Minutes P&Z 04/17/2003MINUTES OF A REGULAR SESSION
FOR THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
17 APRIL 2003
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trophy Club, Texas met in a
Regular Session meeting 17 April 2003, at 7:00 pm in the Public Works Conference Room
of the Public Works Building, 100 Municipal Drive, Trophy Club, Texas 76262.
COMMISSIONERS ATTENDANCE:
Chairman Hill
Vice Chairman Gilliland
Commissioner Ashby
Commissioner Reed
Commissioner Rodgers
Commissioner Sheridan
Commissioner Stephens
STAFF AND GUESTS PRESENT:
Mary Moore
Dan Boutwell
Sterling Thomas Rutledge
Scott Gibson
Randy Briggs
David Cunningham
Jay Marsh
Thomas Khamooshi
Mr. & Mrs. Pagano
Conrad Sharpe
Rick Helmig
Linda Taylor
present
arrived at 7:27pm
absent
present
present
present
absent
Recording Secretary
Planning Consultant
Town Engineer
Town Engineer
Community Development Manager, arrived at 7:15pm
Applicant/Developer
Applicant/Engineer
Applicant/Pate Engineer
Applicant/Property Owners
Applicant/Property Owner
Trophy Club Baseball Association
Reporter, Keller Citizen
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM.
Chairman Hill called the meeting to order at 7:10 pm, and announced a quorum was
present.
2. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND APPROPRIATE ACTION RELATIVE TO A RETAINING
WALL WAIVER REQUEST TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN TOWN ORDINANCE
NO. 2002-42 P&Z, SECTION 4 ENTITLED "RETAINING WALL REGULATIONS",
SUBSECTION "C" ENTITLED "TYPE OF RETAINING WALL AND CONSTRUCTION", (1)
PERTAINING SPECIFICALLY TO THE MATERIAL FOR RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT,
FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1106 SUNSET DRIVE, LOT 390 OF SECTION FIVE.
(APPLICANT: JOSEPH S. PAGANO)
N:\kfleck\Private\PLANNING & ZONING\MINUTES\2003\APR\04172003 REG SES.doc
Planning & Zoning Commission
Regular Session Meeting
17 April 2003
Mrs. Pagano addressed the Commission. The crosstie retaining wall was taken out
because it was in need of being replaced. Shortly after the replacement began, the
Pagano's were stopped and told they could not replace the wall with the same
material, With the Pagano's financial situation, it would be cost prohibitive for them to
replace the wall with any other material than crossties.
Chairman Hill clarified that the applicant was seeking a waiver due to economic
hardship.
Mrs. Pagano agreed. The wall is about ninety feet (90') long and approximately thirty-
two inches (32") high. Chairman Hill proceeded to read Section 14(A) of the Fence
Ordinance, pertaining specifically to waivers.
Commissioner Reed asked about the applicant's retirement. Mrs, Pagano stated that
her husband has no retirement plan, and she receives only $200 a month. Ms. Pagano
stated that if the request were denied, they would not be able to replace the retaining
wall. Cost estimates for a cinderblock or stonewall would be around $10,000. The
crossties have already been purchased. In order for the ties to be returned, the
applicant would have to pay a 15% return fee. The cost of the crossties was $800.00.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if a professional would install the ties. Ms. Pagano said
yes. Commissioner Rodgers went on to say that she felt the applicant had exhibited the
hardship very clearly.
A motion was made to recommend approval of the waiver due to economic hardship.
Motion:
Reed
Second:
Sheridan
Ayes:
Hill, Rodgers
Nays:
None
Action:
4-0
Motion carried.
This item will be recommended for approval to the Town Council at their 5 May 2003
meeting,
Ms. Pagano stated TLC Landscaping would install the wall. Chairman Hill directed the
applicant not to have the wall installed until the waiver process was complete, Ms.
Pagano agreed.
3. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND APPROPRIATE ACTION RELATIVE TO A FENCE
WAIVER REQUEST TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN TOWN ORDINANCE NO.
2002-42 P&Z, SECTION 3 ENTITLED "FENCES", SUBSECTION "B" ENTITLED "HEIGHT
REQUIREMENTS", (3) PERTAINING SPECIFICALLY TO THE PLACEMENT OF A SIDE
YARD FENCE ADJACENT TO A SIDE STREET, FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 102
SUMMIT COVE, LOT 15, BLOCK 2 OF THE SUMMIT COVE ADDITION. (APPLICANT:
CONRAD SHARPE)
N:\kfleck\Private\PLANNING & ZONING\MINUTES\2003\APR\04172003 REG SES.doc [7/10/03 6:24:37 PM]
Planning & Zoning Commission
Regular Session Meeting
77 April 2003
Chairman Hill read the staff comments from the Commissioner's packets. The fence is
located just across the street from the M.U.D. Building. The fence was initially approved
in error by staff. The fence runs along the side yard adjacent to Municipal Drive and
had it been constructed per the Ordinance, the applicant's rear yard would have only
been approximately thirty feet (30') wide.
Mr, Sharpe had no comments.
There was no discussion by the Commissioners.
A motion was made to recommend approval of the fence waiver.
Motion:
Sheridan
Second:
Rodgers
Ayes:
Hill, Reed
Nays:
None
Action: 4-0
Motion carried.
This item will be recommended for approval to the Town Council at their 5 May 2003
meeting.
4. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND APPROPRIATE ACTION RELATIVE TO THE REQUEST
FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF 22.417 ACRE TRACT OF LAND KNOWN AS TROPHY
WOOD BUSINESS CENTER, LOCATED GENERALLY TO THE NORTH OF STATE HIGHWAY
114, WEST OF T.W. KING ROAD AND SOUTH OF HANNA COURT AND JAMIE COURT.
APPLICANT: PATE ENGINEERS. (FP -03-004)
Chairman Hill asked for comments from Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Marsh. At that time,
they had no comments for the Commission.
Mr. Boutwell stated that the majority of the comments pertaining to the Final Plat were
engineering related. The majority of Mr. Boutwell's comments had been addressed
which were mostly cosmetic.
Mr. LeGrand addressed the Commission and stated that there were several outstanding
issues yet to be resolved on the plat. One of those issues relates to an issue with Oncor
that has caused concern over the alignment of Trophy Wood Drive.
The second item of concern is that staff has not received any assurances from the Town
of Westlake regarding Trophy Wood Drive. Additionally, the TXDOT permits have not
been issued. Although this is not an issue that should hold up approval of the plat, it is
something that will need to be resolved prior to the issuance of a building permit, Mr.
LeGrand went on to stress that the cause for most of his concern was due to the Oncor,
Trophy Wood Drive alignment issue.
Chairman Hill stated that he had not seen the letters from Oncor.
N:\kfleck\Private\PLANNING & ZONING\MINUTES\2003\APR\04172003 REG SES.doc [7/10/03 6:24:37 PM]
Page 3
Planning & Zoning Commission
Regular Session Meeting
17 April 2003
Mr. Rutledge addressed the Commission. Oncor produced two letters regarding this
issue, The first letter Oncor provided Pate Engineering and their developer was
somewhat of a cursory review in nature that generally stated they did have the right to
cross the easement. Mr. Rutledge's experience with Oncor is that they have a very
lengthy, detailed review process. When their easements are crossed, Oncor has set
criteria for that. Upon receiving the letter from Oncor, Mr. Rutledge contacted them to
find out what setbacks would be required off the pole that is currently centered in the
median of Trophy Wood Drive. For whatever reason, the reviewer who wrote the initial
letter, Tommy Newsom, apparently did not understand the plans and thought that
some of the roadway infrastructure was pre-existing. The first letter was followed up with
a second letter and gave the criteria by which to follow. Mr. Rutledge went on to say
that there are some flags in the correspondence from Oncor that staff feels would be in
everyone's interest, both the Town and the developer, that we make sure that Oncor is
satisfied, that they will actually permit the road to align currently where it does align.
Staff raised three flags for everyone's consideration, being that this is something that is
both for the Town and the developer. The first item is that a road cannot cross an
Oncor easement at an angle flatter than 45 degrees, The second is that, "licenses for
parking will be granted for overflow parking only, and no code required parking will be
allowed," In other words, for lots 1 & 2 of block A, in order to meet code requirements
for parking there could be no parking within that easement. At this time, it is not known
what those uses will be, but staff raises the flag for the Town and the developer, that as
development occurs, especially on lots 1 &2, parking will be granted for overflow
parking only that will meet a code requirement as part of the building permit. There is
an easement that cuts right through the middle of what is shown as lot 2. Nothing has
been presented by the developer that says that would be a problem, however, staff
would like to point out that issue as something to be considered in the development of
that lot.
Commissioner Sheridan asked Mr. Rutledge if he was quoting Oncor regulations. Mr.
Rutledge stated that he was reading from information entitled, "Oncor Electric Delivery
Company Guidelines for Use of Company Property by Others". In their cover letter, they
state, "I am enclosing our guidelines for third party use of Oncor ROW for your use in
preparing your plans."
Mr. Cunningham inquired about the Oncor letter referring to fee simple owned ROW.
They would be dealing with an easement, not a fee simple Oncor ROW. The land is
owned by Midwest Realty, not by Oncor, therefore there is a distinguishing difference
between fee simple land and parking under an easement.
Commissioner Sheridan stated page 2 or 3 of the guidelines states that easements
follow the same guidelines. This is part of the deregulation problem.
Mr. Rutledge proceeded with the third issue from Oncor. An existing grade shall not be
disturbed, excavated or filled within twenty-five feet (25') of the nearest edge of any
tower. That means nothing can be built within twenty-five feet (25') of the edge of an
existing tower. Mr. Rutledge said he felt it was in everyone's best interest to go through
the process, if the developer wishes to negotiate these guidelines with Oncor.
However, to approve the plat, it seems like it would not be in everyone's best interest to
do that until we are sure what Oncor is or is not going to allow to happen there.
N:\kfieck\Private\PLANNING & ZONING\MINUTES\2003\APR\04172003 REG SES.doc [7/10/03 6:24:37 PM]
Am
Planning & Zoning Commission
Regular Session Meeting
77 April 2003
Mr. Cunningham agreed, saying that he was not privy to the contents of the second
letter until only a few minutes prior to the discussion. He suggested the Final Plat be
tabled, possibly moved to the next meeting in order to get the issue resolved. Since this
is a city street, he requested the Town's assistance with Oncor. Regarding the grade
issue, Pate Engineering has gone to great lengths to set the street grade at an elevation
where the grades are not disturbed. The other tower is not within 25 feet of any ROW.
Mr, Cunningham stated that he felt they had a chance to work through those two
issues, however he is concerned about the parking issue. The worst-case scenario
would be to flare Trophy Wood Drive to get a wider median at that section of street.
Chairman Hill concurred. He stated that he would like to see the situation with Oncor
resolved prior to endorsing a Final Plat, but would also like to see something in the way
of documentation from TXDOT and the Town of Westlake. In addition, the letter from
the City of Southlake should be clarified. The progress with Oncor will determine when
this item will be back before the Commission.
Mr. Cunningham asked that this item be placed on the next agenda. Chairman Hill
said it could be placed on the next agenda, however it may again need to be tabled
to another meeting,
Mr. LeGrand agreed to discuss the Oncor issue with the Town Manager in order to
address Mr. Cunningham's request for Town assistance.
A motion was made to table the item to 1 May 2003.
Motion: Reed
Second: Rodgers
Ayes: Hill, Gilliland, Sheridan
Nays; None
Action: 5-0
Motion carried.
5. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND APPROPRIATE ACTON RELATIVE TO THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO TOWN ORDINANCE NO. 2002-38 P&Z, ESTABLISHING
SIGN REGULATIONS FOR THE TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB, PERTAINING SPECIFICALLY
TO THE CREATION OF PROVISIONS DEFINING SPORTS ASSOCIATIONS AND SPORTS
FACILITIES CRITERIA. (PRESENTER: RANDY BRIGGS)
Mr, Briggs addressed the Commission and said that he had contacted Rick Helmig with
the Baseball Association about the signage issue. Mr. Helmig then addressed the
Commission.
Chairman Hill asked for specific information, such as quantity, size, materials, time
period, etc.
Mr. Helmig said they were looking at a 4', circular sign in the shape of a baseball for
sponsors of the baseball association. It would have places on the sign for the donator's
name. The sign would be constructed of thick cardboard. The letters would be
colored tape. The association would like to put up as many of these signs as possible,
N:\kfleck\Private\PLANNING & ZONING\MINUTES\2003\APR\04172003 REG SES.doc [7/10/03 6:24:37 PM]
Page 5
Planning & Zoning Commission
Regular Session Meeting
17 April 2003
most likely 5-10. They would face the infield, up against the green guard fence. They
would stay up and would not be visible from the backside of the fields. The material will
last for approximately two years.
Mr. Boutwell stated the signs would be inside the facility, so they are somewhat unique.
They would not be advertising signs and they would be consistent with the use of the
site, therefore they could be considered as a customary use for a ballpark. He went on
to say that this is a unique sign use and would most likely need to revise the Ordinance
to address these types of sign uses.
A motion was made to recommend to the Town Council approval of a meritorious
exception allowing approximately 4' in diameter baseball motif signs located on the
inside face of the outfield fences at the baseball fields at Independence Park and Beck
Park for a two year period, allowing the Commission to observe the durability and wear-
ability of the signs, and at that time the Baseball Association will come before the
Commission for another exception, that the signs can only be located on the fences
with the green mesh on the outfield fences, and that they will cooperate with Town
staff to maintain the signs in an acceptable state of repair and the signs will be
replaced if found to be unacceptable.
Motion:
Gilliland
Second:
Reed
Ayes:
Hill, Rodgers, Sheridan
Nays:
None
Action: 5-0
Motion carried.
6. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND APPROPRIATE ACTION RELATIVE TO THE
PROPOSED REPEAL TO TOWN ORDINANCE NO. 2003-05, REGULATING THE
DEVELOPMENT OF OIL AND GAS WELLS WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE
TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB. (PRESENTER: PLANNING & ZONING CHAIRMAN HILL)
Chairman Hill explained the history of this agenda item.
Commissioner Rodgers inquired about pipeline locations and safety. Chairman Hill
stated that applicants would have to designate easements.
Vice Chairman Gilliland voiced concern over the noise.
Commissioner Rodgers discussed runoff.
Mr. Boutwell addressed road use and repair, Chairman Hill reminded the Commission
that the Ordinance addresses road repair.
Mr. Boutwell clarified that the permits for drilling would be issued through a zoning
process referred to as SUP, Special Use Permits.
NAkf1eckTrivateTLANNING & ZONING\MINUTES\2003\APR\04172003 REG SES.doc [7/10/03 6:24:37 PM]
Planning & Zoning Commission
Regular Session Meeting
17 April 2003
Chairman Hill stated that the applicant would be required to submit a development
plan for the wells. Applicants would need to show a plan with roadway designs and
pipeline locations.
Commissioner Sheridan offered that roads may be moved, however pipelines are not
likely to be moved.
Discussion was conducted regarding what to expect from installation of oil and gas
wells,
Commissioner Rodgers asked about the possibility of destabilized ground. Chairman Hill
stated that was not a concern. If sour gas were to be encountered during the drilling
process, they will be instructed to cease production.
Chairman Hill addressed road repair, discussion ensued.
Mr. Boutwell stated that we should require a master plan designating layout of and
around the pipelines.
Commissioner Sheridan suggested requiring applicants to use existing Right -of -Ways.
Mr. Boutwell caution the Commission or locating pipelines next to water lines.
Vice Chairman Gilliland discussed temporary fencing. Extended discussion continued
over fencing language and requirements to improve the aesthetics of the sites.
Extended discussion continued over landscaping buffers by Vice Chairman Gilliland,
Mr. Briggs was directed to check into Noise Ordinance
Discussion was concluded. Staff was instructed to incorporate the changes from the
meeting into the Ordinance.
MARCH 2003
APRIL00
A motion was made to approve the minutes, as amended.
Motion:
Sheridan
Second:
Reed
Ayes:
Hill, Gilliland, Rodgers
Nays;
None
Action:
5-0
Motion carried.
8. ADJOURNMENT.
Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at approximately 11:00 pm.
N:\kfleck\Private\PLANNING & ZONING\MINUTES\2003\APR\04172003 REG SES.doc [7/10/03 6:24:37 PM]
Planning & Zoning Commission
Regular Session Meeting
17 April 2003
I-
-,Get�e-/Aiill, hairman
C. Fleck, Planning N Zoning Coordinator
NAkfieckTrivateTLANNING & ZONING\MINUTES\2003WPR\04172003 REG SES.doc [7/10/03 6:24:37 PM]
9�