Minutes P&Z 01/03/2013Trophy Club Entities 100 Municipal Drive
F°�4nX�c� p Y Trophy Club, Texas 76262
Meeting Minutes
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, January 3, 2013 7:00 PM Svore Municipal Building Boardroom
CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM
Vice Chairman Stephens called the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to
order at 7:00 p.m. and announced a quorum present (6 members).
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
Present: 6 - Vice Chair James Stephens, Commissioner Dennis Sheridan,
Commissioner Dale Forest, Commissioner Clayton Reed, Commissioner
Joe Lancor, and Commissioner Mark Sadley
Absent: 1 - Chairman Gene Hill
STAFF PRESENT. -
Carolyn Huggins, Community Development Director
GUESTS PRESENT:
Shane Harris, RGA Architects
Rick Gilliland, RGA Architects
2012-647-T Review and approve the minutes of the December 20, 2012, Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting.
Attachments: MeetingMinutes 122012.pdf
A motion was made by Commissioner Sadley, seconded by Commissioner
Reed, that this agenda item be Approved . The motion carried by the following
vote.
Aye: 6 - Vice Chair Stephens, Commissioner Sheridan, Commissioner Forest,
Commissioner Reed, Commissioner Lancor, and Commissioner Sadley
REGULAR SESSION
2. 2012-648-T Discussion of the Preliminary and Final Plats and Site Plan of Lot 1, Block
A, The Church at Trophy Lakes, 11.603 acres located at 800 Trophy Club
Drive. Applicant: Shane Harris, RGAArchitects on behalf of The Church
at Trophy Lakes.
Shane Harris, RGA Architects, 301 S. Oak St., Roanoke, Texas, stated that they are
here tonight to discuss some of the items that came about through their site plan
review process. He stated that they wanted to see if there were any issues from P&Z
before they made their formal response.
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 1 of 8 Meeting Date: January 3, 2013
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes January 3, 2013
Vice Chairman Stephens stated that this is a discussion item only tonight. This item
will come back before the Commission for action in the form of a recommendation to
Council.
Mr. Harris explained that the church is located at Trophy Lake Drive and Trophy Club
Drive and he stated that once they are finished with Phase 1 (the school) and Phase
2 (expansion of the church sanctuary) the building will consist of 30,440 sq. ft. The
school makes up about 16,000 of that. The planned use is as a church and school.
Through the site plan approval process and the initial comments received back from
staff, there are five items they wish to discuss with P&Z:
1) Parking requirement
2) Maximum height requirement (steeple)
3) 8 -ft. masonry wall
4) Using EIFS rather than stucco
5) Fagade of gymnasium that faces Village Trail
Mr. Harris stated that at the conclusion of both phases the parking count will be 179
spaces and that requirement is driven by the size of the sanctuary. The church does
not want to add parking until they have to so the total required parking won't be in
place until the sanctuary is expanded. There will be a limbo time after phase 1.
Commissioner Sheridan asked when phase 2 will be built. What is the timeframe?
Mr. Gilliland stated that if they didn't have to have the parking, they would add the
sanctuary now. The problem is they can't afford the parking so it kills phase 2 until
such time as they can raise more money. Mr. Sheridan asked if it could be months
versus years? Mr. Gilliland responded that in an ideal world and fundraising kicks in,
it could easily be that they end up doing it concurrently in construction, but right now
they don't have the loan commitment that would allow them to do the expansion of
the building and build the parking lot because the parking lot costs more than the
sanctuary space.
Commissioner Reed asked how many parking spaces are there now. Mr. Gilliland
stated that there are 120 in the existing parking lot. Some changes to the parking lot
will happen with the construction which will take away a few spaces.
Commissioner Reed asked if the parking will be piecemealed. Mr. Gilliland stated
that the expansion of the school will have a minimal parking impact because the peak
usage is generally at the overlap of the two services on Sunday morning.
Commissioner Reed asked what happens if you need 125 and you only have 120. Mr.
Gilliland stated that he thinks there is a consensus that a large detriment to a church
is if the people can't park to go there. It would be counterproductive for them not to
have enough parking for their usage on Sunday morning. He stated that as it stands
right now, there is almost a month of tally where the usage has been monitored on
Sunday and the fullest they got during Christmas week still left 35 to 40 empty
parking spaces in their parking lot now. With the school construction the parking will
go from 120 to 105.
Commissioner Sheridan asked for an overview of the project. Mr. Harris pointed out
the church, the expansion area of the church, the school expansion and the gym.
Commissioner Sheridan asked if the parking requirement per square foot is being
driven by the gymnasium. Mr. Harris explained that it is driven by the number of
seats in the sanctuary. Commissioner Sheridan stated that they won't fill the
gymnasium at the same time that they fill the sanctuary. Mr. Gilliland responded that
they would not.
Mr. Harris stated that there is a much larger master plan for the property that
eventually increases the school all the up through the 12th grade.
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 of 8 Meeting Date: January 3, 2013
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes January 3, 2013
Commissioner Sadley asked if the school will ever drive the parking requirement
need. Mr. Harris responded, "No", but Ms. Huggins stated that eventually the school
may have to dictate parking needs. She reminded the Commission of the recent
requests by the high school to increase their parking because as they added the
senior age classes they found that almost every senior drove a car to school and as
a result they needed additional parking. Likewise, this church may find one day that
they will need to increase their parking if they have a school that services senior high
school students who drive their own cars to school.
Mr. Harris stated that they did a parking study going all the way through a six -phase
plan, one of those being a massive sanctuary addition, basically scraping the existing
sanctuary and building a much larger one and throughout the process the size of the
sanctuary drove the parking.
Vice Chairman Stephens: "That's because the primary use is considered a church,
not a school."
Mr. Harris stated that 179 parking spaces will carry the church past an entire addition
of an academy based on the current code of 1 to 10 students.
Commissioner Sheridan stated that this is one project that because of the parking is
being broken into two phases. He asked, "What is involved in the second phase?"
Mr. Harris stated that the first phase is the addition of the classrooms, offices and
gymnasium. The expansion of the sanctuary is phase 2. The paving for 179 parking
spaces will cost more than the cost of expanding the sanctuary. He stated that it
could be two years before they have the money to pay for the parking that will be
required when they expand the sanctuary.
Commissioner Sheridan asked if neighboring parking could be used with the approval
of the neighboring property owner. Mr. Gilliland stated that the parking at the Premier
Academy is probably closer than the parking that will be at the back of the parking lot
to be built.
Mr. Harris moved onto the steeple. He stated that the existing steeple is 85 -ft. and
the maximum height allowed by zoning is 40 -ft. They will be requesting a waiver for
the steeple height.
Mr. Harris then showed the north and west property lines which are adjacent to
residential and require, by code, an 8 -ft. masonry wall between the residential and
NS zoned church property. Mr. Harris explained that on the west boundary there are
seven residential properties with existing 6 -ft. wood fencing. Mr. Harris stated that at
least one property owner is adamant about not putting up a masonry wall. Mr. Harris
stated that the church building is 340 -ft. from the residential property line. The wall
would be 610 -ft. long and they can't build the masonry wall inside of the wood fencing
because Town regulations do not allow parallel fencing. They plan to request a
waiver for the wall requirement along the west property line.
Commissioner Sadley asked what landscaping exists along the fence on the church
property. Mr. Gilliland stated that it is grass. Mr. Sadley asked if bushes could be
substituted. Commissioner Sheridan asked how this legally works. An existing fence
is there and how does the church replace the existing fencing with a wall when it's a
shared property line. Ms. Huggins stated that Town regulations do not allow parallel
fencing which means that the wall cannot be placed within 20 -ft. of the existing wood
fencing. The requirement for a masonry wall along an existing fence line places a
burden on the church to negotiate with each of the property owners to try and replace
the existing wood fence along the back property line with a masonry wall, or place the
wall at least 20 -ft. away from the existing fencing, which would create a 20 -ft. `no
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3 of 8 Meeting Date: January 3, 2013
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes January 3, 2013
man's land". Staff could support a waiver request for this item in order to prevent
parallel fencing, however, she stated that staff may ask that Council grant this as a
waiver that can be revoked in the future if the church's plans change and other
scenarios come into play such as new buildings being constructed much closer to
residential than currently planned or the church's sells off a portion of the property to
the west. Commissioner Reed asked if the church could put in a certain amount of
shrubbery to shield the houses. Ms. Huggins responded that the problem with
planting shrubs along that property line is how to bring irrigation to that part of the
site. Mr. Gilliland stated that there is an expectation on the church's part that at a
later date either the fence or a fairly significant berm and/or enhanced landscaping
would come into play as part of a solution to the screening need between the church
property and the residential property.
Commissioner Sadley asked if the church were to deed to the Town a strip of land
along that fence property line which would give a nice contiguous walking path
around the lake would that be mutually advantageous to both? Mr. Harris stated that
the church might consider that a possibility.
Commissioner Sheridan stated that landscaping, in his opinion, will not work. He
mentioned several other properties around the Town as examples that did not work.
He stated that the homeowner issue with the masonry wall is a problem and a
temporary waiver will only kick the problem down the road and not resolve anything.
Vice Chairman Stephens asked if he could interrupt to say that "by kicking it down the
road" it will give the church the opportunity to grow to be able to afford to do whatever
the City requires. At this point they can't afford it and it will kill their expansion as I
understand church finance. Mr. Gilliland stated that since there is roughly 610 on
each side requiring an 8 -ft. masonry wall the walls will cost more than the whole
expansion will cost. Mr. Sheridan stated that he is addressing his comments only to
the houses. Mr. Gilliland said to take it a step farther, the expansion of the church is
more than a city block away from the fence line — 340 -ft. from the fence line to the
nearest point on the church building. Vice Chairman Stephens said that he thinks
one of the key factors to consider is the fact that as the church grows they will be
able to afford whatever the City will require but at this point it would stop them and he
thinks they add a dimension to the community that is needed.
Mr. Harris stated that there is also a 750 -ft. wall required on the north side to
separate the grassy area of the church property from the grassy area on the pond
property. There is an 8+ -ft. berm along that property line. Vice Chairman Stephens
stated that he drives Village Trail every day and in 12 years he hasn't ever seen a
great deal of activity along that property line.
Mr. Harris stated that the church will ask for permission to use EIFS (exterior
insulation and finish system) rather than stucco. Vice Chairman Stephens stated that
it looks like stucco when it is finished and it is seen today in a lot of commercial
construction. Mr. Harris stated that the two main advantages it has over stucco is the
flexibility so it doesn't crack as much with settlement and the fact that it is insulation.
It provides us an opportunity to get the continuous layer of insulation which is
required by the new energy code. Mr. Gilliland stated that the technology of EIFS
has come a long way. The product they will be using is not the bad rap in residential
construction where it created mold issues. He stated they will be using a drainable
system. He stated that the vast majority of the EIFS they are using is above roof so it
is not subject to abuse, traffic, poking and weed eaters. It will be up high. He stated
that the benefit of it from an insulation standpoint.... "well, plaster is a very rigid
cementious material that any movement at all creates cracks and you can control the
cracks by putting in control joints and stuff like that but ultimately it is not a very
flexible material and with most of it being roof structure supported, in other words, its
above the roof, the potential for flexing of the roof structure is higher than not and so
the idea was to use a light weight, highly insulated material that does not really have
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 4 of 8 Meeting Date: January 3, 2013
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes January 3, 2013
a lot of the negative problems that are conjured when lay people are typically
throwing out the idea of what EIFS is and the thing is in the ordinance it says that
EIFS is an allowed material with P&Z approval so for us to do EIFS on this project as
opposed to stucco, which is allowed, and visually would be identical, we've got to get
your approval so this one is all about we've got to get your approval to use EIFS
much like the three stories above grade at the hotel that just went on at Trophy Wood
Drive is using... and stuff like that... I mean it's not a material that is not being used in
Trophy Club and there is probably a lot more of it on the hotel than we are going to
be using in the all truthfulness."
Vice Chairman Stephens asked Mr. Harris to point out on the buildings where the
EIFS would be. Mr Harris did so.
Commissioner Sheridan stated that EIFS is a very viable building material with the
current codes. My question is does the Town have the proper expertise to be able to
inspect the construction of this. Ms. Huggins responded that the Building Official
does and he is the one who does all of the commercial construction inspections and
the church would be considered a commercial construction project.
Commissioner Lancor asked Mr. Harris and Mr. Gilliland to clarify (point out) what
type of materials would be used in certain areas of the building(s). They did so.
Commissioner Reed asked if they were doing this for economic reasons. Mr.
Gilliland stated that it is a better material. Mr. Reed responded, "Then why not use it
for the entire building?" Mr. Gilliland stated that they are looking for a combination of
materials and textures and a usage that will make the building more attractive. The
existing building is brick and they wanted to use brick in the new structure. As part of
Phase 2 they will introduce stone around the front of the building to combine the brick
and stone, but the EIFS will allow them an additional accent material that will create a
little bit a contrast in texture. He stated that if they don't receive approval to use
EIFS, they will substitute stucco which will look exactly the same for this use but it
would force them to do some things with the building that would be much more
difficult to do because with the new energy codes they are required to have
continuous insulation in all the exterior walls. At the EIFS portions, it is just applied
over that continuous insulation. Stucco, because it is so rigid and brittle, you can't do
that over a foam insulation and so then you are having to do other things to create
the insulation barrier that this is a more natural solution. If we don't get this allowance
to use EIFS, we wouldn't change anything about how the building looks, we would
just be changing materials and then we would have to come up with an actual inferior
solution for the insulation side.
Vice Chairman Stephens stated that EIFS allows an envelope that meets the energy
codes and it is going to look just like stucco but without the maintenance.
Commissioner Lancor stated that the gymnasium is such a huge scale structure and
putting it next to a smaller scale structure, from an architect's point of view, is really
tough to do and I think they've done a great job with setting the elements back at the
top and changing the materials and the banding and all the things they've done is just
enough to make it fit but it's still a big gym and they've done a great job of ... [can't
hear what is being said on recorder, • combination of someone rustling paper and Mr.
Lancor speaking very softly]... [something about scale and steeple].
Mr. Gilliland stated that one of the staff comments is that "the end of the gym that
faces Village Trail is about a 65 -ft. wide piece that, I think, and I'm probably being a
little presumptuous, but when we first submitted the elevations it looks like a fairly
blank wall, with different materials, but it is still a fairly blank wall, and what it didn't
show is just how much articulation there is in terms of depth and everything else in
that thing and their comment was that they would like to see some articulation of the
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 5 of 8 Meeting Date: January 3, 2013
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes January 3, 2013
gym wall that faces Village Trail and I think the terminology was to create faux
windows like they have at Tom Thumb or something like that and our response to
that is that the Tom Thumb fagade is 50 to 80 -ft. away from Trophy Club Drive as
opposed to us being 240 -ft. from Village Trail which is, in our opinion, not a relevant
comparison, but just one end of the Tom Thumb fagade facing Trophy Club Drive, the
one that's closest to Trophy Club Drive, is a single material, flat plane, before you got
to the faux windows and little shed roof and that kind of thing, just that piece of the
Tom Thumb wall is bigger than the entire end of the church gymnasium and the
gymnasium has three different materials plus glass and there are four different
planes of materials, some of them offset by as much as 10 -ft. Our response was that
while an elevation may look flat, in reality it is far from it and we feel that the
articulation we've already done, particularly given the fact that in the 100 some odd
feet of that wall that includes the school part of it there is so much in -and —out and
architecture, if you want to call it that, there is so much going on with that fagade that
we didn't think it was flat and we feel we've done enough.
Commissioner Sheridan stated that it looks good to him.
Vice Chairman Stephens: "Sounds like we are on your side. Thank you gentlemen."
Discussion Only - No action taken
3. 2012-635-T Discussion of permitted uses in zoning districts, Article III of Chapter
13 -Zoning of the Town of Trophy Club Code of Ordinances including
Article II - General Definitions, Article IV - District Regulations, Article V -
Supplementary District Regulations, Article VI -Conditional and Specific
Use Permits, and Article VII -Development and Design Standards, and
other sections of Chapter 13 -Zoning as relevant to the discussion of
permitted uses in zoning districts.
Attachments: Section 2.02 General Definitions.pdf
Article III - Est of Districts.pdf
Section 4.14 - NS District Regs.pdf
Section 5.10 Wireless Antennas & Facilities.pdf
Article VI - CUP and SUP.Pdf
Article VII - Dev & Design Standards.pdf
Vice Chairman Stephens asked the Commissioners to continue, from previous
meetings, the discussion of changes to the Use Tables, with the discussion expanded
to the Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner Sheridan: "This is not the entire Zoning document.
Ms. Huggins: "That's correct. Would you like to see the entire zoning ordinance? It
is about 200 pages. Chairman Hill and I discussed bringing pertinent sections to you,
but if we are going to look at the zoning ordinance in total then you do need to have
all of the pages."
Commissioner Sadley: "Is it on the website?"
Ms. Huggins: "Yes, but it is not up-to-date. It does not include ordinance changes for
the last two years."
Vice Chairman Stephens: `It seems to me that this is a lot of material to handle in a
standard P&Z meeting. Would we not be better served and the community better
served if we had a workshop setting?"
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 6 of 8 Meeting Date: January 3, 2013
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes January 3, 2013
Commissioner Lancor. 1 agree strongly, but also we had a small task here and it's
ballooned into reviewing the entire zoning code without an updated master plan. It
seems we are going overboard with this task. Let's stick with Neighborhood Services
and changing some permitted items to conditional use permits."
Commissioner Reed: 'How did it get expanded to this extent?"
Vice Chairman Stephens: "We opened the door."
Commissioner Sheridan: `1f I'm going to get 200 pages 1 need to have it before
Monday night so 1 have time to read it. We don't need to expand to that extent, but I
do have questions regarding commercial recreation."
Vice Chairman Stephens: "My gut feeling is that this work needs to be done but it
needs to be done appropriately, not haphazardly and I don't see us being able to do
that outside a workshop setting, because one question is going to provoke another
one, /promise you, and it's going to take more time than a two hour meeting in P&Z
to do that."
Commissioner Sheridan: `1n order for this document to be changed in anyway, it is
going to require a public hearing and a formal session of the P&Z and the approval of
the Town Council."
Ms. Huggins: "That's correct. It requires a public hearing and I must publish in the
newspaper 15 days before the date that P&Z considers action on it, so we do need to
plan ahead."
Commissioner Sheridan: '1 have concerns for the NS district and the CR district.
We have a piece of property that is currently country club/tennis courts but it is
possible for that property to come in as another use as permitted under the CR
straight zoning. I have the same objections that I had to NS permitted uses. If we
expand what we are looking at, I want more time to discuss it and read it. It's hard
enough to go through what we got tonight from getting it on Monday."
Commissioner Lancor. '7 wouldn't have any problem with the expansion but we need
more time."
Commissioner Sadley: "Carolyn, would it be possible to get an electronic version of
the zoning document?" Ms. Huggins responded, "Yes". She also stated that the
Vision Committee is trying to create a vision plan for 2030 and part of that is a master
plan. "The Comprehensive Land Use Plan was done in 1997 and hasn't been
updated because the Town is landlocked and the Town is almost built out. Rather
than a comprehensive land plan update, the Vision Committee is looking to create a
master plan for redevelopment of Trophy Club."
Commissioner Lancor: '1t would seem that we would want to wade into this task of
reviewing the land use ordinance after the 2030 committee completes their work. Do
they have a schedule?" Ms. Huggins: `I can check into that."
Vice Chairman Stephens: 'Are there items on this small package that we need to
make now?"
Commissioner Lancor: `I think the CR and NS changes should be done
immediately."
Commissioner Sheridan: `1s there any active conversation that is public knowledge
regarding changes to CR property in Trophy Club ?"
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 7 of 8 Meeting Date: January 3, 2013
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes January 3, 2013
ADJOURN
Ms. Huggins: `I don't believe so."
Commissioner Sheridan, Lancor and others then went over the suggested changes
to NS and CR.
At the conclusion of that discussion, Vice Chairman Stephens asked if everyone was
in agreement with these changes and that at a future meeting the P&Z Commission
will vote on these changes to send them to Council and then the Commission will
open the big package (i.e., the entire zoning ordinance).
Commissioner Sheridan stated that none of the things proposed are meant to
diminish the possibilities of opportunities to do stuff. It's the idea that it's to prevent
an automatic flow through the bureaucracy without supervision from the Town
elected and appointed officials.
Ms. Huggins suggested that the changes to NS and CR be brought back to P&Z on
January 17, when Chairman Hill would be back, and then on February 7 this item
would be on the agenda for action. It would then go to Council on February 25, 2013.
Referred to the Planning & Zoning Commission due back on 01/17/2013
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Carolyn Huggi ! Community D velopment Director
Planning and Zoning Commission Page 8 of 8 Meeting Date: January 3, 2013