Loading...
Minutes P&Z 02/15/2007 MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING & REGULAR SESSION FOR THE TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 15 FEBRUARY 2007 15 FEBRUARY 2007 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trophy Club, Texas met in a Public Hearing and a Regular Session on 15 February 2007, at 7:00 pm in the Boardroom of the Trophy Club Administration Building, 100 Municipal Drive, Trophy Club, Texas 76262. The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trophy Club, Texas met in a Public Hearing and a Regular Session on 15 February 2007, at 7:00 pm in the Boardroom of the Trophy Club Administration Building, 100 Municipal Drive, Trophy Club, Texas 76262. COMMISSIONERS ATTENDANCE: COMMISSIONERS ATTENDANCE: Chairman Hill Present Chairman Hill Present Vice Chairman Stephens Excused Vice Chairman Stephens Excused Commissioner Ashby Present Commissioner Ashby Present Commissioner Moss Present Commissioner Moss Present Commissioner Reed Present Commissioner Reed Present Commissioner Sheridan Present Commissioner Sheridan Present Commissioner Stamos Absent Commissioner Stamos Absent STAFF AND GUESTS PRESENT: STAFF AND GUESTS PRESENT: Kerin C. Fleck Planning & Zoning Coordinator Kerin C. Fleck Planning & Zoning Coordinator Jim Wiegert Carter & Burgess Jim Wiegert Carter & Burgess Mehrdad Moayedi Centurion American Mehrdad Moayedi Centurion American Steve Lenart Lenart Development Steve Lenart Lenart Development Beth Ann Gregory Community Development Manager Beth Ann Gregory Community Development Manager A.1 CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM. 7:00pm A.1 CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM. 7:00pm Chairman Hill called the meeting to order and explained the format of the meeting for the benefit of the audience. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order and explained the format of the meeting for the benefit of the audience. PUBLIC HEARINGPUBLIC HEARING B.1 PUBLIC HEARING: A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 27, KNOWN AS THE HIGHLANDS AT TROPHY CLUB, BY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF PD-27: IN EXHIBIT "B" - "DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: SECTION III, "DEFINITIONS"; SECTION IV, "LOT TYPE REGULATIONS"; TABLE NO. 4-1, "SUMMARY OF LOT TYPE REGULATIONS"; SECTION V, "NEIGHBORHOOD REGULATIONS"; TABLE NO. 5-1, "NEIGHBORHOOD LOT AND DENSITY SUMMARY"; SECTION VI, "DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS"; TABLE NO. 6-1, "ROADWAY STANDARDS"; SECTION VII, "PARK AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS"; SECTION VIII, "DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE"; EXHIBIT "C", "CONCEPT PLAN"; EXHIBIT "D", "STREET TYPE EXHIBITS"; AND EXHIBIT "F", "PATHWAY PLAN". APPLICANT: CARTER & BURGESS, INC., AUTHORIZED AGENT OF CENTURION ACQUISITIONS, L.P.; 831 TROPHY, L.P.; STANDARD PACIFIC OF TEXAS, L.P.; K. HOVNANIAN HOMES - DFW, L.L.C.; C OIL INVESTMENTS LTD. (PDAMD-07-023) Commissioner Reed made a motion to open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moss and approved by all members present. Jim Wiegert, Carter & Burgess came forward and stated that they are asking for slight amendments to the PD zoning. As the development has moved forward there is more accurate information, surveys and environmental data which prompted changes to the PD. They have revised the lot count to more closely reflect what they expect to build. There are adjustments to the Pathway Plan and more detailed acreage on the open space for dedication to Parks. A major change is lot changes to Neighborhood 8, which will be larger lots and the neighborhood will be restricted to townhomes only. He showed renderings for Neighborhood 8, along with the landscape architects rendering of the entranceway to this neighborhood and the screening materials along Trophy Club Drive and Marshall Creek East. This will be a gated community with a divided entry. There will be a lot of open space and a pool and recreation center with parking. There will be a trail system that will connect through the neighborhood to the golf course. Anyone who lives there and has a golf cart could access the golf path to the driving range. He showed a streetscape with trees and screening that is a combination of masonry, wrought iron, berms and live screening. He stated that Lot Type 5 will be 30-ft. in width with front entry garages. There will be decorative paving at all of the intersections. The landscaping is intended to be more intense than it was before. Steve Gregory, 205 Pebble Beach Drive, stated that he is a member of the Trophy Club Parks and Recreation Board and that Board met just a couple of nights ago and had an opportunity to review the parkland plans. He stated that the Parks and Recreation Board is a resource to the Town and the citizens in that their feedback and input are valuable. Based on what they reviewed the other night they have some concerns: 1) there is a reduction in total parkland of about 10+ acres. The majority of that land was on the northeast corner of the plat adjacent to Marshall Creek Park and the Board wondered if some other land is available to replace that reduction. 2) A majority of the land designated as Northeast Park is a flowage easement which is a drainage area. From a utility standpoint, how valuable is that land as far as quality for park development? Can ballfields, soccer fields, or football fields be developed on any part of it and, if so, what size? Is this the best available land and piece of property for an active use park? Perhaps there is a better piece of land in another location. A question that came up is who evaluates the quality and suitability of the land that is offered for parkland development? Is it Town staff? Is it the developer? P&Z? Parks and Recreation Board? The Parks and Recreation Board would like to be involved in that process if at all possible. J. D. Stotts, One Narrow Creek Ct., is also a member of the Parks and Recreation Board and he is concerned about changes to the trail. He stated that there will be a trail through the flowage easement, which is passive type park property, on the north side. In Neighborhood 8, the trail will duck in between the last home on the left at the end of the cul-de-sac and the gas well pad, and then cross private property to get to the park. He believes this will create issues and problems and that it will not tie in well with the planned trails that the Board is working to improve in Marshall Creek Park. The trail and green space were to be along the top side of this development and come down next to the Northwest ISD high school site and then go into a park and come down by the pool and connect into a neighborhood. It no longer does that. It goes into a Town Center area and dead ends into the back of a home. What could have been a continuous loop trail now dead ends. Mehrdad Moayedi, Centurion American, stated that the change to Neighborhood 8 was prompted by the original mix of 90-ft. lots backing up to townhomes. They did not feel it was a good mix. They found a desire in the town for an active adult community, age restricted, with townhomes on smaller lots, with a master bedroom on the first floor. They chose a 30-ft. lot with a master bedroom on the first floor and age restricted, which means they would have their own community center so the pool wouldn’t have a bunch of kids in it. They want their own community center with activities that pertain to them. Mr. Moayedi stated that they plan to build a 6,000 to 7,000 sq. ft. community center that has different activities for the active adult. It will also be an area close to the golf course so they can take their own golf carts to the clubhouse, restaurant and other things. It will be a gated area. Active adults travel a lot and are concerned about security. They want to be able to lock up and go. He stated that a lot of residents of Trophy Club have given them very positive input about this community because they would like to stay in Trophy Club but they don’t need a 4,000 to 5,000 sq. ft. house anymore, but they want a high grade quality town home with amenities. Mr. Moayedi stated that they will work with the Parks Department to clear up the issues with the trails. The original trails that were there were going to be torn up by the builders as houses were built. He stated that they will work with the Parks Department to make sure the continuity of the trails and pathways are there. He stated that they exceed the amount of park dedication required by ordinance. Commissioner Moss motioned to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Reed. REGULAR SESSION C.1 DISCUSS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION RELATIVE TO A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 27, KNOWN AS THE HIGHLANDS AT TROPHY CLUB, BY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF PD-27: IN EXHIBIT "B" - "DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: SECTION III, "DEFINITIONS"; SECTION IV, "LOT TYPE REGULATIONS"; TABLE NO. 4-1, "SUMMARY OF LOT TYPE REGULATIONS"; SECTION V, "NEIGHBORHOOD REGULATIONS"; TABLE NO. 5-1, "NEIGHBORHOOD LOT AND DENSITY SUMMARY"; SECTION VI, "DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS"; TABLE NO. 6-1, "ROADWAY STANDARDS"; SECTION VII, "PARK AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS"; SECTION VIII, "DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE"; EXHIBIT "C", "CONCEPT PLAN"; EXHIBIT "D", "STREET TYPE EXHIBITS"; AND EXHIBIT "F", "PATHWAY PLAN". APPLICANT: CARTER & BURGESS, INC., AUTHORIZED AGENT OF CENTURION ACQUISITIONS, L.P.; 831 TROPHY, L.P.; STANDARDS PACIFIC OF TEXAS, L.P.; K. HOVNANIAN HOMES - DFW, L.L.C.; C OIL INVESTMENTS LTD. (PDAMD-07- 023) The first item to be considered by the Commission is a definition for “Main Façade”: “The portion of the structure, including the garage or porch that is closest to the front building line”. The “main façade” is referenced several times throughout the PD regarding garages. Chairman Hill stated that in his opinion the requested definition might allow instances where a garage would face the street and in itself be the main façade if it is the portion of the structure including the garage or porch. He stated that he could see a garage sidewall for a swing-in garage possibly being the nearest portion to the front building line, inasmuch as that could be considered the face of the structure in an allowable situation. Commissioner Sheridan recommends that the definition be changed to: “The portion of the structure, EXCLUDING the garage or porch, that is closest to the front building line.” He stated that he doesn’t believe a front J-drive or a California swing drive is applicable to these neighborhoods. Ms. Fleck stated that it would be applicable in Lot Type 1. Commissioner Moss stated that he agrees with Mr. Sheridan’s idea to exclude the garage and porch. Commissioner Ashby stated that he believes the original wording is adequate. The developer was asked to explain why he wants to make the change. Steve Lenart, Lenart Development, stated that the existing PD mentions the term “main façade” throughout the PD but it is not defined, which has caused confusion with the builders. With offsets in the homes such as front porches that stick out rather than being recessed behind the front walls, the developer wanted to get a firm definition so everyone is on the same page. For instance, on the 70-ft. wide lots with a garage facing the street 30-ft. behind the “main façade,” the builders have plans where if you are standing on the street facing the pad, the driveway would be a swing-in, which means it would swing across the front of the yard into a two-car bay that faces the side yard. A third car garage would sit back behind that at the far side of the home. If you are standing on the street you would see a single car garage 30-ft. behind the front side of the sideways garage. They included “garage or porch” in the definition in order to make it clear what is meant by “main façade”. Chairman Hill asked if “face of the structure” could be used. Mr. Lenart stated that it could lead to splitting hairs over the definition of “face”. Some builders, David Weekley, for instance, have some standard plans where they have a 6 to 8-ft. front porch sitting off the front of the home with a covered 4-pitch roof over it but the front wall of the home is at the back of that. Commissioner Reed asked if it would be possible to center it ‘so far back’ from the building line and let it go at that. Mr. Lenart responded that would work too. Commissioner Sheridan stated that this only applies to Lot Type 3. Lot Type 4 says that 75% of the garages have to be set back from the main façade so you can’t have a garage as part of the main façade. He commented that there are 90 pages involved in this request and he likes and appreciates the applicant being here, and in analyzing this he is concentrating on the negative side, not the positive, and he doesn’t mean to be negative toward the whole thing. He is very positive to the overall request but wanted to explain that the Commission is nit-picking the semantics. Mr. Sheridan would like to see this request for the main façade definition applicable to a lot type. He stated that the goal is to avoid a row of garage doors and “main façade” is an important definition. Mr. Moayedi stated that this affects the 70-ft. lots which have 6-ft. side yards. He does not want to have garages facing the street. They want to have 5-ft. side yards with no front garages facing the street. They can do J-swings and have 25-ft. back up space from the garage on a driveway. Commissioner Reed suggested the developer work out the wording along the lines of “no garages facing the street unless they are 30-ft. back from the front building line.” Commissioner Sheridan noted that some lots require 50-ft. He wants to avoid making a blanket change to the whole document. In the definition it should refer to an individual lot type per variations. Mr. Moayedi stated that they are only requesting this for Lot Type 3. Chairman Hill asked for language to be drafted by the developer for the main façade definition. Chairman Hill then asked for an explanation of their request for “proposed Lot Type 3 side yard requirement” to 5-ft. from the current 6-ft. minimum. Mr. Moayedi stated that there must be room for a turnaround area to get in and out of the garage on the side. They are asking to make the side yard 5-ft. and they will commit to not having any garages facing the street for that lot type. Mr. Lenart added that the way they worded their request is that if the double garage did not face the street it would drop to a 5-ft. setback. In that lot type a certain percentage could face the street and those would stay at 6-ft. The intent is to get more radius on the swing in and to make for a more user friendly garage for people. Chairman Hill asked for wording that did not allow two side yard widths for the same type lot. Mr. Lenart stated that he understands what the Chairman is looking for and that it can be changed. Commissioner Sheridan suggested rewording so that the intent is conveyed that in this neighborhood the side yard would be 5-ft. and no garage faces the front street. He stated that when this was originally done the Town wanted separation of houses. He stated that he understands what they mean by the swing of the garage, but his question to staff is does the Town have a code over the concrete depth of a side swing. Years ago Arlington had 22-ft. and Plano had 28-ft. and Garland had 25-ft. out of the garage. Mr. Moayedi stated that 25-ft. is the minimum they want. Mr. Sheridan asked if it is possible to allow the 5-ft. on the garage side and still stay 12-ft. between houses. Mr. Moayedi stated that not all the garages will be on the left side of the house. Chairman Hill stated that it seems that the consensus would be to go with the 5-ft. Chairman Hill asked that reference to golf course lots for Lot Type 3 be removed as there will not be any Lot Type 3 lots on the golf course. Chairman Hill then moved to discussion of the proposed definition of Town Home Structure. The Chairman summarized that the requested change is radically different from what was proposed for Neighborhood 8 and he asked the Developer for an explanation. Mr. Moayedi stated that the concept was to try to have an active adult community. He then went into detail of density, elevations, lot size, and finally, marketability. Chairman Hill responded that the Commission wanted some staggered frontage and he would like to see that return. Mr. Moayedi stated that it is not possible with a 15-ft. frontage. It is designed to have a certain amount of backyard and if they have to stagger the front, they lose the backyards. They could stagger with a 20-ft. front build line. Commissioner Sheridan stated that he is an advocate of town homes and active adults. He stated that in the original public hearings, town homes were highly controversial. It was a compromise to get them and one of the things that made a big difference was rear entry with a nicer front façade. Another plus was the family-look twoplex-type townhome, and the character built by the differential in façade setbacks. He stated that it isn’t that he doesn’t trust this developer, but he doesn’t trust the builder two years from now. He is trying to adjust to the changes: 1) from rear entry to a front entry, and 2) from two houses per building to six houses per building. There is room for movement but he isn’t sure how to move. He is going back to what the citizens wanted when this was first created and even then it was highly controversial and he doesn’t want to raise that controversy again because he thought it was settled. Mr. Moayedi responded that the 55-year old clientele likes a backyard. The garage doors will not be regular garage doors but will be architectural doors. He also responded that, within reason, they are flexible on the setbacks. Commissioner Sheridan stated that if the Commission were to consider front entry, he would want to eliminate No. 1 on page 47 regarding the separation of bays. He would want to concentrate on No. 2, the covered 4-ft. porte-cochere. He would want to try to keep that. Commissioner Ashby is in favor of Mr. Sheridan’s comments regarding Page 6, No. 4, “front yard set back” and “current appearance of structures”. The proposed change would create a row house appearance. Commissioner Reed does not want each unit to be six. Mr. Moayedi suggested that language could be added for instance “25% could be 6, 25% has to be 4”. Mr. Reed stated that he is also concerned about the front entry garages. He believes it will be a horrible appearance. Mr. Moayedi stated that the clientele for this neighborhood wants a backyard which forces the garage to the front. Mr. Reed suggested they have both a backyard and the garage in the back. Mr. Moayedi stated that the usable space would be greatly reduced with both in the back. Mr. Reed stated that the Town traditionally doesn’t have garages in the front since people leave their doors open with their junk in there. Mr. Moayedi stated that they will deed restrict this neighborhood. It is a specific use different from the rest of the Town. Commissioner Moss stated that it would be more acceptable if they went with the 2 and 4. He doesn’t like front entry garages either, however, he understands that it is a gated community and hopefully the fencing in the front of this neighborhood will separate them from the houses across the street. Perhaps some vegetation would help with shielding. Mr. Moayedi asked if just a small percentage of 6’s would be acceptable. Commissioner Moss responded that he has no problem with that. Mr. Moayedi stated that they will have screening all along Trophy Club Drive and they have proposed to have a berm, landscaping and wrought iron with masonry columns. Chairman Hill requested concept designs, house elevations, and a neighborhood arrangement with multiple sizes. Mr. Moayedi agreed. Commissioner Sheridan asked where the 20-ft. right-of-way for driveways will go if the garage is shifted from rear to front. Mr. Moayedi stated that more lots were added, increasing from 207 to 260. The lots are 30 x 105. Mr. Sheridan asked if they could increase the front setback and still stagger. Mr. Moayedi stated that they could. Mr. Sheridan stated that the rear yard would be at a minimum of 10-ft. Is it possible to increase the minimum floor area from 1350 up? Mr. Moayedi stated that he believes they could, but square footage is dependent on the needs of the clientele. Commissioner Sheridan asked if curbs are required for a private community, private street. Ms. Fleck responded that they are required. Are roll curbs allowed? Can the driveway be restricted to 16-ft. and if it is private with minimal streets can the radius be decreased or eliminated? Would you consider increasing the distance between buildings? Mr. Moayedi responded that they will give it their best shot. Commissioner Reed asked if the two-car garages will have two separate garage doors or one large one. Mr. Lenart responded that they would leave it up to the builder provided he follows the PD requirements of an architectural door. Mr. Reed responded that older, retired folks do a lot better with one wide door. Chairman Hill called for a 5-minute recess and then resumed Mr. Reed’s discussion. Commissioner Reed noted that on page 47 he would like to eliminate the reference to two separate bays and require one large garage. Commissioner Sheridan added that he would like the reference to two separate bays to be listed as a requirement rather than as a choice as “one of the following”. Commissioner Reed agreed. Chairman Hill asked Mr. Moayedi to reword the “Garages” section to reflect the Commissioner’s requests. Mr. Moayedi agreed. Chairman Hill moved to the updating of Table No. 4-1 on page 48. Lot 5 should be updated to reflect the Commissioner’s requests that were just discussed. The rear yard setback might need to be adjusted based on tonight’s discussion. Chairman Hill then reviewed changes to pages 49-52, neighborhood lot and density summary. Mr. Moayedi stated that they upped the lot sizes and currently don’t meet the number of 60-ft. lots required because a number of them have been upped to 70-ft. lots at the request of the Council. They are changing (downsizing) the total number of 60-ft. lots in order to meet the Council’s request for 70-ft. lots. These changes are reflected on pages 49, 50 and 51 of the packet. Chairman Hill asked that the reference to an “estate” lot be deleted on page 50 under neighborhood 7. That lot should be referred to as Lot Type 1 rather than as an “estate” lot. Commissioner Ashby recommended that the Commission require a definition for “age restricted development”. Mr. Moayedi stated that it will be “55 or older”. Commissioner Reed asked if that meant that no one younger than 55 would be allowed to buy. Mr. Moayedi stated that no one younger than 55 would be allowed to buy. Commissioner Moss noted that on page 6 “berms” was added to the proposed screening regulations. Many of the residents have a negative connotation concerning berms. Mr. Moayedi stated that they are trying to do something that blocks the view of the garage doors. They do not want it to be a solid wall but a mixture of wrought iron, vegetation, trees and landscaping. They thought that a berm with a rolling hill would be best. Chairman Hill suggested that in developing illustrations for the next meeting date they could show an example of the type of berm that will be used. Commissioner Moss suggested they include maximums (not minimums). Chairman Hill moved to Parks and Recreation. Parks and Recreation Director Adam Adams spoke of the concerns of the Parks and Recreation Board. Mr. Adams noted that the Parkland Dedication Ordinance has been met and exceeded by 14 acres, but the Board is concerned with quantity and quality. The land to be dedicated might not be suitable for the current needs of the Town. The trail system is of great concern to the Parks and Recreation Board. In summary, Mr. Adams stated that: 1) the developer meets the minimum required, 2) there was a loss in acreage, and 3) there was a loss of connectivity in the trail system. Mr. Moayedi stated that he does not feel they are getting a fair shake. There are a certain amount of PID dollars that must be spent on utilities, roadways and things like that, and they are spending a couple of million dollars on the Town’s parks above and beyond the land donated. A community center will be built in the Town. An activity center will be built. Some of the Village Center will be given back to parkland. He stated that every step of the way they have given a lot more to Parks than was here in the past. He doesn’t believe the Parks and Recreation Board is up-to-date on what the developer has done. Chairman Hill stated that parkland is incorporated into the PD and he believes it would be beneficial for the developer to meet with the Parks and Recreation Board to discuss the trail system to see if the continuity could be improved. The Planning and Zoning Commission considers this as a concept plan and looks at how it fits into the town and how it fits into the PD. Mr. Moayedi responded that open space and parks are one of the main amenities that they are selling to their builders and residents so they don’t want to screw that up. Commissioner Moss stated that he is a former member of the Park Board, and as a Planning and Zoning Commission member and as a resident of the Town he feels that discussion between the developer and the town staff has been kept confidential. He feels it would help a lot for the Park Board to have some idea of discussions between the developer and staff. Mr. Moayedi responded that he does not want to keep any information confidential as these are all positive things. He stated that he wasn’t aware of the Park Board and the need to meet with them. Commissioner Moss stated that the Park Board hasn’t been included and doesn’t know “a damn thing” to put it bluntly. He stated that he has looked at the Northeast Park and he doesn’t make any decision as it’s not part of the Planning & Zoning Commission function. But as a citizen of the Town as far as he is concerned he doesn’t like the location or what can be put out there. He believes better arrangements can be made. Commissioner Ashby asked what happened to the municipal facility in between the Village Center and the Northwest Park. Mr. Moayedi stated that this is not the ultimate shape. Since this was first presented a lot of things have happened, with Roanoke taking on Marshall Creek and other things that have caused changes to this document. By the next meeting additional changes will happen. The municipal center has gone away. PID dollars will go toward public improvements. The ring road is very important. A water tower is very important. A ditch in the area is a $2 million project to cover up. We are trying to include that in the budget. There is a lot of give and take on the land side, park side and dollar side. Commissioner Ashby stated that the municipal facility was to provide a buffer between the Village Center and the park, besides providing fire and emergency services, life safety services, etc. Is there a plan to replace it? Mr. Moayedi stated that studies have shown that the existing fire station is somewhat adequate but could use equipment improvements and such. The Town, however, desired a gymnasium/community center and the dollars for the municipal facility were shifted to the community center to be built on parkland. Chairman Hill asked for the width of the road leading out to the Corps property that is used as a leased park. Mr. Moayedi stated that it is a 41-ft. paved section, two lanes, no median, minor arterial, 60-ft. right-of-way, with 41-ft. paving. Mr. Hill stated that it may not be adequate. Mr. Moayedi responded that it would be wide enough for people to park on either side and still have two lanes of traffic going through. [Parking is not allowed.] Commissioner Reed asked how close they would build to the gas well site. Mr. Moayedi stated that it won’t change from what is listed in the PD. He stated that they are concerned about how the gas wells are fenced in because it leaves a lot of open space around them. Maintenance is an issue. Chairman Hill responded that the gas well ordinance requires 8-ft. masonry posts with wooden panels. Ms. Fleck stated that if the developer or Encana wants to do more they can, but the minimum is as stated by Chairman Hill. Mr. Moayedi stated that they will meet the minimum and exceed it. They also will have disclosure with all of their buyers. Mr. Moayedi also re-addressed comments to Commissioner Ashby, explaining that they laid out many different scenarios on what money would be spent on and they would have given it to wherever the Town wanted it, but overall it was indicated to them that the Town wanted a gymnasium. Commissioner Ashby stated that he doesn’t necessarily lean that way because life safety is very important as well as the Town’s current high rating in the state for insurance credit for response times. The current fire facility response time to the northwest side of The Highlands is going to increase dramatically and thus that response time will increase insurance rates across the Town. Beth Ann Gregory stated that an alternate site for municipal facilities is being looked at as there is a fairly sizeable piece of property being donated on the school site for an elevated storage tank and there are some options there. Chairman Hill stated as a final comment that Mr. Moayedi should check with the golf course regarding their rules for private citizens using their own golf carts. Mr. Moayedi stated that they are in discussions with the golf course regarding improvements to their club house and parking lot in trade for golf memberships which can be passed onto homeowners. Homeowner’s carts can be driven to the parking lot of the golf course and then they must switch to a golf course cart. Commissioner Moss motioned to table the discussion on the amendments to the PD until the next Planning & Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for March 1, 2007. Commissioner Ashby seconded the motion. The motion passed. C.2 Review and approve minutes. a. 7 December 2006 b. 4 January 2007 c. 18 January 2007 Ms. Fleck noted that on page 99 Commissioner Sheridan didn’t make the comment about the vicinity map. That comment was made by Commissioner Ashby. Chairman Hill noted that on page 100 Item B.5 the Action was Approved 4-1, rather than 4-0 as Commissioner Ashby voted nay. d. 1 February 2007 Chairman Hill is listed as excused, which should be corrected to present. Vice Chairman Stephens did not call the meeting to order. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order. Commissioner Moss motioned to approve the above minutes as corrected. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Reed. The motion passed. D.1 ADJOURNMENT. Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:05 p.m.