Loading...
Agenda Packet P&Z 05/03/2012Planning & Zoning Commission Trophy Club Entities Meeting Agenda 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262 Svore Municipal Building Boardroom7:00 PMThursday, May 3, 2012 Call To Order and announce a quorum. 1.2012-195-T Review and approve minutes of the November 17, 2011, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. MeetingMinutes 111711.pdfAttachments: 2.2012-194-T Review and approve minutes of the February 16, 2012, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. MeetingMinutes 021612.pdfAttachments: REGULAR SESSION 3.2012-196-T Discussion and Recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Final Plat for Neighborhood 6, Phase 3B, 98 residential lots, 1 open space, 37.114 acres, located in The Highlands at Trophy Club. Applicant: Peloton Land Solutions on behalf of High Trophy Development, LLC (FP-11-045) Staff Report - PZ 050312.pdf Application.pdf 042412 Town Engineer - Final Review.pdf Attachments: 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. Notice is hereby given that a quorum of the Town Council may be in attendance at this meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 1 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 May 3, 2012Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda 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 April 27, 2012 by 5:00 P.M. in accordance with Chapter 551, Texas Government Code. Carolyn Huggins Community Development Director 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 ______________________, 2012. ________________________________, Title: ___________________________ Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:12012-195-T Name: Status:Type:Agenda Item Regular Session File created:In control:4/27/2012 Planning & Zoning Commission On agenda:Final action:5/3/2012 Title:Review and approve minutes of the November 17, 2011, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Attachments:MeetingMinutes 111711.pdf Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Review and approve minutes of the November 17, 2011, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission 7:00 PM Svore Municipal Building BoardroomThursday, November 17, 2011 Call To Order and announce a quorum. Vice Chairman Stephens called the meeting to order with a quorum (7 members) present. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Vice Chair James Stephens, Commissioner Mike Davidson, Commissioner Dennis Sheridan, Commissioner Dale Forest, Chairman Gene Hill, Commissioner Clayton Reed, and Commissioner Gary Richert Present:7 - STAFF PRESENT: Carolyn Huggins, Community Development Director Scott Kniffen, Police Chief Danny Thomas, Fire Chief Approximately 45 residents in attendance. Approval of Minutes 2011-576-T1.Review and approve minutes of the November 3, 2011, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Discussion Only - No action taken REGULAR SESSION 2011-569-T2.Discussion of a zoning change request for a 26.354 acre tract of land located at the northeast corner of State Highway 114 and Trophy Club Drive, from the current zoning of "PO" Professional Office and "CR" Commercial Recreation to a Planned Development "PD-30" mixed use of multi-family, retail, professional and recreational type uses. Applicant: Jackson Walker, L.L.P. on behalf of JSB Properties, L.P. Vice Chairman Stephens: We will move into regular session where we will continue our discussion that we began on November 3 of PD-30. This PD is located on State Hwy 114 and Trophy Club Drive. The applicants’ representatives are present tonight: Bill Dahlstrom, representative, and Mike Twitchell, Architect, who will be speaking later in meeting. Following our discussion tonight in P&Z we will have a public hearing and anyone Planning and Zoning Commission Page 4 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 November 17, 2011Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes who is present and wants to voice an opinion on this matter will be allowed the opportunity to speak, and if you do wish to speak you need to sign a form and give it to Ms. Huggins please. I would remind you that this public meeting -- this discussion and public hearing -- is not conducted like a Town Hall meeting. There will be no spontaneous questions or comments addressed from the audience to the commissioners or other speakers concerning their statements or positions on the issue. We’ll start tonight’s discussion with a staff report from Ms. Huggins. Ms. Huggins: On November 3, you [the Commissioners] wanted to know how the definitions in this document differ from what’s in the zoning ordinance. Of the 30 or so definitions in the PD document, there are about 9 that are also in the zoning ordinance. The rest are new definitions specific to this PD. I don’t want to go through those one by one tonight; I am going to send those to you so that you will have time to look at them in detail. I did not see anything in the nine definitions that change the definition from the zoning ordinance; it just simply enhances it, and makes it clearer in the PD document how it applies to the PD from the zoning ordinance. Also I wanted to mention that we do have the Fire Chief here tonight. Chief Thomas is here to answer any questions you have about the fire fighting capabilities of the town equipment, the current equipment we have, the equipment that might be needed in order to fight a high-rise fire, and also our fire fighting capabilities for a high-rise fire today. We do have adequate ability to do that, and Chief Thomas can answer any questions you have about that. Although it doesn’t actually apply to a rezoning request, I have the Police Chief here to answer any questions you might have about safety and security of a commercial project coming into the town. Also, another comment I wanted to make is that this is a Public Hearing tonight and by ordinance I am required to publish that in the newspaper, which it was published, and any property owner within 200 feet of the rezoning request received written notification of this public hearing this evening. There were 26 property owners notified of the request; there are two present this evening that I know of, and one sent an email earlier today and the printout was given to you this evening. Vice Chairman Stephens: We’ll hear now from the applicants’ rep. Bill Dalhstrom: Are we going to go into the Public Hearing? Ms. Huggins: No sir, we are not. We are not going to do that until after discussion. Mr. Dahlstrom: Okay, so we are here to answer any questions you have. We have a presentation planned for the Public Hearing Vice Chairman Stephens: Alright, then you’ll speak at the Public Hearing Mr. Dahlstrom: Thank you, sir. Vice Chairman Stephens: Alright, our next order then is to finish reviewing the document that we began on November 3; we are on page 45. The Chair entertains your discussion at this point. The Chair recognizes Commissioner Sheridan. Sheridan: On page 45, number (m) Supergraphic signs. I would be against that. I would prefer that be deleted. Utility Placement and Routing, this is basically underground utilities. The concept plan as we’ve been given it does not show any of the high lines in the front. I would request that be put on any concept plan. Then continue on down to the bottom of the page, PD Standards, which would be section III, A. 1. Line 3, that part that says “not otherwise in conflict with these planned development regulations.” That gives me some questions over the dominance of the town ordinance or this ordinance. Well, if this becomes an ordinance it’s a town Planning and Zoning Commission Page 5 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 November 17, 2011Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes ordinance, but the dominance over our normal routine ordinances where it conflicts. Those are my questions on this page. Davidson: Sections 1-5, I’m questioning if this is in line with how we currently do it or is this a substantial change to process and procedure that we have to date, and if it is, why does it need to change? Vice Chairman Stephens: It is a major change; in fact. it places the PD above the Town regs it seems to the chair. Sheridan: I agree. We already have a comprehensive zoning plan. It already designates what is a preliminary plat, what is a concept plan, what is a site plan, and the process there of for each one. I don’t see the need to change it. It is already covered by our town ordinances. Huggins: May I try to make it clear what the current procedures are for the town? The concept plan and the site plan have to come to P&Z and Council for approval. That’s the current regulation. In the Code of Ordinances Chapter 13 Zoning there is a very clear explanation of what is required for a planned development, and that includes the submittal of a concept plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town Council for approval prior to submitting a site plan, and then the site plan also goes to the Planning & Zoning Commission and Town Council for approval after it has gone through staff review. Staff review involves the following: • The location of all existing and planned non-single family structures on the subject property; • Landscape lighting, and or fencing, and or screening of common areas; • General locations of existing tree clusters providing average size and number and indication of species; • Location and detail of perimeter fencing; • Design of ingress and egress with description of special paver treatment, if proposed; • Off street parking and loading facilities, and calculations showing how the quantities where obtained for all non-single family purposes; • Height of all non-single family structures; • Proposed uses; • The location and types of all signs, including lighting types for parking lots and common areas; • Elevation drawings, noting proposed exterior finish materials for all non-single family structures; • Location and description of subdivision signage and landscaping at entrance areas; • Street names on proposed streets; • Proposed water, waste water collection and storm sewer lines; • Proposed grading and drainage patterns; • Engineering drawings of all improvements to be dedicated to the town or the MUD, if the property is not to be final platted or engineering drawings have not been previously submitted for the site, and if the property is to be final platted these must be provided at that time; • Such additional terms and conditions, including design standards as deemed necessary. That’s the current way that this is done. The concept plan is approved by P&Z and Council, the site plan is approved by P&Z and Council, after it goes through staff review of all of those items I just read. What this PD is proposing is that the same procedures take place; it’s just that the site plan then does not have to go to P&Z and Council for approval. Sheridan: Well, the next several pages are concerned with the concept plan, the site plan, the façade elevations, then minor modifications to the concept plan, preliminary Planning and Zoning Commission Page 6 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 November 17, 2011Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes plan, and site plan, and façade elevations. Is there any reason to have any of this in here that’s not already covered in our current ordinances? And I would recommend to the P&Z and to the Town Council that we take out Staff approval totally. Which I have previously said, so, once again, I’ll be glad to go through this line by line and make comments on every line, but if we already have a process for it that I think satisfies the requirements, I don’t see the reason to go through here line by line on these next several pages. Vice Chairman Stephens: Commissioner Sheridan, you have brought to memory another day and another study. Dr. Lyle Shaler said that if it is not necessary to change, it is not necessary to change. And you raised that question tonight: Is it necessary to change? Procedures we’ve been following have worked for 25 years; I don’t see why we should have to change them for one developer. Forrest: I agree with that. The only place I can see where we might have a little problem is the signage because I know some of our existing stores aren’t particularly happy with the signage. That’s another problem, the whole signage ordinance should be looked at and probably changed and then this developer should abide by that, what we agreed to on that. I don’t think there should be any difference between this developer and any other developer in our town. Davidson: Fundamentally, if it’s already in place, why should we make an exception in here when I don’t really see a fundamental difference between them other than we are relinquishing more control back to staff and clearly for property like this, as we have done in years past, you need to go through the process and have the right people look at it and make it approved by the folks here, council, that needs to continue. So I think probably A – D is an unnecessary adjustment to this ordinance and does not need to be in there. Vice Chair Stephens: It does seem to me that the commissioners are dissatisfied with that sheet of paper that is called a concept plan. There’s not much plan, and not much concept on it. It seem to me, I think it needs to be noted in the minutes that we are looking for a concept plan, we don’t consider what we’ve got in our hands an accurate concept plan. There are just too many questions going forward before we could relinquish all control. On page 46 v “there shall be no expiration date for an approved concept plan” Does that mean that if we approve that concept plan it would never expire, it would be forever. “There shall be no expiration date for the approved concept plan.” Let me poll the commissioners, would you approve the concept plan that is in your hands tonight? [Commissions respond “no”.] Let it be noted that it is 100% in agreement that the concept plan that we have in our hands is not adequate and will not be considered. Reed: Are we eliminating Roman Numeral III “Procedures” all the way through page 52? Davidson: It takes us through D on page 49 and then we can discuss section E going forward, whether or not that needs to be addressed. At least A – D, that is all part of the Procedure Case, as I see it. Sheridan: I’ll go along with that because I want to ask a question -- how do we normally handle façade elevations? Huggins: it’s usually part of the site plan approval. Sheridan: So once again this façade elevation is part of the site plan, so it doesn’t need to be in here. We’ve already got it covered. At least on page 49, especially that Planning and Zoning Commission Page 7 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 November 17, 2011Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes part where E 1, the third sentence, “not otherwise in conflict with these planned development regulations” -- I would object to that. And on line six where it says “approved by town staff” this whole façade elevation needs to be part of the site plan process, so be it. It’s redundant here. Reed: If we already have it covered under our present procedures then none of it needs to be in here. Sheridan: Then going down to F, I’m sliding through very fast, because I have a whole bunch of deletes here. This is the process for minor modification of the concept plan and once a concept plan is approved, once a site plan’s approved, once a façade is approved, then there are town’s that will allow their staff to make minor modifications to that. Those towns, for example, the City of Plano or the City of Allen, allows the Director of Planning to make minor modifications to concept plans. But those towns have a Director of Planning, they have planning staff, they have secretarial staff, they are highly educated in the planning process. We’re a small town. I would be objecting to allowing the staff to have the minor modification of the concept plan and preliminary site plan. Davidson: I’d like to visit that in slightly different concept. I agree, for the most part, but for minor modifications to the concept plan and to a preliminary site plan I would think that would be something that staff could handle. Minor modifications to the final site plan, not so much; that’s something that’s final, that’s gotta be run through us; you would hope that would have all have been take care of, and they would have had ample opportunity to make adjustments in previous discussions. So if you strike the regular site plan off of that then it would be more acceptable in my view. Sheridan: In some of my thinking of going over this, it gets into the definition of “minor.” I don’t think that the applicant needs to come to P&Z and come to city council if they want to have a restaurant there that has valet parking therefore they need to alter the parking arrangements. That’s a minor modification. I don’t mind that. Davidson: It’s within the permitted use, so it wouldn’t be denied anyway. Sheridan: It’s the language on how you say it. Richert: I’ve been listening and concur with the comments that have been made. I would also point out that in several cases in this area comments are made that the Planning & Zoning commission shall review and make a recommendation of approval to the town council, and that comes up several times, and it also says the town council takes certain actions. I strongly disagree that a developer should put in a planned development any reference to actions to be taken by the city or the P&Z. We have our rules and regulations and we’ll follow those rules and regulations, and that’s up to the citizens of the town not a developer. I just don’t think those comments should ever be made in this kind of document. The developer is directing how we will proceed. Davidson: Since we’re on the subject, item number two under F, the bottom of page 51. We want to change, if it were to still be allowed, “Multifamily” ….change something to a multifamily as a permitted use that that would be considered a minor modification? Huggins: Staff is going to ask that that be removed because that’s a zoning change. That would have to go before P&Z and Council. Reed: Is there anything in those pages that we really need? Planning and Zoning Commission Page 8 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 November 17, 2011Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Davidson: The only piece that would possibly be considered, as I see this, based on what Commissioner Sheridan and I talked about would be the ability to take, with Carolyn’s approval of course, certain preliminary pieces like the concept plan, and the preliminary site plan, and allow staff the ability to make minor modifications at that point because at that junction it’s not something that’s going to be implemented until P&Z and Council says so, and that gives them latitude to make those adjustments without having to run through all the bodies at once. It helps streamline the process. I can see that being helpful. Stephens: Carolyn, it would be helpful if you would refresh our memories. When we see Town Staff, Town Manager or his designate, that is unfortunate in my opinion, as I’ve discussed with you that language would seem to lead one to believe that one person is going to make some decisions regarding this massive undertaking, but that’s not the case is it? Huggins: No, sir, it’s not the case. I went to our town ordinances and it makes that reference, Town Manager or his designee, in quite a few different instances. For instance, Town Manager or his designee is responsible for creating an annual plan with the Tree Board. The Town Manager doesn’t create that plan – the designated staff creates that plan. That term is a standard term that is used in our Code of Ordinances, Town Manger or his designee, it is used for the Town Manager to designate who is responsible for certain duties throughout the entire Town and throughout all departments. In the case of site plans, as I’ve mentioned, almost every department is involved in the approval of site plans including the Utility District, as well as the Town Engineer, Police Department, Fire Department, Street Department, myself and the Municipal Utility District. Stephens: And often the Chairman of P&Z. Huggins: The Chairman of the P&Z is usually consulted before it goes on the P&Z agenda; it’s not so much during the review process of a site plan, but often the Chairman is consulted as we are getting ready to put it on the P&Z agenda. Stephens: Does that help gentlemen? We’re not dealing with one person making a decision in this document. That was never the intent. We’ve not done it in the past and we’re not going to start doing it in the future, I don’t think. Sheridan: Mr. Chairman as far as F goes, I’m still for deleting it from this document until we have more definitive concept to intelligently give the authority to change to someone else. In other words, there is not enough fact in here that I can say, here let’s let the staff or let someone else approve it and bypass the P&Z process. Davidson: Section F is specifically speaking to how they want to address minor modifications generally speaking. It’s not necessarily directed towards the site plan as it sits today or tomorrow, it’s just as a walk-through this process, it’s more of a procedure piece so that’s what category it’s under. So, whether or not the current concept plan is worthy of review isn’t really the issue. The issue here is whether or not we’re going to allow Town Staff to make minor modifications and to what level. And so I think we need to do a little bit more clean up on what they can actually approve within staff, and at what point in the planning stage they can approve it. I think that would satisfy, so this section F would need to be rewritten with that in mind is the way I look at it. Sheridan: I’ll go along with that, but if it was rewritten without a definitive concept plan, I’d have a hard time delineating the process or varying from our current process. Vice Chairman Stephens: I think gentlemen, that we’ve made the point that until we Planning and Zoning Commission Page 9 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 November 17, 2011Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes get a concept plan for this development, we’re stymied. Am I reading you correctly? Sheridan: Yes, but I still stand by everything else we went over line by line Stephens: Are we striking all of Roman Numeral III “Procedures”? Sheridan: That would be my recommendation. Hill: That seems to be the common opinion. Sheridan: I do have some comments on the concept site plan as presented. Because there is a freeway entrance right at this property and people trying to get out of this development and get onto the freeway utilizing that would be difficult because of the location of the creek. I would ask that on the concept plan that actually would be shown a little bit bolder than what it is. The other thing is B/A drive. I realize it would not have drive accesses. I would like it delineated on there that there is no access to Indian Creek or Highway 114. I’m going on the basis of there should not be a cut-through or shortcut between Indian Creek and through this property coming either to 114 or off of 114. Vice Chair Stephens: Could we hear from our Police Chief at this point? It appears as though there is one driveway in and one driveway out. Do you see any potential problems there? Chief Kniffen: Do you have any idea what the distance is between that entrance and Trophy Club Drive – 250-300 yards? I have to assume that the applicant would work with TXDOT to make sure it conforms with any regulations that they might have, including the turn lanes. On this preliminary drawing there is not a turn lane shown. I’d hope it would be included to approach that drive given the amount of traffic on 114. Of course that’s going to change once all the construction is done. I don’t see any significant problems with an entrance off 114. For a development of this size, it’s going to be expected that they have an entrance off 114. The access road is not Town property so we don’t have authority there, but I don’t see any significant problems with an entrance off there. Stephens: Does anybody have any idea how many automobiles are going to be in this development? We already have a traffic problem, in my opinion. My office is across the street from city hall, and I come in and out of there a lot. We need a turn lane now on that frontage road getting on to Trophy Lake Drive. I’m concerned about traffic and fire lanes in this place. We’ll hear from Mr. Thomas, our Fire Chief. Chief Thomas: We have street standards in our Code of Ordinances, and the street standards are built to accept fire apparatus so that would be maintained and watched by us. Stephens: Could you then address some of those issues that we have here for fighting fires to six stories, and rescuing people to six stories, fighting fires to twelve stories and rescuing people to twelve stories? Chief Thomas: In 2004 the town adopted ordinance 2428 that gave us the 2003 International Fire Codes which gives us the ability to install, maintain and govern the standards of fire protection. We have a High School that is 500,000 sq. ft. We have two trucks and four people. To put anything above four stories is not a question of ladders or the fire trucks – its manpower. We can handle and put in the sprinkler system to handle ten or fifteen stories. Our neighboring cities have the same issues. Westlake, Southlake, Grapevine -- the highest truck in our region is Grapevine and it goes up to 135 ft. We don’t rescue people from the outside over and above four stories. We go inside. We fight the fire and rescue people from the inside. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 10 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 November 17, 2011Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Stephens: Seems to me we have a conundrum. We are understaffed in the Fire Department for this development, and if this development comes through – and we want it to come through – we definitely improve this property in the commercial setting we’re all for that, but at the same time we want it to come out on the positive side for taxes flowing in to the treasury of our city, and I’m hearing the budget will be impacted severely at this point because you would have to employ more firemen, or get more volunteers – I’m not sure how that’s going to work, but I don’t think we want to encumber the city with debt obligations at this point. Which raises the question, Is the developer ready to subsidize the Fire Department? Sheridan: We want it developed. The owner would like to get it developed. The Fire Department and Police Department is going to have to be staffed up to handle the development, those are givens. The question is the timing. If the developer is kind enough and he wants to donate some money that’s fine too, I won’t object to that, but normally, Chief, wouldn’t the development have already occurred, theoretically taxes would have already be flowing in as you staff up or beef up, or somewhere in that timeframe. Chief Thomas: You’re exactly right as far a citizen out here in the tax structure that we have today, for us to put on six more people putting three per shift or whatever, that’s a pretty good chunk of change at about almost $100,000.00 per person, per year. That’s what our staffing level is all about; it’s all about getting this project in and getting the tax structure where we can beef up – not necessarily the Fire Department, but the Police Department and all the other city services that are going to bind in this project. Right now what we do is resource management. Between our department, Westlake and Roanoke we’re all staffed the same. We all have the same fire fighting issues and the emergency issues on a day-to-day basis. We count on each other very strongly. We have the ability to get resources fairly quick. We are open highway for the most part, so we can get help from Southlake with more manpower, Roanoke, or Westlake or whatever so that’s what we do today. Hopefully once we get some structure of taxation on the ground we can beef up our city services. Stephens: So you don’t see any problems meeting the challenge? Chief Thomas: There is a challenge. Do I wish that we could put ten people in the station today – sure I do, I would love to see that. If my ambulance goes out of town with two people, it leaves me two people in town to handle any other emergency. That puts me on edge. That’s what we do today – what we’ve done for a long time. We have managed our resources fairly well. It’s my goal to beef up the manpower in the next four or five years to make it where we have at least seven people in the station at a time. That puts four on the engine, four on the ladder truck, and I have a medical crew available at any time. That takes taxation in revenue and that’s where we’re at today. Stephens: Any other Commissioners have questions for our Police Chief or Fire Chief? Davidson: We have addressed the Fire side, how about the Police side as far as staffing? Chief Kniffen: There’s very little that you can build in a town that is not going to impact city services across the board. Police department is the one I have the most experience in. I’m sure that Danny would tell you, and Carolyn would tell you, and any other department head would tell you that if you build something much bigger than a sand box it’s going to impact our operations in some way. During the last four years we’ve build more homes and doubled the number of school children we have in town, but we’ve increased our paid, commissioned Police staff by only one person – Planning and Zoning Commission Page 11 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 November 17, 2011Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes so this is something we recognize. Any construction, whether it’s new homes, new streets, new parks, new commercial areas, all of those impact our operations, and we have to look at how that affects our services across the board. Davidson: So the real question here is we know there is going to be expansion that’s already occurring residential that’s going to impact Police and Fire, and so you would have a projection of how much you would have to increase just to handle that -- for a development such as this that’s being proposed in addition to what we were planning upon, do you have any idea what that might entail? Chief Kniffen: Without having a more detailed description of it I could tell you that this is going to impact us by this many officers, this many hours, this many crimes. This basic sketch we have here is just too basic. I can tell you what has happened over the last four years -- like I said we’ve doubled the number of school children we have, built a new high school, built scores of acres of new parks, hundreds of new homes, thousands – well almost 2000 additional school children -- and we’ve had one additional person added to the Police department. This is what we do. Just like the Fire Department and other departments we perform at a higher level than what we really should be able to. Huggins: Mr. Vice Chairman, if you want to take a short break and then go into Public Hearing we can have the presentation by the applicants’ representatives and then move into public hearing. Vice Chairman Stephens called for a break. Referred to the Planning & Zoning Commission due back on 12/15/2011 PUBLIC HEARING 2011-599-T3.Public Hearing regarding a request for a zoning change for a 26.354 acre tract of land located at the northeast corner of State Highway 114 and Trophy Club Drive, from the current zoning of "PO" Professional Office and "CR" Commercial Recreation to a Planned Development "PD-30" mixed use of multi-family, retail, professional and recreational type uses. Applicant: Jackson Walker, L.L.P. on behalf of JSB Properties, L.P. Vice Chairman Stephens opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward with his presentation. Bill Dahlstrom, Jackson Walker, L.L.P. stated that he appreciates the time everyone, from the community as well as the staff, have put into the application. He stated that they have a unique tract of land and an incredible opportunity to plan and do right. Mike Twichell is also present this evening, the architect for the project. Mr. Dahlstrom then explained their vision for the project, using examples from other projects they’ve been involved with in other cities. At the conclusion of his presentation, Mike Twichell came forward and explained and showed examples of their work in other cities, including Legacy in Plano. Ms. Huggins stated that if the Commissioners are interested in touring Legacy, staff will make the arrangements for a trip to that city. Sheridan: Architecturally the Legacy development is superb and award winning. But there is no major residential neighborhood immediately adjacent to it. Here, we have three sides residential to this property in Trophy Club. Legacy is surrounded by thousands of jobs. Big buildings. Big corporations. The atmosphere is different than here. Twichell: The Shops of Legacy can’t be in Trophy Club. Trophy Club must have its Planning and Zoning Commission Page 12 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 November 17, 2011Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes own vision of mixed use. The following residents spoke at public hearing: Russell Bradshaw, 10 Brook Hollow Lane. [within 200-ft. of rezoning request] Christina Cari Pearlman, 6 Hamper Ct. Lewis Goldstein, 68 Cypress Ct., Hogan’s Glen Danny Mayer, 2201 Prestwick Avenue Jody Ashby, 4 Mesa Verde Ct. Dave Edstrom, 269 Oak Hill Drive Caroline Avery-Dahl, 110 Summit Cove Mark Chapman, 197 Durango Dick Swetnam, 5 Palmetto Court Robert Hoch, 245 Oak Hill Drive Eric Smith, 243 Oak Hill Drive Chris Rosch, Oak Hill Drive Bill Matthai, 500 Indian Creek Drive Julie Folley, 2407 Lilyfield Drive Don Cook, Julie Folley, 2407 Lilyfield Drive John Cook, 261 Oak Hill Drive None others wished to speak. Vice Chairman Stephens continued the public hearing to the next P&Z meeting, December 15, 2011. Public Hearing Held to the Planning & Zoning Commission due back on 12/15/2011 Adjourn Meeting Adjourned at 9:15 p.m. _________________________________________ Gene Hill, Chairman _________________________________________ Carolyn Huggins, Community Development Director Planning and Zoning Commission Page 13 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:12012-194-T Name: Status:Type:Agenda Item Regular Session File created:In control:4/27/2012 Planning & Zoning Commission On agenda:Final action:5/3/2012 Title:Review and approve minutes of the February 16, 2012, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Attachments:MeetingMinutes 021612.pdf Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Review and approve minutes of the February 16, 2012, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 14 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission 7:00 PM Svore Municipal Building BoardroomThursday, February 16, 2012 Call To Order and announce a quorum. Chairman Hill called the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. and announced a quorum present (7 members). COMMISSION MEMBERS: Vice Chair James Stephens, Commissioner Mike Davidson, Commissioner Dennis Sheridan, Commissioner Dale Forest, Chairman Gene Hill, Commissioner Clayton Reed, and Commissioner Gary Richert Present:7 - STAFF PRESENT: Carolyn Huggins, Community Development Director Tom Rutledge, Town Engineer COUNCIL PRESENT: Bill Rose 2011-576-T1.Review and approve minutes of the November 3, 2011, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. A motion was made by Vice Chair Stephens, seconded by Commissioner Reed, that this Agenda Item be Approved . The motion carried by the following vote. Aye:Vice Chair Stephens, Commissioner Davidson, Commissioner Sheridan, Commissioner Forest, Chairman Hill, Commissioner Reed, and Commissioner Richert 7 - 2012-44-T2.Review and approve minutes of the January 19, 2012, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Davidson, seconded by Commissioner Richert, that this Agenda Item be Approved . The motion carried by the following vote. Aye:Vice Chair Stephens, Commissioner Davidson, Commissioner Sheridan, Commissioner Forest, Chairman Hill, Commissioner Reed, and Commissioner Richert 7 - REGULAR SESSION 2012-45-T3.Discussion and Recommendation regarding a request for Site Plan approval for Samuel Beck Elementary School, 401 Parkview Drive, Lot 3, Block 1, Northwest Independent School District East Campus Addition. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 15 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 February 16, 2012Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Chairman Hill asked for any staff comments. Ms. Huggins: This is not a public hearing. A site plan requires a public hearing if it is in association with an amendment to a planned development district or in association with a rezoning request. We are not doing either of those tonight. This is straight zoning, CR, Commercial Recreation zoning, not a PD and there is no rezoning or PD amendment. It is just a public meeting, not a public hearing. Chairman Hill: Mr. Thomas, I understand you have a presentation for us. Mickey Thomas: I am Mickey Thomas with M. J. Thomas Engineering, 3400 Hulen Street, Fort Worth. We’re here to present the additions and renovations to Beck Elementary School. We have a new building addition on the north end of the existing Beck Elementary. We have drainage improvements and new parking and fire lanes. We have created a new fire lane that will end in a hammerhead. We’ll also create a parent drop-off on the north side of the access. They’ll be able to come back around the facility and there will be a south drop-off with an independent 24-ft. fire lane in between those two so you’ll have a lane on the north, a lane on the south, and a 24-ft. fire lane so no traffic will be able to stop inside the fire lane. The existing building is 66,730 sq. ft. We are adding a new building with 12,715 sq. ft. bringing the gross building square footage to 79,445. Along with replacing some of the existing parking, we are adding nine (9) additional spaces in one location and about 14 in another location. The net increase on the site will be about twelve (12) parking stalls. We worked with the Parks Department and Town staff to come up with this configuration after going through several site plans and configurations associated with the site. This seems to be the one all parties agreed upon to move forward with. We are providing an extension of the bus lane around the fire lane as well with the parking lot. Because of stacking issues with parking we’ve gone back in and made modifications and provided additional stacking for busing, and stacking for parent drop-off. We’ve also provided a connection that will allow parents to pull up along the front of the facility and stack. So, we have more than ample stacking. There is an existing 8” water line that loops the facility that comes around and goes to the middle of the building addition. We are going to be capping and plugging that system and moving it out and around the parking lot and down the new fire lane. We’ll work with staff to accommodate that. There’s an existing fire hydrant, but because of the new pavement it will be relocated, which will be part of the easements that will be associated with the second part of this discussion. We are sprinkling the new building addition. The entire building is being sprinkled. We do have drainage issues and are working with the town on those issues. Part of the drainage from Roanoke runs along the street to the west of the school site. The lots behind the school drain along the back lot line and then come over and get into the school parking lot’s surface drain. We’re planning to accommodate that drainage with a new public storm sewer that will intercept further down the street. There are existing arch pipes that come out of the Medlin site on the south side of Medlin. Then there is park property. Then there is Beck Elementary. In order to facilitate the additional imperviousness on the site, we’ve designed a storm drainage system that will pick up some of the additional parking, some of the roof drainage on the facility, some of the new drainage we’ve installed, and the stuff that drains out of these lots. All of that will enter into the drainage system. We are replacing the existing storm sewer system and all will discharge into an existing box culvert. This will accommodate the improvements that we’re providing as well as additional capacity if the school district elects to comes back and do some additional development in the future. There is an existing trail system that runs on the back side of the facility that comes Planning and Zoning Commission Page 16 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 February 16, 2012Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes and goes in to the park and comes past our site, then T’s and then runs east/west. With the addition of this parking lot it will be going over a portion of that. We are going to reroute that trail system. In order to facilitate safety of kids we are trying to fence off these areas to try to contain children from getting into the parking lots. In coordination with staff and Parks Department we will not have gates in order to keep the trail open to the public. We’re providing a new playground as well as keeping the existing playground. We are providing an ADA ramp at the very north end to take up the change in grade in the elevation. That is about the extent of our improvements. On the landscape plans, there are red X’s. They indicate trees that are to be removed with this construction. Some that are away from the normal area of construction are being removed due to storm drainage and grading operations of this project. The other X’s indicate removal of trees due to substantial amounts of grading and drainage necessary around the side of the facility. Ones in green are new trees that are being replanted. We do meet and exceed the Town ordinance for landscaping. We’ll be happy to entertain any questions you may have. Commissioner Forest: About how many cars will be able to pile up in the loading, in the parent loop on the side of the new building? Mr. Thomas: We have around 1,200-ft of total stacking distance. You end up with sixty cars, roughly, that can be stacked in those areas, which exceeds the state standards. There will be substantially more stacking distance now with this configuration than what is in the existing state. And that was one of the concerns the staff had going into this site plan. They wanted to make sure we helped elevate some of the traffic congestion issues because they said that was a problem, and it was one of the objectives of the school district to get in here and try to help that out as well. Commissioner Sheridan: A couple of minor typographical errors like number twenty-six and remove number seven. Mr. Thomas: Yes sir, we’ll correct that. Vice Chair Stephens: I have no questions. Commissioner Reed: I don’t have anything. Commissioner Davidson: There is no need for an increase in ADA spaces? It seems like it is staying at eight. It seems like you’ve added regular parking spaces but no additional ADA spaces. Mr. Thomas: On the existing site there are more ADA spaces than required. Each parking lot is set aside for its own ADA requirement, and each parking lot meets those requirements. Davidson: Since construction is taking place during part of the school year, as well as while other activities are taking place through the summer, how do you plan on fencing that off so that we don’t have young ones getting involved? Mehran Aghili, Director of Construction, Northwest Independent School District (NISD), 1800 Highway 114, Justin, Texas: During construction, once we start building the parking lot we will fence off the construction site but have the required ingress and egress in case of emergency. We will use chain link fencing. We will have a job superintendent at the job site who will monitor the integrity of the fence during the construction. Most of the time the major problem we have is the fence doesn’t stand up, but we will maintain the fence during the construction. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 17 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 February 16, 2012Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Davidson: I’m assuming that proper erosion control will be maintained? Mr. Aghili: Yes Sir. Commissioner Richert: Where are the utility lines in relation to the playground in the park area? Mr. Thomas: We’re going to be corded off to where we are staying south of the park as close to the right-of-way line of the street as possible. Most of the majority of that construction will be through the grassy area that is directly adjacent to the right-of-way. The reason why we did that, just so you know, is there is an existing storm facility in the road. In order not to disturb traffic and to not have to tear out the entire road and rehabilitate the entire thing and increase the amount of disturbance that’s out there, we elected to put it to the side until we were forced to go into the street. There will be a parallel drainage system for a little while, then once it’s able to go ahead and combine, we tie it back in and take everything to the large box culverts that go underneath the water park. Richert: When would you hope to do that utility construction part of the plan? Mr. Thomas: The utility construction will be at the beginning of the construction. Chairman Hill: What is the planned duration of your construction? Mr. Aghili: We have an agreement with the town that we need to notify all the parents and neighbors who use the street of the upcoming construction. We anticipate that it will take four or five days for notification after it goes through the Town Council. After we have done that and cleared it through the Town, we are ready to start construction and probably we will be finished with everything in mid-July. The last part of the construction is inside the building. Anything related to public improvements, though, should be done in June. Chairman Hill: So from start to finish approximately five months? Commissioner Davidson: The construction of the bus loop will be done after the school year ends? Mr. Aghili: We plan to do that first so we can then use that parking lot to do construction work on the other side of the site. Mr. Thomas: In order to not take away the entire parking lot, the south parking lot will be expanded first and once those are done we’ll move to the northern parking lot. We are well over parked. By Town standards we are required to have 33 spots and we have 126. Vice Chairman Stephens: There isn’t a lot of site work that needs to be done on the south side of the site, is there? Mr. Thomas: No Sir. There were no other questions and the Chairman called for a motion. A motion was made by Commissioner Forest, seconded by Commissioner Reed, that this Agenda Item be Recommended for Approval to the Town Council , on 02/20/2012. The motion carried by the following vote. Aye:Vice Chair Stephens, Commissioner Davidson, Commissioner Sheridan, Commissioner Forest, Chairman Hill, Commissioner Reed, and Commissioner Richert 7 - Adjourn Meeting Adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 18 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 February 16, 2012Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes _________________________________________ Gene Hill, Chairman _________________________________________ Carolyn Huggins, Community Development Director Planning and Zoning Commission Page 19 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262Trophy Club Entities Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:12012-196-T Name: Status:Type:Agenda Item Regular Session File created:In control:4/27/2012 Planning & Zoning Commission On agenda:Final action:5/3/2012 Title:Discussion and Recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Final Plat for Neighborhood 6, Phase 3B, 98 residential lots, 1 open space, 37.114 acres, located in The Highlands at Trophy Club. Applicant: Peloton Land Solutions on behalf of High Trophy Development, LLC (FP-11-045) Attachments:Staff Report - PZ 050312.pdf Application.pdf 042412 Town Engineer - Final Review.pdf Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Title Discussion and Recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Final Plat for Neighborhood 6, Phase 3B, 98 residential lots, 1 open space, 37.114 acres, located in The Highlands at Trophy Club. Applicant: Peloton Land Solutions on behalf of High Trophy Development, LLC (FP-11-045) Planning and Zoning Commission Page 20 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 SUBJECT: Discussion and Recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Final Plat for Neighborhood 6, Phase 3B, 98 residential lots, 1 open space, 37.114 acres, located in The Highlands at Trophy Club. Applicant: Peloton Land Solutions on behalf of High Trophy Development, LLC LOCATION: This property is located on the west side of Trophy Club Drive, south of York Street. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 3, 2012 Case No. FP-11-045 Final Plat Lots 21-38, Block CC; Lots 1-22, Block EE; Lots 1-23, Block FF; Lots 1-16, Block GG; Lots 1-19, Block HH; and Open Space Lot 19X, Block HH The Highlands at Trophy Club Neighborhood 6, Phase 3B Planning and Zoning Commission Page 21 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 ZONING: Planned Development District No. 27. Thirty-one (31) residential lots are Type one (1) lots, and sixty-seven (67) residential lots are Type 2 lots. All appear to meet the minimum development standards for each Lot Type. Lot Type 1 Development Standards Minimum Lot Size: 12,000 square feet Front Yard: 25-ft. Rear Yard: 25-ft. Side Yard: 10-ft. Side Yard Adjacent to Street: 20-ft. Minimum Lot Depth: 120-ft. Minimum Lot Width: 90-ft. measured at Front Build Line Minimum Lot Width adjacent to street: 100-ft. measured at Front Build Line Minimum House Size: 2,000 sq. ft. Lot Type 2 Development Standards Minimum Lot Size: 10,000 sq. ft. (11,000 sq. ft. adjacent to golf course) Front Yard: 25-ft. Rear Yard: 25-ft. (non-golf course lot) 35-ft. (golf course) Side Yard 7.5-ft. (non golf course lot) 10-ft. (golf course) 15-ft. (adjacent to street) Minimum Lot Width: 80-ft. measured at the front building line 90-ft. adjacent to side street, measured at the front building line Minimum Lot Depth: 110-ft 100-ft corner or cul-de-sac lot. Minimum House Size: 2,000 sq. ft. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 22 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 FINAL PLAT: Neighborhood 6, Phase 3B HISTORY: This property is currently vacant. A preliminary plat was approved for The Highlands at Trophy Club Neighborhood 6 on December 18, 2006. The zoning of PD-27 was approved by the Town Council on May 8, 2006, Ordinance No. 2006-11 P&Z, and amended and replaced in its entirety on April 2, 2007, by Ordinance No. 2007-15 P&Z, and has had several amendments since that time. EASEMENTS: Three (3) easements, by separate instrument, will be filed with this plat. (1) At the corner of Mona Vale Road and Kent Street, the sidewalk will encroach onto Gas Well Site 7H, owned by Beck Properties Trophy Club, L.P. Mr. Beck has agreed to grant an easement (000.5 acres, 10.6-ft.) to allow the sidewalk to encroach onto his property. (2) At the east cul-de-sac end of Marrickville Drive, a sanitary sewer easement is necessary for connection to an existing manhole on Town owner property to the east of this neighborhood. The Municipal Utility District and the Town Manager have reviewed this request and have no objection to this easement. (3) At the same location (east cul-de-sac end of Marrickville Drive), the applicant is requesting a drainage easement to allow drainage from this phase of the subdivision to flow onto Town owned open space. Town Staff Planning and Zoning Commission Page 23 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 has reviewed this request and asked the applicant to find another solution for the drainage. The “flowage” area was deeded to the Town in 2008 as part of the open space for PD-27 and although structures cannot be built on it, the Parks Dept. hopes to be able to use it as some sort of parkland in the future. Drainage from this subdivision has the potential to keep the open space area damp-to-wet, which will negate future use of the land. Staff has asked the applicant to take the drainage underground to the edge of the Town property, which places it at the Corps of Engineers property – they will need Corps permission to do this – or, as stated above, to find another solution for the drainage. If the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the plat, staff asks that it be with the condition that the plat cannot be placed on a Council agenda until this drainage easement is resolved. PRELIMINARY PLAT: Planning and Zoning Commission Page 24 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 PRELIMINARY PLAT (CONTINUED): Planning and Zoning Commission Page 25 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION: This final plat document was reviewed in accordance with the approved subdivision regulations as well as the approved development standards as set forth in Planned Development District No. 27. The Town Engineer, Tom Rutledge, has reviewed and approved the infrastructure construction plans for this phase of subdivision Neighborhood 6. Staff recommends approval of the final plat for Neighborhood 6, Phase 3B with the stipulation that the plat cannot be placed on a Council agenda until the offsite drainage is resolved. Attachments: Application Memo - Final Review – Town Engineer Preliminary Plat (11x17 hardcopy) (3 sheets) Final Plat (24x36 hardcopy) (1 sheet) Planning and Zoning Commission Page 26 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012 P l a n n i n g a n d Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n P a g e 2 7 o f 2 8 M e e t i n g D a t e : M a y 3 , 2 0 1 2 1 TEAGUE NALL AND PERKINS Consulting Engineers 1100 MACON STREET FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102 817-336-5773 FAX 817-336-2813 PLAN REVIEW To: Town of Trophy Club From: Tom Rutledge Date: April 24, 2012 Re: The Highlands NH 6, Phase 3B – Construction Plan: 3rd Review The following comments represent a review by TNP on the construction plans prepared by Peloton, dated March/April 2012. Plan comments have been addressed except for the comment below. Please provide corrected signed/sealed plans prior to construction. The final plat is ready to proceed to P&Z and council. Final Plat (Sheet 2) 1. Coordination of the easement is continuing with the Town to resolve the issue concerning the corner clip at the northwest corner of the gas well pad. 2. Sidewalk Easement Document Review Comments: a. Label “Line for Directional Control/Basis of Bearings” – TBPLS Rule 663.19 (4). b. No “Preliminary, this document shall not be recorded for any purpose.” Statement, identify the land surveyor of record, the land surveyor’s registration number, and the release date – TBPLS Rule 663.18 (c). c. Describe referenced iron called for at end of Commencing call (e.g. southeast corner of ___ tract). d. Make the word BEGINNING bold in the POB call. Storm Drain Line SD-A & Lateral SD-A1 (Sheet 26) 1. Staff has looked at the outfall for this storm drain line. It is currently proposed to outfall just past the proposed cul-de-sac onto Town property and ditch out to drain. In anticipation that this property will be used by the public, it is preferred that the underground storm drain line be extended through the Town property to Marshall Branch further east to an acceptable outfall. It appears that the storm drain line could be lowered at Sta. 0+00 approx. 12” to 15” and still maintain 18” clearance over the sewer line; after crossing the 8” sewer line then construct a storm drain manhole and drop the RCB as necessary to maintain minimum cover. 2. This change will also require a change in the Drainage Easement. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 28 of 28 Meeting Date: May 3, 2012