[Call to Order and Determination of Quorum] [00:00:11] >> THIS MEETING OF THE MIDLOTHIAN COMMISSION TO ORDER. WE DID HAVE A QUORUM BY THE WAY. THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS WILL BE HEARD. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY TOPIC NOT SCHEDULED FOR CONSIDERATION FOR ACTION ON THIS AGENDA AND PRESENTED BY THE CITY STAFF PRIOR TO THE MEETING. THE COMMISSION CANNOT ACT ON ANY ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA. DO WE HAVE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM THAT IS NOT [002 Staff review of the cases that were heard by City Council in the last sixty (60) days.] ON THE AGENDA ? OKAY. ITEM TWO STAFF REVIEW CASES. >> GOOD EVENING. HOW IS EVERYONE DOING ? WE HAVE ONE CASE SINCE THE LAST PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING. MAY 14TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING THEY REVIEWED THE SECONDARY DWELLING CASE FOR 1141 APPLE COURT THAT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL. ON THE APRIL 16TH MEETING 5-0. THAT CONCLUDES THE CASES SINCE THE LAST MEETING. ANY QUESTIONS FROM STAFF ? [ CONSENT AGENDA] >> ANYONE ? THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT, WILL MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. ITEMS 003, 4, 5, 6, 7. ANY ITEMS WISHING TO BE REMOVED ? IF NOT, WE WILL VOTE ON THEM. >> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND. >> MOTION TO APPROVE ON CONSENT AGENDA. WE WILL MOVE INTO [008 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance for a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a “secondary dwelling” relating to the use and development of Lot 28, Sunshine Place, Phase Two (2), City of Midlothian, Ellis County, Texas. The property is presently zoned Agricultural (A) District and is located on ±4.75 acres at 1809 Sunbeam Ct. (SUP06-2024-22)] PUBLIC HEARINGS. FIRST ONE IS 00 EIGHT. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE FOR SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A SECONDARY DWELLING RELATING TO THE USE AND DEVELOP OF LOT 28, SUNSHINE PLACE, PHASE TWO, CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN, ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS. THE PROPERTY IS PRESENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT AND IS LOCATED ON 4.75 ACRES AT 1809 SOME BEEN -- SUNBEAM COURT. >> GOOD EVENING. FOR THIS REQUEST FOR SECONDARY DWELLING AS YOU MAY REMEMBER WILL GETTING QUITE A FEW OF THESE. I WILL NOT GO BACK OVER THE WHOLE BACKGROUND OF THE ORDINANCE. PROBABLY HAVE IT MEMORIZED BY NOW. FOR THIS REQUEST, UNDER FIVE ACRES OFF OF SUNBEAM COURT. HERE IS THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TO GIVE YOU A ROUGH IDEA. THE PROPERTY IS OVER HERE. THEY DO HAVE AN EXISTING HOME THAT'S 1600 SQUARE FEET. THEY BASICALLY WOULD LIKE TO PUT A HOME ON THEIR PARENTS PROPERTY AND USE IT AS A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT. WHAT THEY WOULD DO IS APPROXIMATELY BEHIND THE TREE LINE IS WHAT THEIR AIMING FOR. THEY WOULD PUT THE SECOND HOME. THEY WOULD NEED TO EXTEND THE DRIVEWAY AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. THEY INTEND TO MEET ALL THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS EXCEPT FOR A FEW. THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE TO COME BEFORE YOU TO ASK FOR THAT SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. WHAT THEY ARE ASKING TO DEVIATE FROM TO THE STANDARD SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT. THE FIRST ONE IS THE EXCEEDING 50 % OF THE AREA OF THE MAIN. THE EXISTING HOME IS -- I HAVE A PICTURE. THE EXISTING HOME IS ABOUT 1600 SQUARE FEET. THEY WOULD BUILD A NEW HOME BEHIND THE TREE LINE AND WOULD BE 2040 SQUARE FEET. THE OTHER THING IS FROM WHAT WE UNDERSTAND THE EXISTING HOME IS ABOUT 14 FEET ABOVE GRADE. THE NEW HOME WOULD BE CLOSER TO 19 FEET ABOVE GRADE. THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN IN OUR ZONING ONCE ON SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS, THE SECOND THERE IS NOT SUPPOSE TO BE TALLER THAN THE PRIMARY. THEY ARE ASKING FOR THAT IN THIS [00:05:01] CASE. BEING SET BACK -- THIS HOUSE IS 150 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THEY WOULD LIKELY BE ANOTHER 100 FEET BEHIND IT. STAFF WAS NOT TOO CONCERNED ABOUT THE HEIGHT DIFFERENCE. THE SEWER SYSTEM IS 2400 FEET AWAY. THEY WOULD NEED TO USE THEIR ON-SITE SUB BUT ASKING TO HAVE A SEPARATE ON-SITE SEPTIC SYSTEM FOR THE SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT. BASICALLY BECAUSE OF COST AND LOCATION BUT THE SECONDARY HOME TRYING TO BE SET 100 FEET BEHIND THE PRIMARY. OTHER THAN THAT, THAT'S ALL THEY ARE ASKING FOR. THEY WHICH ARE THE ELECTRIC METER BUT WOULD ASK FOR THE SEPARATE SEPTIC SYSTEM OF THEIR OWN. IF YOU WERE TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED, YOU WOULD BE APPROVING THE CAN HAVE THEIR OWN SEPTIC SYSTEM FOR THE SECOND THERE. THE SECONDARY CAN BE UP TO SIX FEET TALLER THAN THE PRIMARY AND THEY CAN BE 2040 SQUARE FEET. THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL. >> QUESTIONS TO STAFF ? >> ANY SIDE ELEVATIONS OR DEPICTIONS OF THE HOUSE ? >> I HAVE A FRONT ELEVATION. IT'S A MODEST STRAIGHTFORWARD HOUSE. >> THE ELEVATION I MEAN THE HEIGHT DIFFERENCE IS BECAUSE OF THE GRADE AND NOT THE STRUCTURE ? >> THE GRADE AND FOUNDATION AS I UNDERSTAND IT. AND PROBABLY SOME MARGIN OF ERROR. MAYBE NOT EVEN SIX FEET DIFFERENCE. MAYBE LESS. >> OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT HERE WISHING TO SPEAK ? YOU DON'T HAVE TO. QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT ? THANK YOU, SIR. >> WE DID HAVE ONE OPPOSITION AND ONE IN FAVOR LETTER. >> YES ? THE BEST I READ. TROY -- ANYONE ELSE HERE ? IF NOT, I OBTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE. >> MOTION AND SECOND. ANY OPPOSED ? THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND OR ACTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ? THE [009 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the regulations of Planned Development-15 (PD-15) by removing the restriction of allowed locations of secondary dwelling units to certain blocks within the development. The property is separated into two portions, one being northwest of Walnut Grove Road and Shiloh Rd intersection and the other being west of Joe Wilson Road and south of Azalea Way. (Z10-2024-39)] ISSUE IS UNANIMOUS. WE WILL MOVE TO 009. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE REGULATION OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT 15 BY REMOVING THE RESTRICTION OF ALLOWED LOCATION OF SECONDARY DWELLING IN US TO CERTAIN BLOCKS WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPERTY IS SEPARATED INTO TWO PORTIONS. ONE BEING NORTHWEST OF WALNUT GROVE ROAD AND SHILOH ROAD INTERSECTION AND THE OTHER BEING WEST OF JOE WILSON ROAD AND SOUTH OF AZALEA WAY. >> IF YOU DON'T MIND, I WOULD ASK THESE NEXT TWO CASES THE CURRENT ONE AND NEXT ONE ARE IN RELATION TO ONE ANOTHER. I WAS GOING TO PRESENT IT AS ONE. I WILL PROCEED WITH THIS CASE. >> PART OF THE REASON I DO THAT IS BECAUSE THIS REGULATION ENCOMPASSES THE ENTIRE PD WITH THE NEXT CASE IS ONE PROPERTY WHICH WOULD BE AFFECTED AND BENEFITED BY THIS CASE. YOU LOOK AT THE OVERALL CASE FIRST. >> OKAY. OUR NEXT CASE FOR THIS EVENING IS FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 9. C 10-2024-39. PD 15. PD 15 . COUNTRY MODULE. ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE ARE DOING AND KEEP THIS SHORT IS THE CURRENT PD AND A FEW TERRIBLE SEND US FROM PD 15 FROM THE SITE. ON THE SLIDE. EXCUSE ME. [00:10:01] ALL OF THESE CURRENT STANDARDS WITHIN THE PD. I WILL READ IT FOR THE RECORD. WHEN YES A LOT HEARD LOT. GUESTHOUSE SHOULD BE LIMITED TO A FAMILY MEMBER USE ONLY USING THE PROPERTY FOR THE STRUCTURE FOR RENTAL PURPOSES IS PROHIBITED. JUMPING TO THE LAST ONE. NON-HABITABLE STRUCTURES AS BARN ET CETERA SHOULD NOT XP 1400 SQUARE FEET. ALTHOUGH STANDARDS WILL REMAIN THE SAME IN THE PD. THE ONLY REQUEST AND ONLY AMENDMENT APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO MAKE IS OUTLINED IN YELLOW WHICH IS THE GUESTHOUSE AND SECOND DWELLING WILL BE ALLOWED WITH LOTS ONE THROUGH 10 OF THE PD. THIS PROPERTY WITHIN THE NEXT CASE IS WITHIN BLOCK 12. WHAT WE ARE ASKING TO AMEND THE PD TO REMOVE BLOCK LANGUAGE TO ALLOW FOR ANYONE TO COME THROUGH THAT WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A SECONDARY DWELLING USE FOR THE PROPERTY OPPOSING TO HAVE IT LIMITED SPECIFIC BLOCKS AND LOT NUMBERS. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR OPPOSITION. STAFF HAS A MAGGOT APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED PD. >> QUESTIONS ? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT AND WISHES TO SPEAK ? >> YES. >> YOU WISH TO SPEAK ? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> NO PROBLEM. DO WE HAVE ANYONE WANTS TO SPEAK THAT HAS NOT SIGNED UP ? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> OKAY. WE HAVE NO ONE SPEAKING. I ENTERTAIN THE MISSION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION TO CLOSE. >> SECOND. >> MOTION AND CLOTHES. THE VOTE IS UNANIMOUS. >> LET ME MAKE ONE ADDITIONAL COMMENT REGARDING THE ORDINANCE TO BE AWARE. ONE THING WE DID IN RESPECT TO THIS ORDINANCE, THE ORIGINAL PD WAS WRITTEN QUITE SOME TIME AGO. IT WAS WRITTEN BEFORE WE ADOPTED THE STANDARDS RELATING TO DWELLINGS AND NOW IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. WHAT WE DID DO WAS TRY TO TIE THE PD LANGUAGE TO OUR STANDARDS THAT WOULD MAKE SOME CHANGES THAT KEPT THE SAME LIMITATIONS THAT THE CURRENT PD HAS WITH RESPECT TO SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THAT KIND OF THING. IN ADDITION TO THAT, TAKING OUT THE SPECIFIC PRESENTATIONS WERE IT CAN OCCUR. OUR STANDARDS WILL DICTATE THAT NOW. THE ORDINANCE ITSELF LOOKS MORE COMPLICATED THAN WHAT STAFF HAD SENT ME. IT SHOULD GET US THERE THE SAME WAY AND BE WITH THE CURRENT STANDARDS OF SUP. >> OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION OR ACTION ? >> MOVED TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED. ANY PUBLIC [010 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance for a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a “secondary dwelling” relating to the use and development of Lot 5, Block 12, of Ashford Prairie Estates, commonly known as 3651 Shiloh Road, City of Midlothian, Ellis County, Texas. The property is presently zoned Planned Development 15 (PD-15) District and is located on ±1.701 acres. (SUP07-2024-31)] DISCUSSION ? THE VOTE IS UNANIMOUS. WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM 10. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE FOR SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A SECONDARY DWELLING RELATED TO THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LOT 5, BLOCK 12, OF ASHER PRAIRIE ESTATES, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 3651 SHILOH ROAD, CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN, ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS. THE PROPERTY IS PRESENTED ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT 15 DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 1.701 ACRES. >> OUR NEXT CASE IS FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10. AS YOU P07-2024-31. 3651 SHILOH ROAD. IT'S OVER 1.7 ACRES. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING SUP FOR SECOND VERY DWELLING UNIT. THE AREA IS COUNTRY MODULE. THE NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS A LARGER IMAGE OF THE EXHIBIT. THE NEXT [00:15:03] SLIDE DESCRIBES A SITE LAYOUT BREAK DOWN. YOU SEE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE. DETAILED INFORMATION TO THE LEFT. STARTING FROM THE TOP THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY IS 3230 SQUARE FEET WHICH IS WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN. THE PROPOSED SECONDARY DWELLING IN TOTAL WILL BE 1140 SQUARE FEET. ONE STORY STRUCTURE. CONSTRUCTED OUT OF BRICK MATERIAL. THIS WILL BE USED AS A MOTHER-IN-LAW UNIT. THE APPLICANT IS NOT REQUESTING TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DO. IF APPROVED, THE APPLICANT WILL TEAR DOWN THE FENCING AND PUSH THAT BACK IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THE STRUCTURE TO BE THERE BECAUSE THE PROPERTY EXTENDS FURTHER TO THE EAST AS YOU SEE. THIS NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS THE ELEVATION OF THE SLIDE RENDERING. BRICK MATERIAL AND ONE-STORY. FOR A SECONDARY DWELLING PER HOUR ORDINANCE, WE REQUIRE 11 STANDARDS TO BE MET. IF ONE STANDARD IS NOT GOING TO BE MET, THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO REQUEST A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL. THE APPLICANT IS MEETING ALL THE STANDARDS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE STANDARD OUTLINE IN YELLOW THAT STATES THE SAME SEPTIC SYSTEM AS A PRINCIPAL DWELLING SHALL BE USED. AS YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, YOU'LL SEE THE VERS REQUEST THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR TO DEVIATE FROM THAT ACTUAL STANDARD. WITHIN THAT PACKET, YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN A LETTER PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY STATING A LIST STATION WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE SYSTEM TO WORK AND USING THE SAME SYSTEM COULD CAUSE NOISE AND SMELL. DUE TO THAT, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO DEVIATE FROM THE STANDARD. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY LETTERS OF SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC USE PERMIT OCCLUDING THE DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD. >> QUESTIONS TO STAFF ? THE APPLICANT DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP ? DID WE MISS ANYONE ? MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION . >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY "YAY". ANY OPPOSED ? THE ISSUE IS UNANIMOUS. THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION OR ACTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ? ALL IN FAVOR SAY "YAY". ANY OPPOSED ? IT'S UNANIMOUS. ITEM [Items 011 & 012] 11 AND 12 ARE GOING TO BE PRESENTED TOGETHER, IS THAT CORRECT ? WE WILL VOTE ON THEM SEPARATELY. I WILL READ THEM SEPARATELY INTO THE RECORD. 11. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A ORDINANCE FOR SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A RESTAURANT OVER 1000 SQUARE FEET RELATING TO THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LOT 1 BLOCK A, SHOPS ON MAIN, PHASE ONE, CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN, ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS. THE PROPERTIES PRESENTLY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT 123 DISTRICT AND IS LOCATED ON 1.762 ACRES AT 661 ASPEN PARKWAY, SUITE 400. 012. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A RESTAURANT OVER 1000 SQUARE FEET RELATING TO THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LOT 1 BLOCK A, SHOPS ON MAIN, PHASE ONE, CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN, ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS. THE PROPERTY IS PRESENTLY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT WENT TO THE THREE DISTRICT AND IS LOCATED ON 1.762 ACRES AT 661 ASPEN PARKWAY, SUITE 300. >> WITH THIS REQUEST, THE APPLICANT BEING THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS TWO TENDENCIES TRYING TO BRING IN. EACH TENANT CLASSIFIES AS A RESTAURANT. ONE IS FOR A THAI RESTAURANT AND THE OTHER IS FOR A BUBBLE TEE. SINCE OUR ORDINANCE REQUIRES AN SEP FOR ANY RESTAURANT OVER 1000 SQUARE FEET, HE NEEDS TO COME TO THE PROCESS AND ASK FOR EACH SUITE FOR EACH BUSINESS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. THERE'S NO OTHER DEVIATIONS OR VARIANCES. THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR AN STAFF IS NOT ASKING FOR ANY EXTRA CONDITIONS. THEY DID FILL OUT OUR WORKSHEET. THERE'S NO NEED FOR A FULL TIA AND NO ANTICIPATED SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. [00:20:06] TRAFFIC DEMAND NECESSITATING ANY ADDITIONAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS OR CONCERNS OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE PARKING LOT. ON THE SPECIFIC SUITE 400 WOULD BE 1690 SQUARE FEET. SUITE 300 WOULD BE 1344 SQUARE FEET. THERE ARE ONLY FOUR PROPERTY NOTICES TO SEND OUT AND DID NOT HEAR BACK FROM ANYONE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT. >> QUESTIONS OF STAFF ? DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO SPEAK ? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT ? WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP. WITH THAT, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 001 SORRY 011 AND 01 12. MOTION TO CLOSE. >> CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING ON 011 AND 012. ALL IN FAVOR SAY "YAY". ANY OPPOSED ? IT IS UNANIMOUS. >> MAKE MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND. >> EMOTION AND A SECOND AS PRESENTED. ANY QUESTION OR DISCUSSION ? ALL IN FAVOR SAY "YAY". ANY OPPOSED ? I ENTERTAIN A MOTION OF 012. >> MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED FOR ZERO 12. >> MOTION AND A SECOND APPROVED FOR 012. THE ISSUE IS [013 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the regulations of Planned Development-146 (PD-146) by changing the use and development regulations in reference to the single family residential and non-residential ratio. The property is generally located on Highway 287 and Old Fort Worth Road. (Z09-2024-37)] UNANIMOUS. WE WILL MOVE TO 013. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE REGULATIONS OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 146 BY CHANGING THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION IN REFERENCE TO THE FAMILY -- SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL RATIO. THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON HIGHWAY 287 AND OLD FT. WORTH ROAD. >> OUR LAST CASE FOR THIS EVENING. IT WILL BE FOR AGENDA ITEM 013 IN CASE NUMBER 4009-2024-37. A REQUEST TO PD 146. ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN IS THE PHASE WE ARE LOOKING AT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT. TOTAL SITE ACREAGE OF THE SPECIFIC SECTION IS 70.69 ACRES. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REDUCE THE CURRENT COMMERCIAL ANCHORAGE THAT WAS APPROVED WITHIN THE SECTION AND INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ALLOWED. THIS WAS ORIGINALLY PROVED I CITY COUNCIL BACK IN DECEMBER OF 2021. THIS AREA IS A SUBURBAN AREA. THE NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS THE LARGER IMAGE OF THAT LOCATION. CASE HISTORY. OCTOBER 2021, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PD IN DECEMBER 14, 2020, CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE PD. THIS IS THE CURRENT LAYOUT WHICH IS WITHIN THE PD. IT WAS APPROVED BACK IN DECEMBER OF 2021. THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS THE LAYOUT OF THE OVERALL SECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE PD. SPECIFICALLY THE OUTLINE AND READ THE SECTION 5. WHAT IS IN THE PACKET, I WILL DESCRIBE IN DETAIL THROUGHOUT MY PRESENTATION. WHAT IS IN THE PACKET WAS SOME OF THE NUMBERS DESCRIBED IN THE SECOND COLUMN. I WILL GIVE YOU THE FULL BREAKDOWN. HOWEVER, I WILL SKIP AHEAD TO RECOMMENDATION. OUR RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL PENDING THE APPLICANT INCREASE THE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE FROM SIX ACRES TO A MINIMUM OF 10 ACRES. A LARGE REASON FOR THAT IS WE BELIEVE A COUNSEL AT THE TIME AN APPROVED BACK IN DECEMBER OF 2021. WHILE 10 ACRES IS AWAY FROM 26 ACRES, WE THINK THE APPLICANT CAN MEET THEIR GOAL AS WELL AS MEET COUNCILS GOAL AS A VISION EXPLAIN TO COUNSEL. WE CAN LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO THAT. I SAY THAT TO SAY WITHIN THE LAST THEY THE APPLICANT FOUND A WAY TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMERCIAL BEING 10 ACRES. UNDER 12 ACRES. THEREFORE, THEY ARE MEETING OUR RECOMMENDATION. [00:25:09] I WILL GET TO THAT. I WANT TO GO BACK AND FORTH WHAT WAS IN YOUR PACKET AND WHERE WE ARE NOW WITH THE APPLICANT. OUTLINED IN BLUE IN THIS FIRST COLUMN ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE IS A STANDARDS AND CURRENT PD. THE SECOND COLUMN SHOWS WHAT IS REFLECTED IN YOUR PACKET. THE THIRD COLUMN IS WHAT IS CURRENTLY BEING PROPOSED. 980 TOTAL LOTS WHAT'S IN THE PACKET. THE APPLICANT WAS BIG INCREASING 270 WITH LOTS TO 1051 LOTS AND NOW REDUCING INTO 39 LOTS AT 1019 LOTS TOTAL. TYPE THREE WHICH WE ARE STICKING TO SECTION 5. 193 LOTS TOTAL WITHIN YOUR PACKET. THAT WAS 264. THAT NUMBER IS BEING REQUESTED TO BE 232. BETWEEN THE 5000 AND 6000 LOTS, 84 WITHIN THE PD. 83 IS IN THE PACKET. 83 IS STAYING CONSISTENT. BETWEEN 6000 AND 7000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. 59 IS WHAT WAS APPROVED IN THE PD. WHAT WAS BEING ASKED IN YOUR PACKET WAS 134 LOTS. WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS 100 TO LOTS WITHIN THAT RANGE. 7000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. 50 WAS APPROVED IN THE PD. 47 IS WHAT WAS SHOW IN YOUR PACKET AND THAT NUMBER IS STILL BEING REQUESTED CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW. COMMERCIAL ACREAGE. THAT'S REDUCING IN THE PD 51.5 ACRES IN YOUR PACKET. IT WAS 30.12 ACRES. THAT NUMBER HAS INCREASED TO 35 POINT NINE IS FOR THE COMMERCIAL ANCHORAGE. 2.77 ACRES APPROVED IN THE PD. THAT IS INCREASED TO 2.81 ACRES . IT WAS APPROVED AT 60 % IN THE PD. 70 % IS BEING REQUESTED WITHIN YOUR PACKET. THAT REQUEST IS CURRENTLY AT 65 %. PARKLAND OPEN SPACE WITHIN SECTION 5 DIGIT OF THE PD IS AT 4.2. IT HAS INCREASED TO 5.15 AND THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE PACKAGE AS WELL. I WILL TRY TO BREAK THIS DOWN MORE AS WE CONTINUE TO GO. THE LATEST INFORMATION IS A DEEPER BREAK DOWN. THE OVERALL PHASE FIVE DIGIT CHANGES WITHIN WEST SIDE PRESERVE. THEY WILL REDUCE THE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE FROM 26.4 ACRES TO 11.75 ACRES. THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE MINIMUM OF 10 ACRES WE WERE REQUESTING TO STOP. ORIGINALLY IT WAS SIX ACRES SHOWN IN YOUR PACKET. THE OPEN SPACE WILL REMAIN THE SAME. THAT WILL 5.1 ACRES INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE OF FRONTLOADING GARAGES. ORIGINALLY THE REQUEST YOUR PACKET WAS 70 %. THAT'S DROPPING DOWN TO 65 %. INSTEAD OF 71 LOTS BEING REQUESTED IT'S 39. INCREASING THE TOTAL OF TYPE THREE LOT COUNTS FROM 193 TO 232. 264 WAS BEING REQUESTED. 232 IS BEING REQUESTED NOW. THIS CHART IS REPETITIVE AND WHAT I SHOWED IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDE. 84 LOTS BETWEEN 5000 AND 6000 CURRENTLY APPROVED IN THE PD. 83 IS BEING PROPOSED. 6000 AND 7000, 59 LOTS ARE APPROVED. 102 IS BEING PROPOSED. FOR 7000 SQUARE-FOOT LOTS AND 50 IS APPROVED AND THAT NUMBER IS REDUCED TO 47. DUE TO THE CHANGES BEING REQUESTED WITHIN SECTION 5 DIGIT OF THE PD WERE THAT AFFECTS THE PD. OVERALL CHANGES FOR THE PD INCREASING THE TOTAL MAXIMUM COUNT FROM 980 TO 1019. THAT'S FOR THE CURRENT REQUEST . REDUCING THE COMMERCIAL ACREAGE FROM 51.5 ACRES TO 35 POINT ONE ACRES AND INCREASING THE SINGLE-FAMILY DENSITY FROM 2.77 TO TWO POINT 81 ACRES. THESE NEXT FEW SLIDES WILL SHOW COMPARISON EXHIBITS. THE CURRENT SLIDE IS WHAT WAS REFLECTED IN YOUR PACKET. SHOWING WHAT THE SIX ACRES OF COMMERCIALS ARE LOOKING LIKE WITH THE OUTLINED IN BLUE AREA. LIGHT ORANGE BEING THE 71 LOTS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED. DIFFERENT EXHIBITS SAME AREA. SHOWS THE OVERALL COMMERCIAL BEING AT 11.75 ACRES. STILL 193 LOTS WERE APPROVED. ADDITIONAL 39 LOTS WILL BE LOCATED HERE. SAME AREA. SHOWING A DEEPER BREAK SECTION 5 THAN THE PD TOTAL ACRES OR LOTS IS 264 LOTS. THIS IS WHAT WAS [00:30:04] SHOWN IN THE PACKET. CURRENTLY WAS BEING PROPOSED 232 LOTS. THIS SHOWS A DEEPER BREAK DOWN WITH THE YELLOW BEING 83 LOTS. THE TYPE A LOTS BEING IN THE BLUE THING 102 LOTS. THAT WAS ORIGINALLY 134 LOTS. THE PURPLE LOTS BEING 47 LOTS. THE ONLY CHANGE IS THE LOTS OUTLINED IN BLUE. EVERYTHING IS REMAINING THE SAME. THE STAFF CONCERNED ABOUT COMMERCIAL ACREAGE IS GOING AWAY. OUR MAIN CONCERN WAS THE APPLICANT MEET THE 10 ACRES AND THEY HAVE MET THAT BY GOING UP TO 11.75 ACRES. THAT HAS GONE AWAY. THAT IS REFLECTED IN YOUR PACKET. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY LETTERS OF SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION. DUE TO THE APPLICANT MAKING THOSE CHANGES, STAFF IS RED AND ENDING APPROVAL AS PRESENTED. ANY QUESTIONS ? >> THIS PLAN OF THE DEVELOPMENT BELOW -- >> THAT GOT APPROVED AT THE END OF LAST YEAR. THIS WAS DECEMBER OF 2021. >> WHAT WAS THE INCREASE ? >> PERCENTAGEWISE IT WENT FROM 60 % TO 65 %. 5 % INCREASE. ALL OF THE LOTS BEING ADDED, THE 39 LOTS WILL BE FRONT LOADED GARAGES WHICH AFFECTS THE INCREASE BY 5 %. >> STAFF DOESN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT ? >> NO. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ? IF NOT, DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO SPEAK ? >> MY NAME IS TODD WINNERS. 1600 NORTH COLLINS BOULEVARD. I'M HERE WITH MR. GERALD'S. THIS IS THE BEST USE FOR THIS AREA. WE ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> QUESTIONS ? OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. WE HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP AND ONE LETTER SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE. I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY "YAY". ANY OPPOSED ? IT'S UNANIMOUS. THE DOORS ARE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION OR ACTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE -- [INAUDIBLE] >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ? ALL IN FAVOR SAY "YAY". ANY OPPOSED ? IT'S UNANIMOUS. WE WILL MOVE TO MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSIONS. STAFF, ANYTHING ELSE ? NO ? COMMISSIONERS ? ANYONE ? I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.