Loading...
Minutes P&Z 07/18/1996MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DENTON The Planning and Zoning Commission for the Town of Trophy Club met in Regular Session on Thursday, July 18, 1996 at 7:00 P.M. The meeting was held at the Municipal Utility District Building, 100 Municipal Drive, Trophy Club, Texas. The meeting was held within the Town boundaries and was open to the Public. Mike Hamper Don Cotton Bob Paige Clayton Reed Roger Williams David Schaaf Staff and Guest present were: Pauline Shaw Dan Boutwell CALL TO ORDER Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Planning & Zoning Administrator Municipal Planning Resources Group, Inc. Chairman Hamper called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. noting a quorum was present. He then welcomed Staff and Guests. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO REVIEW A SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED CONVENIENCE/RETAIL Chairman Hamper advised the Commissioners that Tom Mayfield resigned from the Commission effective July 18, 1996. He also stated that we serve as volunteers not employees. Chairman Hamper informed the meeting that the Commissioners will vote at the public hearing on August 1, 1996. He then summarized the TNRCC Regulations regarding gasoline ground storage tanks. Chairman Hamper then covered all aspects of the regulations regarding inspections, record keeping and reporting and fees. The regulations dictate distances and where tanks can be placed. Heavy traffic is not allowed to go over the tanks. There is a consensus of the Commissioners to go forward into a public hearing on August 1, 1996 to act upon the site plan. Page 2, P&Z Mtg. 7/18/97 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO REVIEW PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING FOR THE KNOLL SUBDIVISION Chairman Hamper requested Dan Boutwell review his comments with the Commissioners. (See Attached). What is the formula for arriving at the density or units per acre? The develop able area divided by 15% to 20% of the development. One acre of land X 15% minus 37,000 sq. ft. Divided by size of lot you want to build upon gives you the density. A consensus of the Commissioners is to go forward with a public hearing on August 1, 1996 with the zoning application for the Knoll. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO REVIEW PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING FOR LAKE FOREST IV (VILLAS OF HOGAN'S GLEN). Chairman Hamper requested Mr. Boutwell review his sixteen comments regarding the proposed zoning ro the Villas of Hogan's Glen. (See attached). Mr. Boutwell reviewed his comments and mentioned the crash gate at the end of Cypress Court going into Lake Forest phase 2. Mr. John Harbin with Beck Properties stated the masonry fence on Indian Creek is going to be masonry with ornamental iron. Mr. Beck would like to have a curved entry wall to be done at a later date. We will go forward with a bridge and roads into the addition first. Mr. Boutwell asked about a community facilities agreement regarding the schedule for decorative walls, roads, fences, etc. This would become part of the deed to the lots and a reference will be made in the Planned Development documents at the time of platting. There was a consensus of the Commissioners to go forward with into a public hearing with the changes discussed. Changes are due by July 25, 1996. SIXTH ANNUAL COMMISSIONER'S WORKSHOP TO BE HELD JULY 29, 1996. All commissioner's were invited to the sixth annual commissioner's workshop at Brookside Convention Center on July 29, 1996. Chairman Hamper urged all commissioner's attend. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Page 3, P&Z Mtg. 7/18/97 There was no other business. There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Reed made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Commissioner Cotton seconded; motion passed unanimously. Chairman Secretary MEMORANDUM FROM: Municipal Planning Resources Group, Inc. - Dan C. Boutwell, AICP TO: Town of Trophy Club SUBJECT: Planned Development for The Knoll DATE: July 18, 1996 The applicant has submitted material for review pertaining to the above referenced project. The site is currently zoned as R-15 and the proposed development proposes to retain that lot size. We offer the following comments and recommendations: The attached drawing has been titled "PD Site Plan". The applicant should change the title to read VD Development Plan". 2. The applicant must indicate, on the development plan, the location of special treatments or amenities such as street pavers, entrance statements, signage, landscaping, fences and walls. QA Most of these items are described in the text portion of the PD application but are not shown on the development plan. 3. The applicant should provide a typical detail of the perimeter fencing along the golf cou se.y No todba 4. The applicant should indicate on the development plan the locations of gates and show an elevation drawing of any guardhouses proposed. 5. The development plan should have all common areas identified and an explanation of any special treatment that may be provided within the common areas. 6. The applicant may wish to include lot 13 into phase three development, since very little improvements will be required to permit this lot to be included into phase three. 7. The applicant indicates a front yard depth as being 25 feet. With the extra depth that is provided in this development, it may be more aesthetic to the streetscape to increase the front depth to 30 feet. We would recommend the 25 feet front yard depth be increased to 30 feet. 8. The applicant indicates a side yard depth adjacent to a street on the development plan as being 10 feet and in the text it is indicated as being 15 feet. We would strongly recommend that the front yard depth be maintained in accordance with the text document. Therefore the development plan should be amended to read 15 feet for a side yard adjacent to a street. 9. The Special Paving section of the text document indicates that paved areas receiving special treatment are indicated on Exhibit B - Site Plan. Exhibit B does not have any such indication. J 131.TR08801.GEN.02 PD Review July, 18 1996 Page 2 of 3 10. The Telecommunications Act of 1995 has limited the ability of municipalities to control the placement of antenna. We would recommend that item O. ANTENNA REGULATIONS be removed from the development standards. We would encourage that it remain in the deed restrictions. 11. Section 4. Combining Lots, as listed in the Deed Restrictions, indicates that two lots may be combined to form one lot with prior approval of the Town and the Architectural Control Committee. This section should be revised. All combinations of lots require that the property be replatted in accordance with the requirements of state law. The Architectural Control Committee may not have any authority over the platting of property. 12. Section 5 Size of Residence as listed in the Deed Restrictions, indicates that "the Architectural Control Committee may approve a deviation or waiver from the minimum square footage requirement set forth herein." This language should be removed from the Deed Restrictions. State law provides that the Zoning Board of Adjustment shall be the final authority regarding to variances from the zoning ordinances. The Architectural control Committee may not have any authority over area requirements as provided in the zoning ordinance. 13. Throughout the text document and the Deed Restrictions, the Town is referred to as City. This should be corrected. J 131 JR0880LGEN.02 MEMORANDUM FROM: Municipal Planning Resources Group, Inc. - Dan C. Boutwell, AICP TO: Town of Trophy Club SUBJECT: Planned Development for Hoagan's Glen Villas DATE: July 18, 1996 The applicant has submitted material for review pertaining to the above referenced project. The site has been platted previously and will require a replat at the time it is developed. In addition all of the infrastructure, with the exception of the streets are in place. We offer the following comments and recommendations: The attached drawing has been titled "PD Site Plan". The applicant should change the title to read "PD Development Plan". 2. The applicant must indicate, on the development plan, the location of special treatments or amenities such as street pavers, entrance statements, signage, landscaping, fences and walls. Most of these items are described in the text portion of the PD application but are not shown on the development plan. 3. The applicant must indicate the quantity and type of landscaping to be provided along Indian Creek adjacent to the development. 4. The applicant should provide a typical detail of the perimeter fencing and fencing along the street and golf course. 5. The applicant should indicate on the development plan the locations of gates and show an elevation drawing of any guardhouses proposed. 6. The development plan should have all common areas identified and an explanation of any special treatment that may be provided within the common areas. 7. The applicant indicates that the entrance from Indian Creek Drive will be constructed with the final phase of the development. In order to provide adequate access for emergency equipment, we would recommend that the entrance to this development be constructed with the first phase of development. The applicant indicates a front yard depth in the text as being 15 feet and on the development plan it is indicated as being 20 feet. We would strongly recommend that the front yard depth be maintained in accordance with the development plan. Therefore the text document should be amended to read 20 feet for a front yard depth. J 131.TRO8801.GEN.02 Site Plan July, 1996 Page 2 of 3 9. The applicant indicates a side yard depth adjacent to a street in the text as being 10 feet and on the development plan it is indicated as being 15 feet. We would strongly recommend that the front yard depth be maintained in accordance with the text document. Therefore the development plan should be amended to read 15 feet for a side yard adjacent to a street. 10. The width of side yard, in the text document, should be amended to read, "0 feet minimum on one side and 10 feet minimum on the other side" 11. The Special Paving section of the text document indicates that paved areas receiving special treatment are indicated on Exhibit B - Site Plan. Exhibit B does not have any such indication. 12. The Telecommunications Act of 1995 has limited the ability of municipalities to control the placement of antenna. We would recommend that item O. ANTENNA REGULATIONS be removed from the development standards. We would encourage that it remain in the deed restrictions. 13. Section 4. Combining Lots, as listed in the Deed Restrictions, indicates that two lots may be combined to form one lot with prior approval of the Town and the Architectural Control Committee. This section should be revised. All combinations of lots require that the property be replatted in accordance with the requirements of state law. The Architectural Control Committee may not have any authority over the platting of property. 14. Section 5 Size of Residence as listed in the Deed Restrictions, indicates that "the Architectural Control Committee may approve a deviation or waiver from the minimum square footage requirement set forth herein." This language should be removed from the Deed Restrictions. State law provides that the Zoning Board of Adjustment shall be the final authority regarding to variances from the zoning ordinances. The Architectural control Committee may not have any authority over area requirements as provided in the zoning ordinance. 15. The provisions of the text document to limit the width of pavement to 15 feet of uninterrupted pavement at the location of controlled access should include the statement that any deviation in width from the Town standards shall receive prior approval of the Town's engineer. 16. Throughout the text document and the Deed Restrictions, the Town is referred to as City. This should be corrected. 131.TRO8801 GEN.02