[00:00:05]
>> OKAY. I THINK WE HAVE OUR P.A. SYSTEM UP AND RUNNING. AT THIS TIME, I WILL CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. OF THE PLANK & ZONING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. CITIZENS WISHING TO SPEAK SHOULD FILL OUT A PARTICIPATION FORM AND PRESENT IT TO THE STAFF PRIOR TO THE MEETING. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT. THE COMMISSION CANNOT ACT ON BEHALF OF THOSE LISTED ON THE AGENDA.
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO SPEAK THAT THE ITEM IS NOT ON THE AGENDA? WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM TWO.
[002 Staff review of the cases that were heard by City Council in the last sixty (60) days.]
STAFF REVIEW. THE CASES HEARD BY THE CITYCOUNCIL IN THE LAST 60 DAYS. >> CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONERS, AT THE OCTOBER 11, 2023 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, Z-2523263830, OAK TREE LANE WHICH WAS A REQUEST TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL A TO SINGLE-FAMILY 2, TO ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. THIS WAS A CASE WHERE THEY WERE TAKING THE LOT AND DIVIDING IT INTO TWO.
BY COUNCIL. ITHE NEXT CASE WAS SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. SUP-12-2023, 71931 BELMONT.
THIS WAS A REQUEST FOR A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT WITH A SEPARATE (INAUDIBLE) IT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
AND P & Z RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AS WELL.
THE NEXT ITEM IS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.
SUP-13-2023-72 CREEKSIDE CHURCH DAY CARE.
A REQUEST FOR A MODULAR BUILDING FOR USE OF A DAY CARE.
IT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
P & Z RECOMMENDED APPROVAL UNANIMOUSLY.
THE LAST ITEM WAS CASE NUMBER Z-26, 202378.
SALVATION ARMY TRACT REZONE. FROM AG TO REZONE.
IT WAS APPROVED 7-0 BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
P & Z RECOMMENDED APPROVAL UNANIMOUSLY.
Z-2023-68 WAS A PD AMENDMENT. THE SHOPS ON MAIN.
A REQUEST TO AMEND AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW HOTEL USE.
IT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL 5-2.
P & Z RECOMMENDED TO APPROVE IT UNANIMOUSLY.
DO YOU WANT TO REVIEW ANY OF THOSE CASES?
OR ASK ANY QUESTIONS? >> OKAY.
[003 Discussion of Home Occupations.]
>> ITEM 3 IS DISCUSSION OF HOME OCCUPATIONS.
>> SO WE ARE GOING TO SEND YOU SOME DRAFT LANGUAGE.
WE DIDN'T PUT IT AS AN ACTION ITEM THIS TIME.
WE ARE GOING TO MOVE THROUGH IT BRIEFLY WITH YOU.
SO WE SEE A NEED TO ADDRESS HOME OCCUPATIONS AGAIN OR REVISIT IT SINCE PRIOR TO THE PANDEMIC, WE DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE WORKING AT HOME THAT AS A RESULT OF THE PANDEMIC, WE HAVE THREE TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE THAT WORK FROM HOME.
SO THE BASIC DEFINITION IS CUSTOMARY HOME OCCUPATIONS ARE THOSE ORDINARILY CARRIED ON IN A HOME WHICH ARE NOT DETRIMENTAL OR INJURIOUS TO ADJOINING PROPERTY.
DO NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE COMFORTABLE ENJOYMENT OF PRIVATE HOMES BY PERSONS OF ORDINARY SENSIBILITIES PROVIDED THAT ALL SUCH USES MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA.
SO IT NEEDS TO BE LOCATED IN THE PRIMARY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE. EXCEPT AS DESCRIBED UNDER
[00:05:02]
"OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES." THE RESIDENTS OF THE DWEG-- DWELLING, EMPLOYEES THAT DO NOT VISIT THE HOME AS PART OF THEIR JOB ARE EXCLUDED FROM THAT PROVISION.NO SIGNS ADVERTISING THE HOME OCCUPATION CAN BE DISPLAYED.
HOWEVER, YOU CAN HAVE VEHICLE SIGNS AS LONG AS THEY ARE MOUNTED FLAT AGAINST OR PAINTED ON THE VEHICLE.
AND DO NOT REFER TO THE STREET ADDRESS OF THE HOME OCCUPATION.
SO THERE IS ONE EXCEPTION TO THIS.
IT IS THE NAME PLATE SIGN AND THE SIGN ORDINANCE.
AND WHEN WE SEND OUT THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, WE WILL NEED TO REVISIT THAT. THE HOME OCCUPATION CANNOT INCREASE NORMAL AUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
OR REQUIRE ADDITIONAL OFF-STREET PARKING.
TO ACCOMMODATE CUSTOMERS, PARKING IS LIMITED TO RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE. PERMITTED CUSTOMERS SHALL BE 1:00 TO 4:00. CUSTOMERS WHO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT PRIOR TO ARRIVAL. SO THERE SHALL NOT BE ANY OUTSIDE STORAGE OR MACHINERY EQUIPMENT OR MATERIALS THAT ARE NOT CUSTOMARY TO NORMAL HOUSEHOLD OPERATIONS THAT PRODUCE NOISE, NOXIOUS ODOR, SMOKE, FUMES, VIBRATION, GLARE, ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE OR RADIO OR ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERFERENCE BEYOND THE BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY.
AND NO MATERIALS ARE PERMITTED ON THE PREMISES IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRE CODE. IT IS DEEMED AS AN INCIDENTAL USE AND SHALL NEVER BE PERMITTED AS THE PRINCIPAL USE.
IT DOES NOT INVOLVE THE WHOLESALE OR RETAIL SALE OF GOODS. SO IT IS NOT MEANT TO CHANGE THE EXTERNAL APPEARANCE OF THE HO HOUSE, AND NO VEHICLE LARGER THAN ONE TON CAN BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES.
SO I WON'T GO INTO ALL OF THEM, BUT WE HAVE TRADITIONALLY HAD A LIST OF CUSTOMARY HOME OCCUPATIONS THAT ARE ALLOWED TO GIVE AN IDEA OF WHAT TYPES OF USES ARE ACCEPTABLE.
LIKE A NOTARY PUBLIC, CLOTHES-MAKING, JEWELRY-MAKING.
THEN WE ALSO HAVE A CUSTOMARY LIST OF THINGS THAT AREN'T ALLOWED. YOU KNOW, THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING LIKE A WELDING SHOP OR SOMETHING THAT HAS AN EXTERNAL IMPACT. I GUESS I WANT TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT BEFORE I SENT THIS OUT TO YOU FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
REALY, THE PRIMARY QUESTION I HAVE IS ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH THE LIST OF ACCEPTABLE USES OR NOT ACCEPTABLE USES? BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN SOME ORDINANCES WHERE THEY ARE ONLY BASED ON PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, SO THEY DON'T EVEN TOUCH CUSTOMARY USES. I MEAN, WE COULD LET YOU-- WE COULD SEND THIS OUT AND LET YOU THINK ABOUT IT.
I MEAN, IF IT IS SOMETHING YOU HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT, KIND OF PUTTING YOU ON THE SPOT. IF THERE IS ANYTHING THAT YOU-- OR ANY OTHER PART OF WHAT I MENTIONED THAT YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT, NO. OKAY.
>> YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT TRAFFIC INCREASING OR SOMETHING.
>> RIGHT. >> HOW ARE YOU GOING TO MEASURE THAT? IF ONE PERSON COMES, THAT WILL
WELL, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE THAT DOESN'T HAVE A HOME OCCUPATION CAN HAVE PEOPLE COME AND VISIT THEM.
AND IT DOESN'T HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO THAT IS WHY OTHER CITIES WILL HAVE A PROVISION THAT SAYS THAT YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, PARK THE CARS IN THE DRIVEWAY OR IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE. THAT IS WHAT YOU WOULD DO IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE A HOME OCCUPATION. AND YOU HAD PEOPLE VISITING YOU.
THAT REALLY WOULD BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE REGULAR NEIGHBORHOOD ACTIVITY. SO THAT WOULDN'T REALLY CREATE AN ADVERSE, YOU KNOW, IMPACT. I BELIEVE THAT ONE OF THE CALLS THAT WE HAD GOTTEN A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO WAS ABOUT SOMEBODY THAT WAS DOING A SOCCER TEAM AT THEIR HOUSE.
AND SO THAT WAS CREATING 20 CARS VISITING.
[00:10:01]
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY. A LOT OF CARS VISITING AND FILLING THE STREET. THAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF ONE THAT WOULD HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.>> I AGREE. AND I WAS JUST THINKING THAT WOULD BE HARD TO ENFORCE. OR HARD TO DEFINE.
IF YOU HAVE IT TO WHERE YOU CAN ONLY FILL THE DRIVE WAY OR HAVE ONE CAR OR SOMETHING, THAT IS MUCH EASIER TO SAY, OKAY, YOU ARE IN VIOLATIONRA. THEY ARE THAN SOMETHING LIKE
INCREASE THE TRAFFIC. >> OKAY.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL MOVE DOWN TO THE CONSENT
[CONSENT AGENDA]
AGENDA. ITEM 004, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON THE REQUEST FROM THE FINAL PLAT FROM MIDLOTHIAN, STILL PROCESSING ADDITION ONE BLOCK A. ITEM SIX, ACT UPON A REQUEST (INAUDIBLE) 007, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT. # 3.4 ACRES.CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF-- ( INAUDIBLE). 009, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT FOR WEST SIDE PRESERVE.
SECTION 1, LOT A. ITEM 10, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT. 1.39 ACRES.
(INAUDIBLE) ABSTRACT 1179. ABSTRACT WITHERSPOON.
NUMBER 1137. WHATEVER THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION IS, WE CAN TAKE THESE AS A WHOLE IN ONE MOTION OR IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO REMOVE ONE, WE CAN TAKE IT ALL.
>> LY MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED.
>> I'LL SECOND. >> A MOTION AND A SECOND.
TO APPROVE. ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.
>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. WE WILL MOVE TO THE REGULAR
[013 Consider and act upon an approval of a detailed site plan for a daycare development on 1.30 acres out of the Marcellus T. Hawkins Survey, Abstract 463, and the Benjamin Hawkins Survey, Abstract 464, City of Midlothian, Ellis County, Texas. The property is generally located on the northwest corner of 14th Street and Hawkins Run (SP05-2023-83).]
AGENDA. 013, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN FOR A DAY CARE DEVELOPMENT ON 1.30 ACRES OUT OF THE MARCELLUS HAWKINS SURVEY.THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS. THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 14TH STREET AND HAWKINS
OUR NEXT GUEST FOR THIS EVENING IS FOR AGENDA ITEM 13.
THIS IS FOR A PROPOSED DAY CARE. CALLED THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE.
BEFORE I GET FURTHER INTO, THIS I DO WANT TO STATE THAT WE INCLUDED THE TIA MEMO IN THE PACKET, BUT I FORGOT THE EXHIBITS TO INCLUDE THAT IN THERE.
THAT IS WHY I PRINTED THOSE OUT FOR YOU GUYS.
I APOLOGIZE ABOUT THAT. SO THAT, IN FRONT OF YOU, IS FOR REFERENCE. I WILL TRY TO EXPLAIN THE DETAIL AS I GO ALONG FURTHER. SO AGAIN, THIS IS ALONG HAWKINS ROAD AND QUP SOUTH 14TH STREET.
THE LAND IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED.
THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THE AREA AS A TOWN MODULE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THIS IS A LARGER VERSION OF THE IMAGE OF THE LOCATION EXHIBIT.
[00:15:05]
TO THAT WEST END SIDE, THERE IS RETAIL DEVELOPMENT.TO THE SOUTH, IS THE HAWKINS MEADOWS.
AND JEAN COLEMAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
NEXT SLIDE. THIS DEPICTS A SITE LAYOUT PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SO. AGAIN, APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A DAY CARE FACILITY BEING SENT OUT-- BEING 10,000 SQUARE FEET. THEY ARE EXPECTING A MAXIMUM OF 200 STUDENTS. AND 13 EMPLOYEES.
THE AVERAGE AGE IS AROUND FIVE YEARS OLD, KINDERGARTEN AGE.
MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, 6:30 A.M. TO 6:30 P.M.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS A DEVELOPMENT STANDARD CHART IN RELATION TO COMMUNITY RETAIL STANDARDS AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 81 STANDARDS, IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. THE SECOND COLUMN DEPICTS WHAT THE CITY REQUIRES. THE THIRD COLUMN IS WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING FOR THE DAY CARE.
ON THE FAR RIGHT-HAND COLUMN, IS WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS MEETING THOSE REQUIREMENTS OR NOT. THE APPLICANT IS MEETING ALL THE REQUIREMENTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THIS ROW.
FOR A CHILD CARE FACILITY, EXCUSE ME.
FOR A 10,000-SQUARE-FOOT BIDDING, YOU ARE LOOKING AT A MINIMUM OF 25 PARKING SPACES. THE MAXIMUM, NOT TO EXCEED 32 SPACES. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING 36 SPACES, AS YOU SEE IN THE THIRD COLUMN THERE.
OBVIOUSLY, THAT IS EXCEEDING THE REQUIREMENT.
THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO EXPLAIN THEIR REASONING AS WELL. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THIS DEPICTS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING SUFFICIENT LANDSCAPING FOR THIS SITE.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THESE NEXT FEW SLIDES DEPICT THE ELEVATION. 26 FEET IN HEIGHT.
PRIMARILY, STUCCO MATERIAL WITH STONE ALONG THE BOTTOM.
HERE IS JUST ANOTHER VIEWPOINT ALONG THE SIDE AND THE REAR OF THE BUILDING. THE NEXT SLIDE.
AND SO WITHIN OUR STAFF REPORT THAT IS IN YOUR PACKET, WE MENTIONED ONE OF OUR STAFF CONCERNS WAS THAT THE APPLICANT WASN'T PROVIDING ENOUGH ARTICULATION IN REFERENCE TO THE BUILDING. SO LATE YESTERDAY, WE GOT AN UPDATED EXHIBIT. SO THAT IS NOT WITHIN THE PLANS.
HOWEVER, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOP, WHERE THAT ACADEMY OF EARLY EDUCATION IS, THEY BROUGHT THAT PORTION OF THE BUILDING OUT 3.5 TO 4 FEET. THE HORIZONTAL ARTICULATION REQUIREMENTS. DUE TO THAT, STAFF IS OKAY WITH THE CHANGE. TO THE BUILDING.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SOME ADDITIONAL VARIANCE REQUESTS THAT WE MENTIONED IN THE STAFFING REPORT.
THE PARKING THAT WE TOUCHED ON EARLIER.
THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED TO EXCEED 35 PARKING SPACES.
THEY ARE REQUESTING 36. AND DRIVEWAY SEPARATION.
ALONG HAWKINS RUN ROAD. THE APPLICANT CAN'T EXCEED 303 FEET FOR ADDING ANOTHER DRIVE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING ANOTHER DRIVE WITHIN 247 FEET. HOWEVER THAT, SECOND ACCESS POINT WITHIN THE SITE PLAN IS GOING TO BE A RIGHT-IN AND RIGHT-OUT ONLY. DUE TO THAT, STAFF IS OKAY WITH THAT DRIVEWAY SEPARATION DISTANCE.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING THOSE CHANGES WE MENTIONED FOR THE ELEVATION OF THE SITE PLAN.
ANY QUESTIONS? >> QUESTIONS OF STAFF?
>> I DO HAVE ONE. DOWN TO THIS SIDE IS HAWKINS R RUN. DOES IT HAVE A MEDIAN?
>> DOWN THERE. IS THAT DIVIDED WITH A MEDIAN THERE? IN FRONT OF THIS?
>> OKAY. AND I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE DRAWINGS THAT PROVIDES FOR A CUT-THROUGH TO GET ACROSS.
>> GO BACK TO THAT SITE PLAN. SORRY.
>> IT WOULD BE A RIGHT TURN IN AND A RIGHT TURN OUT.
ON THAT SECOND ACCESS POINT HERE.
ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT AND WISH TO SPEAK? COME IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIVE WITHIN THE CITY. (INAUDIBLE) QUESTIONS OF THE
[00:20:27]
APPLICANT. THANK YOU, SIR.I'M SHOWING NO ONE TO SPEAK. DID I MISANYBODY? IF NOT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
WE ARE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I MAKE A MAJOR LEAGUES TO APPROVE AS-- I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.
>> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.
>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. F ITEM 14.
[014 Conduct a public hearing to consider and act upon an ordinance relating to the use and development of 7.021± acres of land situated in the Williams Hawkins Survey, Abstract 465, by changing the zoning from Single Family Four (SF-4) District to an Urban Village Planned Development (UVPD) District for single family residential uses. The property is generally located about 273 feet south of West Avenue I, and the address is 465 South 9th Street. (Case No. Z22-2023-069)]
CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE WILLIAMS HAW KIPS SEASON SURVEY ABSTRACT 465.CHANGING THE ZONING FROM SINGLE-FAMILY TO URBAN VILLAGE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ABOUT 273 FEET SOUTH OF-- (INAUDIBLE).
>> CHAIRMAN? THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE-FAMILY 4 TO URBAN VILLAGE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AND OPEN SPACE USES. THE SUBDIVISION WILL BE PLATTED INTO SIMPLE LOTS AND SOLD TO INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS.
ACCORDING TO THE-- SEE WHAT WE HAVE.
OKAY. SO THE PROPERTY IS ON 7.02 ACRES. LOCATED ALONG 9TH STREET.
AND THE ZONING IS SINGLE-FAMILY 2.
IT IS PART OF THE NEW TOWN MODULE.
AND THE NEW TOWN MODULE HAS CHARACTERISTICS THAT INCLUDE A MIX OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES THAT ENCOURAGE WALKING AND BIKING BETWEEN LOCATIONS. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MEETS THE FOLLOWING GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE COMP PLAN: ECONOMIC AND FISCAL HEALTH. GOAL TWO, ENSURE THAT A BROAD RANGE OF HOUSING ALTERNATIVES ARE AVAILABLE FOR EMPLOYEES, EMPLOYERS AND RESIDENTS TO ACCOMMODATE VARIOUS LIFESTYLE CHANGES. POLICY 2.2, ENCOURAGE A DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING PRODUCT TYPES THAT HELP TO DIVERSIFY MIDLOTHIAN'S HOUSING STOCK. SO THE SURROUNDING LAND USES AND THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES FOR THE SURROUNDING LAND USES TO THE NORTH, ZONED SINGLE FAMILY 4.
IT IS A CEMETERY THAT IS UNDEVELOPED LAND AND DEVELOPED
[00:25:05]
PART OF THE CEMETERY. IT IS A NEW TOWN MODULE.TO THE SOUTH, SINGLE-FAMILY 4. UVPD-65.
THE CHARTER HOUSE. IT IS USED FOR AN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. AND PD-42, THE MIDTOWN DEVELOPMENT. THESE ARE ALL IN THE NEW TOWN MODULE. TO THE WEST, THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL 3 AND UVPD-135.
THE URBAN VILLAGE PD IS USED TO ACCOMMODATE FOR FOR CHALLENGES.
TO THE WEST, YOU HAVE PROFESSIONAL OFFICES AND SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES. ON NINTH STREET.
THOSE ARE IN THE ORIGINAL TOWN MODULE.
OKAY? SO SOME OF THE OTHER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS THAT ARE MET INCLUDE LAND USE GOAL NUMBER FOUR. MAINTAIN ATTRACTIVE AND SAFE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. POLICY 4.2.
PROTECT TRADITIONAL SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS BY REQUIRING A TRADITIONAL LOT DESIGN AND BUFFERING.
CONSIDER POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF LOTS SMALLER THAN 9,000 SQUARE FEET. THROUGH THE PD PROCESS.
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. SUCH AS THE PROVISION OF OPEN SPACE, COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT, BUFFERING TRAFFIC AND OTHER IMPACTS RESULTING FROM INCREASED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY. GO AHEAD AND KEEP IT ON THAT SLIDE. SO I LOOKED AT THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE AROUND THIS PROPERTY. TO THE WEST IS THE MCEL ROY SUBDIVISIONS WHICH WERE BUILT IN THE 1960S.
THEY HAVE LOTS THAT RANGE FROM ABOUT 5,000 TO 10,000 FEET.
TO THE NORTH, THERE IS THE ARKANSAS HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION.
WHICH WAS BUILT IN THE 19 50S. IT HAS LOTS THAT ARE 8,000 TO 14,000 SQUARE FEET. SO THE NEIGHBORHOODS IN THIS AREA TEND TO BE ZONED RESIDENTIAL 3 AS A WHOLE.
A LOT OF THEM ARE IN THAT 5,000 TO 10,000 RANGE.
AND THEN OF COURSE, MIDTOWN WHICH IS-- HAS A WIDE RANGE OF PROPERTIES. THEY DO HAVE SOME THAT ARE 4,600 SQUARE FEET. THEY ARE NOT CLOSE TO THIS PROPERTY. THIS IS MORE IN THE RANGE OF 5,750 SQUARE FEET TO 9,200 SQUARE FEET.
SO THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN DESIGNATES SOUTH 9TH STREET AS A MINOR ARTERIAL. IT IS EXISTING AS A TWO-LANE UNDIVIDED ROADWAY. AND IT WILL EVENTUALLY BE 90 FEET WIDE. THE APPLICANT HAS OFFERED TO BUILD A LEFT-TURN LANE AND A SOUTHBOUND ACCELERATION LANE, AND SHELBY COURT AND SHELBY PLACE ARE BOTH-- GO AHEAD AND TURN IT BACK. ARE BOTH 50 FEET WIDE.
THIS IS DIFFERENT FOR MIDTOWN. THE STREETS ARE 30 FEET WIDE IN MIDTOWN. THE 50-FOOT-WIDE STREETS WILL ALLOW PEOPLE TO PARK ON THE STREETS, AND OUT OF THE 23 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, THE GARAGES WILL TIE-- LET ME SEE.
THE SIDEWALKS ARE FIVE-FOOT SIDEWALKS.
THEY RUN ALONG BOTH SIDES OF ALL THE STREETS.
THEY WILL TIE IN WITH THE SUBDIVISION ON NINTH STREET.
THE THRESHHOLD ANALYSIS WORK SHEATHE WAS PROVIDED.
-- WORKSHEET WAS PROVIDED. IT DID NOT CONSTITUTE A SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC IMPACT. THEY DID NOT DO A FULL-BLOWN
[00:30:04]
STUDY. THERE IS A LOT FOR THE MAILBOX AREA. THAT WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOA. IT IS-- WELL, THIS AREA HERE.SO IT WILL, YOU KNOW, GET OFF OF THE MAIN AREA.
THE APPLICANT ALSO PROVIDED THREE CROSSWALKS WHICH IS ANOTHER PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY AMENITY FOR THE SUBDIVISION.
THE PARKS DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN TALKING TO THE APPLICANT.
IT MAY BE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE. IT IS STILL IN NEGOTIATION.
IF IT IS NOT PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, IT WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOA. I WANTED TO SHOW-- GO BACK ONE MORE TIME. GO AHEAD AND GO BACK.
THE HOUSES HAVE PRIVATE MUTUAL ACCESS EASEMENTS.
INITIALLY, WHEN THEY CAME IN, THEY PROPOSED ALLEYWAYS.
AND WITH THE ACCELERATION LANE THAT CREATED A CHALLENGE, SO A PRIVATE AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO PROPERTY OWNERS.
AS YOU KNOW, I CAME FROM FORT WORTH.
THESE ARE EVERYWHERE IN FORT WORTH.
WHEN I LOOKED AT NEIGHBORHOODS TO SHOW YOU EXAMPLES OF THIS, I SAW A LOT OF NEW ONES WITH NEW ARCHITECTURE.
SO I HAVE PROVIDED SOME EXAMPLES FROM THE FAIRMONT AVENUE, FAIRMONT HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
GO AHEAD. SO FAIRMONT IS MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE FORM AND THE SIZE OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS, OLD NEIGHBORHOODS IN MIDLOTHIAN. AND SO A LOT OF THE PEOPLE DIDN'T OWN CARS, EVEN IN THE 50S.
I MEAN, YOU THINK EVERYONE OWNED A CAR IN THE 50S.
EVEN THEN, PEOPLE-- NOT EVERYBODY HAD A CAR.
SO IT IS A PRETTY TYPICAL CONDITION TO HAVE SHARED DRIVEWAYS. AND THEY CAN-- YOU KNOW, THEY WILL HAVE ONE SIDE AS A GREEN SPACE.
THEN THE DRIVEWAY ON THE OTHER SIDE.
AND SOMETIMES THEY WILL WORK TOGETHER, AND THERE IS ENOUGH SPACE THAT THEY COULD EVEN DO TWO SEPARATE DRIVEWAYS IF THEY CHOSE TO DO THAT. IT IS SOMETHING THAT WORKS VERY WELL, AND THEY WOULD PUT THE PRIVATE MUTUAL ACCESS EASEMENT ON THE PLAT TO SHOW IT. SO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE WOULD BE 5,000. THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH WOULD BE 50. THE LOT DEPTH WOULD BE A MINIMUM OF 100. THE BUILDING WOULD BE 3,226.
THE MAXIMUM OF COVERAGE WOULD BE 53.9%.
THE FRONT YARD SETBACK WOULD BE TEN FEET.
THE SIDE YARD WOULD BE FIVE. UNLESS IT IS ON THE CORNER WHICH IT WOULD BE 15. IT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE TWO STORIES. BUT NOT GREATER THAN 35 FEET.
SO THE GARAGES, THEY ARE SHOWING THEM AS DETACHED.
THIS IS MORE OF A CONCEPTUAL DRAWING.
THIS ISN'T A FINALIZED DRAWING. IT WAS MEANT TO KIND OF SHOW US HOW THEY WOULD BLOCK OUT THE SITE, AND SO THEY COULD HAVE ATTACHED. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN, PLEASE? YEAH.
SO MOST OF THE GARAGES ARE IN THE BACK.
YOU HAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO PARK A CAR IN FRONT OF THEM.
YOU CAN ACCOMMODATE FOUR CARS ON SITE.
THERE IS ONLY ONE THAT WAS NOT PUT TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY.
BUT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO ENCROACH ON THE FLOOD PLANE.
THEY WANTED TO PRESERVE THE FLOOD PLANE AND THE TREES IN THE FLOOD PLANE. THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO US AND VERY IMPORTANT TO THEM. GO AHEAD AND GO FORWARD.
[00:35:08]
THEY PUT TOGETHER THESE ELEVATIONS.THEY LOOKED AT THE ARCHITECTURE IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. THEY SAID THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO GENERATE MORE ELEVATIONS IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE. BUT THESE ARE ALL ELEMENTS THAT ARE OUT OF THE MIDLOTHIAN VERNACULAR.
THESE ARE ALL, YOU KNOW, ELEMENTS YOU CAN FIND COMMONLY IN MIDLOTHIAN. LIKE CRAFTSMAN OR GEORGIAN OR WHATEVER. DEPENDING ON WHICH PART OF TOWN YOU LOOK AT. THERE IS AN ANTI-MONOTONY CLAUSE IN THE ORDINANCE. THAT MEANS THEY CANNOT REPEAT WITHIN SIX LOTS ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE ROAD.
THEY ARE REQUIRED TO MEET THE SAME SLOPE.
8-12 OR GREATER. AS FAR AS LANDSCAPING IS CONCERNED, YEAH. THEY ARE-- THEY CHOSE THESE THAT ARE HARDY AND WILL DO WELL IN THIS AREA.
THEY MEET THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS.
AGAIN, THEY WILL SAY THAT THE TREES IN THE FLOOD PLANE AREA AND THE RESIDENTIAL LOT WILL INCREASE-- INCLUDE THE NUMBER OF TREES REQUIRED. ALONG THE LANDSCAPE AREA, ALONG NINTH STREET, THEY WILL HAVE A FENCE WITH COLUMNS.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS, THEY ARE NOT ENCROACHING ON THE FLOOD PLANE. THEY DID A PRELIMINARY DURING THE ANALYSIS. HOWEVER, THEY ARE HERE TO, YOU KNOW, GO THROUGH THE DRAINAGE, WITH YOU IN MORE DETAIL.
THEY DID PROVIDE A DIAGRAM OF THAT IN THE PACKET.
SO WE DID RECEIVE A POETICIAN. -- PETITION.
OUT OF THE PETITION, INSIDE OF THE 250-FOOTNOTEIFICATION AREA, THERE WERE EIGHT PROPERTIES. THEN OUTSIDE OF THE-- OH, THERE WERE ALSO FIVE IN SUPPORT. SIX IN SUPPORT.
OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION AREA, THAT WAS WHERE THE REST OF THE PROPERTIES LIED. 39 OF THE PROPERTIES WERE OUTSIDE OF THE BUFFER. SO I HAVE TALKED TO A LOT OF NEIGHBORS. THEIR PRIMARY CONCERN WAS THAT THEY THOUGHT IT WAS MULTIFAMILY, WHICH THE PETITIONER SAID AT THE TOP THAT IT IS MULTIFAMILY. SO IT IS A SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT I THINK THERE IS STILL A LOT OF-- THERE ARE STILL A LOT OF QUESTIONS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ABOUT DRAINAGE. >> YOU WILL ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO KIND OF GO THROUGH THAT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
OKAY. >> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT?
I'M SORRY. >> THIS IS NOT MULTIFAMILY.
>> AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE MINIMUM SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE
IS, COULD BE? >> THEY HAD IT AS 2,000 --
>> THAT WAS THE MAXIMUM. >> YEAH.
ALL OF THEM ADDRESS THAT. BUT IT WAS 2,326.
THEY DID SAY THEY ARE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TWO STORIES ON ALMOST EVERY STRUCTURE. IT WILL BE CLOSER TO 3,000.
>> THANK YOU. >> OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. APPLICANT PRESENT.
IF YOU WOULD COME UP AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF, WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIVE IN THE CITY. PROCEED.
>> HELLO. REPPING THE DEVELOPER-- REPGHT
[00:40:01]
THE DEVELOPER. THE DEVELOPER ENGINEER.WE ARE PROPOSING 23 LOTS ON 7 ACRES.
WITH THE DEVELOPMENT WE HAVE AGREED WITH THE CITY-- ALTHOUGH WE DID NOT WARRANT A TRAFFIC AN SI, ANALYSIS, WE HAVE AGREED TO MITIGATE SOME OF THOSE TRAFFIC CONCERNS AND IMPROVE NINTH STREET. WE WILL ALSO BE PICKING UP OUR INCOMING DRAINAGE. YOU KNOW, AS WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO BY LAW. AND REROUTING IT THROUGH OUR SITE. SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU GUYS MIGHT V. >> YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THE
SO THERE WAS-- I BELIEVE THERE WAS A LOT OF CITIZEN CONCERN FROM THE ADJOINING DEVELOPMENT ON DRAINAGE.
VERY SIMPLE. WE WON'T BE DISCHARGING TO THAT SITE AT ALL. WE WILL ROUTE THAT STORMWATER THROUGH OUR SITE TO THE FLOOD PLANE.
OH, SURE. (INAUDIBLE) (INAUDIBLE).
>> YEAH. WE WILL PICK THAT UP AND CONVEY THROUGH THE SYSTEM. OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE
APPLICANT? >> I BELIEVE WE ARE TARGETING AROUND-- MINIMUM SQUARE FOOT WILL BE 2,200.
THAT IS IF THEY WANT A SINGLE-STORY.
>> MINIMUM LOT SIZE AGAIN? 5,000?
>> CONCEPTUAL. >> ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR.
>> THANK YOU. >> OKAY, WE DO HAVE SOME SPEAKERS. FIRST ONE I HAVE HERE IS LUKE
GARRWAY. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
>> COULD YOU STATE WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OR
I'M REPRESENTING THE DEVELOPER OF THE PROPERTY.
LUKE CAREWAY, 197 STOCKMAN DRIVE, DRIPPING SPRINGS, TEXAS.
I WANTED TO EXPRESS OUR EXCITEMENT OVER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. AND KIND OF GO THROUGH, YOU KNOW, OUR OBJECTIVE AS ERIC ALLUDED TO IS YOU KNOW, KIND OF FITTING WITHIN THE 3,000 TO 3 5RBGS00 SQUARE-FOOT HOMES.
THEY WILL PREDOMINANTLY BE TWO-STORY HOMES.
PROBABLY IN THE 500K AND ABOVE RANGE.
TO GIVE, YOU KNOW, AN IDEA OF WHAT PROGRAM WE ARE PROPOSING HERE. I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE. I JUST WANTED TO INTRODUCE MYSELF AND JUST, YOU KNOW, SHOW YOU ALL THAT, YOU KNOW, THE DEVELOPER IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL.
THAT ANYBODY MIGHT HAVE. >> THANK YOU, SIR.
>> WHAT WAS THE PRICE POINT AGAIN ON THESE?
>> OVER 500K. >> 2,000 SQUARE FEET?
>> THAT WOULD BE THE MINIMUM. MOST OF THE HOMES WILL BE IN THE 3,000 TO 3,500 RANGE. MOST WILL BE TWO-STORY.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT, I HAVE ERIC BEAKS.
[00:45:06]
RICHARD . STEPHEN AND MARY BOYD? OKAY. LET THE RECORD SHOW THEY ARE IN FAVOR. STEPHEN IS IN FAVOR.SHARON HAWTHORNE? DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK?
>> SURE. I DIDN'T FILL OUT A FORM.
IF YOU WANT TO SAY WHETHER YOU ARE IN FAVOR.
>> I'M OPPOSED. >> YOU ARE OPPOSED.
>> IF YOU WOULD, MA'AM, COME UP AND PUT YOUR NAME ON THE RECORD.
WHETHER OR NOT YOU LI IN THE CITY.
>> MY NAME IS SHARON HAWTHORNE. I LIVE AT 217 COTY.
I'M ONE OF THE FOUR OR FIVE HOUSES THAT DIRECTLY TOUCH THE PROPERTY. ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE IT IS A CONCERN FOR THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE OF THE EXCESSIVE TRAFFIC CONCERNS. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT WE ARE WE-- OUR PETITION DIDN'T INTEND TO STATE THAT THIS WAS MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. WE OPPOSE THE ZONING THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. NOT THAT THAT IS WHAT THIS DEVELOPER IS PLANNING. BUT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, A UVPD WOULD ALLOW MULTIFAMILY OR RENTALS OR, YOU KNOW, OTHER THINGS. OTHER THAN RESIDENTIAL.
THAT IS WHY WE ARE OPPOSING THE ZONING.
REGARDLESS OF WHAT'S PLANNED. >> ACTUALLY, THAT IS NOT
THE BASE ZONING, MAYOR, I BELIEVE, IS GOING TO BE WHAT?
>> SINGLE-FAMILY 2. THE BASE ZONING WILL BE SINGLE-FAMILY 2. THAT IS WHAT'S GOING TO CONTROL OVER THE PROPERTY. THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS ADOPTED LARGELY BECAUSE THERE IS OTHER TYPES OF CRITERIA THAT MAYBE THEY ARE MAKING EXCEPTIONS TO.
BUT BASE ZONING WOULD HAVE TO BE MULTIFAMILY IN ORDER FOR MULTIFAMILY TO BE ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
THAT IS NOT HAPPENING IN THIS CASE.
>> WELL, I GUESS WHAIB WHAT WOULD CLARIFY IT IS IF YOU WOULD EXPLAIN WHY THIS DEVELOPMENT CAN'T BE BUILT USING THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING. WHY IT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.
>> AS THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING. SINGLE-FAMILY 2 IS RESIDENTIAL.
>> I THOUGHT WE WERE HERE TO REZONE IT.
>> PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IS A CUSTOMIZED ZONING DISTRICT.
WHICH HAS TO BE A BASE ZONING FIRST OF SOMETHING.
WHETHER IT BE COMMERCIAL, RETAIL, SINGLE FAMILY, WHATEVER.
IT IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE ARE CUSTOMIZING THE DEVELOPER REGULATIONS RELATED TO IT.
FOR USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.
IT WILL BE SINGLE-FAMILY. >> IF THIS DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T GET DEVELOPED, THE NEXT PERSON WHO BUYS THE PROPERTY WOULDN'T HAVE AN AUTOMATIC ZONING THAT THEY COULD BUILD.
>> RIGHT. ONCE THIS IS ZONED FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY 2 OR THE UVPD THAT IS BEING PROPOSED WITH SINGLE FAMILY 2, FOR SOME REASON, THE DEVELOPMENT DIDN'T MOVE FORWARD, THAT ZONING WOULD STILL BE IN PLACE.
YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T REVERT BACK TO THE OLD ZONING.
SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO COME IN AND REZONE IT.
IF YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER IT WOULD BE MULTIFAMILY, SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO COME FORWARD WITH AN APPLICATION FOR A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WHICH YOU WOULD RECEIVE NOTICE OF.
THE CASE IS BEING PROPOSED HE HERE-- THAT IS NOT A MULTIFAMILY
CASE. >> WELL, WE OPPOSE IT FOR OTHER REASONS. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING.
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. THE NEXT ONE I HAVE IS STEPHEN MUELLER. IF YOU WOULD COME UP AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND WHETHER YOU LIVE IN THE CITY.
YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> YES, SIR.
DR. STEPHEN MUELLER. I LIVE NEXT TO THE LADY WHO JUST SPOKE. WE BACK DIRECTLY ON THIS PROPERTY. IT CERTAINLY WAS CONFUSING.
THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT PIECE.
WE WERE NEVER AGAINST DEVELOPMENT OR ANY GOOD DEVELOPMENT. MIDTOWN IS AN AWARD-WINNING NEIGHBORHOOD, AS YOU ARE WELL AWARE.
IT IS A UNIQUE NEIGHBORHOOD. FOR US AND FOR THE ENTIRE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN TO BE PROUD OF. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS
[00:50:03]
CONTINUES TO BE PART OF THAT. THIS AREA HAS TOPOGRAPHICAL AND DRAINAGE CHALLENGES. AS WE ARE STATED.NOT IN A GREAT DEAL OF DEPTH. THOSE OF US THAT BACK AGAINST THIS AREA CERTAINLY HAVE CONCERNS AS WELL ABOUT HOW THEY WILL ADDRESS PUTTING IN-- ADDRESS EASEMENTS AND THINGS THAT AFFECT US AS WELL. WE CERTAINLY WANT THIS TO BE SINGLE-FAMILY. WE ARE COB FUSED AS TO WHY IT NEEDS TO CHANGE IF WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING ANYWAY.
WHY IT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED TO A DISTRICT LIKE THAT.
YOU CERTAINLY KNOW THAT BETTER THAN WE.
THAT IS A CONFUSION. AND SO WE ARE JUST HERE TO VOICE OUR CONCERNS, AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION, CONSIDERATION, TIME, AND UNDERSTANDING AND CONTINUITY.
>> THE SINGLE FAMILY 2 DISTRICT HAS LARGER LOTS THAN THIS.
SO IT SPECIFIES LARGER LOTS. THAN WHAT THE UVPD S SPECIFIES.
>> RIGHT. BUT UVPD IN OTHER AREAS CERTAINLY LOOKS VERY DIFFERENT THAN A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
DON'T YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >> ACTUALLY NOT.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF UVPD ORDINANCES THAT HAVE BEEN IMPROVED OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS THAT I HAVE BEEN THE CITY ATTORNEY SITTING UP HERE ADVISING THE COMMISSION HAVE LARGELY BEEN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA THAT ARE OLDER THAT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES AND BUSINESSES, YOU KNOW, WHILE MAINTAINING.
THAT HAS BEEN THE PRIMARY USE. THAT HAS NOT BEEN THE SOLE USE FOR UVPD. I MEAN, WE COULD JUST AS EASILY CALL THIS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ABOUT THE UV-- WITHOUT
THE UV IN FRONT OF IT. >> RIGHT.
>> ONE THING YOU PROBABLY NEED TO REALIZE IS THAT MIDTOWN-- THE ENTIRETY OF MIDTOWN IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
>> YES. >> BASICALLY, WHAT WE ARE DOING IS CREATING A SMALLER PD WITHIN THE LARGER PD.
THAT IS WHAT'S BEING ASKED OF THE COMMISSION.
ULTIMATELY, THE CITY COUNCIL. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> SO FOR THE RECORD, ARE YOU FOR OR AGAINST?
>> CURRENTLY, I'M OPPOSED. >> YOU ARE OPPOSED?
NEXT ONE I HAVE IS COTY NEXT. IF YOU WOULD COME UP AND IDENTIFY YOUR NAME. WHETHER YOU LIVE IN THE CITY.
>> COTY NIX. I SHARE THE SAME BORDER THERE.
SOME OF THE CONCERNS, THINK, HAVE BEEN FLUSHED OUT.
I APPRECIATE Y'ALL CLARIFYING SOME OF THE CONCERNS.
ULTIMATELY, THE NEIGHBORS ARE FOR A COMPARABLE SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. WE UNDERSTAND ESPECIALLY IN A MILL UP TO, DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.
I'M A BUILDER. I BUILD HOMES IN MIDTOWN.
I UNDERSTAND THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
I GET THIS IS PART OF LIVING IN DOWNTOWN.
I APPRECIATE THE CLARITY. I UNDERSTAND-- THE ENGINEER PROVIDED A LETTER OCTOBER 13 ILLUSTRATING SOME DIFFERENCES OF THE DRAINAGE PLAN. I GUESS SOME FACTS CAME OUT LATER ON. I PROVIDED THE CITY STAFF A VIDEO AFTER THE STORM WE HAD A FEW WEEKS AGO.
A LARGE STORM. THE DRAINAGE ISSUE THAT WE DO SEE OFF SITE. IT IS ON THE PROPERTY.
ON OUR PERSONAL PROPERTIES. IT IS CERTAINLY A LARGE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT UP UNTIL THE LATEST LETTER SAYING HEY, WE ARE GOING TO ADJUST, IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE THE DOCUMENTATION ON THE PLAN WAS ACCOUNTING FOR THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT WE SO YOU ARE IN SEE IN OUR BACKYARD. NOT IN OUR BACKYARD.
BEHIND THE FENCE. OUR FENCE IS ON THE PROPERTY.
THE LETTER SAYS THEY WERE GOING TO ADOPT A MORE STRINGENT, A MORE ROBUST DRAINAGE OPTION. I JUST DIDN'T SEE THE DETAILS IN THE PACKET SHOWING HOW THEY WERE GOING TO ACCOUNT FOR IT.
JUST THAT THEY WERE GOING TO ACCOUNT FOR IT.
ULTIMATELY, SINGLE FAMILY WE ARE GREAT WITH.
THE CURRENT SITE IN THE TURN, I SEE THAT BEING AN ISSUE WITH THE DRAINAGE. JUST BASED ON THE SHEER VOLUME AFTER RAIN. THE CONCERNS AND-- THE HOME OWNER AT 191 IS HERE. HE HAS INVESTED A LOT OF MONEY TO CONTROL THAT DRAINAGE ON HIS SITE.
PHASE 8 IN MIDTOWN INVESTED A LOT OF MONEY FOR A LARGE
[00:55:04]
DRAINAGE CHANNEL FROM THE SOUTH TO PUSH THE WATER TO THE NORTH.IT WAS A LARGE INVESTMENT. ACTUALLY, MY COMPANY HAD A CONTRACT. WE WERE PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THE INVESTMENT BEING INCURRED. FROM WHAT I CAN TELL ON THE PLANS THAT ARE PROVIDED, ON THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE IT WAS BEING ACCOUNTED FOR.
OBVIOUSLY, I TRUST ENGINEERS TO DO THAT.
IT WASN'T AVAILABLE TO ME AS OF TODAY.
THAT IS WHY I'M CURRENTLY OPPOSED.
NOT FOR FUTURE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT BUT FOR THE UNCERTAINTY THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED SO FAR TO MY KNOWLEDGE, TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THE ISSUES WITH THE WATER THAT I SEE.
>> OKAY. I DO HAVE A PETITION HERE.
TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD. A PETITION OF OPPOSITION.
WITH 58 SIGNATURES. (INAUDIBLE) THIS IS WHAT I HAVE
(INAUDIBLE). >> I'LL GIVE YOU ANOTHER-- COME ON UP. I'LL GIVE YOU ANOTHER MINUTE.
>> ALL I WANTED TO SAY IS THAT I DIDN'T ADDRESS-- IT HAS TO DO WITH THE TRAFFIC COMING THROUGH. WE UNDERSTAND THAT SHELBY IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED. IF ANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN THROUGH MIDTOWN, YOU KNOW THOSE STREETS ARE INCREDIBLY NARROW.
I THINK THEIR PLAN SAYS 50 FEET. COTY HUNTER IS .4.
IF YOU GET PEOPLE CROSS-- PARKING ACROSS FROM EACH OTHER, YOU CAN'T GET A TRUCK BETWEEN THEM.
THE NEW HOUSE THEY BUILT AT THE CORNER OF SHELBY, YOU HAVE TO BACK UP AND LET SOMETHING TURN ON.
I'M ALSO INCREDIBLY WORRIED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC THAT IS GOING TO TRY TO MISS THE HIGH SCHOOL AND THE SCHOOL ZONE.
EVERYBODY IS GOING TO BE CUTTING THROUGH THERE.
THERE IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF TRAFFIC.
I HAVE NO ONE ELSE. WITH THAT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> I DIDN'T SIGN UP TO SPEAK. (INAUDIBLE).
>> IF YOU WILL COME UP AND I'M GOING TO ASK THAT BEFORE YOU LEAVE, IF YOU WILL FILL OUT A FORM SO WE WILL HAVE A RECORD THAT YOU DID SPEAK. BUT COME UP AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE IN THE CITY.
>> I'M DWIGHT HODELL. 191 COATY HUNTER LANE.
COULD YOU BRING THAT PICTURE TO THE SCREEN OF THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF? JUST THE LOTS AND THE STREET.
YES. MAY I PROCEED OVER THERE?
>> SURE. >> I THINK I'M ON THE LAST ONE OVER HERE. MY LOT CONSISTS OF TWO--
(INAUDIBLE). >> SIR, IF YOU WOULD, YOU NEED
TO COME BACK TO THE MIC. >> HERE I AM IN THIS AREA.
AND THEY BACK UP TO THAT AREA. WHEN WE GET A GOOD RAIN, ON MY LOT IS A DRAINAGE EASEMENT. THE DITCH IS THREE-FOOT DEEP.
FOUR FEET WIDE. AND THE WATER FLOW THROUGH THAT TOWARDS THAT BACK PROPERTY LINE THERE WILL EXCEED THE BANK THAT IS BUILT THERE. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY GALLONS OF WATER THAT-- BUT THERE IS NO-- I DON'T SEE A DRAINAGE ISSUE. I SEE A LOT LINE THERE BETWEEN THE PROPERTY ON TOP AND THE PROPERTY BELOW WHICH IS COTY, SHARON HAWTHORNE, AND MR. MUELLER.
FROM MY PROPERTY, I DUMP TONS OF WATER JUST OVER MY BACK FENCE, AND IT GOES ALONG THAT PROPERTY LINE ALONG SHARON'S PROPERTY LINE. WHAT ARE WE DOING TO ADDRESS THAT FOR THOSE FOLKS THAT ARE IN THE NEW DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS BACKING UP TO THAT IS MY QUESTION.
>> I'LL ALLOW ONE MORE. THAT HASN'T SIGNED UP.
[01:00:02]
IF YOU WILL BEFORE YOU LEAVE, FILL OUT A FORM.GIVE YOUR NAME. >> I'M PAM DILLARD KIRBY.
WITH CENTURY 21. I LIVE IN MIDLOTHIAN AND MIDTOWN. I HAVE BEEN THERE FOR 13 YEARS.
MY CONCERN WITH THIS PROPERTY IS THAT DUAL DRIVEWAY AND THE TURN INTO THE DRIVEWAY. JUST KNOWING THE MARKET LIKE I DO, $500,000, THAT IS GOING TO ABSOLUTELY DETER THAT PRICE.
PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO WANT TO SPEND A $500 AND NOT HAVE THEIR OWN DRIVEWAY. I WANTED TO CALL THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION. AND WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT A PROPERTY VALUE IN OUR AREA. WE KEEP OUR HOUSES BEAUTIFUL.
AND THEY ARE MAINTAINED WELL. WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THAT.
THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.
OKAY. WITH THAT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> A MOTION TO CLOSE. >> SECOND.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> IT IS UNANIMOUS. OPEN FOR DISCUSSION OR ACTION.
>> I MEAN, I WANT TO SAY THAT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW HAD ANALLY KAILINGSCATIONS FOR-- YOU YOU KNOW, WE HAVE HAD APPLICATIONS FOR HUNDREDS OF ACRES. YOU KNOW, THIS IS GOING TO BE 3.1 UNITS OF ACRE WHEN IT IS DONE.
THAT IS UNIQUE DEVELOPMENT. THE SHARED DRIVEWAY IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAT WE HAVEN'T TRIED BEFORE.
IT HAS A CERTAIN CHARM. MAYBE PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BUY THE STANDARD COOKIE-CUTTER $500,000 HOUSE THAT WE SEE IN SOMELE OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS. MAYBE COOKIE CUTTER IS WRONG.
BUT CUSTOM HOMES. THERE IS PEOPLE LOOKING FOR THESE KIND OF FOOTPRINT HOUSES NEAR DOWNTOWNS.
ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT THESE PROPERTIES IS THAT THEY CAN SOLVE PROBLEMS THAT EXIST. WHEN YOU BRING AN ENGINEER IN, THEY CAN TAKE A LOOK AT DRAINAGE PROBLEMS THAT EXIST AND THEY CAN SOLVE THOSE PROBLEMS. IF THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPERTY AND WHAT'S BEING DEVELOPED ON IT IS SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO HAVE AN IN-GROUND STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM. I THINK THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SEEING HERE. WE ARE SEEING THE SOLUTION WHERE WE WILL HAVE A ROAD THAT HAS ACCESS ON BOTH SIDES TO GO BOTH THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION, ADJOINING IT AND GOING ON TO A FEEDER. SO YOU REALLY ARE USING-- YOU ARE TAKING A PIECE OF GROUND THAT IS JUST NOT BEING USED RIGHT NOW AND PUTTING IT TO BETTER USE.
I HEAR THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE SMALL ROADS.
AND I LIVE IN THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE HAVE HAD THIS DISCUSSION IN P & Z OVER THE YEARS.
THE PROBLEM WITH WIDE ROADS WHERE PEOPLE HAVE PLENTY OF SPACE TO PASS EACH OTHER AND PARK THEIR CARS IS THAT PEOPLE DRIVE QUICKLY. THEY WILL DRIVE 35 AND 40 MILES AN HOUR. THE BENEFIT OF A CONGESTED NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, PEOPLE SLOW DOWN.
THEY DRIVE 15-20 MILES AN HOUR. THEY DO.
YOU WILL SEE A CHANGE. IF THEY ARE NOT, THEN CAN TALK ABOUT SPEED BUMPS. EVENTUALLY, THEY ARE GOING TO-- YOU LOOK AT THESE NEIGHBORHOODS IN PLACES LIKE DALLAS, AROUND THERE. THTHERE IS THAT CONGESTION.
THERE ISN'T THE WIDE ROADS. THERE IS ADVANTAGES TO THAT.
I THINK THIS SOLVES MORE PROBLEMS THAN I CREATES.
THAN IT CREATES. NOBODY WANTS MORE MULTIFAMILY.
THIS DEFINITELY ISN'T MULTIFAMILY.
I'M SUPPORTING THIS. >> I'M GOING TO ECHO THE COMMENTS. THE WHOLE PURPOSE WAS THAT IT WAS SOMETHING DIFFERENT. IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRY OUT A DIFFERENT CONCEPT ON A VERY SMALL SCALE. IT DOES PROVIDE CIRCULATION FOR THE MIDTOWN RESIDENTS TO HAVE ANOTHER WAY TO EGRESS FROM THEIR COMMUNITY WHICH I THINK IS SORELY NEEDED.
AND I MEAN, THE SHARED DRIVE, IT IS A LOVE-HATE THING.
>> -ENTRY GARAGES. SOME PEOPLE LOVE SIDE-ENTRY GARAGES. YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE IT ALL OVER TOWN. I DON'T THINK SO.
I AGREE. IT HAS BEEN STATISTICALLY PROVEN. SMALLER STREETS DO DECREASE THE SPEED OF WHICH THE AVERAGE TRAFFIC GOES.
THERE IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE A JERK THAT DRIVES TOO FAST.
WE HAVE WIDER STREETS AND NARROW STREETS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
I SEE THE CONCERNS. I DON'T THINK THIS IS INCONGRUENT WITH WHAT MIDTOWN ALREADY IS AND WITH THE AREA, YOU KNOW, DIRECTLY WEST OF IT. I AGREE WITH THIS.
[01:05:06]
>> ANYONE ELSE? IF NOT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A
MOTION. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.
>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. ITEM 15.
[015 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 ±3.83 acres out of the P.W. Lowe Survey, Abstract 661, commonly known 3841 Mockingbird. (Case No. SUP14-2023-80).]
CONDUCT A HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A SECONDARY DWELLING PRESENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON .83 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES. 3841 MOCKINGBIRD.>> OKAY. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
THIS REQUEST IS FOR SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT LOCATED AT 3841 MOCKINGBIRD.
THIS IS THE LOCATION MAP OF WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
IT IS 3.83 ACRES. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT FOR HIS PARENTS TO RESIDE IN.
THE APPLICANT IS ALSO ASKING FOR JUST A COUPLE OF DEVIATIONS FROM OUR REGULAR REQUIREMENTS. HE IS ASKING FOR A SECONDARY ELECTRIC METER AS WELL AS A SECONDARY SEPTIC SYSTEM.
AS YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THIS FLIGHT PLAN,-- SITE PLAN, THIS PROPERTY HAS SOME OBSTACLES THAT THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO OVERCOME WITH BUILDING THE SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT.
YOU CAN SEE THERE THE NEW PROPOSED SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT IN THE BACK THERE. THE EXISTING HOME THAT IS ALREADY ON THE PROPERTY AND THEN THE TWO RED LINES THAT GO NORTH-SOUTH ON THE PROPERTY. THOSE REPRESENT A PIPELINE EASEMENT. THE DASH LINE THAT GOES EAST TO WEST ACROSS THE PROPERTY, THAT IS AN OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE.
THE APPLICANT HAS MET WITH A MASTER ELECTRICIAN AS WELL AS SAN TARRIAN WHO BOTH WROTE LETTERS OF SUPPORT.
AND THIS REQUEST FOR HAVING A SEPARATE SEPTIC AND ELECTRIC METER. THEY JUST FEEL LIKE TZEQ WILL NOT ALLOW ANY TRENCHES ACROSS THAT EASEMENT FOR THAT SEPTIC.
THAT, YOU KNOW, DOES AWAY WITH THE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINES AS WELL. IF THEY WERE TO GO OVERHEAD WITH THE LINES, THEY WOULD BE FIGHTING THOSE EXISTING ELECTRIC LINES ALREADY OVER THE PROPERTY. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY LETTERS OF OPPOSITION FOR THIS CASE. I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL. >> QUESTIONS OF STAFF IN
(INAUDIBLE). >> THE SECONDARY DWELLING THIS? IT IS 1,172 SQUARE FEET. YES, SIR.
>> THERE IS POWER LINE AND THEN THE GAS LINE.
>> YUP. >> UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS BOTH
ON THE PROPERTY. >> WHAT ARE THE EXISTING
BUILDINGS ON THE TRACT? >> THERE IS A COUPLE OF BARNS AND A SHED. AT THE VERY TOP, THAT IS A SHED THAT IS 320 SQUARE FEET. THIS OVER HERE IS AN 1800-SQUARE-FOOT BARN. THEN THE ONE OVER HERE ON THE OTHER SIDE IS A 900-SQUARE-FOOT BARN.
>> THE EXHIBIT IN THE TOP LEFT CORNER SHOWS A MOBILE HOME.
IT HAS BEEN REMOVED. THAT WAS ACTUALLY A LEGAL NONCONFORMING. WE WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT TO GET THAT REMOVED OFF OF THE PROPERTY TO BRING IT INTO CONFORMANCE. AND THEN, OF COURSE, HE GETS A REQUEST FOR THE SECONDARY DWELLING.
>> HOW DID THAT MOBILE HOME RECEIVE POWER AND/OR FLUSH THE TOILETS? BECAUSE IT IS ON THE OTHER SIDE
I WILL LET THEM ANSWER THAT FOR YOU.
>> JEFF DOTSON. I HAVE OWNED THIS PROPERTY FOR FOUR MONTHS. BEFORE WE DEMOED THE SINGLE-WIDE TRAILER, THERE WAS A SEPARATE ELECTRIC.
[01:10:03]
IT WAS RUNNING FROM THE LEFT SIDE DIRECTLY TO THE TRAILER.AND THERE WAS WATER THAT WAS ALREADY ON.
THE EXISTING TRAILER, DID HAVE ITS OWN ELECTRIC.
IT HAD ITS OWN SEPTIC ALREADY IN PLACE.
>> SO DID YOU REMOVE THE SEPTIC THAT WAS WITH THE TRAILER?
IS IT STILL -- >> IT IS STILL IN THE GROUND.
>> AS PART OF THIS PROCESS, ARE YOU GOING TO REMOVE THAT ONE AND REPLACE IT WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT?
OR CONNECT IT? >> WE WON'T HAVE TO RUN A NEW SEPTIC. IT WOULD BE-- WHERE THE TRAILER WAS, I APOLOGIZE. GOING THIS WAY.
THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED BY PEOPLE PUTTING IN THE SEPTIC PLAN.
WHICH WE HAVE IN PLACE. >> DOES STAFF HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH THE OLD EXISTING SEPTIC? NO?
OKAY. DO WE KNOW IT IS GOING TO BE
>> IS THAT VALID AND LEGAL TO REQUIRE THAT?
>> I THINK YOU WOULD ALMOST HAVE TO.
SO YOU DON'T HAVE SUBJECTS ON THE PROPERTY THAT ARE ALLOWED BY THE ACREAGE MINIMUMS FOR THE COUNTY REGULATIONS.
FOR PURE SAFETY REASONS, YOU WANT TO DO IT ANYWAY TO MAKE SURE THERE IS NO-- ESPECIALLY IF THAT IS GOING TO BE THE SPRAY FIELD. YOU KNOW, YOU PROBABLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT AS TIME GOES ON, THAT THOSE OLDER SEPTICS DON'T COLLAPSE. PROBABLY FOR SAFETY REASONS, YOU WANT TO DO IT. PERMITTING ISSUE IS--
>> MY CONCERN IN A LOT OF THESE AREAS IN OUR COMMUNITY IS THAT SOME OF THAT STUFF MAY HAVE BEEN DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT.
THERE MAY NOT BE ANY RECORD OF IT.
RIGHT? I MEAN, SO THAT WOULD BE WHY I WOULD SAY HEY, WE HAVE EVIDENCE OF IT.
CAN WE PREDICATE THIS APPROVAL ON THAT REMEDIATION OF THE
EXISTING... >> I BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS YES.
PROBABLY WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS JUST BEFORE THE-- I WOULD SUGGEST BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF A FINAL INSPECTION OR THE SECONDARY DWELLING AS OPPOSED TO HOLDING A PERMIT, THAT WAY, THEY COULD PROBABLY GET A COMPANY COMING IN AT THE SAME TIME AS THEY ARE BUILDING THE NEW ONE, TAKING CARE OF THE OLD ONE.
>> THEY ARE GOING TO DIG OUT, TO PUT THE SOIL IN.
MAKES TOTAL SENSE. >> THERE IS AN EXISTING ELECTRIC METER THERE RIGHT NOW. CORRECT?
>> WE HAD TO MOVE THE ELECTRIC METER.
SO WE COULD DEMO THE SINGLE-WIDE.
WE WOULD HAVE TO ISSUE ANOTHER METER.
>> ANOTHER QUESTION? >> ANYONE ELSE?
>> I DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE?
>> NO, SIR. >> I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> SECOND.
>> A MOTION AND SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION
OR ACTION. >> MOVE TO APPROVE.
>> SECOND. >> I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THAT APPROVAL TO INCLUDE REQUIRING-- YES.
>> WE HAVE AN AMENDED MOTION. DID I HEAR A SECOND IN.
>> SECOND. >> NYSE OTHER DISCUSSION?
>> ANY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS.
[016 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the zoning of Planned Development-28 (PD-28) to change the use and development regulations for the residential development. The property is generally located north of Mt. Zion road and +/-1500 feet east of Sudith Lane. (Case No. Z27-2023-85). ]
[01:15:09]
ITEM 16 IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AND ORDINANCE, TO CHANGE THE USE OF REGULATION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF MT. ZION ROAD. AND EAST OF SUDITH LANE.>> THIS IS FOR AN AMENDMENT, PD AMENDMENT TO PD-28 IN RELATION TO SHADY VALLEY ESTATES. THE LAND IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED. WE WILL START BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION SOON. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO AMEND THE PD FOR A DEVELOPMENT REGULATION STANDARD.
THIS WAS ORIGINALLY APLEUFD BACK IN IN 2005.
THE ORDINANCE. THE PLAN DESIGNATES THE AREA LOW-DENSITY MODULE. I BELIEVE WE NOTED IN OUR STAFF REPORT THAT WHILE THE REGULATIONS DON'T MEET THE PLAN, WE DO WANT TO KNOW THIS WAS APPROVED PRIOR TO THE 2018 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE WANTED TO MAKE NOTE OF THAT.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS NEXT SLIDE, A LARGER IMAGE OF THE EXHIBIT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THIS NEXT SLIDE IS AN EXHIBIT THAT DEPICTS THE LOT LAYOUT FOR THE DIFFERENT TYPES. OUTLINED IN ORANGE IS THE TYPE A LOTS. THOSE RANGE FROM 8,400 SQUARE FEET TO 12,000 SQUARE FEET. MAKING UP FOR 31% OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THE TYPE E LOTS OUTLINED.
RANGING FROM 12,000 TO 22,000 SQUARE FEET.
THAT MAKES UP MOST-OF-THE-DEVELOPMENT AROUND 65%. AND LASTLY, THE LOTS OUTLINED IN YELLOW. MAKES UP ABOUT 3.5%.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AS WE MENTIONED, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
WE WILL TOUCH ON THAT HERE IN THESE NEXT FEW SLIDES.
NEXT SLIDE. STARTING WITH THE SETBACKS, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR ALL OF THE DIFFERENT LOT TYPES.
AND THIS IS FOR TYPE A, TYPE B, AND TYPE C LOTS.
AND THOSE ARE THE LOTS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE STREET.
THEY WANT TO REDUCE THOSE. THEY ARE REQUESTING A FIVE-FOOT REDUCTION FOR THE INTERIOR LOTS. AND THEN ALSO TO HAVE CONSISTENCY FOR TYPE E AND TYPE C LOTS.
THEY ARE REQUESTING FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
FROM 50 FEET TO 30 FEET. THE NEXT SLIDE GIVES YOU A CHART EXAMPLE OF-- SHOWING WHAT CHANGED.
IN THE MIDDLE COLUMN THERE, ARE THE CURRENT STANDARDS.
IN REFERENCE TO THE SETBACKS. IF IT IS HIGHLIGHTED IN BOLD.
TYPE C LOTS ARE, AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REDUCE THAT FROM 50 FEET TO 30 FEET.
FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. AGAIN, THOSE ARE JUST THE FOUR LOTS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT. GOING DOWN TO THE SECOND ROW, THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK. THAT PROJECTS IT TO THE STREET.
AS YOU SEE, ALL OF THOSE ARE GOING TO BE A CHANGE IN THE REDUCTION. TYPE A WILL BE PROPOSED TO BE REDUCED FROM 15 FEET TO 10 FEET. TYPE B, AND TYPE C.
GOING NEXT TO THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK.
THE INTERIOR LOT. TYPE B LOT IS THE ONLY ONE THAT IS CHANGING. IT IS GOING TO GO FROM 15 TO 10 FEET. LASTLY, TYPE C LOT WILL CHANGE FROM 25 FEET TO 20 FEET. THAT KIND OF GIVES YOU GUYS A SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED SETBACK CHANGES FROM THE FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, AND REAR YARD. F NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THE NEXT GARAGES. WITHIN THE ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY F, THIS LANGUAGE DEPICTS A CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE. AS YOU SEE IN PARENTHESES,
[01:20:04]
PREVIOUSLY, IT WAS 25%. THEY ALSO REQUESTED SOME ORDINANCE LANGUAGE AS YOU SEE ON THE SECOND BULLET POINT.THE GARAGE WHICH FACE IT IS STREET, ASSOCIATED WITH A SIDE ENENTRY OR DRIVE WAY WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE FOR A FRONT-LOADING GARAGE OR ACCOUNT FOR THE 30% MAXIMUM.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS THE IMAGE WHERE YOU SEE A GARAGE THERE IN THE FRONT. TO THE SIDE.
AND THEN WHERE THAT ARROW IS POINTING IN THE BACK.
THAT WILL DEPICT THE THIRD GARAGE THAT IS FRONT-FACING.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THAT THOSE GARAGES NOT BE INCLUDED IN THAT 30%. THAT IS WHAT THAT SECOND CHANGE IS REQUESTED IN THERE. NEXT SLIDE.
LASTLY, SOME OF THIS IS TO KIND OF ENSURE SOME OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AREAS, WE WANT TO MAKE THE DEVELOPER REGULATIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND THE FINAL PLAT AS WELL. AGAIN, THE APPLICANT WILL SPEAK MORE TO THIS. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE REDUCED TYPE B LOT.
FROM 85 FEET TO 80 FEET. BOTH REQUESTED LOT CHANGES WILL, AGAIN, ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT.
NEXT SLIDE? THIS NEXT SLIDE, KIND OF SHOWS YOU THE EXHIBIT OF WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT.
ALL OF THOSE BLUE DOTS DEPICT THE AREAS IN WHICH THE LOTS RANGE FROM 80 FEET TO 82 FEET. CURRENTLY, THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS REQUIRE 85 FEET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REDUCE THAT TO 80 FEET. THAT WOULD ALLOW THOSE LOTS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AS WELL AS THE PLAT. AND LASTLY THAT, TYPE C LOT.
IT HAS THAT RED DOT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
SO YOU MENTIONED IN OUR STAFF REPORT, WITHIN THE STAFF ANALYSIS SECTION, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING CHANGES TO SET SETBACKS AND LOT TYPES WITHIN THE PD.
STAFF IS STILL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.
BECAUSE AS THE OTHER SUBDIVISION THAT IS WE MENTION TDZ ADJACENT TO THE SITE, SOME HAVE SIMILAR LOT WIDTHS OR SETBACK STANDARDS.
COUNCIL CHOOSES TO APPROVE THIS, IT WOULD NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE SURROUNDING AREA ADJACENT TO THE PD.
WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY LETTER OF SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION FOR THE CASE. AND NEXT SLIDE.
IT IS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AS PRESENTED.
THAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
>> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SITE
PLAN? >> JUST LET ME KNOW WHEN TO
STOP. >> THE ONE WHERE YOU HAD THE RED DOTS. THERE WE GO.
>> THE RED DOTS. >> RIGHT NOW THERE IS FOUR TYPE
>> SO WHAT THE COUNT OF HOW MANY OF EACH TYPE THERE IS?
>> SO ALONG THE LEFT-HAND SIDE. SORRY.
TYPE A IN ORANGE. I'LL READ IT OUT.
TYPE B, 75. TYPE C IS FOUR LOTS.
>> WHEN THIS PD WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, IS THAT WHAT IT LOOKED
THIS IS THE SAME LAYOUT. >> WE ARE NOT CHANGING.
>> THE LAYOUT ISN'T CHANGING. IT IS THE SETBACKS.
>> SO THE THING THAT CONFUSED ME.
WE HAVE ONE B LOT THAT WE ARE MAKING INTO A 70-FOOT.
ONE C LOT. WHY AREN'T WE JUST CALLING THEM
TYPE AS? >> I'M GOING TO DEFER ON THAT?
>> THAT IS WHY I'M CONFUSED. WE HAVE A B BUT WE ARE GOING TO
THE REASONING BEHIND IT WAS THEY DIDN'T WANT TO-- I GET WHAT YOU
ARE SAYING. >> THIS MAKES ME THINK THAT WE
ARE HAVING GAMES PLAYED. >> UNDERSTOOD.
>> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE ONE WITH THE DOTS? ARE YOU SAYING WE ARE ONLY DEALING WITH, LIKE, THOSE TEN LOTS? EVERYTHING ELSE IS GOING TO STAY
THE SAME? >> IN REFERENCE TO THE LOT LIST, THOSE ARE THE UP WITHS IN QUESTION.
WITH THE BLUE DOTS AND THE RED LOTS.
I'M GOING TO DEFER TO THE APPLICANT.
[01:25:03]
>> LIKE, ALL THE ONES WITHOUT THE DOTS ARE GOING TO FIT
EVERYTHING WITHOUT CHANGES? >> LOT WIDTH-WISE.
AGAIN, THERE IS STILL THE SETBACK CHANGES.
THOSE ARE THE PRIMARY ONES, YES, SIR.
>> THE UTILITIES, ELECTRICAL IS UNDERGROUND?
>> OKAY. >> OTHER QUESTIONS? FOR STAFF? OKAY.
IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND WHETHER YOU LI IN THE CITY.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. MY NAME IS TODD. THE NEW ENGINES PROJECT. THANK COLBY FOR DOING A GOOD JOB PRESENTING THE FACTS. REALLY THIS IS VERY SIMPLE.
WE ARE TRYING TO CLEAN UP SOME THINGS.
THIS IS THE FOURTH RENDITION OF THIS PD.
IT WAS 2005, 2012, 2016. NOW THAT WE HAVE ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED THE PROJECT, IT IS BUILT, PAVED, ELECTRIC IS IN.
UNDERGROUND. SIDEWALKS ARE BEING POURED.
WE RECENTLY INHERITED THIS. WE FOUND SOME ISSUES THAT DIDN'T MATCH UP. THE SIMPLE ANSWER TO THIS, WE PROBABLY SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD C LOTS.
IN THE PD, YOU DEFINE ANYTHING OVER 22,000 TO BE A C LOT.
IT ALSO DEFINES IT WITH A WIDTH AS WELL.
ONE OF THE REASONS WE ARE ASKING FOR THE FRONT SETBACK, INSTEAD OF BEING 50 FEET, TO BE 30 FEET. YOU CAN SEE ON EITHER SIDE OF THESE C LOTS, THERE IS GOING TO BE A HOUSE AT 30 FEET.
IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR THESE SETBACKS.
YOU KNOW, IT IS SIMPLE. A SIMPLE FIX TO.
MAKE THEM MORE SYMMETRICAL. THAT WAS THE FRONT SETBACKS.
ONE OF THE REASONS WE ARE ASKING TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS BY FIVE FEET, TECHNICALLY, TYPE AS, WE HAVE 31%.
ALL THE OTHER 79 LOTS ARE ALL GOING TO BE ADJACENT BASICALLY.
WE HAVE AN 80-FOOT LOT WITH A SIDE YARD SETBACK.
I MEAN, WE HAVE BIG LOTS HERE. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO BUILD A BIGGER HOUSE. IT WAS JUST A MISTAKE IN THE PD.
WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS BE ABLE TO SHIFT THAT OVER FIVE FEET.
YOU ARE STILL GOING TO HAVE THE SAME SEPARATION FROM THE HOUSES.
EVEN THOUGH IT IS-- YOU ARE GOING TO SHIP IT OVER.
IT IS INDUSTRY STANDARD USE TO PUT THAT ON THE HIGH SIDE OF THE LOT. FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES.
IN THEORY, YOU WILL HAVE THE SAME SEPARATION FROM THEM.
SOME OF THEM MAY BACK UP TO EACH OTHER.
VERY FEW INSTANCES. SO THAT IS OUR REASONING FOR TRYING TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A SETBACK ON THE SIDE.
THE MAJORITY OF THESE ARE OBVIOUSLY GOING-TO--- GOING TO BE-- THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, THAT ONLY AFFECTS EIGHT LOTS ON THE WHOLE THING.
IT DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE A WHOLE LOT THERE.
THE REAR SETBACK WAS ONLY ON THE FOUR C LOTS AS WELL.
THAT WOULD MATCH UP MORE WITH THE OTHER LOTS.
I THINK IT IS TRULY THAT SIMPLE. WE ARE JUST TRYING TO BUILD A BIGGER HOUSE. WE WANT TO HAVE ALL THESE SWINGS IN THERE THAT WILL HELP US MOVE THAT TO ONE SIDE.
I THINK THAT REALLY KIND OF COVERS EVERYTHING.
THE LOT WIDTHS. THE ONE THAT HAD THE DOTS ON THERE. WE ARE CHANGING THAT TO-- LIKE I SAID, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS DEFINED TWO DIFFERENT WAYS.
TECHNICALLY, IT IS A TYPE B BECAUSE IT IS BETWEEN 12,000 TO 22,000 SQUARE FEET. SO IT WAS JUST A DEFINITION.
THAT MAKE SENSE? >> IT DOES MAKE SENSE.
THE 30% FOR FRONT-LOADED GARAGES.
>> MOST OF THEM WILL BE, YES. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT OPTION. YES.
WE HAVE 31% OF THAT. IT WILL HELP US BY REDUCING THE
SIDE YARD TO PUT THAT ON THOSE. >> EVEN WITH REDUCED SIDE YARDAGE, YOU PUT A SWING ON A 70-FOOT-WIDE LOT, AND SOMEBODY DRIVES AN F-250 CREW CAB. THEY ARE NOT PARKING IN THAT
GARAGE. >> THAT WOULD BE A CHALLENGE.
>> YEAH. I MEAN-- SOST MY DEAL IS WHY NOT ASK FOR 31% FRONT-LOADING. THEN YOU ARE COVERING ALL THE
WE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE. BUT-- I WILL SAY THIS.
IN THE PREVIOUS THREE VERSIONS, THE FRONTENTRY WAS ALLOWED AT
[01:30:01]
35%. SOMEHOW THIS ONE GOT CHANGED TO 25. I WASN'T INVOLVED WITH THAT.THAT WAS 7 YEARS AGO. WE THOUGHT ASKING FOR 30 WAS MORE REASONABLE. SOME OF THOSE THAT YOU SEE THAT ARE TYPE A'S, WE COULD ENTER OFF THE SIDE.
THIS ONE HERE ON THE CORNER LOT OR SO.
WE WILL BE HAPPY WITH 30. SO I DO BELIEVE THIS IS REALLY JUST THAT SIMPLE. CLEANING UP SOME PREVIOUS ERRORS IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. WE JUST WANT TO HAVE-- WE HAVE BIG LOTS. WE WANT TO BUILD A BIG HOUSE.
>> THE STREETS AND UTILITIES. IT IS IN.
>> IT IS DONE. HARD TO CHANGE AT THIS POINT.
>> ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? THANK YOU, SIR.
>> THANK YOU. >> I DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE SIGNED UP. A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> MOTION TO SECOND. PLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION-- FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION OR ACTION.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.
>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED IT IS UNANIMOUS.
THAT IS ALL THE CASES. WE MOVE TO MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION. STAFF, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? COMMISSIONERS? ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO
ADJOURN. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO
ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.