Trophy Club EDC reviews two concepts for 'The Grove' small-area plan; requests feasibility and traffic analyses

Trophy Club — At its Feb. 13 meeting the Trophy Club Economic Development Corporation heard consultants from McAdams present two preliminary concepts for the small-area plan for The Grove, a proposed redevelopment area near Town Hall and the U.S. 114 frontage. Consultants described one “less aggressive” option that keeps much of the current roadway and parking, and a second, denser option that realigns Trophy Drive, increases building square footage and places a civic plaza at the town-hall frontage. The board asked McAdams and market partner Catalyst Commercial for a feasibility and fiscal-impact summary and sought follow-up traffic engineering work; it took no formal vote on either concept.

McAdams planning director Randy Rivera introduced the presentation and described the process that produced the two options. “My name is Randy Rivera, planning director for McAdams located at 4400 State Highway 121 in Lewisville,” Rivera said, and later summarized project timing and outreach. Planner Marissa Brewer told the board the consultant team had conducted stakeholder interviews, an open house and an online survey. “We got about 595 responses, which was about 4.15% of, the population that we received feedback from,” Brewer said, and said respondents prioritized restaurants, improved connectivity and pedestrian infrastructure.

Why it matters: The Grove covers key commercial parcels near the Trophy Club Town Hall and the 114 frontage road; decisions about road alignment, structured parking and allowable building types would shape traffic patterns, sales-tax potential and redevelopment incentives for years. Several board members emphasized that any more intensive concept should be supported by market demand and traffic-mitigation plans before the town adopts guiding zoning or incentive packages.

What the concepts propose

• Concept 1 (less aggressive): Jameson Pinson, McAdams’ landscape architect, described Concept 1 as an approach that leaves Trophywood/Trophy Drive largely in place, retains existing anchors such as HG Supply and Hutchins, and focuses on targeted redevelopment blocks (including a redeveloped block for WoodSpring and added restaurant/retail buildings near Town Hall). Concept 1 shows multiple garages (G1–G4) serving Town Hall and new retail; McAdams said the plan includes on-street parking and attempts to preserve view lines to Town Hall while creating a civic gathering space adjacent to restaurant patios.

• Concept 2 (more aggressive): Concept 2 realigns Trophy Drive to produce a direct line of sight to Town Hall, narrows a central roadway to calm traffic and introduces more buildings and structured parking to maximize retail and restaurant square footage. McAdams described an entertainment/destination building on the east side (Building 14 in the slides), a visible garage façade oriented to 114 as a branding opportunity, and a dedicated golf-cart alley and multiuse trail to encourage pedestrian and golf-cart circulation.

Parking, circulation and market questions

Board members repeatedly raised traffic and access concerns for East Side residents who use Trophywood/Trophy Drive to enter and exit the neighborhood. Multiple participants urged either keeping a straight roadway or creating additional exits so neighborhood traffic would not be forced through a denser “main street” configuration. Several board members recommended removing Building 9 from the denser concept to preserve a straight roadway; McAdams said removing that building would reduce Option 2’s square footage by about 26,000 square feet.

McAdams provided preliminary parking figures: the team described four new structured garages (G1–G4) with approximate heights and capacities (G1 and G4 about four levels, G2 and G3 about five levels) and said the overall development would add roughly 300–400 parking spaces across garages and surface lots. Consultants also noted an existing town agreement protecting HG Supply’s parking: “the town agreed that no matter what, HG would always have 294 spaces,” a McAdams presenter said. Board members asked for more detailed parking counts tied to specific program mixes and peak-hour traffic projections.

Market feasibility and next steps

Board members asked McAdams and Catalyst Commercial for a targeted feasibility summary comparing the two concepts. Multiple trustees requested a concise pro/con and fiscal-impact summary that would show whether the market can support the additional retail and restaurant square footage in Concept 2, and whether Concept 1 would be “too small” to catalyze change. McAdams said Catalyst Commercial is handling market and fiscal analysis and offered to prepare a short feasibility memo and to incorporate the board’s input before presenting to Town Council.

Public- and stakeholder-engagement background

McAdams described outreach conducted July–November that included stakeholder interviews, an online survey and an open house; the team reported roughly 23 attendees at the in-person open-house sessions and the 595 online survey responses. Stakeholder feedback cited circulation problems on the frontage road and Trophywood, interest in restaurants and entertainment uses, and support among some stakeholders for an age-restricted (55+) housing component in parts of the plan.

Votes at a glance

• Motion to approve the Economic Development Corporation minutes from Jan. 16, 2025: Moved and seconded; the board chair called “all in favor” and the motion passed. The transcript does not record names for the mover and seconder or a roll-call tally.

What the board asked McAdams to do

Board members and staff asked the consultant team to: produce a short feasibility/fiscal-impact memo from Catalyst Commercial comparing both concepts; provide traffic-engineering analysis for peak hours and for neighborhood access; clarify parking counts and shared-parking assumptions; and prepare updated drawings that clearly show existing vs. new vs. redeveloped parcels. McAdams agreed to email the updated presentation and to bring the refined materials to the next EDC meeting and to the council work session the consultants referenced.

No formal action was taken on either concept during the Feb. 13 meeting; the EDC requested follow-up materials and more detailed market and traffic analysis before making a recommendation to Town Council.