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