if adding a light closer to the building, since it is already up-lit, would negate its effectiveness. Commissioner Sheridan disagreed depending on the type of pole used. Mr. Davidson stated that they are only gaining 5-ft. Mr. Sheridan stated that for those with backyards close to this project every foot counts. He stated that they are not going to make everybody happy, but he appreciates that the applicant is trying to cooperate. Mr. Chudasama stated that they will look at lowering the back three light poles and going a little higher on the front. Commissioner Davidson asked for clarification of which light poles would be raised in the front of the building. Mr. Vasquez explained that the poles at the driveway are ornamental 12-ft. poles required by the PD. Commissioner Ashby asked if on the plans the poles labeled “DD” are 12-ft. and the poles labeled “AA” are 25-ft. Mr. Vasquez confirmed that is correct. Commissioner Ashby asked for confirmation that the monument sign does not exceed the maximum size as allowed by the PD. Ms. Huggins confirmed that it does not. Commissioner Forest asked for an explanation, for the benefit of the residents present, as to why hotels are allowed in this area. Chairman Hill gave a brief history of the zoning and platting of the property, explaining that the latest update of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, adopted in 1997, established the area along Highway 114 as commercial, and the specific planned development zoning for Trophy Wood Business Center was established and approved on December 2, 2002, which allows three hotels in that area – the lot where the Value Place Hotel was built, the lot where the Hampton Inn & Suites will be built, and the lot where potentially a Holiday Inn might be built. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 10 of 11 November 20, 2008 Minutes Commissioner Forest stated that it has been a minimum of six years since the zoning was created. The owner and developer are meeting the criteria that the City requires. He stated that he wants the public to understand that this Commission cannot stop the hotels from being built as the zoning created six years ago allows it and the property owner has found potential tenants for the properties. There was no further discussion and Chairman Hill called for a motion. Commissioner Sheridan made a motion recommending approval to the Town Council with the comments and questions that the Commission has raised being answered and that those areas where the applicant has indicated that he is willing to work to improve the site plan be enacted. Commissioner Ashby seconded the motion. Ayes: Hill, Reed, Forest, Sheridan, Ashby, Davidson Nays: None Action: 6-0, Approved D.1 ADJOURNMENT Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 8:26 p.m. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 11 of 11 November 20, 2008 Minutes