Loading...
Minutes P&Z 12/20/2007 MINUTES OF A REGULAR SESSION FOR THE TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2007 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trophy Club, Texas met in a Regular Session on December 20, 2007, at 7:00 pm in the Conference Room of the Public Services Building, 100 Municipal Drive, Trophy Club, Texas 76262. COMMISSIONERS ATTENDANCE: Chairman Hill Present Vice Chairman Stephens Present Commissioner Reed Present Commissioner Ashby Present Commissioner Sheridan Present Commissioner Sanchez Absent Commissioner Forest Present STAFF AND GUESTS PRESENT: Carolyn Huggins Planning & Zoning Coordinator Brian Dench Pate Engineering Kyle Salzman Jacobs Carter Burgess A.1 CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with five members present. Mr. Ashby had not yet arrived. B.1 REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 6, 2007, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. Commissioner Forest motioned to approve the minutes of the December 6, 2007, Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sheridan. Ayes: Hill, Stephens, Reed, Sheridan, Forest Nays: None Action: 5-0, Approved Planning & Zoning Commission Page 1 of 13 December 20, 2007 Minutes C.1 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 25 (PD-25), ORDINANCE NO. 2002-41 P&Z TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS “PERMITTED USES” TO ALLOW A HOTEL USE ON TRACTS 6 & 7, AND TO AMEND THE “HEIGHT” RESTRICTION FOR HOTEL USES. APPLICANT: HIGHWAY 114 PROSPECT, LTD. (PD AMD-O7-026) Chairman Hill welcomed the audience and read the following statement: “Good evening. Thank you for your interest in the issues scheduled to be heard before the Planning and Zoning Commission tonight. Our regular meetings are public sessions scheduled the first and third Thursdays of each month and you are always welcome to attend. Any persons present desiring to be heard concerning items listed on tonight’s agenda should sign up on the form available by the door and present it to Ms. Huggins. Speakers will be allocated three minutes for their statement. Tonight’s meeting is a combined Public Hearing and Regular Meeting held to consider and develop the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendations for amendment to Town Ordinances concerning a developer’s request to amend PD-25, Ordinance 2002-41 P&Z to amend the Development Standards “Permitted Uses” to allow a hotel use on Tracts 6 & 7, and to amend the height restriction for hotel uses. The audience is assured that during the Public Hearing the Commission will hear from all persons who have signed up to speak. However, a Public Hearing is not a “town meeting”. There are to be no spontaneous questions addressed from the audience to the Commissioners or to other speakers concerning their statements or positions on these issues. I request that Commissioners take note of the names of tonight’s Public Hearing speakers and any points they make which a Commissioner might desire to pursue further during the public meeting as we will not interrupt or question speakers or conduct discussions during the Public Hearing. Following this introduction, the Commission will open the Public Hearing. I will then read into the record the item concerning the request to amend Planned Development 25. We will discuss and take action in Regular Session on the item as listed on our agenda. It is a matter of routine that items heard and recommended from the Planning and Zoning Commission will appear on future Town Council agendas for final action. When all speakers have been heard, the Public Hearing will be closed and the Commission will convene into Regular Session for discussion and deliberation of the agenda items. With the number of persons signed up to speak and in the interest of time, I do request that if your points have essentially been expressed by other persons please indicate your support for their position and expedite the hearing. In Regular Session, following the public hearing, the item will be called up as listed on the agenda. The Commission may discuss the item among themselves or ask questions of individuals concerning their Public Hearing statements. The Commissioners will finally determine and vote on a recommendation concerning the item under consideration. Thank you for your patience with this introduction and I will now entertain a motion to open the Public Hearing on tonight’s agenda.” Planning & Zoning Commission Page 2 of 13 December 20, 2007 Minutes Commissioner Ashby arrived during the Chairman’s opening statements. Vice Chairman Stephens motioned to open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Reed. Ms. Huggins announced that there were 12 people who had signed up to speak and that she had received six emails today from residents opposed to this item. Copies of the emails were given to each of the Commissioners. The six emails were from: Darren & Daniela Rickey, 12 Jamie Ct. Jim Pearson, 20 Hanna Ct. Glenda Kay, 6 Jamie Ct. Jeff Strauss and Bethany Cawelti, 14 Jamie Ct. Matt and Laura Fenton, 15 Jamie Ct. Darryl and Shelley Harris, no address listed The Chairman asked the applicant to come forward. Brain Dench, Pate Engineers, Dallas, Texas, stated that this request is made to give more design options and to minimize the impact on the neighboring properties. He stated that under PD-25, a hotel of no more than 4 stories or 65-ft. from grade was approved for Tract 7, which is also referred to as Lot 9, on the exhibit in 2003. Including Tract 6 to allow hotel uses would permit a more flexible site design to allow the hotel to be perpendicular to State Highway 114. This site layout will create a building design with fewer room windows on the north end of the building and Tract 6, the tract adjoining the homes on Jamie Ct., currently has a 30-ft. buffer easement that has already been platted. The height restriction for Tract 6 is presently 40-ft. and the structure would be permitted to be closer to the neighborhood. Five stories would also provide more design alternatives but it would be designed to not exceed the original 65-ft. height restriction. Currently, the regulations permit 4 stories or 65-ft. height. They are requesting five stories with the same height restriction of 65-ft. This would allow for more design options and would open the door to a nicer hotel, allowing for larger hotel rooms within the five stories. The developer would work with Town staff during the site plan approval process to situate the hotel as far from the neighborhood as possible for the sake of privacy and to improve the visibility of the hotel from Highway 114. The site plan approval process would also address the Town site lighting and landscape requirements to minimize the impact on the neighbors. Any questions regarding lighting, signage, exterior treatments, building elevations, parking, etc., would also be addressed during the review of the site plan for a specific hotel development. Mr. Dench thanked the Commissioners for their time and stated that he is available to answer any questions. Chairman Hill asked Ms. Huggins to call forward those signed up to speak. Jan Sutton, 3 Jamie Ct, spoke in opposition. Ron Wade, 22 Jamie Ct., spoke in opposition and asked to present a petition. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 3 of 13 December 20, 2007 Minutes Ms. Huggins explained that a petition is given to the Town Secretary and is usually in opposition to the decision made by the Planning & Zoning Commission. She read the following: “If a protest against the proposed change, it must be filed with the Town Secretary, duly signed and acknowledged by the owners of 20% of more either of the area of the lots included in such change or those immediately adjacent to and extending 200-ft. therefrom, such amendment shall not become effective except by a three-fourths vote of the members of the Town Council.” Bob Martin, 21 Jamie Ct. – spoke in opposition. Fred Zuber, 22 Hanna Ct. – stated that his views had been expressed. Shirley Forgan, 1 Hanna Ct. – spoke in opposition. Rich Beatty, 18 Hillcrest Ct. – spoke in opposition. Gary Cunningham, 16 Skyline Dr. – spoke in opposition. George Gearner, 329 Inverness Dr. – spoke in opposition. Mark Collins, 13 Jamie Ct. – spoke in opposition. Randy Rutledge, 5 Jamie Ct. – spoke in opposition. Paul Rogers, 7 Hanna Ct. – views already expressed Kathy Coston, 19 Jamie Ct. – spoke in opposition. Mike Sutton, 3 Jamie Ct. – spoke in opposition. Jim Pearson, 20 Hanna Ct. – spoke in opposition. Becky Haisma, 18 Hanna Ct. – spoke in opposition. Commissioner Sheridan made a motion to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ashby. The Chairman moved to Item D.1 for discussion and consideration of this matter. D.1 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 25 (PD-25), ORDINANCE NO. 2002-41 P&Z TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS “PERMITTED USES” TO ALLOW A HOTEL USE ON TRACTS 6 & 7, AND TO AMEND THE “HEIGHT” RESTRICTION FOR HOTEL USES. APPLICANT: HIGHWAY 114 PROSPECT, LTD. (PD AMD-O7-026) Chairman Hill noted the following: “The property is located between State Highway 114 service road, the south boundaries of Hanna Ct. and Jamie Ct. and west of T. W. King road and comprise Planned Development 25 and Planned Development 26. The properties currently within PD-25 and PD-26 and along State Highway 114 service road to the west were zoned for commercial development not long after the Town of Trophy Club incorporated in January 1985. Due to minimal population in the area, little commercial development took place in Trophy Club until the mid-1990’s. Now we see increased interest in our very limited commercial areas as surrounding areas build up. PD-25 was created by Town Ordinance 2002-41 P&Z in December 2002 and nine tracts were platted within the PD by the landowners at that time. The use list included in PD-25 identifies 84 types of business uses that SHALL be allowed in the PD. Three of the seven tracts in PD-25 were specifically identified for a hotel use as either full service or limited stay facilities. Building and site regulations, parking and loading regulations and a number of other criteria were specified in the PD-25 ordinance that Planning & Zoning Commission Page 4 of 13 December 20, 2007 Minutes P&Z recommended to the Council and which the Council adopted. These uses adjoin lots 15 through 22 of the Jamie Ct. development. In 2003, the area that became PD-26 was under consideration for a 2- to 3-day short stay multi-floor physicians hospital and medical facility. A detailed proposal by the developer was considered by P&Z, recommended to Town Council, and adopted in December 2003. No development has ensued to date on this tract that adjoins Hanna Ct. on the south, but the project approval is still in place. A P&Z Commission functions under specific ordinances and regulations. Every meeting is a public meeting; an agenda must be posted in a specific location at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting time and date. Certain meetings, such as tonight’s public hearing, require publication of notice in the local newspaper two weeks prior to the date the meeting is to take place. Notification to property owners, within 200-ft. of the subject property, by mail is required no less than 10 days prior to the date set for a public hearing. The Commission cannot refuse to hear and consider an applicant’s request for approval of an authorized use on a property. Any requested amendments for use must be submitted to the Commission and are subject to consideration, modification, or denial by P&Z and subsequent Council action. Having heard from the applicant and residents this evening concerning the subject request, we will now proceed with consideration of the issue of hotel use on Tracts 6 & 7 of PD-25.” Commissioner Sheridan made the following comments: “Anyone applying for an amendment to the PD leaves the entire PD open for change. So, somebody requesting a 5-story versus 4- story leaves all aspects of the PD open to modification including strengthening standards. One of the citizens mentioned that Tract 6, which is against houses, has a 28-ft. maximum height restriction according to the ordinance. Generally it says 40-ft., but against residences it is 28- ft. Most of the trees are not in the 30-ft. buffer. Has the applicant tried to meet with the homeowners or homeowners association to discuss this?” (The applicant indicated they had not.) Mr. Sheridan stated that if a building is built on Tract 6 the ordinance says that it is measured from the adjacent finished sidewalk elevation. Tract 6 has a sidewalk to the side of it along Trophy Wood Drive that is on an incline. What part of that sidewalk do we measure the height from? (Ms. Huggins indicated she didn’t know the answer to that question.) Mr. Sheridan stated that he wants that question answered, because no matter what happens tonight, whoever eventually builds on that tract that question will come up. Mr. Ashby commented, “The sidewalk immediately outside the building at finished floor elevation of the building.” Mr. Sheridan replied, “So if it’s on an incline, the top elevation, which happens to be the nearest?” Mr. Ashby responded, “I’m talking building – finished floor elevation of the building – the sidewalk as soon as you step outside that door is your beginning elevation.” Commissioner Sheridan stated that staff supports this request. He asked what that support is based on? Ms. Huggins indicated that staff believes it will bring a better product to those two tracts than just having a hotel on Tract 7 only. Staff believes residents would have more privacy with a hotel perpendicular to 114, rather than parallel to 114 on Tract 7 only, which is allowed by the PD. Mr. Sheridan asked Ms. Huggins to define who staff is. Ms. Huggins indicated it is herself, the Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, and the Town Engineer. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 5 of 13 December 20, 2007 Minutes Commissioner Sheridan asked if the same developer controls the tract to the west – the “CG” tract. Ms. Huggins indicated it is a different owner with no association or affiliation to this developer. Commissioner Sheridan asked how many rooms a 5-story hotel would have. There is one parking space per room, and he wondered what effect that would have on tonight’s decision. Raj Chudasama, a prospective buyer of the property, indicated that a 5-story hotel would have approximately 105 rooms. Commissioner Sheridan commented that, should this go any further, he would like lighting to come up to higher standards if a change to the PD are contemplated. He wants higher standards, lower lights, and greater protection on lighting, and an 8-ft. fully stoned fence. He would want to consider signage. He would need a line of sight study before he could make a decision in any positive fashion. In one of the citizen letters it was mentioned that there is a drainage problem on Jamie Ct Randy Rutledge, 5 Jamie Ct., stated that the problem is south of Jamie Ct. Mark Collins, 13 Jamie Ct. responded that there is a recess in the lots immediately south of Jamie Ct. that holds water. Commissioner Sheridan stated that he is not in favor of this request. No one showed him any positive reason to proceed. Commissioner Reed stated that he agrees with Dennis. He doesn’t think it is an appropriate place for a hotel. If he were a homeowner there he would feel the same way the residents on Hanna and Jamie Ct. feel. He suggested that a hotel could go on tracts 7, 1 & 2, which would put the hotel further away from the residential areas. As this point in time he is not in favor of it. Commissioner Forest asked if this is proposed to be a Value Place Hotel. Mr. Dench responded that it is yet to be determined which brand it will be. Mr. Forest stated that the hotel that Trophy Club currently has is the worst looking piece of property he has ever seen for a city. People say that it is an embarrassment and he agrees. He stated that it bothers him when people who are buying property are told by city employees that the property adjacent will be medical office buildings or something it might not be. He stated that he is new on the Board and from what he has been reading and from visiting the property and talking to a lot of people about this he can’t find one single thing that will let him vote for it. He lived in Missouri and he bought a piece of property and there was a pasture in back of it with cattle on it. It was great and the kids loved it, and just before he moved to Trophy Club a 6-story apartment complex was built on the pasture land. He stated that it totally ruined his backyard. He didn’t want to go outside anymore. He stated that he feels sorry for these residents. He is against this. Commissioner Ashby stated that the presentation didn’t help. Previous presentations included a lot of data – sight line views, buffers, site plans, how the buildings are going to sit on the lot versus the alternate placement – there is no way that he can agree to change a standing PD ordinance without more detailed information. A brand name was mentioned earlier, in a previous presentation there was a Hampton Inn, that’s not a bad brand. As a business traveler I use it frequently. It is an $80 to $150 a night hotel room. It is not a transient type of hotel. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 6 of 13 December 20, 2007 Minutes This presentation did not give us the details needed and the residents concerns are extremely valid. Vice Chairman Stephens stated that this is a commercial piece of property, but he agrees with Commissioner Forest, in particular, and some of the other Commissioners comments that the residents were led to believe prior to purchasing their property that this would be a single story, at most, medical commercial facility. “A 5-story hotel in someone’s backyard, in my opinion, not being a real estate person, would devalue the residential property.” He stated that he cannot, without more detail, vote in favor of making these recommendations. Chairman Hill stated that the request before the Commissioners is to amend Tract 6 for a hotel use. Tract 7 already has authorization, in the PD, for hotel use. The prospective buyer would like to consolidate these two tracts into one in order to develop a hotel on it. It is apparent from the Commissioners that the tract 6 amendment would not be acceptable. The possibility of the potential buyer acquiring tract 7 and placing a hotel on it is still available according to the ordinance. There are other tracts available to the south also, Tracts 1 and 2, that adjoin State Highway 114. No plans for a hotel have been presented to us. There has been some sketching made available that would represent the possible façade of a hotel that would go in there and a couple of brand names have been tossed about. The developer’s representative here tonight says that the decision has not been made as to what the brand name of the hotel would be. As this time I would like to request the developer’s representative give us any further information or points he would like to make to the Commission. Brian Dench, Pate Engineering, thanked the Commission for their time and stated that he was interested in hearing everyone’s concerns. He stated that he understands the opposition regarding Tract 6. He stated that they would be interested in proposing and seeing what the Commission’s view would be if they removed Tract 6 from the request and asked for a 5-story, not to exceed 65-ft., on Tract 7, which allows a hotel use. The height restriction currently on Tract 7 is 65-ft. It would not change. The request is to go from 4-stories to 5-stories on Tract 7 and removing Tract 6 completely out of our request. Ms. Huggins stated that this change could be considered by the Commission this evening as both the use and height requests were advertised. This request does not go beyond what was advertised and placed on tonight’s agenda. Mr. Sheridan asked what the Commission would be considering tonight and where does it go from here? Does it end here or does it go on to Town Council? Ms. Huggins stated that based on the change just made by the applicant, the Commission is considering a 5-story, not to exceed 65-ft., hotel on Tract 7 only. Mr. Sheridan responded “are we making that decision or is this a recommendation to the Town Council”? Ms. Huggins responded that it is a recommendation to the Town Council and it is scheduled to be heard on January 7, 2008, by the Town Council. Commissioner Sheridan stated that he sees three options: 1) deny; 2) modify the recommendation to the Town Council; or 3) table this for further discussion. Ms. Huggins stated that another option is to approve it. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 7 of 13 December 20, 2007 Minutes Mr. Sheridan stated that his thought is that if the applicant is going to change his request then he would like to see stronger restrictions. He would like to see this come back with much more information such as an explanation of increased parking that would be needed for a higher density of rooms. The applicant should consider whether or not this is a reasonable request. Mr. Sheridan stated that he would suggest tabling it and the applicant could meet with the homeowners association to address some of their questions. Vice Chairman Stephens stated that there is one decision to be made tonight – will we allow a 5-story hotel in lieu of a 4-story hotel. Either we say yes, no, or table it. Chairman Hill stated that with the developer’s withdrawal of a hotel designation request on Tract 6, it is down to the question of whether or not a fifth floor will be granted on Tract 7. The orientation will be east/west. Commissioner Forest stated that there are many things that the Commission needs to know before we move forward: Blueprints, artist’s rendering, how many rooms, how much room can be packed into the area with parking, landscaping, etc. There is not enough information to make a decision at this point. Ms. Huggins reminded the Commissioners that this is a zoning change request, specifically for the use on those tracts and specifically for the height. If a hotel comes forward, the Planning & Zoning Commission will review a site plan, building elevations, sight line studies, a civil site plan, light fixtures, illustrations, photo metrics, sign criteria, retaining wall and fence criteria and a development schedule. Vice Chairman Stephens asked for a poll of the Commissioners to see if they wish to change the zoning as it stands. The Chairman polled the members and all indicated they were not in favor of a zoning change. Vice Chairman Stephens motioned to deny the petitioner’s request for a zoning change. Commissioner Sheridan seconded the motion. The motion to deny was unanimous. Ayes: Hill, Stephens, Reed, Ashby, Sheridan, Forest Nays: None Action: 6-0, to Deny Ms. Huggins asked for a brief recess. The Chairman granted a brief recess at 8:15 p.m. and reconvened at 8:23 p.m. D.2 HIGHLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD 1, PHASE 1C-1. CONSIDERATION OF A FINAL PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST FROM JACOBS CARTER BURGESS ON BEHALF OF HIGH TROPHY DEVELOPMENT, LLC FOR THE HIGHLANDS AT TROPHY CLUB NEIGHBORHOOD 1, PHASE 1C-1, 54 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 2 OPEN SPACE LOTS (13.559 ACRES) (FP-07-016) Kyle Salzman, Jacobs Carter Burgess, stated that the applicant’s request is for approval of the final plat and that he is available to answer any questions. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 8 of 13 December 20, 2007 Minutes Chairman Hill stated that he has a question about Block A, Lot 3, and Block E, Lot 2 regarding the side yard setback and building lines. There is a landscape easement and utility easement and then a building line 5-ft. inside that totaling 20-ft.? Mr. Salzman stated that they total 20-ft. He stated that both lots are adjacent to open space lots superimposed on top of a 15-ft. gas pipeline easement. There is a 5-ft. building line adjacent to the open space lots. Ms. Huggins stated that staff is willing to allow the 5-ft. side yard build line on these two lots because of the open space. The PD requires 15-ft. and staff is willing to allow the open space to be used as part of the side yard setback. Commissioner Sheridan stated that there is also a 5-ft. wall easement that is the same as the building line. If the wall is built on the furthest part of the 5-ft. then the wall and the house, in theory, could abut each other. A wall takes approximately 12 inches for the base pier and the column is maybe 18, so having the build line and the wall easement together doesn’t seem to be compatible. Mr. Salzman responded that the wall is going to be in lieu of a fence in that particular location. He stated that the fence could be built at the back side of that 5-ft. but the homebuilder would not do that as they couldn’t sell the lot. They will submit to staff a landscape plan before the walls are built. The 5-ft. wall easement is for maintenance behind the wall. The intention is that wall, if it were infinitesimally thin; would exist on the line between the landscape easement and the 5-ft. wall easement. It is in lieu of a wooden fence in that location. Mr. Sheridan stated that this is a developer wall not a builder wall. Mr. Salzman responded that the developer is putting in the wall. Mr. Sheridan responded that his opinion, then, would be that the 5-ft. building line starts from the wall. He doesn’t know if it is part of the building code, but he believes the fire department would be stepping in as there would be a need for 3-ft. of air conditioning condenser or some sort of mechanical equipment and two feet to go around it, which is what he has been told the Fire Department wants for access on a house. Also, at least 2-ft. is needed to put a lawn mower through. Town of Trophy Club Fire Chief, Danny Thomas, stated that he would have to look at the code, but as far as dimensions, 5-ft. is a good number although that may not be what the code requires. Commissioner Sheridan stated that he objects to having non-buildable parcels addressed as a lot. He believes they should have another designation. Mr. Sheridan also asked who will maintain the open space areas. Chairman Hill responded that it is still under discussion between the developer and the Town. Commissioner Sheridan made a motion to approve the final plat of Neighborhood 1, Phase 1C-1 subject to changing the open space lot designations, and that the plat note a 5-ft. separation between the developer’s wall and structures; these stipulations to be done before the plat goes to Town Council. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 9 of 13 December 20, 2007 Minutes Ms. Huggins asked for a clarification on the lot designation and after further discussion Mr. Salzman suggested that Jacobs Carter Burgess could add a note to the plat that the open space lots (specifying the lots) are not buildable lots. Chairman Hill asked Ms. Huggins to clarify that stipulation and that it be placed on the document prior to Town Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Forest. Ayes: Hill, Stephens, Reed, Ashby, Sheridan, Forest Nays: None Action: 6-0, Approved D.3 HIGHLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD 1, PHASE 1C-2. CONSIDERATION OF A FINAL PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST FROM JACOBS CARTER BURGESS ON BEHALF OF HIGH TROPHY DEVELOPMENT, LLC FOR THE HIGHLANDS AT TROPHY CLUB NEIGHBORHOOD 1, PHASE 1C-2, 107 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 4 OPEN SPACE LOTS (28.144 ACRES) (FP-07-018) Chairman Hill asked for an explanation of the front building line for Lot 28, Block E, Lot 19, Block E and Lot 25, Block F. What is the front of the lot? Mr. Salzman responded that the front of the lot is that portion fronting on the slip road. The PD states that no lot shall front on Trophy Club Drive which is why the slip roads exist. The front build line is that portion of the lot adjacent to, and parallel to, the right-of-way. The right-of-way is a Trophy Club Drive Slip Road. Mr. Salzman stated that they had received comment from staff that the desire was to see 25-ft. from Trophy Club Drive but the “side” portion is adjacent to an open space lot, so there is a 10- ft. side yard coupled with a 10-ft. open space makes that 20-ft. and they revised it to 15-ft. side yard so that coupled with the open space it achieves the 25-ft. perceived setback from Trophy Club Drive. He stated that these lots are not adjacent to Trophy Club Drive; they are adjacent to an open space lot. He stated that if they were adjacent to Trophy Club Drive it would have a 25-ft. setback; he stated that it is indeed 25-ft. from Trophy Club Drive. Chairman Hill asked Mr. Rutledge for his appraisal of these lots and the front building line. Mr. Rutledge stated that the key is where the drive approach comes from. Per the PD, driveway direct access cannot be from Trophy Club Drive; the access must come off the slip. The Chairman responded that they have a 25-ft. building setback at the driveway access, but what about the 15-ft. building line segment that is immediately adjacent? Commissioner Sheridan stated that it is beyond the brick wall and asked if there is a requirement that a brick wall be put up. Mr. Salzman stated that the developer is putting up a wall. Mr. Sheridan stated that there is separation between the building and the brick wall on these lots and there is room after the brick wall to put a driveway. Mr. Salzman stated that a sideyard setback is not measured from the wall. It is measured from the property line and if there is a 6-ft. fence built by the builder on the property line there would be the exact same situation. This is a superior wall, therefore, it is a little bit thicker and more substantial, but the building line should be from the property line, not the wall. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 10 of 13 December 20, 2007 Minutes Commissioner Sheridan stated that he would not want to see a house abutted against the wall. He would like to see a 5-ft. separation between the development wall and the structure. Commissioner Sheridan made a motion to approve the final plat of Neighborhood 1, Phase 1C-2 subject to changing the open space lot designations, and that the plat note a 5-ft. separation between the developer’s wall and structures; these stipulations to be done before the plat goes to Town Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ashby. Ayes: Hill, Stephens, Reed, Ashby, Sheridan, Forest Nays: None Action: 6-0, Approved D.4 HIGHLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD 2, PHASE 1A. CONSIDERATION OF A FINAL PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST FROM JACOBS CARTER BURGESS ON BEHALF OF HIGH TROPHY DEVELOPMENT, LLC FOR THE HIGHLANDS AT TROPHY CLUB NEIGHBORHOOD 2, PHASE 1A, 10 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 2 OPEN SPACE LOTS (3.585 ACRES) (FP-07-013) Chairman Hill noted that the same situation occurs with this plat (Lot 1 and 10, Block BB) as with previous plats. The Chairman also noted that Lot 1, Block D is part of a future neighborhood to the south of this plat and he asked for a continuation of the 25-ft. building line in order for the homes to align properly. Commissioner Sheridan asked that when that phase is brought forward the Commission see a continuation of the build line for continuity. Mr. Salzman responded that it will conform. Commissioner Sheridan made a motion to approve the final plat of Neighborhood 2, Phase 1A subject to changing the open space lot designations, and that the plat note a 5-ft. separation between the developer’s wall and structures; these stipulations to be done before the plat goes to Town Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Reed. Ayes: Hill, Stephens, Reed, Ashby, Sheridan, Forest Nays: None Action: 6-0, Approved D.5 HIGHLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD 2, PHASE 1B. CONSIDERATION OF A FINAL PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST FROM JACOBS CARTER BURGESS ON BEHALF OF HIGH TROPHY DEVELOPMENT, LLC FOR THE HIGHLANDS AT TROPHY CLUB NEIGHBORHOOD 2, PHASE 1B, 108 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 4 OPEN SPACE LOTS (39.810 ACRES) (FP-07-012) There was no discussion and the Chairman called for a motion. Planning & Zoning Commission Page 11 of 13 December 20, 2007 Minutes Commissioner Sheridan made a motion to approve the final plat of Neighborhood 2, Phase 1B subject to changing the open space lot designations, and that the plat note a 5-ft. separation between the developer’s wall and structures; these stipulations to be done before the plat goes to Town Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Forest. Ayes: Hill, Stephens, Reed, Ashby, Sheridan, Forest Nays: None Action: 6-0, Approved D.6 HIGHLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD 5, PHASE 1D-1. CONSIDERATION OF A FINAL PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST FROM JACOBS CARTER BURGESS ON BEHALF OF HIGH TROPHY DEVELOPMENT, LLC FOR THE HIGHLANDS AT TROPHY CLUB NEIGHBORHOOD 5, PHASE 1D-1, 43 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 2 OPEN SPACE LOTS (11.788 ACRES) (FP-07-017) There was no discussion and the Chairman called for a motion. Commissioner Sheridan made a motion to approve the final plat of Neighborhood 5, Phase 1D-1 subject to changing the open space lot designations, and that the plat note a 5-ft. separation between the developer’s wall and structures (Block N, Lot 2, Block M, Lots 26 and 1); these stipulations to be done before the plat goes to Town Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Forest. Ayes: Hill, Stephens, Reed, Ashby, Sheridan, Forest Nays: None Action: 6-0, Approved D.7 HIGHLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD 5, PHASE 1D-2. CONSIDERATION OF A FINAL PLAT APPROVAL REQUEST FROM JACOBS CARTER BURGESS ON BEHALF OF HIGH TROPHY DEVELOPMENT, LLC FOR THE HIGHLANDS AT TROPHY CLUB NEIGHBORHOOD 5, PHASE 1D-2, 50 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 1 OPEN SPACE LOT (14.523 ACRES) (FP-07-019) There was no discussion and the Chairman called for a motion. Commissioner Sheridan made a motion to approve the final plat of Neighborhood 5, Phase 1D-2 subject to changing the open space lot designation, and that the plat note a 5-ft. separation between the developer’s wall and structures; these stipulations to be done before the plat goes to Town Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ashby. Ayes: Hill, Stephens, Reed, Ashby, Sheridan, Forest Planning & Zoning Commission Page 12 of 13 December 20, 2007 Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission Page 13 of 13 December 20, 2007 Minutes Nays: None Action: 6-0, Approved E.1 ADJOURNMENT. Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m.