Sep 15, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission

>>> ALL RIGHT. IT'S 6:01 AROUND I'LL CALL TO

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

[00:00:09]

THE FIRST ITEM IS STAFF REVIEW OF THE CASES HEARD BY CITY

COUNCIL IN THE LAST 60 DAYS. >> ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. REVIEWING THE LAST CASES THAT WENT BEFORE THE PLANNING AND THE ZONING OF CITY COUNCIL.

FIRST THE ZONING FOR THE PLAIN VIEW ROAD.

THAT WENT BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON AUGUST 25.

WHICH THEY DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THAT ITEM.

THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA WAS A BILL ON THE SQUARE THAT LOOKED AT THE HAWKINS AND 14TH STREET.

THEY WERE REQUESTING TO BUILD SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 98 LOTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPING AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE VARIOUS CONDITIONS.

IN THE COUNCIL MEETING THE APPLICANT WITHDREW THE CASE FROM CONSIDERATION. SEPTEMBER 8, WE HAD A COUPLE OF CASES. 3283 WHERE THEY CHANGED IT FROM THE R3 TO UPD. TO CHANGE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPING TO A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE.

THAT IS ALONG 9TH STREET. THE PROPERTY DIRECT TOY THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY WAS CONVERTED TO A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE YEARS PRIOR. IT WENT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WHICH RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THIS ITEM. THERE IS AN ITEM THEY DID NOT HEAR. IT WAS ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT SO THEY COULD USE THE EXISTING, USE PART OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE PARKING. IN PREVIOUS YEARS THEY USED IT FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING BUT AFTER THE SURVEY THEY REALIZED IT ENCROACHED IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

SO THEY WENT THROUGH THE PROPER PROCESS TO GET IT APPROVED.

THE NEXT ITEM HIGH LANDER TED VENTURE SIGNS AND THEY ARE REQUESTING A WALL SIGN. PERMIT FOR THE WALL SIGN.

OVERALL SIGNAGE UNDER ALLOTTED SIGNAGE THAT WAS ALLOWED FOR THAT BUSINESS. RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL ALSO APPROVED THAT REQUEST. THE NEXT WAS KATY KOURT EAST THAT -- ABBEY KATY COURT EAST. THEY WANTED TO EXCEED THE 50% THRESHOLD. IT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA WAS MIDPARK PLANNING DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS SOUTH OF THE MOUNT ZION ON 14TH STREET.

THEY WERE, THIS WAS APPROVED RIDGALLY LAST YEAR OR EARLIER THIS YEAR -- ORIGINALLY LAST YEAR OR EARLIER THIS YEAR FOR THE SIX BUILDINGS THAT CONTAINED VARIOUS USES.

AS A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OF RESTAURANT, RETAIL AND PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL OFFICE. THEY CHANGED THE LAYOUT OF THE SITE AND THEY REQUESTED THAT THE USES BE FOR THE MEDICAL AND THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. THEY READIED PARKING TO ADDRESS THE MEDICAL AND THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE.

IN THAT ORDINANCE, THEY ARE PERMITTED TO DO THE OTHER USES.

IF; SUCH AS, RESTAURANT THROUGH S.U.P. PROCESS.

IF IT OCCURS THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COME BACK IN AND PRESENT THE SITE PLAN FOR THE PLANNING AND THE ZONING COMMISSION FOR CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.

I WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND ALSO BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA WAS MOCKING BIRD HEIGHTS. LOCATED BETWEEN KENSINGTON PARK NEIGHBORHOOD AND BAXTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

WHAT THEY REQUESTED TO DO IS CHANGE ZONING FROM THE AGRICULTURAL TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

WHEN THIS WENT BEFORE THE PLANNING AND THE ZONING COMMISSION VARIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS MADE PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION. CITY COUNCIL AGREED WITH THE PLANNING AND THE ZONING COMMISSION.

THEY APPROVED THE GARAGE AT 50%. THERE WAS MENTION OF THE ADDITIONAL PARKING BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

IT WAS NEVER ADDED AS PART OF THE MOTION.

WHEN COUNCIL APPROVED THIS AREQUIRED THE ADDITIONAL PARKING LOCATED TO SERVE THE PARKS AND THE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS

[00:05:03]

I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

>> DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE THE UPDATE.

THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS CITIZENS TO BE HEARD.

THIS IS WHERE WE INVITE CITIZENS TO SPEAK ON TOPICS WHICH ARE NOT

ALREADY ON THE AGENDA. >> REAL QUICK, I APOLOGIZE.

I WANT TO RECOGNIZE WE HAVE COMMISSIONER STEPHENS ON THE WEBEX CALL IN CON J CONJUNCTIONH THE REGULATIONS FROM THE

GOVERNOR. >> THANK YOU.

WELCOME COMMISSIONER, STEPHENS. >> THANK Y'ALL.

>> GOOD. IT WORKS.

ALL RIGHT. NOW, THIS IS TIME FOR THE

[002 Citizens to be heard-The Planning & Zoning Commission invites citizens to address the Commission on any topic not already scheduled for a Public Hearing. Citizens wishing to speak should complete a “Citizen Participation Form” and present it to City Staff prior to the meeting. In accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, the Commission cannot take action on items not listed on the agenda.]

IF YOU HAVE TOPICS TO SPEAK WE ASK THAT YOU LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES. WOULD ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA? SEEING NONE.

[Consent Agenda]

>> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> MOVED BY APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER DARRACH AND SECOND BY OSBORN.

ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE.

>> OPPOSED? SAME SIGN.

CONSENT AGENDA HAS BEEN VOTED UNANIMOUSLY.

[010 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance relating to the use and development of 9.74± acres, being a tract of land in the M. Brenan Survey, Abstract No. 43, by changing the zoning from Agricultural (A) District to a Single-Family Two (SF-2) District. The property is generally located at 1120 Apple Lane (Case No. Z33-2020-123).]

ITEM 10, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF 9.74 ACRES, BEING A TRACT OF LAND IN THE M. BRENAN SURVEY

APPLE LANE. >> THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG APPLE LANE. IT DOES CONTAIN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OVER NINE ACRES OF LAND. A CONCEPT PLAN IN ATTACHMENT NUMBER 3 SHOWED HOW THINGS MAY BE DIVIDED TO THE VARIOUS LOT SIZES. THIS IS ONLY TO GIVE AN IDEA OF HOW THE LAND CAN AND MAY BE DIVIDED.

IF THIS IS ZONED SF2, THE APPLICANT AND ANY OTHER WOULD ONLY NEED TO ADHERE TO THE BASE ZONING OF SF2.

THIS IS UNLIKE THE TYPICAL PLAN DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE BRING THROUGH THE PROCESS. WHICH ALLOWS FOR THE CERTAIN CONDITIONS. OR THEY BE APPLIED AND MET.

IF RESIGNED AND SUBDIVIDED THE NEW STRUCTURES WOULD HAVE TO ADHERE TO THE SF2 STANDARDS BUT THIS DOES ALLOW FOR THE 35% FRONT-ENTRY GARAGES. IT STATES THEY SHOULD BE OBSCURED BUT THE VIEW BUT THIS PROCEEDS 35% FOR THE ENTRY. THE PROPERTY SURROUNDED BY THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING AND THIS IS IN THE COUNTRY MODULE THAT DOES CALL FOR THE LOTS THAT RAGE WITHIN 1-3 ACRES IN SIZE.

BUT IT ALSO SAYS THAT IT SHOULD CORRESPONDENT WITH THE SF1 DISTRICT WITH A TWO-ACRE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT.

THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE SIZES OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

APPLE LANE WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED BY THE COUNTY.

SINCE ANNEXATION OF 2008 IT'S BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE CITY.

THE CURRENT WIDTH OF APPLE LANE IS 12 TO 13 FEET WIDE.

THAT IS ESSENTIALLY ABOUT THE SAME WIDST OF THE DRIVEWAY REQUIREMENTS. LETTER TOES THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET WERE MAILED AND THE STAFF RECEIVED THREE LETTERS IN OPPOSITION FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEY WERE PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSIONERS. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CALLS OUT A RANGE IN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZES.

BUT IT DOES SAY IT SHOULD CORRESPONDENT WITH THE SF1 ZONING DISTRICT. WHICH AS I SAID MINIMUM OF TWO ACRES. GIVEN EXISTING PROPERTIES SURROUNDING THIS PROPERTY, IN COMBINATION WITH TRADITIONAL

[00:10:12]

QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> I WANT TO CONFIRM IF WE APPROVE THIS IS MAXIMUM DENSITY IS ONE UNIT PER ACHIER?

>> THAT IS CORRECT, SIR. CORRECT.

>> THE MOST THEY COULD DO IS NINE UNITS ON THIS PROPERTY?

>> YES, SIR. NOW I SHOULD STATE ALSO THAT THE

SUBJECT PROPERTY 812 FEET WIDE. >> RIGHT.

SO 125 FEET WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR EACH LOT THEY DEVELOP.

YOU ARE TALKING MORE LIKE ALONG THE LINES OF SIX LOTS THEY COULD POSSIBLY DO. THAT IS IF THEY LITERALLY TEAR DOWN THIS HOUSE AND START FROM SCRATCH ALL OVER AGAIN.

>> OKAY. >> ASKING FOR A VARIANCE PROBABLY WOULDN'T FLY THROUGH ZBA.

>> UNDERSTOOD. >> NO SEWER?

>> IT WOULD BE ON SITE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, APPLICANT, WANTS TO SPEAK. JORDAN REINIS.

ARE YOU THE APPLICANT? AM I SAYING IT RIGHT?

>> REINIS. >> STATE YOUR ADDRESS AND MAKE

YOUR PRESENTATION. >> I'M JORDAN, 7460 DYLAN CIRCLE, MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TODAY. THE REQUEST THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU GIVING YOU HISTORY ON THE INITIAL REQUEST.

OUR INTENT DAY ONE AND THE REASON FOR THE ONE-ACRE ZONING IS WE WANT TO SELL OFF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE WITH ACRE AND A HALF OF PROPERTY. THAT IS THE INITIAL, THE DRAWING SUBMITTED WITH THE INITIAL APPLICATION.

ONLY DEPICTED THE DRAWING WHICH IS AROUND THE HOME AND THE 1.5 ACRES. THAT IS ALL WE ARE LOOKING TO DO TODAY. THAT IS THE REASON WE ARE SEEKING THE ONE-ACRE ZONING. THE OWNER WOULD LIKE TO BUILD ON THE PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE. PROBABLY IN THE AREA OF THE THREE-ACRE LOT TO THE EAST. BUT SINCE IT COSTS ENOUGH TO SELL OFF THE EXISTING HOME IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR THE OWNER TO RECOUP A LOT OF THE INITIAL INVESTMENT.

DECIDE WHAT WE DO WITH THE PROPERTY AS WE MOVE ON.

THIS LATEST RENDITION WAS DRAFTED AND SUBMITTED AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY STAFF WHEN THEY ASKED WHAT WE MIGHT DO WITH THE REST OF THE PROPERTY. TODAY WE DON'T HAVE PLANS TO DO THAT. BUT THE REASON WE SUBMITTED IT THIS WAY IS BASED ON THE ROAD FRONTAGE AND THE WAY THE ACRE AND A HALF WOULD BE SPLIT WITH THE HOME TO INCORPORATE THE CURRENT SEPTIC. AND TO MEET ALL THE CURRENT SETBACKS. WE DREW IT UP IN A WORSE CASE SCENARIO PLATFORM FOR YOU TO REVIEW.

SO ULTIMATELY IF THE ONE-ACRE ZONING WAS PUT IN PLACE, FIVE LOTS WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM WE WOULD DO AT SOME POINT BASED ON THE FRONTAGE. ULTIMATELY LIKE I MENTIONED THERE IS A LOT OF DESIRE TO POTENTIALLY HAVE THE OWNER BUILD ON THE PROPERTY. SO AT A IT LAE LATER POINT IN DE WOULD DECIDE WHAT TO ULTIMATELY DO WITH THE PROPERTY.

WE HAVE A BUYER FOR THE HOME. THAT IS PART OF THE REASON WE EXPENDED THE REQUEST. THEY EXPRESSED INTEREST FOR US TO INCLUDE -- WELL, RATHER WE DON'T WANT TO SELL FOUR ACRES OFF WITH THE HOUSE. SPEAKING THE TWO-ACRE ZONING OR -- BUT MEETING THE TWO-ACRE ZONING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THE PRICE POINT DOESN'T MATCH THE SALE OF THE EXCESS ACREAGE.

SO THE AGREEMENT AND THE AGREED PRICE POINT WE THINK WE CAN GET FOR THE HOME, 1.5 ACRE IS THE SWEET SPOT FOR GETTING THE MAXIMUM RETURN FOR US AND SELLING THE ADDITIONAL PROPERTY WITH IT AT A LOWER RATE. SO ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, WE UNDERSTAND ULTIMATELY BY GIVING US THE ONE-ACRE ZONING WE ARE NOT HELD AND BOUND BY THIS. I UNDERSTAND CONCERN THAT STAFF HAS MORE THAT. UNDERSTANDABLY SO.

WE WANT TO GIVE AN ACCURATE DEPICTION OF WHAT THE WORST SCACE SCENARIO WOULD BE FOR THE FRONTAGE WE HAVE.

THE OWNER WOULD LIKE TO BUILD THERE.

ANY GROWTH THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE WOULD BE CUSTOM HOMES, THAT WOULD ONLY ADD TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY ARE NOT -- WE ARE NOT LOOKING TO SUBDIVIDE LOTS AND

[00:15:03]

BUT THE REASON WE DID NOT DO PLAN DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL IN THE FIRST PLACE I FELT IT WAS OVERKILL TO SPLIT OFF THE ONE LOT. I REALIZE NOW WE ARE LOOKING AT A PICTURE OF FIVE SO THAT LOOKS DIFFERENT BUT OUR INTENTION WOULD BE TO JUST SELL OFF THE HOME IN THE ONE-ACRE LOT.

>> THAT IS MY QUESTION. IF YOU WANTED TO SELL OFF A ONE-ACRE LOT, WHY AREN'T WE ZONING THE ONE ACRE? I THINK IT WOULD BE A LOT LESS OF A PROBLEM FOR THE NEIGHBORS.

IT WOULD BE LESS OF A PROBLEM IF WE SPLIT IN TO TWO LOTS WITH THE OTHER LOT BEING FOR WHATEVER WOULD BE LEFT.

I MEAN, THAT JUST SEEMS LIKE -- BECAUSE WHEN YOU DO THIS, I MEAN ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU ARE TELLING US IS YOUR INTENT TO BUILD CUSTOM HOME ON THE LOT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE?

>> AT SOME POINT, YES. AT LEAST A CUSTOM HOME.

YES. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU.

THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS AS ARISES AND WE MAY ASK YOU TO COME BACK FOR REBUTTAL OR RESPONSE. THE FIRST PERSON I HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IS BRANT AND MINDY MALLOCK.

IF YOU WILL APPROACH. [INAUDIBLE]

>> YOU ARE NOT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? I'M SORRY. I MISREAD THAT.

THAT IS JUST REGISTERED IN OPPOSITION.

WE HAVE ANOTHER NONSPEAKER ANTHONY KELONA.

90. BRANTS WERE 991.

AND NONSPEAKER SIGNED UP IN OPPOSITION.

SUSAN SHORT SIGNED UP IN OPPOSITION.

MS. SHORT, DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK? NO THANK YOU.

751 APPLE LANE. STATES THE PROPERTY AG AND RURAL STATING THE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD REFLECT THE PROPERTIES.

ALSO HAVE MAT FABISH 941 APPLE LANE AS A NONSPEAKER IN OPPOSITION. WE HAVE DAVID SHORT SIGNED UP AS A SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION. 751 APPLE LANE.

MR. SHORT? IF YOU'D APPROACH AND STATE YOUR ADDRESS AND NAME FOR THE RECORD. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

>> MAY I TAKE THIS OFF? >> YES, SIR.

YOU MAY TAKE IT OFF. EASIER TO SPEAK.

>> DAVID SHORT. 751 APPLE LANE.

AND WE ARE ON THE 16 ACRES. WE HAVE COWS.

WE HAVE HORSES. OUR NEIGHBORS HAVE COWS.

I MEAN, THEY HAVE HORSES. THEY HAVE DONKEYS.

THEY HAVE BEES. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE OUR COMMUNITY STAY IN THE AG. SO, PEOPLE COMING IN -- BECAUSE WE HAVE PEOPLE COMING IN, WHO WOULD ENJOY BUYING THREE ACRES.

AND BRINGING A HORSE IN. OR BRINGING AN ANIMAL IN.

GOAT. IF YOU KEEP MAKING EVERYTHING ONE ACRE, YOU ARE JUST RUNNING THESE PEOPLE OFF TO MAY PEARL OR SOME OTHER PLACE WHERE THEY WANT TO BE IN THIS TOWN BECAUSE IT IS A FARMER-FRIENDLY TOWN. KINDA.

YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO BE ON 663 ABOUT 7:00 BECAUSE THEN EVERYBODY GOES CRAZY. I DO HOPE THAT YOU WOULD JUST SAY THREE ACRES IS A MINIMUM FOR THE PEOPLE COMING IN TOWN WHO WANT TO BUY SMALL ACREAGE SO THEY CAN TAKE THE SMALL KIDS AND GET THEM A PONY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

WHERE IF YOU CHANGE IT, IT'S OUT THE DOOR.

>> HOW MANY ACRES DO YOU LIVE ON, MR. SHORT?

>> RIGHT AT 16. >> 16.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. SHORT.

>> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT.

CYNTHIA SHANNON REGISTERED AS A NONSPEAKER IN OPPOSITION AT 1311 APPLE LANE. DEBBIE ROSEMIRES, NONSPEAKER IN OPPOSITION AT THE 1131 APPLE LANE.

JASON MI MEYERS AS A SPEAKER REGISTERED IN OPPOSITION.

MR. MEYERS? >> JASON MEYERS, 1131 APPLE LANE. I WANT TO COME VOICE MY COMPLETE OPPOSITION TO THIS. MY WIFE AND I LIVE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS PROPERTY IN QUESTION.

IF WE HAD WANTED TO LOOK AT FIVE OR SIX ROOFTOPS WE COULD HAVE FOUND A NEIGHBORHOOD TO DO THAT SOMEWHERE.

WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. WE ENJOY THE NEIGHBORHOOD THE WAY IT IS. WE HAVE ELBOW ROOM.

WE KNOW OUR NEIGHBORS. IT'S JUST NOT THE RIGHT FIT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I WOULD HOPE THAT THIS COMMISSION WOULD DENY THE REQUEST.

I WANT TO SAY THAT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

JOHN SHANNON REGISTERED AS A NONSPEAKER IN OPPOSITION.

111 APPLE LANE. WE ALSO HAVE A COUPLE OF LETTERS

[00:20:06]

DID MENTION HER HUSBAND WOULD BE HERE.

AND ALSO CONCERNS ABOUT THE ROAD AGAIN.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT I DID NOT CALL YOUR NAME THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC? SEEING NO ONE, DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANY RESPONSE BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? THANK YOU, SIR.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING?

>> MOTION TO CLOSE. >> BY COMMISSIONER DARRACH.

SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HILL.

IN ALL IN FAVOR, AYE? >> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. ANY DISCUSSION, CONCERNS?

>> I THINK MY ONLY POSITION ON THIS AND THIS IS A HARD THING TO GRASP FOR ME BECAUSE I SEE DEVELOPMENTS COMING IN WITH MUCH HIGHER DENSITIES AND MUCH OF THE SAME CONCERNS.

SO NORMALLY I WOULD LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, ON A ONE-ACRE LOT AND CALL AT IT HOME RUN AND THEN TRY TO CONVINCE EVERYONE IN THE ROOM OF THE SAME. BUT I KIND OF WANT TO STEP BACK FROM THAT TONIGHT BECAUSE I CAN APPRECIATE THAT ALL OF YOU ARE HERE AND YOU SEEM TO BE IN UNISON AND TOGETHER AS A TEAM IN OPPOSITION OF WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY START OUT AS A CHANGE IN WHERE YOU LIVE. SO I'M GOING TO SAY, YOU KNOW, FOR THE RECORD, THAT I HEAR YOU. I AGREE WITH YOU.

I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO IT FOR EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID.

NOW I CAN'T SAY THAT IT'S A BAD PLAN.

I DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK I'M SAYING THIS IS NOT A GOOD IDEA.

OKAY? I COULD SEE THAT IT IS PROBABLY NOT A GOOD REQUESTED FOR HERE. THAT IS WHAT I GOT.

IN-FILLS IS GOOD. BUT SOMETHING WE HAVE DONE WE NEED TO LOOK AT RURAL AREAS. WE HAD A MEETING A WHILE BACK ABOUT PUTTING A STORAGE BUILDING IN A RURAL AREA AND A LOT OF US WERE OPPOSED TO THAT ON THE P&Z BUT THE COMMISSION PASSED IT.

THEY PROBABLY PUT THIS IN A SUBURBAN MODULE AND REALLY Y'ALL CREATED ENCLAVE WHERE YOU HOLD TIGHT AND YOU KEEP IT AS RURAL MODULE. I THINK WE SHOULD HONOR THAT.

I THINK WE APPROVED WITH THE LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPROXIMATELY 200 ONE-ACRE LOTS. WE HAVE APPROVED QUITE A FEW SO THE MARKET IS PRETTY SATURATED ON THAT.

I WOULDN'T BE OPPOSED TO CARVING OFF TWO ACRES FOR THE NEW HOMEOWNER AND LEAVING THE OTHER SIX ACRES UNTOUCHED.

THAT IS PROBABLY MORE ACCEPTABLE.

BUT TO DO THIS TO CREATE ONE-ACRE LOTS I'LL HAVE TO SAY I'M OPPOSED TO THAT GIVEN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND THE FACT IT SHOULD WHEN WE RE-EVALUATE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ON THE NEXT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COME OUT AND GET YOURSELF CARVED OUT.

BUT IF YOU COME IN TWO YEARS FROM NOW AND YOU WANT TO PUT A ONE-ACRE LOT IN OR THREE UNITS AN ACRE WE WILL REMIND YOU OF THIS MEETING AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

YOUR CHILDREN, TOO. REMIND THEM.

[LAUGHTER] ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, MOTIONS?

>> I MOVE TO DENY THE APPLICANT. >> MOTION TO DENY BY

COMMISSIONER OSBORN. >> SECOND?

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DARRACH.

IN FAVOR? AYE.

OPPOSED? [APPLAUSE] THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE EVERYONE HERE, INCLUDING THE APPLICANT. THE NEXT ON THE AGENDA, YOU KNOW

[011 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance relating to the use and development of 5.823± acres on Lot 5, Block B, Crystal Forest Estates Phase IV, by changing the zoning from Agricultural (A) District to Single-Family Two (SF-2) District. The property is generally located at 4861 Monroe Court (Case No. Z31-2020-116).]

NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 11. WHICH IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE USE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF 5.8 ACRES GENERALLY AT 4861 MONROE COURT.

>> THANK YOU. PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED BY COMMISSIONER ALTMAN THIS IS A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST FROM THE

[00:25:01]

IT'S WITHIN THE AREA OF THE 2017 ANNEXATION IN SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE CITY. WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY CAME IN TO THE CITY, THIS CAME IN AS AG BASED OFF OF THE SIDES OF THE LOT. DURING THE ANNEXATION, WHAT THE CITY DID IS PART OF AN AGREEMENT WAS IF THE LOT WAS A CERTAIN SIZE WE WOULD ZONE THIS SF-1. IF IT EXCEEDED THE TWO ACRES IT WOULD JUMP UP TO THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT.

MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTIES THAT SURROUND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY REAR THIS ZONED AGRICULTURAL BUT MAJORITY ARE THE SINGLE FAMILY ZONE 1 DISTRICT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SINGLE FAMILY 1 DISTRICTS MAJORITY OF THEM DO NOT MEET DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT WERE CHANGED IN 2018 OF NOVEMBER.

TODAY IF YOU WERE TO PLACE A ZONING CLASSIFICATION THAT BETTER FIT THESE PROPERTIES IT WOULD BE SF2.

APPLICATION REQUESTED TO CHANGE ZONING TO SF2 TO SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY TO TWO LOTS. SUSPECT PROPERTY HERE.

ALONG MONROE COURT. STAFF DID SENT OUT NOTICES TO THE ALL PROPERTY OWNERS IN 200 FEET.

17 NOTICES. WE DID RECEIVE ONE LETTER IN SUPPORT. NOTHING IN OPPOSITION.

STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL DUE TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. THEIR ACTUAL SIZE BEING MORE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE SF2 DISTRICT DOES STATE.

WHEREAS IN THE PREVIOUS CASE WE HAVE A DIFFERENT SITUATION.

WHERE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTIES WERE LARGER THAN THE REQUEST, IT WAS COMPLETE OPPOSITE. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING. >> THE ONLY ACCESS OFF OF MONROE

COURT? >> CORRECT.

>> HOW WOULD THEY SPLIT THAT LOT WITH THE EXISTING RESIDENCE ON

THERE? >> IT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOT WIDTH.

IT IS GOING TO LITERALLY BE THE LOT LINE, IT'S APPROXIMATELY RIGHT HERE. WHICH WOULD GIVE BOTH, WHICH WOULD GIVE BOTH PROPERTY AND THE LOT SIZE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE AND MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT?

>> I MIGHT ASK A QUICK QUESTION. >> COME FORWARD AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF. GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS.

>> THANK YOU. WILLIAM JASPER, 4861 MONROE COURT. THE REASON WE APPLIED AT SF2 IS THE CURRENT PARAMETER OF THE SF1, SF2 AND AG.

WE HAVE 253 STREET LINE ON MONROE COURT.

THAT IS GOING TO BE SUITABLE FOR THE TWO SF2 LOTS AT 125 FEET OF STREET LINE. WHAT WE'LL END UP WITH ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER. APPROXIMATELY SINGLE ACRE LOT THAT IS THE APPROPRIATE WIDTH. THE REST IS FIVE ACRES.

OUR 4.83 ACRES. 125 FEET OF THE STREET LINE.

BEYOND THAT, I DON'T THINK WE WILL BE ABLE TO SUBDIVIDE IT AT ALL. FAMILY MEMBER SITUATION RETIRED FROM THE MILITARY COMING IN TO BUILD A HOUSE.

COMING HOME TO TEXAS. MY QUESTION IS EVERYTHING ELSE AROUND IT IS GOING TO BE SF1 PER THE PRIOR LOT SIZE AND THE STREET SIZE. EXCUSE ME.

THE STREET FRONTAGE. SO WE WILL HAVE EVERYTHING ELSE AROUND IT BEING SF1. FOR ME PERSONALLY IT DOESN'T MATTER. THE NEW LOT IS SF2 AND A FIVE-ACHE LOT BEING SF2. IF IT WILL CAUSE ANY CONFUSION IN THE FUTURE I DIDN'T KNOW TO ASK FOR AVACIOUS FOR ANYTHING OR JUST GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE WITH THE SF2 APPLICATION.

IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO ME TO BE HONEST.

>> WHEN MR. JASPER CAME IN REQUESTING TO BUILD, TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO SUBDIVIDE HIS PROPERTY WE WENT THROUGH VARIOUS ANALYSIS OF LOOKING THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS.

ONE OF THE CRITERIA IS CAN THE PROPERTY BE REZONED? WHAT IS THE CONDITION OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES? STAFF RECOMMENDATION DO NOT GO FORWARD WITH THE VARIANCE.

WE DIDN'T FEEL THAT IT FIT THE CRITERIA OF THE VARIANCE AND THE SAME THING COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY AND THE REGULATIONS, REZONING WOULD BE THE BEST FIT TO MAKE IT

CONFORMING LOT. >> THANK YOU.

[INAUDIBLE] >> CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU. >> WE HAVE ONE COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS AGENDA ITEM. IT'S FROM --

[00:30:01]

SUPPORT THE CASE.

ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER? SEEING NONE, DO I HAVE A MOTION

TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? >> MOTION TO CLOSE.

>> MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BY COMMISSIONER DARRACH.

SECOND BY THE COMMISSIONER KOEHLER.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

OPPOSED? PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

ANY DISCUSSIONS OR MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER HILL. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DARRACH.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. IT IS APPROVED.

ALL RIGHT. UNANIMOUSLY.

[012 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance relating to the use and development of ±52.35 acres Martha Brenan Survey, Abstract No. 43 of Ellis County, Texas and being part of that certain 44.08 acre tract of land conveyed by deed to Cassandra Marshall Smart, generally located at the intersection of 14th Street and Ashford Lane by changing the zoning from Agricultural (A) District to Planned Development District No. 133 (PD-133) (Ridgepoint Subdivision) for residential uses (Case No. Z27-2020-106).]

I THINK I HAVE TO LEAVE. I HAVE TO LEAVE, RIGHT?

>> CORRECT. >> MEMBER DARRACH: NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA ITEM 12. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF 52.35 ACRES FROM THE MARTHA BRENAN SURVEY.

LET'S SEE. ABSTRACT 43, ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING PART OF A CERTAIN 44.08 ACRE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY DEED TO CASSANDRA MARSHALL SMART.

GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF 14TH STREET AND ASHFORD LANE BY CHANGING THE ZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL "A" TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 133.

I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU, MARCOS.

>> THANK YOU, VICE-CHAIR. THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL. YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THE SCREEN.

THIS DOES LIE WITHIN SUBURBAN LOAD MODUME OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT CALLS FOR THE LOTS OF THE HALF ACRE IN SIZE SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU FIND ACROSS THE WAY IN BRANDY RIDGE SUBDIVISION ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF 14TH STREET.

BASED ON THE APPLICATION PROPOSAL, LOT SIZE AND THE GARAGE ORIENTATION THE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN.

MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 9,000 SQUARE FEET THROUGHOUT THE MAJORITY OF THE SITE. THERE IS A MINIMUM OF 20,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF 14TH STREET.

THE APPLICANT HAS INCLUDED EIGHT-FOOT WIDE WALKING TRAILS, EQUIPPED PLAYGROUND WITH A PAVILION.

SIDEWALKS WILL BE INSTALLED ALONG 14TH STREET AND THE ASHFORD LANE. THEY WILL HAVE THE MASONRY WALLS RUNNING ALONG 14TH STREET WITH THE STREET TREES AND THEY PROPOSING ROD IRON FENCING ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE WITH A LIVING SCREEN WALL. EXISTING TREES WILL BE PRESERVED ON THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY AS WELL AS RIGHT ALONG THE INTERSECTION OF ASHFORD AND 14TH STREET. ROAD STOPES ADDED EAST FOR THE FUTURE CONNECTIVITY. DECORATIVE STREET LIGHTS THROUGHOUT AND ENHANCED STAMP-STAINED CONCRETE AT EACH OF THE INTERSECTION. THIS IS ALSO IN YOUR STAFF REPORT AND COMPARES EXISTING VERSUS WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING. APPLICATION ASKING FOR AT LEAST 65% FOR THE FRONT-ENTRY GARAGES. THIS SLIDE HERE SHOWS THE TYPE OF THE GARAGES PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT.

YOU CAN SEE IT'S FORWARD OF THE HOME.

THE FRONT ENTRY GARAGES WOULD BE PLUSH WITH THE FRONT FACADE.

HERE ARE THE CLOSEUPS OF THE COMMON AREAS THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING. THIS IS THE PLAY AREA AND THE PAVILION WITH THE EXAMPLE OF THE MASONRY WALL.

THE STAFF REPORT SHOWS 34 LETTERS THAT WERE SENT OUT.

IT WASN'T 34. I APOLOGIZE.

THERE WAS ONLY 16 LETTERS THAT WERE SENT OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS. TO DATE STAFF RECEIVED SIX LETTERS IN FAVOR OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AT A MINIMUM WE BELIEVE TRACK "A" SHOULD CONTAIN TRANSITIONAL LOTS SIMILAR TO THE SAME LOTS THAT YOU FIND IN THE TRACT "B" AREA.

[00:35:08]

>> I MIGHT HAVE MISSED THIS. THE AVERAGE LOT WIDTH ON THIS?

>> THE AVERAGE LOT WIDTH? >> I BELIEVE MOST OF THE LOTS SHOULD BE 72 FEET WIDE. I THINK THAT MIGHT BE SHOWN ON THE TABLE. RIGHT UP HERE IT SAYS THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH. TYPICALLY IN THE AG YOU HAVE 300. THEY WOULD LOOK AT 70.

95 ON THE 20,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS.

>> IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> JUST SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID A MOMENT AGO INSTEAD OF 34,

YOU SENT OUT 16 LETTERS? >> CORRECT.

YOU HAD SIX RESPONSES ALL IN FAVOR?

>> CORRECT. YES, SIR.

34 ONLY BECAUSE BRANDY RIDGE IS ACTUALLY OWNED BY ONE OWNER.

WHEN WE ACTUALLY SENT ALL OF THIS, THIS AREA HERE IS PLATTED.

BUT THIS IS ONE OWNER. OF THOSE 34, THAT WAS DWINDLED

DOWN TO 16, SIR. >> ONE MORE THING FOR YOU, MARCOS. CAN YOU PULL UP THE SLIDE AGAIN WHERE THE CITY, OR THE STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL MEETING

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS? >> SURE.

ABSOLUTELY. >> IS THAT IN MY PAPER?

>> YES, SIR. IT SHOULD BE UNDER THE

RECOMMENDATION SHEET. >> OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE GARAGE RESTRICTIONS ARE ON THE LAST PHASE OF RANDY RIDGE?

>> THEY SHOULD ALL BE SIDE-ENTRY GARAGES.

IN BRANDY RIDGE. I BELIEVE SO.

I BELIEVE -- LET ME SEE IF I HAVE A LARGER IMAGE HERE.

YEAH, THEY ARE ALL SIDE-ENTRY GARAGES.

THIS BACK PART WILL BE ALL SIDE ENTRY.

THEY DO HAVE A DESIGNATION OF SF2.

GO BACK TO THE SF2. SF2 DOES ALLOW UP TO 35% FRONT-ENTRY. TECHNICALLY SPEAKING ONCE THESE HOMES ACTUALLY DO DEVELOP, 35% OF THIS SECTION HERE, THIS, I GUESS WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER THE PHASE THREE CAN HAVE UP TO 35% FOR THE FRONT ENTRY. BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT PHASE ONE AT THE FRONT SIDE, ALL OF THOSE SHOULD BE SIDE ENTRY.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? HEARING NONE, I'LL PASS TO THE APPLICANT.

DOES APPLICANT WISH TO MAKE A PRESENTATION?

>> THANK YOU. I'M TODD WINTERS WITH THE ENGINEERING CONCEPTS FROM WILY, TEXAS, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT FOR THE PROJECT. WE HAVE 150 LOTS AS MARCOS DOES A GREAT JOB PRESENTING THESE THINGS SO I WON'T GO IN TOO MUCH DETAIL. WE HAVE THE FIVE LOTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE 14TH STREET, WHICH WE WILL STAY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE EXISTING BRANDY RIDGE.

THEY ARE HALF ACRE AND ONE IS EVEN ONE ACRE BECAUSE OF THE DEPTH THERE. ON THAT SIDE THERE WE WILL EXTEND BRANDY RIDGE OUT TO HAVE A MEDIAN BREAK CROSSOVER THERE WITH THE LEFT TURN LANES IN THESE PROTECTED LEFT TURN LANES IN THERE. THAT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW AS WELL. WE'LL DO DECORATIVE ENTRANCES THERE WITH THE STAINED CONCRETE AND THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE GOING IN NOW. ON THIS SIDE HERE BECAUSE OF THE BIG LOTS WE WANT TO DO A LIVE SCREENING.

WE'LL HAVE A ROD IRON FENCE WITH A BURM AND THE PLANTING AND THE TREES. MARCOS ASK WE PROVIDE TREES TO PROVIDE SHADE FOR THE 14TH STREET THERE.

THIS SIDE HERE WILL BE DIFFERENT.

ON EAST SIDE WE HAVE 15-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH A SCREENING WALL ALONG THE 14TH STREET.

IT DOES PROVIDE SEPARATION. YOU CAN SEE HOW 14TH STREET KIND OF HAD TO GO AROUND TO THE SOUTH AND IT LEFT US A CORNER THERE THAT WE MADE THAT WORK. WE WILL HAVE A SCREENING WALL ON THE EASTSIDE. WITH THE 15-FOOT LANDSCAPED AREA

[00:40:01]

RUSTY RUN DRIVE, WE WILL EXTEND THAT THROUGH THE SITE.

WEST TO EAST THROUGH THE SITE. THAT IS ON THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

WE HAVE A WIDER RIGHT-OF-WAY AND A WIDER PAVING.

WE WILL BUILD THE THOROUGHFARE. WE HAVE SHOWN MAILBOX LOCATION.

SOMETHING TO TOUCH ON IS THE TREE PRESERVATION AREA.

WE WILL PRESERVE TREES ALONG THE SOUTH LINE AND MAKE SURE WE STAY AWAY FROM THOSE TO KEEP THAT BUFFER THERE FOR THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER. THE TREAT PRESERVATION AREA DOWN HERE THERE IS DRAINAGE THAT CUTS THROUGH FROM BRANDY RIDGE, CUTS ACROSS THE PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE THERE.

THROUGH THE TREE PRESERVATION AREA, WE WILL LEAVE TREES.

WE WILL GO IN THERE AND CLEAN THEM UP.

TRIM THEM UP. IT WILL BE A NICE GRASS AREA TO USE THAT AS AN OPEN SPACE AREA. WE WILL PRESERVE ALL THE TREES.

MASONRY WALL WILL GO TO LOT 39. IT BACK UP TO THE TREE AREA AND IT WILL BE SOMEWHAT OF A PARK SETTING.

WE HAVE A SIDEWALK DOWN 14TH STREET.

TEN-FOOT TRAIL INSTALLED ON THE WEST SIDE.

WE WILL PUT FIVE OR A SIX FOOT SIDEWALK ON THE EAST SIDE.

WE WILL HAVE CONNECTIVITY TRAIL THROUGH THE GAS LINE EASEMENT THERE. WE HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT ABOUT THAT. WE HAVE ISSUES WITH THE CONNECTION THAT WE WILL WORK OUT WITH THE CITY STAFF.

WE HAVE A PARK. EVERYBODY IS WITHIN A FIVE-MINUTE WALK OF THIS WALKING TRAIL TO GET TO IT.

HAVE A NICE PLAYGROUND AND THE PAVILION AND A LITTLE PULL OFF PLACE FOR THE MAILBOX SO PEOPLE CAN STOP TO CHECK THE MAIL AS WELL. I JUST WANT TO TOUCH ON THOSE THINGS. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT YOUR QUESTION, TOO. THE LOTS ARE A MINIMUM 72-FOOT WIDE. REASON THERE IS 70, THAT IS MINIMUM. AT THE CORNER IT'S 70 BY THE FRONT BY THE TIME YOU GET TO THE BUILDING LINE IT'S 72.

THAT ALLOWS FOR A 60-FOOT PAD. WE HAVE THE SIX FOOT SIDE YARD.

THEY ARE 60-FOOT WIDE. WHICH ALLOWS FOR AND CHIP BOYD IS HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE GARAGE ORIENTATIONS.

60-FOOT WIDE PAD ALLOWS FOR J-SWING, FRONT ENTRY OR SIDE ENTRY. HE WILL TOUCH ON THAT TO TALK ABOUT THE FIRST OF THE TWO CONDITIONS THAT WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT. THE SECOND CONDITION TALKING ABOUT THE TRANSITION LOT. ON THE SOUTH AND THE EAST SIDE.

SO AS THIS DEVELOPS EAST, WE HAVE TWO STREETS.

RUSTY RUN DRIVE AS SOON AS IT GETS TO THE NEXT PROPERTY IT WILL VEER NORTH AND DIE BACK TO ASHFORD.

THIS WILL BE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE GAS LINE.

THERE ARE ONLY FOUR LOTS TO GAS LINE.

LOT 7-12 THEY ARE EXTRA BIG AND THEY WILL BE FAR AWAY FROM THE LINE. I THINK WE ARE OKAY THERE.

SO IT NARROWS IT DOWN TO THE EAST AREA HERE.

IF WE NEED TO LOSE ONE LOT IN THAT AREA TO SPREAD THOSE OUT OR SOMETHING WE WOULD BE OKAY WITH THAT.

IF YOU ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR ME I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

I WOULD LIKE CHIP TO TALK ABOUT THE HOUSES.

HE IS WITH THE BUILDER AND HE CAN TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS. WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

UNLESS YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR ME.

>> QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE? >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

IS THERE ANY -- I MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO SEE IT.

IS THERE ANYWHERE APPLYING FOR DETENTION?

>> SOUTHEAST CORNER. THAT IS A DETENTION POND.

THERE IS A RIDGE THAT CUTS RIGHT ALMOST BY THE PROPERTY SO THAT IS DETENTION POND FOR THE WATER ON THAT SIDE.

COMMON AREA OUTSIDE THE TREE AREA.

2X. IT WILL BE DETENTION BEFORE THE WATER GOES UNDER ASHFORD LANE. LIKELY REPLACE THE CULVERT UNDER

ASHFORD BECAUSE IT'S UNDERSIZED. >> SO THERE IS A RIDGE?

>> IT ALMOST SPLITS IT. [INAUDIBLE] WE DEFINITELY WILL. WE'LL HAVE TWO DETENTION PONDS.

>> OKAY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE NEXT REPRESENTATIVE? THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING. I'M CHIP BOYD WITH JAKE'S DEVELOPMENT 421 CENTURY WAY IN RED OAK, TEXAS.

THANK THE COMMISSION AND THANK YOU, STAFF, FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE P.D. ONE OF THE ELEPHANTS IN THE ROOM HAS BEEN GARAGES LATELY. I KNOW THAT HAS BEEN A BIG TOPIC. ONE WORTHY OF DISCUSSION.

I WANT TO COME UP AND TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MY EXPERIENCE AND WHAT WE ARE HOPING TO GET HERE WITH THE REQUEST FOR THE 65% FRONT ENTRY AS WELL AS THE J-SWING.

[00:45:04]

OFTEN IN MY EXPERIENCE WHEN IT GETS TO BE JUST ONE PRODUCT ALLOWED YOU START LOSING THE DIVERSITY.

YOU START TO LOSE SOME OF THE FEEL FOR THE COMMUNITY AND SOME OF THOSE THINGS THAT KIND OF HELP THE STREETSCAPE AS YOU MOVE THROUGH THE BUILDING PROGRAM. ONLY SO MANY WAY TO DESIGN A CERTAIN STYLE OF HOME, WHERE THE MASTER BEDROOM IS, THE KITCHEN SITS AND ET CETERA. OFFERING UP A SIDE SWING, J-SWING AND THE FRONT ENTRY IT ALLOWS THE MARKET TO DECIDE TO CREATE THE DIVERSITY TO GET THE STREETSCAPE WE ARE LOOKING FOR.

THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS AS I'M NEW TO THE AREA WORKING FOR JOHN FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS BUT SEEING THE PERCENTAGE ALLOWED SEEMED MORE REASONABLE AND MADE MORE SENSE TO ME THAN JUST SHUTTING DOWN ONE OR THE OTHER. SO IF YOU LOOK UP HERE, THESE ARE THE EXAMPLES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

ONE THING WE BELIEVE MAKES A QUALITY COMMUNITY AND A QUALITY SINCE OF ARRIVAL IS THE HOME CONSTRUCTION, QUALITY OF THE PRODUCT. I THINK WE SOMETIMES GET FOCUSED ON CERTAIN THINGS. I THINK THE FRONT ENTRY GARAGE IS ONE OF THEM. I AGREE IT DOESN'T ALWAYS LOOK IF YOU HAVE THE SNOUT HOUSES AND ALL YOU SEE IS GARAGE UP AND DOWN THE STREET. ON CERTAIN PERCENTAGES AND GIVING THE FLEXIBILITY YOU ARE LETTING THE MARKET DETERMINE WHAT THEY WANT. WE APPRECIATE THE RECOMMENDATION. TRULY, FOR APPROVAL WITH THE CAVEATS. I WOULD MAKE THE APPEAL I THINK WE WILL END UP WITH A FAR BETTER END PRODUCT IF WE ARE ALLOWED TO DO ALL THREE. JUST FOR NOTE, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THE COMMUNITIES NORTH AND SOUTH THAT HAVE THE SAME PERCENTAGE BLEND. THAT IS SOMETHING WE ARE COMPETING AGAINST AS WELL. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO OPEN IT UP TO ALL THREE PRODUCTS. I'LL BE HAPPY TO SPEAK TO THAT

IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS ON IT. >> ANY QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE,

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU.

>> MOTIONS? >> CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?

AYE. >> CAN WE PUT BACK UP ON THE BOARD THE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF?

>> I THINK WE NEED COMMISSIONER STEPHENS.

KEVIN, DO WE HAVE A QUORUM WITHOUT HER?

>> YEAH. [INAUDIBLE]

>> WE CAN HEAR HER VOTE. >> BEAR WITH US, EVERYONE.

>> I CAN HEAR YOU. >> FANTASTIC.

CAN WE GET YOUR VOTE ON THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE CLOSE TO

PUBLIC HEARING? >> YES.

I VOTE FOR IT. >> ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD. MAKE SURE YOU ARE TAL TALKING IN

YOUR MICROPHONE. >> MAKE SURE WE ARE LOUD AND CLEAR IN THE MICROPHONE OR SHE CAN'T HEAR US.

PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. DISCUSSIONS, QUESTIONS,

COMMENTS? >> I HAVE A QUESTION OF THE COUNCIL.

>> SIR? >> MY QUESTION IS IF WE RECOMMEND THE STAFF TWO ITEMS UP HERE, CAN WE JUST SAY WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE TWO ITEM FROM THE STAFF OR DO WE HAVE TO READ THOSE IN TO THE RECORD?

>> NO, I THINK AS LONG AS THEY ARE IN THE STAFF REPORT, YOU CAN

REFER TO THESE. >> IF WE SAY AS RECOMMENDED BY

STAFF? >> AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

I TELL YOU WHAT. I'M A LITTLE -- NUMBER ONE IS PRETTY EASY. NUMBER TWO HAS AN IMPACT ON THE DRAWING ON THE SITE PLAN. SO I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IF YOU ACCEPT THAT RECOMMENDATION.

I'M NOT SAYING DON'T DO IT. I'M JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW, BEFORE WE APPROVE, BEFORE IT GOES TO COUNCIL, OR BEFORE THE COUNCIL APPROVED THE ORDINANCE WE'D NEED A REDRAWING OF THE CONCEPT PLAN ATTACHED TO DRAFT ORDINANCE NOW TO IMPLEMENT THAT.

I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT, THAT WOULD ALSO HAVE TO OCCUR.

>> THAT IS ACUMING THAT YOU ASST IT FORWARD WITH THE RECOMMENDED

[00:50:04]

CHANGES? >> RIGHT.

>> WITH THAT, I WOULD, IF THERE IS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.

DIDN'T YOU ALREADY SAY THAT YOU WOULD DO THE BIGGER LOTS ON THE EAST BOUNDARY? YOU DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH

NUMBER TWO, RIGHT? >> THAT WAS THE ONE TO SPREAD OUT THAT BOUNDARY. [INAUDIBLE]

>> THE ONLY THING I WANT TO BRING UP P UP, NOT IN FAVOR OR AGAINST BUT I WANT TO BRING IT UP WITH WE HAVE A NICE WIDE LOT BUT SOMEHOW WE STILL ENDED UP WITH THE FIVE-FOOT SETBACKS.

YOU KNOW, THAT IS SOMETHING TO BE SAID FOR THAT.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE TO THROW IT OUT THERE FOR YOU GUYS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS?

>> THE LAST SUBDIVISION SIMILAR TO THIS, IF I UNDERSTOOD IT WAS 50% FOR FRONT ENTRY. WOULD YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, WOULD THE DEVELOPER HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT? [INAUDIBLE] I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE WITH THE 50% FRONT ENTRY. THEY WOULD DO THE BIGGER LOTS AS ADDRESSED IN NUMBER TWO THERE. MAKE SENSE?

>> I GOT THAT. KEVIN, YOU GOT THAT? ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE 50% FRONT ENTRY AND J-SWING.

TO ALSO INCLUDE THE LARGER TRANSITIONAL LOTS PLACED ALONG THE EASTERN AND THE SOUTH BOUNDARY WITHIN TRACT "A." MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> I'LL SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.

CAN WE GET A VOTE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?

>> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED?

>> AYE. NAY.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO THE MOTION PASSES 4-1.

THANK YOU. IF ANYONE WANTS TO CALL DAN IN.

I'M NOT SURE WHERE HE IS AT. >> I'LL GET HIM.

HE IS RIGHT HERE. >> THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA,

[013 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance relating to the use and development of 966.35± acres out of the Robert Hosford Survey, Abstract No. 533, JL Blanton Survey, Abstract No 1284, Jourdan Powers Survey, Abstract No 838, William Lick Survey, Abstract 620, John Early Survey Abstract No 3473, Joseph Witherspoon Survey, Abstract No. 1137, Isaac Cooper Survey, Abstract No 226, Elizabeth Rice Survey, Abstract No. 929, AR Newton Survey, Abstract 807, West Wilkins Survey, Abstract No 1162, J Kyser Survey, Abstract No 597, Z Heath Survey, Abstract No 455, Puerta Irrigation Company Survey, Abstract No 1240 and the James P. Neill Survey, Abstract No 1387, by changing the zoning from Planned Development District No. 75 (PD-75) to a new Planned Development District (PD) for a mixed-use development which includes residential, commercial and industrial uses. The property is generally located north of U.S. Highway 287, between South Walnut Grove Road and Rex Odom Drive (Case No. Z21-2019-141).]

>> THANK YOU. IN AUGUST WE CAME BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION AND THE TIME IT WAS DISCUSSED BETWEEN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND STAFF AND THE APPLICANT THAT WE WOULD GO BACK AND WORK ON THE ORDINANCE MORE TO TIGHTEN THINGS UP TO GET IT TO A PLACE THAT BOTH STAFF, THE APPLICATION, FELT COMFORTABLE MOVING THE DOCUMENT FORWARD. OVER THE LAST MONTH SINCE THE LAST MEETING THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON.

WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPER TO COME ONE AN ORDINANCE THAT STAFF FEELS COMFORTABLE WITH AND TIGHTEN UP SOME OF THE AREAS THAT THE STAFF DID HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN FRONT OF YOU, GIVE YOU A BRIEF HISTORY ON IT. IN 2015 OF FEBRUARY, PREVIOUS PROPERTY OWNER CAME IN AND REZONED THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AS WELL AS INDUSTRIAL. AT THAT TIME THEY WERE AWARDED A DENSITY OF 3.5 DEVELOPING UNITS AN ACRE.

THEY ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE APPROXIMATELY 2700 LOTS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. APPLICANT, I WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP THAT IN 2015 THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF 287 WAS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE OVERALL NUMBER. HOWEVER, THAT ORDINANCE, THERE IS VARIOUS CAVEATS WHERE CERTAIN SECTIONS COULD DO MORE USES.

OVERALL, THOUGH, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY IS PROPOSING LESS LOTS IN COMPARISON TO WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. WHAT THEY ARE ASKING 2NA 125 RESIDENTIAL -- 2,125 RATIONAL LOTS.

160 TOWN HOMES AND THEN DETACHED DWELLINGS.

THE TOWNHOMES WILL BE IN THE AREA OFF 287 AND NOT ANYWHERE ELSE THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT. DEVELOPER HAS CREATED THE DEVELOPMENT MIX AROUND THE LOTS USING VARIOUS THOROUGHFARES TO GIVE THE BEST CAPACITY THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT.

[00:55:02]

THE LOT WIDTHS RANGE FROM ANYWHERE FROM THE 20 FEET DUE TO THE TOWNHOMES. THEY WILL BE INDIVIDUALLY PLATTED LOTS ON SMALLEST LOT OUTSIDE OF THE TOWNHOMES WITH THE 40 FEET. WHAT IS APPROVED IS 50 FEET.

THE MINIMUM LOT DEPTH IS 112 FOR LOTS OUTSIDE OF THE TOWNHOMES.

PRIOR TO THAT, THEY WERE 105 FEET.

YOU CAN SEE IN THE REGULATIONS THERE IS A LOT OF THE GIVE-AND-TAKE OF WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE AND WHAT IS NOW.

SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT CHANGED THAT STAFF HAD CONCERNED ABOUT WAS THE AMENITIES WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.

THE AMENITIES, I'M GOING BACK AND FORTH.

SOME OF THE CONCERNS WERE HOW WOULD WE APPROPRIATELY ADDRESS THE AMENITY PHASING? THROUGH THIS, WE CAME ONE A PLAN OF HOW TO ADDRESS THE AMENITY PHASING.

WHEN CERTAIN AMENITIES WOULD BE REQUIRED BASED ON THE NUMBER OF THE BUILDING PERMITS AND BASED OFF OF WHEN THAT AREA IS BEING FINAL PLATTED. THE AMENITIES ARE REQUIRED TO BE DONE, DEPENDING ON WHICH TYPE OF AMENITY, REQUIRED TO BE DONE IN THE 180 DAYS AFTER THE INFRASTRUCTURE COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED BY THE CITY. THINGS; SUCH AS, THE COMMUNITIES CENTER WHERE IT'S A LOT LARGER. THEY ARE DOING, THEY HAVE REQUESTED THAT THE COMMUNITY AMENITY CENTER IN PHASE ONE, BE COMPLETED 270 DAYS AFTER THE 400 BUILDING PERMIT.

PHASE TWO, PORTION OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER BE COMPLETED AFTER THE 1,000TH PERMIT. THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LARGE DEVELOPMENTS. WE GO BACK TO THE VER RIDDIAN.

THEY DID A SIMILAR AMENITIES. THE TRAIL HEAD AND THE POCKET PARKS WILL BE DONE IN THE 180 DAYS AFTER THE INFRASTRUCTURE

HAS BEEN COMPLETED. >> MEMBEANOTHERCONCERN ARE THE S PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. HOW WERE WE GOING TO GARNER THE NONRESIDENTIAL USES? THE NONRESIDENTIAL USES, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND FIX. THERE ARE CERTAIN USES PERMITTED BY RIGHT. CERTAIN USES ARE REQUIRED SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. SUCH AS, RESTAURANTS.

WE WERE ABLE TO COME ONE A NUMBER OF RESTAURANTS OVER 2,000 SQUARE FEET THAT WOULD REQUIRE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

PRIOR TO REVISIONS. THERE WERE OTHER USES THAT WERE PERMITTED BY RIGHT THAT THE APPLICANT PULLED BACK ON BECAUSE THEY SAW AFTER COMING TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THEY SAW CONCERN THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HAD. WITH THAT IN MIND THERE IS ALSO AN ADDITIONAL CLAUSE WITHIN THE ORDINANCE STATING THAT ALL NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO GO BEFORE THE PLANNING AND THE ZONING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPROVAL. PRIOR TO ANY NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS OCCURRING THEY ARE REQUIRED TO COME BACK BEFORE YOU AND THE COUNCIL FOR THE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE USES.

THAT IS ADDING AN ADDITIONAL STAGE.

GOING BACK TO THE RESIDENTIAL SECTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THERE IS SEVEN RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT TYPES THAT RANGE AS I SAID BEFORE, MINIMUM LOT AREAS RANGING FROM THE 2,000, THE TOWN HOUSES AGAIN. I DO BELIEVE THAT IS A CAVEAT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. LOOK AT THE REGULAR SIZE LOTS GOING FROM 4,480 SQUARE FEET TO 15,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS.

MINIMUM HOUSE SIZE OF THE AIR CONDITIONING SPACE, RANGING FROM -- THIS IS EXCLUDING TOWNHOME -- 1,500 SQUARE FEET UP TO 3,000 SQUARE FEET FOR THE MINIMUM HOME SIZES.

LAST YEAR THE STATE LEGISLATION APPROVED A BILL THAT NO LONGER ALLOWS THE CITY TO GOVERN BUILDING MATERIAL USE.

THAT IS A CONCERN WE HAVE HAD WITH THE MANY DEVELOPMENTS.

WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AND BRING IN THE HIGH QUALITY PRODUCTS. THEY HAVE FOLLOWED UP ON A LOT OF WHAT THEY PROMISED THE CITY. WE USED ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS IN LIEU OF ENFORCING THE BUILDING MATERIALS.

WITH THIS SPECIFICALLY THROUGH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND GOVERNING DOCUMENTS THEY WILL HAVE TO UNDERTAKE, THE DEVELOPMENT, THEY WILL CONTAIN DESIGN RESTRICTION ON BUILDING MATERIALS. RESTRICTIONS ON DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. SO EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE NOT

[01:00:05]

STAFF DOES FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS IN A PLACE WE COULD SUPPORT THE PROJECT. WE FILE THAT THIS IS A BETTER ORDINANCE THAN WHAT WAS APPROVED PRIOR IN 2015.

WE NOTICE THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE 200 FEET.

I HAD SOME GOOD DIALOGUE WITH THE ONE LETTER OF OPPOSITION WE DID RECEIVE. WHICH THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THERE IS A CREEK LOCATEDDED TO THE NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. RIGHT HERE.

THERE IS SOME EXISTING TREES. THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE CREEK TO THE NORTH AS WELL AS THE TREES. I DID GO AHEAD AND EXPLAIN THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET, THEY WILL GO THROUGH THE ENGINEERING, A CIVIL ENGINEERING PROCESS TO MEET ALL LOCAL, STATE AND THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS REGARDING THAT CREEK.

HOWEVER WITH THE TREES THERE IS NO CLAUSE WITHIN THE ORDINANCE THAT IS STATING THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO SAVE THE TREES.

HOWEVER, IF THEY WANT TO COUNT IT TOWARD THE OVERALL TREE COUNT OR SAYING WE HAVE THE PROVISION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS THEM IN LIEU OF THE PLANNING THE NEW TREES IN CERTAIN AREAS THEY CAN USE EXISTING TREES OF CERTAIN TYPES.

ANOTHER CONCERN WAS THE TRAFFIC ALONG WALNUT GROVE ROAD.

WHETHER THE DEVELOPMENT WILL OCCUR ALONG WALNUT GROVE ROAD.

THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIRE TO THIS WAS MORE DENSE.

MORE UNITS. THE CITY HAS UNDERTAKEN ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT OF CHANGING WALNUT GROVE ROAD TO ADDRESS NOT ONLY THIS DEVELOPMENT BUT OTHER DEVELOPMENTS ALONG THE WALNUT GROVE ROAD. THERE IS THE VILLAGES OF THE WALNUT GROVE ROAD, THE GROVE 1-5.

THEY ARE ALL ALONG THERE. ALL HAVING AN IMPACT ON THE WALNUT GROVE ROAD. ANOTHER ISSUE THEY BROUGHT UP WAS THE U.S. 287. AND THE WALNUT GROVE INTERSECTION. THEY WANT AN OVERPASS THERE AND THAT IS THE CURRENT PROJECT HAPPENING NOW.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY HAS PRESSURED US TO DO FOR YEARS DUE TO UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCES THEY ARE NOW PLANNING ON AN OVERPASS HERE. WE DID RECEIVER ONE MORE LETTER BUT IT WAS IN FAVOR FROM THE BUSINESS END FORMS. NOTICE OF SUPPORT. THEY DID STATE THEY WOULD LIKE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ON TRAFFIC ALONG PRESIDENTIAL PARKWAY, WHICH IS A PRIVATE ROAD. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

I WANT TO KEEP IT SHORT SO YOU CAN ASK ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU.

I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION.

IF I'M EARLY ON THIS, KICK ME. JUST REVIEWING PAGE 108, SECTION 4 GARAGES. SINCE WE ALL LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THOSE. IN DEVELOPMENT PLAN EXHIBIT "A," WHICH IS THE PLAT MAP COLOR CODED.

RIGHT THERE. SUBJECT SUBSECTION "B" IT SAYS ALL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPINGS ON THE RESIDENTIAL PRODUCTS FOR LOTS AND THE RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT FIVE LOTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE REAR-ENTRY GARAGES. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, A DWELLING CONSTRUCTED ON A RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT 4 OR RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT 5 MAY HAVE A LOT ENTRY -- EXCUSE MANY ME A FRONT-ENTRY GARAGE IF THE GARAGE DOOR IS GARAGE STYLE DESIGNED TO BE MADE OF CEDAR OR SIMULATED WOOD. SO, LOTS PRODUCT FIVE AND FOUR ESSENTIALLY COULD ALL HAVE FRONT ENTRY GARAGES BY THIS CLAUSE AS

LONG AS IT IS SIMULATED WOOD? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> OKAY. WHEN YOU GO DOWN FURTHER, IT I ALL RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS CONSTRUCTED.

THIS IS SECTION "C," RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT THREE LOTS MAY BE

[01:05:02]

NOT LESS THAN 20% ARE J-SWINGS. NO MORE THAN ONE SINGLE CAR GARAGE DOOR MAY FACE THE FRONT STREET.

WHICH DOOR MUST BE SET BACK NOT LESS THAN 20 FEET FROM THE FRONT OF THE J-SWING STRUCTURE. LARGE MAJORITY OF THE SECTION THREE CAN BE FRONT ENTRY GARAGES BY THIS ORDINANCE.

THEN MY QUESTION JUST FOR THE CLARIFICATION SUBSECTION "D" NOT WITHSTANDING 3.5602, THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

FRONT ENTRY GARAGES SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO BE SET BACK FROM THE FRONT OF THE ELEVATION OF THE MAIN DWELLING UNIT.

CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT? >> YES.

SO, BACK IN 2019 WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WERE CHANGED THERE WAS A CLAUSE PUT IN THE ORDINANCE ABOUT GARAGES SAYING THAT THE GARAGES, THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE IN MY INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE GARAGES ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO PROTRUDE IN FRONT OF THE FRONT HOUSE OR THE FRONT PORCH.

IN THIS AMENDMENT PROCESS WE DID WARN THE APPLICANT THAT THE GARAGES ARE A HUGE TOPIC RIGHT NOW AND MOST LIKELY GARAGES WOULD BE, THIS SECTION WOULD BE VARIOUS QUESTIONS WOULD BE ASKED. WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH THIS, WHEN WENT THROUGH THE REQUIREMENTS.

I MENTIONED ANYTHING THAT THE ORDINANCE IS SILENT ON FALLS BACK ON THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS.

3.502 SUBSECTION "J." SO BECAUSE OF THAT LANGUAGE IN THE SUBSECTION "J" THAT IS WHY THEY PUT IN THERE TO ALLOW THEM BE FLUSH WITH THE BUILDING OR CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES J-SWINGS

ALLOWED. >> SO I'M JUST -- LET ME ADD TO THIS GROUP OF QUESTIONING. UNDER LETTER "E," SUBSECTION 5.

J-SWING GARAGE SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FRONT SETBACK SET FORTH IN THE TABLE 6.1.

FACADE OF J-SWING FACING THE STREET MAY ENCROACH BEYOND THE FRONT SET-BACK OF THE LOT. MAXIMUM OF THE FIVE FEET.

CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT RIGHT THERE?

>> THAT IS TO ALLOW FOR THE J-SWINGS TO OCCUR IN THIS PRODUCT TYPE AS THE CURRENT SETBACKS REGULATE.

ONCE AGAIN, THAT PREVIOUS SECTION SAYS IT CAN'T ENCROACH PRIMARY STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE SO THAT ADDRESSES THAT TO ALLOW

FOR J-SWING. >> SO BETWEEN FIVE AND FOUR ALLOWED TO HAVE THE ALL FRONT ENTRY, PRODUCTS THREE BEING ALLOWED TO PRIMARILY FRONT ENTRY AND THEN THESE TWO SECTION HERE THAT ARE ESSENTIALLY ALLOWING FOR A J-SWING STYLE GARAGE WE ARE THROWING OUT EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT GARAGES AND WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR EVERY COUNCIL MEETING AND P&Z

MEETING FOR THE LAST YEAR. >> THE GARAGES ARE SOMETHING THAT HAVE BEEN A HOT TOPIC WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL DUE TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS WRITTEN.

AND DUE TO THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WERE CHANGED IN 2019. PART OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT, AGAIN, THIS IS SOMETHING WELL BROUGHT UP TO THE MANY DEVELOPERS ABOUT THE SAME SITUATION ABOUT OUR CONCERNS THAT WERE REQUIRED TO ENFORCE THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND LANGUAGE IN IT. HOWEVER IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, THAT I HAVE THE ABILITY TO COME IN AND ASK FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REGULATIONS.

THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING TODAY.

THEY ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FROM THAT SECTION OF THE CODE TO ALLOW FOR GARAGES THAT WOULDN'T APPROVED BY RIGHT.

>> SO I'M SURE IT WAS IN HERE. THEN I WILL LOOSEN IT UP AND GIVE YOU THE REST. BETWEEN 5, 4, 3, FRONT ENTRY GARAGE ALLOWANCE WOULD BE HOW MANY?

>> OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF THE LOTS?

>> TOTAL NUMBER OF THE LOTS. FIVE, FOUR AND THREE.

>> 1,030. >> 1 ,030 OUT OF TOTAL OF HOW

MANY LOTS? >> 1,925.

IF YOU INCLUDE THE TOWNHOMES WHICH ARE ALL REQUIRE TO INTO THE REAR ENTRY, 2,125. DID YOU ALREADY FIGURE IT OUT?

[01:10:04]

HE'S THE ENGINEER. >> I'M WAIT FOR HIS NUMBER.

6030. WHAT IS THE THREE, FOUR AND FIVE? WHAT IS THE OTHER?

>> TOTAL DWELLING UNITS FOR ENTIRE SUBDIVISION.

>> I GOT APPROXIMATELY 78%. IF THEY CAN MAKE IT WORK.

IT WOULD BE PERMITTED TO BE FRONT ENTRY APPROXIMATELY.

THAT IS DIFFICULT TO DO WITH THE CAVEATS AND HOW THERE ARE ALLEYS AND THE CERTAIN ROADS. IT'S HARD TO TELL THAT EXACT PERCENTAGE. WE TRIED TO GET IN THE EXACT PERCENTAGE FROM THEM. IT WAS -- WITH THIS SIZE OF A DEVELOPMENT AND THIS MANY THINGS TO GO INTO IT, IT'S DIFFICULT TO

COME UP TO THE NUMBER. >> I WANT TO BRING IT UP BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE DEVELOPMENT, IT IS EASY TO BRUSH OVER WHAT THE TOTAL PERCENTAGE WOULD BE BECAUSE WE ARE FOCUSED ON SEVERAL OTHER ITEMS. SO JUST THAT OFF THE CUFF MATH, POTENTIALLY 70-PLUS% IF APPROVED PRESENTED COULD BE FRONT ENTRY.

>> WE WARNED THEM THERE WOULD BE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.

>> YEAH. >> I DO BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE. I'M SURE THEY WOULD LIKE TO

SPEAK AS WELL. >> GOOD EVENING.

I'M WITH THE HANOVER PROPERTY 3001 KNOX STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS.

WHAT IS BEFORE YOU IS WHAT HAS BEEN BEFORE Y'ALL SINCE JUNE OF LAST YEAR. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLAN THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN FRONT ENTRY. WE HAVE ALWAYS TOLD EVERYBODY ABOUT THIS. THIS ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON HAS ALWAYS HAD THE FRONT ENTRY, THE J-SWING REQUIREMENT, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

SO ON THE MAIN DRIVE, ALL THE HOMES IN WHITE ARE GOING TO BE J-SWING OR SIDE ENTRY. ON THE CORNERS.

EVERYTHING YOU SEE THERE. SO THE TRUE FRONT ENTRY IS NOT ANYWHERE IN THE VISIBLE UNLESS YOU GET BACK IN THE SUBDIVISION.

RIGHT? FROM THE MAIN DRIVING COURSE WHICH IS THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN YOU HAVE LARGE HOMES WITH J-SWING. DETACHED REAR.

NOT ENTRY. OR SIDE ENTRY.

THAT IS REQUIREMENT FOR ALL OF THOSE LOTS.

PERIOD, END OF STORY. BUT THE REST OF THEM WITH THE 40S WITH BE REAR ENTRY. TOWNHOMES ARE REAR ENTRIES BUT THE OTHERS COULD BE J-SWING OR FRONT ENTRY IF THEY HAVE A CARRIAGE STYLE DOOR. THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE ALWAYS

DISCUSSED. >> LET ME CLARIFY.

I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE FRONT ENTRY.

I DON'T. IT BOGGLES MY MIND SOMETIMES THE AMOUNT OF TIME WE SPEND ON IT. BUT I CAN HEAR IT NEXT WEEK.

>> SO LET ME -- WE PROPOSED THE REAR ENTRY IN OUR LAST DEVELOPMENT IN ANOTHER CITY. IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE THAT CITY DIDN'T WANT ANYWHERE, DIDN'T WANT ALLEYS ANYWHERE BECAUSE THEY WERE CONCERNED WITH THE SAFETY OF THE KIDS AND THE PEOPLE BACKING OUT AND TRAFFIC GOING DOWN ONE-WAY DOWN THE STREET AND THE ALLEYS AND TRASH PICKUP, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

I KNOW IT'S -- EVERY MUNICIPALITY LIKE ITER THINGS.

BUT FROM THE DIFFERENT THERE WERE NEVER ALLEYS.

THEY WERE ALL SOME FORM OF THE FRONT ENTRY, J-SWING OR TRUE FRONT ENTRY. BE BUT UPGRADING THE DOOR SO IT'S NOT THE TYPICAL DOOR. I KNOW THAT WAS OFF TOPIC.

WE DID WORK THE PAST 30 DAYS. I THINK WE DID REALLY CLEAN THIS UP AND TRY TO GET THE TEETH WE SPOKE TO ABOUT IT IN THERE AS WELL. SO I APPRECIATE THE STAFF AND KEVIN AND EVERYBODY WORKING WITH US TO GET IT DONE.

I KNOW I DIDN'T RESPOND TO TIME IN A COUPLE OF THINGS.

I APOLOGIZE. WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT THIS.

WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO NEXT WEEK.

I HOPE YOU HAVE SUPPORT GOING THERE.

I APPRECIATE IT. I'M HERE WITH ANY QUESTIONS.

>> WE HAVE ONE PERSON. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THE

BOARD? >> YES, I WOULD.

>> THANK YOU, MR. GRAHAM. >> I LIVE AT 1373 COUNTY ROAD 278 IN MELISSA, TEXAS. DURING THE WEEKEND.

ALL WEEK I LIVE AT 2441 PRESIDENTIAL PARKWAY, ENNIS, INCORPORATED. OUR CONCERN IS THE TRAFFIC.

AS YOU CAN SEE THE MAIN SPINE ROAD HERE IS PRESIDENTIAL.

I'M EVEN MORE CONCERNED NOW THAT I NOW SEE THAT THE SCHOOL, THERE IS GOING TO BE A SCHOOL RIGHT THERE AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE DEVELOPMENT. WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT. OBVIOUSLY, WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT THE MIDLOTHIAN CONTINUING TO GROW.

BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF HOMES AND YOU LOOK AT THE

[01:15:01]

WE HAVE 100 PEOPLE THAT COME TO WORK AT 8:00 EVERY MORNING.

YOU HAVE A WHATABURGER ON THE CORNER AND THERE WILL BE ANOTHER FAST FOOD JOINT EVENTUALLY. THEN YOU HAVE HOWEVER MANY PEOPLE THAT GO TO WORK AT BAYLOR.

WE WILL ALL HAVE TO ACCESS OFF OF PRESIDENTIAL.

AND/OR THE FRONTAGE ROAD IN FRONT OF US.

BASICALLY. WE THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE WHEN THEY GET TO THE INTERSECTION WILL TAKE FRONTAGE ROAD WHICH IS A PRIVATE ROAD FOR US. AND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE ARE IN. WE HAVE A GREAT CONCERN ABOUT THE NUMBER OF THE CARS THERE. THAT IS A HUGE PROBLEM.

THAT INTERSECTION AS YOU WELL KNOW, IF YOU DRIVE OUT THERE, IS SUICIDE INTERSECTION. IT'S JUST BUMPING DOWN FROM WALNUT GROVE TO OUR PLACE AT THIS POINT.

WE HAVE HAD ONE TRAGIC ACCIDENT OUT THERE.

WITH A DEATH. SEVERAL OTHERS THAT WERE EITHER NEAR MISSES OR WHATEVER. WE HAVE A GREAT CONCERN.

WE WHAT TO WARN OUR PEOPLE EVERY WEEK WHEN THEY GO HOME.

BE CAREFUL WITH THE INTERSECTION.

AS FAR AS I KNOW THEY WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THE CROSSOVER RIGHT THERE AT PRESIDENTIAL. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A PLAN -- I'M SURE THERE IS NO PLAN FOR A TRAFFIC LIGHT AFTER THEY SPEND THE MONEY FOR AN OVERPASS THERE.

SO THAT IS OUR CONCERN. WE THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME OTHER MAJOR EXIT ON THAT SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT SO IT DOESN'T OVERLOAD PRESIDENTIAL AND THE PEOPLE IN THAT SIDE.

IN THAT RISK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU, MR. GRAHAM. MR. LEE BEFORE I ADDRESS THERE IS ONE MORE, THERE IS ONE LETTER REGISTERED IN THE OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT BY JASON RIDAUX AND HE EXPRESSES CONCERN ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE INCREASED TRAFFIC.

AND THE SCENERY IN THE BACKYARD AS WAS RECOGNIZED IN THE DISCUSSIONS. SO THAT WAS HIS SUMMARY.

IN THE LETTER HE WROTE WILL BE PLACED IN THE RECORD.

ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS

CONCERNS RAISED BY MR. GRAHAM? >> ABSOLUTELY.

AND THE CREEK, THE ONE YOU RECEIVED ABOUT THE NORTHERN PART AS WELL. SO LET ME TAKE THE CREEK FIRST AND THE TREES. THE CREEK IS WATER OF THE UNITED STATES. WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TOUCH IT OR DO ANYTHING WITH IT. WE WON'T DISTURB IT.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, THOSE ARE LARGE LOTS SO THE BUILDING PAD ON THE LOT IS SMALLER. THAT AREA WHERE THE TREES ARE IS WAY BACK. THAT IS AN AMENITY FOR THE PEOPLE. WE ARE NOT TEARING DOWN ANY OF THE TREES. THAT HAS NEVER BEEN OUR PLAN.

TYPICALLY ON THE BIG LOTS LIKE THAT WE PUT THE STREET IN AND WE LET THE HOMEOWNER GRADE THE LOT AND DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO.

AS FAR AS THE TRAFFIC, SO ACTUALLY, PRESIDENTIAL PARKWAY IS NOT SHOWN ON HERE. THE ONE THAT IS BEHIND COMMERCIAL IS OUR NEW INTERSECTION THAT COMES OUT.

PRESIDENTIAL PARKWAY IS JUST TO THE SOUTH.

HERE. SO WHEN WE DID THIS DEVELOPMENT AND WE APPLIED FOR THE ZONING WE HAD TO DO A T.I.A. WITH THAT.

THE T.I.A. SAID WHEN WE DO THE SECOND PHASE WE HAVE TO SIGNALIZE PRESIDENTIAL PARKWAY AND THE CROSSOVER.

WORKING THROUGH THE ENGINEERING WITH HERE, NO ONE WANTS THAT TO BE THERE ANYMORE. THE CITY -- SPEAKING FOR MIKE.

I DON'T KNOW IF MIKE IS THERE. THERE YOU ARE.

HE WANTS THAT GONE. SO INSTEAD OF HAVING THAT AND PUT MONEY ON A SIGNAL TO SIGNALIZE THAT, HE WANTS THAT TO BE A ONE-WAY FRONTAGE ROAD THAT GOES DOWN.

WE WOULD PUT OUR MONEY IN TO THAT FRONTAGE ROAD TO EXTEND IT BACK SO YOU HAVE THE PARALLEL TO THE PRESIDENTIAL PARKWAY TO GET THE FRONT TAGE ROAD TO GET THE TRAFFIC OUT THERE.

287, PRESIDENTIAL PARKWAY, NOT SHOWN THERE.

NEXT ONE DOWN, THE SPINE ROAD AND THE THIRD BY THE CHURCH WE SHARE WITH THE CHURCH AS WELL. THOSE WOULD BE THE THREE POINTS TO A ONE-WAY SERVICE ROAD AND THE CROSSOVER WOULD GO AWAY.

THAT IS THE PLAN.

>> IT WOULD BRING SEPARATION AND THEY WANT TO MOVE THE SIGNAL DOWN SO MANY THOUSAND FEET. THE OTHER THING WE ARE LOOKING AT IS THE POTENTIAL OF, WE KNOW RIGHT NOW THAT OPENING SERVES A PURPOSE. WE ALSO HAVE CONCERNS WITH.

SO IF WE CAN GET THE FRONTAGE ROAD THAT TXDOT STOPPING AT

[01:20:02]

THEY ARE NOT EXTENDING IT TO THE PRESIDENTIAL PARKWAY.

HOWEVER IN WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPER, GOAL IS TO GET IT EXTENDED TO PRESIDENTIAL PARKWAY.

NOW YOU HAVE A FRONTAGE ROAD. YOU WON'T TAKE THE PRIVATE SLIP STREET IN FRONT. THAT IS NOT A PUBLIC ROAD.

YOU WILL HAVE THE ACCESS ROAD TO USE.

MAYBE THE POTENTIAL OF WORKING WITH THE TXDOT TO ELIMINATE A LEFT TURN OUT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL PARKWAY TO THE 287.

SO MAYBE YOU ALLOW FOR LEFT TURN IF YOU ARE GOING SOUTHBOUND TO GO TO THE PRESIDENTIAL PARKWAY. BUT EVERYBODY COMING DOWN HAS TO GO TO THE ACCESS ROAD. GO TO THE WALNUT GROVE ROAD.

THEY ARE BUILDING A TEXAS TURN-AROUND ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BRIDGE. YOU WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO TURN AROUND AND COME BACK TO GET TO 287.

THOSE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS WE ARE LOOKING AT.

WE HAVE THE CONCERNS WITH THE TRAFFIC.

WE DO NOT WANT THE DIRECT TRAFFIC TO 287 FROM THE DEVELOPMENT. WE ARE PUSHING TO HAVE THE IMPROVEMENTS DONE BEFORE THEY TIE ON TO THE PRESIDENTIAL PARKWAY WITH WHATEVER PHASE THAT MAY BE.

>> GREAT. THANK YOU.

>> SORRY. FURTHERMORE ON WALNUT GROVE IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY IN THE AGREEMENT TO BUILD TWO LANES OF THAT. THE EAST HALF OF THAT.

SO WHEN THE CITY DOES THEIR HALF, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT IT SAYS IN THE T.I.A. BUT CERTAIN AMOUNT OF HOME HAS TO BE OCCUPIED AND IT TRIGGERS TO US BUILD THE OTHER HALF.

WHEN THE CITY BUILD WESTBOUND, SOUTHBOUND LANE AND WESTERN HALF OF THE SECTION THEY WILL BE KEEPING THE ASPHALT AND THERE WILL BE A FOUR-LANE CAPACITY ONCE THE CITY BUILDS THE WEST LANES. WE WILL COME BACK TO IMPROVE EAST LANES WHEN THE T.I.A. SAYS TO DO THAT.

SO YOU HAVE IT ALL OPEN FOUR LANE DIVIDED THERE AS WELL.

I HOPE THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTIONS THEY HAVE ABOUT

TRAFFIC. >> OKAY.

WE HAVE NO OTHER -- ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK THAT HAVE NOT SIGNED UP THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? SEEING NONE.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING?

>> MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DARRACH TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KOEHLER.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

OPPOSED? SAME SIGN.

PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. DISCUSSION, MOTIONS? YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE FRONT ENTRY GARAGES ARE ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT COME BACK. BUT I THINK THAT WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS I THINK THE PROPERTY OWNER MADE AN EFFORT TO WORK WITH THE TOPOGRAPHY. WE ARE PUSHING FOR THE SMALLER LOT AND FRONT ENTRY GARAGES BUT THE TRADEOFF HERE IS A GOOD USE OF THE GREEN SPACE AND SORT OF VERY ENLIGHTENED USE OF THE CURVATURE AND THE ROADS. ESPECIALLY THE ENTRY WAY.

I THINK YOU ARE CREATING SOMETHING AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AND AN ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY AT THE END OF THE DAY.

I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE A FEW THOUSAND ACRES SITTING THERE WAITING TO BE USED. I'M LEANING TOWARD THIS ONE.

ANY OTHER CONCERN OR DISCUSSION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

CONDITIONS FROM STAFF? NO? OKAY. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DARRACH.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? >> NO.

>> OKAY. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN? SO ONE VOTE IN OPPOSITION BY COMMISSIONER OSBORN.

ALL THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS ARE IN FAVOR.

MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL RETURN TO EARLIER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA WE STEPPED OVER.

[007 Consider and act upon a request for a Preliminary Plat of The Grove Phase Five, being ± 40.565 acres of land, situated within the Coleman Jenkins Survey, Abstract 555 and 556, the Benjamin Witherspoon Survey, Abstract 1180 and the Robert Hosford Survey, Abstract 533, City of Midlothian, Ellis County. The property is located at the west ends of Walnut Lane and Clancy Lane, between South Walnut Grove Road and Eastgate Road (Case No. PP12-2020-120).]

THE FIRST NOT CONSENTS IS NUMBER 7, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE GROVE PHASE FIVE BEING 40 ACRES.

PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE WEST ENDS OF THE WALNUT LANE AND CLANCY LANE BETWEEN SOUTH WALNUT GROVE ROAD AND THE EAST GATE

ROAD. >> THANK YOU.

I APOLOGIZE. GETTING BACK IN THE MODE OF PLATS VERSUS OTHER DEVELOPMENT. PLAT IN FRONT OF YOU LOCATED ON THE WEST END OF THE WALNUT LANE AND CLANCY LANE BETWEEN SOUTH WALNUT GROVE AND EASTGATE ROAD. PRELIMINARY PLAT ACCORDANCE WITH PLANNED DEVELOP NUMBER 62A. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS

[01:25:01]

IT WILL CONTAIN 116 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND FIVE COMMON AREA LOTS.

AS DEPICTED IN THE APPROVED PLANNING DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINANCE AND IT DOES MEET ALL OF THE SUBDIVISION RECOMMENDATION.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT

THIS TIME. >> ANY CONCERNS? ALL RIGHT. ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS? SEEING NONE I WILL MAKE A MOTION

TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE A

PUBLIC HEARING. >> I MISREAD THAT.

NO NEED FOR THAT. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE

THEN. >> SECOND.

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DARRACH.

ALL FAVOR? AYE.

ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN? ITEM NUMBER 7 APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM

[008 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance for a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a restaurant exceeding 1,000 square feet in size (Papa John’s Pizza), relating to the use and development of ±0.804 acres of land located on Lot 1BR, Midtown Plaza Addition (commonly known as 1011 East Main Street), and presently zoned Planned Development District No. 2 (PD-2) (Case No. SUP11-2020-118).]

1011 EAST MAIN STREET. >> THANK YOU.

IT'S ON MAIN STREET AS BUSINESS 287.

EXISTING STRUCTURE WAS A FORMER SALON.

PICTURES SHOW THE CURRENT STATE OF THE PROPERTY.

APPLICANT DOES PLAN TO REDEVELOP THE BUILDING AND THE PARKING LOT AS WELL. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN.

ALL ASPHALT WILL BE REPLACED WITH THE NEW CONCRETE.

THE NEW PARKING AREA WILL BE RESTRIPED AND ADD A.D.A.

COMPLIANT SPACES. THIS WILL INCLUDE ENCLOSED DUMPSTER THAT WILL BE INCLUDED. EXTERIOR MATERIAL WILL MATCH THE BUILDING AS THE MONUMENT SIGN PROPOSED FOR THE FRONT.

THE EXISTING BUILDING WILL BE REPAINTED.

THEY WILL ADD DECORATIVE MASONRY WAINSCOT ON THREE SIDES OF THE BUILDING. APPLICATION WILL INSTALL NEW COMMERCIAL GLASS DOORS AND WINDOWS AND METAL FRAMING.

THEY PLAN TO INCLUDE NO CONTACT WINDOW AS WELL TO BE INSTALLED.

THIS IS THE FRONT VIEW WITH THE NEW MASONRY SIGN.

LANDSCAPEING WILL BE INSTALLED. WE SENT OUT 12 LETTERS AN NO DATE WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSES.

WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE S.U.P.

>> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO SPEAK? I DON'T SEE THE APPLICATION.

ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC NOT SIGNED UP TO WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER? SEEING NONE, I'LL MAKE A MOTION

TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. >> SECOND.

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DARRACH.

ALL IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE RING? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

ANY DISCUSSION, MOTIONS? >> SO MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> BY COMMISSIONER HILL. SECOND BY DARRACH.

IN FAVOR? >> AYE.

>> OPPOSED? SAME SIGN.

MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. WE NOW HAVE A PAN PAN -- WE HAVA

[009 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance for a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a grocery store relating to the use and development of ±0.063 acres of land located on Lots 17-20, Block 16, Section 16 in the Original Town Addition (commonly known as 216 West Avenue F), and located in the Central Business District (CBD) (Case No. SUP12-2020-130).]

MY FAVORITE. >> IT'S THE PEPPERCHINIS.

>> ALL RIGHT. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND ACT ON SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR GROCERY STORE IN ORIGINAL TOWN

ADDITION AT 216 WEST AVENUE. >> THANK YOU.

BIG D. BARBECUE CAME TO APPLY FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT LOCATED IN THIS UNIT HERE A FEW MONTHS AGO.

THE SAME PROPERTY OWNER OF THE BIG D. BARBECUE APPLICANT REQUESTING TO OFFER SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE LOT HERE.

FOR THE SUITE. WHAT THEY ARE ASKING TO DO IN ACCORDANCE TO 2.04 ALLOW FOR NEIGHBORHOOD GROCERY STORE TO SELL GROCERY ITEMS AS WELL THE SPECIALTY ITEMS LIKE THINGS IN A BOUTIQUE. SPECIAL CANDIES, ET CETERA.

PROPOSED REQUEST WILL NOT HAVE ANY SORT OF EXPANSION OF THE STRUCTURE. NO PLANS OF CHANGING THE FACADE OF THE STRUCTURE. PROPOSED SUITE IS AS IS.

THERE IS A CLAUSE IN THE ORDINANCE THEY ASK TO EXPAND.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO REOPEN THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

OR IF THEY CHOOSE TO RENOVATE, THEY WILL NEED TO RENOVATE TO A SIMILAR DESIGN AS WHAT YOU SEE NOW.

[01:30:03]

EVERYTHING FROM GENERAL RETAIL, SPECIALTY SHOP, NEWS AGENCY, WORK LIVE UNITS. WHEN I WAS DOING MY RESEARCH THERE WAS A GROCERY STORE BACK IN THE DAY AT THIS LOCATION.

I FOUND THAT OUT AFTER I CREATED THE REPORT.

THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE ESSENTIAL BUSINESSES IN THE DOWNTOWN PLAN TO PRESERVE THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THE DOWNTOWN.

PRESERVE THESE HISTORICAL STRUCTURES.

TO ALLOW FOR REDEVELOPMENT, INFULL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS SOMETHING NEEDED IN THE DOWNTOWN.

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SPECIFICALLY FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL PEOPLE CAN WALK TO. PICK UP A SANDWICH.

HEAD BACK TO WORK. PICK UP A FEW GROCERIES HERE AND THERE. THE STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL. WE DID NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS ZERO BACK IN FAVOR AND ZERO IN OPPOSITION.

THIS REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL ANSWER QUESTIONS.

>> QUESTIONS? I HAVE A COUPLE.

I LIKE THE IDEA. MY QUESTION.

YOU MADE MENTION OF RENOVATION OR SHOULD THEY -- CAN YOU GO

OVER THAT ONE MORE TIME? >> CORRECT.

IN THE ORDINANCE I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT RENOVATING THIS.

I HAVE TO ALSO GO BEFORE THE HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD.

IN THE DOWNTOWN PLAN WHAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IS PRESERVING THE DOWNTOWN. I DIDN'T WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO START ADDING ON EXTENSION WITHOUT THAT COMING BEFORE HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD OR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL. I WANTED THERE TO BE CHECKS AND BALANCE BECAUSE IT'S HISTORICALLY OLD BUILDING AND SIGNIFICANT TO THE CITY. SO ANY EXPANSION, THIS IS COMMON NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE IN THE CITY.

ANY EXPANSION IN THE S.U.P. OR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REQUIRES YOU TO OPEN UP THE ORDINANCE.

I WANT THEM IF THEY WANT TO REPLACE ONE OF THESE CANOPIES, BECAUSE OF THE MATERIAL IS FADING OUT OR FALLING, I WANT THEM TO DO IT AND NOT GOING THROUGH THE WHOLE 45 TO 60-DAY

PROCESS. >> A QUICK QUESTION TO EXPAND RENOVATION. I THINK THE SPACE IS PRETTY MUCH WIDE OPEN RIGHT NOW, RIGHT? WHOLE SUITE WIDE OPEN?

>> RIGHT. THIS IS THE EXTERNAL PORTION OF

THE BUILDING. >> WASN'T THIS ORIGINALLY PERMITTED THEY WERE GOING TO DO STORAGE CONTAINERS IN THE BACK?

>> THAT IS ACTUALLY THE SUITE NEXT TO IT.

THEY STILL ARE GOING TO DO IT. THIS IS THE SUITE NEXT TO THE BIG D. BARBECUE. THAT IS THE RENOVATION FOR THAT

PORTION. >> SINCE YOU BROUGHT IT UP AND STOP ME IF THIS IS CROSSING THE LINE.

WHEN THAT OTHER BUSINESS CAME FORWARD MY POINT OF CONTENTION WAS THE STORAGE BUILDING OUTSIDE AS A WAY TO CIRCUMVENT THE INSTALLATION OF THE FIRE SPRINKLERS.

RENOVATION WRITTEN AS YOU HAVE WRITTEN DOES IT INCLUDE EXTERNAL

BUILDING? >> NO.

THEY WOULDN'T EXPAND IN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE SITE PLAN

DICTATED ON THE -- >> SO ANOTHER SHIPPING CONTAINER

COULDN'T SHOW UP BEHIND THAT? >> NO.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND REOPEN UP THE ORDINANCE AND REQUEST THAT. FIRST GO TO THE HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD AND THEN BEFORE THE P&Z AND COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF THE S.U.P. CHANGE. IT WOULD REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING AND RENOTIFICATION AND EVERYTHING.

>> DO WE HAVE ANY -- LET ME ASK. DO WE HAVE ANY POWER TO STIPULATE THAT SHOULD ANOTHER SHIPPING CONTAINER END UP BEHIND THERE IT WOULD FORCE THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE TO BE SPRINKLERED?

>> I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY. FIRST, FIRE CODE WILL DICTATE THAT FOR ONE THING. TYPICALLY YOU PROBABLY WANT TO WAIT UNTIL THE APPLICATION CAME FORWARD.

>> WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT -- >> YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT LEGISLATING WE DON'T KNOW WILL HAPPEN.

>> I AGREE BUT WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WITH THE ADDITIONAL SPACE BEHIND THAT BUILDING THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL SUITE MULTIPLIES THEIR SQUARE FOOTAGE CIRCUMVENTING THE NEED

[01:35:04]

YOU PUT THE BUILDINGS NEXT TO EACH OTHER OFFSET FROM THE ORIGINAL BUILDING. SOMETHING HAPPENS.

IT JUMPS FROM BUILDING TO BUILDING.

WE HAVE INCREASED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE SEPARATED IT BY 20 FEET.

THAT IS WHAT I BROUGHT UP WHEN THIS ORIGINALLY CAME THROUGH TO ADD THE SQUARE FOOTAGE TO CIRCUMVENT SAFETY.

DETACHED. IF THAT TREND WERE TO CONTINUE WE MAY CREATE ANOTHER ISSUE. THAT IS WHERE I'M AT.

>> I THINK IT IS SOMETHING WE CAN ADDRESS WHEN WE HAVE SPECIFICS OF WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS IN FRONT OF US.

RIGHT NOW WE ARE CONSIDERING A GROCERY STORE WITH SOME SPECIALTIES. I DON'T THINK WE ARE DEALING WITH TOO MUCH OF A PROBLEM. I THINK THE BIG PERK IS GET BUSINESS LIKE THAT IN DOWNTOWN IS IMPORTANT TO, ESPECIALLY AS WE START TO SEE MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AROUND THERE AND

SMALLER HOUSES FILLING OUT. >> LET ME JUST ADD TO WHAT I SAID. I LOVE THE IDEA.

I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT. I JUST WANT TO SEE -- SAY MY

CONCERNS. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

TRENTON, I I KNOW YOU ADDRESSED -- I KNOW YOU ADDRESSED PARKING. BUT I NOTICE IN THE PICKING WHILE AGO THERE WAS ONE HANDICAP PARKS.

IS THAT IN FRONT OF THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING?

>> THIS SPACE HERE? >> YES.

>> YES. THIS IS THE BUILDING ITSELF.

THIS IS THE SUITE HERE. PARKING IS HERE.

RAMP OVER HERE TO GET ON TO IT. I DON'T WORK FOR THE TBLR.

THEY HAD TO MAKE SURE THEY MET THE TDLR REQUIREMENTS BUT THEY HAVE AN ACCESS RAMP OVER HERE. I CAN'T ANSWER IF THERE IS ANOTHER A.D.A. PARKING SPACE. I BELIEVE IT'S RIGHT HERE.

>> THAT IS MY CONNECTION QUESTION.

>> NEXT QUESTION. HOW MANY HANDICAP PARKING

SPACES? >> I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER.

>> MORE THAN ONE? >> I WOULD ASSUME BUT I DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION TO CONFIRM THAT.

>> OKAY. >> THANK YOU, MR. RO ROBERTSON.

DOES THE APPLICATION WISH TO SPEAK?

>> I'M OKAY. >> GOOD DEAL.

THANK YOU. DO ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THE TOPIC? SEEING NONE, I ARE ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SO MOVED. >> MOTION BY THE COMMISSIONER OSBORN. SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DARRACH. ALL IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING? YEA.

OPPOSED? SAME SIGN.

ALL RIGHT. DISCUSS, MOTIONS?

>> I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE. >> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER OSBORN. SECOND THAT.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

OPPOSED? SAME SIGN.

MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. AT THIS POINT WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA. ITEM AGENDA NUMBER 10.

WHICH IS TO CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND ACT ON ORDINANCE AMENDING THE USE TABLES FOR THE INDUSTRIAL USES AND THE PROCESSES BY AMENDING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TEMPORARY BATCH PLANT FROM S.U.P. TO AMENDED USE.

>> THAT IS 14. >> YOU SAID 10.

>> I MEANT TO JUMP FORWARD TO 14.

[014 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending Section 2.04 “Use Tables,” Subsection (k) “Industrial Uses and Processes” by amending the requirements for temporary batch plant use from a SUP to a permitted use. Secondly by amending the City of Midlothian Code of Ordinances, Chapter six (6), “Health and Sanitation”, to adopt the permitting process and set the standards for location and operation of a temporary batch plant. (Case No. OZ04-2020-077).]

AGENDA. >> WE ARE ALWAYS LOOKING TO FIND THE WAYS TO QUICKEN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

TAKE OUT THE STEPS AND THE PROCEDURES THAT MIGHT NOT BE NECESSARY OR THAT HAVE PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF SEEING THE SUCCESSES. FOR EXAMPLE A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO WE BROUGHT THE SECONDARY DWELL UNITS.

WE SAW SO MANY, EVERY PERMIT WAS COMING IN MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS WE THOUGHT IT MADE SENSE TO CHANGE FROM THE S.U.P.

TO THE USE PERMIT BY RIGHT. THE TEMPORARY BATCH PLAN IS ANOTHER USE THAT GOES BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL WHEN A PROJECT IS BUILDING; SUCH AS, ROADS, SIDEWALKS.

A LOT EASIER TO BE A TEMPORARY BATCH PLANT, MORE EFFECTIVE THAN THE HAULING TRUCKS OUT THERE WITH THE KE ME CEMENT AND CAUSIG ISSUES WITH THE ROADS. I WENT TO 2012 AND HOW MANY TEMPORARY BATCH PLANTS WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS.

WE HAVE HAD 30 OR MORE. WE HAVE TWO SCHEDULED TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL A COUPLE OF WEEKS ITEM THIS WILL GO BEFORE YOU AND CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. EACH ONE OF THE CASES WERE APPROVED FROM WHAT WE COULD FIND IN OUR RECORDS.

[01:40:04]

WE LOOK AT THE TCQ REQUIREMENTS AND I LOOKED AT VARIOUS GOVERNING AGENCIES, OVER TEMPORARY BATCH PLANTS.

WE ARE AMENDING -- THE ONLY ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF YOU IS THE TEXAS AMENDMENT. I BROUGHT THE CODE AS WELL TO YOU. THE REQUEST IS ALLOW THE TEMPORARY BATCH PLANT TO BE PERMITTED BE I RIGHT IF THEY MEET REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE SET FORTH IN ARTICLE 6 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES ADDING THE 6.70.005 OPERATIONAL STANDARDS.

LISTED BELOW. THE OPERATIONAL STANDARDS THAT YOU DO SEE ARE THINGS THAT ADDRESS WHERE THEY CAN BE LOCATED SO MANY FEET WITHIN, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPING. HOURS OF THE OPERATION 7:00 A.M.

TO 7:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.

THERE IS A PROVISION BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD THIS IN THE PAST WHERE I DO THE TIMELINE THEY HAVE HAD TO OPERATE ON SATURDAY AND WE COULDN'T ALLOW THEM, TOO. EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE IN AREA THAT WOULDN'T IMPACT THE TRAFFIC OR THE AREA.

PIT GIVES THE CITY MANAGER AUTHORIZATION TO ALLOW FOR A TEMPORARY BATCH PLANT TO OPERATE OUTSIDE OF HOURS ON CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. THE ITEM IN FRONT OF YOU VOTING ON IS THE ONLY ZONING COMMISSION.

I DID INCLUDE CODE OF ORDINANCE FOR YOUR REFERENCE.

I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

IT DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. >> I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION BUT I HAVE COMMENTS. HAVING DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE IN A NUMBER OF THE CITIES OVER THE YEARS, I THINK THE OPERATING HOURS ARE FINE. THAT IS PRETTY MUCH A NORM.

7:00 TO 7:00. I DID HAVE AN INITIAL CONCERN ABOUT THE SATURDAY BECAUSE CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES NORMALLY WORK ON SATURDAYS. TALKING TO TRENTON ONE OF THE DOWNS FOR THAT IS THE STAFFS WORK MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY.

IF YOU WORK ON SATURDAY LIKE THAT, IF YOU OPEN IT UP TO INCLUDE SATURDAY THIN YOU ARE CREATING AN ISSUE I THINK FOR THE STAFF AND OVERTIME FOR THE CITY.

THE FACT THAT THEY ADDED, YOU KNOW, THE CITY MANAGER CAN COME IN AND GRANT THAT IF IT DOES HAPPEN.

SOMEBODY POURING AND THEY HAVE TO HAVE A SATURDAY.

THERE IS AN AVENUE TO DO THAT. I THINK THE WAY IT IS WORDED IS

GOOD. >> I HAVE ONE SIMPLE QUESTION.

MAYBE IT'S IN HERE. IN THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE.

HOW LONG CAN A TEMPORARY BATCH PLANT STAND IN ONE POSITION?

>> WE HAVE PROVISIONS TO ALLOW FOR TEMPORARY BATCH PLANT.

IT'S ON PAGE 149 OF YOUR PACKET. TERM OF THE PERMIT $248.

>> THIS IS 7.773. TERM OF THE PERMIT.

SHALL EXPIRE AND BE OF NO FURTHER EFFECT ON THE 180TH DAY AFTER THE DATE OF THE ISSUANCE.

THERE IS PROVISIONS TO ALLOW FOR EXTENSION.

CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAVE PERMITTING THE TIME FRAME.

>> YOU ARE NOT PROPOSING TO CHANGE THAT WITH THIS?

>> NO. WE HAVE KEPT THE STANDARD CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE APPROVED PRIOR TO THIS.

>> OKAY. I MOVE APPROVAL.

>> ALL RIGHT. LET ME SAY IS THERE ANY MEMBER OF THE PUB PUBLIC WANT TO SPEAK? WE HAVE A MOTION BY OSBORN AND I'LL SECOND TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

IN FAVOR? AYE.

OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

I WILL ENTERTAIN MOTION OR DISCUSSION.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> BY OSBORN AND SECOND BY DARRACH. IN FAVOR OF THE APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE? AYE.

OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION

[MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION]

JUST THOSE WE WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD.

THERE WERE SIX COMMENTS IN FAVOR OF IT.

NONE IN OPPOSITION. INCLUDE THOSE IN THE RECORD AS WE'LL INCLUDE ALL THE OTHER COMMENTARIES SUBMITTED IN WRITING BY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT APPEAR IN PERSON.

DO I HAVE ANY NEW BUSINESS OR COMMENTS OR ANNOUNCEMENTS BY

STAFF OR COMMISSIONERS? >> NO.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE IN THIS PROCESS.

WE WERE ABLE TO FIND A WAY TO INCLUDE COMMISSIONER STEPHENS IN THIS PROCESS. ESPECIALLY DUE TO HER HAVING TO

[01:45:02]

WE APPRECIATE BEING ABLE TO DO THAT AND INCLUDE HER WITH THIS PROCESS. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. WELCOME BACK, COMMISSIONER

STEPHENS. >> I HAVE ONE THING.

ONE MORE ANNOUNCEMENT BY COMMISSIONER DARRACH?

>> I SAID NEXT MONTH WOULD BE MY LAST MONTH BUT BECAUSE OF THE SCHEDULING FOR NEXT MONTH I WILL NOT BE HERE DURING THE MEETING SO THIS IS MY LAST MONTH ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER DARRACH.

WE HAVE ENJOYED HAVING YOU WITH US.

CONGRATULATIONS ON MOVING TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. THIS TIME WE'LL ADJOURN THE MEETING AT

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.