[00:00:05]
THE CLOCK ON THE WALL SAYS 6:00 PM. SO WE WILL GO AHEAD AND GET
[Call to Order and Determination of Quorum.]
STARTED. I WILL CALL THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO ORDER. I WILL LET THE RECORD NOTE WE HAVE THE FULL COMMISSION PRESENT. DO WE HAVE ANY CITIZENS WANTING TO BE HEARD?[002 Staff review of the cases that were heard by City Council in the last sixty (60) days.]
NO. OKAY WILL MOVE TO ITEM 2 STAFF REVIEW OF THE CASES THAT WERE HEARD BY CITY COUNCIL IN THE LAST 60 DAYS.>> GOOD EVENING, HOW IS EVERYONE DOING? GREAT.
WE WILL GO OVER THESE WE HAD TO COUNCIL MEETINGS SINCE OUR LAST MEETING MARCH 28 AND APRIL 11 SO STARTING TO SEE THE SCREEN AT THE MARCH 28 MEETING IT WAS ONLY ONE CASE SO THIS WAS ORIGINALLY REVIEWED BY PNZ JANUARY 21 PNZ MEETING AS YOU CAN SEE PNZ THEY VOTED TO APPROVE AND COUNCIL VOTED TO APPROVE. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE?
>> THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE, WHAT HAPPENED TO THE AGENDA INFORMATION I DON'T THINK THAT IS STAFF FAULT. THE PNZ AND COUNCIL MEETING I THINK YOU ALL GOT MORE DETAIL INFORMATION. UNFORTUNATELY, COUNSEL AT THAT I THINK IT KIND OF WAS ALMOST -- THEY WONDER WHY WE MAKE SOME OF THE DECISIONS THERE WAS A FAR LESS IMPACT, OKAY, THAT WAS ALL.
>> EVEN THOUGH THEY DID GET APPROVED THEY ARE REQUIRED TO GET A FULL DETAILED TIA SO THEY'RE GOING TO THE PROCESS RIGHT NOW. GOING OVER TO APRIL 11 CITY COUNCIL MANY WE HAD FOUR CASES. STARTING AT THE TOP WE HAD A ROOF PITCH CASE AT 36 MIDLOTHIAN WATERS EDGE. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED A 412 ROOF IS THAT OF A 12 ROOF PITCH SO PNZ VOTED TO APPROVE AND COUNCIL VOTED TO APPROVE AT 70, AS WELL.
GOING INTO THE SECOND ITEM THAT WAS WITHIN EXISTING PLAN DEVELOPMENT THE APPLICANT WAS REQUIRED TO BRING THE DETAILED SITE PLAN TO PNZ AND COUNCIL FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USE.
NZ VOTED TO APPROVE 7-0 AND COUNCIL VOTED TO APPROVE 7-0, AS WELL.
GOING TO THE THIRD ITEM WAS THE AMENDMENTHOMEBUILDERS SIGN . CURRENTLY, WE REQUIRED THOSE BY SUV --WE WANTED TO AMEND THAT JUST THAT THE MINISTRY REALLY REVIEWED BY STAFF.
PNZ VOTED TO APPROVE THAT 7-0 COUNCIL APPROVED 7-0, AS WELL. THE ONLY CHANGE WITH THAT IS THAT COUNCIL WANTED TO INCLUDE IF THERE IS A SIGN STILL REMAINING AFTER FIVE YEARS OF THE APPROVAL DATE SO WHENEVER THE COUNCIL APPROVAL DATE IS THAT THEY WANT TO COME BACK AND HAVE THAT SIGN OR SUV REAPPROVED OR REVIEWED AGAIN BY PNZ.
IT GOES TO COUNSEL TO STOP THAT PNZ FOR REVIEW, AGAIN. THE LAST ONE --THE BIG ONE PNZ VOTED FOR STAFF COMMENTS 7-0 THE STAFF COMMENTS WERE DETAILED SITE PLANS FOR REVIEW.
AND ANY FUTURE CONSTRUCTION PLANS WOULD HAVE TO BE REVIEWED BY TEXAS DOT, AS WELL.
COUNSEL DID. THAT 7-0 BUT THE BIG CHANGE THEY ALLOW STAFF TO REVIEW THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY AND WHEN ALL THE DETAILS PLANS COME BACK THROUGH PNZ, SORRY, I WAS LOOKING AT KEVIN. AND SO, WITH THAT AS LONG AS IT MEETS THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE IT IS ALLOWED TO BE REVIEWED BY STAFF ADMINISTRATIVELY, HOWEVER, THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE DRC FOR SHORT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BRING IT BACK THROUGHPNZ AND COUNCIL FOR REVIEW . AND ALSO WITH THE TEXAS DOT WILL HAVE TO MEET THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS WITH ANY CHANGE WE DO WITH THAT. SORRY ABOUT THAT.
>> QUESTIONS TO STAFF? THANK YOU, SIR.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
>> ITEM 3 CONSENT AGENDA. CONSIDERING THE MINUTES FOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
[00:05:01]
MEETING DAVID MARCH 21, 2023. ANYBODY HAVE ANY CHANGES, COMMENTS? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE.>> MOTION AND APPROVE OF ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, ANY
[004 Consider and act upon the extension for the recording of the minor plat for Shotwell Subdivision, Lot 1, Block 1, being 39.973± acres out of the Leeman Kelsey Survey, Abstract No. 593; in the City of Midlothian, Ellis County, Texas. The property is generally located on VV Jones Road, North of Highway 67. (Case No. M06-2023-26). ]
OPPOSED? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 004.>> THIS CASE AS YOU MENTIONED HIS REQUEST FOR EXTENSION ON THE RECORDING.
THE MINOR PLAT IS JUST FOR THIS AREA. HERE.
THIS IS THE ENCORE REMEMBER THIS CAME THROUGH FOR A PLANET DEVELOPMENT ZONING AS A BATTERY STORAGE LIGHT. --AND ON MAY 7 OF THIS YEAR THAT MINOR PLAT WOULD BE EXPIRING DUE TO IT NOT BEING WITHIN THE 90 DAY TIMEFRAME SO THERE'S ASKING FOR AN EXTENSION FOR ONE YEAR TO REPORT THAT PLAT. THEY HAVE BEEN PUT TO GET SOME OBSTACLES EXTENDING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. THE ACTUAL MEETING TOMORROW TO MEET WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO GO OVER SOME OF THOSE OPTIONS MOVING FORWARD BUT THEY WOULD LIKE THAT ADDITIONAL TIME. AND I WILL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
>> DID THEY COMPLY WITH EVERYTHING TO GRANT AN EXTENSION?
>> WE ARE NOT CHANGING ANYTHING. WE HAVE APPROVED SEVERAL EXTENSIONS .
>> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. OR EMOTION.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE. ANY DISCUSSION?
[005 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance for a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a “secondary dwelling,” presently zoned Agricultural (A) District. The property is located on ±2.8970 acres at the northwest corner of S. Walnut Grove Road and Clancey Lane. (commonly known as or near 4091 Clancey Lane) (Case No. SUP04-2023-025) ]
ALL INFAVOR , ANY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. 005 CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER OF FOR A SECOND ONE PRESENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT.THE PROPERTY LOCATED TWO POINT ACRES ON THE SOUTH WALNUT GROVE ROAD AND CLANCY LANE.
CONSIDER THIS A PUBLIC HEARING.
>> GOOD EVENING, WITH THIS REQUEST IN A NUTSHELL THIS REQUEST IS FAMILY WOULD LIKE TO LIVE IN THE CURRENT HOME WHILE THE BUILDER NO ONE IS EVER PRESENT JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND THIS IS THE MAIN POINT OF THIS REQUEST. BUT THE STAFF DISCUSSED WHAT WE CAN DO THE GET THEM TO THEIR GOAL AND THIS SUV PROCESS IS THE ONLY THING THEY HAD.
THAT SAID THEY ARE REQUESTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A SECOND-RATE DWELLING UNIT.
LIKE I SAID, THEY WANT TO LIVE IN THE CURRENT HOME WHILE THE BUILDING A HOME.
IF YOU APPROVE THE SUV BEYOND WITHIN THE DRAFT OF THE SUV THIS WOULDN'T BE GRANTING ANY OTHER CHANGES OR VARIANCE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THE GOAL WITH THIS THEY HAVE AT THIS NORTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH WALNUT GROVE ROAD AND CLANCY LANE THE HOUSE CURRENTLY FRIENDS CLANCY. FRONT CLANCY. WITH THIS REQUEST WE ARE SIMPLY GOING TO TREAT THE EXISTING HOUSE IS A SECOND-RATE DWELLING.
IN THE NEW HOUSE AS THE PRIMARY. BUT THE IDEA IS THAT AT THE END WHAT WE WILL HAVE IS THE ONE NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, ALL OF THIS GOES AWAY THIS TO BE DEMOLISHED AND REMOVED. RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE AN EXISTING GOAL AND A GARAGE, CARPORT, IT DOES NOT REALLY NEED DEMOING IT COULD BE REMOVED. BUT AGAIN, THE IDEA IS THIS IS AN ACT ZONED PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE THREE ACRES YOU WOULD NORMALLY NEEDED FOR THE WERE ANNEXED IN THE 2014 THEY GOT THE AG ZONING. THEY WILL BE ABLE TO BUILD THIS NEW HOUSE, MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS UNDER AG ZONING OTHER THAN THAT PLAT AREA SO THIS BLUE LINE THIS REPRESENTS WILL BE THE NEW FRONT BUILDING LINE THAT THE SETBACK JUST THE
[00:10:03]
FRONT BUILDING LINE. JUST TO BE CLEAR THIS WITH THE FRONT YARD.THE HOUSE IS FACING CLANCY THEY CAN REUSE THEIR EXISTING ADDRESS NUMBERS SINCE IT'S TECHNICALLY THE ADDRESS ON CLANCY. THEY BUILT ALSO THIS ACCESS POINT OFF OF SOUTH WALNUT GROVE ROAD THEY ARE REALIGNING SELF WALNUT GROVE ROAD SO THEY WOULD NOT HAVE THESE TWO POINTS OF ACCESS ONCE WE BUILD OUT IT WOULD JUST BE THE ONE POINT RIGHT THERE. THE OTHER THING WAS I HAD FORGOTTEN, I TALKED WITH KEVIN, SO WAIT A WORDSMITH THIS MORNING THAT'S FINE. ANY TO CLARIFY THE DRAFT ORDINANCE SO I ADDED THIS THIS THING THAT'S NOT IN YOUR DRAFT IF YOU ALL THINK YOU'RE GOING TO PROVE THIS YOU DECIDE TO OF LIKE IN YOUR MOTION TO REFLECT THIS VOTE WOULD ALLOW US TO ENSURE NOT ONLY THE HOUSE WITH THE CURRENT HOME WOULD BE DEMOED AND REMOVED BUT ALSO THESE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. ALSO, OF COURSE, THE IDEA IS TO LET THEM LIVE IN THE HOUSE WHILE BUILDING A NEW HOUSE. THE DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL OF THE STRUCTURES WOULD NOT NEED TO OCCUR UNTIL 30 DAYS AFTER THEY RECEIVED THEIR CEO, THEIR GREEN TAG, FOR THE NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME. SO THEY HAVEN'T 30 DAYS TO MOVE THEIR STUFF, MOVE OUT OF THE OLD HOUSE INTO THE NEW HOUSE AND DEMO AND REMOVE THOSE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND THE CURRENT HOME. AGAIN, THE GOAL OF THE FINAL RESULT IS TO HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A AG LOT MEETING ALL THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE AREA.
WHICH WOULD BE ALLOWED ANYWAYS UNDER ORDINANCE TO NOT HAVE TO MEET LOT AREA.
AND THIS IS JUST THE VEHICLE WE HAVE TO GIVE THE APPLICANT TO MAKE A REQUEST TO BEABLE TO LIVE IN THE HOME WHILE BUILDING THEIR NEW HOME . THEY ARE HERE TONIGHT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM. I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING PUBLIC NOTICES AND STAFF DOES RECOGNIZE APPROVAL, RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
SUP WITH ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE --THAT'S REFERENCING THE RED TEXT I WILL SHOW YOU EARLIER.
THAT WAS ADDRESSING THOSE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND WILL BE THE FUTURE FRONT YARD.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT.
>> THE HOUSE IS CURRENTLY SERVED WITH WATER, CORRECT? AND IT'S ON A SEPTIC FIELD AND THEY MAINTAIN THE SEPTIC FIELD?
>> YES, YES. THEY WANT TO WORK AT THE SEPTIC SYSTEM.
WHEN I HAVE A FINAL ON THE NEW HOME THAT WILL HAVE TO BE ATTACHED THE SEPTIC SYSTEM.
>> THERE WILL BE ONE WATER SERVICE TO MAINTAIN? SO ADDING WATER SERVICE 2 X CORRECT.
>> SO WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION WERE NOT REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO CITY SEWER?
>> BACK TOWARD TOWN, RIGHT? >>
MICROPHONE] >> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT AND WISH TO SPEAK? ALL RIGHT, WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK SO IFTHERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION .
I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? PASSES UNANIMOUS. SO YOU ARE COMFORTABLE THE WAY YOU HAVE THIS WRITTEN IT WILL BE A CLEAN TURNAROUND EVERYTHING IS GONE THERE'S NO LOOPHOLES TO GET AROUND
CLEANING UP OR ANYTHING? >> I AM CONFIDENT I CAN SEE KEVIN GRINNING.
>> LET'S SAY THIS MAY BE MY CREATIVE WRITING. THIS WAS MY CREATIVE WRITING PROJECT FOR THE QUARTER. BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T HAVE A VERY GOOD EXISTING TEMPLATE OR SET OF REGULATIONS OR CODE OF ORDINANCES AROUND THE ZONING BRING OUT TO ACCOMPLISH THIS. WE ALREADY BEGAN DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF PUT TOGETHER.
[00:15:02]
WE TRIED TO FIGURE WHICH WAY INCLUDING REQUIRING TO OBTAIN THE DEMOLITION PERMIT PRIOR TO GET THE GREEN TAG ON THE NEW HOME SO AT LEAST WE KNOW THAT PART IS ALREADY DONE THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF AN EXECUTED CONTRACT FOR THAT WORK. SO WE TRIED TO CLEAN UP THE BEST WE CAN, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF CREATIVE RESOLUTION ON THIS ONE.>> THAT WAS A VERY LONG YES, THE BEST I CAN. THE BEST WE COULD COME UP WITH.
>> 30 DAYS, WHERE DO WE COME UP WITH 30 DAYS?
>> ITS STANDARD WHEN WE GAUGE OUT A TIMELINE YOU CAN IMAGINE WE NEED TO BE MOVING YOUR STUFF INTO THE NEW HOUSE, ANOTHER WEEK TO BE ENSURING THAT YOU ARE GETTING THINGS DEMOED AND REMOVED. YOU MIGHT HAVE HEAVY RAINS TO SLOW DOWN GIVING A WEEKS GRACE THERE THE FOURTH FOR MURPHY'S LAW.
>> ME 30 DAYS THEY MAY COME BACK AND SAY WE NEED ANOTHER 30 DAYS BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T SEEM SO LONG TO ME.
>>. I HAVE ANOTHER CITY RIVER PROGRAM WHERE WE DO A LOT OF PURCHASING OLD HOMES AND THE BROKER WE DEAL WITH ON THAT PROGRAM AS LONG AS HE HAS GOT HIS DEMO COMPANY LINE OF, BASICALLY, THEY GET ON THEIR AND THEY ARE GONE.
THE ACTUAL DEMOLITION SOMETIMES MAKING SURE BECAUSE THE WATER, SEWER THERE ON SEPTIC SO WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE CITY THEY ARE NOT CAPPING ANYTHING. SO THERE'S NOT THE KIND OF DELAYS.
>> I WAS SITTING TWO WEEKS TO GET OUT OF THE HOUSE AND THEN TWO WEEKS FOR DEMOAND CLEANUP .
THAT MIGHT TAKE A WHILE.IF THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, I GUESS.
>> ALL PARTIES HAVE BEEN COMFORTABLE WITH THE 30 DAY TIME.
>> AS LONG AS THE DEMOLITION HAS STARTED AND THE HOUSE IS NO LONGER HABITABLE THAT'S OUR MAIN THING SO WE DON'T HAVE TO HABITABLE STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY.
>> OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? IF NOT, I MOVED TO APPROVE.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. AYE. AS PRESENTED.
>> YES. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ANY DISCUSSION? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS.
OKAY STUFF HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? COMMISSIONERS, ANYBODY? ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL THE PAPER AYE. IT IS UNANIMOUS.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.