Dec 17, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission

[Call to Order and Determination of Quorum.]

[00:00:14]

>> OKAY. IT IS 6:00. AT THIS TIME I WILL CALL THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MIDLOTHIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER. LET THE RECORD SHOW WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. THE FIRST ITEM IS CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION INVITES MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY TOPIC NOT SCHEDULED FOR CONSIDERATION FOR ACTION ON THIS AGENDA AND PRESENT IT TO THE CITY STAFF PRIOR TO THE MEETING. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, THE COMMISSION CANNOT ACT ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA. FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE TURNED IN FORMS , YOU CAN SPEAK WHEN THAT ITEM COMES UP AS OPPOSED TO CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. THIS IS NORMALLY FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO TALK ABOUT DIFFERENT STUFF. WE WILL GET TO YOU WHEN WE GET TO THAT ITEM ON THE AGENDA. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYBODY

[002 Staff review of the cases that were heard by City Council in the last sixty (60) days.]

LAST 60 DAYS. >> THAT IS ME. THE SUB FOR THE 7-ELEVEN ON 287 WAS CONTINUED AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.

AND THEN THERE WERE SOME AGREEMENTS THAT WERE ON THE AGENDA THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT HEAR FOR A GREASE TRAP FOR THE BUILDING AND FOR AN AIR CONDITIONING CHILLER. THE OTHER THING WE HAD ON THERE WAS A SITE -- ELEVATION REVIEW . AND

THAT WAS IT. >> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

>> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A

[004 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance to amend the zoning regulations relating to the development and use of (1) 4.34± acres out of the H.F. Hinkley Survey, Abst. No. 459, presently zoned Light Industrial (LI) District; (2) 53.63± acres out of the W.M. Hawkins Survey, Abst. No. 465, presently zoned Light Industrial (LI) District; (3) 32.289± acres out of the W.M. Hawkins Survey, Abst. No. 465 and the B. Monroe Survey, Abst. No. 700, presently zoned Agricultural (A) District; (4) 67.7456± acres out of H.F. Hinkley Survey, Abst. No. 459, presently zoned Residential-3 (R3) District and Community Retail (CR) District; and (5) 32.606± acres out of the B. Monroe Survey, Abst. No. 700, presently zoned Agricultural (A) District, all in the City of Midlothian, Ellis County, Texas, by changing the current zoning to a Planned Development (PD) District for Motor Freight Uses with a base zoning of Light Industrial (LI) and Commercial (C), said property being generally located west of Midlothian Parkway from its intersection with Mockingbird Lane on the north and Union Pacific Railway right of way on the south. (Case No. Z21-2024-087) ]

HEARINGS. ITEM 004 . >> AND YOU GUYS HERE MAY? OKAY.

OUR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR AS YOU GUYS SEE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CONTINUE TO A FUTURE P AND Z MEETING DATE.

USUALLY WE HAVE THE END DATE IN MIND, BUT IN THIS CASE THE APPLICANT MORE THAN LIKELY WILL WITHDRAW THIS CASE. HOWEVER, STAFF AND APPLICANT HAVE BEEN WORKING BACK AND FORTH TO ANSWER QUESTIONS SO HE CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION PRIOR TO WITHDRAWING. THAT IS WHY IT SAYS REQUEST TO CONTINUE TO A

FUTURE P AND Z MEETING DATE. >> OKAY. THAT BEING PRESENTED, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS TO A FUTURE P AND

Z MEETING. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE

TO A FUTURE MEETING. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. ANY

[005 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 29, Block G, of Four Trees Estates, commonly known as 4010 Underwood Lane, City of Midlothian, Ellis County, Texas. The property is presently zoned Planned Development 77 (PD-77) District and is located on +1.61 acres. (SUP16-2024-77) ]

>> BEFORE I GET INTO THAT, I MET TO DO THIS A SECOND AGO.

SORRY IF YOU ARE GOING TO DO THIS AFTER. I JUST WANT TO INTRODUCE O'CONNELL. SHE IS OUR NEW PLANNER WITH US. THIS IS HER SECOND DAY. YEAH. THAT IS IT. JUST WANTED TO INTRODUCE

HER TO EVERYBODY. >> WELCOME.

>> BEFORE WE GOT TOO DEEP IN ALL OF THIS. OUR NEXT CASE IS FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE. CASE NUMBER S U.P. 16. THIS IS A PROPOSED SECONDARY DWELLING AT 4010 UNDERWOOD LANE. TOTAL SITE IS 1.61 ACRES. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF S U.P. TO ALLOW FOR A SECONDARY DWELLING AT 4010 UNDERWOOD LANE. ZONING IS PD-77. AS YOU SEE , THERE IS

[00:05:05]

PROPOSED SECONDARY DWELLING. 1584 SQUARE FEET OF LIVING AREA . AND AGAIN, THE SECONDARY DWELLING IS PROPOSED TO BE USED FOR VISITING FAMILY. THE NEXT IS BUILDING ELEVATION FOR THE SECONDARY DWELLING. AGAIN, SIMILAR TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. FOR THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN ZONING ORDINANCE, WHEN IT COMES TO SECONDARY DWELLINGS, APPLICANTS ARE REQUIRED TO MEET 11 STANDARDS PER SECTION 3.57 OF THE ORDINANCE. IF THE APPLICANT MEETS ALL OF THE STANDARDS, THEY ONLY HAVE TO COME TO P AND Z REVIEW. IF THEY CANNOT MEET ONE OR MORE, THEN THEY ARE REQUIRED TO REQUIRE FOR S U.P.

THROUGH P AND Z. AS YOU SEE OUTLINED IN YELLOW, THE APPLICANT IS MEETING ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE. HE IS ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL SEPTIC SYSTEM THERE. YOU CAN GET A BETTER VIEW. I WILL READ THIS OUT REAL QUICK. IF THE LOT IS SERVED BY SEPTIC SYSTEM FROM THE SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT MUST USE THE SAME SEPTIC SYSTEM AS THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING UNIT. SO THAT SUB NOTE THERE CURRENTLY PROPOSED THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO ADD ADDITIONAL SEPARATE SEPTIC SYSTEMS FOR THE SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT . THE APPLICANT HAS STATED HE HAS SPOKEN TO A SANITARIAN REGARDING THIS. THE CURRENT SYSTEM WILL NOT SUPPORT BOTH HOMES, WHICH IS WHY HE HAS ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL SEPTIC SYSTEM THERE. STAFF SENT OUT 16 LETTERS WITHIN THE SURROUNDING AREA. WE DID RECEIVE FIVE TOTAL LETTERS WITHIN THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION BUFFER. TWO OUTSIDE. WE DID IN ADDITION RECEIVE ONE OFFICIAL LETTER FROM THE FOUR TREES ESTATES AGE AWAY -- A . ALL OF THEM WERE IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSAL. WE DO WANT TO NOTE WE STAYED WITHIN OUR STAFF REPORT OF THIS CASE AND WHILE THE CITY HAS RECEIVED FIVE LETTERS IN OPPOSITION, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN ZONING ORDINANCE FOR SECONDARY DWELLING WITH THE EXCEPTION OF REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL SEPTIC SYSTEM. APPLICANTS WITHIN HOA MUST SECURE APPROVAL FROM BOTH ENTITIES. SO THE CITY CAN SAY YES IN THIS CASE. P AND Z AND CITY COUNCIL. HOWEVER, IF THE HOA SAYS NO, THE APPLICANT CANNOT DO IT. THE HOA CAN SAY YES, BUT IF THE CITY SAYS NO, THE APPLICANT CANNOT DO IT.

AGAIN, THIS LAST BULLET POINT I AM KIND OF REPEATING WHAT I JUST SAID. SHOULD P AND Z AND CITY COUNCIL VOTE TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A SECONDARY DWELLING, THE APPLICANT WILL STILL NEED TO GET APPROVAL FROM THE HOA, WHICH IS FOUR TREES ESTATES A -- HOA. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED S U.P. WITH THE COMMENT THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. STAFF STANDS FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT IS

HERE AS WELL. >> QUESTIONS OF STAFF. OKAY. IF NOT, IS THE APPLICANT WISHING TO SPEAK?

>> YES. >> OKAY. IF YOU WOULD COME FORWARD. AND IF YOU WOULD, SIR, STATE YOUR NAME AND WHETHER OR

NOT YOU LIVE IN THE CITY. >> TERRENCE GEORGE.

>> WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIVE IN THE CITY?

>> I DO. I WAS BUILDING THAT FOR MY MOM . 82 YEARS OLD. SHE IS LIVING IN ARKANSAS. I WAS TRYING TO GET HER CLOSER TO HELP HER OUT. BUT I GUESS THE PROBLEM WITH THE HOA WAS THE BREEZEWAY . IT WAS SAYING THERE WAS A CARPORT . IF SOMEBODY COULD PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CARPORT

AND A BREEZEWAY IS -- >> WELL, SIR, NOT HAVING THEIR RULES OR REGULATIONS , IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF WHAT THEIR DEFINITION IS.

>> OKAY. COULD I HAVE MY BUILDER COME UP?

>> CERTAINLY. IF YOU WOULD, SIR, STATE YOUR NAME.

[00:10:04]

>> HELLO, EVERYBODY. HOW ARE YOU? 4010 UNDERWOOD LANE. I AM THE ONE THAT DREW THE PLAN FOR MR. GEORGE. AFTER DRAWING THE DRAWING BASED ON THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AND THE NEW STRUCTURE, IT IS 30 FEET GAP . SO I NEED TO PUT A BEAM TO CONNECT IT SO IT WILL NOT COLLAPSE BECAUSE THE CITY REQUIRED ONE . SO AFTER LOOKING AT THE CITY REQUIREMENTS, I REACHED OUT TO THE HOA . EVERYTHING ON THE HOA GUIDELINE WAS IN ORDER BEFORE DRAWING THE SPECS. AFTER I DRAW THE SPECS, I TURNED TO THE CITY AND THE CITY REVISED IT. I HAD A MEETING WITH THE CITY. IT LASTED ABOUT 20 MINUTES. THEY TOLD ME EVERYTHING WAS PROPERTY IS NOT A RENTAL PROPERTY , WHICH I STATED, NO.

IT IS NOT A RENTAL. SO THEY ASKED ME A QUESTION. WHO IS GOING TO BE LIVING THERE? I TOLD THEM IT WAS GOING TO BE THE GRANDMOTHER OF A HOMEOWNER. THEY SAID, OKAY. THEN THEY ASKED ME ANOTHER QUESTION. IS IT GOING TO BE ANOTHER SEPTIC TANK? I SAYS , YES. BASED ON THE DISTANCE OF THE ORIGINAL SEPTIC TANK. WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS. EITHER REMOVE THE OFFSET SEPTIC TANK AND UPGRADE SO IT WILL MEET THE REQUIREMENT, OR APPLY A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE SECOND SEPTIC .

BASED ON LOOKING AT THE DISTANCE ON THE ELECTRICAL, IT WILL BE AFFECTED. I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. THE SEPTIC TANK FROM THE NEW DWELLING -- FROM EACH OTHER. THAT WAS THE REASON I REQUESTED FOR A SECOND APPOINTMENT FOR THE NEW SEPTIC TANK , WHICH I REQUESTED FROM THE CITY AND THE CITY SAYS, LET'S MOVE FORWARD. SO BASED ON THE HOA -- IN OUR HOA RULES, THE TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNEL. THE PROPER CHANNEL IS THE ACC. ACC LOOKED AT THE PLANNING AND SAID THE CITY REQUIRED -- MADE THE REQUIREMENT IN THE CITY APPROVES IT, THEN WE WILL COME BACK TO ACC. BUT THE BOARD OF DIRECTOR TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES AND SAYS, ACC CANNOT SPEAK. WE ARE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. WE ARE GOING TO EMAIL TO THE CITY AND SAY WE DO NOT APPROVE IT . I WAS THE FIRST ONE TO MOVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. WHEN I MOVED IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, IT WAS ONLY SEVEN BUILDINGS. BUT NOW WHEN YOU GO IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, ACC AND ALSO THE HOA BOARD OF DIRECTORS ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE. IF THE CITY HAS SOMEONE OUT THERE LOOK AT EVERY SINGLE STRUCTURE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE. SO THEY HAVE FAVORITISM WHO THEY DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT TO BUILD. SOME PEOPLE HAVE BIGGER STRUCTURES. 50 FEET BY 100 FEET TOUCHING THE OUTSIDE DRAINAGE. YOU CANNOT BUILD ON THE DRAINAGE LINE .

YOU CANNOT, BUT THE HOA IS APPROVING IT. WHEN SOMEBODY IS DOING THE RIGHT THING , THE DIRECTORS SAYS ACC, YOU CANNOT SPEAK . WE ARE THE ONE IN CHARGE, NOT THE CITY. I TOLD HIM, I SAID, THE CITY MAKES THE LAW, NOT THE HOA. WHAT THE DIRECTORS HAVE TO DO CITY SAYS THIS AND OUR HOA SAYS THIS. BUT ACC HAS THE RIGHT TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY. BUT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SAYS , NO.

SO WHAT IT DID WITHIN THE 200 FEET OF WHERE HIS PROPERTY IS -- THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS STARTED EMAILING THE HOMEOWNERS AND SAID, WRITE A LETTER TO THE CITY . SO WHEN I COME OUT AND I TALKED TO THE CITY, THE HOMEOWNER SAYS, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT IS GOING ON? YOU KNOW WHAT THE CITY SAYS. NO. WE'RE GOING TO STAND BY HIM. OH, NO. WE ARE GOING TO STAND BY HIM. ABOUT SEVEN HOUSES IN FRONT OF HIM SAYS, YOU ARE GOOD TO GO. IF THE CITY NEEDS ANYTHING FROM US, LET US GO AHEAD AND EMAIL TO THEM. THEN WHEN WE SHOWED UP FOR THE FIRST MEETING -- THE SECOND MEETING WAS CONTINUED. NOTHING WAS DISCUSSED. I WASN'T THERE. WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS LAST ONE IS WHEN I RECEIVE AN EMAIL FROM ONE OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND ONE OF THE CITY MEMBERS , I WAS OUT OF TOWN. I CANNOT SAY ANYTHING. THEN I WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK ON THAT STRUCTURE. SO WHEN I WENT TO THE SECOND PERSON, I REACHED OUT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

I SAID, LET'S CALL FOR A MEETING. THEY SAID, NO. WE'RE NOT GOING TO CALL FOR A MEETING. BUT IN OUR COVENANT,

[00:15:02]

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS.

>> ALL RIGHT, SIR. IF YOU WOULD WRAP UP FOR US.

>> THAT IS PRETTY MUCH MY COMPLAINING.

>> QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT ?

>> HOW BIG IS THIS STRUCTURE? HOW MANY BEDROOMS?

>> THREE BEDROOMS AND TWO BATHS.

>> AND IS THIS JUST FOR HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW?

>> YES. MOTHER-IN-LAW AND HIS GRANDCHILDREN.

>> OKAY. HOW MANY GRANDCHILDREN LIVE WITH THE MOTHER-IN-LAW?

>> FIVE. >> FIVE GIMMICK OKAY.

UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. THANK

YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> WE DO HAVE SOME LETTERS THAT WERE SUBMITTED THAT STAFF HAS ENTERED INTO THE RECORD JUST SO EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT WILL BE RECORDED INTO THE RECORD. I'M NOT GOING TO READ THEM, BUT THEY WILL BE IN THE RECORD WITH THIS CASE FORWARDED TO THE COUNCIL. I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE SIGNED UP. WITH THAT, ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SECOND. >> A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYE. PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. THE FLOOR IS NOW OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND INTERACTION.

>> I JUST WANT TO SAY AS WE HAVE WORKED OUR WAY THROUGH THESE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, IT IS NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT. IT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE HAD TO CONSIDER. ORIGINALLY THERE WAS NONE OF THESE TO BE ALLOWED AND WE HAVE KIND OF FELT OUT THE PERIMETERS. SO FAR IT HAS BEEN LIMITED TO SMALLER ONE-BEDROOM OR TWO-BEDROOM HOUSES . I DON'T THINK -- THE CONCERN WAS ALWAYS, IF YOU BUILD TWO FULL-SIZE HOUSES ON A LOT, EVENTUALLY THE NEXT HEARING WILL BE FIVE YEARS LATER SOMEONE WANTING TO SPLIT AND PARCEL INTO TWO SEPARATE LOTS.

IN MY OPINION, THIS IS GETTING BEYOND THE PURPOSE OF THE ACCESSORY SECONDARY BUILDING. WE ARE REALLY GETTING INTO SUBDIVIDING TWO FULL HOUSES. FOR THAT REASON, I DON'T THINK I CAN SUPPORT THIS FOR THE CURRENT PLAN.

>> MY QUESTION ON THAT WOULD BE , MY UNDERSTANDING IS FOR THE SEPTIC TANK -- FOR A SECOND SEPTIC TANK, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE ENOUGH DRAINAGE FILLED AREA . MAYBE YOU CAN ANSWER THIS FOR US. WOULD THERE BE ENOUGH ROOM ON THIS PROPERTY FOR THERE TO BE A SECOND SEPTIC TANK ?

>> YES. THERE IS ENOUGH ROOM . AS FAR AS THE REASONING YOU MENTIONED , THE SANITARIAN DID NOT PROVIDE A LETTER. SO I CANNOT PROVIDE THE EXACT REASONING. THERE IS ENOUGH ROOM

ON THE PROPERTY FOR THAT. >> ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION THAT IT BE A SINGLE SEPTIC SYSTEM .

>> WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND?

>> CHAIR, MATTER OF CLARIFICATION FOR THE COMMISSION . THE ONLY REASON THIS IS EVEN BEING BROUGHT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE SEEKING A SECOND SEPTIC AS OPPOSED TO ONE. UNDER CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCES, THIS DWELLING IF THEY WERE ONLY USING ONE SEPTIC WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE BEFORE THIS BOARD CAN GO AHEAD AND BUILD UNDER OUR CURRENT ZONING.

BECAUSE IT ALREADY MEETS ALL THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. SOMETIME AGO AS A NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS RECALL, THIS COMMISSION RECOMMENDED AND OF THE COUNCIL AMENDED BECAUSE WE WERE GETTING SO MANY SU P REQUEST FOR SECONDARY DWELLINGS ON LARGE LOTS . GO AHEAD AND SET A DEVELOPMENT STANDARD FOR SECONDARY DWELLINGS ON LARGER LOTS. OF COURSE ONCE SOME OF THOSE STANDARDS INCLUDED IN ORDER TO AVOID THE LOT

[00:20:02]

THEY AS A MATTER OF RIGHT COULD GO AHEAD AT LEAST UNDER A ZONING ORDINANCE. SETTING ASIDE ANYTHING THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH THEIR COVENANTS. AND I THINK THAT IS ONE THING. UNDER OUR ZONING ORDINANCE THEY CAN DO IT AS A MATTER OF RIGHT WITH ONLY ONE SEPTIC IF ALL THEY DID WAS UPGRADE IT AND MAKE THE LARGER SEPTIC AND JUST DO ONE RIGHT NOW. SO THE NATURE OF THE

MOTION DOESN'T DO IT. >> IT IS EITHER ALLOW THEM TO DO TWO OR DENY THE CASE. THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO GO BACK TO DO ONE RIGHT NOW.

>> YEAH. I WANT TO STRESS -- I KNOW WHAT IT IS WRITTEN AS. THE INTENT WAS NOT TO HAVE DUAL HOUSES ON ONE PROPERTY THAT COULD BE SPLIT. BECAUSE THEN WE GET AROUND FROM EVENTUALLY THE COMMUNITY GETS FRACTURED INTO SMALLER AND SMALLER LOTS BY THIS TYPE OF USE. I KNOW THAT WE HAVE CREATED AN ORDINANCE SOMEONE TRYING TO DRIVE A BIGGER BUS THROUGH. MAYBE WE NEED TO REVISIT THAT BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY BEING MISUSED FROM THE INTENT. THE INTENT WAS GRANDMOTHER SUITES, SMALL LITTLE THINGS. WE HAVE TWO HOUSES, ONE OF WHICH IS GOING TO REQUIRE ITS OWN SEPTIC SYSTEM. IF THEY WANT TO BUILD TWO HOUSES ARE ONE HOUSE IN A LARGER HOUSE, I DON'T HAVE AS MUCH A PROBLEM WITH THAT BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE SUBDIVIDED. WE START DOING TWO SEPTIC SENT TWO ELECTRICAL OUTLETS, YOU BEGIN TO DRIFT TOWARD EXACTLY WHAT WE TRY TO PREVENT DESPITE WHAT YOU SAID IS A MATTER OF RIGHT. IT IS JUST THAT IS MY CONCERN. WE ARE NOW AWAY FROM THE SPIRIT WITH WHICH ALL THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS ORDINANCE WAS ENACTED.

>> AGAIN, JUST A REMINDER OF WHAT THE ORDINANCE AND STANDARDS OF THE ORDINANCE -- THE STANDARD FOR THE SECOND DWELLING CANNOT -- YOU KNOW, IT HAS TO BE EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN 50% OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE MAIN HOUSE . IN THIS CASE, THE MAIN HOUSE HAPPENS TO BE A PRETTY LARGE HOUSE. 4500+ SQUARE FEET. SO TO THAT EXTENT, THIS -- YEAH. I THINK MAYBE THAT DOES SKEW. MAYBE THE STANDARDS NEED TO BE LOOKED AT AGAIN BY THE COMMISSION OR THE COUNCIL IN THAT REGARD. BUT THAT IS WHAT THE STANDARDS ARE FOR RIGHT NOW. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO REMIND YOU OF THAT. SO THE ONLY OTHER THING IS -- AGAIN, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, I THINK THE COMMISSION UNDERSTANDS THIS AND FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND AND PARTICULARLY FOR THE APPLICANT -- WE DON'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO THE COVENANTS WITH RESPECT TO THOSE ENFORCEMENT. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THE CITY ENFORCES. I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF TIMES WE SEE A LOT OF CASES WHERE THIS IS GOING ON BETWEEN HLA AND THE CITY. THE FACT IS THEY ARE INDEPENDENT REVIEWS AND APPROVALS. I MEAN, IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO LOOK AT THAT, THAT'S FINE, BUT YOU STAND ALONE ON YOUR OWN REVIEW OF YOUR OWN ORDINANCES. BASICALLY. ANYWAY. AGAIN, I SAY THAT JUST FOR CLARIFICATION FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE.

>> LEGALLY WE DON'T HAVE TO CONSIDER THOSE. I THINK AS A COMMISSION WHEN WE HAVE AN HOA, WE ARE OBVIOUSLY FREE TO. THAT IS SOME EVIDENCE OF WHAT THE INTENT WAS AND WHAT THOSE OTHER RESIDENTS IN THE COMMUNITY BOUGHT INTO. FOR US TO SAY THOSE ARE NOT RELEVANT, THEY ARE RELEVANT. I THINK WHATEVER ORDINANCE WE DO, DO WE HAVE TO EXPRESSLY SAY THAT IT HAS TO BE -- THAT OUR APPROVAL IS AS STAFF SUGGESTS ? THAT IT HAS TO BE -- IT CANNOT BE GRANTED UNLESS THE HOA APPROVES IT ? OR

IS THAT JUST IMPLICIT? >> I WOULD NEVER RECOMMEND AN ORDINANCE TRIED TO BE HINGED ON THAT. IF YOUR VOTE BASED ON THOSE AS YOU JUST SAID -- IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE REASONS YOU STATED, YOU ARE FREE TO DO SO. I AM NOT REAL KEEN ON TRYING TO TIE A CITY ORDINANCE TO ENFORCING PRIVATE COVENANTS. WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU

KIND OF -- >> STAFF ANALYSIS SECTION IS A STATEMENT OF FACT, NOT A SUGGESTION THAT WE INCORPORATE

THAT INTO WHATEVER MOTION. >> CORRECT.

>> UNDERSTOOD. >> IF I AM UNDERSTANDING WHAT I'M HEARING, YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE SU P BE CONTINGENT UPON THE HOA AND NOT NECESSARILY THE CITY ORDINANCE

BUT THIS PARTICULAR SUB >> I THINK WHAT KEVIN IS SAYING

[00:25:01]

>> SO ALL OF THAT, REGARDLESS , IF WE DECLINE THIS IN THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN BECAUSE IT IS REQUIRING TWO SEPARATE SYSTEMS AND THEY DECIDE TO GO AND DO JUST ONE SEPTIC SYSTEM , THEN THEY DON'T NEED OUR APPROVAL. IS THAT THE UNDERSTANDING?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> WITH THAT BEING SAID, I

WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO DECLINE. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK YOU A QUESTION. WASN'T THERE SOMETHING ABOUT THE POSITION OF

THE SECONDARY DWELLING? >> YEAH.

>> YEAH. FOR THAT SAKE , I WOULD DENY THIS AS WELL. THANK

YOU. >> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION?

>> I WILL SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? IT

[006 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance for a Zoning Change (Agriculture to Planned Development) to allow the use of a Single Family Residential Planned Development, being 48.59 acres of the WM M Shofner Survey, Abstract 1300, City of Midlothian, Ellis County, Texas. The property is presently zoned Agriculture (A) district. (Case No. Z27-2024-101)]

ALLOW THE USE OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PLANNING DEVELOPMENT 48.59 ACRES OF THE WM M SHOFNER SURVEY CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS. PRESENTLY ZONED

AGRICULTURE. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. OUR NEXT CASE FOR THIS EVENING IS FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 64 CASE NUMBER Z 27-2024-101. THIS PROPOSES ZONING CHANGE FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY PLAN DEVELOPMENT. AGAIN, THIS IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED LAND. TOTAL SITE BEING AROUND 48 1/2 ACRES .

AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A ZONING CHANGE GOING FROM AGRICULTURE TO A PLAN DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW THE USE OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE DEVELOPMENT.

ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY IS AGRICULTURAL. THE FUTURE LAND USE IS COUNTRY MODULE. WE HAVE AN ASTERISK FOR THAT. THAT IS REALLY JUST A NOTE WE JUST APPROVED THE NEW COMPREHENSIBLE -- CONFERENCE A PLAN IN OCTOBER. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED THEIR CASE PRIOR TO THAT BEING APPROVED. SO WE ARE HOLDING THEM TO 2018 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STANDARDS.

THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES IN 2018 AS WELL AS 2020 FOR THIS AREA AS COUNTRY MODULE. THE ONLY PRIMARY DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE 2018 PLAN HAD IT AS ONE ACRE. 2024 HAS IT AS A MINIMUM OF TWO ACRES. WE ARE HOLDING THEM TO THE ONE ONCE THEY SUBMITTED THE CASE, WHICH IS ONE ACRE. THE NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS A LARGER IMAGE OF THE PROPERTY WITH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OUTLINED IN THE ORANGE AND WHITE STRIPES.

THIS NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS A SITE LAYOUT ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE.

GOING ALONG THE LEFT-HAND SIDE, PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. MINIMUM ONE-ACRE LOTS. 36 LOTS TOTAL WITH TWO ADDITIONAL HOA LOTS. THE LOTS WILL BE ON SEPTIC. HOA WILL BE PROVIDING FOR DEVELOPMENT . ADDITIONAL NOTE. AN EMERGENCY GAIT IS PROPOSED ALONG THIS AREA HERE. AND THE RED CIRCLE AREA. I REALLY JUST CALL THAT OUT BECAUSE I'M SURE IT WILL BE A TOPIC OF CONVERSATION TONIGHT. WE RECEIVED SEVERAL LETTERS OF OPPOSITION IN REGARD TO THIS PARTICULAR NOTE. JUST WANTED TO CALL THAT OUT. ONE ACCESS IS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.

THAT IS PRIMARILY DUE TO LOTS BEING 39 LOTS AND UNDER. ONLY ONE ACCESS POINT IS REQUIRED. ANYTHING OVER THAT REQUIRES TWO. THAT IS PRIMARILY THE REASON FOR ONE ACCESS POINT .

AND THEN THE EMERGENCY ACCESS GAIT ON THEIR WHEREVER THAT CIRCLE WAS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CONSTRUCT DEVELOPMENT WITH APD AND PRINCIPAL STANDARDS. THE SINGLE-FAMILY TWO. ALONG THE LEFT-HAND SIDE IN THE SECOND COLUMN, THE PICTURES WITH THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN REQUIRES FOUR SINGLE-FAMILY . IN THE MIDDLE IS THE FAR RIGHT-HAND WE SEE YES OR NO. THAT DEPICTS WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS BEING CONSISTENT OR NOT WITH THE SINGLE-FAMILY STANDARDS. FOR THE MOST PART, THE APPLICANT IS CONSISTENT.

CERTAIN LOTS AS YOU SEE HERE FOR LOT WIDTH ARE NOT MEETING IT. THOSE ARE REALLY JUST IRREGULAR SHAPED LOTS DUE TO THE SITE LAYOUT HAVING THREE DIFFERENT CUL-DE-SACS. AND THEN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK. REQUIRES 15 APPLICANTS . SF TWO REQUIRES 25. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 20. HOWEVER, AS YOU SEE, THAT IS NOT A MAJOR DIFFERENCE THERE. EXCUSE ALL OF THE WRITING ON

[00:30:05]

AGAIN, 13 LETTERS TOTAL. 11 OF THE 13 WERE WITHIN THAT 200-FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA. DUE TO STAFF CONCERNS REGARDING THE SITE LAYOUT AND TRAFFIC FLOW CONNECTIVITY, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL. AS MENTIONED, WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BEING HERE. STAFF WOULD SUGGEST AN ALTERNATIVE LAYOUT BE PROVIDED. SO THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL.

STAFF CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> AND WE GO BACK TO THE PLAN?

>> LET ME KNOW WHEN TO STOP. >> RIGHT THERE. TO THE LEFT OF THE PICTURE WHERE THE CIRCLE IS. THAT IS THE END WHERE CURRENTLY THERE IS A CUL-DE-SAC RIGHT NOW OR A TURNAROUND WOULD

BE A BETTER TERM. >> YES, SIR.

>> THAT IS WHERE THAT IS. AND THEN IT COMES OUT ON THE

RIGHT-HAND SIDE. >> YEAH. SORRY. THIS IS THE TURNAROUND. THE ACCESS POINT WOULD BE ALONG HERE, WHICH WILL

LEAD YOU TO THE LANE. >> OKAY. SO STAFF IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE STRAIGHT STRETCH ACROSS THERE.

>> THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A GAIT BEING HERE, WHICH IS EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY. SO OUR CONCERN IS REALLY MORE SO THROUGH THE CONNECTIVITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. SO WE THINK THAT

THAT BEING THERE WOULD -- >> IT CREATES A 1900 FOOT LONG DEAD AND CUL-DE-SAC. SO, YES. STAFF IS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

>> YOU ARE MAKING THE ENTRANCE INTO IT FROM ASHFORD. OKAY.

OKAY. QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> CHAIR, AS WE DISCUSSED, I

WILL BE TIMING THE SPEAKERS. >> OKAY.

>> I HAD A QUESTION OF STAFF. SORRY. WHAT KIND OF ELEVATION CHANGES DO WE HAVE HERE? I KNOW THERE IS A CREEK ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. IS IT RELATIVELY FLAT ACROSS THE ENTIRE PROPERTY? WHAT ARE THE GRADES? WE ARE KIND OF PLODDING DOWN A GENERIC SORT OF DEVELOPMENT ACROSS THE WHOLE PROPERTY. IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE MAYBE THERE'S SOME GRAY DROP-OFFS ON THE NORTHWESTERN CORNER. AM I JUDGING THAT RIGHT

OR AM I READING THE MAP WRONG? >> I CANNOT CONFIRM THAT 100%.

I DON'T KNOW IF MIKE IS BACK THERE IF HE CAN CONFIRM THAT

EITHER. >> I GUESS THE OTHER ISSUE

WOULD BE THERE IS NO -- >>

>> YEAH. YEAH. >> WENT TO THE NORTHWEST. YOU

ALSO HAVE THE SOUTHEAST SIDE. >> SO IT IS KIND OF ON A RIDGE.

IF WE LOOKED AT THIS, IS THERE A RIDGE ? I'M LOOKING AT THE ENTRYWAYS. YOU HAVE GOT ASHFORD LANE WHERE IT MAKES THAT CURVE TO GO SOUTH AS AN ENTRY POINT. IF IT RAN WHERE THE CURVED ROAD ALONG THE RIDGE, IT WOULD BE MORE NATURAL. I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE NATURAL LANDSCAPE. I AM MAKING SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING

THE TERRAIN CORRECTLY. >> I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHERE THAT KIND OF LINE IS. YOU CAN SEE THE TWO FARTHER POINTS.

>> OKAY. GREAT. THANKS. >> WHAT IS THE -- WHY DO WE WANT THAT GATED ON THE OTHER END ?

>> AGAIN, I AM KIND OF SPEAKING FOR THE APPLICANT REGARDING THAT. I CAN LET THEM SPEAK TO THAT. I HAVE AN ANSWER, BUT I

[00:35:01]

QUESTION OF STAFF? >> OKAY. WE WILL LET THE APPLICANT, AND ALSO GIVE YOU A CHANCE AT THE END.

>> 2021 MAIN STREET. DALLAS, TEXAS. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE COMMISSIONER FOR ALLOWING ME TO GET UP AND SPEAK. A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANT TO TOUCH UP ON IS, FIRST QUESTION, WHY IS THERE A GATE AT THE END? WE ORIGINALLY KNOW ONE OF THE CONCERNS WAS CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN OUR DEVELOPMENT AND ROLLING WOODS AND HOW THAT ROAD WOULD CHANGE THE TRAFFIC FLOW IN THE AREA. SO WE THOUGHT OF WAYS -- WHAT CAN WE DO TO HELP MITIGATE THE FLOW TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM USING THAT AS A SPEEDWAY TO GET THROUGH OUR DEVELOPMENT TO MAKE IT A SHORTCUT ? THAT IS WHAT WE CAME UP WITH. WE TALKED TO THE FIRE MARSHAL, CITY STAFF. WE GAVE THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY -- PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT. THERE ARE ADDITIONAL FEES, WHICH WE ARE COMPLETELY OKAY WITH. HOWEVER, STAFF DID HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE COST OF THAT ON THE FUTURE RESIDENTS OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

PUTTING A GAIT THERE ONLY ACCESSIBLE TO EMERGENCY VEHICLES. THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES -- IT WOULD DO A COUPLE THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, IT WOULD PREVENT PEOPLE USING THIS AS A THOROUGHFARE . IT WOULD PREVENT PEOPLE CUTTING THROUGH OUR DEVELOPMENT TO GET THROUGH ROLLINGWOOD AND GET TO OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY A LOT QUICKER. SECOND, IT WOULD ALLOW BETTER ACCESS FOR FIRE AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES. IT WOULD ALLOW BETTER ACCESS FOR THEM AT TWO POINTS. EVEN THOUGH WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PUT THIS HERE , WE CAN GIVE A DEAD-END STREET.

IT ALLOWS FIRE AND POLICE SERVICES TO ACT AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPMENT ALONG ROLLINGWOOD. THAT IS ANOTHER MEANS OF ACCESSIBILITY. THEY WOULDN'T HAVE OTHERWISE. SO THAT KIND OF ANSWERS THAT QUESTION. ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DENIAL WAS THAT BECAUSE OF THIS GAIT, IT MAKES US INACCESSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE 1900 FOOT REQUIREMENT. HOWEVER, OUR ARGUMENT WOULD BE THAT THERE IS STILL CONNECTIVITY. JUST DUE TO THAT GAIT , OUR INTERPRETATION WOULD BE THAT RULE DOES NOT APPLY. IF THIS WAS A DEAD END CUL-DE-SAC, THERE WAS NO WAY OF CONNECTIVITY THROUGH THIS, THEN WE WOULD HAVE AN ISSUE. STAFF IS RIGHT THAT THIS WILL IMPACT THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. AND WE WANT IT TO IMPACT THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. WE DON'T WANT THIS TO BE A THOROUGHFARE. WE DON'T WANT TO ALLOW ANYONE TO HAVE ADDITIONAL ACCESS THROUGH OUR DEVELOPMENT CAUSING IMPACT TO THOSE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. AND SO WE WOULD ASK THE COMMISSION TO LOOK AT THIS AS A PRO ON THIS DEVELOPMENT AND TO REINTERPRET IT -- 600 FOOT CUL-DE-SAC LENGTH RULE AND REGULATION. WE FEEL IT SHOULD NOT APPLY DUE TO HOW THIS IS DESIGNED. IT DOES CONNECT -- IT IS A CONNECTION. IT ALLOWS FIRE ACCESS. THE WHOLE POINT OF CONNECTION AND THAT RULE -- WHY IT WAS WRITTEN -- WAS DUE TO EMERGENCY SERVICES AND ACCESSIBILITY. THAT IS WHY THAT RULE AND REGULATION WAS WRITTEN INTO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. WE ARE SAYING THAT IT IS STILL ALLOWING US TO -- IT IS STILL ALLOWING US TO ACCOMPLISH THIS.

OUR REQUEST IS THEY ARE ALL LARGER THAN ONE-ACRE LOTS.

CUSTOM BUILDERS COMING IN HERE . IT IS GOING TO BE A HIGHER END DEVELOPMENT. I'M REPRESENTING A VERY REPUTABLE DEVELOPER FOR THE SITE . THEY HAVE SHOWN TIME AND TIME AGAIN THROUGHOUT DEVELOPING THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THEY DO. THEY HAVE ALWAYS COME IN HERE . THEY FOLLOW THROUGH EVERYTHING THEY HAVE BEEN ASKED TO DO. WE WORK CLOSELY WITH STAFF. THEY DID PRESENT AND ASK IS EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS IF THERE IS A DIFFERENT WAY TO LAYOUT THIS. WHEN WE DELAY THIS OUT, WE HAD VARIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT LAYING OUT A DIFFERENT WAY. SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS WHERE WE WANTED TO KEEP HOW MANY LOTS WE HAD IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. WE DON'T WANT ANYTHING MORE THAN 36 LOTS. AND THERE IS REASON FOR THAT. ONCE YOU GET ABOVE 36 LOTS, YOU START RUNNING INTO CONTROL ISSUES. WE WANT TO HAVE A BETTER CONTROL DEVELOPMENT. WE WANT IT TO BE NICE AT THE END OF THE DAY. WE WANTED TO KEEP LARGER LOTS. WE WANTED TO HAVE AN OVERALL DEVELOPMENT LIKE THEY HAVE DONE THROUGHOUT THE CITY. FOR THESE CUSTOM BUILDS. ADDITIONALLY, THROUGH THIS PROCESS -- IT WAS FRIDAY AFTERNOON . LATE FRIDAY. IT WAS ON FRIDAY THAT WE RECEIVED THE TWO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OF WHY THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL. LATE IN THE GAME. BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR MONTHS. THAT KIND OF CAUGHT US OFF GUARD. BUT WE DO FEEL TODAY BEING ABLE TO PROPOSE WHY THIS

[00:40:04]

>> QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. I DRIVE THIS ROAD ABOUT TWICE A DAY. SOMETIMES MORE. THE 90 DEGREE TURN THERE AT ASHFORD IS ALREADY A VERY DANGEROUS TURN .

MY CONCERN IS WHERE THE ENTRANCE OF THIS IS GOING TO BE COMING OUT. IF SOMEONE IS COMING FROM THE EAST COMING BACK DOWN ASHFORD AND THE COME AROUND THAT CORNER, IT IS SO CLOSE THAT I FORESEE THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF ACCIDENTS. MY QUESTION IS, DID YOU LOOK AT DESIGNS TO WHERE MAYBE THE ENTRANCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS IN THAT TOP CORNER?

>> ONE OF THE ISSUES WE HAVE WITH THE TOP CORNER IS THAT CURVES DOWN . YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GO STRAIGHT THAT WAY.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE OTHER ISSUES WHEN IT TEES OFF THAT WAY. WHICH WE FELT WITH OUR ENGINEER LOOKING AT THE DESIGN OF THAT WOULD CAUSE WITH TRAFFIC IN THE FUTURE. AND THE REST OF THE LAYOUT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. WE FEEL THAT BEING ABLE TO PUT IT AT THE NORTH PORTION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD CAUSE ISSUES WITH CARS GOING STRAIGHT OUT ONTO IT . WE FOUND THE SAFEST PLACE TO PUT AN INGRESS AND EGRESS -- WE DID LOOK FURTHER SOUTH AND FURTHER NORTH. THE PRIME SPOT ON THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR SAFETY PURPOSES.

>> OKAY. AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS, THERE IS ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD, HILL STONE, I BELIEVE , WHERE A SIMILAR SITUATION . CONCERNED WITH HAVING THE LONG STRAIGHTAWAYS. THEY DID A ROUNDABOUT STYLE . DID YOU LOOK AT SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO BREAK UP THIS DRIVEWAY AREA?

>> ONE OF THE ISSUES WITH ROUNDABOUTS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS IS THEY ARE NOT USED CORRECTLY MOST OF THE TIME. WE HAVE LOOKED AT STOP SIGNS. ADDING ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS.

OTHER TRAFFIC MITIGATION. WE MET WITH THE CITY ENGINEER. HE CAN PROBABLY SPEAK ON THAT MORE. THEY WOULD NOT RECOMMEND ADDING ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS. WE ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO SO. TRAFFIC ROUNDABOUTS IN THIS SMALL OF A DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE REGARDING TRAFFIC FLOW FOR THE INSIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. WE DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD IMPROVE TRAFFIC IF WE WERE TO ADD A TRAFFIC CIRCLE WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS 36 LOTS. THIS IS NOT A LARGE -- IF IT WAS A LARGE DEVELOPMENT, I THINK HILL STONE IS 40 PLUS. I CANNOT REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I APOLOGIZE. IF IT WAS LARGER THAN THAT , WE WOULD PUT SOME ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC MITIGATION.

BUT WHEN WE DO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OR TRAFFIC IMPACT WORKSHEET, FROM WHAT WE FOUND AND DISCOVERED, THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OF MEDICATION.

>> OKAY. MY LAST QUESTION IS, WITH THIS BEING AN A, WHAT ARE

THE AMENITIES FOR THE HLA? >> YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF A -- -- WITH HOA, THE CITY IS DOING A PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENT . SO A LOT OF THE AMENITIES THE HOA ARE DOING FOR -- I MEAN, ADDING PARKS. WE CAN DO THAT. WE CAN ADD PARKS. HOA IS MORE THAT THEY ARE MEETING VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS SUCH AS THE LAST CASE YOU HEARD BEFORE. THERE IS NO AMENITIES. THERE IS NO PARKS. THERE'S NO SIDEWALKS. IT IS MORE FOR THE

[00:45:03]

>> THANK YOU. >> OTHER QUESTIONS?

] >> YEAH. WE DID LOOK AT ROADS ON THIS MAIN ROAD -- ONE ISSUE WITH THAT IS HOW TO MAKE THE LOTS NOT JAG OUT AND MAKE IT FLOW BETTER. THOSE ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES WE HAD. WE LOOKED AT WHAT THE CITY RECOMMENDED. WE LOOK AT RAPPING THE ROAD GOING TO THE NORTH AND WRAPPING THE PROPERTY AROUND THERE. WE CANNOT MAKE THAT WORK. BEING ABLE TO MAKE IT MORE FUNCTIONAL. SO THIS IS THE BEST

LAYOUT WE FOUND. >> IS IT MORE FEASIBLE IF WE WENT TO LARGER LOTS ? WE MOVE CLOSER TO TWO-ACRE LOTS ?

>> I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT. YOU LOOK AT MARKET FOR PRICES , THAT IS WHEN YOU START RUNNING TWO MORE ISSUES.

IN THE MARKET IN THIS AREA. >> WE HAVE HEARD THAT BEFORE.

YOU WERE HERE . YOU HAVE HEARD PEOPLE SAY THAT. WE PUSH BACK AND THOSE BIG LOTS ARE SELLING. THE NEIGHBOR NEXT TO IT . NOT LATE LAKE. LAKEWOOD . LAKE GROVE . WHAT ARE THE LOTS IN LAKE GROVE ? THEY ARE 1 TO 2 ACRE.

>> THEY ARE 1 TO 1 1/2, I BELIEVE. IT HAS BEEN QUITE A

WHILE. >> THE NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT NEXT DOOR IS ROLLING. THAT STREET. WHAT ARE THOSE?

>> 1 TO 1 1/2. >> I GUESS I WILL ASK ONE OF

THE FOLKS. >> I DON'T HAVE THOSE NUMBERS

IN FRONT OF ME AS WELL. >> OKAY. THE ISSUE ON THIS ROAD -- THEY BROUGHT THAT UP. WE TALKED ABOUT DIFFERENT POSSIBILITIES. WE WENT AHEAD AND DECIDED, IS THIS FEASIBLE? FIRE MARSHAL AGREED WITH US. WE DISCOVERED THAT WOULD BE A GREAT WAY TO MITIGATE THROUGH TRAFFIC AND STILL PROVIDE EMERGENCY SERVICES. FROM WHAT I HAVE HEARD AND READ FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES THAT HAVE SIMILAR CONCERNS ABOUT THROUGH TRAFFIC. SO WE DON'T WANT THIS TO BE TAKEN OUT. WE WOULD LIKE TO LIMIT THE THROUGH TRAFFIC ON ROLLINGWOOD.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION. STAFF DID NOT RECOMMEND THE GATE. AND IT IS REQUIRED TO BE EXTENDED BY THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. AND IT IS A VARIANCE NOT TO

EXTEND THE STUB OUT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. IN OUR MEETING, THE GATE WAS BROUGHT UP IN THAT MEETING AND THAT CAME FROM STAFF ORIGINALLY.

>> ANYONE ELSE? >> OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR.

>> WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.

SO WE ARE GOING TO PUT A THREE-MINUTE LIMITATION ON EACH ONE . SO THE FIRST ONE I HAVE ON THE LIST IS EARLY. BERKELEY.

OKAY. IF YOU WOULD, COME ON UP. STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS INTO THE RECORD FOR US. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

>> DENNIS BERKELEY. 4030 ROLLINGWOOD LANE. I AM WITHIN THE 200-FOOT RANGE. I GOT THE NOTIFICATION IN THE MAIL. I GO -- DO LIVE ON ROLLINGWOOD. WE HAVE LIVED ON ROLLINGWOOD SINCE 1988 . WE HAVE HAD TWO HOUSES ON ROLLINGWOOD. WE HAVE BEEN IN OUR CURRENT HOUSE FOR 27 YEARS. WHAT DREW US INITIALLY TO THE ROLLINGWOOD WAS THE COUNTRY FEEL AND THE DEAD-END STREETS.

NO TRAFFIC. VERY LIMITED TRAFFIC ON OUR ROAD. SO UPON RECEIVING THE NOTIFICATION ABOUT THIS MEETING, I TALKED TO COLBY IN YOUR OFFICE. HE SAID AT THAT TIME THERE WAS GOING TO BE A GATE. BUT THEN THERE WAS DISCUSSION LATER THAT THAT GATE MAY BE TAKEN DOWN AND MAY BECOME A THOROUGH FARE. MY MAIN

[00:50:05]

RIGHT NOW IT IS A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR KIDS TO PLAY.

BUT I COULD SEE OVER TIME THAT THAT WOULD BECOME MORE OF A THOROUGH FARE AND WE WOULD GET A LOT MORE TRAFFIC COMING FROM ASHFORD ON THE RIGHT THROUGH ROLLINGWOOD BACK TO ASHFORD AND MAKING THAT A SHORTCUT THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I KNOW DEVELOPMENTS ARE INEVITABLE, BUT I WOULD REALLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONSIDER LEAVING THAT GATE IN PLACE. I'M OKAY WITH THE GATE . I WOULD CERTAINLY NOT WANT -- AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE CITY WANTS TO UPGRADE ROLLINGWOOD LANE TO THAT TO ACCOMMODATE THE EXTRA TRAFFIC THAT IS GOING TO COME THROUGH THERE. IT IS REALLY OF SUBSTANDARD ROAD. IT HAS BEEN IN FOR 50 YEARS. IT WAS PUT IN TO SERVICE THE 15 LOTS ON THAT ROAD INITIALLY 15 YEARS AGO. AND IT REALLY IS A SUBSTANDARD ROAD. SO WE ARE PLEADING FOR YOU GUYS TO LEAVE THE GATE IN

PLACE. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> I HAD A QUICK QUESTION. WHAT IS YOUR LOT SIZE THERE?

>> TWO LOTS. >> OKAY.

>> WHAT WERE THE STANDARD LOTS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD?

>> 1.5 -- SOMEWHERE IN THAT RANGE. 1.7 TO 1.2.

>> THANK YOU. >> OKAY. NEXT WE HAVE RICK. SO IF YOU WOULD, COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. YOU HAVE

THREE MINUTES. >> RICK. 4021 ROLLINGWOOD LANE.

I LIVE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET . THOSE COME THROUGH ONTO MY PROPERTY FROM HIS PROPERTY. AGAIN, WE HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE 2002. WE SELECTED THAT LOT AND AREA BECAUSE OF THE COUNTRY FEEL THAT IT HAD TO IT. THE QUIETNESS AND THE LACK OF TRAFFIC . AND WE HAVE REALLY BEEN ENJOYING THAT FOR THE LAST 24 YEARS. SO TO CHANGE THAT NOW WOULD NOT BE PLEASANT THING TO EXPERIENCE. SO I FEEL LIKE IF YOU RESEARCH -- I'M REALLY REQUESTING THAT Y'ALL WOULD DO SOME ADDITIONAL RESEARCH AS TO WHAT IS THE TYPICAL LOT SIZE IN THAT AREA . I FEEL LIKE THE ONE-ACRE PROVIDES TOO MUCH DENSITY. AND IF YOU REALLY LOOK AT IT -- AND I HAVEN'T DONE ANY STUDIES -- BUT JUST FROM LIVING THERE AND SEEING OTHER PROPERTIES AROUND, I FEEL LIKE TWO-ACRE LOTS ARE MORE THE AVERAGE FOR THIS AREA . ON THE GATE ISSUE , I AM CONCERNED THAT I WOULD PREFER THERE WOULD BE A GATE THERE BECAUSE I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE INCREASED TRAFFIC AND THAT PEOPLE WOULD END UP USING THAT AREA TO CUT THROUGH TO GO FROM THAT 90-DEGREE TURN TO COME AND BYPASS THE OTHER 390-DEGREE TURNS YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH AFTER YOU PASS THIS 90-DEGREE TURN. SO IF YOU PUT A GATE THERE -- YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE HIS GAIT HERE. AND

[00:55:08]

BEAVERS ON THE POND. THEY DO ALL OF THIS CONSTRUCTION IN THERE. THEY ARE GOING TO CREATE A LOT OF DUST, DIRT, DEBRIS

WASHING DOWN THAT CREEK. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> BY THE WAY, MY LOT IS 2.0 ACRES.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> NATHANIEL. IF YOU WOULD, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE RECORD. YOU HAVE THREE

MINUTES. >> MY NAME IS NATHANIEL ARTHUR.

4031. WE ARE KIND OF NEWBIES. WE HAVE ONLY BEEN HERE ABOUT 10 YEARS, BUT WE MOVED DOWN HERE IN OUR AREA JUST EAST OF THAT .

THAT IS BASICALLY OUR BACKYARD. WE HAVE ABOUT 4 1/2 ACRES . ALL MY NEIGHBORS ON THAT STREET HAVE MORE THAN ME. THE SMALLEST LOT. SIX, 10, 15 ACRES DOWN THERE. WE MOVED DOWN THERE BECAUSE IT FELT MORE LIKE WE WERE OUT IN THE COUNTRY. A LITTLE MORE RURAL. WHEN I GOT THIS LETTER IN THE MAIL, I WAS LIKE NOT TOO HAPPY ABOUT IT BECAUSE IF Y'ALL PROPOSED AND APPROVED THIS PROPOSAL, OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD CHANGE THE LOOK AND FEEL OF IT, TO JACKIE'S POINT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW THIS, BUT THAT IS BASICALLY A DRAGSTRIP RIGHT THERE ON ASHFORD. I HEAR PEELING OUT ALL THE TIME. I'M SURPRISED THERE'S NOT MORE WRECKS ON THAT ROAD. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO MAKE THE LOTS WAY BIGGER. IF TWO ACRES IS MINIMUM, I GUESS THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO. I WOULD PREFER TO SEE CLOSER TO FOUR-ACRE LOTS ON THAT PROPERTY AND TO COMPLETELY SHUT OFF AND MAKE IT A GATED COMMUNITY. NO THOROUGH FARE THROUGH THEIR . LIKE THEY HAVE SAID, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO CUT THROUGH THERE. ALREADY DRIVE CRAZY ENOUGH.

YEAH. THAT IS PRETTY MUCH ALL I'VE GOT TO SAY. THEY HAVE ALREADY VOICED SOME OF THE STUFF I WAS THINKING AS WELL. I KNOW ALL OF MY NEIGHBORS ON MY STREET WERE ALL OPPOSED TO IT

AS WELL. >> THANK YOU, SIR. KAREN .

MA'AM, IF YOU WOULD, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS INTO THE

RECORD. >> KAREN WIGLEY. 4001 ROLLINGWOOD LANE RIGHT WHERE THAT RED CIRCLE IS. SO I AM REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE GATE. I CAN LIVE WITH THE GATE.

I JUST DIDN'T WANT THE THOROUGH FARE THROUGH WITH ALL OF THE TRAFFIC. I HAVE BEEN THERE OVER 30 YEARS. I HAVE TWO ACRES. MY OTHER CONCERN IS DOWN MY FENCE LINE THERE'S TREES .

I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THEM TEARING DOWN THE TREES TO MAKE THESE HOUSES. BIG, BEAUTIFUL TREES . AND REALLY THAT IS ALL I HAD TO SAY. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS A VERY NICE NEIGHBORHOOD .

IT IS QUIET. WE HOPE THAT IS THE WAY IT WILL BE.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. MELISSA. >> STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS INTO THE RECORD. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

>> MY NAME IS MELISSA ORR. I LIVE ON ROLLINGWOOD LANE AT 4021. MY SON ACTUALLY KEEPS MISS WIGLEY'S YARD FROM TIME TO TIME. SO WE MOVED HERE. MY HUSBAND AND I AND OUR THREE CHILDREN IN 2019. SO WE ARE RELATIVELY NEWBIES AS WELL. BUT WE MOVED TO ROLLINGWOOD LANE, WHICH IS A CUL-DE-SAC BECAUSE IT HAS THAT COUNTRY FEEL THAT EVERYBODY IS TALKING ABOUT. WE ARE JUST OVER TWO ACRES . AND WE WOULD LIKE TO MAINTAIN THE CUL-DE-SAC FEEL. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME. THERE ARE OLDER RESIDENTS ON THE CUL-DE-SAC. ROLLINGWOOD LANE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A PLUS IN MY OPINION. IT IS IMPORTANT TO ME

[01:00:09]

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. MARK HILL. DENA HILL. LET THE RECORD SHOW THEY ARE IN OPPOSITION. ROBERTSON. DO YOU HAVE ANY REBUTTAL OR ANY QUESTIONS YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS?

>> I THINK I PRETTY MUCH SAID IT ALL DURING MY PRESENTATION.

THOUGHT THIS WOULD CONTINUE THE FLOW OF THE AREA. I UNDERSTAND THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. I THINK WITH ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ISSUES. PEOPLE DON'T LIKE ANYTHING BEING BUILT IN THEIR BACKYARDS. I UNDERSTAND THAT. SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS -- WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE THE GATE DOWN EITHER. THAT WAS A GREAT SUGGESTION WHEN IT WAS PUT UP THERE. WE ARE FINE NOT HAVING ROLLINGWOOD PUSH THROUGH. WE WANT TO PREVENT THAT. AND WE WOULD ASK IF THIS DOES GET APPROVED THAT THAT STAY IN AS A CONDITION. THAT THAT REMAIN AS EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. AND FOR CLARIFICATION FOR THE RECORD, OBVIOUSLY ALL THE SPEAKERS WERE IN OPPOSITION. AND WE HAVE A FEW FORMS HERE. ASHFORD LANE. OPPOSED. CHRIS ON ASHFORD LANE IS OPPOSED. WHITEHEAD ROAD IS OPPOSED. ROBERT ON WHITEHEAD LOOP ROAD IS OPPOSED. JOHN LAMB ON ASHFORD IS OPPOSED .

RUSTY'S BAR. WHITEHEAD ROAD. OPPOSED. WHITEHEAD ROAD.

OPPOSED. AND KEVIN HAMPTON. OAK TREE LANE. OPPOSED.

JASON VASQUEZ OPPOSED. AND JOE AND TERRY WINDSOR. OPPOSED.

FINALLY DONALD PHILLIPS OPPOSED. DID I CATCH EVERYBODY OR HAVE I MISSED ANYBODY? ALL RIGHT. MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. IT IS UNANIMOUS. FLOOR IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION.

[01:05:04]

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST AS PRESENTED.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY. IS THERE A SECOND? IF NOT, THE MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE FROM STAFF?

>> AND YOU COME BACK ? IN HERE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AN ALTERNATIVE LAYOUT . I DON'T KNOW IF WE EVER FIGURED OUT WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING OR WHAT STAFF WAS PROPOSING.

>> RIGHT. THERE WAS AN ALTERNATIVE LAYOUT. IT WASN'T A PROFESSIONAL LAYOUT. IT WAS MORE OF A DRAWING. THIS COULD POSSIBLY WORK IF YOU DO THIS. FOR PRESENTATION PURPOSES, I DID NOT WANT TO BRING THAT AND HAVE Y'ALL LOOK AT US LIKE, WHAT IS THIS? THIS WAS AN ALTERNATIVE LAYOUT. I WAS GOING TO DISCUSS INTERNALLY AMONGST STAFF. THE APPLICANT COULD NOT MAKE THAT WORK FOR DIFFERENT REASONS. THAT IS HOW WE ENDED BACK UP ON THE LAYOUT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU RIGHT NOW.

>> THE ALTERNATIVE LAYOUT SHOWED TURNS. SO THERE WERE TURNINGS INCLUDED IN THE LAYOUT. LIKE THE ONE GENTLEMAN SAID EARLIER, IF YOU WENT AROUND TO A DIFFERENT ROUTE, HE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE FOUR TURNINGS. IF YOU HAVE FOUR TURNS HERE, THEY WOULD THINK EITHER WAY, I'M GOING TO MAKE FOUR TURNS. THAT WAS THE ALTERNATIVE LAYOUT.

>> WOULD IT EVEN BE POSSIBLE ? I KNOW YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A

CERTAIN AMOUNT BETWEEN STREETS. >> I THINK IT IS POSSIBLE.

HOWEVER, AS FAR AS WILLING TO DO IT, I WOULD HAVE TO REFER TO

THE APPLICANT. >> OKAY. WHAT IS THE PLEASURE

OF THE COMMISSION? >> I AM GOING TO INITIATE A LITTLE DISCUSSION. I AM PROCESSING WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. I WANT TO THANK THE APPLICANT FOR ACTUALLY NOT COMING TO US WITH THREE UNITS AN ACRE OR TWO UNITS AN ACRE, WHICH WOULD BE DEAD ON ARRIVAL. AND I THINK WE ARE CLOSE WITH ONE UNIT PER ACRE. I THINK GIVEN THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH HAVE LARGER ACRES -- AND I WANT TO SAY BEFORE ANYTHING THAT WE GET A LOT OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT PEOPLE IN A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD MOVING IN. THEY DON'T WANT THEIR NEW NEIGHBORS TO HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY THINK THEY WANT A GATED COMMUNITY AND THEN THEY REALIZE, THESE PEOPLE THAT MOVED IN NEXT TO ME ARE JUST LIKE ME AND THEY ARE NICE PEOPLE AND THEIR KIDS END UP PLAYING AND THEY ARE CLIMBING OVER A FENCE WITH EACH OTHER.

THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO MOVE INTO THESE HOUSES ARE GOING TO BE -- YOU CAN TELL THE DEVELOPMENT WHEN ROLLINGWOOD'S WAS BUILT -- DID NOT REQUIRE THE KINDS OF ROADS WE DID. WE DID NOT REQUIRE THE KIND OF INFRASTRUCTURE. WE ARE REQUIRING A HIGHER LEVEL OF PRODUCT , WHICH MEANS PEOPLE ARE BUYING BIGGER HOUSES. YOU WILL HAVE NICE NEIGHBORS. IT BENEFITS EVERYBODY WHEN WE HAVE THROUGH ROADS. I KNOW INITIALLY IT SEEMS DIFFERENT THAN YOUR CUL-DE-SAC, BUT IT DOES HELP YOU. YOU GET TO GET TO YOUR DESTINATIONS QUICKER . AND WE HAVE SEEN THIS. IT DOES NOT CREATE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS. ASHFORD LANE WHERE IT COMES OFF 663. THE PEOPLE'S CHICKENS RUN THROUGH THE ROAD. EVERYBODY THOUGHT THAT WOULD BECOME A CUT THROUGH. LITERALLY THEIR CHICKENS WANDER ACROSS THE ROAD NOW. WE ARE BUILDING BETTER ROADS IN THE CITY. IT IS DRAWING TRAFFIC. YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT GOING TO BECOME A SPEEDWAY. LAKE GROVE IS NOT A SPEEDWAY. WE PUT TWO STOP SIGNS IN. EVERYONE IS OVER ON 14TH STREET BECAUSE IT IS A BETTER ROAD. SO THE CITY IS TAKING STEPS TO IMPROVE THINGS.

I WANT TO COMPLEMENT STAFF ON THAT. WE ARE DOING A GOOD JOB.

I THINK OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS BUILT TO LOOK AND BE CONSISTENT WITH ITS NEIGHBORING OVER IN ROLLINGWOOD IF IT HAD TWO ACRE LOTS AND LINEAR ROADS, WE WOULD BE CLOSER TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE. I JUST DON'T THINK -- THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TO DEVELOP IS IF YOU GET TOGETHER AND BUY YOURSELF A 50 ACRE PARK FOR WHATEVER THIS PERSON IS OFFERING TO SELL THEIR LAND. BUT THERE IS SOME LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT THAT IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE ON THIS LAND. I THINK THE QUESTION IS, HOW DO WE GET CLOSE TO

[01:10:01]

>> LET ME JUST MAKE MYSELF CLEAR. I MADE THE MOTION TO DENY OUT OF TWO CONCERNS. I AM NOT A FAN OF THE STRAIGHTAWAY GOING THROUGH THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. I SEE THAT AS AN ISSUE . MORE IMPORTANTLY, I SEE THE ISSUE AT THE S TURN WHAT IS A VERY LONG S TURN. THE 90-DEGREE TURN AT ASHFORD. AND THEN COMING OUT. IMMEDIATELY GOING TO ANOTHER 90-DEGREE TURN. SO I AM CONCERNED FROM A TRAFFIC FLOW STANDPOINT THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE JUMPING OUT AND HAVING ACCIDENTS THERE. I HAVE ALREADY COME ACROSS MANY ACCIDENTS AT 7:00 A.M. TAKING MY KIDS TO SCHOOL. THE FOG IS THICK. YOU COME AROUND THAT CORNER AND SOMEONE IS AT A DEAD STOP. THAT IS MY CONCERN. I AM OKAY WITH THE LOT SIZES. IF YOU COME BACK WITH A DIFFERENT LAYOUT OF THE ROADS -- SOMETHING MORE SIMILAR TO PLUM CREEK. IN AND OUT. YOU GO THROUGH. YOU HAVE A FEW CURVES. JUST SOMETHING THAT IS NOT GOING TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO ZOOM SUPER FAST. THAT IS MY BIGGEST CONCERN WITH THIS. I THINK THE GATE IS A GREAT IDEA. IF YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT FOR EMERGENCY PURPOSES -- BUT IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT FOR EMERGENCY REASONS, BUILD A WALL. IT DOESN'T NEED TO GO THROUGH. AGAIN, I WILL SAY I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY.

>> I WANT TO STRESS WHY I DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THE GATES.

I THINK MARY MADE THE POINT. IT IS A POLICY REASON . WE WANT NEIGHBORHOODS TO CONNECT. YOU HAVE A LITTLE ROAD LIKE ASHFORD. SOMEONE GETS IN A WRECK AT 7:00 IN THE MORNING.

IF YOU DROP YOUR KIDS OFF AT MILLER AND YOU ARE COMING HOME AND THAT ROAD IS BLOCKED OFF, YOU HAVE TO DRIVE ALL OVER . IF THERE IS A WRECK, YOU ARE STUCK. PEOPLE ARE NOT NATURALLY GOING TO DRIVE THROUGH NEIGHBORHOODS THAT JUST DON'T FOLLOW THOSE PATHS. TRAFFIC DESIGN . EVERYBODY TALKS ABOUT IT. THEY DON'T GENERALLY DRIVE THROUGH NEIGHBORHOODS AS MUCH AS PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IT. UNLESS THERE IS A WRECK.

THAT IS WHY YOU DESIGN YOUR CITY PLANNING SO THERE ARE SECONDARY ROUTES TO TAKE WHEN THERE IS A PROBLEM TO GET HOME.

HAVING ONE INGRESS AND EGRESS POINT TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS ALWAYS A DRAWBACK, WHICH IS WHY THE CITY DOESN'T ALLOW IT.

THAT WAS THE REASON HAILSTONE WASN'T ORIGINALLY BUILT WITH A CUL-DE-SAC . THEY HAD TO BUY PROPERTY FROM US TO HAVE AN INGRESS AND EGRESS ON TWO DIFFERENT ROADS. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT. BUT I WILL SECOND YOUR MOTION TO DENY.

>> OKAY. WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE, LET ME JUST SAY FOR THE PUBLIC IN CASE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS A RECOMMENDING BODY. THE CITY COUNCIL IS THE ONE WHO WILL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION ON THIS CASE. SO WE DO NOTHING MORE THAN RECOMMEND . AND ON OCCASION THE CITY COUNCIL DOES NOT AGREE WITH -- BUT IF YOU ARE A PARTY IN THIS CASE, WE WILL CERTAINLY SUGGEST REGARDLESS THAT YOU ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETING. THAT IS WHERE THE FINAL DECISION WILL BE MADE. SO WITH THAT , WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR , AYE. ANY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. OKAY. STAFF, DO YOU

[MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION]

HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? >> OTHER THAN OUR NEW STAFF MEMBER, WE WILL MEET A LITTLE EARLIER AT THE NEXT MEETING TO

GO OVER THE NEW TECHNOLOGY. >> SUPER.

>> ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONERS? ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING? IF NOT, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> SECOND.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.