[2025-241 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 State Highway 67, and south of Auger Road. (Case No. Z18-2025-043).]

ITEM PASSES, ZERO.

MOVING ON TO PUBLIC HEARINGS. OPENING ITEM 2025-241.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL. MAYOR PRO TEM, COUNCIL. SO THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A AND ACT UPON ZONING REGULATION PLANNING DEVELOPMENT 185, AS BEING 414 ACRES, ABSTRACT 939, CHAMBLEE SURVEY 192, LITTLE PAGE SURVEY, 643, MEP AND P RAILROAD SURVEY ABSTRACT 761 NORTHEAST OF 287, WEST OF STATE HIGHWAY 67, AND SOUTH OF AUGER ROAD. SO, WHAT THE DEVELOPERS COMING BACK IN AND THEY ARE ASKING FOR JUST A SLIGHT CHANGE TO THE SCHEDULE OF THE AMENITIES, SO WHAT THE SUMMARY OF CHANGES OF THAT NO

[00:15:02]

BILLING PERMITS WOULD BE ISSUED INTO COMPLETION OF THE AREAS TWO AND THREE, THEN IT CAPS BILLING PERMIT TO 250 ON AMENITY, UNTIL AMENITY AREA ONE IS COMPLETE. THEN EVEN IF THEY DON'T GET TO 250, SAY, THE ECONOMY SLOWS DOWN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THE AMENITY AREA ONE IS STILL REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED BY OCTOBER 1, 2029, AT THAT POINT IF IT IS NOT COMPLETED, WE SUSPEND ALL PERMIT. NO MORE INSPECTION, NO MORE PERMIT ISSUED ON THAT. THE NO PHASE THREE PERMIT UNTIL AMENITY AREA FOUR AND TWAL TWO COMPLETE AND UNTIL TRAIL ONE IS COMPLETE. I BELIEVE THE MAIN DIFFERENCE IS ALL THE AMENITIES WERE SUPPOSED TO BE DONE PRIOR TO ALL BUILDING PERMITTERS. THEY HAVE COME BACK AND REQUESTING TO CHANGE THE SCHEDULE A LITTLE BIT. YOU SEE AMENITY TWO AND AMENITY AREA THREE HERE ARE WITHIN THE PHASE ONE, KIND OF DARK OUTLINE IS THE PHASING. AMENITY AREA ONE IS JUST OUTSIDE OF THAT PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO, AND YOU CAN SEE THE PHASE TWO HERE. THEN PHASE THREE AMENITY AREA FOUR IS OVER HERE. SO, THIS IS KIND OF THE PARK DEDICATION AREA THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE. THIS IS THE TRAIL PARK TWO THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE IN PHASE THREE, THE BLUE TRAIL. THE RED TRAIL WOULD TAKE PLACE DURING THE PHASE TWO. SO, I THINK THAT IS BASICALLY IT. THEY ARE KEEPING WITH THE SAME AMENITIES LEVEL, SAME PARK DEDICATION, EVERYTHING, NO LANE USES CHANGING. WITH THAT I WILL OPEN TO QUESTIONS, A DEVELOPER IS HERE IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THEY CAN ANSWER. PNZ DID APPROVE THIS.

>> IS ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS? WE HAVE A MOTION TO

CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEAR? >> MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC

HEARING. >> MOTION SECOND. PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSEDISM COUNCIL, ANY QUESTION?

>> I ONE SIMPLE ONE. JUST IN CASE I AM MISSING IT, WHAT IS THE BENEFIT TO THE CITY IN MAKING THIS ADJUSTMENT?

>> YOU KNOW, THE BENEFIT, I THINK IS BETTER EXPLAINED ON THIS, PHASE ONE IS SOMEWHAT INCLUSIVE OVER HERE, SO THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND EVERYTHING WILL BE BUILT OVER HERE. THE AMENITY AREA ONE IS KIND OF OUTSIDE, FROM OUR STANDPOINT, ONCE THEY-- ONCE BUILT OUT THERE, IT WILL BE HARDER TO SECURE, HARDER TO POLICE, AND HARDER FOR THEM TO DO THE SAME THING THROUGH THE HOA POLICE AND SECURE THAT AREA. I THINK THEIR CONCERN WAS THAT ONCE AGAIN, THEY ARE GOING TO BE BUILDING THIS OVER HERE. THAT AMENITY CENTER IS OUTSIDE THE GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES A BIT. WITH THESE TWO AMENITIES AREAS THAT WILL BETTER SERVE PHASE ONE.

>> I FEEL LIKE WE JUST HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT AMENITIES AND PERCENTAGE INCOMPLETED ON A DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT BUT IT HAS BEEN A VERY HOT TOPIC. MY OPINION IS IF IT IS ALREADY APPROVED, SAYING YOU HAVE TO HAVE AMENITIES BEFORE, I DON'T SEE ANY BENEFIT TO DELAYING THEM.

>> I THINK, YOU KNOW, I WAS READING BACK THROUGH THE APPROVED ORDINANCE. I DON'T WANT TO CORRECT YOU, BUT I THINK I AM GOING TO CORRECT YOU. THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN IN THE ORDINANCE IS IT IS PHASED PLAN. SO, IT SAYS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF PHASE ONE, OPEN SPACE AMENITY AREA NUMBER ONE NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED. PHASE TWO OF THE DEVELOPMENT, AREA TWO, THREE, TRAIL PARK, IT IS ALREADY A PHASED PLAN. IT DIDN'T SAY ALL OF THEM HAD TO BE DONE. I THINK WHAT I READ IS WE ARE SWAPPING AREA ONE FOR AREA TWO AND THREE TO BE DONE FIRST, BECAUSE IT IS PART OF THE PHASE THAT WILL ACTUALLY BE DEVELOPED, INSTEAD OF SAYING, WE WANT TO BUILD AREA ONE WHEN WE CONSTRUCT PHASE ONE, WHICH IS NOT PART OF THE LAND BEING CONSTRUCTED. TO ME, THIS IS MORE LIKE WE GOT THEM OUT OF ORDER WHEN WE APPROVED IT THE FIRST TIME, NOW WE ARE PUTTING THEM IN THE RIGHT--

>> YES. THAT IS CORRECT. AND THE BENEFIT TO THE CITY IS THE AMENITY CENTERS TWO AND THREE THAT ARE CIRCLED THERE, THOSE WEREN'T GOING TO COME WITH PHASE TWO, UNTIL PHASE TWO. SO THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN EMPTY LOTS. WE ARE MOVING THOSE UP TO THE VERY BEGINNING, SO WHEN YOU, WHEN WE START SELLING HOMES, THOSE WILL BE COMPLETE NOW INSTEAD OF EMPTY LOTS. ON PHASE, THE BIG AMENITY CENTER, WE ARE NOT ASKING TO MOVE IT BACK A PHASE, WE ARE STILL DOING PHASE ONE, BUT WE CAN'T START IT UNTIL WE CAN GET BUILDING PERMITS. NOT UNTIL I HAVE THE ROAD, WATER, SEWER AND EVERYTHING IN, CAN I START THAT

[00:20:01]

AMENITY CENTER BECAUSE IT NEEDS A BUILDING PERMIT. THE AMENITIES IN TWO AND THREE ARE LIKE PLAYGROUNDS, PICKLEBALL COURTS, ALL THINGS I CAN BUILD WITH MY INFRASTRUCTURE SO UNI CAN'T GET A PERMIT UNTIL THOSE ARE DONE. I AM ASKING THE DAY I GET PERMIT I CAN START THE OTHER AMENITY CENTER BUT IT WILL TAKE SOME TIME TO BUILD. I WILL BE STARTED ON AMENITY CENTER AREA ONE, UP TO 250 HOMES, I NEED 250 BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT MIGHT NOT HAPPEN, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MARKET WILL BE AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY MIGHT BUY 200 HOMES IN A YEAR AND I MIGHT NOT BE DONE. WE ARE GOING TO PUSH OUR SELVES TO GET THAT DONE. STILL DONE IN THE FIRST PHASE, SO THE BENEFIT TO THE CITY IS I AM MOVING TWO AMENITY CENTERS THADWIT HAVE BEEN DELAYED

FORWARD. >> FRONT LOADING THEM.

>> FRONT LOADING. ALL THREE-- >> THERE IS NO LESS AMENITIES COLLECTIVELY BEING REDUCED IN THIS PROCESS?

>> YEAH. NO, WE ARE MOVING TWO AMENITIES FORWARD. ASKING FOR TIME WHILE BUILDING THE FIRST PHASES, BECAUSE IF NOT, I WOULD FINISH ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THEN START MAIN AMENITY CENTER AND COULDN'T SELL A HOUSE FOR MAYBE, SOMETIMES THOSE TAKE 12 MONTHS TO BUILD. I COULD BE SITTING THERE WITH ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE, ALL THE LOTS DONE, READY TO SELL AND CAN'T

START A HOUSE. >> I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, ALLEN. TO ME THIS IS AN EXAMPLE HOW I WANTED TO SEE IT, LIKE WHERE WE WANT TO GO WITH IT, BECAUSE IT IS MAKING THE AMENITIES THE PRIORITY AND IT IS DOING IT LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT WITH PERCENTAGES OR THE, HOWEVER THEY WANT TO STRUCTURE IT BASED ON PERMITTING OR COS OR WHATEVER. I LIKE THE CHANGE BECAUSE I THINK IT IS MOVING TO HOW WE WANT. THAT IS HOW I TOOK IT.

>> THANK YOU. >> I APOLOGIZE FOR CONFUSING THE

ISSUE. >> JUST TO CLAIRIFY, THE EXHIBIT CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT DOES NOT DO ANY TRAIL ONE AND TWAL TWO. WE ARE NOT RELACING THE EXHIBIT IN THE UNDERLYING

ORDINANCE. >> YOU ARE CORRECT.

>> OKAY. SO WE ARE STILL USING THAT SAME--

>> YES, SIR. >> I DID CHECK, THE ONE IN UNDERLYING ORDINANCE CLEARLY DENOTES TRAIL PARK ONE, TRAIL

PARK TWO. >> YEAH.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T ACCIDENTALLY REMOVING.

>> NO, SIR. >> MIKE?

>> JUST TO CLAIRIFY, SO, WHEN THE LATTER PHASES ARE STARTED, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I FULLY UNDERSTAND, THEY WILL NEED TO START BUILDING THE AMENITY AT WHAT POINT? AND AT WHAT POINT

MUST IT BE COMPLETED? >> SO, THIS AMENITY THREE AND AMENITY AREA TWO WILL GO AND BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO PERMITS BEING

ISSUED FOR PHASE ONE. >> EVEN BEFORE THE FIRST PERMIT.

>> YES, SIR. >> BUT AMENITY AREA ONE OVER HERE AT 250 LOTS, THEY HAVE TO BUILD THAT.

>> YEAH. >> OR OCTOBER 1ST, 2029.

>> BUT BEFORE, IN OTHER WORDS I WAS LOOKING, BECAUSE THAT-- I RAN INTO THIS MYSELF, WHERE THEY START LITERALLY WHEN THE FIRST PERMIT, DRAG IT OUT AND LEFT HOUSES BUILT AND THEY ARE STILL NOT DONE. I HAVE HEARD WHAT I NEEDED TO HEAR, BEFORE THEY PULL FIRST PERMIT IN THE LATTER PHASES, THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE

AMENITY COMPLETED. >> YES, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. >> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> I ARE HAVE A MOTION, AND A SECOND.

PLEASE VOTE.

[2025-242 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 a 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)]

ITEM PASSES 6-0. THANK YOU, GUYS.

>>> OPENING ITEM 2025-242.MARY.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. I AM TRYING TO BE LOUDER TONIGHT. OKAY. SO, ITEM 2025-242 IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP RELATING USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF 50.958 PLUS ACRES OUT OF THE J. CAULDRON SURVEY, ABSTRACT 242, CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN, ELSES COUNTY. CHANGING ZONING FROM AGRICULTURE A DISTRICT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 181 FOR SINGLE FAMILY FOUR USES. THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST HIGHLAND ROAD, EAST OF MOCKINGBIRD LANE.

OKAY. SO, IN THE CURRENT USE UNDEVELOPED LAND THERE IS 53 PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS WITH TWO OPEN SPACE LOTS. THE COMP PLAN SHOWS THE PROPERTY WHICH ALLOWS UP TO THREE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, PROPOSING 6/10 OF AN ACRE TO ONE-ACRE DWELLING UNIT. DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. IT IS THE PROPERTY IN THE

[00:25:03]

ORANGE. THEN I AM ABOUT TO GET TO THIS LITTLE CHART OVER HERE, BUT IT IS EASIER TO SEE ON THIS ONE. ALL OF THE PROPERTY WITH OVERLAY COLOR IS WITHIN CITY LIMITS AND THE ONES WITHOUT ARE IN ELLIS COUNTY. SO THE PROPOSED IS PD181, THE BIG GREEN AGRICULTURE. TO THE EAST IS 138, WEST HIGHLAND ESTATES. TO THE THE WEST IS SINGLE FAMILY. TO THE SOUTH, IT KIND OF SPLITS DOWN CITY AND COUNTY AND TO THE NORTH IS JUST COUNTY. ALL AROUND WITHIN CITY LIMITS IS THE FUTURE LANE USE IS RESIDENTIAL DENSITY.

HERE IS THEIR SITE PLAN TO THE NORTH, ACTUALLY TO THE LEFT, IT IS FLIPPED OVER A LITTLE BIT. THE LIGHT BLUE ON THE RIGHT IS GOING TO BE THAT FOUR-ACRE OPEN SPACE LOT, AND THEN TO THE BOTTOM RIGHT IS GOING TO BE AN OPEN SPACE WITH A POND AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE TRAIL AROUND IT: PD REGULATIONS, 15-FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ADJACENT TO WEST HIGHLAND ROAD ON THE NORTH. A METAL FENCE ON PROPERTY LINES TO OPEN SPACE, SO THE POND LOT AND THEN THE OPEN SPACE ON THE SOUTH. A SIX-FOOT PAUL DECK OF METAL OR WOOD CONSTRUCTED ON PROPERTY LANE ADJACENT TO WEST HIGHLAND ON THE NORTH, AND HOA WILL BE ESTABLISHED AND MAINTAIN OPEN SPACE. THE DETENTION POND WILL HAVE A FOUNTAIN AND TRAIL AS WELL.

EVERY LOT WILL HAVE AN ON SITE SEPTIC SYSTEM, NONSPRAY, SERVED BY WATER. THERE IS AN ANTIMONOTONY CLAUSE WITHIN THIS, SO FIVE PLOTTED LOTS SKIPPED ON THE SAME SIDE AND THREE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE. DECORATIVE STREET LIGHTS WILL BE AT EVERY INTERSECTION AND 600 FEET THEREAFTER. A SIDEWAY ALONG WEST HIGHLAND ROAD TO THE NORTH, LOCATED ROAD B. ON THE LEFT.

AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT, TWO PHOTOS, DRIVE TO THE NORTH THROUGH MOCKING BIRD LANE, TO SHOW THE ROAD CONDITION. WITHIN ZONING ORDINANCE A PD SUBDIVISION, SECONDARY AMENITIES, PRIMARY AMENITIES. HIGHLAND VILLAGE DOES MEAN PRIMARY BUT ONLY FIVE OUT OF 13 SECONDARY AMENITIES.

THEN HERE WHERE HAVE A LIST OF, A LONG LIST OF SECONDARY AMENITIES, SO THEY DO MEET FIVE AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE LITTLE SIGN. THEN THE APPLICANT PROVIDED RENDERINGS OF WHAT THE DWELLINGS WILL LOOK LIKE TO MEET THE SIX OUT OF 13 THRESHOLD.

THESE RENDERINGS ARE NOT IN ZONING ORDINANCE, THEY WERE SENT TO US AFTER THE ORDINANCE WAS DUE. HERE IS MORE RENDERINGS SENT OVER.

40 LETTERS WERE MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET.

WE HAVE RECEIVED TWO OPPOSITION LETTERS, ONE FROM A PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN 200 FEET. STAFF RECOMMENDS CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER THE PROPROSED SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE WITH PROPOSED DENSITY 0.621 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. TO THE NORTH IS THE EXIGSING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTSS OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS, TO THE EAST IS UNDEVELOPED LAND PLOTTED FOR FUTURE RESIDENTS AND SINGLE CURRENT RESIDENTS ON ONE-ACRE MINIMUM LOTS. SOUTH IS THE ONE THAT SPLIT HALF CITY LIMITS, HALF NOT. TO THE SOUTHWEST IN CITY LIMITS IS SINGLE FAMILY ONE WITH DENSITY OF MAXIMUM ONE DWELLING UNIT PER ACRE. THE SOUTHEAST IS OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS. WEST IS ALSO SINGLE FAMILY.

THE FUTURE PLAN SHOWS AREA AS RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND THE 0.6 TO 1 DWELLING PER ACRE IS IN LINE, IT IS CONSISTENT.

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY IS PARTIALLY CUBSISTENT WITH THE 2045 GUIDE YEAR FUTURE COMP PLAN PROMOTE ATTRACTIVE AND SAFE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS FOR ALL RESIDENTS. STRATEGY LU2 REQUIRE MULTICONNECTION AND STUB OUTS BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND UNDEVELOPED LAND. HIGHLAND VILLAGE CHOSE NOT TO CONTINUE THE STUB OUT FROM HAYFIELD DRIVE AND MOCKINGBIRD TO THE SOUTH.

THE DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE SECONDARY AMENITIES, PNZ RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF VOTE OF 5 THOO1 WITH PROVISION STUBOUT HAYFIELD DRIVE WOULD BE CONTINUED TO THE NEW DEVELOPMENT. THAT IS ALL THAT I HAVE.

[00:30:10]

ND THE STUB OUT FROM HAYFIELD DRIVE.

>> MARY AND I WORKED ON THIS TOGETHER, WE WILL BOTH BE UP HERE FOR QUESTIONS AND MR. OLIVER, THE APPLICANT IS HERE IS

WELL. >> ALL RIGHT. SPEAKERS? WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SECOND. PLEASE VOTE.

>> ITEM PASSES 6-0, COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ANNA?

>> UM, OKAY. SO WHAT IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION?

>> WE KNEW WE WOULD GET THIS QUESTION.

AS IT STANDS, STAFF DOES NOT REALLY SUPPORT IT BECAUSE THERE ARE SEVERAL CONCERNS THAT WE STILL HAVE, THE EXTENSION OF THE STUBOUT, WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS. THE LOT SIZE THEY ARE ASKING FOR ISN'T CONSISTENT WITH THE AMENITIES THEY ARE PROVIDING, TYPICALLY WE HAVE THAT, YOU KNOW, SMALL OF A LOT, THEY PROVIDE SIDEWALKS AND CURB AND GUTTER, SOMETHING EXTRA WITH THE ELEVATIONS OR REALLY ONLY HAVE A COUPLE CASE STUDIES THAT ARE PRECEDENTS FOR THIS, A ZALEIA HOLLOW AND MAZE ESTATES, WHERE THEY PROVIDED FOR BETTER AND ENHANCED ELEVATIONS AND JUST A LOT MORE AMENITIES ON THOSE DEVELOPMENTS.

>> I HAVE NEVER SEEN Y'ALL NOT MAKE AN EXTRA RECOMMENDATION. IS IT LIKE YOU ARE STUCK IN THE MIDDLE?

>> NO. ACTUALLY, WE HAVE DONE THIS FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS, BUT IF, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL NEEDS US--

>> >> I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THAT. I DON'T THINK IT IS STAFF'S JOB TO MAKE COUNCIL DECISIONS AND I WHOLE HEARTEDLY SUPPORT AND APPLAUD YOU PROVIDING US INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS WITH WHICH WE ARE TO DO OUR JOB THAT WE WERE ELECTED TO DO. I THINK IT IS UNFAIR TO MAKE STAFF, YOU KNOW, MAKE APPROVAL OR DENIAL RECOMMENDATIONS. I THINK YOU SHOULD BE PROVIDING US INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE ON THE CONTINUITY AND COMPATIBILITY WITH OUR PLANS AND ZONING ORDINANCE. THAT IS OUR JOB TO DO THAT AND MAKE A DECISION. I

THINK IT IS PHENOMENAL. >> YEAH, I-- WE CAN FIGURE THAT

OUT LATER. >> WE WILL WORKSHOP IT.

>> I VALUE Y'ALL'S INPUT AND WOULD LIKE TO KNOW Y. THINK Y'ALL DO AN EXCELLENT JOB AND WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT INFORMATION. WHAT DO THE TWO OPPOSITION LETTERS SAY?

>> THEY DIDN'T WANT THE EXTENSION OF THE STUB OUT BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY FEEL IT IS A SAFETY ISSUE. WE HAVE MIKE ADAMS HERE TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON THE STUB OUT.

>> OKAY. >> I GUESS THE REST OF MINE WOULD BE FOR THE APPLICANT, I WOULD LIKE AMENITIES ADDRESSED, AS WELL AS THE FOUR-ACRE PRESERVE IN THE BACK, AND WHY THERE IS NOT MORE AMENITIES. I KNOW WE NEED TO UPDATE OUR LIST ON OUR PLAN BECAUSE PROVIDING INTERNET IN A COMMUNITY I THINK IS BOTTOM OF THE BARREL, I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE COUNTED AS AMENITY. TO COUNT THAT ONE OF THE FIVE, THAT IS KIND OF THE ROUTE I AM GOING, BUT IF OTHERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR

STAFF, GO FIRST. >> THIS IS YOUR QUESTION FOR

STAFF. >> UM, IT IS KIND OF A HALF QUESTION, HALF COMMENT FOR STAFF. I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE REVIEWING COMPATIBILITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND I KNOW THE AREA THAT BORDERS TO THE NORTH AND TO THE EAST IS UNINCORPORATED BY ETJ, FOR WHATEVER THAT IS WORTH. WE DO SHOW THAT IN OUR COMP PLAN. THAT IS ALL COUNTRY, RIGHT CORRECTLY

ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD. >> RIGHT. THE OTHER SIDE OF THE

ROAD, LARGER LOT S. >> RIGHT.

>> THAT IS TRUE. >> I LOOK AT THAT AND THAT IS ONE THING I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, YOU KNOW, IS THIS RESIDENTIAL IN THE MIDDLE OF SUBURBAN LOAD AREA, IS IT RIGHT ON THE BORDER? YOU KIND OF HAVE A BLEND. THESE ARE NOT ENGINEERED OR SURVEYED LINED. I THINK, WHEN I SEE SOMETHING THAT IS TRENDING MORE AWAY FROM COUNTRY MODULE AND MORE INTO THE, YOU KNOW, I FEEL IT SHOULD PAY HOMAGE TO BOTH WHEN IT IS RIGHT ON THAT BORDER EDGE. WE KIND OF ALL THE SAME DEAL ON THE SOUTH AND WEST QUADRANT OF TOWN IN SOME PLACES.

I MEAN, FOR ME, I AM LOOKING AT IT GOING IT IS SURROUNDED BY ONE ACRE OF LARGER LOTS, YOU KNOW, HERE IT IS-- WE HAVE GOT

[00:35:05]

AFFECTIVE MAX YIELD LAYOUT OF THE SMALLEST LOTS YOU CAN AND STILL HAVE SEPTIC. BUT, YOU KNOW, TO SAY THERE ARE ONE ACRE LOTS, YEAH, THERE IS A HANDFUL OF THEM BUT THESE ARE MOSTLY HALF TO 3/4 ACRE LOTS. IS THAT THE RIGHT PLACE FOR THAT? THAT IS THE DECISION WE HAVE TO MAKE.

>> MIKE? >> I AM JUST GOING TO SAY SOMETHING HERE. I DON'T TEND FOR THIS TO SOUND CRUDE, I PULLED THIS UP ON GOOGLE, AS I LOOK TO THE PROPERTY ON RUSTIC RIDGE AND FLOWING INTO THE SOUTH, I LOOK AT THE LAYOUT OF THE DEVELOPMENT,IER AM BY NO MEANS ARE DEVELOPER SO I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT BUT I KNOW WHAT I TYPICALLY LOOK AT, THAT DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST AND TO THE SOUTH LENDS ITSELF, IT HAS A BETTER FLOW TO ME. WHEN I LOOK AT THIS DEVELOPMENT, IT IS A CHECKERED BOARD PATTERN, SOMETHING I WOULD HAVE LOOKED AT IN THE 80S. I DO REALIZE THERE IS A RESTRICTION THERE AS THEY HAVE A SET AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TO WORK WITHIN THAT, CREATES SOME PROBLEMS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE SAME TYPE OF FLOW PATTERNS THAT I SEE THE THE SOUTH AND TO THE WEST THAT FLOW THAT GOES THROUGH THERE, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE FLOW CONTINUING, SO YOU ARE JUST NOT DRIVING INTO THE BASE BOX, LIKE A BIG HORSE SHOE OF PROPERTY AFTER PROPERTY. I DO TEND TO SIDE WITH WHAT ROSS HAS MENTIONED, I KNOW THIS AREA, INCREASES THE PROPERTY AROUND THIS. I DID HAVE, OR I WOULD RATHER SEE MINIMALLY 3/4, ONE-ACRE LOTS. I WAS SURPRISED IT IS POSSIBLE I MISSED SOMETHING AS OF RECENT, I CAUGHT HERE THAT THESE ARE 6/10 OF AN ACRE, YET WE WILL HAVE A SEPTIC SYSTEM. I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS ABOUT SEPTIC AS I PICKED UP ON IT IN THE PACKET. HAVE WE CHANGED AND PULLED AWAY FROM-- FOR YEARS WE WERE ONE-ACRE REQUIREMENT FOR AEROBICS. HAVE WE CHANGED THAT 6/10 OF AN ACRE? WHICH IS STAND REQUIREMENT. BUT DID WE CHANGE?

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT IS A STATE REQUIREMENT BUT WE HAVE A REQUIREMENT A LICENSEENED SANITARIAN WOULD APPROVE IT. FOR NON-STATE, THEY COULD WORK IT DOWN TO 0.6 BUT MIKE WANTS TO

ADDRESS THIS. >> WE-- GO.

>> ONE ACRE FOR ANY ON SITE. WHETHER IT IS SURFACE SPRAY OR SUB SURFACE, IT IS ONE ACRE. ON THIS THEY ARE PROPOSING LOW PRESSURE DOSING, WHICH WOULD BEENT SPRAY WHICH WOULD BE UNDER ONE ACRE REGARDLESS OF THE TYPE OF SYSTEM YOU V. THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY REAL QUICK, ONE OF THE AMENITIES WANT TO BE CAREFUL BECAUSE WE ARE RUNNING INTO THIS NOW, THE FOUNTAIN. IF IT IS DETENTION POND, IT IS GOING TO BE DRY MAJORITY OF THE TIME UNLESS THERE IS SOME WAY YOU ARE SUPPLEMENTING THE POND WITH WATER TO ADD THE FOUNTAIN. BE PRODUCTIVE AND BE A USE. SO, IT REALLY WOULD BE A COMBINATION OF POND, WHICH COULD COME LATER ON, AGAIN, IF THE EXPECTATION IS THERE IS WATER THERE YEAR ROUND, A FOUNTAIN, IT WILL BE AN AMENITY, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME SOURCE THAT WOULD PROVIDE THE WATER TO THAT POND SO IT WILL HOLD WATER YEAR ROUND AND NOT JUST BEEP FOR STORMS. JUST SOMETHING TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.

>> DOES IT STILL SERVE THE PURPOSE OF WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED

TO BOO FOR FLOODING IF FULL? >> YOU HAVE TO GO BASICALLY DIG DEEPER AND HAVE IT WHERE THERE IS STORM WATER BUT YOU HAVE CAPACITY ABOVE THE AREA SO YOU ARE HOLDING THE WATER BACK DURING THE STORM. THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DESIGNED AND TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND ROOKED AT TO MAKE SURE IT IS DONE

PROPERLY. >> SO, WITHIN THE PACKET, THAT IS WHERE ALSO LITTLE CONFUSED, HAVE WE TYPICALLY SEEN WHERE PEOPLE REFER TO SEPTIC SYSTEM VERSES AEROBIC SYSTEM? WHEN I THINK OF SEPTIC SYSTEM, I THINK OF AN AREA, SEPTIC LINE. I AM

NOT-- TRYING TO LEARN SOMETHING. >> SURE. SO, IT IS STILL, LOT OF TIMES REFERRED TO AS SEPTIC SYSTEMS BUT REALLY GOING TO BE AN ON SITE, SO THEY CALL THEM OSSF ON SITE SEWAGE FACILITY. IT CAN BE AEROBIC, CONVENTIONAL TIME, LOW PRESSURE DOSING.

>> THE REASON I AM ASKING THIS IS HAVING TO WORK IN SERVICE, ON PROPERTIES, I HAVE, THIS IS MY OWN OPINION. IF YOU GO BELOW ONE ACRE ON SURFACE RELEASE, IT IS A DISASTER. IT STINKS, NASTY, PEOPLE DON'T TAKE CARE OF IT. SO, I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED ALSO

[00:40:01]

IF WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPER'S DISCRETION ON 6/110 OF AN ACRE TO HAVE SURFACE SPRAY.

>> NO, THE WAY THIS IS SET UP, MY UNDERSTANDING, IS IT IS BASICALLY SAYING ALL LOTS, REGARDLESS OF SIZE, ARE GOING TO BE SUB SURFACE WITH LOW PRESSURE DOSING.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> MY CONVERSATION WITH STAFF IS IT IS TCQ'S, THE ONE ALLOWING THE 0.6 OF AN ACRE TO HAVE

SEPTIC. OUR STANDARD-- >> RIGHT. CITIES ARE ALLOWED, CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE ALLOWED MORE STRINGENT. CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE ALLOWED MORE STRINGENT. THEY CAN'T BE LESS.

YOU CAN GO LARGER, THAT IS KIND OF BY EXPERIENCE. IN THE PAST, CITIES WERE GOING WITH THE SMALLER, THEN YOU GET IT AND SOMEBODY OUT THERE, YOU KNOW, BIG HOUSE, LOT OF PAVED AREA.

YOU PUT IN A POOL, START PUTTING IN OUT BUILDING AND YOUR AREA FOR WHETHER CONVENTIONAL OR AEROBIC, STARTS GETTING REALLY SCRUNCHED AND SQUEEZED DOWN. THAT IS TAKING YOU LESS CONSIDERATION, WHERE DO I PUT THIS? NOW WHERE DO I MOVE IT? I JUST ADLOAD THIS TO MY FACILITY. IF IT FAILS, THEN YOU LIMITED SPACE TO BE ABLE TO GO BACK INTO TO PUT A NEW SYSTEM IN.

>> OUR STANDARD, THOUGH, HAS BEEN ONE ACRE, WHAT WE EXPECTED

EVERY OTHER DEVELOPER TO DO. >> CORRECT. IF THE LOOK, THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST, ALL MINIMUM ONE ACRE, EVERYTHING SF1 WITHIN MOCKINGBIRD SPRINGS , THOSE ARE ONE ACRE, MINIMUM ONE

ACRE. >> WITH SEPTIC.

>> YES. >> MIKE?

>> MY ONLY OTHER CONCERN ON THIS SEPTIC CONVERSATION IS AT LEAST FOR MYSELF, PERSONALLY, I HAVE WORKED AND SUPPORT DROPPING SOME OF THOSE STANDARDS 3/4 OF AN ACRE, MAYBE GETTING BACK DOWN TO 6/10 TO HELP MAKE A LAYOUT WORK. BUT IN MY OWN THOUGHT PROCESS, THAT WOULD BE IN A HIGHER DENSE AREA OF ALLOWANCE TO MAKE THE PROPERTY WORKABLE. I PREFER TO KEEP IT AS ONE-ACRE REQUIREMENT IN THIS TYPE OF SCENARIO, I HAVE A PROBLEM WHERE I DON'T FIND THIS BEING FAIR TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS, HIGHER DENSITY, IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS, I GUESS THIS, SPEAKING TO. I KNOW YOU

HAVE NO CONTROL. >> NO, BUT I WOULD MENTION TO COUNCIL AS WELL, STAFF HAS CONCERNS ABOUT GOING BELOW THE ONE ACRE BECAUSE, KIND OF BASED ON THE PAST HISTORY, WE DO HAVE SOME EXAMPLE WHERES THEY DID GO LOWER, DIFFERENT THINKS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT THAT LEND THEMSELF TO THAT. COUNCIL WAS OKAY WITH GOING LITTLE SMALLER ON SOME. AGAIN T IS REALLY, YOU START LOOKING AT WHAT WE HAVE, IT IS NOT OUR TYPICAL STANDARD.

>> THE ONLY THOUGHT PROCESS IN MY MIND HAVING A LITTLE LOWER ALLOWANCE IS WHEN WE GET IN THOSE GAP ZONES, LETS SAY BETWEEN THE LAWSON FARMS AND CALHOUN AREA WHERE YOU HAVE LARGER ONE-ACRE LOTS AND SMALLER CITY, AND THIS GAP, CITY SURGE IS NOT THERE YET, IN DENSITY PROBLEM. SO THAT IS THE THOUGHT PROCESS THIS FAR OUT. I NEVER REALLY THOUGHT WE WOULD BE GOING 6/10, ME, PERSONALLY. NEVER MIND TALKING SEWERS.

>> >> YOU HAVE YOUR LIGHT ON.

>> YOU ARE GOOD. >> SORRY.

>> WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT SEWER.

>> ROSS? THAT WAS A CONCERN I HAD AS WELL. WHEN YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE ONES MORE OF THE HYBRID SET UP, THEY ARE ON MUCH MORE MAJOR TRAFFIC ARTERIALS, YOU KNOW, IF THIS WAS FRONTING DOWN ON 13, 7, DIRECTLY OVER ON WALNUT GROVE OR ONE OF THESE ROADS THAT WE HAVE GOT WHEREAS CURRENTLY FUNCTIONING AS PEOPLE MOVER, THIS IS DIFFERENT. THIS IS JUST OUT IN THE VERY EDGE OF THE CITY LIMITS, WITH NO REAL-- THERE IS NOT A LOT OF GREAT TRAFFIC TO GET TO IT, WHICH IS PROBABLY A DRAW FOR ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO LIVE OUT THERE, BUT ALSO MOVING THAT STUB OUT, THERE WAS ONE SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE ON HIGHLAND ROAD, LOOKING AT

FIRE AND EMS. >> ALSO, WHEN YOU LOOK, IT CAN BENEFIT MARKINGBIRD SPRINGS BECAUSE THAT PHASE HAS ONE WAY IN, ONE WAY OUT. THEY ARE UNDER THE 40 LOTS BUT THAT ALSO WOULD SERVE FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT TO HAVE ANOTHER WAY OUT IF YOU NEED

IT AS WELL. >> CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> WANT TO GIVE THE APPLICANT A CHANCE TO SPEAK.

>> I WANTED TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS. THIS IS WHAT WE WANTED TO DO WHEN I LOOKED AT FUTURE LAND USE, YOU HAVE THIRD ACRE LOTS IS BASICALLY, WE WERE TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO USE THIS PROPERTY WHERE WE COULD GET A LITTLE BIT SMALLER LOTS TO TRY TO GET A LITTLE BIT BETTER AFFORDABILITY, TYPICALLY YOU SEE

[00:45:01]

ONE-ACRE LOT, 3,000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE, $750,000, OUR IDEA WAS BECAUSE WE DEVELOP WEST HIGHLAND, BUILDING THOSE HOUSES, THE SMALLER LOTS SO WE CAN BUILD A LITTLE MORE AFFORDABLE HOME, 25, 2700, AND NOT FEEL THEY HAVE TO LIVE INSIDE A QUARTER ACRE LOT. SO, THIS, WHAT I PROPOSED AS FAR AS LAYOUT, JUST FOR REFERENCE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT PLUM CREEK, I KNOW THEY DIDN'T MENTION THIS BUT IT WILL BE CURB AND GUTTER, THIS WILL BE SIDEWALK. IT WILL HAVE A FEEL LIKE PLUM CREEK, FOR REFERENCE, PLUM CREEK, I KNOW IT WAS IN THE COUNTY AND THEN ANNEXED IN, 54% OF THOSE LOTS ARE BETWEEN 0.6 AND 0.75, AND WE ARE DOING 50%.

OKAY? THEN 39% ARE BETWEEN 3/4 ACRE AND ONE ACRE. 6% OVER ONE ACRE. SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU WOULD SEE AT PLUM CREEK, JUST EVERYTHING IS UNDERGROUND. ALL LPD, EVERYTHING UNDERGROUND. I SOLD ALL THE HOMES TO HOME OWNERS RUSTIC RIDGE, I WOULDN'T WANT A SPLAY ON THEM. 250 FEET DEEP, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT LPD BUT THEY ARE SEEPER DEEP, NOT AS WIDE ACROSS THE FRONT BUT SUPER DEEP. THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE PLENTY ROOM TO PUT THE LPD IN THE BACK, STILL HAVE A SHOP, POOL, AND NOT WORRY ABOUT SPRAYFIELD. ALSO I WILL MENTION TOO, WHEN AZALEA HOLLOW WAS PASSED, I THING FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AGO, THEY HAVE 0.6 OVER THERE CHLTD THEY DID LPD ON THOSE. THE BIGGER LOTS, 3/4 AND ONE ACRE THEY BID SPRAY FIELDS OVER THERE, WHERE WE PROPOSING LPD ACROSS THE BOARD. THIS DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING ABOVE GROUND. I COME, I AGREE WITH YOU, MIKE, ABOUT HOW PEOPLE DON'T CARE OF AEROBICS, I DON'T WANT THIS PROBLEM FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. STUB OUT TO HAYFIELD, NONE OF THOSE HOME OWNERS WANT IT ON HAYFIELD. THAT IS THE REASON WE DIDN'T PROPOSE IT. UNDERSTAND, IF YOU DO, THAT WAS KIND OF WHEN WE WERE AT PNZ, THEY WERE SPLIT THREE AND THREE BECAUSE I BASICALLY MADE THE COMMENT ABOUT I TALKED TO PEOPLE IN HAYFIELD, THEY DON'T WANT IT STUBBING OUT. IF THAT IS A REQUIREMENT, I WILL DO WHAT HAS TO BE DONE BUT WE WERE TRYING TO TRY TO GET THROUGH WITHOUT CONNECTING TO HAYFIELD. WASN'T WE WERE TRYING TO PURPOSEFULLY AVOID, JUST FOR THOSE PEOPLE ON THAT STREET, AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE THEY ALREADY HAVE, AND THEY ARE ALREADY TAX PAYING CITIZENS, YOU KNOW, I DON'T LIVE IN THE CITY. SO, COUPLE OF THINGS, AS FAR AS AMENITIES, THE DESIGN AMENITY, I DIDN'T GET, MY FAULT, I DIDN'T GET ELEVATIONS TO MARY IN TIME TO QUALIFY FOR THAT. BUT TECHNICALLY, IN MY OPINION, WE CHECKED OFF ALL

THOSE BOXES. >> WHICH ONES?

>> THE ONE IN REGARDS TO THE DESIGN THEME, NUMBER 11, I BELIEVE. NO, SORRY, NUMBER NINE. NUMBER NINE. THAT IS WHY THE ELEVATIONS FOR THE HOUSES WEREN'T ACTUALLY AT THE PNZ MEETING, I SENT THOSE TO HER FOR THIS MEETING, OR, WE PROBABLY COULD HAVE SAID THAT MET THAT. ALSO MENTION THIS TOO, WHEN I CAME THROUGH WITH WEST HIGHLAND, A PROPERTY TO THE EAST, THE NUMBER 11, THE PRESERVATION OF VALUABLE TREE SPECIMENS, THEY REQUIRE CERTAIN TREE AND CERTAIN CALIBER AND TAKEN INVENTORY OF ALL THE TREES. I HAVEN'T DONE THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE IS GOING TO BE, I MEAN, THERE IS JUST TREES BUT I DON'T THINK THEY WILL BE VALUABLE TREES THAT ARE IN THAT REQUIREMENT. WHAT WHAT WE DID DO WEST HIGHLAND, PULLED UP EAST SIDE, WHICH BUTS UP TO COUNTY PEOPLE, WE PRESERVE ALL THE TREES ALONG THE EAST AND SOUTH SIDE, AND AS JUST A REQUIREMENT OF WHEN WE DID THE PD. WE CAN DO THE SAME THING BETWEEN THIS DEVELOPMENT AND TO THE WEST THERE ON RUSTIC RIDGE BECAUSE THERE IS A TREE LINE RIGHT THERE ALONG ALL THAT PROPERTY LINE. MORE THAN HAPPY TO KEEP THOSE. WE WERE PLANNING ON DOING THAT ANYWAY. SO, IT IS JUST WE CAN'T QUALIFY FOR THE 11 BECAUSE THERE IS, THEY GOT

MORE RESTRICTIONS ON THAT. >> FOUR ACRES IN THE BACK, THE

INTENT. >> YEAH WHEN WE BOUGHT THAT PLACE, THE GENTLEMAN WHO OWNED IT, HE WANTED, AND IN MY DRC MEETING BROUGHT IT UP, THAT GENTLEMAN ORIGINALLY WANTED TEN ACRES LEFT FOR HIMSELF TO BUILD HIS OWN HOME SITE BACK THERE IS WHAT HAPPENED. BUT THEN WE BOUGHT THE WHOLE THING FROM HIM, AND THEN IN TALKING WITH THE PEOPLE IN HAYFIELD, THEY SAID WE REALLY DON'T WANT IT CONNECTING, AND THIS IS WHAT WE WANTED TO PRESENT. NOW IF IT IS A THING WHERE Y'ALL BASICALLY SAY WE WANTED TO CONNECT AND I UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT, BUT I HAVE, IN MY OPINION, TWO CONNECTIONS ON WEST HIGHLAND AND THEN ALSO A CONNECTION TO WEST HIGHLAND ESTATES TO THE EAST. TO ME, I CONNECT, YOU KNOW, BUT I DON'T JUST CONNECT TO THE

[00:50:02]

SOUTH. SAYING THE SHOPPING CENTER, IS THAT PLOTTED AS LOT?

>> NO, WE OWN THE WHOLE, NOT ME, HE OWNS THE WHOLE THING. THAT WAS PREVIOUS INTENT, TO KEEP SOME FOR HIM. THAT HAYFIELD, THERE COULD BE A HOME BUILT ON HAYFIELD AT THE END THERE, WE JUST WEREN'T. WE DIDN'T WANT IT TO CONNECT, TO BE HONEST WITH

YOU. >> I AM NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT

THAT, LIKE, WHAT THAT ANSWER IS. >> ITS INTENT WOULD BE OPEN LOT, AND THEN IF IT EVER WANTED TO BE BUILT, I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANYTHING BY THE-- THAT COULD KEEP A HOUSE FROM BEING BUILT THERE, IF IT HAD TO REPLOTTED, IT WOULD HAVE TO COME THROUGH

THE SAME PROCESS. >> I WANT TO SEE MORE AMENITIES.

EVEN >> THERE IS A TON OF TREES THROUGH THERE, THERE IS DRAINAGE. THERE IS DRAINAGE THAT COMES FROM WEST HIGHLAND ESTATES POND THAT GOES THROUGH THERE, SOUTH OF WHERE THIS POND WILL BE. YOU REALLY CAN'T-- I GUESS WE COULD USE THOSE AS AMENITY BUT THE PEOPLE WHO BACKED UP TO THAT, THEY EXPRESSED INTEREST OF BUYING THE PARTNERS BEHIND THEM, SO IT GIVES THEM MORE OF A BUFFER, BUT WE, I AM THINKING WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, BUT I HONESTLY DIDN'T WANT TO CONNECT TO HAYFIELD. NONE OF THOSE CUSTOMERS WANT THAT DOWN THERE.

THAT IS ALL. >> MIKE?

>> I WORK LOT OFF OF LOT WIDTH. I SEE YOU HAVE LOTS HERE. YOU HAVE GOT A LOT OF 6/10 OF AN ACRE AND SOME 3/4. WHAT IS A 0.6

OR 0.66 ACRE FRONT WIDTH? >> THE FRONT, I THINK IS 134.

>> IT IS NOT THAT FAR OFF. SO, THESE ONE-ACRE LOTS THAT ARE AROUND THIS, THEY ARE GOING TO BE MORE LIKE 150S.

>> CORRECT. >> WHICH IS NORMAL FOR THIS REGION. I GUESS IN GOING BACK TO WHAT YOU HAD MENTIONED, AND TRYING TO THINK OF THIS SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS ALSO THAT HAVE INVESTED IN THIS AREA TO OWN THESE, BECAUSE I GUESS MY OTHER SLIGHT CONCERN, IF I WERE A PROPERTY OWNER BORDERING THIS, I HAVE GONE IN AND BOUGHT A $600-$900,000 HOME ON PURPOSE.

THEREFORE, IF SOMEONE COMES IN AND INJECTS INTERIOR SCOPE THAT IS A LOWER END PROJECT, NOT TOO FAR LOWER END, BUT I WOULD VIEW IT AS THOUGH THAT WOULD POSSIBLY AFFECT MY PROPERTY VALUES. I RESPECT WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO. I SEE IT IN THE DESIGN AND LAYOUT. IT IS SIMPLER FORMAT. IT IS HOLDING COST DOWN. I CAN SEE THAT. I WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT ALSO CONCERNED IF I WERE A PROPERTY OWNER. I GUESS I AM FOLLOWING WHAT ANNA HAD MENTIONED, IT LENDS ITSELF TO WHAT I FEEL I AM SAYING AROUND IT, LOT OF FLOW THERE, A LOT MORE INVESTMENT, THAT AREN'T AS MANY AMENITIES AS YOU WERE USED TO SEEING.

>> SURE. >> I AM NOT SEEING THE FLOW HERE, IT WOULD CONCERN ME IF I WAS A BORDER PROPERTY.

>> I UNDERSTAND. I HEARD YOUR COMMENT EARLIER. I AM NOT NECESSARILY TIED TO THIS SPECIFIC LAYOUT. I HONESTLY THOUGHT IF Y'ALL APPROVED IT BASED ON CONNECTING TO HAYFIELD, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO REDRAW IT ANYWAY, TO MAKE IT MORE, MAKE IT MAKE MORE SENSE. WHEN AT PNZ THEY DIDN'T MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT THE LOT. LOT SIZE NEVER CAME UP. I UNDERSTAND Y'ALL'S

CONCERN. >> I AM PERSONALLY NOT ON THE CONNECTION THROUGH, LIKE THIS IS--

>> I GOT YOU. >> I UNDERSTAND.

>> THERE IS NOT A HARD NOSE THING FOR ME.

>> OBVIOUSLY WANT IT TO LOOK DIFFERENT, NO OFFENSE TO ONE-ACRE DEVELOPMENT, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE AMENITIES, NEVER HAD BUT TYPICALLY PEOPLE PUT AMENITIES ON THEIR OWN LOT, PUT THEIR OWN POOL, THEIR OWN THING. I WANT IT TO LOOK A LITTLE DIFFERENT, THAT IS ALL. I WANT IT TO HAVE A SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTER. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT, BUT THAT IS WHAT WE WANTED IT MAKE IT LOOK A LITTLE DIFFERENT.

>> SURE. >> ROSS?

>> YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK WITH CONNECTION TO HAYFIELD, A, I HAVE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS AND THEN WE DON'T ACTUALLY CONNECT THEM, BECAUSE THAT WAS A WASTE OF RESOURCES FROM PRIOR DEVELOPMENT. IT WAS DONE FOR A REASON, TO PROMOTE INNER NEIGHBORHOOD CIRCULATION, PRIMARILY FOR FIRE AND EMS CONCERNS. RIGHT? THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THE LONG WAY AROUND,

[00:55:02]

YOU KNOW, TO GET PLACES. I THINK THAT ACTIVATES FOUR ACRES OF LAND THAT FLOWS BACK INTO 53 LOTS THAT UPS THE SIZE OF ALL THE LOTS AND GIVES YOU MORE TERRAIN TO PLAY WITH, YOU KNOW, MAYBE MAKE GRID PATTERN SOMEWHAT, I DON'T KNOW. AGAIN, THE TERRAIN AND LAND ITSELF WILL LEND ITSELF TO THAT. I THINK, ME, PERSONALLY, I THINK IT NEEDS TO CONNECT. IF WE ARE GOING TO MAKE DEVELOPER STUB STREETS TO PROPERTY LINES, WE SHOULD HONOR THAT BY CONNECTING WHEN THE NEXT DEVELOPS. OTHERWISE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A CUL-DE-SAC, EXTRA LOT OR TWO WHEN THEY DEVELOPED THAT PROJECT TO THE SOUTH. OR YOUR PROJECT THAT YOU DID. YOU PUT THE STREET IN, SAVE MONEY AND PROBABLY GET A BETTER LOT. I THINK IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO TO CONNECT IT. THERE IS DRAINAGE, PROBABLY HAVE TO HANDLE THE WATER FLOW BUT I DON'T SEVERE WHERE YOU HAVE TO BUILD A SUSPENSION BRIDGE. I THINK IT GIVES YOU THE EXTRA LANE YOU NEED TO MAKE THIS A

LITTLE BIT MORE CONDUCIVE. >> IT HONESTLY WAS--

>> YOU BET. >> HAYFIELD, I THOUGHT THEY WOULD SHOW UP, THEY TOLD ME THEY WOULD. YEAH. SO, BUT THAT REALLY WAS WHY, JUST BECAUSE FEW YEARS NOW, THEY ENJOY THE LITTLE

CLOSED OFF AREA THEY HAVE. >> QUICK QUESTION ON THE CONNECTORS. I AM ASSUMING THAT THE TWO CONNECTION POINTS AT WEST HIGHLAND FACILITATE, THEY ARE SO CLOSE TOGETHER. IT ALMOST PRESENTS TO WHERE WE ALMOST HAVE TO HAVE MINIMALLY FOR EMS, FIRE

TWO-POINT ENTRY REQUIREMENT. >> IF YOU LOOK AT THE STREET LAYOUT IN THAT PART OF THE WORLD, THOSE THREE ENTRANCES THAT CLOSE TOGETHER ON WEST HIGHLAND ROAD MAY MEET THE LETTER OF TWO POINTS OR THREE POINTS EGRESS BUT ALL VIRTUALLY THE SAME POINT, IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING BLOCKING WEST HIGHLAND, YOU ARE GOING WAY LONG WAY AROUND TO PUT OUT A FIRE OR GRAB SOMEBODY WHO IS HAVING A HEART ATTACK OR SOMETHING LIKE

THAT. MAN, THAT IS NOT GOOD. >> SO, MY TWO CENTS, I HAVE A BIG APPRECIATION JUST FOR YOUR APPROACH ON THIS. LOT OF DEVELOPERS COME IN AND THEY HAVE THE PLAN, YOU KNOW, THEY WANT TO PUT ON THERE. AND THEN WE DO HAVE, YOU KNOW, NEIGHBORING VOICES THAT HAVE KIND OF, YOU KNOW, VARIOUS CONCERNS THAT SOMETIMES GET HEARD AND SOMETIMES DON'T. SO I REALLY HAVE A GREAT APPRECIATION THAT YOU LISTEN TO THESE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS AND TRIED TO WORK THIS DEVELOPMENT TO CATER TO WHAT WAS THE PRIMARY VIEW. I DON'T HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE AMENITIES BECAUSE OF THESE BEING LARGER LOTS IN COMPARISON TO SOME OF THE SMALLER DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE LOOK AT. THAT IS WHERE I REALLY VALUE THE AMENITIES IS WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT REALLY DENSE LOTS AND REALLY DENSE DEVELOPMENTS. I DON'T HAVE A STRONG ISSUE. I WOULD PREFER THE RESIDENTS ON THAT END PREFER FOR IT TO NOT TO CONNECT AND YOU DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT FROM DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC STANDPOINT. I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT. I UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING SHARED. FOR ME IT IS

NOT A POINT OF CONCERN. >> IF I WENT BACK, SAY, ROAD A, I MADE THEM WIDER TO ONE ACRE AND I PUT A SPRAY SYSTEM ON THEM, RUSTIC RIDGE, RATHER ONE AND A QUARTER LOT BACKING UP TO IT AND BOTH ON LPDS VERSES ONE ON A SPRAY SYSTEM BEHIND IT. THE DEPTH WOULD BE THE SAME. WE WOULD GET MORE WIDTH IS WHAT IT

IS. >> NOT THAT I WANT TO KEEP TALKING SEPTICS BUT CAN YOU ADDRESS, LIKE I AM HEARING STAFF SAY STANDARD IS AN ACRE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS IN OUR CODE. IS THIS TECHNICALLY A VARIANT WE ARE ASKING FOR?

>> YES, THEY ARE ASKING FOR A WAIVER.

>> I HAVE A HARD TIME WITH THAT.

[01:00:10]

>> AZALEA HOLLOW WENT FROM TWO-ACRE TO 0.6. TECHNICALLY A THIRD ACRE BY FUTURE LAND USE Y. AM TECHNICALLY BETTER THAN THAT,

AND-- >> LIKE THE AVERAGE?

>> YEAH, YOU ALLOWED LPDS BEFORE ON 0.6. I AM NOT THE FIRST ONE.

>> RIGHT. >> I AM JUST SAYING-- I AM NOT TRYING TO SPRINKLE IT AND DO 0PIST 6Y AM TRYING TO HAVE THE

WHOLE DEVELOPMENT BY LPD. SO. >> WELL THANK YOU, COUNCIL. DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AND/OR MOTION?

>> NOBODY? >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE AS PRESENTED. >> WILL YOU ACCEPT AN AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE THE CONNECTION TO HIGHLAND?

>> UM, SURE. >> OR HAYFIELD, I MEAN.

>> SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED EXCEPT FOR CONNECTING-- WITH THE STIPULATION ROAD A, I GUESS,

CONNECTS TO HAYFIELD. >> YEAH.

>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION ON THAT? >> SO, IF HE CONNECTS IT, HE IS GOING TO HAVE TO REDRAW ALL OF THIS. ARE WE GOING TO-- THAT IS WHAT HE SAID EARLIER? ARE WE APPROVING SOMETHING THAT IS

GOING TO LOOK TOTALLY DIFFERENT? >> WE ARE APPROVING THE DENSITY.

>> APPROVING THE ZONING. >> CORRECT.

>> LOT 15 WOULD GO AWAY AND PRESERVE WOULD GO AWAY, PRESERVE

WOULD BE SPLIT INTO TWO. >> TO MY UNDERSTANDING, LEGAL, TELL ME IF I AM WRONG, WE ARE APPROVING THE OVERALL DENSITY, ALL THEY ARE COMING BACK FOR ARE IS SITE PLAN.

>> GOING TO HAVE TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN.

>> YEAH. >> THAT IS WHAT I AM ASKING.

>> WITHIN THE ZONING BEING APPROVED RIGHT NOW.

>> CORRECT. >> THAT IS WHAT I AM ASKING,

SITE PLAN WILL COME BACK. >> SITE PLAN WILL COME BACK.

DENSITY WILL STAY THE SAME. >> IF ONLY VOTING ON THE

DENSITY-- >> ALL THE STIPULATION REMAIN THE SAME, IN YOUR ORDINANCE WITH EXCEPTION OF THE SITE. WE ARE MAKING THIS SITE WILL HAVE TO COME BACK,ER WHICH WILL CHANGE.

>> IT WILL HAVE TO FOLLOW ALL THE RULES OF THE TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE, THE EXHIBIT THAT IS THIS PICTURE, THAT GRAPHICALLY DISPLAYS THEIR APPLICATION OF THE RULES, WILL HAVE TO BE

BROUGHT BACK IN AN AND AMENDED. >> WE WILL HAVE TO BE OKAY WITH THE WAY THIS IS SEWARD, WATERED. THE DENSITY WILL NOT CHANGE. 0.6 ACRE LOTS WILL BE WHAT HE CAN BRING FORWARD.

>> BUT MAXIMUM, 53. >> YES, SIR.

>> LOTS. >> YEAH.

>> CAN'T HAVE ANYMORE THAN 53 LOTS ON DENSITY 0.6 IS MINIMUM.

>> WE ARE REQUIRING-- >> YES.

>> THAT IS WHAT THE MOTION IS. >> STUB OUT THE DRIVE CONNECTED

INTO THE HIGHLAND VILLAGE. >> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION.

>> SECOND. >> AND A SECOND.

>> PLEASE VOTE.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT WENT. THREE TO THREE.

>> OKAY. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> AND MOTION DIES DUE TO LACK OF SECOND. DO WE HAVE--

>> I MAKE A MOTION WE DENY AS PRESENT FD.

>> MOTION TO DENY. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION TO DENY. PLEASE VOTE.

>> THAT MOTION FAILS.

NO, NO IS NOT DENYING. YEAH. >> I WILL MAKE A--

>> WHAT IS THAT? >> I WILL MAKE A SECOND MOTION

TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED. >> THAT MOTION HAS BEEN MADE.

SHE DONE EVERY MOTION POSSIBLE. >> IT HAS NOT PASSED.

>> WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO CONTINUE IT?

>> MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

PLEASE VOTE. >> SAY IT AGAIN.

>> MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

>> WE DON'T HAVE A SECOND. >> SECOND.

>> SORRY, I THOUGHT I HEARD SECOND.

>> YOU DID. >> THAT IS MY FAULT.

>> EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT THEY ARE VOTING ON? OKAY.

>> ITEM PASSES 6-0. >> THANK YOU.

[2025-243 Consider and act upon a detailed development site plan, including building elevations and landscape plan, for 0.592 acres, being in Planned Development District No. 68 (PD-68); 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).]

[01:05:04]

>>> ITEM 2025-243. MOVING TO REGULAR AGENDA,SORRY.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, PRO TEM, DANIEL, SENIOR PLANNER. THIS IS SITE PLAN OF PROPOSED STATE FARM OFFICE WHICH CONSISTS OF TWO UNITS. THIS IS CURRENTLY A 0592 ACRE AND UNDEVELOPED LOT. IT IS PRESENTED BY PD STATES DEVELOPMENT ON THE LOTS DESIGNATED AS COMMUNITY RETAIL REQUIRE COUNCIL APPROVAL.

HERE IS A VISUAL OF THE PROPERTY ADJACENT PROPERTY COMPRISED OF THE SAME MIXED USE PD ZONING TO THE SOUTH, EAST, WEST.

COMMERCIAL PD TO THE NORTH. SURROUNDING LAND USE INCLUDE VACANT AND UNDEVELOPED LAND TO THE EAST, SINGLE FAMILY TO THE SOUTH, STARBUCKS TO THE WEST, AND SHOPPING CENTER TO THE NORTH. ADJACENT FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS INCLUDE NEW TOWN MODULE TO THE NORTH, AND RESIDENTIAL MEMEIUM DENSITY TO THE SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST. HERE ARE BUILDING ELEVATIONS. HERE IS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE SITEM UNANIMOUSLY. THE DETAILED SITE PLAN DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY VARIANCES AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU AND I AM OPEN TO QUESTIONS AND APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL.

>> COUNCIL? >> SO, MY UNDERSTANDING, THIS IS

A TWO-UNIT OFFICE BUILDING? >> THAT IS CORRECT. YES. STATE FARM WILL BE OCCUPYING ONE OF THEM, AND ONE OF THEM WILL BE

OPEN TO TENONS. >> SO MY ONLY QUESTION WAS ON THE SEVEN-PANEL SIGN. THAT IS WHERE I WAS KIND OF LIKE, IF IT IS TWO-UNIT BUILDING, WHY IS THERE A SEVEN-PANEL SIGN?

>> I HAVE THAT QUESTION TOO. >> I DON'T WANT TO CUT EITHER ONE OF YOU OFF. MY FAULT Y. FORGOT THERE IS A SPEAKER.

>> OKAY. >> TAMMY.

>> TERRY JOE. THE SPEAKER. >> THAT IS YOU.

>> I AM A RESIDENT, I JUST HIT SOMETHING THERE. THERE WE GO. I AM ALSO THE OWNER. SO, WE ARE HERE TO APPROVE A SITE PLAN TONIGHT. IT MEETS THE ZONING ORDINANCE. IT HAS NO VARIANCES, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I WOULD LOVE TO ANSWER THEM F I

CAN. >> SO CAN YOU ANSWER ON THE SIGN, I HAD THE SAME QUESTION AS ROSS. I WAS ASSUMING, IS THAT SIGN FOR FUTURE DOWN THE ROAD OF HAWKINS? OR IS IT FOR THIS

BUILDING? >> THIS BUILDING, NOT FOR THE

FUTURE. >> SO WHAT IS THE DEAL WITH THE

SEVEN SLOTS? >> I THINK THEY MAY HAVE JUST TAKEN A PLACEHOLDER FROM ONE OF OUR OTHER BUILDINGS AND JUST SLAPPED IT UP THERE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN'T HAVE-- WE HAD, THE OTHER BUILDINGS WE BUILT WE HAD MULTIPLE TENANTS, AND WHAT HAPPENED, FOR INSTANCE, THE BUILDING AT, TRYING TO REMEMBER THE ADDRESS, 530, I BELIEVE IT IS, HAWKINS, IT HAD SEVEN PLACES. BUT WE ONLY ENDED UP WITH THREE OCCUPANTS. EACH OCCUPANT TOOK TWO SLOTS. IN THE BUILDING I AM IN AT 520. WE HAD SEVEN SLOTS, BUT WE TOOK THEM ALL. AM I SAYING THAT RIGHT?

>> YEP. >> I THINK I AM SAYING IT WRONG.

I APOLOGIZE. OKAY. WE HAD SEVEN SLOTS FOR TWO BUILDINGS.

>> OKAY. >> 520 AND 530. WE TOOK HALF OF

IT. I AM CONFUSED. SORRY. >> YOU HAD A LARGER--

>> WE TOOK HALF AND OTHER THREE TENANTS TOOK THREE SLOTS. I DON'T THINK THE SLOTS MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.

>> IT IS COMPARABLE TO-- >> YEAH, COMPARABLE.

>> MATCHES IS WHAT IT IS. >> YES.

>> QUESTION FOR STAFF. IT MEETS SIGN REGULATIONS AND WOULD STILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO ANY ADVERTISEMENT FOR PROPERTIES NOT LOCATED ON THE SAME SITE OF THE SIGN.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. SO, I MEAN, IT IS-- ALL ONE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT, 68, AND IT HAS MULTIPLE OFFICES THAT SHARE AMENITIES. WE DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH HAT.

>> THANK YOU. THAT IS MY ONLY QUESTION.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> MY ONLY COMMENT, I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A HARD SPOT FOR Y'ALL,

[01:10:03]

SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF TRAFFIC AND STARBUCKS.

>> VERY HARD. WE DIDN'T WANT HIGH TEE, WE DIDN'T WANT A

DRIVE-THRU. >> RIGHT.

>> I SAY WE, I SAY SELECTIVELY. >> WE ALL WANT THOSE THINGS, BUT, YEAH. I WAS ACTUALLY PLEASANTLY-- I LIKE HOW THE PARKING LOT IS LAID OUT KNOWING THAT STARBUCKS LINE IS PROBABLY

GOING TO COME THROUGH THERE. >> PROBABLY THE BEST USE WE WILL

GET THERE. >> YEAH.

>> I REALLY BELIEVE THAT. >> OKAY.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

>> THE MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND?

>> MOTION AND SECOND? >> ITEM PASSES 6-0. THANK YOU.

[2025-244 Consider and act upon an Agreement for Professional Services with Freese and Nichols, Inc. for an “Overall Water System Assessment for Additional Service Areas” and other related professional services associated with additional water treatment plant capacity alternatives in order to meet future demands in a total amount of $265,000.]

>>> ITEM 2025-244.IS THERE ANY SPEAKERS?

>> HOW ARE YOU, SIR? >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR PRO TEM, AND COUNCIL. THE ITEM IS FOR A NEW ASSESSMENT OF OUR WATER SYSTEM. SO BASED ON SOME PAST RECENT CONTRACTS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE WITH SOME AREAS FAR SOUTH, WE REALLY NEED TO DO AN ASSESSMENT OF OUR SYSTEM IN REGARDS TO THE EXPANSION OF OUR EXISTENT PLANS OR BUILDING A NEW PLANT, WHAT TYPE OF IMPROVEMENTS DO WE NEED TO DO WITH OUR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE? AND THEN ALSO LOOKING AT COSTS. BASED ON RUNNING MODELS AND BASICALLY FIGURING OUT HOW WE ARE GOING TO MOVE WATER AROUND THE CITY, AND FAR SOUTH AS WELL, TO MEET OBLIGATIONS. WE WILL COME UP WITH DIFFERENT COSTS IN REGARDS TO WHAT THE CAPITAL COSTS WILL BE FOR THE VARIOUS OPTIONS, AS WELL AS WHAT THE OPERATING COSTS WILL BE SO WE BRING TO THE UTTILITY ADVISORY BOARD AND COUNCIL, INFORMATION TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS ON THE PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR WATER SYSTEM AS A WHOLE. WITH THAT I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS COUNCIL MAY HAVE.

>> I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS. AS GIVEN AN OUTSIDE SOURCE THE ABILITY TO LOOK INTERIOR , I REALLY

APPRECIATE THAT. >> THANK YOU.

>> SO THIS WILL LOOK AT EXISTING USES WITHIN CITY LIMITS, WHAT FUTURE LAND USES COULD BE AS WELL AS SOME OF THE EXTRA AREAS WHERE WE ARE DOING WHOLE SALE AGREEMENT.

>> YES, OUR ENTIRE SYSTEM WE WANT TO LOOK AT. WE ARE NOT JUST LOOKING AT WHAT IS HAPPENING SOUTH, WE ARE LOOKING AT ENTIRETY OF THE SYSTEM AS WELL. MAKE SURE WE ARE TRACKING WITH WHAT WE NEED ON OUR SIDE AS WELL AS OBLIGATIONS.

>> WILL IT PROVIDE US WITH A PHASING PLAN ON THAT? WHEN THEY EXPECT WE WILL NEED TO ADD THE NEXT WATER TREATMENT PLANT OR EXPANSION? KNOWING WHAT WE WILL NEED AT MAX CAPACITY IS IMPORTANT I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT IS VELOCITY AND THE

MILESTONES. >> ALL THAT WILL BE LOOKED AT AND TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. WE WILL GROW INTO THAT. IT WON'T BE ONE AND DONE, WE WILL GROW INTO IT.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> MY ONLY QUESTION, I AM ASSUMEING IT IS PAID OUT OF UTILITY FUND?

>> YES, WE HAVE FUND ING. >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND? >> SECOND. BY MIKE. PLEASE VOTE.

[EXECUTIVE SESSION]