Trophy Club EDC approves small-area plan for The Grove, sends plan to council

The Town of Trophy Club Economic Development Corporation voted unanimously to forward a draft small-area plan for The Grove at Trophy Club to the Town Council.

The plan, presented by consultants from McAdams and a subconsultant, Catalyst, provides a preferred mixed-use concept plus optional configurations for building form, pedestrian connections, vehicular circulation and open space. The consultants said the document remains a draft and could be tweaked before finalization.

McAdams planner Randy Rivera and planner Marissa Brewer walked the board through three concept options and noted the plan is meant to guide — not mandate — future site applications. Jason Glanche of Catalyst summarized implementation priorities, saying adoption would create “a policy document and something to really lean into” for residents and future developers and recommending later adoption of character-based standards or form-based regulations to implement the vision.

The consultants highlighted four implementation themes: (1) provide options and flexibility in building configuration while requiring key pedestrian, open-space and connectivity elements; (2) plan capital improvements and prioritize public infrastructure to match private development; (3) consider a program manager or third-party coordinator to market the site and shepherd developer proposals; and (4) evaluate financing tools such as public improvement districts or tax-increment financing on a case-by-case basis.

On market feasibility, Catalyst presented a trade-area analysis that includes parts of Roanoke, Southlake and Keller and noted a local trade area of roughly 55,000 people. The consultants said retail and restaurant uses showed the strongest near-term capacity, office was the most challenging in current market conditions, and residential could be feasible in the right product but would be incremental to retail demand. A market test and pro forma prepared for the fully built-out scenario produced an estimated $9,700,000 in total revenue to the town on a 10-year runway; the consultants emphasized that figure is a build‑out projection, not an annual estimate.

Board members asked about parking and alternatives to structured garages. McAdams presented a scenario that assumed no parking garages and analyzed how surface parking and site layout could support several one- and two-story buildings, using current code parking ratios as the baseline. The consultants also noted potential need to negotiate overflow agreements (the presentation referenced “Hutchins parking”) and that parking strategies could change if the town amends parking code or secures agreements with property owners.

After the presentations and a brief Q&A about the program manager role and phasing, a board member moved to send the plan to council; the motion was seconded and the board chair called the question. The board voted in favor and the motion passed.

Discussion (not a formal adoption of regulatory code) emphasized that the document should remain flexible: the plan is guidance for future applicants, while implementation will require additional steps such as regulatory changes, infrastructure budgeting and possible use of outside program management. The board did not adopt form-based code or any development agreements at this meeting.

The vote to forward the draft to council was recorded as a motion, a second and a unanimous outcome after the chair asked if there were any opposed and no hands were raised. Two board members (Greg and Alan) later confirmed their affirmative votes when the chair checked for unanimity.

The EDC set the item to go to council for further action; any regulatory changes, capital commitments or incentive packages would require separate council-level decisions.