[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6605293,"mediaKeyId","2987076-0e4c0982007f2e568273198a258850d6","parentId",2987076,"title","Commission recommends approval of Alloy Personal Training SUP for 1,698‑sq‑ft suite in existing office center","audioSeconds",622,"startMs",1028000,"endMs",1650000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2987076-0e4c0982007f2e568273198a258850d6&start=1028&end=1650","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2987076-0e4c0982007f2e568273198a258850d6/thumbnail_1028000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6605293/Flower-Mound/Denton-County/Texas/Commission-recommends-approval-of-Alloy-Personal-Training-SUP-for-1698sqft-suite-in-existing-office-center","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6605293-bfcc70dc7b274772552b8f5c6a6ee282/orig.mp4?Expires=1771076937&Signature=EL4wj~QieWMvL52OXDDqp35Mu5BFdrM3kf90NOkOSsCl4a6iQzBYS9~nzIKLo52~ePw6sssmTHV-t1O4~B~jjkh3ZUKDAmzzpld4hzexVy3aZjPvNN446KB5JUC83sonm8pYT9omP1RtPSA13oh5~0-eSdw70oEwK-ohh-QCaFrp0DPxbOM5gWOagXfgVk7wDZLa~pX6JljijsrVB0XYzRdCLC-hjWTpHSmDKxBU-YFFnvC6AnP4AgqrW1I2pu-PPW8aLlwAYThRuT8fBFZkTmVaK-rKTvBU8hs5bD7VCNze79ERsyeHc8pDJI9M50~KGJaqgLDMacuISnKc7Im2zg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Flower Mound","date","2025-04-14T00:00:00Z","article","The Flower Mound Planning & Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of a specific‑use permit for Alloy Personal Training (SUP25‑0002) to the Town Council.

Claire Barnes, planning staff, presented the request for a health‑club/athletic‑club use in a 1,698‑square‑foot suite at an existing office building west of Churchill Drive and south of Cross Timbers. Barnes told the commission the site was originally designed for medical uses with a parking ratio of 1 space per 200 square feet; the parking requirement for a health or athletic club is 1 space per 250 square feet. Because the original design provided higher parking capacity, staff concluded the site meets parking requirements for the proposed use.

Barnes said notification was sent within 200 feet of the property and that staff had not received written correspondence in favor or opposition; staff did receive a phone call expressing opposition based on the proposed use. The staff recommendation limited the SUP to the identified 1,698‑square‑foot suite.

Applicant Joel Collinsworth described the business as a boutique personal‑training studio. “It’s not... classified as a health facility or a gym, but it’s really just a boutique fitness spot,” Collinsworth said. He told the commission the business would limit active sessions to about six clients at a time plus trainers, operate early mornings and offer limited administrative hours midday, and would not run large group classes or loud boot‑camp sessions. Collinsworth said his franchisor provides guidance on decibel limits and that the studio will use rubber flooring and equipment to reduce impact noise.

Commissioners asked about noise, shared walls and communications with adjacent tenants; Collinsworth said he had spoken to the landlord but not directly with neighboring tenants and that he expected the use to be complementary to nearby medical and therapy uses in the same center.

A motion to recommend approval of SUP25‑0002, as presented, was moved and seconded; a roll call recorded ayes and the motion passed. The recommendation will be forwarded to Town Council for final action.

The record shows the commission’s action was a recommendation to council rather than a final permit issuance; council consideration was scheduled separately. The staff file and presentation reflect the applicant’s operating limits and the parking analysis discussed at the meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Flower Mound - Planning and Zoning Archive - Apr 14, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of a specific‑use permit for a boutique personal‑training studio (SUP25‑0002) in an existing office building; staff said site parking meets health‑club standards and staff received one phone complaint of opposition.","taxTitle","Flower Mound, Denton County, Texas","taxId",2790,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6605298,"Planning and Zoning Commission approves Watermere Phase 2 site plan for age‑restricted high‑density residential",351,612000,963000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2987076-0e4c0982007f2e568273198a258850d6&start=612&end=963","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2987076-0e4c0982007f2e568273198a258850d6/thumbnail_612000.jpg","/articles/6605298/Flower-Mound/Denton-County/Texas/Planning-and-Zoning-Commission-approves-Watermere-Phase-2-site-plan-for-agerestricted-highdensity-residential","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6605298-8559800beeae57a83a339581d858c6d6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771076937&Signature=fkOGcQvyQ4W7t4cG-goy2Kt9~A5Ppjg~d83p8J3~B~mxRHICMWJjweFYZ3QCsOo1QL38w7I9JhAb1fnge-4qlbA92ygYQLNtWJbPgMUFa9ecwK0dFhEAAqs~6ydJbVGcloX0Yw-M14NkzliZjsxEEnLZk-h1xrip0yaqb1ZE5nItVT9x6mP6iXDbDoG51XuSZ20fOPg57JgKbGK-Lo8fI482hAv4mUfrF~lh66DMZREYbcv88vxgqU70Hxpb9NM8KhO93QzBgNnsErpYzTYDQmIWj5tmkUgGD~beSmqlsm3NeEb3lKSdkAHVRm33NlZOb3Xa5Xv8mBjUKrtMa-RXJw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Flower Mound Planning & Zoning Commission approved the site plan for Watermere Phase 2 (SP24-0020), a proposed age‑restricted, high‑density residential development west of Weyburn Drive and south of Dixon Lane.

Cody, planning staff, presented the site plan and told the commission the plan complies with the previously approved Planned Development (PD) amendment that established age‑restricted high‑density residential uses for Planned Development District No. 167. “What you're seeing here is just the site plan that is, in compliance with that original concept plan that was approved last year,” Cody said.

Staff said the proposal includes nine residential buildings (identified in staff materials as three fourplexes and six duplex/villa buildings under four elevation concepts), meets parking requirements established by the PD (1.5 parking spaces per residential unit, for a total requirement of 36 spaces), and proposes access from Dixon Lane and Weyburn Drive plus a mutual access easement with the adjacent south property. According to staff, 30 parking spaces are inside garages and six are surface guest spaces. The proposed landscape plan and small modifications to street buffer tree locations were presented as consistent with the approved concept plan.

Cody showed elevation concepts that were part of the approved PD amendment and described retaining walls and screening along the north property line. “They are having a 6 foot masonry screening wall, underneath the retaining wall,” Cody said, and staff packet renderings show proposed masonry and wrought‑iron fence treatments.

A commissioner motion to approve SP24‑0020 was moved and seconded. The roll call recorded ayes from the commissioners on the dais and the motion passed. The commission closed deliberation after members said they had no concerns; one commissioner said, “I think it looks great.”

No exceptions to the concept plan were requested for this site plan; staff told the commission there were only minor adjustments from earlier concept documents, including grading and a small change in garage parking counts. The applicant did not present separately; staff indicated the applicant was present to answer questions.

The action by the Planning & Zoning Commission was the approval of the site plan at the meeting; staff indicated the plan is in compliance with the previously approved PD and that construction plans will reflect the elevations and landscape shown in the packet.

Details recorded in the staff presentation and commission action are limited to the materials shown at the meeting; no additional variances, conditions or effective dates were introduced on the record.","Commission voted to approve the Watermere Phase 2 site plan (SP24-0020), a nine‑building, age‑restricted residential development east of an existing Watermere Phase 1, with required parking, landscape and elevation plans complying with an earlier PD amendment.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6605303,"Flower Mound staff briefs commission on state land‑use bills that could limit local zoning authority",250,200000,450000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2987076-0e4c0982007f2e568273198a258850d6&start=200&end=450","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2987076-0e4c0982007f2e568273198a258850d6/thumbnail_200000.jpg","/articles/6605303/Flower-Mound/Denton-County/Texas/Flower-Mound-staff-briefs-commission-on-state-landuse-bills-that-could-limit-local-zoning-authority","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6605303-4ddda12ed182cab727b1af83e0f41e5b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771076937&Signature=ip5yAeAxxjJ-YkAcHiQKEaT84jAYGHFaRHaxb2xC5sOPji4N9ykA85xOwUfANBXNP6l4woCmYgw-Jq454L70qlLv7kGeRxl6gihxTic8IT~BHruASFYNUN9sZ9kT9y5hxCJjWwtjdR-LRuUa5pHU5h1DZyEBbinff7gep7lEt2dvASV5KAH6YeNVqJLZPWZv7Gm2ZyUOgwxyQPpuHBp~5YJ7tAKA~6-vpMNjvLU~094h-1651WndbwA0ebshtx4uUTDFZhpydmhOFLNG2opu7s~E01BVJvdxNqPc~nEX1cQax2zG77mCqBDk2p8LTq-i6XnoXtmy-3KYeBSiidW1rA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Town planning staff told the Flower Mound Planning & Zoning Commission that several state bills under consideration would reduce municipal control over local land‑use rules if they become law.

Poornima, planning staff, summarized four bills the town is monitoring and said the town’s mayor pro tem and deputy mayor pro tem recently testified against some of the proposals. “This requires municipalities to allow mixed use and multi family developments on religious owned land, and prohibits city's ability to regulate any development in certain ways,” Poornima said of one bill she identified as Senate Bill 854. She also described measures she said would cap lot sizes, limit local regulation of accessory dwelling units and extend similar restrictions to nonresidential areas.

The presentation matters because, if enacted as described, the bills would narrow common regulatory tools local governments use to manage site design, density and parking. Poornima told commissioners the town has minimum lot sizes and parking standards that could be affected and that staff will continue to monitor the bills and report changes to the commission.

In the staff presentation, Poornima listed the four bills as follows:
- Senate Bill 854 — described by staff as a bill that would require municipalities to allow mixed‑use and multifamily development on religious‑owned land and that would “prohibit the city's ability to regulate lot coverage, parking, setbacks, density, unit size, or require the buildings to be less than 3 stories,” as Poornima summarized. She said the bill, as written, appeared to apply to all municipalities but at the time of the meeting “has not got enough votes in Senate to pass.”
- Senate Bill 840 — described as similar to SB 854 but, according to staff, limited to municipalities in a 150,000 population bracket; Poornima said that population cap would exclude Flower Mound.
- Senate Bill 15 — described by staff as a “small lot bill” she said would cap minimum lot sizes for certain unplatted properties and, in her account, the version that passed the Senate contained a 150,000 population bracket and therefore would not affect Flower Mound at present.
- Senate Bill 673 — described as a bill relating to accessory dwelling units that, in staff’s description, “prohibits municipalities from regulating minimum lot size, setbacks, parking requirement for accessory dwelling units, maximum square footages, design, etcetera.” Poornima said this bill did not include a population bracket and that the town would lose some local ADU controls if the bill were enacted.

Commissioners asked for clarification about whether specific bills had already passed the Senate. Poornima replied that, as of her report, the accessory dwelling unit bill “has not passed the Senate yet.” Another commissioner noted similar versions of the ADU proposal had come up in prior sessions and said past attempts had failed by narrow margins according to the staff briefing.

Poornima emphasized staff will continue to track amendments and the bills’ movement through the legislative session and will notify the commission if any of the measures gain new traction. The presentation concluded with no formal action by the commission; staff said they will provide further updates as the legislative session proceeds.

The commission did not vote on or direct specific local policy changes during the report; the item was informational.","Town planning staff summarized four state Senate bills under monitoring that, as written, would restrict municipal control over development standards including setbacks, parking, lot size and accessory dwelling units.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission recommends approval of Alloy Personal Training SUP for 1,698‑sq‑ft suite in existing office center

Planning and Zoning Commission approves Watermere Phase 2 site plan for age‑restricted high‑density residential

Flower Mound staff briefs commission on state land‑use bills that could limit local zoning authority