Loading...
Agenda Packet P&Z 02/04/2010Planning & Zoning Commission Trophy Club Entities Meeting Agenda 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262 Svore Municipal Building Boardroom7:00 PMThursday, February 4, 2010 Call To Order and announce a quorum. Approval of Minutes 1.2010-58-T Review and approve minutes of the December 3, 2009, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. 120309.pdfAttachments: PUBLIC HEARING 2.2010-59-T Public Hearing to Consider an Amendment to PD-Planned Development District No. 15, Known as “The Lakes of Trophy Club”, Ordinance No. 96-07B, by amending Exhibit C, “DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, Item H. FENCES/WALLS to allow a maximum height of 8-ft. for side or rear yard fencing. Applicant: Homeowners Association for The Lakes of Trophy Club. (PD AMD-10-033) Staff Report - P&Z- 020410.pdf Application.pdf EXHIBIT C - redline.pdf Public Hearing Notice - Newspaper.pdf Property Owners Notified of Public Hearing.pdf Email - Resident - Opposed.pdf Attachments: REGULAR SESSION 3.2010-60-T Discussion and Recommendation regarding an Amendment to PD-Planned Development District No. 15, Known as “The Lakes of Trophy Club”, Ordinance No. 96-07B, by amending Exhibit C, “DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, Item H. FENCES/WALLS to allow a maximum height of 8-ft. for side or rear yard fencing. Applicant: Homeowners Association for The Lakes of Trophy Club. (PD AMD-10-033) Adjourn *THE BOARD MAY CONVENE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS POSTED ITEMS AS ALLOWED BY THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 551.071. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 1 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 February 4, 2010Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Notice is hereby given that a quorum of the Town Council may be in attendance at this meeting. CERTIFICATION I certify that the above notice was posted on the front window of the Svore Municipal Building, 100 Municipal Drive, Trophy Club, Texas, on January 29, 2010, by 5:00 P.M. in accordance with Chapter 551, Texas Government Code. Carolyn Huggins Planning & Zoning Department If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disability that requires special needs, please contact the Town Secretary’s Office at 682-831-4600, 48 hours in advance and reasonable accommodations will be made to assist you. I certify that the attached notice and agenda of items to be considered by this Board was removed by me from the front window of the Svore Municipal Building, 100 Municipal Drive, Trophy Club, Texas, on the __________ day of ______________________, 2010. ________________________________, Title: ___________________________ Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:12010-58-T Name: Status:Type:Agenda Item Regular Session File created:In control:1/29/2010 Planning & Zoning Commission On agenda:Final action:2/4/2010 Title:Review and approve minutes of the December 3, 2009, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Attachments:120309.pdf Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 12010-58-T Version:File #: Title Review and approve minutes of the December 3, 2009, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 4 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 2009 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trophy Club, Texas met on December 3, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 100 Municipal Drive, Trophy Club, and Texas 76262. COMMISSIONERS ATTENDANCE: Chairman Hill Present Vice Chairman Stephens Present Commissioner Reed Present Commissioner Sheridan Present Commissioner Forest Present Commissioner Ashby Present Commissioner Davidson Present STAFF AND GUESTS PRESENT: Carolyn Huggins Planning & Zoning Manager David Keener, Applicant Centurion Acquisitions, L.P. Jim Hicks President, EDC 4B Bill Rose Councilman CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. with a quorum present. 1 REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 19, 2009 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. Ms. Huggins noted that a correction to the minutes is needed. The heading for cases 2 and 3 were identical. The 3rd case should have noted “discussion” rather than “public hearing”. Those corrections have been made and Ms. Huggins asked that the motion for the minutes state “as corrected”. Commissioner Sheridan motioned to approve the minutes as corrected for the November 19, 2009, Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Reed. Ayes: Hill, Reed, Sheridan, Ashby Nays: None Abstain: Forest, Stephens, Davidson Action: 4-0-3, Approved Planning and Zoning Commission Page 5 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 2 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO PD-PLANNNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 27, KNOWN AS THE HIGHLANDS AT TROPHY CLUB, ORDINANCE NO. 2007-15 P&Z BY AMENDING EXHIBIT “B” – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, SECTION V, NEIGHBORHOOD REGULATIONS, SUBSECTION “J” VILLAGE CENTER, ITEM 1. PERMITTED USES. APPLICANT: CENTURION ACQUISITIONS, L.P. (PD AMD-09-030) Chairman Hill opened the public hearing. Jim Hicks, President, Economic Development Corporation (EDC 4B), and Trophy Club resident, stated that Trophy Club needs more economic development and commercial development for its citizenry and every additional $50,000 in sales tax revenue brings a one cent relief or reduction in personal property taxes to the Town. Given that, as EDC President, he supports this amendment to allow drive through restaurants. There were no others wishing to speak and the public hearing was closed. 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A REQUEST TO AMEND PD-PLANNNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 27, KNOWN AS THE HIGHLANDS AT TROPHY CLUB, ORDINANCE NO. 2007-15 P&Z BY AMENDING EXHIBIT “B” – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, SECTION V, NEIGHBORHOOD REGULATIONS, SUBSECTION “J” VILLAGE CENTER, ITEM 1. PERMITTED USES. APPLICANT: CENTURION ACQUISITIONS, L.P. (PD AMD-09-030) David Keener, Centurion Development, stated that they are trying to keep this application simple by asking for a restaurant with drive-in. They don’t believe that a full service restaurant is practical for this tract now that liquor sales are virtually impossible with schools and a church on three sides of the tracts. They hope that a drive through restaurant will be marketable on these sites. Ms. Huggins stated that an exhibit was given to each of the Commissioners this evening that is similar to the exhibit included in the packet, but the new exhibit includes the drainage easement along the east side of Tract 2. The easement is centered along the property line of the church property and Tract 2. This exhibit also lists the street frontage for each of the tracts. Tract 1 has 256-ft. of frontage along Bobcat Blvd. Tract 2 has 567-ft. of frontage along Bobcat Blvd. Tract 1 also has Parkview frontage of 586- ft. This frontage allows access to Tract 1 along either Bobcat or Parkview; however, there is a center median along Bobcat Blvd. in front of Tract 1. Staff would not wish to allow a cut in the center median. There is room along Parkview for a driveway where cars can enter and exit in either direction. For Tract 2 the access would be along Bobcat Blvd. and there are no center medians on Bobcat between Parkview and Trophy Club Drive. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 6 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 Ms. Huggins stated that the Town Engineer provided the information that a small fast food drive through, a small Sonic for instance, usually sits on 1 to 1-1/2 acres of land. Based on those calculations there is a possibility of putting at least one and possibly two drive through restaurants on Tract 1. On Tract 2, no building would be allowed over the drainage easement, but since it is a buried culvert, it could be paved and parking could be placed over the drainage culvert. Ms. Huggins stated that the church has indicated an interest in sharing parking with Tract 2. Ms. Huggins stated that as Mr. Hicks mentioned, Trophy Club is in need of sales tax revenue. Staff is working with the developer to encourage development of these tracts and if allowing drive through restaurants in Village Center would help stimulate economic growth in that area, staff would be in support of those efforts and therefore recommends approval. Chairman Hill stated that this request is for a change in the zoning allowances for these tracts. Any discussion concerning what might be done in the way of development or division of this can be discussed at platting or site plan approval. At this time, the Commission is looking at the uses and zoning. Vice Chairman Stephens stated that he doesn’t see a problem with developing drive through restaurants at either Tract 1 or Tract 2. He stated that he would like his taxes to go down. Commissioner Reed stated that he has no objection. He thinks it is a good idea with the schools nearby. Chairman Hill noted that Byron Nelson High School is a closed campus and the students are not allowed to leave the campus at lunchtime. However, before and after school traffic would impact nearby restaurants. Chairman Hill also stated that the high school has at least two franchise restaurants in the cafeteria. Ms. Huggins stated that earlier in the day she confirmed with the school district that there is a Subway and Pizza Hut in the cafeteria of Byron Nelson High School. Commissioner Ashby stated that he is fine with it – “let’s get the taxes rolling”. Commissioner Davidson asked for confirmation that it is only the drive through piece under consideration this evening. Chairman Hill confirmed that it is. Commissioner Davidson stated that he has no objection. Commissioner Forest is concerned about the access for Tract 1. He stated that the school traffic could create a tie-up. Commissioner Forest stated that he did not see a problem with Tract 2. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 7 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 Vice Chairman Stephens stated that before the new intersection was created he had complained to the Town Manager about parents stopping on Marshall Creek Road to pick up children. He agrees with Commissioner Forest that traffic could be a problem, but he believes it’s a problem that could be solved. He recommends that the Town Police keep traffic moving there rather than letting people park on the roadways and backing up traffic since other cars can’t go around or pass. Ms. Huggins stated that there is also a plan in the works to create another drop off at Medlin Middle School behind the school. Parents traveling east on Marshall Creek Road will be able to turn into the school without having to go as far as Bobcat Blvd. Commissioner Reed stated that most of the bus traffic doesn’t coincide with meal times anyway. Commissioner Sheridan stated the following: “I was at the commercial realtor breakfast this morning and spec building is not expected to occur, is not forecasted, for three to four years. So, any commercial is going to be build-to-suit. Build-to-suit is going to piecemeal the last vestiges of any commercial property we have and screw it up royally. Right now the church has taken 50% of our remaining property for any commercial use, sales tax or ad valorem personal taxes. Losing the hard corner of Trophy Club Drive and Bobcat really messes up any commercial uses. Tract 1 is obviously up against all the schools and Tract 2 is in the middle of the block. We didn’t have much to work with, but we have little to none to work with now. Because of that, before we make any changes in any manner to the PD, I think due diligence, closer scrutiny, on our part for the remaining tracts is absolutely necessary. The other thing is -- opening up the PD in any manner -- opens up all to be discussed or changed. Any change to this PD needs to be considered in the whole, meaning it needs to be coordinated in a concept -- traffic flow, landscaping, parking, the whole bit. We can’t leave the church out by itself. For example, Tract 1, 2.5 acres, you let a drive through go on there, he takes up an acre to an acre and a half and you’ve got an acre left, you’ve screwed it. You’ve literally messed it up. The other thing is traffic. Major traffic chains are not coming in there to this location for that type of use. The minor chains that try to tag along with the majors are not going to want it. The smaller chains will take it. We’ve already had one of those fail on Highway 114. We do have some experience. Up there at the 7-Eleven used to be a drive through restaurant. The drive through of any significance is going to want its own architectural marketing methods which would be totally inconsistent with anything we’ve put down today in signage or façade. Having said that, I’m against it. Voting against. If it should go forward, I am going to request this: (1) delete the following uses that are currently permitted in the PD: Community Facilities to include libraries; Municipal facilities to include Fire, Police, and EMS; Religious Institutions; Schools, Private or Public. Those are all non-sales tax or high revenue ad valorem tax issues. We’re down to 7-acres in this Town and that’s it. (2) Is the service level of a drive through restaurant the same as a retail and municipal use as far as a traffic study goes; and is the statement “would not cause detrimental impact to the traffic conditions” from Teague Nall Perkins or from staff?” Planning and Zoning Commission Page 8 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 Ms. Huggins stated that the traffic impact analysis was completed by Carter Burgess (now Jacobs Engineering). Commissioner Sheridan asked if Carter Burgess represents the Town or the developer. Ms. Huggins replied that at the time that the TIA was done they represented the developer. Commissioner Sheridan asked if the report states that a drive through restaurant would not be detrimental. Ms. Huggins replied that it does not specifically call out drive through restaurants. She stated that the traffic study for the Village Center area addresses retail and municipal traffic, and the TIA also looks at the Village Center facility as a second tier retail operation and, as stated by Commissioner Sheridan, most likely the major and minor chains will not be attracted to this area, but instead smaller chains will take it. The traffic impact study took into account lower tier retail operations for the Village Center area. Commissioner Sheridan stated that if this is approved, in addition to the two items requested above, his third request would be to change the following statement in the PD which addresses the Architectural and Site Design Standards. It currently states: “These design standards shall apply to all Permitted Uses except Day Care, Kindergarten, Schools (Private or Public), and Religious Institutions. These uses shall meet the Town of Trophy Club design requirements.” Commissioner Sheridan would remove “except Day Care, Kindergarten, Schools (Private or Public), and Religious Institutions. These uses shall meet the Town of Trophy Club design requirements.” With those statements removed, the design standards would apply to all permitted uses. Commissioner Sheridan stated that drive throughs were excluded from the original PD for a reason. He stated: “It was discussed at that time. The ‘third tier’ rings a bell as far as what would go there and it’s not really a compatible use to the area. Vacant land is better than poorly developed land as far as we’re concerned when we’re down to 7- acres. I’d also like to recommend that the City discuss with the developer swapping some land. Turn that corner of Parkview and Bobcat into commercial property and give up some parkland. I know that is heresy in this Town, but we ought to look at it. The best corner for a drive through if I were a landowner trying to sell a piece of property, I am going to sell that one to one and a half acres hard corner of Parkview and Bobcat to a drive through and [unintelligible] the rest of it. This is our last time to get a viable commercial development. We need to have a total preliminary concept plan in mind. We need to not allow any further subdivision of it.” Commissioner Ashby stated that the barbeque place in 7-Eleven never existed. They built a building with a drive through but the Town never allowed them to operate it. That’s why it sat there. They were never allowed to use the drive through. The Town never approved it. Ms. Huggins added that several businesses, the most recent being a Dunkin Donuts, had inquired about that building, but 7-Eleven was not willing to share their building with that business as 7-Eleven did not want a competitor taking away their coffee and donut business. There is interest in that building and drive through but the business owner most recently declined the interested party. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 9 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 Commissioner Sheridan stated that Highway 114 is different from Bobcat Blvd. He stated: “Village Center needs to be done in a cogent manner, totally. If any piecemeal is allowed – a day care center, one building to take out an acre, you screw the rest of it. That’s my opinion.” Chairman Hill stated the following: “I think this is a very inappropriate place to talk about putting a drive through restaurant for these reasons: (1) proximity to the schools; (2) the lack of traffic that this has that would be attractive to a drive in restaurant is that you essentially have ingress/egress to residential properties and school traffic to the high school, and middle school and elementary school down Parkview. I cannot see that it would attract any drive through business owner who did a survey of the potential market to put in substantial upscale restaurant as Dennis commented to. If we put the zoning in there, the property owner would have the opportunity to solicit potential people who would build the restaurants in there, but I can’t see that it would override the problems that would be developed in trying to draw customers to whatever business establishment… [unintelligible]”. Commissioner Reed asked if there is any specific customer in mind for these tracts. Mr. Keener responded that the developer has talked to several drive through type restaurants but no one specific that can be named at this time. Mr. Keener stated that this is a “B” commercial site and they are trying to find something that will go in there that will generate some sales tax versus a church or day care. This is not a 114 tract, it is a “B” or sub-arterial road. Vice Chairman Stephens stated, “Chairman Hill, I hadn’t thought of something Dennis pointed out but I like the concept, and that is maybe renegotiating with the City and with Centurion and involving the church piece of property. Also, that if we draw the south boundary of Tract 2 over to Parkview and then create a decent piece of property there and give up some of that angle business to the church or to the City park, or the City park take that bottom portion down there that abuts the recreation center, could there be some realignment there such that the acreage stays the same but it does create a more desirable tract for the City of Trophy Club.” Commissioner Sheridan stated, “You’re going with heresy if you are going up against the Parks and Rec Department in this Town.” Mr. Keener stated that, “many moons ago” the Parks Department proposed that we do that. We were for that. Ms. Huggins stated that the Town has already spent a substantial amount of money over the past year designing Northwest Park. She stated that she believed they would be reluctant to redesign the park as there is a design in place; in addition, the recent passing of the park bonds could be impacted by a redesign of this park. Ms. Huggins stated that the Town has also answered questions from the church’s architect in regard to commercial development of a portion of their acreage. The church Planning and Zoning Commission Page 10 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 bought 7-acres but has indicated that they are not interested in developing the entire 7- acres as a church. It’s possible they will sell the corner of Trophy Club Drive and Bobcat for commercial development, but the church hasn’t owned the property for very long and they aren’t sure at this point how they want to develop it. The church property is in the very preliminary stages of ownership. Mr. Keener stated that Ms. Huggins comments are consistent with the discussions he also has had with the church. Commissioner Sheridan stated, “For this acreage to function as an ‘added value’ to the Town, we need a master plan. Mr. Keener knows that I talk out of both sides of my mouth because I’ve been out on his side talking for this stuff. Thinking strictly for the Town now, we need a master plan. We need to somehow limit the subdivision of these remaining tracts if it doesn’t meet that master plan or preliminary concept so therefore we don’t find ourselves with a piecemeal effect. This is where our EDC can come in big time and assist the developer and landowner in getting what’s best for the Town and getting what’s good for the developer so it’s a win-win situation.” Vice Chairman Stephens stated: “I like the idea of a master plan so that we know where we are going. It would eliminate the potential to misuse the land and maximize the use of the land for the City.” Commissioner Reed stated: “A master plan would be nice, but we are looking at small tracts here. The current economic situation and the foreseeable doesn’t look too good for years and years to come, and every day somebody in Washington says something that makes that look even worse. You might come up with a master plan that looks great and it might be 15 years before you get any of it developed. The developer is not going to be able to come up with the type of businesses that you want there. You said that vacant land is better than poor development. How do you know that this is poor development? At least it will bring in some revenue to the Town as soon as they get it done – not 10 or 15 or 20 years from now.” Commissioner Sheridan stated that poor development can mean a variety of things and he stated that he is usually for the landowner doing what he wants with his land, but for the Town to allow a third-tier drive through restaurant to eat up that hard corner of Parkview and Bobcat would leave a remaining one acre extremely hard to get any viable entity in there. He stated that what he means by a master or preliminary concept would be very similar to what was given when Tom Thumb came in. They made changes to it and it’s not exactly what they presented the first time, but it was a basic outline of a commercial development as a whole. Commissioner Reed stated that the economy was in a lot different situation at that time. It was very foreseeable that they could find businesses to go in there. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 11 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 Commissioner Sheridan stated that hopefully he will still be here in 15 years and he wants this developed to the maximum benefit, not a short-term, “let’s get somebody in here tomorrow”. Commissioner Reed responded that he doesn’t agree. Commissioner Ashby stated that he is fine with the request to allow the drive throughs. He has concerns with the feasibility of Tract 1 along with the wedge on the back of Tract 2. With the property being sold to the church already, there isn’t a whole lot that can be done. He feels voting on this positively won’t hurt or change anything that could possibly go on there with the addition of the drive throughs and maybe some of the suggestions that Dennis made could be done to make sure that other kinds of unwanted entities don’t occur. Perhaps drive throughs should be removed from Tract 1 and only allow them on Tract 2. Commissioner Davidson stated that the only thing on the agenda tonight is drive throughs. He agrees that this is broken up into pieces that are questionable, but with Tract 1, chances are the person who owns it will sell it all as one shot. To break it up means they are going to be hung to dry with one piece of land that they can’t do anything with so they are going to…. Commissioner Sheridan stated: “...same philosophy that Clayton just said. You come to me, you’re paying my price, you want an acre and a half, you got it. Don’t count on the developer holding out to sell the tract together.” Commissioner Davidson: “Not necessarily counting on it, but I would think that in this particular instance, since it is such a small tract of land, that to part that out means they are left holding the bag for that last piece forever because it is not usable at that point. That’s my theory. You take an acre and a half out of that and you are left with one acre and you’re not going to be able to put anything on that of commercial viability. It would not be in their best interest to do that. We can protect ourselves to a point. I don’t know that we can do it to the extent that we absolutely mandate what the exact use has to be, which is where we are starting to tread here ever so delicately. Yes, it would be nice to have this planned out. That would be a wonderful thing. We are a little late to the party unfortunately and we blew our chance on that one in the last meeting back in, I believe, it was May, to make that happen. That’s my opinion of that piece. So, if we can work with the church and get a piece of land, that’s great. I would hope the developer would look at the smaller tract of land and develop it accordingly and not try to parcel it out to where you end up with a dead space that somebody is going to pay the property taxes on eventually.” Commissioner Reed: “As he pointed out, the only thing we are voting on here is whether it is going to have a restaurant with a drive in or just a plain restaurant. I don’t see the point in all the rest of this conversation.” Planning and Zoning Commission Page 12 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 Chairman Hill announced that Councilman Rose [in attendance in the audience] asked to make a comment. Councilman Rose stated: “Good evening. Let me start by saying I appreciate the work you gentlemen do. Just one comment: I wanted to clarify very briefly and make sure that perhaps I unlock part of the puzzle. The comment that the Parks and Recs, as a result of the bond issue, are pretty well locked up on this design phase. For the Parks and Recs part, I wouldn’t make that too hard a fact. I do know that Parks and Recs have planned one development for that area. Based on initial design sizes that they had, when they got the second study back in, what they’d originally proposed would no longer work. So because of this odd shape of property that they are looking at, I would opine that Parks and Recs might be interested to see if there might be a rearrangement of the property to allow a more optimum siting of the baseball fields in particular.” Commissioner Reed asked to make one more comment. “The way things stand right now we can put a restaurant in. I don’t see why it makes a difference whether it’s a restaurant without a drive in or a restaurant with a drive in…” [Commissioner Reed continued to speak but it’s unintelligible as Commissioner Sheridan also began to speak.] Commissioner Sheridan: “…which is a very minor point and Chairman Hill made some very appropriate comments, but let me just say that if we do nothing tonight, if the developer says “I withdraw” and it goes away, he can build under the normal circumstances. As we go, he can piecemeal it. He can do all the things that I am afraid may or could happen. Anytime any applicant requests a change to the PD, that opens the entire PD up for discussion and change. It doesn’t have to. We’re only talking about one item here, but if we have any leverage, if we have any method of bettering it, the minute he says, “I want to change a word in…”, it opens that up for us to obtain something better than what we’ve got. That’s where I’m at.” Mr. Keener stated: “We won’t sell any more property to a church. We now have some time where we can do something else with the rest of this tract, but it’s hard to get excited about a master plan for this small tract. If the Town wants to do that we can work with the Town on that. We’re open to looking at the parkland. Really, what we are trying to do is market Tract 1 as two drive through restaurant sites. We do plan on splitting it up into two marketable tracts. As far as the traffic, I don’t think traffic is a problem here because this is a secondary commercial. Traffic study was done not specifically for a drive through but as a whole tract of retail. With half of it a church, obviously if the roads could handle 14-acres of retail, they can now handle seven of whatever.” Commissioner Sheridan: “Let’s not get too tied up with my use of the words master plan. Preliminary plans. Preliminary concept. A preliminary concept on a commercial basis in other towns (Allen, for instance), preliminary concept ties in drive cuts. You said you are going to sell Tract 1 to two entities. And, by the way, in May I was for drive throughs. But by doing it at two different times you’ve got one that wants to build this Planning and Zoning Commission Page 13 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 year and one that wants to build next year, you’ve divided up the property where it’s so small at two and a half acres for that type of use, it has to be thought of as one piece as far as drive cuts and traffic patterns. Had we done this we wouldn’t have had as much problem with the Taco Bueno coming in back then. I may not be using the right term – master plan – but the idea is that it has to be treated as one and if you want to have two building pads or whatever that’s fine and that’s not unusual in the commercial avenue of development or you’re going to find yourself with a snow cone, which would probably be great for sales tax.” Reed, Sheridan and Keener went back and forth with additional comments. Vice Chairman Stephens interrupted Mr. Keener: “Chairman Hill, we’ve discussed this back and forth about four times and I am going to try to expedite this if I can.” Commissioner Sheridan stated: “Make a motion.” Vice Chairman Stephens: “I move that we strike the words on page 12 “without drive- ins” from Item “r” and, with a note to the City Council, because they are the ones who are going to make the decision, in light of what one of the speakers said, that Parks and Rec has not locked in concrete their plan and the City Council may be able to negotiate with Centurion some rearrangement of that corner there that would be more marketable for Centurion and the City.” Commissioner Reed seconded the motion. Chairman Hill called for a vote. Commissioner Forest asked for a repeat of the motion. Chairman Hill repeated the motion and called again for the vote. Ayes: Hill, Reed, Ashby, Davidson, Forest, Stephens Nays: Sheridan Action: 6-1, Approved Vice Chairman Stephens asked that his comment be communicated to the City Council that they look into renegotiating that portion of land that is in the park now at the corner of Parkview and Bobcat and also the corner of Bobcat and Trophy Club with the church. Chairman Hill asked when this case will go to Council. Ms. Huggins stated that it will go to Council on January 4, 2010. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 14 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:12010-59-T Name: Status:Type:Agenda Item Regular Session File created:In control:1/29/2010 Planning & Zoning Commission On agenda:Final action:2/4/2010 Title:Public Hearing to Consider an Amendment to PD-Planned Development District No. 15, Known as “The Lakes of Trophy Club”, Ordinance No. 96-07B, by amending Exhibit C, “DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, Item H. FENCES/WALLS to allow a maximum height of 8-ft. for side or rear yard fencing. Applicant: Homeowners Association for The Lakes of Trophy Club. (PD AMD-10-033) Attachments:Staff Report - P&Z- 020410.pdf Application.pdf EXHIBIT C - redline.pdf Public Hearing Notice - Newspaper.pdf Property Owners Notified of Public Hearing.pdf Email - Resident - Opposed.pdf Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 15 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 12010-59-T Version:File #: Title Public Hearing to Consider an Amendment to PD-Planned Development District No. 15, Known as “The Lakes of Trophy Club”, Ordinance No. 96-07B, by amending Exhibit C, “DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, Item H. FENCES/WALLS to allow a maximum height of 8-ft. for side or rear yard fencing. Applicant: Homeowners Association for The Lakes of Trophy Club. (PD AMD-10-033) Planning and Zoning Commission Page 16 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 4, 2010 SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Consider an Amendment to PD-Planned Development District No. 15, Known as “The Lakes of Trophy Club”, Ordinance No. 96-07B, by amending Exhibit C, “DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, Item H. FENCES/WALLS to allow a maximum height of 8-ft. for side or rear yard fencing. Applicant: Homeowners Association for The Lakes of Trophy Club. (PD AMD-10-033) APPLICANT/OWNER: The Lakes of Trophy Club Homeowners Association P.O. Box 191185 Dallas, TX 75219 STAFF COMMENTS: The Homeowners Association for The Lakes of Trophy Club is requesting an amendment to Exhibit C “Development Standards” of Planned Development No. 15 (PD-15). The Lakes subdivision consists of five “villages”: Meadow Ridge, Meadow Lakes, Lakeview, Creekside, and Park View. See attached 11x17 exhibit of the locations of the neighborhoods in this subdivision. The fence height requirements in the PD-15 development standards allow a maximum height of 6-feet for side and rear yard fences. The Homeowners Association is requesting to change the maximum height of side and rear yard fences from the current 6-feet maximum to a height of 8-ft. maximum. This change allows the HOA requirements to match the Town fencing regulations which allow 8-ft. maximum side and rear fencing in straight zoning: Town regulations: Front, Side & Rear Yards: Eight feet (8’) is the maximum height allowed for front, side and rear yard fences, except as otherwise provided in Section C - Location, (4)(a) and (5)(a), of this Ordinance. Section C – Location; (4) Golf Course Lots: (a) All fences on lots facing or abutting a golf course shall be constructed of ornamental metal and shall be a minimum of four feet (4’) and a maximum of six feet (6’) in height. (5) Public Park Lots: (a) All fences on lots facing or abutting a public park or other land designated for public recreational purposes shall be constructed of ornamental metal and shall be a minimum of four feet (4’) and a maximum of six feet (6’) in height. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 17 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 This request applies to side and rear yard fences ONLY – and is only a request to amend the HEIGHT allowance. Other development standards such as fence material requirements – cedar, ornamental iron, masonry -- will remain the same. Requirements for perimeter fencing will remain the same. Fencing separating lots in the Park View Village and Roanoke have always been allowed to be 8-feet in height. Exhibit C “Development Standards” is attached in its entirety, with the requested changes highlighted on pages 6 and 7 of Exhibit C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: PD-15 fence regulations are more restrictive than the Town regulations which have resulted in confusion and dissatisfaction for some residents in The Lakes, who have indicated to staff that they would like to have 8-ft. privacy fencing for their yards. The Building Inspections Department approached The Lakes HOA with a suggestion to revise the PD regulations to match the Town regulations for side and rear yard fencing and after consideration the HOA submitted the required application and fees to bring forward this request. Staff recommends approval. PUBLIC HEARING: As required by ordinance, a notice of public hearing was published in the local newspaper and all property owners (339) within The Lakes of Trophy Club were notified of this request. Of the 339 property owners who were notified of this request, four notices were returned to the Town by the Post Office. Two were returned due to “Forward Time Expired”. Two were returned as undeliverable. Staff received one email in opposition to this request. That homeowner is located at 3 Parkway Ct. in the Park View village of The Lakes. A copy of that email is attached. (ch) Attachments: 1) Application 2) Redline – Exhibit C “Development Standards” for The Lakes at Trophy Club 3) Public Hearing Notice - Newspaper 4) List of 339 Property Owners in The Lakes who received notification 5) Email – Resident - Opposed 6) 11x17 Hardcopy of the Five (5) Villages of The Lakes Planning and Zoning Commission Page 18 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 19 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 96-07B Page 1 of 9 EXHIBIT C DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THE LAKES AT TROPHY CLUB, TEXAS The development of the land described in Exhibit A consisting of approximately 144.945 acres of land shall be in accordance with the PD Site Plan of the development (Exhibit B), all other Exhibits attached to or to be made a part of this Ordinance, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance No. 94-09), all other applicable ordinances and regulations of the Town of Trophy Club, and the following Development Standards, conditions and requirements: A. GENERAL PURPOSE: The purpose of this Planned Development is to allow single family detached dwellings grouped into five residential villages, each village having different product lines and lifestyles that along with allowed incidental and accessory uses, blend into a cohesive and compatible neighborhood for the Town of Trophy Club. The Lakes of Trophy Club is a master-planned residential neighborhood which blends the existing site amenities with a unique site design to create a lasting and quality lifestyle environment. The existing lakes, topography and site lines are integrated into a unified residential development which focuses around central amenity areas. The purpose for these Development Standards is to establish a unified framework for development which provides the following: A. Consistent Identity. All design elements are planned and coordinated to provide a visually consistent and superior project. Quality Living Environment. The continuous maintenance of the common areas and enforcement of the guidelines will provide a safe, healthy, and visually unique neighborhood. B. USES GENERALLY: In this Planned Development District no land shall be used and no building or structure shall be installed, erected for, or converted to any use other than as hereinafter provided. 1. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted as principle uses: (a) Single Family Detached Dwellings. (b) Private or Public Roadways constructed to Town standards. (c) Private Common Areas owned by an authorized Homeowner’s Association. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 20 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 96-07B Page 2 of 9 (d) Public or Private Utilities. (e) Public parks. 2. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses shall be permitted in accordance with the regulations provided in Section 35 of Ordinance No. 94-09, as amended. 3. Conditional Uses: Conditional uses shall be permitted in accordance with the regulations provided in Section 42 of Ordinance No. 94-09, as amended. 4. Limitation of Uses: a. All applicable ordinances of the Town of Trophy Club shall govern any uses allowed unless otherwise expressed herein. b. Any use not expressly permitted, or allowed by permit, or as provided for herein, is prohibited. C. BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS: No application for a building permit for the construction of any building shall be approved unless a plat meeting all requirements of the Town of Trophy Club has been approved by the Town Council and recorded in the official records of the County in which the property is located. D. HEIGHT REGULATIONS: Except as provided by Section 36 of Ordinance No. 94-09, as amended, no building or structure shall exceed thirty-five feet (35’) nor shall it exceed two (2) stories in height. E. AREA REGULATIONS: The following minimum standards for each village shall be measured from property lines: 1. Village 1 – Meadow Lakes (a) Lot Size: Lots for any permitted single family use shall have a minimum area of five thousand eight hundred fifty (5,850) square feet. (b) Minimum Open Space: All areas not devoted to buildings or paving shall be devoted to turf or landscaping. (c) Maximum Building Coverage: The combined area covered by all principal and accessory buildings or structures shall not exceed sixty (60%) percent of the total lot area. Swimming pools and spas are not included in determining maximum building coverage. (d) Minimum Floor Area: The minimum square footage of a dwelling unit, exclusive of garages, breezeways and porches, shall be in accordance with the following: Planning and Zoning Commission Page 21 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 96-07B Page 3 of 9 (i) One Story Residence: 1,800 sq. ft. (ii) Two Story Residence: 2,500 sq. ft. With Ground Floor: 1,600 sq. ft. (e) Depth of Front Yard: 10 feet minimum. (f) Depth of Rear Yard: 10 feet minimum. (g) Width of Side Yard: 1 foot minimum on one side, 9 feet minimum on the opposite with a 10 feet minimum between structures. (h) Width of Side Yard Adjacent to Side Street: 15 feet minimum. (i) Width of Lot: 65 feet minimum (measured at the front building line). (j) Width of Corner Lot: 75 feet minimum (measured at the front building line). (k) Depth of Lot: 90 feet minimum. (l) Garages: Garage doors shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet from the front property line. All garages may face the street. 2. Village 2 – Meadow Ridge Except as set forth below, lots in Village 2 – Meadow Ridge shall comply with the area regulations of the R-12 Single Family District Regulations of Ordinance No. 94-09, as amended. (a) Lot Size: Lots for any permitted single family use shall have a minimum area of 12,000 square feet. (b) Width of Side Yard: A minimum of 10% of the lot width, provided that the distance between buildings and structures on contiguous lots remains a minimum of 17 feet. The width of the side yard on one side may be reduced to not less than five (5) feet. (c) Width of Side Yard Adjacent to Side Street: 15 feet minimum. (d) Width of Lot: 85 feet minimum (measured at front building line). (e) Width of Corner Lot: 95 feet minimum (measured at front building line). (f) Depth of Lot: 130 feet minimum. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 22 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 96-07B Page 4 of 9 (g) Garages: Only one bay of a three car garage may face the front street if the face of said garage is located a minimum of forty-five (45) feet from the front building line. All two car garages will face to the side or rear of the Lot. 3. Village 3 – Creekside Except as set forth below, lots in Village 3 – Creekside shall comply with the area regulations of the R-10 Single Family District Regulations of Ordinance No. 94-09, as amended. (a) Lot Size: 10,000 square foot minimum. (b) Width of Side Yard: A minimum of 10% of the lot width, provided that the distance between buildings and structures on contiguous lots remains a minimum of 16 feet. The width of the side yard on one side may be reduced to no less than 5 feet. (c) Width of Side Yard Adjacent to Side Street: 15 feet minimum. (d) Width of Lot: 80 feet minimum (measured at front building line). (e) Width of Corner Lots: 90 feet minimum (measured at front building line). (f) Depth of Lot: 125 feet minimum. 4. Village 4 and 5 – Park View and Lakeview (a) Lot Size: Lots for any permitted single family use shall have a minimum area of nine thousand (9,000) square feet. (b) Minimum Open Space: All areas not devoted to buildings or paving shall be devoted to turf or landscaping. (c) Maximum Building Coverage: The combined area covered by all principal and accessory buildings or structures shall not exceed forty (40%) percent of the total lot area. Swimming pools and spas are not included in determining maximum building coverage. (d) Minimum Floor Area: The minimum square footage of a dwelling unit, exclusive of garages, breezeways and porches, shall be in accordance with the following: Planning and Zoning Commission Page 23 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 96-07B Page 5 of 9 (i) One Story Residence: 1,800 sq. ft. (ii) Two Story Residence: 1,800 sq. ft. With Ground Floor: 1,200 sq. ft. (iii) Residence on Corner Lot: 2,000 sq. ft. (e) Depth of Front Yard: 25 feet minimum. (f) Depth of Rear Yard: 20 feet minimum. (g) Width of Side Yard: A minimum of 10% of the width of the lot, provided that the distance between buildings and structures on contiguous lots remains a minimum of 14 feet. The width of the side yard on one side may be reduced to not less than 5 feet. (h) Width of Side Yard Adjacent to Side Street: 15 feet minimum. (i) Width of Lot: 75 feet minimum (measured at front building line). (j) Width of Corner Lot: 80 feet minimum (measured at front building line). (k) Depth of Lot: 120 feet minimum. (l) Garages: No lots in the Park View and Lakeview Villages shall be allowed to have a garage facing a street. F. GARAGES. 1. All garage doors facing a street shall be recessed a minimum of eighteen (18) inches from the face of the structure. 2. There shall be a minimum of two (2) garages constructed with each principal structure. G. CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS. 1. The exterior surface of all residential dwellings shall be constructed of glass, drivet (or like applications approved by the Town of Trophy Club), stone, brick or other materials. The exterior wall area of each residence located within the Lakes shall have not less than eighty percent (80%) masonry coverage. Thirty (30) year warranty, composition roofing is the minimum standard of quality roofing material to be used in the lakes. 2. No above ground-level swimming pools shall be installed on any Lot. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 24 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 96-07B Page 6 of 9 3. All exterior construction of the primary residential structure, garage, porches, and any other appurtenances or appendages of every kind and character on any Lot and all interior construction (including, but not limited to, all electrical outlets in place and functional, all plumbing fixtures installed and operational, all cabinet work, all interior walls, ceilings, and doors shall be covered by paint, wallpaper, paneling. Or the like, and all floors covered by wood, carpet, tile or other similar floor covering) shall be completed not later than one (1) year following the commencement of construction. For the purposes hereof, the term “commencement of construction” shall be deemed to mean the date on which the foundation forms are set. 4. No projections of any type shall be placed or permitted to remain above the roof of any residential building with the exception of one or more chimneys and one or more vent stacks. All chimney stacks will be enclosed one hundred percent (100%) with brick or masonry of a type and color that is compatible with the principal finish materials of the exterior walls of the main structure. H. FENCES/WALLS. 1. Side or Rear Yard Fencing. Side or rear yard fencing placed in the Lakes can be a maximum of eight (8) feet high and constructed of cedar, ornamental iron, or masonry extending from the main structure to the rear of the Lot. No fence on any Lot shall extend nearer the street than ten (10) feet behind the front of the residence thereon. Notwithstanding the above, any portion of a fence constructed along the rear of a Lot, adjoining a water amenity in Village 1 – Meadow Lakes, as indicated in Exhibit H (Landscape Concept Plan), shall be four (4) feet in height and constructed of ornamental iron only. 2. Perimeter Fence. The Perimeter Fences defined in (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) below and shown on Exhibit H shall be installed as each phase is platted and developed as indicated on the development schedule in Exhibit I. (a) Trophy Club Drive. All fencing along Trophy Club Drive with the exception of the area fronting the lake shall be six (6) feet in height and shall be of masonry construction. The fencing along the lake shall be six (6) feet in height and shall be constructed of ornamental iron with masonry columns a minimum of every thirty (30) feet and at the corners. (b) Screening fence between Village 4 – Park View and Roanoke. All fencing separating the Lots in the Park View Village and Roanoke shall be eight (8) feet in height and constructed of cedar with masonry columns every 20 feet. (c) Fencing around Village 2 – Meadow Ridge. All side and rear yard fencing in the Meadow Ridge Village can be a maximum of eight (8) feet, with the exception of the screening wall along Trophy Club Drive, which Deleted: F Deleted: l Deleted: will Deleted: six (6) Deleted: surrounding Planning and Zoning Commission Page 25 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 96-07B Page 7 of 9 shall be six (6) feet in height and shall be constructed of cedar with masonry columns at the lot corners. (d) Fencing around Village 1 – Meadow Lakes. All side and rear yard fencing in the Meadow Lakes Village can be a maximum of eight (8) feet, with the exception of the screening wall along Trophy Club Drive, which shall be six (6) feet in height and shall be constructed of cedar with masonry columns at the lot corners. The section of fencing across the street from Trophy Lake (Lot A) shall be masonry construction with ornamental iron sections providing view corridors to the lake system. (e) Electronic Access Gates. Electronic access gates shall be double entried (ingress and egress). Construction shall be metal with a maximum height of nine feet (9’). Access for home owners will be by card access; visitors by electronic call box; exiting by pressure sensitive strips in the pavement or electronic sensors. Emergency personnel and law enforcement personnel will be by access card or in case of access failure, emergency pull box. Electronic guard gates will only be located on private streets. (f) Fencing Detail (Examples). Attached as Exhibit F is a detailed drawing showing typical elevations of entryway treatments, masonry wall and ornamental fence sections. Although this Exhibit is only a representation of the quality and general look of the screening walls and entryway treatments, all fencing within the Lakes will be of equal or higher quality. Each Village will have its own unique, professionally designed entryway treatment that will establish the identity and set the tone for that specific community. Detailed drawings of all fencing and entryway treatments will be submitted for approval with the final plat. I. COMMON AREAS: 1. All common areas and landscaped areas, as identified on Exhibit H shall be constructed and landscaped by the Developer. 2. Common Area and landscaping improvements shall be constructed in accordance with landscape plans that will be submitted to the town of trophy Club for their approval at the time of final plat. 3. Common Areas shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. 4. The hiking trails shall be constructed of crushed granite or other similar material. 5. The Homeowners Association of the Lakes of Trophy Club shall maintain all trails, landscaping, entryway features, irrigation, lighting, screening, and perimeter Deleted: around Planning and Zoning Commission Page 26 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 96-07B Page 8 of 9 fencing in all areas except the area designated as the Town Park and the median of Trophy Club Drive. J. LANDSCAPING: Landscaping of each Lot shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for that Lot. Minimum requirements for the front yard of each Lot shall include grass or other ground cover and at least three (3) trees a minimum size of three inch (3”) caliper. K. UTILITIES: All utilities shall be underground. Electric and cable television lines shall be installed in the rear yard of every Lot where feasible. Any electric or cable television utility boxes located in the front of a lot shall be screened with landscaping. Only gas, water, sewer and storm sewer utilities will be permitted in the front right-of-way of any Lot. L. TRASH RECEPTACLES AND COLLECTION: Each Lot Owner shall make or cause to be made appropriate arrangements with the Town of Trophy Club, Texas, for collection and removal of garbage and trash on a regular basis. Each and every Owner shall observe and comply with any and all regulations or requirements promulgated by the Town of Trophy Club, Texas, in connection with the storage and removal of trash and garbage. All Lots shall at all times be kept in a healthful, sanitary and attractive condition. No Lot shall be used or maintained as a dumping ground for garbage, trash, junk or other waste matter. All trash, garbage, or waste matter shall be kept in adequate containers approved by the Town of Trophy Club, Texas, and which shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. An Owner may place trash on the street curb abutting his Lot only on those days designated by the Town of Trophy Club, Texas, as trash collection days. No Lot shall be used for open storage of any materials whatsoever, except that new building materials used in the construction of improvements erected on any Lot may be placed upon such Lot at the time construction is commenced and may be maintained thereon for a reasonable time, so long as the construction progresses without unreasonable delay, until completion of the improvements, after which the materials shall either be removed from the Lot or stored in a suitable enclosure on the Lot. M. TEMPORARY STRUCTURES AND VEHICLES: No temporary structure of any kind shall be erected or placed upon any Lot. No trailer, mobile, modular or prefabricated home, tent, shack, barn or any other structure or building, other than the residence to be built thereon, shall be placed on any Lot, either temporarily or permanently, and no residence, house, garage or other structure appurtenant thereto shall be moved upon any Lot from another location. Developer may erect, place and maintain a temporary sales office or construction office in and upon the Property in compliance with the regulations of the Town of Trophy Club. Any truck, bus, boat, boat trailer, trailer, mobile home, campmobile, camper or any vehicle other than conventional automobile shall, if brought within the Properties, be stored, placed, or parked within the garage of the appropriate Owner. N. SIGNS: Holiday or patriotic flags may be displayed by Developer and Owners. Notwithstanding anything herein contained to the contrary, any and all signs, if allowed, shall comply with Sign ordinance of the Town of Trophy Club, Texas. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 27 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE NO. 96-07B Page 9 of 9 O. SIGNAGE, PAVERS, AND ENTRY TREATMENT: Each Village shall have one (1) or more specially designed entryway treatments located as shown on Exhibit F. Each entryway treatment will include permanent monument signage, walls and fences constructed of masonry, ornamental iron, and may include wood accents and treatment with irrigation, landscaping and ornamental external lighting. The specific design of each entry shall be submitted at the time of platting. Each Village will have a section of brick pavers in the roadway at each designated entrance as shown on Exhibit H. P. PRIVATE STREETS: The Lakes of Trophy Club may have the following gated villages: 1. Village 2 – Meadow Ridge: The Meadow Ridge Village as shown on Exhibit E, shall have a gated entry and private streets. All the streets and electronic access gates will be maintained solely by the Lakes of Trophy Club Homeowners Association. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 28 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 Town of Trophy Club Department of Planning & Zoning 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262 TO: Alliance Regional Newspapers / Classifieds Dept. DATE: January 14, 2010 FROM: Carolyn Huggins PAGES: 1 RUN DATE: 1 Time: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 SUBJECT: Public Hearing NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, February 4, 2010 TOWN COUNCIL Monday, February 15, 2010 A Public Hearing will be held by the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Trophy Club in the Boardroom of the Municipal Utility District Building, 100 Municipal Drive, at 7:00 p.m., Thursday, February 4, 2010, to consider: Amending Ordinance No. 96-07B, PD Planned Development District No. 15, The Lakes of Trophy Club, to amend Exhibit C, “Development Standards” pertaining to fence height, and other miscellaneous changes to PD-15 as related to this request as deemed necessary. The Town Council will hear the above item on February 15, 2010 in the Boardroom of the Municipal Utility District Building, 100 Municipal Drive, at 7:00 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 29 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 30 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 31 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 32 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 33 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 34 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 35 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 36 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 37 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 38 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 39 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 40 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 41 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 From: Mark Stuebe [mjstuebe@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 8:07 AM To: Carolyn Huggins Cc: sbstuebe@sbcglobal.net Subject: Fence Height Ammendment My wife Susan and I do not support the ammendment to change the fence height from the current 6 feet maximum to a new height of 8 feet maximum. We feel strongly that the maximum fence height should remain at 6 feet. Mark & Susan Stuebe 3 Parkway Ct Trophy Club, TX 762626 Home Phone 817-491-1652 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 42 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:12010-60-T Name: Status:Type:Agenda Item Regular Session File created:In control:1/29/2010 Planning & Zoning Commission On agenda:Final action:2/4/2010 Title:Discussion and Recommendation regarding an Amendment to PD-Planned Development District No. 15, Known as “The Lakes of Trophy Club”, Ordinance No. 96-07B, by amending Exhibit C, “DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, Item H. FENCES/WALLS to allow a maximum height of 8-ft. for side or rear yard fencing. Applicant: Homeowners Association for The Lakes of Trophy Club. (PD AMD- 10-033) Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 43 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010 12010-60-T Version:File #: Title Discussion and Recommendation regarding an Amendment to PD-Planned Development District No. 15, Known as “The Lakes of Trophy Club”, Ordinance No. 96-07B, by amending Exhibit C, “DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, Item H. FENCES/WALLS to allow a maximum height of 8-ft. for side or rear yard fencing. Applicant: Homeowners Association for The Lakes of Trophy Club. (PD AMD-10-033) Planning and Zoning Commission Page 44 of 44 Meeting Date: February 4, 2010