Loading...
Minutes P&Z 08/19/2010,.. Trophy Club Entities Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission 100 Municipal Drive Trophy Club, Texas 76262 Thursday, August 19, 2010 7:00 PM Svore Municipal Building Boardroom Call To Order and announce a quorum. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. with a quorum present. COMMISSION MEMBERS: Present: 6 - Vice Chair James Stephens, Commissioner Mike Davidson, Commissioner Dennis Sheridan, Commissioner Dale Forest, Chairman Gene Hill, and Commissioner Clayton Reed STAFF PRESENT: Carolyn Huggins, Community Development Director Approval of Minutes 1. 2010410-T Review and approve minutes of the July 15, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Vice Chair Stephens, that this Agenda Item be Approved. The motion CARRIED by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Vice Chair Stephens, Commissioner Davidson, Commissioner Sheridan, Commissioner Forest, Chairman Hill, and Commissioner Reed REGULAR SESSION Planning and Zoning Commission Page 1 of 9 Meeting Date: August 19, 2010 Planning 8 Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 19, 2010 2010-038-T Discussion and Recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Final Plat for Neighborhood 8, Phase 1 (20.175 acres) located in The Highlands at Trophy Club at the northeast corner of Trophy Club Drive and Trophy Park Drive, Applicant: Jacobs on behalf of Lerner Homes of Texas. (FP -10-032) Chairman Hill announced the case and asked Ms. Huggins fora staffreport. Ms. Huggins stated that this request is for final plat approval of NH 8, Phase 1 of The Highlands at Trophy Club. There are 74 residential lots in Phase 1 of Neighborhood 8; all are Lot Type 5lots in Planned Development No. 27 (PD -27). The plat has been reviewed for compliance with the Town's subdivision ordinance and with the approved preliminary plat, and with the development standards of PD -27 and the plat appears to meet the regulations; therefore staff recommends approval. Chairman Hill asked for comments from the applicant. ✓aison Stephen, Jacobs Engineering, representing Steve Howard with Lennar Homes, stated that they are available to answer any questions and they ask for approval of this plat. There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners and the Chairman called for a vote. A motion was made by Vice Chair Stephens, seconded by Commissioner Reed, that this Agenda Item be Recommended for Approval to the Town Council, on 9113/2010. The motion CARRIED by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Vice Chair Stephens, Commissioner Davidson, Commissioner Sheridan, Commissioner Forest, Chairman Hill, and Commissioner Reed Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 of 9 Meeting Dale: August 19, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 19, 2010 2010439-T Discussion and Recommendation regarding a request for approval of a Final Plat for Waters Edge at Hogan's Glen, Phase 2A (13.616 acres) located in Planned Development No. 22 (PD -22). Applicant: Jacobs on behalf of BDMR Development, LLC (FP -09-029) Chairman Hill announced the case and asked Ms. Huggins for a staff report. Ms. Huggins stated that this is a request for final plat approval of Waters Edge at Hogan's Glen, Phase 2A. There are 27 residential lots in this phase. The plat has been reviewed for compliance with the Town's subdivision ordinance and with the approved preliminary plat, and with the development standards of Planned Development No. 22 (PD -22) and the plat appears to meet the regulations. The construction plans, however, do not have final approval as a retaining wall design is still under review and the retaining wall is an important component of the road to be built in this phase. Staff recommends approval of the plat with a stipulation that the retaining wall design must be submitted and approved prior to commencement of construction. Jaison Stephen, Jacobs Engineering, came forward and stated that he and Lance Proctor, Lenart Development Co., are present representing BDMR Development. He stated that they have submitted preliminary plans for the retaining wall. The final design of the retaining wall will be submitted once they have cleared the streets and done geotechnical testing. It is a heavily wooded area and they need a grading permit in order to do the geotechnical testing in order to submit the well design. Ms. Huggins staled that the Town Engineer and staff are reviewing the preliminary plans of the retaining wall and if those plans are approved an early grading permit will be released so that BDMR can submit a final design of the retaining wall. Vice Chairman Stephens stated that he doesn't see a problem with granting this application tonight. The applicant can't design the wall until he gets in there and does some grading. Otherwise, his design might prove to be faulty. Commissioner Reed had no comments Commissioner Davidson asked if there is a specific issue with this part of Trophy Club in terms of building a wall that is different from the other walls in surrounding areas. Mr. Stephen with Jacobs responded that most retaining wall designs like this require a geotechnical and since this is close to the creek they want to go in and get a geotechnical recommendation, Their preliminary design probably works, but before finalizing the design they need a geotech's recommendation on the wall for the footing design. Commissioner Davidson asked if it is a footing issue or an aesthetics issue. Mr. Stephen responded that it is a structural issue, Commissioner Sheridan asked for a more defined vicinity map showing Hogan's Drive connecting to Indian Creek. Mr. Sheridan asked for clearer labeling of the floodplain although he acknowledges that the proposed floodplain is outside the specific area of the plat perimeter. He also stated that private streets must be built to the same standards as public streets. A resident, Mark Carr, 8 Katie Lane, asked to speak and Chairman Hill granted permission. Mr. Carr stated that he owns Lot 8, Block 1 [of Waters Edge at Hogan's Glen, Phase 1, which is outside the boundaries of this plat]. Mr. Can stated that the lot is the last lot on the left of Hogan's Drive before the road is extended by this proposed plat. Mr. Carr stated that an original preliminary design of this area by John Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3 of 9 Meeting Date'. August 19, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 19, 2010 Harbin some years ago was that there was going to be a bridge with ponds and the bridge would straddle the flood and creek area. The bridge didn't narrow the channel and the bridge was more aesthetically pleasing. [Staffresearched the submitted design of PD -22 and does not find a design as described by Mr. Carr. Mr. Harbin passed away in 2001.] Mr. Carr staled that this current design doesn't have a bridge and they are building a road that narrows the channel by approximately one-half. Mr. Carr stated that by narrowing the channel they are increasing the water velocity through that area. He stated that whenever there is a big rain storm that water will be going through there much faster, hence, they have put in a design which includes rip rap because without the rip rap everything would creep much faster. He stated that they have foreseen the added velocity of the water and added rip rep. Mr. Cam stated that it widens the 100 -year floodplain in that area. Mr. Carr stated that right now, as it is, the 100 -year floodplain is approximately 8 -feet off the back corner of his lot. He stated that with "their design if I understand this correctly', the flood zone area is widened to where it comes up and touches my lot for about one-third of the length of the lot. By narrowing the channel they are increasing the closeness of the lots to the water and they are also widening that floodplain there. "That doesn't allow any room for error. If they had it designed to where it came right up to the edge of my lot and we had a little bit more rain than the standard 100 -year floodplain there could be more water coming up onto my lot or backing up farther upstream. As it is right now, every time we get a pretty good size rain it backs up across that golf course, itjust covers that golf course anywhere from 50 to 100 -ft. wide through there and its going to get worse with this design. There will be more water up on the golf course." Mr. Can stated that "as we all know" waterways have build up and whenever the silt starts building up in that area it is just going to narrow that channel more and widen that floodplain even more. "If I remember right from those plans, the retaining wall is approximately 16-fthigh at its highest point and so it is built up and a road will be on top of it and over time that isn't going to be a very sound structure because it will all be fill with road on top of it and we all know what happens over time when you have fill that isn't compacted very well." Mr. Carr stated the following regarding the "geotechnical analysis on his lot": "There's actually a bore hole that was done right on my lot and that geotechnical analysis says that I have to have piers on any home that I have built on that lot. We're just talking maybe a hundred feet from where that bore hole was done to where they are talking about starting to do that mad.. If the geotechnical analysis is not going to defer that much in that distance so they are going to have some really plastic soil to work with — a very high plasticity index, therefore, any structure up there, building retainer wall and any fill in there, they are still going to have problems with all that soil underneath there — that plastic soil there." Mr. Carr stated that the retaining wall has a wrought iron rail on top of it and with a 16 -ft. drop that is a safety hazard. "A kid could fall over the edge onto the rip rap 16 -ft. below. The rest of Hogan's Glen don have large retaining walls like that. They have severe) bridges and smaller retainer walls in some areas and as you can see already from the construction that is out there the bridges hold up much better than some of the retaining walls that have been built out there. 1 think a bridge would look better and solve a lot of problems where you wouldn't be narrowing that channel and also be a much stranger structure than a retaining wall." Jaison Stephen, Jacobs Engineering, stated that they are not aware of any bridge type structure planned for this PD. The original exhibit that goes with the PD -22 (Development Plan, May 2000) shows the general configuration that Jacobs has submitted for this plat As far as the flood study, Mr. Stephen stated that they did a Flood study that has been approved by the Town of Trophy Club and has been submitted to FEMA. In September 2008 the flood study was approved by FEMA— the CLOMR (Conditional Letter of Map Revision) was approved by FEMA. Mr. Stephen stated that they are not increasing any velocities upstream or downstream of this plat. The water surface elevations are not rising. Mr. Stephen stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission Page 4 of 9 Meeting Date', August 19, 2010 Planning 8 Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 19, 2010 wall is approximately 9 -ft. high at the highest level in the vicinity of this plat. It ranges from 4 -ft. to 9 -ft. There is a handrail on top of the wall for safety. Tom Rutledge, Town Engineer, staled that the approved PD shows the configuration of the roadway which was apart of this overall concept. The applicant is honoring the overall concept. Mr. Rutledge stated that he believes PD -22 is consistent with John Harbin's development plans. (John Harbin was VP of Development for Beck Properties, Inc., the developer of Waters Edge at Hogan's Glen, Phase 1. Mr. Harbin passed away in January 2001.] Mr. Rutledge stated: "With respect to the Floodplain, which are considered waters of the U.S., the Town is the floodplain administrator, and any time an applicant goes in to reclaim floodplain, they are required to do extensive drainage studies and get approval by FEMA. Jacobs did do that. By law, they cannot increase the water surface elevation on an adjacent property owner. They cannot move floodplain onto anybody's property. The improvements that will lake place with the reclamation of the floodplain require the applicant to construct the retaining wall because as the roatl moves closer to the creek the grades are such that the wall is needed for the slope down to the creek. The reason that the retaining wall design has not yet been approved is because a retaining wall like this is a structural wall with a concrete footing. It is not a geo grid (polyester woven fabric used to reinforce the soil) stacked wall as seen between homeowners. A lot of times you'll see dry stacked walls that have gad grid behind it. This wall actually has a pour -in-place concrete footing that sits below the elevation of the creek and the design that has been submitted is a design based upon the soil characteristics, as understood, in the area. But, the applicant has been informed that they must get a geotech report to tell exactly what the soil characteristics are; that means soil bearing pressures; that means to understand what kind of sails are out there that will identify the plasticity index (PI). A spread footing is sufficient They don't necessarily have to drill piers for await like this. You could drill piers, but this is a retaining wall for a turning moment, so that it doesn4 turn over. Piers for a house are to support the house because of the weight under the foundation. Those are two different structural designs. Beforeconstruction plans are given final approval, it is being communicated to the developer and to Jacobs that we must have all of the information for the design of the wall. We have also asked for a global stability analysis. What that means is we want to make sum that the wall doesn't slide. They have to look at the type of soil that is there, and the fill that will be behind the wall, and the pressure behind that wall, so that the wall will stay in place and not slide out. When the fill is placed behind the wall to support the roatl, the wall design has to take into account the dead weight and the live loads that will be there as a result of the road being there. That is all considered into the design of the wall. When they fill behind it, there will be tests done to make sure that they meet the minimum requirements for compaction so that the soil stays in place. All of which will be verified with testing during construction. With respect to the pedestrian guardrail placed on top, by code, because there is a sidewalk beside the roatl, a barrier will be required along the top of the road. The code requires that if there is a drop greater than 30 inches a pedestrian guardrail is required." Mr. Rutledge staled that Mr. Carr's concerns are legitimate concerns to make sure that his property is not damaged in any way as a result of the improvements to the creek. FEMA has approved the CLOMR and a copy could be made available to Mr. Carr for his review so that he can feel comfortable that there are no adverse affects or impact to this property. If the floodplain was going to be moved onto his property, which means that the water surface elevation would have to rise to do that, FEMA would not allow that happen and would not approve the CLOMR. The applicant has to match into the existing Floodplain downstream with these improvements. The burden is on Jacobs to make sure in the design of all of this that they do not damage any downstream or adjacent properties. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 5 of 9 Meeting Date: August 19, 2010 Planning 8 Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 19, 2010 Chaimian Hill asked if once Jacobs has completed this design will the Town Engineer review it. Mr. Rutledge responded that he would. He also stated that a grading plan for each lot will be obtained by each home builder. The developer desires to cut only the streets at this time. Because the site is heavily treed, it is their desire to preserve the trees on the lots. Normally and what has happened in The Highlands development, there is a lot block grading plan to do mass grading. There aren't any trees out there. The grading plan is approved as part of the plans before constmction begins. This plat is a little unique in that the only grading the developer will do is to cut the right-of-way to put the streets in. The trees will be preserved on the lots and each builder, as they come in, will have to come into the Town with an individual grading plan for that lot which will show how they are going to be able to make it work with a specific floor plan and whatever trees they can preserve. Some trees will be removed, but each lot will stand on its own merit and have its own grading plan. That is a good thing because we will preserve trees. It's a catch-22 for them. In order for them to be able to do the geotech work, they have to clear the right-of-way in order to get a drill rig in there to do that, so we've agreed to allow them to do the work in the right-of-way, bring a drill rig in there to get the geo-tech information so they can design the wall. Vice Chairman Stephens stated that he is satisfied with the explanations he has heard. They can't do anything except go in and grade the streets and right-of-ways and then come back to Town to get approval to start construction. Commissioner Reed asked if once the retaining wall final design is done, will a re -study be needed on what effect it has on the velocity of the water and on the floodplain level. Mr. Rutledge responded that it will not. The location of the wall is going to follow the right-of-way of the road. So, horizontally the wall design does not change. his going to stay in the same place. Potentially, once the report is completed, some of the things that could possibly change could be the width of the concrete footing, for example, or the steel in the reinforcement of the blocks in the wall and that type of thing. The structural design could change, but the CLOMR reflects that wall being there horizontally and it follows the fight -of -way of the road. It would not move. Commissioner Reed stated that the Floodplain that FEMA has approved will not change regardless of what retaining wall design they come up with. Mr. Rutledge responded, "Correct". Commissioner Davidson asked if a final plat in hand is needed to do the geoteching. Jaison Stephen responded that they need an earth disturbance permit to clear the right-of-ways to do the geotech testing. Ms. Huggins stated that they can't get an earth disturbance permit without plat approval. [Typically, an earth disturbance permit is issued after final plat approval. However, an earth disturbance permit can be issued after Preliminary Plat approval and prior to Final Plat approval provided the applicant understands that all grading done prior to Final Plat approval is at the risk of the developedapplicant and is subject to change based on the approval of the Final Plat by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town Council.] Vice Chairman Stephens stated that the applicant won't know the location of Hogan's Drive without plat approval. Mr. Carr announced from the audience, "They've already done surveying out there and stakes set." Vice Chairman Stephens stated that Hogan's Drive is in the plat, which is where he is going to grade and test. Mr. Carr spoke from the audience, "There are some old dirt roads back there where Planning and Zoning Commission Page 6 of 9 Meeting Date: August 19, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 19, 2010 they could get access to most of that stuff." Ms. Huggins interrupted to explain to Mr. Carr that he needs to ask the Chairman's permission to speak and that if granted he should come to the podium. The Chairman granted permission for Mr. Carr to speak and he came to the podium. Mr. Carr slated that he has lived back in that area for eight years and he has hiked and run all over that area and there is an old dirt road where they could get drilling rigs in there to do their boreholes where the old golf maintenance shed was located. Ms. Huggins stated that staff tried to drive those roads in the past two weeks and it was not passable. There is some grading that needs to be done in order to bring rigs in. Commissioner Davidson stated that in his opinion a significant piece of what needs to be understood to approve this plat is not understood. It may be a matter of larger rebar or different footing or a slightly different configuration that might not be visible to the naked eye but could be significant to shore up that particular area. Itis the intent or understanding that by doing so will not in any way alter what the plat looks like. He stated that as he looks at this, he did not see an issue because no topography is provided to the Commission. He stated that it seems there is a conflict m being able to define a final plat that takes into consideration correctly all the drainage, the floodplain, and the safety for what that plat should be designed as. Commissioner Davidson made a comparison to two houses being put up next to each other and changing the drainage significantly. He staled that there is a little line on the plat that points to floodplain taking off a third of Mr. Cam's lot then how is that not changing the floodplain. This doesn't seem to line up. Vice Chairman Stephens stated that the location of the wall is not going to change. The only thing that will change, maybe, is the design of the spread footing and the size rebar that goes into the footing and the wall itself The wall location and materials is set. It'sjust a matter of what the geotech report says he has to have so that the wall has stability. It won't fall or slide. That's designed into the footing. That's not going to change the floodplain. FEMA hes already approved it. It cannot change. If it did change then everybody has recourse, including the owner of Lot 8. Commissioner Sheridan staled that Mc Carr mentioned rip -rap. Are we putting rock down in that creek? Jaison Stephen stated that they are -just rock rip -rap - not concrete. Would Comlock be possible? It's more aesthetic and less silty. Mc Rutledge responded that the rock slows the velocity of the water and prohibits erosion. Mr. Sheridan stated that Comlock is mora expensive, but, in his opinion, looks nicer. He stated that certain cities, like Mesquite, don't allow rip -rap anymore. Ms. Huggins stated that she would want to check with a number of staff members - Parks and Streets in particular- as they usually end up being the departments that have to maintain areas where this is used Commissioner Sheridan stated that the plat should show the ownership on all sides and he doesn't see an owner listed for the floodplain. Jerson Stephen stated that the some owner, BDMR, owns the floodplain as well as the area to be platted. Commissioner Sheridan asked who will maintain the floodplain. Mr. Stephen stated that the HOA will maintain it. Commissioner Sheridan asked if the 2008 CLOMR changed the line by Lot 8. Died move the floodplain closer to Lot 8? Mr. Sheridan stated that with FEMA approval the applicant maybe legally right and Mr. Can doesn't have recourse unless there is erosion created to his property. Is there something now- a cliff, a big slope - that needs to be addressed that you'll develop? Mr. Sheridan asked Mr. Carr if there is a big slope there. Mr Can responded, "Yes'. Mr. Sheridan asked if this is changing the slope in that one area. Mr. Carr came to Planning and Zoning Commission Page 7 of 9 Meeting Date'. August 19, 2010 Planning 8 Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 19, 2010 the podium and staled that the short answer is, yes". He staled that he has a survey that was recently done "showing the location of the 100 -year floodplain according to the corner of my lot." He stated, "As 1 understand it by the drawings that they have submitted, on their drawings they show the floodplain coming up and intersecting with my lot and then they have it falling down the edge of my lot. 1 dont know how they can control that Water doesnY flow that way, but that's the way it's shown on that plat. Mr. Sheridan stated that he hopes Mr. Can and the developer can address Mr. Carrs concerns. Jaison Stephen stated that if they could get a copy of Mr. Can's survey they will take a look at it. Commissioner Sheridan stated that Note No. 0 on the plat states that a grading plan per Town standards must be provided by the homebuilder. Mr. Sheridan stated that there are many homebuilders out there and if each one does their own does the grading plan require the builder to have the plan of his next door neighbor? Can Town staff handle that? Ms. Huggins responded that during Staff review of this plat the grading plan requirement was discussed in detail and staff feels they can handle the responsibility of making sure that each grading plan is looked at in detail and compared lot to lot. At the moment, only one builder is involved in the development of all of the lots. Ms. Huggins stated that as the Town Engineer mentioned, keeping as many trees as possible is important on each lot Five lots ere adjacent to Harmony Park and Staff will be asking the builder to keep as many trees as possible on the shared property line of these lots. Mr. Sheridan responded, "In the recent past the staff has not shown the ability to do stuff like that, particularly in The Highlands with fencing, building lines, and driveways with J -drives." He stated that with more than one builder in there, and with individual grading plans, there will be a homeownerupset. Chairman Hill called for a motion. Vice Chairman Stephens motioned to recommend approval to the Town Council for approval of the Final Plat for Waters Edge at Hogan's Glen, Phase 2A with the stipulation that the retaining wall design must receive final Staff and Town Engineer approval prior to commencement of construction. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Reed. Ayes: Hill, Stephens, Reed, Forest Nays: Davidson, Sheridan Action: 4-2, Approved Commissioner Sheridan stated for the record that he is not voting for recommendation of approval of this plat because he wants to see the changes in play. Commissioner Davidson stated that he is not convinced that the plat, as written up, doesn't, in fact, cause or impede in someway the current floodplain. Mr. Carr made a final comment regarding the location of the floodplain on the map and stated that he doesn't understand how there can be no rise in floodplain elevation or increase in velocity if half the flow of the creek is being cutoff He doesn't believe rip rap would be needed if the velocity isn't changing. Town Engineer, Tom Rutledge, suggested that Jacobs Engineering look at the CLOMR to verify that there are no adverse effects on Mr. Cads property. A motion was made by Vice Chair Stephens, seconded by Commissioner Reed, that this Agenda Item be Recommended for Approval to the Town Council, on 911312010. The motion CARRIED by the following vote: Planning and Zoning Commission Page 8 of 9 Meeting Date'. August 19, 2010 Planning 8 Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 19, 2010 Adjourn Aye: 4 - Vice Chair Stephens, Commissioner Forest, Chairman Hill, and Commissioner Reed No: 2 - Commissioner Davidson, and Commissioner Sheridan This meeting adjourned at 7:56 p.m. Gene Hill, Chairman LW `ar Carolyn Hugging, Community Deve opment Director Planning and Zoning Commission Page 9 of 9 Meeting Cate'. August 19, 2010