P&Z re-denies Gateway amenity center

During its regular Sep. 07, 2017 meeting, the Forney Planning & Zoning Commission met and :

• Approved a final plat for Park Trails Phase 3, located north of Ridgecrest Road and Longhorn Lane.
      Mr. Morgan briefed the board, stating this will be 118 lots over 36 acres. He pointed out this will extend Longhorn Lane, which will eventually connect to the Brookville development. Park land dedication was included with phase 1, down by the pond and the Parks Board decided proposed park land would be difficult to maintain, those will now be HOA-maintained. Mr. Wilkins verified there would be no park land; Mr. Morgan said the Parks board decided inclusion of an amenity center and land around it were sufficient.
  
• Denied a revised site plan for the Gateway Parks amenity center, located northeast of F.M. 1641 and east of S. Gateway Boulevard.
      Mr. Morgan showed the original 8,946 sq. ft. building, the 2,660 sq. ft. revision denied by P&Z & council; during their Aug. 15 meeting council indicated they would accept a smaller size. Ms. Lemons asked about that, Mr. Morgan said it was probably because there is no minimum size requirement in the ordinance. The current proposal is 3,674 sq. ft. building with 422 sq. ft. portico and 1,579 sq. ft. covered area.
      Mr. Bain with the Gateway development addressed the commission for almost 30 minutes. He stated the building was a small part of the amenity center, there is about 5,000 sq ft of covered outside space, which is where they expect most activity to occur. The original design at 8900 sq. ft. was a mistake on their part, the builders came to them and said the HOA dues could not be $100/month for these size homes, then suggested the building size should be reduced to lower the HOA fees. They (Gateway) agreed with council that when 1,000 homes are built they will give the HOA the option to enclose the open area.
     The commission still took issue with the HOA dues decrease being a valid reason to reduce the building size. Chmn. Wilcoxson recalled they originally questioned the calculation that the building would increase the dues. Mr. Bain said the cost to run the building and pools will be about the same first five years; as there will only be 200 homes when this opens, they will have to subsidize it heavily. He said shrinking the building will save money up front, but shrinking the HOA dues by $40 / month will cost them a lot more than they will save. Chmn. Wilcoxson spoke about his HOA having to meet outdoors, and wondered if this building will be sufficient for the development - Mr. Bain said they envision using the exercise room, which is the largest room at 845 sq. ft.
      Mr. Carr said the Mustang Creek HOA has to meet at a school, he suggested Mr. Bain could develop a second floor in the building to provide more space, and that everyone would wish the building was bigger.
      Mr. Cunningham said the original design was not a mistake of Forney's making, in less than a year they have come back to reduce it by 2/3; he established the homes will sell for about 300k, and questioned how much difference $40 / month would make.
      Mr. Carr calculated the development would produce $540 million in sales, and said "you can't afford a couple more thousand sq. ft." - Mr. Bain replied they sell lots to builders, who are the ones who said $100/month HOA fees wouldn't work, and they have to listen to the builders. Mr. Carr said from a financial viewpoint, he doesn't buy it. He calculated dues would be 1.3 million per year, to pay back this facility, he believes it is because the builders don't want to front the money to build this. Mr. Bain stated the builders are not paying for this, the developer is. Mr. Carr asked if they could to make enough from selling the lots to pay back the 8900 sq. ft. building; Mr. Bain said it's not just the expense of building, but how much to maintain it; if the cost of the HOA is too high, the developer would have to subsidize it forever, or at least until all the lots are sold; they would not want a situation where, when the HOA is turned over to the homeowners, that the dues would have to be raised. Mr. Carr asked what percentage of lots must be sold for them to break even; Mr. Bain said they don't know, but they had two HOA management companies look at this, and they expect it will be over $1 million / year. Mr. Bain said their early planning was HOA dues of $100 / month; the builders told them that was too high, should be $60 / month, reducing the building size was the way to do it. The original design had a huge ballroom, which would probably only be used once a year.
      Mr. Bowen appreciates they have compromised with council, but he feels insulted by their numbers, that somehow changing the size of the building reduces maintenance by $800k. Mr. Bain said he didn't mean to imply the maintenance would be $800k, by reducing the HOA fees they are going to have to subsidize it more, break-even depends on how fast homes sell. This was an obvious place to reduce the HOA dues. Mr. Bowen asked if they had to reduce any other features - no.
      Mr. Brothers said the developer is going to make money off this development, they might have to charge a little more for lots than they wanted.
      The motion to deny was by Brothers, Lemons, for: Cunningham and Wilcoxson; against: Bowen, Wilkins; abstaining: Carr.
  
• Approved, with stipulations, a multi-family site plan for Parc at Windmill Farms, located at the north of U.S. Highway 80 and west of Windmill Farms Boulevard. This will be 272 units, two-story buildings located between the frontage road and the existing homes.
      The commission did not like the alternative, non-masonry material request.
      Mr. Brothers said his concern was the city has a contract with them, it's odd they would request this. Mr. Wilkins recalled this was originally commercial - Mr. Morgan said they have no record of that. Mr. Carr pointed out there was no left turn into the development, people will have to drive down to Concord and make a u-turn, as well as limited ingress/egress, "truly horrible", the plan shows an emergency-only exit onto Hwy 80.
      Applicants Tim Barton and Douglas Hoy, of JMJ Development, showed another view which would meet the masonry requirement, they just wanted to provide a different look, which they felt would complement the overall community, a "contemporary hill-country look."
      Mr. Hoy said they have commissioned a Traffic Impact Analysis, which expect to receive in a few days, and they have requested a curb-cut in Windmill Farms Blvd (at 240 ft). They do not want to bring more traffic into the neighborhood (via Concord), and expect in/egress on the frontage road to be approved.
  
• Held Public Hearings -
  
  • Tabled an Ordinance amending the City of Forney Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance by amending Section 34e, HOZ – Historic Overlay Zone District, to provide an approval process for if the Architectural Review Board fails to meet or make a determination on a request within a specified amount of time.
        Mr. Morgan explained this was due to the ARB not having a quorum due to conflicts of interest as so many members live near the property. The staff and city attorney decided in that situation, the item should go to city council. The commission debated whether another board should be involved, and would like to confer with city attorney.
        There was no public input.
    
  • Denied an ordinance amending the City of Forney Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance by amending Section 38 to provide for an exception to the required use of concrete for off-street parking in nonresidential and multi-family districts.
        Mr. Morgan said this was discussed by council on Aug. 01, due to request by county commissioner about planned expansion. The city manager proposed allowing temporary asphalt parking lots, for five years with optional three year extension. If the council doesn't grant the extension, the parking lot would have to be returned to its original state. If there is a new building or expansion, the parking lot must be replaced with concrete. He said public works has concerns about this, they have no asphalt guidelines, and for enforcement: it isn't realistic that they would require a business to replace a lot with concrete.
        The commission did not like the lack of definition for asphalt, and the notion of "temporary" parking lots. There were also concerns about the legality of enforcement.
        There was no public input.