[Call to Order and Determination of Quorum. ]
[00:00:35]
>>> ALEX COMES TO US FROM LAW SCHOOL AND IS RECENTLY LICENSED EARLIER THIS YEAR AND HE'S GOING TO BE WORKING WITH ME AND JOE AND A COUPLE OVER PARTNERS.
HE HAS ACTUALLY A DEGREE IN PLANNING, SO HE'S ALSO GOT A PLANNING BACKGROUND AS WELL. SO WE'RE EXCITED TO HAVE HIM HERE. WE MAY SEE HIM FROM TIME TO TIME. AT SOME POINT, HE MAY SIT WHERE I AM ON THE OCCASION I'M NOT ABLE TO BE HERE. WE CAN WORK- UP TO THAT.
ANYWAY, I JUST WANT TO INTRODUCE ALEX AND APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU. AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE -- YOU GOT A GOOD TEACH ER. WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM ONE, CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. THE COMMISSION INVITES MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY TOPIC NOT SCHEDULED FOR ACTION ON THIS AGENDA AND PRESENT TO YOU THE -- THE COMMISSION CANNOT ACT ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE
[002 Staff review of the cases that were heard by City Council in the last sixty (60) days. ]
AGENDA. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY FOR CITIZENS TO BE HEARD? SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM TWO, WHICH IS STAFF REVIEW OF THE CASES HEARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN THE LAST 60 DAYS.>> ON JUNE 24TH, THE FIRST CASE THAT WAS HEARD WAS THE FORBES DATA CENTER.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL A AND PD 164 TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 182, AND IT WAS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FORBES ROAD WEST OF.
PNZ RECOMMENDED APPROVE 61 AS WELL.
THE NEXT CASE THAT WAS HEARD WAS Z 10202513, A REQUEST FOR ZONING CHANGE FROM PD 114 AND -- CREAM SHOP IN THE ORIGINAL TOWN. COUNCIL DENIED IT WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO THEY'RE OPEN TO A FUTURE WORKSHOP ON THAT.
WALNUT. PNZ ALSO RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
HIGH RIDGE ACRES WAS A REQUEST TO RESERVE PROBLEM FROM AGRICULTURAL A DISTRICT SINGLE FAMILY TWO AT 225 HIGH RIDGE LANE. COUNCIL APPROVED THAT 4-0. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THE CASES?
[CONSENT AGENDA]
>> WE'LL NOW MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. WE HAVE TWO ITEMS. 003 IS CONSIDERED THE -- PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION OF JUNE 17TH.
ITEM -- PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THOMAS TRAIL.
UNLESS SOMEBODY WANTS ONE OF THEM REMOVED.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT.
CORRECT? I THOUGHT THAT AREA WAS MOUNTAIN PEAK.
[00:05:01]
>> IT'S JUST A TYPO IN THE BOOK.
>> THAT WILL BE SERVED BY MOUNTAIN PEAK
WATER. >> DO WE NEED TO MAKE A
CORRECTION? >> THAT WILL BE FINE.
APPROVED WITH THAT CORRECTION.
>> LET'S JUST PULL THAT OFF TEMPORARILY.
I'LL CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM
003. >> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM THREE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ARE WE VOTING?
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH CORRECTION TO THE WATER BEING SERVICED BY MOUNTAIN
>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? IF NOT, PLEASE VOTE.
[005 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the zoning regulations relating to Planned Development District No. 185 (PD-185), being 414.01+ acres out of the Allen Reeves Survey, Abstract No. 939, John Chamblee Survey, Abstract No. 192, J.B. Littlepage Survey, Abstract No. 643, and the M.E.P. & P. Railroad Survey, Abstract No. 761. The property is generally located northeast of US Highway 287, west of US Highway 67, and south of Auger Road. (Z18-2025-043) ]
>> -- 43, NUMBER 761. THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED NORTHEAST OF US HIGHWAY 287, WEST OF HIGHWAY 67 AND SOUTH OF AUGER
THIS IS A TEX AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE THAT CAME THROUGH SEVERAL MONTHS AGO. I'M SAYING MARCH OR SO.
AND IT'S BASICALLY THE SCHEDULING OF THE AMENITY CENTERS THAT ARE GOING IN.
THERE ARE FOUR AMENITY CENTERS. IN SPEAKING WITH THE DEVELOPER, THEY WANTED SOME THINGS CLARIFIED IN HERE.
THE FIRST THING, IT HAD ALL AMENITY CENTERS BEING BUILT PRIOR TO ANY BUILDING PERMITS BEING BUILT.
WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU HAVE ALL THESE AMENITY CENTERS, NO HOUSES OUT THERE.
NUMBER ONE, IT'S A SECURITY ISSUE. NUMBER TWO, NONE OF THOSE HOUSES ARE PAYING INTO THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND THE MMD.
BASICALLY WHAT HAPPENED IS WITHIN THIS WE HAVE NO BUILDING PERMITS UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF AMENITIES AREAS TWO AND THREE. SO NO BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED PERIOD UNTIL AMENITIES TWO AND THREE ARE COMPLETE. THEN IT CAPS THE BUILDING PERMITS AT 250 UNTIL AMENITY AREA ONE IS COMPLETE. SO LET'S SAY THE ECONOMY TANKS.
THEY BUILD 225 HOMES. THERE'S NO MORE TRACTION, NOTHING HAPPENS. SO THE AMENITY CENTER AREA ONE MUST BE COMPLETE BY OCTOBER 1, 2029.
IF THAT ISN'T THE CASE, THEN ALL PERMITS ARE SUSPENDED, PERIOD, EVEN IF THEY'RE AT 200, 189.
AND THEN NO PHASE THREE PERMITS UNTIL AMENITY AREA FOUR AND TRAIL TWO ARE COMPLETE.
THEN NO PHASE TWO PERMITS UNTIL TRAIL ONE IS COMPLETE. THAT'S KIND TO OF THE BASIS TO THIS REQUEST TONIGHT. THERE'S NO CHANGES AT ALL TO THE LAND USE OR ANYTHING.
IT'S JUST THE SCHEDULING OF THOSE AMENITIES. SO THIS KIND OF -- THIS JUST KIND OF LAYS OUT WHERE THE AMENITY AREAS ARE.
SO THIS IS PHASE ONE. THIS IS AMENITY AREA ONE.
YOU CAN KIND OF SEE IT DOESN'T MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE BUILDING THIS AMENITY CENTER OVER HERE WHILE THIS IS THE MAIN PHRASE. PHASE. THEY'RE GOING TO COMPLETE
[00:10:02]
TWO AND THREE. THEN AT 250 BUILDING PERMIT THEY'LL HAVE TO COMPLETE AMENITY AREA ONE. WITH THAT, I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT I CAN'T.SO I'LL STAND FOR SOME QUESTIONS.
>> MY ONLY QUESTION IS THE -- WITH THE DEADLINE IT SAYS ALL PERMIT ISSUANCE WILL BE SUSPENDED EVEN IF THEY HAVE NOD REACHED THE 250 LIMIT IF AMENITY AREA IS NOT COMPLETED ON OCTOBER 1ST, 2029.
WHAT HAPPENS ON NOVEMBER 1ST OROR OCTOBER 2ND?
>> IF THE AMENITY CENTER IS NOT BUILT, THEY DON'T GET ANY MORE PERMITS AND THE PERMITS THEY DO HAVE DO NOT GET ANY MORE INSPECTIONS. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE MEANING BY THE BUILDING PERMITS ARE SUSPENDED.
>> THEY WILL NOT GET ANY INSPECTIONS.
THEY CANNOT COMPLETE THE PERMITS THEY HAVE
PULLED. >> UNTIL THAT'S COMPLETE?
YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, DOES APPLICANT PRESENT WISH TO SPEAK?
>> OKAY. I DO NOT HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP.
SO I WOULD ENTERTAIN THE MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING. >> MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE.
>> ALL IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
[006 Consider and act upon an approval of a detailed development site plan, including building elevations and landscape plan, for 0.592 acres, being in Planned Development District No. 86 (PD 86); and being Lot 3-B2, Block 1, Hawkins Meadows Commercial, as recorded in Plat Records, Ellis County, Texas, Instrument No. 2116102. The property is generally located on the south side of Hawkins Run Road, and east of FM 663. (SP03-2025-044). ]
ALL IN FAVOR?>> IT IS UNANIMOUS. WE'LL MOVE TO THE REGULAR AGENDA, ITEM 006 CONSIDERING ACTS UPON APPROVAL OF A DETAILED SITE PLAN INCLUDING BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR . 592 ACRES BEING IN PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 86 AND BEING LOT 3- 32 BLOCK ONE -- ELLIS COUNTY 2116102. THE PROPERTIES IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HAWKINS RUN ROAD AND EAST OF 663.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? EXCELLENT.
ALL RIGHT. THIS IS GOING TO BE A STATE PLAN OF THE PROPOSED STATE FARM OFFICE, WHICH CONSISTS OF TWO UNITS. THIS IS CURRENTLY A 0. 592 ACRE OF UNDEVELOPED LOTS. THE PD STATES THE DEVELOPMENT ON THIS LOT REQUIRES THE DETAILED SITE PLAN GO THROUGH PD AS WELL AS COUNCIL. THE ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY IS COMMUNITY RETAIL. HERE'S A VISUAL OF THE PROPERTY. ADJACENT PROPERTIES COMPRISED OF THE SAME MIXED USE D ZONING TO THE SOUTH AND WEST AND COMMERCIAL TO THE NORTH. UNDEVELOPED VACANT LAND TO THE EAST, SINGLE FAMILY TO THE SOUTH, STARBUCKS TO THE SOUTH.
FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS INCLUDE NEW TOWN MODULE TO THE NORTH AND RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY TO THE SOUTH, EAST AND WEST.
HERE'S A LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT REQUIRES NO VARIANCES.
THE ELEVATIONS THAT REQUIRE NO VARIANCES AS WELL. AND THE DETAILED SITE PLAN DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY VARIANCES. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
THANK YOU, AND I'M OPEN TO QUESTIONS.
>> ISN'T THERE A STATE FARM OFFICE AROUND THE CORNER ON HAWKINS? 14, THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT?
>> THAT I'M NOT AWARE OF. WE COULD LOOK INTO IT IF YOU'D LIKE.
>> I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE TENANT OCCUPANCY.
IF I READ THIS CORRECTLY, IT'S GOING TO BE OCCUPIED BY THE STATE FARM AGENT THAT'S THERE, BUT THEN ONLY ONE OTHER TENANT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH, IT WILL BE A RENTAL
IS THERE ANY REASON THAT WE'RE ONLY ALLOWING ONE TENANT, OR IS THAT JUST WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING?
>> IT'S JUST WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.
[00:15:01]
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.
>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.
>> ANYBODY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS.
[007 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the City of Midlothian Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map, relating to the use and development of 50.958+ acres out of the J. Coldiron Survey, Abstract 224, City of Midlothian, Ellis County, Texas, by changing the zoning from Agriculture (A) District to Planned Development District No. 181 (PD-181) for Single Family Four (SF-4) uses. The property is generally located on the south side of W. Highland Road, east of Mockingbird Lane. (Z13-2025-017) ]
WE'LL MOVE BACK INTO PUBLIC HEARINGS.007, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND ACT ON ORDINANCE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN ZONING ORDINANCE AND CITY MAP PERTAINING TO 50.
958 ACRES OUT OF THE -- SURVEY CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS.
PLANNING DISTRICT 181 FOR SINGLE FAMILY FOUR USES.
THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST HIGHLAND ROAD EAST OF MOCKING BIRD LANE.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. GOOD EVENING.
THE REQUEST OVERVIEW IS FROM AGRICULTURAL TO PD 181 WITH -- -- BASE OWNING OF SINGLE FAMILY FOUR.
THE TOTAL SITE IS A LITTLE OVER 50 ACRES.
IT'S CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED LAND.
THERE ARE 53 PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND TWO OPEN LOTS. ON YOUR STAFF REPORT IT SAYS 52 LOTS. THAT'S WRONG.
IT'S 53. FUTURE LAND USE MAP SHOWS THIS AS RESIDENTIAL DENSITY WHICH ALLOWS THREE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND -- AND RED. AND THEN TO THE NORTH THERE'S NO ZONING SINCE IT IS ELLIS COUNTY.
TO THE SOUTH IS SINGLE FAMILY ONE IN ELLIS COUNTY.
IT KIND OF SPLITS DOWN THAT HAYFIELD ROAD.
TO THE EAST IS 138, WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL.
TO THE WEST IS SINGLE FAMILY ONE.
ALL AROUND IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.
AND THEN FOR THE NORTH, SINCE IT IS OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS, THERE'S NO FUTURE LAND USE.
TO THE SOUTH AS WELL, AND RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES.
AND THEN HERE IS ALL OF THE COLORED IS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. AND ALL OF THE NON- COLORED IS NOT WITHIN CITY LIMITS.
AND THEN THE PROPOSED -- -- IS THE SITE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. THE TO THE WEST ISIS HIGHLAND ROAD. ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER THERE IS A LITTLE BLUE CIRCLE THAT'S GOING TO BE THERE A POND WITH A TRAIL AROUND IT AND OPEN LOT. THEN THE LIGHT BLUE IS ALSO OPEN SPACE. THE PD REGULATIONS, JUST GENERALLY IT'S NOT WITHIN BLOOD PLAIN. A 50 FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE SPACE WILL BE ADJACENT TO WEST HIGHLAND ROAD ON THE NORTH.
THAT FENCE WILL BE INSTALLED ON PROPERTY LINES TO OPEN SPACE.
THERE WILL BE A STONE ENTRYWAY FUTURE WHICH YOU CAN SEE IN THE PHOTO.
THAT'S JUST LIKE AN EXAMPLE EXHIBIT PHOTO.
A SIX FOOT TALL WROUGHT IRON DECORATIVE FENCE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ON PROPERTIES TO THE WEST OF HIGHLAND ROAD AND TO THE NORTH WILL MAINTAIN OPEN SPACES.
ALSO FOR THE POND, IT'S GOING TO HAVE AN AERATOR FOUNTAIN.
MONOTONY CLOSE IS FIVE RESIDENTIAL LOTS WILL BE KEPT ON THE -- SIDE OF THE STREET.
DECORATIVE LIGHTS WILL BE AT EVERY INTERSECTION AND 600 FEET THEREAFTER.
WEST HIGHLAND ROAD AND MAILBOXES ON ROAD B WHICH IS THAT FIRST MIDDLE INTERSECTION STREET.
SO AMENITIES, A PD SUBDIVISION IS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE ALL PRIMARY AMENITIES AND SIX OUT OF 13 SECONDARY.
HIGHLAND VILLAGE DOESN'T MEET THE SECONDARY REQUIREMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THEY DO HAVE TO HAVE SIX, AND HIGHLAND VILLAGE ONLY MEETS FIVE OUT OF THOSE 13.
THEY DO MEET THE SITE OF GARAGES WHICH IS A MINIMUM 75% OF HOUSING UNITS. MINIMUM 75% -- STONE MASONRY
[00:20:06]
COVERAGE -- AND A POND OR LIKE FEATURE WITH THE POND.TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET.
WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE. THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES WITH A PROPOSED DENSITY OF 2.
61 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. TO THE NORTH THERE IS EXISTING FAMILY RESIDENCES OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS. THOSE PROPERTIES ARE OVER AN ACRE. TO THE EAST ARE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES IN UNDEVELOPED LAND THAT'S PLOTTED FOR FUTURE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON ONE ACRE MINIMUM LOTS ON PD 138.
TO THE SOUTHWEST, THERE ARE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ZONED SINGLE FAMILY ONE WITH A MAXIMUM DWELLING OF . 5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
TO THE SOUTHEAST THERE ARE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. TO THE WEST IS SINGLE FAMILY ONE WITH A MAXIMUM OF . 5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. IT IS PATIBLE WITH THE LAND USE MAP. IT DOES FOLLOW THAT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY, THE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE PARTIALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE 2045 GUIDING OUR FUTURE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PROMOTE ATTRACTIVE AND SAFE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND -- MULTIMODAL -- FOR ALL NEIGHBORHOODS.
HIGHLAND VILLAGE CHOSE NOT TO CONTINUE THE TUB OUT FOR -- MOCKING BIRD SPRINGS. AND THAT IS ALL THAT I HAVE.
THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT TO SPEAK. AND MARY AND I WILL BE UP HERE FOR QUESTIONS.
>> BEFORE YOU STEP AWAY, ON THE SECONDARY AMENITIES, CAN YOU EXPLAIN DESIGN THEME, HOW THAT WOULD APPLY?
>> THE DESIGN -- YOU MEAN THE -- DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE DEFINITION OF THAT IS? I CAN'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
>> IT'S NUMBER NINE ON THE LIST.
>> SOMEWHAT. I HEARD YOU SAY THE NON- MONOTONY CLAUSE. I HEARD YOU SAY THE DESIGN THEME IS NOT MET. THEY'RE STILL BUILDING THE SAME TYPES OF HOMES.
>> ELEVATIONS OF WHAT THE HOMES WOULD LOOK LIKE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
>> SO IF THEY PROVIDE ELEVATIONS, THAT COULD BE MET?
>> OKAY. IT SAYS ANOTHER AMENITY DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTING TO THE ENDURING QUALITY OF THE FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD NOT MET. CAN YOU GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THEY COULD HAVE MET THAT, LIKE WHAT THAT MEANS?
>> CONDITIONAL PARKLAND, TRAILS, ANYTHING REALLY ADDITIONAL TO PROVIDE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> RIGHT. SO SECOND TO THE POND AND LAKE FEATURE THEY HAD LIKE A PLAYGROUND OR WORKOUT
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THAT, BUT I'M TRYING TO THINK OF WHAT ELSE. THAT'S USUALLY THE MOST
COMMON -- >> AMPHITHEATER, THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> THE SIDEWALKS ON WEST HIGHLAND, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE A CONNECTIVITY AGENDA IN GETTING THINGS CONNECTED BUT SIMILAR TO BRANDY RIDGE WHERE WE HAVE SIDEWALKS THAT WE ENFORCE THEY BUILD BUT THEN THEY DON'T GO ANYWHERE. ARE WE REQUIRING THIS DEVELOPER THAT THEY HAVE TO PUT IN THOSE SIDEWALKS THAT DON'T GO ANYWHERE?
ORDINANCE. >> BECAUSE IF WE DON'T -- I MEAN, WE HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE.
YOU KNOW, IF YOU DON'T REQUIRE SIDEWALKS, THEN EVENTUALLY YOU'LL HAVE JUST A LOT OF GAPS IN THE SYSTEM.
IN OTHER CITIES THEY END UP HAVING JUST HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, IF NOT, YOU KNOW, MILLIONS UNFUNDED SIDEWALKS AND THEY HAVE TO GO BACK AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO PUT IN IF THEY DON'T ASK FOR THEM AT THE TIME
[00:25:02]
OFDEVELOPMENT. >> IS THERE ROOM FOR AN EXCEPTION ON THIS DEVELOPMENT BEING THAT EVERYTHING AROUND IT IS OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS?
>> I MEAN, YOU GUYS CAN PROPOSE ANYTHING.
I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE OUTSIDE THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY.
>> ARE THERE SIDEWALKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? I DIDN'T READ THAT ANYWHERE.
>> OKAY. I MEAN, IF YOU WENT -- I MEAN, HE CAN COME UP AND DESCRIBE IT BUT HE IS SAYING HE'S GOING TO PROVIDE SIDEWALKS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> OKAY. I JUST WAS WONDERING WHY WE ARE PROVIDING SIDEWALKS, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?
>> OR REQUIRING SIDEWALKS IF WE'RE NOT HAVING SIDEWALKS, BUT WE'LL LET THE APPLICANT --
>> RIGHT, RIGHT. >> THANK YOU.
>> OTHER QUESTIONS, STAFF? OKAY. APPLICANT IS HERE. YOU WISH TO COME UP AND SPEAK, SIR? IF YOU WOULD, IDENTIFY YOURSELF, WHO YOU'RE WITH.
>> MY NAME IS CHRIS OLIVER, I'M THE APPLICANT FOR THIS PROJECT. A FEW THINGS.
YEAH, WE WERE KIND OF UNDER THE GUN GETTING THIS THING IN.
THE PLAN IS TO LOOK LIKE PLUM CREEK DOES.
WE HAVE CURB AND GUTTERS. THEN YOU'VE GOT SIDEWALKS, STUFF LIKE THAT. I DON'T THINK WE CAN GET A SECONDARY AMENITY FOR A SIDEWALKS IN THE DEVELOPMENT, ALTHOUGH I THINK YOU PROBABLY SHOULD BE ABLE TO. THE WHOLE IDEA IS THIS LOOKS DIFFERENT THAN NORMAL ONE- ACRE DEVELOPMENTS, IS WHAT THEIR PLAN IS.
WE PLAN ON PUTTING CURB AND GUTTER.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE OPEN SPACE FOR ANOTHER AMENITY.
I WILL SAY THAT, LIKE, WHEN IT COMES TO NUMBER 11, PRESERVATION OF VALUABLE TREE SPECIMENS, I HAVEN'T TAKEN ALLOCATION OF WHAT TREES ARE OUT THERE.
WHEN WE DID WEST HIGHLAND, THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST, WHEN WE DID THAT PD, THEY DIDN'T HAVE ALL THESE SECONDARY AMENITIES. WHAT WE AGREED TO DO WAS NOT TOUCH THE TREES THAT WERE ON THE EAST BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN HOMERS IN THE COUNTY AND WHAT WE WERE DESIGNING IN THE CITY.
WE CAN DO THE SAME THING WITH RUSTIC RIDGE, WHICH IS TO THE WEST. I DON'T THINK I'LL GET CREDIT FOR THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT A VALUABLE TREE SPECIES. I'D HAVE TO TAKE INVENTORY OF THE SPECIES AND THE SIZE AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT. I'M TRYING TO THINK OF ANYTHING ELSE. THE REASON FOR THE NOT CONNECTING TO THE SOUTH -- SO A LITTLE BIT ABOUT ME AND THE OWNER.
SO WE'VE -- HE'S BOUGHT A COUPLE OF THESE PROJECTS AND WE'VE COMPLETELY DEVELOPED THEM AND BUILT ALL THE HOUSES OURSELVES. SO WEST HIGHLAND TO THE EAST, WE ARE BUILDING ALL THOSE HOUSES.
WE DON'T SELL LOTS. WE BUILD HOUSES ON THEM.
SO WE BUILT ALL THE HOUSES ON HAYFIELD WHICH IS TO THE SOUTH. I CONTACTED THOSE HOMEOWNERS.
NONE OF THOSE WANT THAT STREET TO CONNECT.
THEY WERE HAPPY TO BE HERE. I TOLD THEM NOT TO COME TONIGHT.
BUT THEY CAN SHOW UP TO CITY COUNCIL. THEY PREFER THAT STRIP DOES NOT CONNECT ON HAY FIELD. WE HAVE TWO CONNECTIONS ON WEST HIGHLAND AND WE ALSO HAVE A STUB OUT CONNECTING THE WEST HIGHLAND ESTATES.
SO WE HAVE THREE POINTS OF ACCESS. SO I DON'T KNOW -- TO ME, I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO TIE INTOINTO HAY FIELD PERSONALLY, BUT --
>> OKAY. >> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE SEPTICS. WITH IT BEING A . 6 ACRE LOT AND NONAERATED SEPTICS, IS THAT
WE'RE GOING TO DO ALL LPDS. I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT AZALEA HOLLOW. THAT WAS APPROVED FOR AS LOW AS . 6 LOTS. THEY DID ALL LPDS ON THE .6S.
THEY'LL ALL BE LPDLPDS THERE WON'T BE ANY ABOVEGROUND
>> ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU, SIR.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK SO I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING. >> MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ALL IN FAVOR AYE? ANY OPPOSED. IT'S UNANIMOUS.
[00:31:29]
>> FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S NOT AS IMPORTANT AS THE CONNECTIVITY. I THINK THAT JACKIE MADE A GOOD POINT THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK SOME OF THESE ARE UP FOR INTERPRETATION. WE JUST WANT A QUALITY DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S ALL HE SAID IS PARTIALLY CONSISTENT. WE'RE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONNECTIVITY QUESTIONS WITH THE STREET STUB OUT EXTENDING THAT.
>> SO WITHIN THE CITY PLANS, IS THERE A PLAN FOR THAT ROAD TO GO THROUGH?
>> WE JUST HAVE IN OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE THAT ROADS NEED TO BE CONNECTED THROUGH, AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE A POLICY IN THE COMP PLAN THAT SAYS THAT WE'LL HAVE CONNECTIVITY WITH ADJACENT SUBDIVISIONS.
>> OKAY. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION? ANYBODY THAT WANT TO STEP FORWARD, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY.
>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, AYE?
>> NO. WE HAVE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX. SO IT WAS 4-2.
LET'S DO IT BY HAND COUNT. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, RAISE YOUR HAND. TWO, THREE -- ALL OPPOSED? ONE, TWO, THREE.
>> IT'S A TIE, SO IT FAILS, RIGHT?
>> IF IT DOESN'T RECEIVE A MAJORITY IN FAVOR, THEN THE
>> SO MORE DISCUSSION. WHY ARE YOU MAKING A MOTION TO DENY?
>> IT JUST CONCERNS ME THATTHAT HAVEN'T MET THIS.
AND IF WE'VE GOT RULES FOR CONNECTING, IT KIND OF GOES BACK TO THE SIDEWALK THING. YOU KNOW IF YOU BUILD SIDEWALKS YOU HAVE GAPS. IF YOU DON'T CONNECT YOUR SUBDIVISIONS IT MADE THE SAME KIND OF ISSUE. IF THE CITY REQUIRES THAT, THEN TO ME WE SHOULD DO THAT.
>> BECAUSE THEY ARE CONNECTING INTO THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD ON MAPLE --
>> MAPLE WOOD. IT'S JUST NOT CONNECTING TO THE SOUTH.
>> THAT REALLY MAKES SENSE, BECAUSE IT'S FLOWING ALL THAT TRAFFIC BACK TO WEST HIGHLAND VERSUS THE SOUTH SIDE.
>> BUT IF THAT DEVELOPS THERE, THEN WHAT DO YOU DO?
>> IF IT DEVELOPS ON THAT SIDE WHERE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO
CONNECT. >> IT'S ALREADY DEVELOPED HERE.
THIS IS ALREADY DEVELOPED HERE.
[00:35:01]
>> YEAH. WHAT ARE YOU WANTING TO DO?
>> YEAH. SO IT'S CONNECTING TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS ON THE EAST SIDE TO MAPLE WOOD AND COMING OUT ON SPRINGER, WHICH IS ANOTHER MAJOR ROAD BUT IT'S JUST NOT GOING INTO THE SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD DOWN BELOW, WHICH WILL BE A CUT- THROUGH BACK TO NORTH HAYES.
>> THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE EAST IS GOING TO DEVELOP -- I MEAN, YOU CAN SEE THESE HOUSES. IT'S A COMPLETE -- THEY'RE JUST IN CONSTRUCTION. IT'LL BE A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WILL HAVE THIS KIND OF DENSITY EVENTUALLY.
>> WHICH IS WHY I'M SAYING CONNECTIVITY- WISE, TO ME, IT MAKES SENSE THE WAY THEY'RE CONNECTING. THEY'RE JUST NOT GOING SOUTH.
THEY'RE LEAVING THAT FOUR ACRES OF TREES.
>> I MEAN, I'VE GOT MULTIPLE ISSUES HERE OBVIOUSLY.
I THINK IT SHOULD BE CONNECTED AS WELL.
I THINK IT SHOULD HAVE THE SIDEWALKS.
I MEAN, THAT IS A CITY REQUIREMENT.
WE'VE ARGUED ABOUT THAT FOR THE FIVE YEARS PLUS I'VE BEEN ON THIS BOARD.
>> PLUS, THERE'S -- IT STRIKES ME IT WAS PUT TOGETHER TOO QUICKLY.
THERE'S NO HOUSE PLANS. THERE'S NO ELEVATIONS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO PUT IN THERE.
THEY CAN TELL US WHAT THEY WANT, BUT THERE'S JUST NOTHING TO SEE.
>> MARY, ON THE ELEVATIONS, BEING THAT THEY DID DEVELOP FAIRFIELD, MAPLE WOOD, ALL OF THAT, DO WE HAVE THOSE ELEVATIONS ON FILE, OR CAN WE ASK THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK UP TO CONFIRM THAT?
>> YOU CAN ASK THE APPLICANT. THEY'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO MAKE THE ELEVATIONS THE SAME AS THE ADJACENT SUBDIVISION. THEY JUST HAVE ANTI-MONOTONY.
>> LET ME JUST SAY ON THE ELEVATION, BE MINDFUL ALL WE CAN DO IS REVIEW ARCHITECTURAL STYLE.
EVEN THAT 90%, EVEN OUR OWN ZONING ORDINANCE RIGHT NOW, THAT ONE AMENITY ABOUT THE 90% MASONRY, YOU KNOW, WHILE THEY MIGHT COMPLY, IT WOULD BE MORE VOLUNTARY THAN ANYTHING, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T ENFORCE
IT. >> WE'VE APPROVED A COUPLE OF SUBDIVISIONS RECENTLY WITHOUT ASKING FOR THE ELEVATIONS, I BELIEVE ASHWOOD ESTATES AND SEA GRAVES. SO THERE'S SOME PRECEDENT ON THAT.
>> WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH APPROVING IT WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT THEY CONNECT TO THE BOTTOM, CONNECT DOWN TO MAYFIELD OR HATFIELD OR WHATEVER THAT IS?
YES. >> I WOULD BE FINE WITH THAT.
>> IF THE RESIDENTS DOWN THERE DON'T LIKE IT, THEY CAN COME TO THE CITY
COUNCIL. >> BEFORE WE DO THAT, I WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT IT WASN'T JUST MAYBE TWO MONTHS AGO THAT WE HAD A SUBDIVISION VERY SIMILAR TO THIS WHERE WE DID NOT REQUIRE THEM TO MAKE THAT CONNECTION. AND IT PASSED.
WE JUST DID THIS WITH THOMAS TRAIL AND WITH ASHFORD ESTATES AND NOT REQUIRING THEM TO CONNECT THROUGH. TO ME, THEY'VE GOT MORE CONNECTIONS HERE THAN WE HAD BEFORE ON THE
OTHERS. >> WELL, THOMAS TRAIL, THE CONNECTION WASN'T MADE BECAUSE THAT WAS A SUBDIVISION THAT WAS ANNEXED FROM THE COUNTY THAT HAD ROADS THAT WERE DETERIORATING.
SO WE JUST DIDN'T WANT THE ROADS TO DETERIORATE FURTHER.
I DON'T WANT TO COMMENT ON ASHFORD ESTATES.
THAT JUST KIND OF WENT A LOT OF DIFFERENT
>> WAS THAT THE ONE YOU WERE THINKING ABOUT?
PASSED, CORRECT? >> EVENTUALLY, YEAH.
>> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS
>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED WITH A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
[00:40:02]
IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.HAND VOTE AGAIN. ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND.
>> -- THE SIDEWALK ALONG WEST HIGHLAND.
I SECOND JACKIE'S COMMENT THAT I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE USELESS. BUT IF IT NEEDS TO BE IN THERE, WE'LL PUT IT IN THERE. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN'T BE CONNECTED WHEN WE'RE CONNECTED ON MAPLE WOOD ALREADY.
DOES THE STATUTE SAY YOU EVER HAVE TO CONNECT AT EVERY POINT OR AS LONG AS YOU CONNECT TO ONE PREVIOUS SUBDIVISION, YOU'RE --
>> WELL, I MEAN, IF YOU DENY IT, THAT'S FINE.
I'LL GO TO CITY COUNCIL. IT'S NOT MY CHOICE THAT HAY FIELD DOESN'T CONNECT. WE DON'T WANT TO CONNECT IT.
LIKE JACKIE WAS SAYING, THERE'S A BUNCH OF NATURAL TREES DOWN THERE. THEY CAN BE THE SPECIMENS WE PRESERVE TO GET US -- ALREADY PAYING TAXES. SO THE CITY THEY DON'T WANT THEM. WHO AM I TO TELL THEM I'M GOING TO PUT IT ON THEM? AND ALSO ON THAT LAST THING ON THE DESIGN THING, NO OFFENSE TO CITY STAFF, IF THAT'S ALL THEY NEEDED WAS ELEVATIONS FOR A DESIGN THEME, I WOULD HAVE SENT THEM IN.
I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. WE BUILT 40 HOUSES ALONG SUNSET RIDGE, RUSTIC, MEL ROSE.ROSE. WE'RE ABOUT TO BUILD ANOTHER 32 ALONG SPRINGER. WE'VE BUILT IN THIS CITY FOR TEN YEARS. I THINK WE BUILT A GOOD PRODUCT THAT, YOU KNOW, WOULD BE FINE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR SURE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING?
>> YOU GOT A COUPLE OPTIONS. EITHER -- IF SOMEBODY CHANGES THE VOTES, WE DID A MOTION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. OR WE DEFER ACTION UNTIL NEXT MONTH UNTIL YOU'VE GOT SEVEN PEOPLE HERE TO BREAK THE TIE.
>> OKAY. CAN I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE IT AS PRESENTED WITH THE STUB OUT GOING TO HAY FIELD?
>> YOU CAN MAKE ANY MOTION YOU
>> OKAY. I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU PROPOSED BEFORE, THOUGH, RIGHTING?
>> ARE YOU BRINGING IT BACK AGAIN?
>> OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? RAISING HANDS, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? OKAY.
5-1. JUST PASSED. OKAY WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM 008.
[008 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance relating to the use and development of 10.284+ acres out of the William Hawkins Survey, Abstract No. 465 by changing the zoning from Planned Development District No. 2 to Planned Development District No. 170 (PD-170) for a mixed-use development, including vertical mixed-uses, single family-attached, offices, and a drive through restaurant. The property is generally located on the south side of East Ridge Drive and north of Main Street. (Z17-2025-032) Continuance to August 19, 2025, P&Z.]
AND DEVELOPMENT OF 10. 184 ACRES OUT OF THE WILLIAM HAWKINS SURVEY -- PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 2 TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 170 FOR MIXED USE, INCLUDING VERTICAL, SINGLE FAMILY, OFFICES AND A DRIVE- THROUGH RESTAURANT.LOCATED ON THE SOUTH OF EAST RIDGE DRIVE AND NORTH
MAIN. >> THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE. SO WE DON'T HAVE TO RENOTICE IT, COULD WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING? >> YOU WANT TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING?
>> OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO NEXT MONTH.
>> WE WILL CONSIDER OURSELVES IN PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 008. WE'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS UNTIL THE NEXT
MEETING. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS UNTIL THE NEXT
SECONDED. >> ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS. THAT COVERS THE AGENDA.
SO WE WILL MOVE DOWN TO STAFF. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE?
[00:45:02]
>> JUST ONE THING. I SENT THE TRAINING OPPORTUNITY FROM AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
IT'S $40. IT'S A LOT OF BANG FOR YOUR BUCK. IT WAS VERY GOOD. SO IF ANYONE WANTS TO GO, LET US KNOW.
>> I'LL RESEND IT, YEAH. OKAY.
>> ANYTHING ELSE FROM STAFF? COMMISSIONERS, ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING? I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO
ADJOURN. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO
ADJOURN. >> MOTION AND SECOND TO ADJOURN.
ALL
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.