[Call to Order and Determination of Quorum.]
[00:00:05]
>>> I BETTER TURN ON MY MIC. WE WILL HAVE THREE OF THE COMMISSIONERS ATTENDING TELEPHONICALLY.
AND WE WILL OTHERWISE PROCEED AS WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST IN REGARD TO COMMENTS AND BY CITIZENS.
THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT IS CITIZENS TO BE HEARD.
WE INVITE PEOPLE FROM THE PUBLIC TO PE SPEAK UP TO THREE MINUTESN MATTERS NOT SCHEDULED ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT.
WE CANNOT RESPOND OR TAKE ACTION ON SUCH ITEMS AT THIS TIME.
IS THERE ANYONE AT THIS TIME WE HAVE NO SHEETS TO SHOW ANYONE SIGNED UP THAT WISHES TO SPEAK. IS THERE ANYONE THAT HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED PARTICIPATION FORM THAT WINNERS TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE, LISTEN IN.
I HEAR NONE TELEPHONICALLY. SEEING NONE WE WILL MOVE ON TO
[Consent Agenda]
THE CONSENT AGENDA. THESE ARE ITEMS OF ROUTINE OR ADMINISTRATIVE NATURE THAT DO NOT REQUIRE THE PUBLIC HEARING.DO WE HAVE COMMENTS, SUGGESTIONS OR MOTIONS TO PULL ITEMS FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA OR MOTIONS TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA
AGENDA? >> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT
AGENDA. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OSBORN. SECOND THAT.
CALL IT TO VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? I BELIEVE IT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT ON THE REGULAR AGENDA IS
[012 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the City of Midlothian Comprehensive Plan and Thoroughfare Map by removing a Thoroughfare as depicted in Exhibit “A” by removing a portion of a proposed 150-foot rural parkway on F.M. 875 from its intersection with Skinner Road on the west and the proposed 120-foot wide north/south major thoroughfare to the east (Case No. M15-2020-107).]
TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE THOROUGHFARE MAP BY REMOVING A THOROUGHFARE DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT "A" BY REMOVING PORTION OF A PROPOSED 150 FOOT RURAL PARKWAY ON F.M. 875 FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH SKINNER ROAD ON THE WEST AND PROPOSED 1250-FOOT WIDE NORTH/SOUTH MAJORTHOROUGHFARE TO THE EAST. >> BEFORE WE GO ON WE SHOULD IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE THREE COMMISSIONERS ARE TELEPHONICALLY IN THE MEETING SO IT'S ON THE RECORD.
SO I KNOW THAT WE HAVE COMMISSIONER STEPHENS, COMMISSIONER BATEMAN, WHO IS THE THIRD?
>> THERE WE ARE. >> THANK YOU.
>> CAN I SAY SOMETHING? >> YES, COMMISSIONER STEPHENS.
>> PLEASE SPEAK IN YOUR MICROPHONE.
IT'S HARD TO HEAR ON THE PHONE CONNECTION.
PLEASE SPEAK IN THE MICROPHONE. THAT IS GREAT.
>> I WAS THE MAIN CULPRIT IN THAT AND I APOLOGIZE I WILL MAKE SURE WE DO THAT. I'M USUALLY LOUD ANYWAY.
>> MARCOS ARE YOU LEADING THE WAY?
>> ITEM NUMBER 12 HERE, ON AUGUST 18, THE P&Z COMMISSION COMED THIS TO OCTOBER 20, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY TODAY.
STAFF ORIGINALLY RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT. SO THAT THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S COURT COULD ACT ON THE ITEM FIRST.
THE REQUEST IS DELETE 150-FOOT PARKWAY EXTENDING F.M. 875 FROM SKINNER ROAD TO THE WEST AS SHOWN WITHIN THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN. ON THE 22ND, THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S COURT DID APPROVE THE REQUEST TO REMOVE THE PROPOSED THOROUGHFARE FROM THE PLAN.
WITH THAT THE STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS REQUESTED. WITH THAT I CAN ALSO TAKE
QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> COULD YOU JUST CLARIFY FOR ME? I'M NOT FOLLOWING IT.
>> SURE. ON THE CURRENT THOROUGHFARE PLAN WE SHOW AN EXTENSION FROM THE 875 AT THE INTERSECTION OF 875 AND SKINNER ROAD. CONNECTING TO A FUTURE 120-FOOT THOROUGHFARE IN THE FUTURE. AND ESSENTIALLY THERE WILL BE A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS PLANNED IN THIS AREA.
THE REQUEST WAS TO REMOVE THAT. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, 875 THEY ARE LOOKING AT THE OTHER ALIGNMENTS FOR 875 THAT WOULD MORE OR LESS STRAIGHTEN THE AREA OUT TO EXISTING PART OF 875.
OPPOSED TO WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN NOW.
>> THANK YOU. >> I'M STILL NOT -- ARE WE STILL TRYING TO HAVE AN 875 EXTENSION SOMEWHERE?
>> YES. >> NOT THROUGH THEIR PROPERTY?
>> NOT AT THIS TIME, SIR. AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME, THE REQUEST IS ONLY TO REMOVE THIS. IN THE FUTURE, THERE PROBABLY WILL BE A REQUEST TO WHERE I HAVE MY POINTER, THE APPLICANT DID TALK ABOUT THAT EXTENDING 875 THROUGH THIS AREA HERE WOULD LINE UP WITH THE EXISTING PART OF 875.
[00:05:02]
AS OPPOSED TO HAVING THIS VERY SUBSTANDARD TURN.HOW IS IT IS CURRENTLY ON THE GROUND NOW.
SO, AGAIN, IT'S JUST THIS SECTION RIGHT HERE THAT IS ASKED TO BE REMOVED. THAT WENT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT. THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT REMOVED
IT FROM THEIR THOROUGHFARE PLAN. >> IS THEIR PROPOSED PLAT GOING
HAVE HAVE EXIT ON EAST AND WEST? >> WE LOOK AT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT ON THE NEXT ITEM. THAT PRELIMINARY PLAT, THEY MIGHT HAVE A STUB GOING OUT TO THAT DIRECTION.
BUT NOT AS A THOROUGHFARE. WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT IT AS JUST, WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER A RURAL ROADWAY.
60-FOOT WIDE ROAD THAT YOU WOULD SEE IN ANY TYPICAL SUBDIVISION.
>> OKAY. THAT WAS THE QUESTION I HAD IS WHETHER OR NOT WE STILL HAVE A WAY TO TIE IN ON THE EAST.
>> YES, SIR. >> COULD THE APPLICANT ANSWER
>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'M TODD WINTERS WITH THE ENGINEERING CONCEPTS 201 WINCOMBE CIRCLE IN WILEY, TEXAS.
WE DID BRING THIS BEFORE YOU AT MARCOS MENTION AND YOU WANTED ME TO GO TO THE COUNTY FIRST. I MET WITH THE CITY OF WAXAHACHIE AND ELLIS COUNTY. AND ALL THREE PLANS WERE DIFFERENT. SO WE CAME UP WITH AN IDEA TO GET THEM ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. THIS EAST-WEST CONNECTION WE ARE ASKING TO REMOVE CONTINUED ACROSS AND HIT JUST WEST OF THE HIGH SCHOOL WHICH WAS A BAD INTERSECTION BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE THE 287 SPLIT. SO EVERYBODY AGREED IT WASN'T GOING TO GO THAT WAY. THIS NORTH/SOUTH BLUE LINE YOU SEE HERE, THIS IS CONNECTING TO. RIGHT NOW IS A DRIVEWAY TO THE HOUSE SO THAT IS NOT THERE. MOST LIKELY WILL REALIGN AND TIE IN BY THE AIRPORT. SO THIS WILL ACTUALLY NOW THAT THE COUNTY REMOVED IT FROM THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN AS WELL, ALL THE PLANS WILL MATCH AT THIS POINT.
THIS IS THE E.T.J. ON THE PLAT TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM WE HAVE A PLOT TO THE EAST AND NORTH.
THERE WILL BE CONNECTIVE. WE FEEL F.M. 875 WILL CONTINUES
THE EAST-WEST ROUTE IT HAS. >> WE ARE JUMPING AHEAD BUT WHAT ARE THE PLANS. YOU SAID THAT HOW MANY LOTS?
>> 91 LOTS OR 140 ACRES THERE. ONE-ACRE LOTS.
THREE AND FOUR ACRE LOTS ALONG THE CREEK.
WE HAVE A RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR SKINER.
WE'LL BUILD HALF OF SKINNER ROAD.
>> SUBS FOR EAST, WEST, NORTH, AND SOUTH?
>> YES. THAT IS ON THE NEXT ITEM BUT
THERE IS. >> THAT IS WHAT I NEED TO KNOW WE ARE NOT BLOCKING OFF A TRAFFIC FLOW.
NOT A GATED COMMUNITY? >> NO, SIR.
>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU. >> I DO HAVE A QUESTION.
>> SORRY. >> DID YOU SAY THAT THE COUNTY HAS APPROVED THE REMOVAL OF THIS?
>> THEY DID. WE WENT TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S COURT TWO OR THREE WEEKS AGO AND THEY AGREED.
THEY REMOVED IT. MARCOS PUT THE ITEM IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET THAT IT WAS THEIR ORDINANCE WHERE THEY REMOVED IT.
[INAUDIBLE] THEY, IT WASN'T IN THE E.T.J.
THEY SAID WE DIDN'T HAVE TO COME BACK TO THEM.
THEY WERE FINE BECAUSE NOW THE PLANS WILL MATCH.
I DID MEET WITH THEM AND TALK TO THEM.
>> THANK YOU. >> DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS ON THE PHONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? PUBLIC THAT WOULD WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITHEM THAT HAVE NOT SIGNED CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FORM? HEARING NONE, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO I HAVE A SECOND. >> SECOND.
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KOEHLER.
PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS?
>> SINCE THERE ARE ONLY THREE HERE AND THERE ARE SIX WE NEED TO HEAR AT LEAST THE FOURTH VOTE.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: I THOUGHT I HEARD A VOTE.
I THOUGHT I HEARD ONE OR TWO AYES.
>> CAN ANYONE HEAR ON THE WEBEX? >> I'M AN AYE.
>> OKAY. BUT WE NEED TO GO A LITTLE SLOWER WHEN CALLING THE VOTE. I CAN'T GET MY MICROPHONE
UNMUTED BEFORE YOU VOTE. >> OKAY.
UNDERSTOOD. IN FACT, MAYBE WHAT WE'LL DO FOR PURPOSES OF THE MEETING FROM NOW ON I'LL DO A ROLL CALL.
WHEN I DO IT, WHEN I DO THAT AND SO I WILL START WITH THE COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE HERE. WE'LL GO THROUGH THE ROLL THAT
[00:10:03]
WAY. THAT WAY WE KNOW WE GET THE VOTE RECORDED. YOU WILL KNOW WHEN I GET THROUGH WITH THE THREE, YOU WILL BE NEXT.GOT IT. SO, WITH THAT WE WILL START WITH THE COMMISSIONERS ON THE LINE. ANY COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION YOU WOULD LIKE TO RAISE AT THIS TIME?
MOTIONS? >> THE IDEA OF REALIGNMENT, THE SUGGESTED REALIGNMENT IN THE FUTURE, AS A CITY TO MOVE FORWARD. OR THINK ABOUT THAT WITH ALIGNING 875 ON THIS DIAGONAL WITH THE ORIGINAL POSITION SO WE DON'T HAVE A FUNNY JOG IN IT. IT SEEMS PRACTICAL.
>> I MEAN THE OVERALL, I MEAN I WAS HESITANT TO SWITCH OVER TO GETTING RID OF A THO THOROUGHFA. WITHOUT A ROAD TO A PROPERTY, A PROPERTY HAS VERY LITTLE VALUE. WE NEED TO PROTECT ROADS AND WE BUILD ROADS. HERE, I AGREE WITH THE ALIGNMENT. WE LOOK AT ANOTHER PLAN AND I AGREE WE ARE OPENING THIS IN FOUR DIRECTIONS ANYWAY.
IF SOMEONE REALLY NEEDS TO TAKE A SHORT CUT THEY CAN GO THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. JUST GO SLOWLY.
HEARING NONE I WILL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS
PRESENTED BY STAFF. >> SECOND.
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KOEHLER.
I WILL NOW TAKE A VOTE. I WILL VOTE AYE.
>> COMMISSIONER KOEHLER? >> AYE.
>> COMMISSIONER STEPHENS? >> AYE.
>> COMMISSIONER BATEMAN? >> COMMISSIONER BATEMAN?
>> HAVE WE LOST BATEMAN? CAN YOU REPEAT THAT, COMMISSIONER BATEMAN?
>> LET'S TRY COMMISSIONER HILL? >> ARE Y'ALL HEARING NOW?
>> YES, COMMISSIONER BATEMAN. [INAUDIBLE] THAT IS CORRECT. IS THAT BATEMAN OR HILL?
>> THAT'S HILL. >> THAT'S HILL.
COMMISSIONER HILL, WHAT IS YOUR VOTE?
IS THAT COMMISSIONER BATEMAN CALLING BACK IN?
>> IT SHOWS HE IS -- [INAUDIBLE]
>> COMMISSIONER BATEMAN, CAN YOU HEAR US?
HE IS HAVING CONNECTION ISSUES. >> CAN HE TEXT IN A VOTE?
>> I REALLY NEED -- VIDEO PHONE. TEXTING IN IS NOT A WAY.
>> IS HE ON VIDEO OR JUST APPEARING --
>> HE IS ON VIDEO. >> CAN HE RAISE HIS HAND?
I'M CHATTING WITH HIM. >> GIVE ME A THUMBS UP OR A THUMBS DOWN, COMMISSIONER BATEMAN.
THAT IS VIDEO. >> IF WE SEE HIM RAISE HIS HAND,
I'M GOOD WITH THAT. >> HE RAISED HIS HAND.
>> SO WITH THAT, THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY, 6-0.
APPROVED AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS
[013 Consider and act upon a request for a Preliminary Plat of Oak Creek Ranch, being ± 129.014 acres of land, situated within the J. Baker Survey, Abstract No. 40, ETJ of the City of Midlothian, Ellis County. The property is located on Skinner Road north of E FM 875 and south of Honeysuckle Road. (Case No. PP16-2020-146).]
NUMBER 13. THAT IS TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF OAK CREEK RANCH BEING 129 ACRES SITUATED ON THE J. BAKER SURVEY LOCATED ON SKINNER ROAD NORTH OF EAST FARM TO MARKET 875 AND SOUTH OFHONEYSUCKLE ROAD. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR THE OAK CREEK RANCH DEVELOPMENT. THIS GOES HAND IN HAND WITH THE PREVIOUS CASE WE WERE JUST DISCUSSING.
PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT WILL CONTAIN 91 RATION RESIDENTIAL LD IN THE E.T.J. ALL THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DESIGNATION ARE DEPICTED CORRECTLY ON THE PLAT, SHOWN ON THE PLAT.
FOR THIS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT MUST STILL BE APPROVED BY OUR CITY COUNCIL.
THAT IS GOING TO CITY COUNCIL NEXT WEEK ON OCTOBER 27.
I DO HAVE ON THE SCREEN THE CONDITIONS TO GO ALONG WITH
[00:15:04]
THIS. I WILL READ THAT IN THE RECORD, PROPOSED THOROUGHFARE AMENDMENT BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE 27TH. THE FINAL PLAT MUST MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY TO INCLUDE SPACING REQUIREMENTS AND THE STREET NAME ADJUSTMENTS IF NECESSARY.WITH THAT I CAN TAKE QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
>> I HAD MOST OF MINE ANSWERED IN THE PREVIOUS PART.
DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS ATTENDING
TELEPHONICALLY? >> MR. BATEMAN IS HAVING ISSUES
WITH HIS MICROPHONE. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER BATEMAN, I'LL MAKE A SUGGESTION. I HAD THE SAME PROBLEM ON MY COMPUTER. NEXT TIME GET A SET OF THE HEADPHONES. THE NOISE FROM YOUR SPEAKER IS FEEDING BACK TO YOUR SPEAKER. IF YOU GET HEADPHONES THAT WILL END THE FEEDBACK PROBLEM WE ARE HEARING.
WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO PRESENT ON THIS TOPIC OR ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC? I'M SEEING NONE. NO FURTHER COMMENT.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> SO MOVED. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OSBORN. I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION.
I WILL NOW TAKE A ROLL CALL ON THE MOTION.
I VOTE AYE. COMMISSIONER OSBORN?
>> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER KOEHLER?
>> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER STEPHENS?
>> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER BATEMAN? DID WE SEE A HAND FROM COMMISSIONER BATEMAN?
>> NOT YET. >> COMMISSIONER BATEMAN PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU ARE IN AGREEMENT TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING. >> I THINK I HEARD COMMISSIONER
HILL SAY AYE. >> I HEARD COMMISSIONER HILL SAY AYE. WE HAVE A 5-0 VOTE AND I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WITH THAT, ANY CONTRARY VOTES? HEARING NONE, PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION OR DISCUSSION.
>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT PRESENTED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. THOROUGHFARE AMENDMENT TO BE APPROVALLED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 27, 2020.
NUMBER TWO, FINAL PLAT MUST MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY TO INCLUDE THE SPACING REQUIREMENTS AND THE STREET NAME
ADJUSTMENTS IF NECESSARY. >> SECOND.
>> SECOND TO COMMISSIONER OSBORN'S MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KOEHLER. I WILL VOTE AYE ON THAT MOTION.
>> COMMISSIONER KOEHLER? >> AYE.
>> COMMISSIONER STEPHENS? >> AYE.
>> COMMISSIONER BATEMAN? >> AYE.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY 6-0.
THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER 14.
[014 Consider and act upon a request for a Preliminary Plat for Wind Ridge Phase I, being ±65.097 acres out of the B.F. Cherry Survey, Abstract No. 1341, generally located to the south of Mockingbird Lane and ±4,000 feet east of Walnut Grove Road. (Case No. PP17-2020-147).]
CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WIND RIDGE PHASE I BEING 65 ACRES OUT OF THE B.F. CHERRY SURVEY, GENERALLY LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF MOCKINGBIRD LANE AND 4,000FEET EAST OF WALNUT GROVE ROAD. >> CHAIRMAN, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WIND RIDGE PHASE I. THIS WILL CONSIST OF 183 LOTS.
CURRENTLY THE PROPERTY IS ZONED P.D. 110.
THAT WAS DONE BACK IN FEBRUARY OF 2018.
CURRENT PLAT DOES INCLUDE ALL THE NECESSARY RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AS PRESENTED AND I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
>> JUST REALIZE THESE ARE NOT PUBLIC HEARINGS WE HAVE HAD ON THE LAST TWO OCCASIONS. I DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THESE.
>> CORRECT. >> THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN WAS BUT
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT ARE NOT. >> OKAY.
ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS FROM OUR MEMBERS THAT ARE ON TELEPHONICALLY? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS?
[00:20:01]
>> I BELIEVE THAT WAS COMMISSIONER BATEMAN MOVING FOR APPROVAL OR WAS IT COMMISSIONER HILL?
>> CHAIRMAN BATEMAN. >> COMMISSIONER BATEMAN.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BATEMAN TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 14.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.
>> WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER STEPHENS.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL ON THAT.
I VOTE AYE. COMMISSIONER OSBORN?
>> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER KOEHLER?
>> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER STEPHENS?
>> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER BATEMAN?
>> AYE. ITEM NUMBER 14 IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS TO -- COMMISSIONER OSBORN HAS TO LEAVE FOR A MOMENT.
HE WILL BE BACK BUT WE'LL GET STARTED.
[015 Consider and act upon a request for a Preliminary Plat for Midpark, being ±3.390 acres out of the John Crane Survey, Abstract No. 246, generally located at the southwest corner of South 14th Street and Mt. Zion Road (Case No. PP18-2020-156).]
WE HAVE A QUARTERFINAL PRESENT. CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MIDPARK 3.39 ACRES ON THE JOHN CRANE SURVEY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTH 14TH STREET AND MT. ZION ROAD.>> THEY ARE REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR ONE RESIDENTIAL LOT.
IT WAS ZONED PD-18 IN JANUARY OF 2019.
THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATIONS CORRECTLY DEPICTED AND IT WILL BE SERVED BY THE MOUNT PEAK WATER SERVICE AND CITY SEWER.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AS PRESENTED.
WITH THAT, I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> DO OUR COMMISSIONERS ONLINE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NO QUESTIONS, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 15 AS PRESENTED. DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> OKAY. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KOEHLER. ALL IN FAVOR, I'LL VOTE AYE.
>> COMMISSIONER STEPHENS? >> AYE.
>> COMMISSIONER BATEMAN? [INAUDIBLE]
>> TAKE THAT AS AN AYE. COMMISSIONER HILL?
>> AYE. >> AND COMMISSIONER OSBORN HAD TO STEM OUT FOR A MOMENT SO THE VOTE CARRIES 5-0 AS APPROVED.
THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM 16.
[016 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance for a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a retail cigar lounge authorizing a 2,700± square foot portion of the building located at 3261 F.M. 663 Unit B and within a Commercial (C) District to be developed and used as a retail cigar lounge (Case No. SUP14-2020-150).]
CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE FOR SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR RETAIL CIGAR LOUNGE AUTHORIZING 2700 SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF THE BUILDING AT 3261 FARM TO MARKET 663.WITHIN A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO BE DEVELOPED AND USED AS A
RETAIL CIGAR LOUNGE. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING S.U.P. FOR RETAIL CIGAR LOUNGE.
IT'S ON F.M. 663 IN UNIT "B" ROUGHLY ABOUT 2700 SQUARE FEET.
UNIT WILL OFFER RETALE SALES OF CIGARS AND A LOUNGE AREA WILL BE PROVIDED SO CUSTOMERS HAVE THE OPTION TO SMOKE ON SITE.
THIS IS A SPECIALTY SHOP. SO BEING THAT IT IS PRIMARILY OPERATING AS A RETAIL TOBACCO STORE IT IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL ZONE DISTRICT.
THE SUPERIS NEEDED IN ORDER FOR -- THE S.U.P. NEEDED FOR THE ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED A SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT.
REQUIRED PER THE CODE OF ORDINANCE.
THE FOOTPRINT OF THE EXISTING BUILDING IS NOT ALTERED.
ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THE SHOP WILL NOT SELL OR DISTRIBUTE ANY FOOD OR BEVERAGES. THAT BEING ALCOHOLIC OR NONALCOHOLIC. PER THE CODE REQUIREMENTS THE EVENTLATION SYSTEM WILL BE INSTALLED.
MEETING THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR HAVING AN INDOOR SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT. DETAILS OF THE EVENTLATION SYSTEM HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE BUILDING AND OUR FIRE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT. OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHOWS THAT THIS AREA DOES FALL WITHIN WHAT WE CALL THE COUNTRY MODULE.
OBVIOUSLY THIS IS NOT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A ONE TO 3-ACRE LOT SO IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
BUT THE EXISTING STRIP CENTER WAS CONSTRUCTED WAY BEFORE THE PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED AND IT DOES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING THAT IS WITHIN A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
THERE ARE 40 PARKING SPACES CURRENTLY THAT EXIST.
THAT DOES MEET THE PARKING NEEDS FOR THE PROPOSED USE.
AS WELL AS FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE BUILDING.
WE SENT OUT 16 LETTERS IN 2500 FEET.
WE ONLY RECEIVED ONE LETTER IN OPPOSITION.
WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED S.U.P. AND I CAN TAKE
ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER CIGAR LOUNGING IN TOWN?
>> NO, SIR. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: I DIDN'T THINK SO. DO WE KNOW WHAT THIS IS REPLACING? DOUGHNUT SHOP THERE?
>> WELL, SIR, THAT WAS THE PH PHILLY CHEESESTEAK RESTAURANT.
>> IS THIS THE LOCATION OF THE OLD PHILLY CHEESESTEAK FACTORY?
[00:25:04]
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I GUESS SO THIS IS A MATTER OF RIGHT WITHIN WHICH DISTRICT'S
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS? >> COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.
NOW TYPICALLY THE WAY THIS WORKS AGAIN IF YOU ARE GOING TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND YOU ARE CONSIDERED WHAT IS CALLED A SPECIALTY SHOP. SPECIALTY SHOPS ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT. WITHIN A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
SO THE SELLING OF FOR INSTANCE HERE HOW THEY SHOW THE REGISTER AND THE HUMIDOR, ALL OF THAT IS DONE BY RIGHT.
WE DO HAVE A SECTION IN OUR CODE OF ORDINANCE, NOT THE ZONING ORDINANCE BUT THE CODE OF ORDINANCE THAT STATES THAT IF YOU DO AND YOU WANT TO HAVE YOUR PROPERTY BE CONSIDERED A SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT, TO SMOKE INDOORS ON YOUR PROPERTY, COMMERCIAL USE, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC CAN VISIT.
WELL, THEN THAT IS WHAT TRIGGERS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.
TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
>> OKAY. THIS, THIS WAS BUILTING WE
BEFORE ANNEXATION, AS I RECALL. >> ABSOLUTELY.
YES, SIR. >> THE BUILDING HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR A WHILE. NIBBLE 2004, THEY WERE BROUGHT
IN, IN 2008. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: YEAH.
YOU HARDLY NOTICE WITH THE UGLY SIGN BUILT LITERALLY A WEEK BEFORE ANNEXATION. [LAUGHTER] THE AWFUL BILLBOARD THAT I HATE. I WILL MAKE IT CLEAR.
>> I THINK THERE IS A BILLBOARD TO THE -- YOU ARE CORRECT.
THERE IS A BILLBOARD -- >> A WEEK BEFORE IT WAS ANNEXED.
>> RIGHT. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: OKAY.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: WOULD THE APPLICANT WISH TO MAKE A PRESENTATION?
>> GOOD EVENING TO EVERYONE. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: GOOD
I'M WITH THE OWNER OF THE SMOKE LOUNGE WITH MY PARTNER JACOBY BURNS AND I BROUGHT A REP THAT COVERS THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THREE OF THE CIGAR COMPANIES WE HOUSE IN THE HUMIDOR.
THIS WOULD BE CONSIDERED A SECOND LOCATION FOR US.
WE CURRENTLY OPERATE ONE LOCATION THAT IS IN DUNCANVILLE, TEXAS. SO THIS WOULD NOT BE NEW TO US.
WE RENDERED ALL OF THESE DRAWINGS JUST TO SHOW AN IDEA OF HOW WE WOULD WANT TO UTILIZE THE SPACE.
THE SECOND GRAPH HERE IS SHOWING OUR HUMIDIFICATION.
THIS IS A BLUE OX SYSTEM CONSIDERED ONE OF THE BEST IN THE INDUSTRY TO CIRCULATE THE AIR ACCORDING TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. ONE THING ABOUT THE CIGAR COMMUNITY I WANT YOU TO KNOW IT'S FAMILY BASED.
90% COME FROM THE FAMILIES THAT BROUGHT THE GRAND KIDS UP FROM GROWING TOBACCO IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES LIKE HONDURAS AND DOMINICAN REPUBLIC. WE FEEL THIS IS GREAT FOR THIS PARTICULAR BUSINESS. IT IS SMALL AND INTIMATE AND MORE FAMILY. A CONNECTION.
THAT IS WHAT THE CIGARS BRING YOU.
IT BRINGS A CONNECTION TO YOU. IN THE CIGAR LOUNGE I ASKED SCOTT TO COME FORWARD, IN A CIGAR LOUNGE EVERYONE IS CONSIDERED EQUAL. CIGAR CONNECTS AND CONNECTS US OVER A CONNECTION. IT'S A CELEBRATORY ACT.
SOMETHING TO BUILD BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS AND THERE ARE THINGS TO TAKE PLACE IN THAT PARTICULAR LOUNGE.
I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR THE COMMUNITY.
IT BRINGS FOOT TRAFFIC. TO THE LEFT OF US IN DUNCANVILLE IS A BARBECUE SHOP AND THEY SAID THEIR REVENUE ALMOST DOUBLED SINCE WE HAVE BEEN THERE. I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING YOU SHOULD CONSIDER. AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PLAN
AS APPROVED. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: TWO QUESTIONS. WE HAD ONE PERSON SUBMITTED IN FAVOR AND ANOTHER OPPOSED. THE PERSON THAT WAS OPPOSED WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF NOISE AND TRAFFIC THE TYPE OF BUSINESS WOULD BRING. IS THERE A NOISE ISSUE WITH A
BECAUSE IN A CIGAR LOUNGE ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS THAT PEOPLE COME THERE TO SMOKE AND TO GET IN THEIR SPACE AND TO BE QUIET.
A LOT OF TIMES YOU SEE PEOPLE EITHER PLAYING CHESS OR READING A BOOK. THE COMES WITH THE BAR AND WE DON'T HAVE A BAR. WE DON'T PLAN TO HAVE A BAR AT THIS LOCATION. WE DON'T HAVE LOCATION EITHER. I THINK THAT IS WHERE THINGS GET A LITTLE BIT ROWDY. SO I THINK MAYBE THAT IS WHAT
THEY ARE THINKING ABOUT. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: I'M GUESSING THE HOURS ARE NOT EARLY MORNING LIKE THE DOUGHNUT SHOP, RIGHT?
>> CORRECT. WE CURRENTLY OPEN AT 3:00.
OUR CURRENT LOCATION WE OPEN AT 4:00 BEFORE COVID.
BUT PEOPLE WANTED TO GET OUT OF THE HOUSE AND GO TO A SAFE ENVIRONMENT WHERE THEY FELT PROTECTED SO WE OFFER THE
SERVICES FROM 3:00 TO 9:00. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: ALL RIGHT.
[00:30:01]
THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT FROM THE COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE ONLINE? HEARING NONE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.I APPRECIATE IT. WE DO TWO COMMENTS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. WE HAVE KENNETH, IT LOOKS LIKE LUMBERG 2830 CLEARVIEW DRIVE. JUST SAYS IN FAVOR OF BLOWING SMOKE CIGAR HOUSE. WE HAVE ONE OPPOSED BY JENELLE HARRISON AT 200 CANTERBURY COURT, MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS, STATING, "I'M CONCERNED WITH THE AMOUNT OF NOISE AND EXTRA TRAFFIC THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS WOULD BRING." ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS TOP TAKE HAVE NOT FILLED OUT A CITIZENS
PARTICIPATION SHEET? >> AM I CONSIDERED A CITIZEN,
SINCE I ADVOCATE FOR MY FRIEND? >> MEMBER ALTMAN: IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, SIR, YEAH, COME UP AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF.
YOU HAVE UP TO THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK IF YOU'D LIKE TO.
>> I'M SCOTT LEWIS. I'M ONE OF THE PROVIDERS OF THE CIGARS FOR BLOWING SMOKE IN DUNCANVILLE.
I WORK WITH CIGAR LOUNGES ALL OVER THE STATE OF TEXAS.
THE ONE THING THEY DO HAVE IN COMMON AS MS. EDWINA SAID IS IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYBODY TO GET TOGETHER.
IT'S NOT LOUD. IT'S NOT A PARTY ATMOSPHERE.
ONE OF THE MISNOMERS OF A CIGAR LOUNGE IS "LOUNGE" PART.
THEY THINK LOUNGE AND IT MUST BE BARS OR DANCING.
IT'S NOT. IT'S PEOPLE SITTING AROUND HAVING CONVERSATIONS. SOME PEOPLE ARE ON THE LEFT.
SOME PEOPLE ARE ON THE RIGHT. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY WE ARE ALL FRIENDS BECAUSE WE CAME THERE TO RELAX.
HAVE AN INTELLIGENT CONVERSATION.
NOT THROW CHAIRS, NOT DANCE, NOT PARTY.
THIS IS TRUE WITH CIGAR LOUNGES ALL OVER THE STATE.
I DON'T EXPECT BASED ON THE CURRENT BUSINESS MOD THIS WILL
BE ANY DIFFERENT. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: ALL RIGHT.
AT THIS TIME, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KOEHLER. CALL THE ROLL.
I VOTE AYE. COMMISSIONER KOEHLER?
>> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER STEPHENS?
>> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER BATEMAN?
[INAUDIBLE] >> I'LL TAKE IT AS AN AYE.
>> THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED BY A VOTE OF 5-0.
COMMISSIONER OSBORN IS STILL ABSENT.
AT THIS TIME, ANY DISCUSSION, COMMENTARY?
MOTIONS? >> DID YOU SKIP OVER 15?
>> WE ALREADY -- DID WE SKIP OVER 15? DID I APPROVE THAT? WE APPROVED THAT.
YOU ARE TAKEN CARE OF. THANK YOU, SIR.
WE HAVE, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? OR DISCUSSION? I WILL SAY THAT I THINK THIS CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY. I THINK IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE IT IS A NONCOMPETING USE WITH EXISTING BUSINESSES.
ONE OF THE CONCERNS IS ALWAYS PARKING.
DOUGHNUT SHOPS IS A MORNING BUSINESS.
THIS SEASON AFTERNOON/EVENING BUSINESS.
I THINK IT'S PROBABLY A PRETTY GOOD USE.
WE DIDN'T HAVE AN OBJECTION FROM THE DOUGHNUT PEOPLE OR THE FITNESS CENTER NEXT DOOR. SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS.
I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.
>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KOEHLER. CALL THE ROLL.
COMMISSIONER ALTMAN, AYE. COMMISSIONER KOEHLER?
>> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER STEPHENS?
>> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER BATEMAN?
COMMISSIONER BATEMAN? >> HE SAYS AYE.
COMMISSIONER HILL? DID WE GET A VOTE FROM COMMISSIONER HILL?
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: "AYE." THE MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS NUMBER 17.
[017 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance for a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a restaurant with drive thru services relating to the use and development of ±0.813 acres of land located on Lot 1AR of the Midtown Plaza (commonly known as 1001 East Main Street, Ste. C), and located in Planned Development District No. 2 (PD-2) (Case No. SUP13-2020-144).]
IT'S CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THRU SERVICES RELATING TO THE USE OF .813 ACRES OF THE LAND ON LOT 1AR OF MIDTOWN PLAZA KNOWN AS 1001 EAST MAIN STREET.LOCATED IN PLANNED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT NUMBER 2.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON MAIN STREET. KNOWN AS THE BUSINESS 287.
THE APPLICANT IS PLANNING TO USE SUITE "C," ONLY 850 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE FOR A COFFEE SHOP AND A DRIVE-THRU SERVICE.
[00:35:01]
THE RESTAURANT IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT SINCE THE SUITE IS UNDER 1,000 SQUARE FEET. THE S.U.P. IS NEEDED TO ALLOW FOR THE DRIVE-THRU SERVICE. THERE IS AN EXISTING DRIVE-THRU WINDOW LOCATED ON THE WEST WALL OF THE BUILDING THAT WILL SERVE SWEET "C." SUITE "C." COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THIS FALLS IN THE NEWTOWN MODULE.THAT IS VERY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE EXISTING SITE WHICH I SHOW UP HERE ON THE SCREEN SHOWS APPROXIMATELY 32 PARKING SPACES. THIS DOES MEET THE PARKING NEEDS OF THIS PARTICULAR USE AND THE REMAINDER OF THE BUILDING.
ADDITIONALLY DRIVE-THRU LANES WILL ADEQUATELY ALLOW FOR A FIVE-CAR QUEUE SHOWN IN YOUR ATTACHED ORDINANCE.
SEVEN LETTERS WERE SENT OUT TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET.
THE CITY DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSE.
SO STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST.
TO ALLOW FOR A DRIVE-THRU SERVICE.
WITH THAT I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: COFFEE SHOP? >> YES, SIR.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO PLAN THIS ONE BETTER THAN THE STARBUCKS IN TERMS OF THE BLOCKING TRAFFIC,
RIGHT? >> I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN MAKE
PROMISES. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: IT LOOKS
BETTER. >> LOOKS LIKE THEY HAVE AMPLE ROOM. ABSOLUTELY.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: I DON'T WANT 287 BACKED UP.
PEOPLE NEEDING COFFEE IN THE MORNING.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THOSE ONLINE FOR
THE STAFF? >> I'M SHOWING THAT THERE WAS A RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION ON MY PAPERWORK.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: I AM SHOWING THAT -- I AM SHOWING AN AGENDA ITEM 19. I'M NOT SEEING A RESPONSE -- WAIT A MINUTE. THIS IS 17.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: WE ARE ON 17.
DO YOU HAVE -- >> COMMISSIONERS, I APOLOGIZE.
I THINK IT MAY BE A MISTAKE. I DON'T THINK THERE IS A WRITTEN -- THERE IS NOT A WRITTEN RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS CASE. THAT MAY BE AN ERROR ON STAFF'S
I DON'T SEE ONE UP HERE. SIGN UP.
THE ONLY OBJECTIONS WERE 16 AND 19.
ONLY COMMENTS. I DON'T HAVE ONE.
DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS -- FIRST, BEFORE I DO THAT.
DO WE HAVE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? HEARING NONE, WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO PRESENT?
I'M ONE OF THE PARTNERS. MY NAME IS NICKY HIGHLAND.
I RECENTLY MOVED TO TEXAS. WE FOUND MIDLOTHIAN.
WE FELL IN LOVE WITH IT. A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE BUSINESS CONCEPT. DRIVE-THRU COFFEE.
THERE WILL BE A WALK-IN AREA AS WELL.
IT'S VERY SMALL BECAUSE IT'S ONLY 850 SQUARE FEET.
SOMETHING THAT IS NEAR AND DEAR TO OUR HEARTS IS GIVING BACK TO OUR COMMUNITY, BUYING LOCAL, USING LOCAL.
OBVIOUSLY GIVING BACK TO THE COMMUNITY AND GETTING INVOLVED WITH THE SCHOOLS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
TEACHERS GET DISCOUNTS. FIRST RESPONDERS GET DISCOUNTS.
REALLY GIVING BACK TO THE COMMUNITY AND EMBRACING THE COMMUNITY. YES, THAT IS IT.
THANK YOU, GUYS. >> ANY CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC?
>> I DO NOT HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC BECAUSE OF WE HAVE THE FIVE CARS SHOWING. IF IT GETS MORE THAN FIVE CARS WE CAN GO DOWN AND AROUND. THE ACCESS ON THAT ONE-WAY IS A ONE-WAY ON THE FAR RIGHT. SO, I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUES WITH THE TRAFFIC. ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IT COULD BACK UP. IT'S NOT -- THAT IS MORE ROOM THAN THE STARBUCKS DOWN BY THE 67.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: DID YOU HAVE
A QUESTION? >> I WANT TO VERIFY THERE IS A ROOM FOR THE CAR TO GET OUT ON THE EXIT, CORRECT? IS THAT 17 FEET? IS THAT WHAT I SEE THERE?
>> SORRY, COMMISSIONER. WHERE ARE WE LOOKING AT, SIR?
I'M SORRY. >> ON THE PAGE LEFT AS YOU ARE LOOKING AT IT, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS ENOUGH ROOM FOR A CAR TO GET OUT OF THE BACK SIDE OF THE BUILDING WHILE
PEOPLE ARE QUEUED. >> THE ARROW ON THE DRIVE-THRU.
>> IT'S SHOWING 17 FEET WIDE. SO FOR THE TWO VEHICLES --
>> DUALLY PROBABLY NOT. >> TWO REGULAR CARS, YES.
>> THE CHANCES OF THAT ARE HIGH AROUND HERE.
>> THAT USED TO BE THE BARBERSHOP.
WHAT IS GOING IN NEXT TO THAT? WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT, WHAT USED TO BE THE BARBERSHOP. A WEEK BEFORE OR TWO WEEKS?
PAPA JOHN'S COMING IN ON THIS SIDE.
THEY WERE MODELING THAT. OKAY.
AGAIN, GOOD USES NEXT TO EACH OTHER.
[00:40:03]
THAT IS GOOD. THAT IS WHAT WE WANT.ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE NO OTHER COMMENTS.
DO WE HAVE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC THAT HAVE NOT FILLED OUT A FORM? I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.
>> I HAVE A SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KOEHLER. AT THIS TIME I WILL CALL THE VOTE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. I VOTE IN FAVOR.
>> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER KOEHLER?
>> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER STEPHENS?
>> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER BATEMAN?
>> AYE. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. 6-0.
ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS, COMMENTS OR MOTIONS? HEARING NONE I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: SECOND BY COMMISSIONER -- I'LL GIVE IT TO
STEPHENS THIS TIME. >> MEMBER STEPHENS: THANK YOU.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: CALL IT PHONE LAG.
WE'LL CALL THE VOTE. I VOTE AYE.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER KOEHLER?
>> AYE. COMMISSIONER STEPHENS?
>> MEMBER STEPHENS: AYE. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER
BATEMAN? >> MEMBER BATEMAN: AYE.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: OKAY. COMMISSIONER HILL?
>> MEMBER HILL: AYE. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: THE MOTION CARRIES. IT'S APPROVED 6-0.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GOOD LUCK. ALL RIGHT.
THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND
[018 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the use and development regulations of Planned Development District No. 117 (PD-117), relating to garage standards. The property is generally located ±445 feet north of Montgomery Road and on the west side of Joe Wilson Road (Case No. Z34-2020-135).]
ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE USE AND THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 117 RELATING TO THE GARAGE STANDARDS.THE PROPERTY LOCATED 445 FEET NORTH OF MONTGOMERY ROAD ON THE WEST SIDE OF JOE WILSON ROAD. ALL RIGHT.
THANKS. >> CHAIRMAN, THE AMENDMENTS ASKED TO THE GARAGE STANDARDS -- REQUESTED TO THE GARAGE STANDARDS OF AZALEA HOLLOW SUBDIVISION.
THE P.D. ONLY ALLOWS FOR SIDE-ENTRY GARAGES.
THEY ARE REQUESTING 20%, 22 OF HOMES MAY HAVE FRONT-FACING GARAGES AS PART OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN.
IF THE GARAGE IS FACING FRONT, THE GARAGE WOULD SET BACK 70 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THE ORDINANCE WILL STILL HAVE INTACT THE ORIGINAL SIDE ENTRY REQUIREMENTS.
ANY ADDITIONAL GARAGES MAY STILL FACE THE FRONT BUT ONLY 65% OF THOSE HOMES WILL HAVE THE FRONT ENTRY GARAGES.
ATTACHED -- ATTACHMENT NUMBER ONE SHOWS AN EXAMPLE OF THE FRONT-FACING GARAGES PROPOSED IN THE DEVELOPMENT.
ALSO WHAT I SHOW ON THE SCREEN. WE DID SEND OUT 37 LETTERS AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES BACK.
ONE RESPONSE THAT WE -- I TAKE IT BACK.
WE DID RECEIVE A RESPONSE TODAY AROUND 4:30.
BUT THAT WAS MORE RELATED TO THE 200-FOOT BOUNDARY NOT NECESSARILY IN OPPOSITION OR IN FAVOR.
STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED P.D. AMENDMENT TO GARAGE STANDARDS. I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY
HAVE. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: I MEAN LOOK AT THE PICTURES. ARE THESE THE HOUSES WE ARE
BUILDING OUT THERE? >> YES, SIR.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: HOW BIG ARE THE LOTS?
>> THERE ARE SOME LOTS THAT RANGE TO ALMOST TWO ACRES IN SIZE. SOME OF THEM IF YOU RECALL, THESE ARE THE LOTS THEY GOT SOME RELIEF FOR BEING ABLE TO GO UNDER AN ACRE IN SIZE. THOSE I BELIEVE ON THE .6 TO .7 OF AN ACRE IN SIZE. BUT THEY HAVE SPECIAL UNDERGROUND ON-IS IT SEPTIC SYSTEMS -- ON-SITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS. IT'S NOT AEROBIC.
THE REGULAR AEROBIC SYSTEMS FOR LOTS THAT ARE ONE ACRE LARGER.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: THIS IS NOT THE NEIGHBORHOOD -- WE HAVE HAD CONCERN AND PUSHBACK WHERE WE APPROVED THINGS AND THE CITY COUNCIL HAS NOT APPROVED THEM WITH THE FRONT-ENTRY GARAGES.
MOST OF THOSE CENTERED ON DISPUTES INVOLVING LOTS WITH THE 50, 60-FOOT LOT WIDTH. CORRECT?
>> YES, SIR. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: AS I UNDERSTANDING CITY COUNCIL WHICH WE TAKE OUR DIRECTION FROM, TO A LARGE DEGREE. WE WANT TO REFLECT WHAT THEY ARE DOING. THE CONCERN IS WITH THOSE YOU GET A MATCHY-MATCHY SET OF FRONTAGES AS YOU GO ALONG IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS. THEY DON'T WANT THAT.
THEY DON'T WANT PEOPLE DIRECTLY POURING ON TO THE STREET.
BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A RISK HERE WITH THE ONE-ACRE PLUS-SIZE
I THINK THE FRONT-ENTRY, THE FRONT SETBACKS ON MOST OF THE LOTS ARE 40 FEET. SOME HAVE A 35-FOOT.
MOST HAVE 40-FOOT. THE WAY THEY ARE WORDING THIS YOU ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER 30 TO 35-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE FRONT, FROM THE FRONT BUILD LINE THAT IS GOING BACK
[00:45:03]
THAT MUCH FURTHER THAT YOU CAN HAVE WITH YOUR FRONT ENTRY GOING TO BE FACING THE FRONT. NOW, OTHER THAN THAT, WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT 22 LOTS OUT OF THE 110.THE REMAINING LOTS ALL HAVE TO HAVE THE SIDE-ENTRY GARAGES.
THERE IS NO IF, AND OR BUTS ABOUT THAT.
THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE THE SIDE-ENTRY.
IF THEY DO A FOURTH, FIFTH OR SIXTH BAY, THAT ADDITIONAL BAY HAS TO STILL SIT BEHIND THE SIDE-ENTRY GARAGE.
SO YOU ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT UPWARD OF 40 -- STILL LOOKING AT CLOSE TO 70-FEET SETBACK FOR THE ADDITIONAL FRONT-ENTRY GARAGES IF YOU HAVE A SIDE ENTRY. AGAIN, THE APPLICANT TO RIDGE FALLLY THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE SIDE-ENTRY ONLY.
IF YOU HAD FRONT-ENTRY, ONLY UP TO 65% OF THE HOMES ARE GOING TO HAVE THE ADDITIONAL FRONT-ENTRY GARAGES.
BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, YOU ARE STILL DEALING WITH SOME PRETTY FAR SETBACKS FOR THE FRONT-ENTRY GARAGES.
IT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. WE FROM THE STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, WE WERE FINE WITH THIS. FOR THE MOST PART.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: IT LOOKS FINE TO ME.
IT SEEMS THAT WE HAVE SORT OF -- I WANT TO MAKE SURE WHEN WE BRING IT UP TO CITY COUNCIL WE CONSIDER THE PRIOR OPPOSITION TO THE FRONT-ENTRY GARAGES AND WE TAKE IT IN CONSIDERATION.
THIS IS THE PROBLEM OF HAVING ONE SET OF THE ORDINANCES WE TRY TO APPLY TO ALL LOTS AND ALL HOUSES.
>> YES, SIR. >> IT SEEMS LIKE ESPECIALLY SOME OF THE HOUSES THEY ARE BEAUTIFUL HOUSES.
FRONT-ENTRY GARAGES OR NOT. YOU ARE DEALING WITH A NICE WALK-UP APEEL WITH THEM. IT'S NOT THE PROBLEM WE ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS WITH THE FRONT-ENTRY LOTS.
SO I CAN COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS DIFFERENT MAKING THE DISTINCTION AND THE VOTE TONIGHT.
OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? FROM THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ONLINE? ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU, MARCOS.
WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO COMMENT OR DISCUSS?
>> ABSOLUTELY. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: THANK YOU, SIR. COME UP HERE AND STATE YOUR NAME
FORFOR US. >> TAYLOR, THE PRESIDENT OF GUS CUSTOM HOME DEVELOPER AND BUILDER.
ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM.
THAT IS ACTUALLY MY PERSONAL HOUSE ON THE TOP THERE.
BUILT IN THE AVIARY SO YOU CAN GO SEE IT ON THE AMERICAN SPARROW. YOU KNOW WHEN WE DID THE P.D., WORKED WITH THE GREAT STAFF OVER THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF.
WE HAVE ALREADY STARTED TO BUILD HOMES.
THE ONE ON THE BOTTOM THERE, WE ARE ABOUT TO FRAME THAT HOUSE STARTING TOMORROW. I THINK WE GOT SO CAUGHT UP IN MEETING AS MANY SECONDARY AMENITIES AS WE POSSIBLY COULD AND JUST GETTING SO FINE-TUNED. MARCOS AND TRENTON DID A PHENOMENAL JOB ON THE P.D. ITSELF AND THE ORDINANCE.
THAT LIKE WE DIDN'T, WE LIKE ALMOST HANDCUFFED OURSELVES BY THAT ONE SENTENCE IN THERE THAT WAS LIKE WE JUST KIND OF OVERLOOKED ON THE FRONT ENTRY. SO THIS INTENTION HAS ALWAYS BEEN WE HAVE TWO REALLY AMAZING ARCHITECTS AND SO A LOT OF THESE ARE GOING TO BE BEHIND A PORTICO SHADE LIKE MINE.
ONE STARTING THE FOUNDATION WHICH IS WHY THE AMENDMENT CAME UP. SAME CONCEPT.
TWO-CAR, FRONT FACING GARAGE BEHIND THE SHADE.
85 FOOT BACK. WHEN THE CITY STAFF WAS REVIEWING IT THEY WERE LIKE GOSH, YOU KNOW, THIS IS GOING TO BE STUFF BECAUSE OF THE ONE SENTENCE IN THERE.
SO, WE ARE NOT LOOKING FOR MORE THAN -- WE SAID 20% BECAUSE THERE IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF BEAUTIFUL HOMES IN THERE THAT ARE THE TYPICAL TWO OR THREE FACING THE SIDE.
ONE MAYBE FACING THE FRONT. WE ARE JUST LOOKING FOR THE ABILITY. IT'S A LOT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS, THE HOME THAT WOULD HAVE A MOTOR COURT OR A PORTICO SHADE TO DO THAT. IT WOULD BE CRAZY NOT TO BUILD THE HOMES WHICH WE ARE BUILDING. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE MEMBERS ONLINE? QUESTIONS? SO THERE IS A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE DEMAND FOR THE FRONT-ENTRY GARAGES ON THESE
SIZE PROPERTIES. >> YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
YOU KNOW, THE HOMES WE BUILD THAT WE BUILD, MY PARTNER CHASE.
THOUGH ARE THE SHOW HOMES. PEOPLE LIKE WHAT THEY SAY IN THAT. THE BIGGEST THINGS I CAN SAY WITH THE ARCHITECTS THAT WE WORK WITH IS THAT A LOT OF THIS IS LIKE BECAUSE OF ARCHITECTURAL STYLE.
MIDCENTURY MODERN OR A FRENCH REVIVAL.
IT DOES HAVE THE SHADE OR THE MOTOR COURT OR, YOU KNOW, MISS
[00:50:04]
BOISE'S HOUSE RIGHT HERE, THAT WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED IN THE HILL COUNTRY. HER HUSBAND TRAGICALLY PASSED AWAY. SHE WANTED TO BE AZALEA.SO WE ARE BUILDING HER HOUSE ON CORNER AND IT'S DESIGNED LIKE THAT AS PART OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE.
THIS IS NOT LIKE THE DRIVE-UP FRONT ENTRY GARAGES.
WE ARE NOT SCARED TO SAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE 70-FOOT BACK BECAUSE IT'S NEVER GOING TO BE CLOSER THAN THAT ANYWAYS.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: ARE THERE SIDEWALKS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD?
>> YES, SIR. SIX-FOOT OFF THE BACK OF THE CURB. IN BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK.
AND THE CURB. EVERY 50 FEET WE ARE PLANTING TREES. SO WE CAN HAVE A TREE LINE
STREET OVER THE 10, 15 YEARS. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: WHAT SIZE
HOUSES ARE THESE? >> MINIMUM 3,000 SQUARE FOOT.
MORE COS DID A GOOD JOB. .65 UP TO THE TWO-ACRE LOTS.
THE .65 TO THE .75 ACRE LOTS ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE TO HAVE A CONVENTIONAL SEPTIC TANK. WE CAME IN FOR THE ORIGINAL P.D.
THE ARCHITECT DID COOL SITE PLANS AND WE PROVED TO YOU THAT WE COULD STILL GET MAX COVERAGE OF THE 35% INSTEAD OF THE 40 PARK. THE LOTS THAT ARE .65 TO .75 HAVE TO HAVE A CONVENTIONAL. .75 AND UP CAN BE AEROBIC TANKS.
YOU CAN GET A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE, A.C., CIRCLE DRIVEWAY, POOL AND NOT EVEN BE CLOSE TO THE 40% MAX COVERAGE.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: OKAY. PERFECT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.
APPRECIATE IT. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 18 WE HAVE NO PRESUBMITTED APPLICATIONS. ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK? ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OSBORN.
I WILL SECOND THE MOTION AND CALL IT TO VOTE.
I'LL VOTE AYE. COMMISSIONER OZ OSBORN?
>> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER KOEHLER?
>> MEMBER KOEHLER: AYE. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER
STEPHENS? >> MEMBER STEPHENS: AYE.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER BATEMAN?
>> MEMBER BATEMAN: AYE. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED BY A VOTE OF 6-0. DISCUSSION? CONCERNS? MOTIONS?
>> FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL TRENDS THEY ARE GOING IT MAKE SENSE FOR
WHAT IS PRESENTED. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: YEAH.
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE HAD A VERY STRONG PUSHBACK ON THE FRONT-ENTRY GARAGES AND THE SMALLER ONES.
THAT IS BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS WITH SOME OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
WE HAVE RIGHT NOW SOMETHING LIKE 6,000 OR 7,000 LOTS PLATTED OUT THERE AND A LOT ARE SMALLER WIDTH, 50 TO 60-FOOT LOTS.
YOU KNOW WE DON'T WANT TO SEE THE ENTIRE CITY BUILT OUT WITH THE BUILDINGS. THESE, HOWEVER, ARE WHAT IN SOME OF THE AREAS WE WOULD LIKE TO BUILT OUT.
TO ENCOURAGE THIS AND TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO HAVE ARCHITECTURAL FREEDOM ON THE LARGER LOTS AND THE LARGER HOMES SEEMS IDEAL.
FOR THAT REASON I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KOEHLER.
I WILL CALL TO VOTE UNLESS THERE IS FURTHER DISCUSSION.
SO I VOTE AYE. COMMISSIONER OSBORN?
>> MEMBER OSBORN: AYE. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER
KOEHLER? >> MEMBER KOEHLER: AYE.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER STEPHENS?
>> MEMBER STEPHENS: AYE. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER
BATEMAN? >> MEMBER BATEMAN: AYE.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER HILL?
>> MEMBER HILL: AYE. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: ALL RIGHT.
THE MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. 6-0.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. GOOD LUCK.
THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 19. THIS IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC
[019 Conduct a public hearing to consider and act upon an ordinance by amending the use and development regulations of Planned Development District No. 98 (PD-98), as amended, by reapportioning the amount of open space, common area, and residential uses; by amending the site plan to conform to said amendments. The property is generally located north of F.M. 1387 and to the east of Walnut Grove Road (Case No. Z35-2020-142).]
HEARING AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE REGARDING THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPED DISTRICT 98 BY REAPPORTIONING THE AMOUNT OF THE OPEN SPACE, COMMON AREA, RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE AND ADOPTING A NEW SITE PLAN.LOCATED AT WALNUT GROVE ROAD AND FARM TO MARK 1ET 1387.
THANK YOU, MARCOS. >> APPLICANT REQUESTING THE UNDEVELOPED SECTION OF PD 98 REDUCED IN SIZE AND THE PROPOSED TYPE "C" AND "D" LOTS THAT ARE ALREADY PART OF PD89 THOSE BECOME TYPE "A" AND "B" LOTS. UP HERE IS THE EXISTING SITE PLAN. EVERYTHING IN GREEN AND YELLOW HAS ALREADY BEEN BUILT. WE ARE FOCUSING MORE ON THE EASTERN SIDE. WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SLIDE.
THIS IS TO CONSTRUCT OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE CALL THE ELLIS PRAIRIE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT INUNDATION EASEMENT AREA. THE INUNDATION AREA DOWNSTREAM OF A DAM AND WOULD BE FLOODED IN THE EVENT OF A FAILURE, BREACH,
[00:55:04]
OR UNCONTROLLED RELEASE OF WATER.THE APPLICANT STATED THE CONFIGURATION IS LESS DISRUPTIVE TO THE NATURAL AREA. IT DOES REDUCE THE OVERALL LOT COUNT THEY WERE PROPOSING HERE AT 242, 242 LOTS DOWN TO 240 LOTS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING CREATION OF SEPARATE 16-ACRE SING-FAMILY OUT PARCEL -- SINGLE-FAMILY OUT PARCEL. THE 16-ACRE PARCEL FALLS IN THE FLOODPLAIN AND INUNDATION EASEMENT IT WOULD ONLY BE INTENDED AND SUITABLE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY USE.
THIS OUT PARCEL WOULD NOT BE PART OF THE MASSING MEADOWS H.O.A. AND IT WOULD BE ACCESSED DIRECTLY ON TO F.M. 875.
APPLICANT WILL INCLUDE EIGHT-FOOT HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL FOR MULTIPLE AREAS. I'LL USE THE POINTER AND IT'S IN THIS LOCATION. THEY SHOW A TRAIL SYSTEMSHOOTING EAST. -- TRAIL SYSTEM SHOOTING EAST AND THEY HAVE A TRAIL SYSTEM RUNNING TO 1387.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN WHAT WE CALL A SUBURBAN MEDIUM AND THE LOW DENSITY MODULES. MEDIUM DENSITY CHARACTERIZED WITH A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF THE 14,000 SQUARE FEET.
LOW DENSITY MODULE, MINIMUM LOT SIZE SHOULD REALLY BE ABOUT 20,000 SQUARE FEET. SO OBVIOUSLY, WHAT THE APPLICANT SHOWED BEFORE ACTUALLY WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WHAT WE ARE SHOWING NOW IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
ON THE SCREEN IS ALSO COMPARISON OF THE EXISTING VERSUS THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS. IT'S THIS SLIDE HERE.
THIS TOP SECTION DOES SHOW WHERE WE STAND RIGHT NOW WITH THE P.D.
98. THE MODIFICATIONS ARE SUMMARIZED DOWN HERE ON THE BOTTOM. OBVIOUSLY WE ARE GETTING A LITTLE BIT MORE OPEN SPACE. THEY ARE REMOVING TWO LOTS.
THEY WOULD BE ADDING THE ONE LARGE 16-ACRE PARCEL TRACK.
OVERALL WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE IT DOES GO DOWN SLIGHTLY. AT THE BOTTOM OF THE TABLE IT DOES SHOW HOW MANY LOTS ARE BEING REMOVED.
HOW MANY ARE ADDED. THAT BEING MORE OF THE A&B TYPE, MORE OF THE "B" TYPE I SHOULD SAY.
WE DID SEND OUT 68 NOTIFICATIONS MAILED TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
WE DID RECEIVE TWO RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST.
SINCE THE PROPOSED LOT SIZES DO CONFLICT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ON TO F.M. 875, WHICH I'LL POINT OUT HERE ON THE BOTTOM SOUTHERN AREA THERE.
IT DOES NOT ALIGN WITH ANY EXISTING DRIVEWAYS ON THE OTHER SIDE. ON TOP OF THAT, TXDOT IS RECONSTRUCTING F.M. 1837. THERE WILL BE A RAISED MEDIAN RIGHT IN FRONT OF THAT DRIVEWAY. STAFF IS GOING TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED REQUEST. BUT WITH THAT, I WANT TO ADD THAT IF THE COMMISSIONER AND THE CITY COUNCIL DO APPROVE THIS REQUEST, THAT THEY CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT I HAVE UP HERE ON THE SCREEN: THAT THE EIGHT-FOOT CONCRETE TRAIL BE INSTALLED ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
OPPOSED TO THE FRONT SIDE. IT WOULD RUN ON THE FRONT SIDE.
WE FEEL THE TRAIL SYSTEM SHOULD RUN THROUGH THE OPEN SPACE ON THE BACK SAID SINCE IT'S A MAJOR AMENITY.
ON TOP OF THAT, WE WOULD ALSO REQUEST THAT THAT SINGLE FAMILY OUT PARCEL THAT IT BE, IT HAVE DIRECT ACCESS THROUGH THE MASSEY MEADOWS SUBDIVISION AND NOT DIRECT ACCESS TO 1387.
I DID A LITTLE BIT OF A MOCK-UP HERE.
THIS IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO SAY THAT THE CONCRETE TRAIL SYSTEM NEEDS TO RUN THROUGH THE BACK SIDE AND THE SINGLE FAMILY OUT PER SELL NEEDS TO BE ACCESS -- PARCEL NEEDS TO BE ACCESSED THROUGH THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN MASSEY MEADOWS GOING TO 1387. WITH THAT, I COULD TAKE
QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. >> CAN YOU GO BACK TO WHAT YOU
JUST HAD UP, JUST THEN? >> SURE.
THE ONE I MOCKED UP? >> I UNDERSTAND PUTTING THE TRAIL BACK THERE. EXPLAIN TO ME THE STREET ONE
IF THEY DO ACCESS THIS PARCEL STRAIGHT TO 1387, THE ONE THING WE DON'T WANT TO SEE IS MORE DRIVEWAYS TO 1387.
ESPECIALLY WITH THE RAISED MEDIAN PROPOSED BY TXDOT.
THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THIS PERSON WOULD ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO NOT ONLY GET ON TO A MAJOR ROAD, WHICH IS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A FOUR-LANE UNDIVIDED ROADWAY. FOUR-LANE DIVIDED ROADWAY I GUESS I SHOULD SAY. LET ME CORRECT MYSELF THERE.
[01:00:02]
IN ORDER TO GO EASTBOUND, THEY LITERALLY WOULD HAVE TO COME ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE WALNUT GROVE ROAD AND COME BACK AROUND.THERE IS DRIVEWAYS. ON THIS SIDE.
THAT DOES LEAD IN TO A SUBDIVISION ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
BUT THIS AREA HERE THERE IS A FLOODPLAIN.
THE TOPOGRAPHY IS SKETCHY I GUESS IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA.
SO THE APPLICANT HAS TOLD US. SO THE APPLICANT AGAIN PROPOSING THAT THE DRIVEWAY BE LOCATED RIGHT ABOUT IN THIS LOCATION HERE. ON THE OTHER SIDE OF PIPELINE EASEMENT THAT ALREADY EXISTS IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA.
THAT IS WHAT THE DASHED LINES ARE HERE.
PIPELINE EASEMENT THAT RUNS THROUGH THERE.
THAT DRIVEWAY WOULD BE JUST TO THE EAST OF IT.
>> SO WOULD THEY COME BACK UP TOWARD THE TOP OF THE GREEN AREA THERE AND COME OUT IN TO THE BLUE AREA? TO COME OUT? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?
>> CORRECT. WE WOULD SAY THAT THERE BE SOME SORT OF EXTENDED DRIVEWAY THAT CONNECTS THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THIS PARCEL HERE. IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY GO OVER THAT TRAIL SYSTEM. THAT WOULD BE, IF WE DID SEE THE TRAIL SYSTEM ON THE BACKSIDE, WHICH AGAIN THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING. THAT DRIVE WAY WOULD RUN RIGHT
THROUGH IT. >> SO THEY ARE SAVING ONE LITTLE BIT OF GREEN SPACE. IT SEEMS LIKE THE COMPLAINTS ARE THEY ARE LOSING THEIR GREEN SPACE BEHIND THEIR HOUSES.
SO ON THE NORTH, ALL THE GREEN SPACE ISN'T BEING AFFECTED.
IT'S JUST THAT ON THAT SORT OF EASTERN STRIP THEY ARE LOSING,
PARTICULARLY DOWN AT THE BOTTOM. >> YEAH.
DOWN THERE. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: ACTUALLY IF YOU GO FURTHER RIGHT NOW WE HAVE THE HOUSES.
IF YOU LOOK AT THIS MAP WE HAVE LIGHT BLUE HOUSES AND THERE IS THE EXISTING. THERE IS A GREEN SPACE BEHIND THEM. PART OF THE BOTTOM IS CUT OFF AND THEY WILL BE HOUSES. IT WILL EXTEND THAT --
IS THERE SOME SORT OF THE ENGINEERING PROBLEM THAT PREVENTS THEM FROM UNDERTAKING THE ORIGINAL PLAN AS AN EXPENSE THING? WHAT IS THE ISSUE HERE?
>> I CAN LET THE APPLICANT -- >> LET THE APPLICANT.
ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? HEARING NONE GO AHEAD AND LET THE APPLICANT PRESENT.
COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
>> I'M JEFF WITH BANDERRING ENGINEERING AT 240 NORTH MITCHELL ROAD IN MANSFIELD. TO GET TO YOUR QUESTION.
THE MAIN REASON AND MARCOS TOUCHED ON IT, THERE IS INUNDATION EASEMENT WITH A CONSERVATION POND TO THE NORTH OF HERE. THEY ARE REQUIRED OR THEY WERE AT THE TIME WHEN THIS WAS BUILT IN THE '30S OR '40S TO HAVE AN EASEMENT DOWNSTREAM FOR THIS THE DAM WERE TO CATASTROPHICALLY DISAPPEAR WHEN THE POND WAS FULL.
WHERE THE BODY WOULD GO. THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO FLOOD ANYTHING DOWN THERE. AFTER MY CLIENT WENT THROUGH ZONING WE WERE NOT INVOLVED WITH IT, THE FIRST TIME AROUND OR THROUGH THE FIRST PHASES. THEY WERE TALKING TO BUILDERS, AND THEY BEGIN TO REALIZE IT WOULD PROBABLY BE EASIER ON EVERYONE INVOLVED IF THE INUNDATION EASEMENT COULD BE RECONFIGURED SO IT DIDN'T INCLUDE ANY OF THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS. SO OUR FIRM AS WELL AS ANOTHER FIRM IN DALLAS HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE D.C.Q. TO WE MODEL AND DESIGN THE CORRIDOR WHERE IT WOULD HAPPEN, ALONG THE BACK SIDE OF THE LOTS IN BLUE. WE ARE TRYING TO SQUEEZE THE AREA DOWN NOT ADD ANY MORE LOTS. MATTER OF FACT WE ARE TWO LOTS DOWN ON THE BUILDER LOTS THAN THE P.D. ALLOWED FOR.
SO THEY THE LOTS ARE FREE OF THE INUNDATION ZONE.
THE BYPRODUCT OF THAT IS THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD HAVE BECOME THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS AND MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED IN A NATURAL SETTING WILL REMAIN NATURAL NOW. WHERE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE BEFORE.
A COUPLE OF THE THINGS WE ARE ASKING FOR, THE GRAY AREA, I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR. BECAUSE OF THE FLOODPLAIN AND THE GRADING AND THE INUNDATION AND EVERYTHING OUT THERE, THAT 16 ACRES CAN ONLY SUPPORT ONE RESIDENCE.
[01:05:02]
SO THE IDEA IT IS NOT TO BE PLATTED TO THE MULTIPLE LOTS IN THE FUTURE. IT'S ONE RESIDENCE.AS FAR AS THE ACCESS ON THAT GOES IT'S PROBABLY OBVIOUSLY A DIFFERENT MARKET FOR A 16-ACRE TRACK VERSUS ONE OF THE SMALLER LOTS THAT ARE IN THE SUBDIVISION.
PEOPLE WHO WANT A LARGER PROPERTY LIKE THAT WHETHER IT IS JUST TO BE KIND OF OFF ON THEIR OWN OR THEY WANT MILD AG SERVICES, CATTLE OR GOATS OR HORSES OR WHATEVER, ARE NOT GOING TO WANT TO DRIVE THROUGH A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION TO GET TO THEIR HOME. THEY WOULD RATHER PULL OFF OF FORMERLY RURAL 1387. WE FEEL THE MARKETABILITY AND THE VIABILITY AND POSSIBLE BY DEPENDING WHO PURCHASED THE PROPERTY GETTING ALONG WITH THE NEIGHBORS IF THEY WERE PULLING HORSE TRAILERS AND STUFF THROUGH THERE IT MIGHT NOT BE COMP COMPATIBLE. SO WE LIKE TO KEEP THE DRIVEWAY TO 1387. MOSTLY WE WANT TO MAKE SURE Y'ALL UNDERSTAND THAT THE REASON WE ARE DOING THAT IS NOT ECONOMIC BASED. IT'S NOT TO SAVE MONEY.
IT'S LIKELY TO COST A LITTLE BIT MORE THOUGH THE PAVING COSTS ARE DOWN IN GRADING COSTS THAT WE HAVE ON THE SMALLER LOTS TO MAKE
THIS HAPPEN. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: HAVE YOU TALKED WITH THE PEOPLE WHO ARE UNHAPPY THAT THEY WANT THE GREEN SPACE BEHIND THEM AND THEY ARE LOSING THE GREEN SPACE OR LOSING
THE GREEN SPACE? >> THERE IS REALLY NOT ANYBODY -- SEE IF I GET THE RIGHT BUTTON HERE.
OKAY. THIS AREA YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT HERE IS THIS SAME AREA HERE. SO, IT'S A LITTLE BIT SMALLER.
THIS EXISTS NOW IN THIS CONFIGURATION HOW IT IS PLATTED
IN THE FIRST PHASE. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: EXCEPT IT DOESN'T GO ALL THE WAY TO THE SOUTH.
WE HAVE HOUSES THERE ON THE SOUTH THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE
BUILDING. >> THESE HOMES HERE UP TO THIS POINT ARE ALREADY BUILT. THIS ROAD STUBBED OUT TO THIS
POINT. >> EXISTING THERE IN BLUE,
RIGHT? >> EXISTING THERE IN BLUE.
YES, SIR. UP AND DOWN RIGHT HERE.
THAT IS WHERE THE END OF THE PHASE I.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: YOU HAVEN'T BUILT PASSES PAST PHASE I IN THE
GREEN -- >> WE HAVE NOT BUILT ANY OF THESE HOMES HERE. OR LOTS I SHOULD SAY.
OR THESE LOTS. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: OKAY.
PART OF WHEN PEOPLE BUY IN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, DON'T YOU THINK, THEY HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THE DEVELOPER REPRESENTING "A," THIS IS HOW WE WILL DEVELOP THE PROPERTY.
IF A PERSON BUYS A LOT THAT BACKS UP ON A GREEN SPACE, WHAT RIGHT DO I HAVE AS A COUNCILMEMBER TO TAKE THAT AWAY FROM THEM? WHAT DO YOU THINK, WHAT DO YOU
THINK THE BASIS FOR THAT IS? >> WELL, I WOULD SAY THAT MOST HOMEOWNERS FIRST OF ALL AREN'T AWARE OF MUCH BEYOND WHERE THE LOTS ARE. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THESE BUYERS SAW. I DO KNOW, HOWEVER, THAT WHAT THEY BOUGHT WAS THE LOT AND THE AMENAMENITIES THAT WE ARE PROVI.
WE ARE PROVIDING MORE OPEN SPACE THAN BEFORE.
WE'LL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE TRAIL SYSTEMS TO MAKE CONNECTIONS AS DISCUSSED BEFORE. THOUGH THE CONFIGURATION IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT, THE ELEMENTS ARE STILL THERE.
WE HAVE NOT TRIED TO GET AWAY FROM ANYTHING IN THIS REQUEST FOR A P.D. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO MINIMIZE ANY OUTLAY ON OUR PART. JUST MAKING THE MODIFICATIONS TO BE ABLE TO PULL THE LOTS OUT OF THE INUNDATION AREA.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: STATE YOUR NAME.
>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS DAVID HEARST.
I RESIDE 2205 SOMERSET IN MIDLOTHIAN.
I'M THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
I WANT TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF YOUR QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY, MR. ALTMAN. THE GREEN SPACE WE ARE PROVIDING NOW IS SUBSTANTIALLY MORE AND MUCH MORE NATURAL THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT OCCURRED.
WHEN WE ORIGINAL PLANNED THIS, THE IDEA WAS THAT THE PHASE II WE CALL IT THE ESTATE LOTS. WE WANT LARGE LOTS FOR THE LARGER CUSTOM HOMES. IT WAS ULTIMATELY THE DISCOVERY OF TWO ITEMS THAT CHANGED OUR PLAN.
ONE WAS IN THE NEGOTIATIONS THAT PIPELINE EASEMENT THAT RUNS THROUGH THE PROPERTY WAS UNDEFINED EASEMENT ORIGINALLY WITH EXXON-MOBIL. GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS TO GET IT DEFINED, WHICH WE HAD TO DO BECAUSE IT WAS A BLANKET EASEMENT, OF COURSE, OVER THE PROPERTY TO CLEAR TITLE ISSUES UP. THAT NEGOTIATIONS EXXON-MOBIL BASICALLY REFUSED TO ALLOW US TO PUT IT THROUGH ANY LOT.
[01:10:03]
WE WEREN'T ALLOWED TO HAVE ANY LOT THAT RUNS THROUGH ANYONE'S RESIDENTIAL LOT. THAT DESTROYED A LOT OF THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT. YOU CAN SEE IT RUNS THROUGH A NUMBER OF LOTS IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN.SECONDLY, AS WE DISCOVERED, SORT OF THIS TITLE ISSUE RELATED TO THIS INUNDATION EASEMENT, IT ALSO IS JUST A BLANKET EASEMENT.
SO IT WAS A EASEMENT GRANTED ON AN ORIGINAL 700 OR 800 ACRE TRACK OF LAND MANY YEARS AGO AND IT SHOWED UP ON TITLE OBJECTION ON EVERY LOT AS WEED A THEN DEVELOPED.
WE WERE SUCCESSFUL TO CONVINCING AND WORKING WITH THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO HAVE THE PHASE I EXCLUDED OUT OF THE EASEMENT SO THEY DEFINED IT ORIGINALLY TO EXCLUDE EVERYTHING THAT WAS IN THE PHASE ONE AREA. SO THERE WERE NO TITLE OBJECTIONS WITH IT. HOWEVER, THEY REMAIN CONCERNED THAT WITH STUDY THAT WAS DONE SOMETIME AGO BY THE USDA OF THE BREACH, THE DAM BREACH ANALYSIS THAT IF THERE WERE A CATASTROPHIC FAILURE THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT PONDS UPSTREAM FROM US THAT AFFECT THE PROPERTY.
THEY WERE CONCERNED IF IT THERE WAS A CATASTROPHIC FAILURE BASED ON THE RECENT THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN HOUSTON IN THE FLOODINGS THAT OCCURRED DOWN THERE THAT THERE MIGHT BE LIABILITY AND DANGER TO HOMEOWNERS SO WE DECIDED TO WORK WITH THEM AND WE HAD AN ENTIRE ANALYSIS DONE TO DEFINE EXACTLY WHERE WE COULD PRECISELY DEFINE THAT FLOOD LINE.
THIS PLAN REFLECTS THAT. THIS LINE HERE SPECIFICALLY TRACES THAT DEFINED EASEMENT. I OOPED SOMETHING.
SORRY. >> I THINK I HAVE A BETTER SLIDE TO SHOW. RIGHT HERE.
>> YEAH. YOU CAN SEE THE RED LINE IS THE ORIGINAL INDUNDATION LINE THAT WAS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT.
MY PROBLEM GOING TO THE EXISTING.
MAYBE I HAVE THE RED MARKER FOR A SECOND TO SEE IF I CAN -- MY BIG PROBLEM IS -- THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS COME UP BEFORE. THERE WE GO.
HOW DO I GET THE RED DOT? THERE.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE THAT IS COLOR BLIND? CAN WE ALL SEE? OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. MY PROBLEM IS THAT WHEN THIS IS ALL BUILT OUT NOW, RIGHT? LIKE THESE ARE ALL FILLED.
>> NOT COMPLETELY BUT ON OUR WAY.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: I'M GOING TO DISAGREE.
WHEN PEOPLE BUY IN A PLAT THEY BUY PLATTED PROPERTY.
THERE IS AN IDEA THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL LOOK THE WAY IT IS.
WE HAVE A GREEN SPACE RUNNING THROUGH HERE.
I GET WE GIVE MOST OF THEM THAT, BUT NOT GIVING THE GREEN SPACE HERE AND WE ARE REALLY PUTTING THOSE HOUSES CLOSER THAN WHAT THEY ORIGINAL HAD. I DON'T KNOW HOW WIDE THAT IS OR WHAT THE FOOTAGE IS. WHAT I THINK WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE -- THESE ARE NOT BUILT SO THEY ARE NOT LOCKED IN STONE. THESE FOLKS HAD A GREEN SPACE BEHIND THEM. THEY HAD A GREENBELT.
THE GREENBELT SHOULD REMAIN UNCHANGED FOR THE PLAT.
YOU CAN GIVE THEM MORE GREEN SPACE.
BUT TO ME THE ONLY REAL VALID COMPLAINT I SEE THE FOLKS THAT COMPLAINED -- THIS HAPPENS IN A LOTTED OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
WE WILL GET A DEVELOPER WHO COMES IN A SECOND BUYER AND THEY SAY MAN THESE ARE NOT SELLING AS FAST AS WE WANTED AND WE HAVE HALF THE PEOPLE BOUGHT IN TO A CERTAIN PROJECT.
LIKE WE HAD A HORSE, EQUINE FACILITY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TOWN. SOME OTHER DEVELOPERS CAME IN AND SAID NOBODY IS BUYING THE EQUINE HOUSES.
LET'S JUST TURN IT IN TO A REGULAR GARDEN VARIETY SUBDIVISION. I THINK IT WAS UNFAIR TO THE EXISTING OWNERS WHO SHOWED UP TO SAY WE BOUGHT IN THE IDEA THERE WOULD BE PLENTY OF PLACES TO RIDE OUR HORSES THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M NOT SEEING THIS IS AN EXTREME AS THAT BUT SAVING THE GREEN SPACE IS THE ONLY WAY YOU ARE ADVERSELY IMPACTING ANYONE WHO INVESTED IN THE PLAT GETTING RID OF THE LITTLE GREEN STRIP RIGHT THERE.
I COULD AGREE WITH EVERYTHING ELSE.
I THINK RIGHT NOW WE JUST NEED TO WAY TO PROTECT THAT GREEN
SPACE AND COME IN DIFFERENTLY. >> WHAT I THINK YOU ARE MISSING THE GREEN SPACE IS NOT GREEN. IT'S JUST A PRETTY STEEP SLOPE THAT GOES ACROSS THERE. IT'S NOT GREEN.
IT'S AN OPEN SPACE. BUT IT'S NOT PLANTED AND LANDSCAPED AND PRESPACE. WHAT WE ARE GIVING THEM NOW IS ACCESS DIRECTLY. COULD YOU PUT THE AERIAL, THE
GOOGLE AERIAL. >> CHAIRMAN, DO YOU STILL HAVE
>> IF I MAY. SO YOU CAN SEE THERE IS THIS BEAUTIFUL TREE LINE THAT GOES ALL DOWN THROUGH THIS CREEK.
DOWN THROUGH HERE. YOU CAN SEE THERE IS NOTHING THERE. IT IS JUST ROCK.
THIS IS THAT SAME GREEN SPACE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
THERE ARE FEW TREES RIGHT THERE BUT OTHERWISE THEY ARE LOOK DOWN IN TO A FLOODPLAIN FIELD BASICALLY.
WHAT WE ARE TRADING OFF IN PLAN WE ARE GIVING THEM NOW IF THEY
[01:15:03]
WILL BE ABLE TO COME DOWN HERE AND HAVE A TRAIL THAT GOES DOWN HERE AND ALL THIS SPACE WILL STAY NATURAL.THEY GET TO ENJOY THE CREEK AND HAVE A NICE BEAUTIFUL SPACE.
THIS IS TREED ALONG HERE. WHERE THEY CAN COME THROUGH.
I WOULD ARGUE WE ARE GIVING THEM A BETTER AMENITY SPACE THAN WHAT THEY WERE GETTING IN THE CURRENT PLAN.
IN THIS PLAN THESE WOULD BE PRIVATE LOTS.
OFFENSE ACROSS THERE. FOR SOMEBODY.
WE ARE EXCHANGING THIS WITH A LOT BETTER AMENITY FOR THEM IN OUR OPINION. I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY OF WHY WE DID THIS. WE LOVE THE PLAN AND WANT TO DO IT BUT THROUGH THE ENGINEERING PROCESS FOUND OUT WE COULDN'T DO THE PLAN. WE HAVE COME BACK AND THE BUILDERS THAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING WITH ALL SUPPORT THIS FULLY. THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL. IN BUILDING OUT RAPIDLY.
IN A GREAT LOCATION. WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS THE RIGHT SOLUTION FOR WHAT WE ARE FACING THERE.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: OKAY. >> WITH THAT I WILL ANSWER ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. >> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
SO IN THE PROPOSED, THE FAR EASTERN LOTS.
YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE REAR LOT LINE OF THE LOTS IS YOUR LIMIT
OF THE NEW PROPOSED -- >> THIS IS WHERE THE INUNDATION
LINE WOULD BE. >> THAT IS HOW YOU SET THE REAR
OF THE LOT. >> THAT IS HOW THE LINE WAS DEFINED. IT'S A SPECIFIC ENGINEERED LINES. IT REQUIRES US TO GRADE IT A CERTAIN WAY. THERE WILL PROBABLY BE IN A LOT OF THIS LIKE A SLIGHT RETAINING WALL ACROSS THERE.
TO DO THAT THIS IS AGAIN IF YOU GO TO THE AERIAL.
LET ME SHOW YOU THIS. THIS IS ALL JUST OPEN AREA.
THE FOLIAGE BACK ALONG THE CREEK.
DOING WHAT WE ARE DOING WITH THE PROPOSED PLAN, ALL OF THIS WILL STAY OPEN. THEY WILL BE ACCESS TO THE CREEK AND THE OPEN AREA BACK UP IN HERE.
>> THE OTHER ISSUE IS THE LARGE LOT.
I LIVE ON A LOT WITH 20 ACRES. I HAD A CHOICE OF GOING TO 14TH STREET OR GOING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I WENT THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE IT'S MUCH BETTER IF YOUR COWS OR GOATS OR THE HORSES GET LOOSE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAN IF THEY GET LOOSE ON A MAJOR ROAD. BETWEEN THE TWO, I WOULD RECOMMEND, I THINK IT WOULD BE A SELLING POINT TO MOST PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS OFF THROUGH A NEIGHBORHOOD EVEN IF THEY HAD A LARGE LOT. SO THAT WOULD BE -- I DON'T THINK THAT IS -- I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE NOW DAYS LIKE A FARM BEHIND THEM. IT'S PROBABLY A SELLING POINT.
WHICH IS WHAT ORIGINALLY CONCERNED ME ABOUT THE COMPLAINTS OF THE TWO INDIVIDUALS.
READING -- I WILL READ THOSE LATER IN RECORD.
THEY SEEM TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE FACT THEY WERE PROMISED THE LOTS THEMSELVES WOULDN'T DEVELOPED FOR SERVE YEARS BY THE ORIGINAL BUILDER THAT THEY BOUGHT FROM. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING ANYBODY
CAN PROMISE TO ANYBODY. >> THE BUILDER DIDN'T DEVELOP IT. THEY JUST BOUGHT THE LOT.
>> THEY DIDN'T COMPLAIN ABOUT THE SHAPE OF PLAT OR LOSING THE GREEN STRIP THEY COMPLAIN THAT THE LOTS ARE BUILT.
YOU ARE BUILDING THE SAME KIND OF LOTS GENERALLY AS YOU
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: OKAY. >> ONE LAST QUESTION.
THE LOT, IS THERE IS NO -- IN THIS NEW PLAN THERE IS NO SIDE YARD ALONG THAT EAST/WEST STREET WHERE IT NOW -- YEAH.
RIGHT THERE. NO SIDE YARD THAT USED TO GO TO
>> THAT IS NOW GOING TO THE LOT. >> EVEN THOUGH THIS PLAN SHOWED THAT, THE ROAD PUNCHES THROUGH ALREADY.
THAT WAS DONE WITH THE STAFF'S AGREEMENT DURING THE DEVELOPMENT. WE KNEW THERE WAS A PROBLEM.
STAFF WAS REALLY UNSUPPORTTIVE OF THIS TIE-IN ORIGINALLY ANYWAY. SO WE HAD COME BACK TO PROPOSE WE COULD DO THIS TIE-IN BACK UP HERE.
WE AVOID ANOTHER COMPLICATED INTERSECTION DOWN HERE OFF OF THE 1387. WENT FROM SERVING 50 LOTS UP IN HERE TO A SINGLE DRIVE SERVING A SINGLE HOUSE.
SO THIS, THIS IS A LITTLE CONFUSING BECAUSE IT DOES PUNCH THROUGH NOW. THE LOTS ARE ACTUALLY LIKE THEY ARE DRAWN HERE. THIS STOPS RIGHT HERE.
END OF PHASE ONE. >> THE LAST PERSON WHO BOUGHT
KNEW THEY WOULD HAVE A NEIGHBOR. >> CORRECT.
THE KNUCKLE WENT AWAY. >> WOULD YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE IF THEY WERE TOLD OR WERE NOT TOLD THEY WOULD NOT BUILD FOR SEVEN
I'M THE DEVELOPER OF THE LAND. THE BUILDERS ARE, THEY ARE THREE RESIDENTIAL BUILDERS OUT THERE. THEY ALL OWN DIFFERENT LOTS.
SO ANY ONE OF THE THREE BUILDERS WOULD OWN LOTS HERE.
I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE WOULD HAVE SAID THAT.
IT WOULD NOT HAVE AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION.
THEY DON'T OWN THE LAND THAT WE ARE DEVELOPING.
>> OKAY. >> SO THEY COULDN'T HAVE -- IT'S NOT YOUR ISSUE THEN. OKAY.
[01:20:05]
UNDERSTOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THEFOLKS ONLINE TELEPHONICALLY? >> THANK YOU.
WE HAVE TWO COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC SUBMITTED.
TIMMY KLINEMAN, 4449 MASSEY MEADOWS WAY.
IN OPPOSITION TOLD BY THE BUILDER ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT HAPPEN WITHIN SERVE YEARS.
FLAT OUT LIE." STEVE MARTIN MARIGOLD DRIVE.
WHEN WE PURCHASED THE HOME WE WERE TOLD THE PROPERTY BEHIND US WOULD NOT BE DEVELOPED FOR AT LEAST SEVEN YEARS IF AT ALL.
PUBLIC COMMENTS. ARE THERE ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE TOPIC? SEEING NONE, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KOEHLER. CALL THE VOTE ON THE MOTION TO CLOSE UNLIB HEARING. I'M IN FAVOR.
>> AYE. COMMISSIONER STEPHENS?
>> MEMBER STEPHENS: AYE. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER
BATEMAN? >> MEMBER BATEMAN: AYE.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER HILL?
>> MEMBER HILL: AYE. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED BY A VOTE 6-0.
DISCUSSIONS, MOTIONS? I KNOW I HAVE DISCUSSED A LOT ON THIS ONE. IT COMES FROM THE FACT THAT ONCE A PLAT IS APPROVED AND IT STARTED TO DEVELOP, YOU EXPECT A BUILDER NOT TO DISENFRANCHISE OR TAKE AWAY FROM ANY AMENITIES THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO OR PROMISED TO FOLKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AS I MENTIONED THE EQUINE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS A BIG ONE FOR ME.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE DID THIS BUT I THINK IT NEEDS THE NEIGHBORHOOD -- I KNOW WE DIDN'T DO IT BY THE NUMBERS.
WHEN WE DO THIS FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD WE SHOULD BE NOTIFIED THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD. I KNOW LEGALLY WE DON'T HAVE TO BUT I STATED BEFORE WE SHOULD NOTIFY AN ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD.
BECAUSE THEY BUY IN TO A CERTAIN CONCEPT.
WHETHER OR NOT THEY LOOK AT THE PLAT.
SOME DO, A LOT OF PEOPLE DO LOOK AT THE PLAT TO SAY WHAT NEIGHBORHOOD AM I BUYING IN TO, AND WHAT IS THE GREEN SPACE IN WITH A LOT OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS WE HAVE NOW AND THE AMENITY PLANS THOSE ARE ABSOLUTELY PART OF THE SELLING POINT MIDLOTHIAN THAT WE PROVIDE THE AMENITIES FOR THE NEW SUBDIVISIONS. WITH THAT SAID, THERE IS A TRADEOFF HERE. I AGREE THERE IS A GREEN SPACE.
SIMPLY ROCK BELT RIGHT NOW AND WE LOOK TO IMPROVE IT WITH A TRAIL SYSTEM. WHICH IS A GREEN SPACE USE FOR THE FOLKS AND THAT IS A GOOD REASON TO CHANGE.
I LOOK AT THE OPPOSITION, THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT LOSING THAT STRIP OR THE WAY THE STRIP CHANGED.
THEY ARE CONCERNED IS THE BUILDERS TOLD THEM IT WOULD TAKE SEVEN YEARS TO DEVELOP THE PARTICULAR LOTS.
THE LOTS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PLATTED.
ANYBODY LOOKING AT THE PLAT WOULD SEE THESE AND KNOW AT SOME POINT THESE WOULD GET DEVELOPED. I DON'T SEE THAT THIS IS CONTRARY TO WHAT THEY HAVE. I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF A MOTION TO APPROVE. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? FOLKS ON THE LINE? COMMENTS?
COMMISSIONER -- MARCOS? >> YES.
CHAIRMAN, IS THAT A MOTION WITH THE CONDITIONS OR --
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: I WASN'T MAKING A MOTION YET.
WAITING TO SEE IF HE HAD MORE INPUT OR DISCUSSION.
I WILL MAKE ONE EVENTUALLY IF IT DOESN'T.
IF KNOWN HAS ANY COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION -- IF NO ONE HAS COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION. I'LL GO AHEAD --
>> I FEEL LIKE, I MEAN, I ASKED THE QUESTIONS I NEEDED TO.
TO MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THE EXISTING CONDITIONS.
WHAT WAS SOLD. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: YEAH.
>> ADJACENT TO WERE ARE NOT TRULY CHANGING ANYTHING.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: YEAH. >> WE DIDN'T HAVE A LOT THAT NOW WAS GOING TO HAVE NOTHING NEXT TO IT NOW A LOT NEXT TO IT.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: EXACTLY. YOU COVERED THAT GREAT.
I THINK THAT THE ACCESS NEEDS TO BE THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION NOT 1387. THAT IS A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE.
AND THE STAFF SEPT RECOMMENDS I. LET ME GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE THE REQUEST. ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 8-FOOT CONCRETE TRAIL SYSTEM INSTALL BED HIND THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS ALONG BLOCK "G" AND TERMINATE NEAR 1387 WITHIN THE OPEN SPACE. AND THAT ACCESS TO THE SINGLE-FAMILY OUTPARCEL CREATED THROUGH THE MASSEY MEADOWS SUBDIVISION ON STREET "B." NO DIRECT ACCESS PERMITTED ON THE FARM TO MARKET 1387. I SO MOVE.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KOEHLER.
I WILL CALL THE VOTE. CHAIRMAN ALTMAN VOTES AYE.
COMMISSIONER OSBORN? >> MEMBER OSBORN: NO.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER KOEHLER?
>> MEMBER KOEHLER: AYE. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER
STEPHENS? >> MEMBER STEPHENS: NO.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER BATEMAN?
[01:25:01]
>> MEMBER BATEMAN: NO. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: THE MOTION FAILS BY 2-4 VOTE.
DO WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE ON DENIAL?
>> JUST FOR THE RECORD, MOTION WITH BOTH DENIAL.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: MAYBE AS A DIFFERENT MOTION.
COMMISSIONER OSBORN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE CONTRARY MOTION?
>> MEMBER OSBORN: I MOVE FOR DENIAL.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: MOTION FOR DENIAL.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> MEMBER STEPHENS: SECOND.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STEPHENS.
I WILL CALL THAT TO VOTE. ALTMAN, NAY.
COMMISSIONER OSBORN? >> MEMBER OSBORN: AYE.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER KOEHLER?
>> MEMBER KOEHLER: NAY. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER
STEPHENS? >> MEMBER STEPHENS: AYE.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER BATEMAN?
>> MEMBER BATEMAN: I'M GOING WITH AYE.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: "AYE" BY COMMISSIONER BATEMAN.
COMMISSIONER HILL? >> MEMBER HILL: AYE.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: OKAY. SO WAIT.
SO THE RECOMMENDATION IS A 4-2 DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE NEXT CONDUCT A PUBLIC
[020 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the City of Midlothian Subdivision Ordinance by amending Section 4.13 “Preliminary Plats”, Subsections 9(a) and 9(b) relating to the expiration of preliminary plats (Case No. OZ05-2020-152).]
HEARING AND ACT UPON ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDING 4.13 PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBSECTIONS 9(A) AND 9(B) RELATING TO THE EXPIRATION OFTHE PRELIMINARY PLATS. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONER.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: GOOD EVENING.
>> PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
I'M BRINGING TO YOU SINCE MARCOS HAS CARRIED THE LOAD ALL NIGHT IS A SIMPLE LITTLE SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. IF YOU SAW TONIGHT WE HAD THE FOUR PLATS THAT HAD THE PRELIMINARY PLATS THAT NEEDED TO BE EXTENDED OR REAPPROVED. CURRENTLY THE WAY IT WORKS WAS PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED AND THEY HAVE A YEAR TO BUILD THE INFRASTRUCTURE. THEN THE FINAL PLAT MUST BE APPROVED. A YEAR IS A VERY SHORT FINITE AMOUNT OF TIME TO BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE.
EVEN ON I THINK ONE OF THE HAWKINS RUN IS A LIMITED AMOUNT OF THE LOTS. SAY 18 AND 20 LOTS.
THEY EVEN NEEDED AN EXTENSION. SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE ALL OF YOUR DUCKS IN A ROW TO GET IT DONE. WE LOOK TO MAKE THE EXTENSION TWO YEARS SO THAT IN ESSENCE YOU HAVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AND TWO YEARS TO BUILD THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
I SAY "BUILD THE INFRASTRUCTURE" WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT TO GET A FINAL PLAT THE CITY HAS TO ACCEPT ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT THE DEVELOPER BUILDS. ROADS, WATER, SEWER.
THOSE ITEMS. THEN WE ACCEPT A FINAL PLAT.
SO THIS IS ENTERING IN TO AND GIVING THE DEVELOPERS TWO YEARS RATHER THAN THE ONE YEAR TO GET APPROVED SO WE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK SO OFTEN. WITH THAT I'LL ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSIONER MIGHT HAVE.
COMMISSION MIGHT HAVE. >> HOW WOULD THIS COMPARE WITH
THE SURROUNDING? >> WAXAHACHIE WAS TWO YEARS.
I HAVE NEVER SEEN ONE THAT IS A YEAR.
KEVIN WORKS FOR OTHER CITIES AND HE MIGHT ADDRESS THAT.
>> I HAVE ACTUALLY SEEN A FEW ORDINANCE THAT HAVE A YEAR.
BUT INVARIABLY PARTICULARLY ON MIDSIZE OR LARGER DIVISIONS THEY ALWAYS COME BACK. EITHER THAT OR SITTING ON THEM FOR, YOU KNOW, SET AMOUNT OF TIME FOR SUBDIVISION DONE AND EVEN THEN THEY ASK FOR EXTENSION.
I DON'T KNOW THAT TWO YEARS IS NECESSARILY UNREASONABLE.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE ARE LEAVING ANYTHING ON THE TABLE PER SE WHEN WE EXTEND IT OUT TO A YEAR.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY RISK OUT THERE FROM DEVELOPERS.
>> THE FLIP SIDE WE HAVE HAD IN THE PAST AND COUPLE OF INSTANCES WHERE WE HAD SITUATIONS WHERE WE HAVE HAD NOT REALLY BEEN GOOD ABOUT KEEPING TRACK OF THE DEADLINES AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE ARE UNRECORDED PLATS SITTING OUT THERE FOR FIVE OR SIX YEARS.
WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. KNOW, KEEP TRACK OF IT, FOR THE EXTENDED PERIOD. HE'S RIGHT.
I DON'T THINK WE ARE LEAVING ANYTHING ON THE TABLE.
CLEAN UP SOME OF THE BUREAUCRACY ON OUR END.
>> I THINK WHEN WE ADOPTED THAT WE WANTED TO PUSH THE DEVELOPMENT MORE THAN MAYBE WE DID NOW.
[01:30:01]
>> OKAY. >> MIGHT HAVE BEEN FOR -- IF I REMEMBER RIGHT WHEN THE DISCUSSION CAME ABOUT.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS PUSHES DEVELOPMENT.
IT JUST PUSHES US TO REDO EXTENSIONS WHEN THEY COME BACK.
>> AND PART OF THE PROBLEM IS, TOO, PART OF THE PROBLEM IS TOO IN RECENT YEARS WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN SUCH A STEADY AND LIGHTNING PACE YOU HAD DEVELOPERS THAT WERE FLAT OUT UNABLE TO OBTAIN THE CREWS FOR MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE.
IT'S A LABOR AND EQUIPMENT ISSUE THAT SLOWED DEVELOPERS DOWN, THE. YOU DON'T THINK IT MATTERS TO
US. >> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THOSE ONLINE? HEARING NONE.
WELL, ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
IN FAVOR -- I'LL GO THROUGH IT. COMMISSIONER ALTMAN, AYE.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER KOEHLER?
>> MEMBER KOEHLER: AYE. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER
STEPHENS? >> MEMBER STEPHENS: AYE.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER BATEMAN?
>> MEMBER BATEMAN: AYE. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT.
PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED 6-0.
DISCUSSION, MOTIONS? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND SECOND BY OSBORN. ALTMAN, AYE.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER KOEHLER?
>> MEMBER KOEHLER: AYE. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER
STEPHENS? >> MEMBER STEPHENS: AYE.
>> MEMBER ALTMAN: COMMISSIONER BATEMAN?
>> MEMBER BATEMAN: [INAUDIBLE] >> MEMBER ALTMAN: IS THAT AN AYE OR ABSTAIN? AN AYE.
>> MEMBER HILL: AYE. >> MEMBER ALTMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE ORDINANCE IS AMENDED AS PRESENTED BY A VOTE OF 6-0. THAT IS OUR CONCLUSION OF OUR AGENDA. DO WE HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS? OR OTHER INFORMATION? NEW BUSINESS? OKAY. HEARING NONE I WILL ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:32
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.