[Planning and Zoning]
[00:00:03]
UH, WITH THAT, LET'S CALL THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR JUNE 7TH, 2022 TO ORDER.
WE HAVE COMMISSIONER MEYER, PRESENT COMMISSIONER BOYER, PRESENT COMMISSIONER LEE, PRESENT COMMISSIONER SHORT FIGURE PRESENT COMMISSIONER HUTCHINS.
PRESENT COMMISSIONER LAWYER IS ABSENT AND COMMISSIONER HUDSON IS PRESENT.
UH, NEXT UP WILL BE PUBLIC COMMENT.
UH, I SEE WE HAVE ONE FOR AN AGENDA ITEM.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? GOTCHA.
WE'LL MOVE RIGHT INTO THE AGENDA ITEMS AND, UH, ITEM 4.1 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE MEETING MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR SCHEDULED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 3RD, 2022.
UM, I DO HAVE A COMMENT, A QUESTION, MAYBE CORRECTION DO-NOW, UM, ITEM 4.6 ON THE MINUTES IS ACTUALLY ITEM 4.13 ON THE AGENDA.
AND THEN THAT KIND OF SHUFFLED ALL OF THE OTHER AGENDA ITEMS DOWN ONE.
SO THEY DON'T MATCH UP WITH THE ACTUAL ADULT AGENDA.
RIGHT? CAUSE WE MOVED AT, UM, YEAH, WE CAN, THE OPPORTUNITY THERE'S SAY MATCH THE AGENDA OR I CAN MOVE THEM Y'ALL IN THERE.
I DO BELIEVE THAT WE SAID THAT WE MOVED AT THE FOUR POINTS THAT IT WAS REMOVED.
WHAT'D YOU LIKE IT TO MATCH THE AGENDA? OR DO YOU WANT TO JUST HAVE IT NOTED THAT WE MOVED THE ITEM AND THIS IS WHERE IT FELL WITHIN THE MEDIA.
IF WE MAKE A NOTE THAT THAT'S WHERE IT FELL WITHIN THE MEETING, I THINK THAT'S FINE RATHER THAN GOING THROUGH AND RE NUMBERING THEM ALL.
I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF WE NEEDED TO FIX THAT OR I'D LIKE, LIKE IT TO MATCH OR AT LEAST HAVE A, UH, EXPLANATION.
WHY, UH, ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION ON 4.1? SO FOR 4.6, I JUST, I KNOW WE HAD LOTS OF DISCUSSION ON IT LAST TIME AND I DON'T WANT TO BRING A LOT OF IT UP AGAIN, BUT WE DID LEAVE THE WORD LEGALLY OUT OF THERE.
I WAS JUST WONDERING IF WE NEED TO PUT THAT IN THERE JUST FOR FUTURE REFERENCE, BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAVEN'T STATED AS RECOMMENDED DENIAL IF COULD, BUT THE MAIN REASON WAS DUE TO LEGAL REASONS.
IF WE WANT TO INSERT THE WORD LEGALLY BEFORE COULD THAT WOULD BE OKAY WITH ME.
WHERE ARE WE TALKING? ITEM FOUR, SIX IN THE, UM, LAST LINE ON PAGE TWO STATED HE WOULD RECOMMEND ANYTHING ELSE ON 4.1.
THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
WE ACCEPT THE MINUTES WITH THE CORRECTIONS SECOND.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOYER A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SCHWART FAGER AND YOUR DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
AND I WILL CALL FOR VOTE ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
SIX ZERO ITEM 4.2 HAS BEEN TABLED AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER.
SO WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM 4.3 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED 93 50 COUNTY ROAD, 1 3 7 FINAL PLAT 3.9156 ACRES.
TWO COMMERCIAL, LOTS LOCATED ON CR 1 37 AT FM 1660 SOUTH.
WE DO NEED TO VOTE ON THAT TABLING REQUEST.
UH, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION HEARING NONE.
I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
[00:05:01]
MOTION IS PASSED.SIX ZERO BACK TO 4.3 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED 93 50 COUNTY ROAD, 1 37 FINAL PLAT 3.9156 ACRES.
MORE OR LESS OF LAND TO COMMERCIAL.
LOTS LOCATED ON CR 1 37 AT FM 16, 60 SOUTH.
YOU ALL MAY REMEMBER THIS PARCEL.
THAT IS THE SIDE OF FUTURE, A GAS STATION, CONVENIENCE STORE.
THEY HAVE JOINT ACCESS FROM
THEY HAVE BEEN IN PROCESS FOR QUITE SOME TIME BECAUSE OF THE SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST PROCESS.
THEY DID RECEIVE, UM, THEIR SDR APPROVAL AND WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SITE.
SO WE ARE BRINGING IT FORWARD.
THE FIRST AVAILABLE MEETING FOR APPROVAL.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
IT'S A PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD, FINAL PLAN.
ANY COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? UM, I JUST WANT TO ASK FOR RIGHT AWAY ON SIERRA 1 37, UM, THERE'S ONLY, IT SAYS IT VARIES AND THERE'S ONLY ONE MARK SHOWING 80 FEET, BUT THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY A RIGHT OF WAY MARKING.
UM, DO WE KNOW THAT THERE'S ADEQUATE RIGHT AWAY ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH TO POTENTIALLY ALSO INCLUDE A FUTURE RIGHT TURN LANE THAT WILL BE NEEDED? WE HAVE, UM, I CAN'T SPEAK ON BEHALF OF ENGINEERING, BUT THERE HAS BEEN A JOINT TIA REVIEW FOR ALL OF THIS AND WE HAVE THE RIGHT AWAY THAT WE NEED FOR THE AREA.
SO IT'S GOING TO END UP BEING A CITY PROJECT TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THESE ISSUES.
AND WE DO HAVE A TIA ON THIS, ON THIS ONE.
THERE ARE SEVERAL TA'S FOR THE ENTIRE INTERSECTION AND THEY'RE ALL BEING REVIEWED BY THE SAME FIRMS THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING LINES UP FOR THAT ENTIRE INNER SESSION.
THAT THAT'S MY BIG CONCERN IS MULTIPLE TIAS, MULTIPLE AGENCIES.
THEN NOW WE HAVE DRIVEWAYS THAT MAY NOT LINE UP CORRECTLY AND CAUSING TRAFFIC PROBLEMS. AND I'VE ALSO BEEN IN CONTACT WITH TEXTILE.
WE'VE GOT A GREAT AREA OFFICE IN GEORGETOWN, SO THE ENGINEERS ARE THE CITY SIDE ENGINEERS ARE ALSO GOING TO BE WORKING WITH THEM TO MAKE SURE IT'S ALL GOOD WITH THEIR PLANS.
ON THIS FINAL PLAT, WE DON'T SEE THE DRIVEWAYS.
THAT'S TYPICAL IN A LIGHTER WEIGHT, THE DRIVEWAYS ON THE FINAL PLAN.
DO YOU KNOW USUALLY BECAUSE IT'S A, IF IT'S A TECH START ROADWAY WE'RE GOING TO, AND I BELIEVE ON ONE OF THE SIDES, IT WAS, UM, THERE USED TO BE THAT JOINT ACCESS EASEMENT, AND THEN IT WAS TAKEN OFF.
IF YOU RECALL ANOTHER ITEM SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, UM, TYPICALLY IT'S BETTER JUST TO WAIT FOR THE SITE PLAN.
AND OF COURSE THE SITE PLAN WILL CONVERT, UH, WILL CONFORM TO THE TEXT DOT STANDARDS, CORRECT.
UNLESS THEY COME IN AND ASK FOR A VARIANCE.
UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON 4.3? ALL RIGHT.
OH, I'M I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM FOUR, THREE AS WRITTEN.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LEE AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOYER.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION HEARING NONE.
I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
NEXT IS ITEM 4.4 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED TITAN INNOVATION BUSINESS PARK PHASE TWO PRELIMINARY PLAT REVISION NUMBER 2 46 0.649 ACRES.
MORE OR LESS OF LAND THREE INDUSTRIAL, LOTS LOCATED SOUTH OF LIMOR LOOP AND INNOVATION BOULEVARD.
UH, THIS IS TWO INDUSTRIAL LOTS HERE.
IT SHOULD BE TO INDUSTRIAL LOTS.
IT DOES HAVE THREE ON THE AGENDA.
SO THIS PARTICULAR, THIS IS THE TITAN, UM, IT'S ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
[00:10:01]
TITAN INNOVATION BUSINESS PARK.SO THEY'VE DONE A COUPLE OF ITERATIONS, UM, WITH THE REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT, THE BUILDING THAT YOU SEE ON THE AREA, UM, JUST SOUTH THAT'S LOT ONE, AND THEN LOT TWO HAS BEEN FINAL PLANET AS WELL.
AND THEN THIS IS A SECOND REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT TO DIVIDE LAW THREE INTO LOTS, THREE AND FOUR NOW.
SO I DO HAVE A SUBMITTAL FOR FINAL PLATS FOR LOT THREE AND FOUR.
SO I THINK THEY'RE DONE WITH THIS SECTION, UM, WITH THIS ONE REVISION.
UM, SO IT WAS A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSING AND I APOLOGIZE, I PUT THREE ON IT AND I MEANT TO JUST DO TWO.
UM, BUT THIS IS A TIMELINE OF WHAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING.
AND BASICALLY THEY'VE KEPT EVERYTHING PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.
THEY'VE JUST SUBDIVIDED IT FURTHER.
AND SINCE THEY HAVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND WE REQUIRE THEM TO REVISE THAT BEFORE THEY GO TO FINAL.
ONE OF COURSE, THEY'RE AT INNOVATIONS, FINAL PLAT BUILT ON, AND THEN THE NEW LAW FOUR IS JUST BELOW THAT.
SO TO THE EAST AND THEN LOT TWO, WHICH HAS BEEN FUNNELED PLOTTED, IS IT INNOVATION AND LIMOR LOOP.
LOT THREE IS DID THE EAST OF THAT ONE.
UH, WE HELD THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 3RD AND WE SENT OUT NINE NEIGHBOR RESPONSES.
WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANYTHING BACK.
THE REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAN IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
WE DO HAVE ONE OUTSTANDING, UM, DRAINAGE CONCERN FROM OUR THIRD-PARTY ENGINEER THAT WE NEED TO GET CLEARED UP, BUT THAT'S THE ONLY CONDITION THAT WE HAVE AT THIS TIME.
AND WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? I WAS JUST CURIOUS FROM SOME OF THE PREVIOUS PLATS WE HAD, IS IT PLANNED FOR NEW TECHNOLOGY BOULEVARD TO BE EXTENDED ALL THE WAY UNTIL LAMAR LOOP IN THE FUTURE? OKAY.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE DRAINAGE COMMENT WAS? THAT'S ME.
IT HAS TO DO WITH, UM, KEEPING THEIR ONSITE DRAINAGE AND THE THIRD-PARTY ENGINEERS WERE QUESTIONING, BUT IT'S ALL UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP, SO THEY JUST NEEDED TO CLEAR IT UP.
AND ONE OF THE ENGINEERS WENT OUT OF TOWN AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO CLEAR IT UP.
A QUESTION I HAVE, UM, THEY'VE GOT A LOT OF SITE PREP ARE ACTUALLY DIGGING THAT I, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S WAY BEYOND SITE PREP.
IS THAT JUST ON LOT? WHAT IS IT, TWO AT THE CORNER OF LIMOR AND INNOVATION OR HAS IT BLED OVER INTO THE NEXT LOT? I HONESTLY COULDN'T TELL YOU.
I KNOW THEY HAVE A GRADING PERMIT AND HAVE A LOT TO, UM, SITE PLAN.
SO MAYBE YOU'RE SEEING THAT I HAVEN'T BEEN UP THERE ON THE SITE IN A WHILE, SO.
I JUST DROVE BY YESTERDAY AND WAS SEEING A LOT OF SITE PREP DIG IN AND I WAS WONDERING IF THAT WAS KOSHER.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 4.4.
I MOVED THAT WE, UH, GO AHEAD AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL, UH, 4.4 WITH THE, THE THANK YOU WITH THE, UH, CONDITION OF OFFSITE DRAINAGE CONCERNS BEING ADDRESSED PER ENGINEERING REVIEW.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOYER AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MEYER.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, THEN I WILL ENTER, SORRY.
THEN I WILL CALL FOR VOTE ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE, ALL OPPOSED.
NEXT IS ITEM 4.5, HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ACTION ON THE PROPOSED.
HOW DO CROSSING PHASE FOUR SECTION 11 LOT ONE REPLAT 1.5, EIGHT, EIGHT ACRES.
MORE OR LESS OF LAND TWO COMMERCIAL, LOTS LOCATED OFF OF CHRIS KELLY BOULEVARD.
I THINK YOU WILL BE PLEASED THAT THIS IS NOT A HEDO CROSSING OF PAST MEETINGS.
THIS ONE IS A SINGLE COMMERCIAL LOT AND IS REQUESTING TO BE DIVIDED INTO TWO, UH, COMMERCIAL LOTS.
SO THE HUDDLE CROSSING PHASE FOUR PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS APPROVED IN 2016.
THE FINAL PLAT FOR THIS SECTION, UM, WAS APPROVED IN 2019.
AND SO THEY ARE PROPOSING TO DIVIDE THIS INTO TWO LOTS, NO ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINTS WILL BE GRANTED.
THEY WILL MAINTAIN THE CROSS ACCESS
[00:15:01]
ONTO THE SIDE NORTH AND SOUTH.UM, SO THIS IS JUST A LOOK AT WHAT, WHAT THOSE TWO LOTS WILL BE A LOT.
ONE B IS PROPOSED FOR AN ADVANCED AUTO, A LOT, ONE A WE DON'T HAVE A USER YET.
UM, WE DID SEND IT OUT TO SEVEN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES AND IT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND ALL CITY COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.
UH, WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED REPLAT ALL RIGHT.
THIS DOES CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.
SO I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:16 PM.
AND IS THERE ANYONE IN THE, IN THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT.
I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:16 PM AND OPEN IT UP TO DISCUSSION FROM THE DIOCESE, UH, CONFIRMATION QUESTION ON MY PART.
THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE ANY FURTHER ACCESS FROM THIS SITE TO DIRECTLY TO CHRIS KELLY, NO ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAYS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT ARE GOING TO BE HAPPENING.
OH, IT'S GOT THAT BIG DOUBLE DRIVEWAY BETWEEN THE CIRCLE.
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT.
UH, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION COMMENTS THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 4.6.
I MOVE TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SHORE FIGURE AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOYER.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION HEARING NONE.
I WILL CALL FOR VOTE ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
DID I SAY THAT WAS 4.6, BUT IT'S 4.5.
4.6, HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE REVISED PLAN, UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PUD ZONING ORDINANCE REQUESTS FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 4 11, 4 21, 4 31 AND 4 41 EDGE MITT BOULEVARD, PLANNED UNIT 4.3, ZERO ACRES.
MORE OR LESS OF LAND LOTS, 2, 3, 4, AND FIVE OF THE EMORY FARMS, COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON EDGE BOULEVARD.
SO THE NEXT THREE ITEMS AGENDA ITEMS ARE RELATED.
SO THIS FIRST ONE IS THE PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT.
SO JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE, IT'S A 4.3 ACRE PARCEL.
IT'S EMORY FARMS, COMMERCIAL ADDITION.
THESE LOTS WERE PLANTED IN 2007 IN JULY OF 2019.
A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT WAS APPROVED FOR A HOTEL IN THE
SO THE SAME APPLICANTS REQUESTED A PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT, UH, FOR B ONE PLUS LODGING.
HOWEVER, THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAS SET UP.
SO LODGING WOULD HAVE TO, IT WAS A PUD WITH AN SUP, UM, FOR LODGING AND DAYCARE.
AND SO THE ORIGINAL POD WAS APPROVED IN FEBRUARY, 2020, HOWEVER, UM, AND THEY SHOWED A FOUR STORY HOTEL.
THEY SHOWED A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN, BUT THEY DID NOT ADDRESS THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS.
SO THE PILOT HAS A LIMITATION OF 35 FEET AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK WITH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.
SO I WORKED WITH THE APPLICANTS.
THEY WANT TO BUILD A FOUR STORY HOTEL, UM, VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS SHOWN AT THOSE MEETINGS.
UM, AND SO WHAT I REQUESTED IS THAT THEY REVISED THE PUD AND TO SHOW THE HOTEL WITH THE SITE PLAN AND TO MAKE THE HEIGHT CHANGES FOR THOSE THAT SPECIFIC SITE AND CALL OUT WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO.
SO IT WAS A VERY CLEAR, AND IT WASN'T REDUNDANT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO REVISE THE PUB, THEN RE COME BACK WITH AN ISSUE PIECE.
UM, SO IN THIS PROPOSAL AND I INCLUDED THE RED LINES IN THERE.
SO YOU CAN SEE THAT VERY LITTLE WAS DONE TO THE ORIGINAL, BUT ESSENTIALLY THEY TOOK AWAY THE SUP REQUIREMENT FOR THE LODGING AT OUR REQUEST.
AND THEN THEY ADDED THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, 50 FEET, FOUR LOTS, FOUR AND FIVE, LOTS, TWO AND THREE REMAINED
[00:20:01]
AT 35 FEET.THEY ALSO, UM, AT OUR REQUEST IN THE SITE PLAN, THEY HAD PARKING ADJACENT TO THE EMORY FARMS, NEIGHBORS, AND IN EFFORTS TO REDUCE THAT, UM, THEY HAVE REDUCED THE PARKING TO ONE PER ROOM.
AND SO THERE'S NO PARKING BEHIND THE, THOSE NEIGHBORS.
AND SO IT GIVES US A 62 FOOT BUFFER, AND I WAS VERY PLEASED WITH THAT.
SO I THINK THAT WAS A POSITIVE, UM, PROPOSAL.
THE SITE PLAN THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET.
IT HAS, IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS SHOWN A FEW YEARS AGO.
IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT THEY DO REQUIRE A LITTLE CAN BE CONFUSING TO THE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ORIGINALLY HAD TWO DRIVEWAYS, UM, AND THE PLATTE ALLOWS TWO DRIVEWAYS, BUT THEY DON'T MEET OUR CURRENT SPACING REQUIREMENTS OF 425 FEET AND TO GET TO THE HOTEL ON THE SITE AND CONTINUE TO CROSS ACCESS.
SO THE NEXT ITEM IS A DRIVEWAY SPACE IN VARIANCE.
AND SO IF YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS AND I'M TELLING YOU A STORY, SORT OF SET IT ALL UP, IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE WAY THIS SITE PLAN LOOKS, THEN THE DRIVEWAY VARIANTS WILL WORK AS WELL.
IT ALL GOES HAND IN HAND, IF YOU'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH IT, THEN THE DRIVEWAY VARIANTS WON'T WORK, BUT IT'S ALL TO WORK TOGETHER.
UM, SO WE DO FIND THAT THE PIDE, UM, MEETS THE POD CRITERIA.
WE NOTIFIED 75 PROPERTY OWNERS, UH, WITHIN 600 FEET.
WE FIRST NOTICED, NOTICE THIS IN MARCH, AND THEN IT WAS DETERMINED THAT WE REALLY NEEDED TO ADDRESS THE PLAT AS WELL.
AND SO THE APPLICANT'S POSTPONEMENT UNTIL WE COULD ADDRESS THE PLAT, WHICH IS THE THIRD ITEM IN THIS LIST.
UM, AND SO WE READ, NOTICE WE DID, UM, RECEIVE THREE IN FAVOR AND THEN TWO AN OPPOSITION, AND THEN THREE ADDITIONAL IN FAVOR, WHICH IS THE OWNER OF THE OTHER LOCKS.
UM, WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REVISED PUD AND THE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN.
AND ALL RIGHT, THIS, EXCUSE ME, THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING.
SO I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:22 PM.
AND IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:22 PM AND OPEN IT UP TO DISCUSSION FROM THE DIOCESE.
SO I NOTICED IN THE ONE PLAT, UM, IT SHOWS THE PLACEMENT OF THE CULVERTS RIGHT NOW.
UM, AND I KNOW WE HAVE TO HAVE THE LARGER CULVERTS BECAUSE OF THE DRAINAGE IN THAT AREA, SUCH AS WE ALREADY HAVE DOWN AT LOCKED, UH, UH, LOT SIX.
UH, DO YOU KNOW IF THOSE ARE GOING TO BE PLACED TO ALLOW FOR FUTURE GROWTH OF EDGE MINT? UM, CAUSE WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY DON'T PLACE THE CULVERTS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THEY HAVE TO GET REMOVED IN THE FUTURE.
I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT, BUT I THINK AT THE SITE PLAN REVIEW OR ENGINEERING FOLKS WOULD MAKE SURE THAT THAT DIDN'T HINDER ANY, UM, REWORK OF REGIMENT IN THE FUTURE.
AND THEN THE SECOND QUESTION I HAD, UM, SO ONE OF THE ISSUES THE RESIDENTS DID BRING UP WAS LIGHT POLLUTION.
AND I KNOW THEY'VE HAD SOME ISSUES WITH THAT AT SOME OF THE OTHER LOCATIONS.
NOW I DO KNOW THAT THEY'RE PUTTING THE LARGER SPACE, THE 69 FEET BETWEEN THE HOTEL AND THE RESIDENCES PLUS THE ADDITIONAL SPACE FROM THE ACTUAL BUILDING ITSELF.
DO YOU ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WOULD STILL BE ANY TYPE OF LIGHT LIGHTING ISSUES SINCE THEY PROBABLY WON'T PUT MUCH OF A BARRIER EXCEPT FOR PROBABLY OFFENSE? I DON'T ANTICIPATE A LARGE AMOUNT OF LIGHTING ISSUE.
WE DO HAVE SOME LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS WITH THE SITE PLAN, SO THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO GO OVER A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE ON THE PROPERTY LINE IN THIS 25 FOOT AREA.
THERE WILL ALSO BE TREES ARE REQUIRED.
AND SO THEY'LL HAVE THAT BUFFER AS WELL.
AND THEN THE WAY THAT THEY HAVE ORIENTED THE BUILDING, I THINK THAT'LL BE QUITE LIMITED.
I'M SURE THERE'LL BE SOME LIGHT.
I MEAN, THERE'S GOING TO BE CARS DRIVING THROUGH AND THINGS LIKE FOOT CANDLES.
UM, IT'S UM, IT'S NOT FOOT CANDLES, BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY FOOT CARE.
DO WE, HAVE WE REQUIRE FULL REQUIRE FULL CUTOFF? IS THERE ANYTHING IN HERE THAT PREVENTS THE APPLICANT FROM, UH, SHIFTING THE BUILDING CLOSER TO THE RESIDENCE? YES.
DO YOU, UM, THE WAY WE WOULD REQUIRE WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU APPROVED THIS WOULD BE TO APPROVE IT,
[00:25:01]
THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN AS SHOWN WITH THIS SPECIFIC DISTANCE.CAN WE ADD IT IN THE REAR YARD WHERE THE REAR YARD BE 62 FEET OR I GUESS BUILDING SETBACK BE 62 FEET.
SO THEN THEY CAN'T ENCROACH WITHIN THAT 62 FOOT.
I MEAN, YOU ALREADY HAVE THE FIRE LANE ACCESS AND EVERYTHING, BUT I THINK YOU CAN DO THAT FOR DOUBLE, DOUBLE SECURITY.
SO I ALSO WANTED TO BRING UP AN IDEA.
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE ACCESS POINTS AND THIS IS TECHNICALLY THE NEXT ITEM, BUT I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND BRING IT UP SINCE THEY'RE ALL ATTACHED.
UM, SO FROM LOOKING AT SOME OF THE PAST DOCUMENTS, UM, THE SITE PLAN, WHICH IS ON PAGE 80 OF THE PACKET, I BELIEVE IT SHOWS THE TWO ENTRANCES, LIKE YOU MENTIONED, UM, THE 2007 PLATT FROM A LONG TIME AGO, WHICH IS PAGE 77, STILL SHOWS THE ONE JOINT ACCESS EASEMENT ACROSS PLATS FOUR AND FIVE, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT YOU JUST DISCUSSED.
SO, UM, THAT WAS WHAT THE ORIGINAL ONE WAS.
SO I STILL HAVE SOME WORRIES ABOUT ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINTS BECAUSE A LITTLE BIT TO THE NORTH, UM, RIGHT BEFORE LIMOR LOOP, WE HAD A SIMILAR SITUATION WHERE WE WERE WANTING TO VERY CLOSE ACCESS POINTS.
UM, AND WE RECOGNIZE THE ISSUE WITH THAT.
AND THERE WE PUT A SPECIAL USE IN WHERE WE DID A, I DON'T THINK IT WAS A FULL RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT, BUT IT WAS A WRITE OUT BOTH IN, I BELIEVE FOR RETURN YES.
SO MY WORRY WITH THIS MANY ACCESS POINTS IS, I MEAN, ONE, I UNDERSTAND THEIR POINT THAT THEY FEEL THEY NEED THAT MANY ACCESS POINTS.
UM, BUT TWO, THE OTHER ISSUE IS, I MEAN, WE'RE ALREADY, I JUST HAVE WORRIES THAT WE'RE ADDING A LOT OF ACCESS POINTS ONTO A ROAD THAT'S ALREADY VERY BUSY.
THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE EXPANDED IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE.
UM, NONE OF THE ACCESS POINTS THAT THEY'RE PUTTING IN ADDITIONAL ONES ARE LINING UP WITH ANYTHING EXISTING, SUCH AS THE CHURCH ACROSS THE STREET.
SO WE'RE ALREADY GOING TO HAVE, UM, OFFSET ACCESS POINTS.
SO I GUESS I JUST WANT TO BRING UP FOR DISCUSSION ONE.
DO, DO WE REALLY WANT TO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE TWO ACCESS POINTS TO JUST THIS LOT TO NOW ALLOW FOR ACROSS THIS AREA? UM, AND IF WE DO, HOW MANY OF THEM DO WE NEED TO RESTRICT TO, UM, RESTRICTED MOVEMENTS OF IN AND OUT? SO THIS IS, UM, AN EXHIBIT THAT SHOWS YOU WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING WITH THE CROSS ACCESS, UM, BECAUSE BASED ON THERE AND BASED ON THEIR DIAGRAM, I MEAN, SO YOU HAVE YOUR INTERNAL, UM, LANES ALREADY.
SO EVERY ACCESS POINT, YOU HAVE AN INTERNAL LANE FROM THE EXISTING LOT SIX THAT COMES IN AND IT ALLOWS YOU TO COME INTO THE SIDE OF THE HOTEL.
AND THEN ONCE YOU AROUND THE HOTEL, SAME THING, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ACCESS POINT THAT GOES ACROSS OVER TO THE, THE, UH, DAYCARE, WELL ALONG WITH WHATEVER GETS BUILT IN THAT LOT.
SO YOU'RE ALREADY GONNA HAVE CROSS ACCESS WITHIN THE AREA PLUS ACCESS ACROSS THE ENTIRE BACK OF THE AREA.
SO THAT'S KIND OF WHY I'M BRINGING UP THIS ISSUE.
AS I UNDERSTAND THE BENEFIT FROM THEM, A FLOW OF HAVING ALL THESE ENTRANCES, BUT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE MAJOR CONGESTION, UM, WITH ALL OF THESE ENTRANCES BACKED UP SO CLOSELY TOGETHER.
UM, JACK, ARE YOU HERE? SO JACK IS THE APPLICANT AND I'LL ASK HIM IF HE WANTS TO SPEAK TO THAT.
UM, AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT THIS SPECIFIC SITE PLAN SHOWS PARKING STILL ALONG EMORY FARMS, BUT THAT'S NOT CORRECT.
THIS EXHIBIT, UM, IS NOT UPDATED.
HI, I'M JACK ZINGER, A 2 9 4 9 PARKWOOD BOULEVARD, FRISCO, TEXAS.
UM, AND, UH, WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION AGAIN? I WOULD POINT OUT ONE THING THAT THE, THE, UM, REMAINING UNDEVELOPED, UM, TWO LOTS TO THE NORTH W WE'LL BE SHARING THOSE ACCESSES AND WE'LL NOT BE REQUIRING AN ADDITIONAL ACCESS.
NOW MY QUESTION AND, AND THANKS FOR EXPLAINING THAT.
MY QUESTION WAS MORE JUST WITH THE ACCESSES THAT WERE THERE.
LIKE I SAID, THE ORIGINAL PLAT THAT WAS WELL OVER A DECADE AGO SHOWED ONLY ONE ACCESS POINT, WHICH OF COURSE THINGS CHANGE AND I KNOW THINGS NEED TO GROW, BUT NOW WITH THIS NEW SETUP, I MEAN, BASED ON THE LETTER HERE, WE HAVE ACCESS POINTS AT ONE POINT IS ONLY 170 FEET BETWEEN DRIVEWAYS AND THEN 162 FEET.
SO WE HAVE VERY CLOSE ACCESS POINTS ALONG THIS AREA TO REALLY ALL COME TO THE SAME CONNECTED, UM, COMPLEX,
[00:30:01]
BECAUSE IT'S CONNECTED TO THE SOUTH HALLWAY CROSS CONNECTED TO THE NORTH, EXCEPT FOR WHERE THE HOTEL BUILDING IS GOING TO BE.SO I, SO MY WORRY IS FROM TWO ENDS, ONE CONGESTION AND TRAFFIC, WE'RE NOW ALLOWING NUMEROUS ACCESS POINTS ALONG A PLACE WHERE WE NORMALLY WOULD HAVE A REQUIREMENT FOR 4 25.
SO NORMAL REQUIREMENT IS 4 25 BETWEEN ACCESS POINTS.
AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THREE ACCESS POINTS WITHIN THE ALLOWED NORMAL THAT WE WOULD ONLY HAVE ONE.
SO I GUESS MY WORRY IS OF THAT.
AND SO MY QUESTION TO YOU, I GUESS, WOULD BE, IS THERE A SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT ON YOUR END WHERE YOU FEEL YOU NEED TO SPECIFIC ACCESS POINTS JUST FOR THIS HOTEL PROPERTY? IT IS AN IMPORTANT FOR THIS TYPE OF HOTEL TO HAVE TO ACCESS LIKE THAT IN THE ORIGINAL PUD, THE APPROVED SITE PLAN SHOWED TWO ACCESSES JUST LIKE THIS.
AND, UM, AND, UH, AND SO THAT, THAT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT TO THE OWNER WHEN THEY GOT THAT SITE PLAN APPROVED TO HAVE TWO POINTS OF ACCESS FOR THIS HOTEL.
YOU DO HAVE, DO YOU HAVE JOINT USE ACCESS EASEMENTS WITH THE DENTAL OFFICE AND WITH THE PROPERTIES NORTH? YES, WE DO.
UM, WITH, WITH THE REPLAT THAT'S COMING UP ON THE, UH, SECOND NEXT ITEM.
UM, WE'VE MODIFIED THE JOINT ACCESS SEAT EASEMENT, BUT THERE IS JOINT EXCESS EASEMENT, UM, CONNECTING, UM, ALL OF THE MUTUAL ACCESS POINTS TO EACH OTHER TO CIRCULATE THROUGH THE LOT.
IT DOESN'T USE HOTELS, MORE OF A DESTINATION.
I COULD SEE THE DRIVEWAY THAT'S CLOSEST, I GUESS, NORTH BEING FULL ACCESS AND THE SOUTHERN ACCESS BEING A RIDE THEM RIGHT OUT.
AND THEY HAVE A JOINT USE ACCESS TO THE DENTAL, WHICH IS A FULL ACCESS.
SO THEY HAVE PLENTY OF ACCESS AND ACCESS TO THE NORTH, WHETHER IT BE IN DESTINATION, YOU REALLY JUST, YOU HAVE, THEY HAVE ONE FULL ACCESS THEY CAN USE IN AND OUT AND A RIDE THEM RIGHT OUT TO GET OUT TOO.
SO IT WOULD HELP THE CIRCULATION OF ENTERING FURTHER AWAY AND THEN EXITING VIA THE RIGHT AND RIGHT OUT.
AND SO I GUESS THAT WAS MY FOLLOWUP QUESTION TO YOU.
UM, BASED ON WHAT, UM, COMMISSIONER MEYER MENTIONED, WOULD THERE BE ANY ISSUES WITH HAVING THAT SOUTH ENTRANCE OF THE HOTEL BEING RESTRICTED TO JUST WRITE IN AND WRITE OUT VERSUS A FULL ACCESS POINT? UM, NO, WE COULD ACCOMMODATE THAT.
I HAD A QUESTION ON THE LANDSCAPING.
YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SCREENING BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE BACKSIDE.
WHAT I'M SEEING HERE IN THE 3.2 0.2 REQUIRED LANDSCAPING SEEMS TO BE VERY MINIMAL, MAYBE ONE TREE, EVERY 40 FEET, UM, WHICH DOESN'T SEEM ADEQUATE TO SCREEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE BACK SIDE.
CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT PAGE YOU'RE LOOKING AT? SORRY.
UM, I'M ON PAGE ONE 16, I THINK.
IS THERE ANOTHER REQUIREMENT THAT I'M MISSING BECAUSE I'M ONLY SEEING ONE PER 40 FEET? GEE, I MEAN, THERE'S SOME SCREENING REQUIREMENTS EARLIER ON THAT TALKS ABOUT LOADING AREAS, DUMPSTER SCREENING AND PARKING LOT SCREENING, BUT THIS IS THE FIRE LANE ON THE BACKSIDE.
SO IF I'M SEEING THIS, I JUST DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT REALLY SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES ANY TYPE OF BUFFER BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THIS DEVELOPMENT.
SO THIS DRIVEWAY SPACING EXHIBIT IS NOT UPDATED WITH THE SITE PLAN THAT WE'RE PROPOSING, THIS STILL SHOWS PARKING IN THE BACK.
UM, SO B ONE NEXT TO SINGLE FAMILY, ONE REQUIRES, UM, THE SECOND TIER BUFFERING, BUT WE'RE PROPOSING THE THIRD TIER BUFFERING, UM, WHICH WOULD BE, WHICH IS NOT SHOWN ON THIS EXHIBIT, BUT ON THE SITE PLAN, UH, WE HAVE A 25 FOOT LANDSCAPE SETBACK.
UM, THERE IS TWO LARGE TREES IN ONE SMALL TREE, EVERY 50 FEET, UM, WHICH WOULD TOTAL, UH, 15 FEET ALONG THAT BOUNDARY.
UM, UNFORTUNATELY ON THAT SITE PLAN, THE SIX FOOT MASONRY WALL IS ALSO REQUIRED.
UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S, IT'S NOT CALLED OUT ON THE UPDATED SITE PLAN, BUT THERE WILL BE A SIX FOOT MASONRY WALL, 25 FEET OF GREEN SPACE AND THREE TREES, EVERY 50 FEET.
SO YOUR MASONRY WILL BE ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING WOOD FENCE.
YOU'VE GOT THE 25 FEET OF GREEN SPACE, BUT THE PUD DOESN'T SPECIFY AS FAR AS I CAN SEE THAT LEVEL THREE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PROVIDING BACK THERE.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE THIS, THAT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I'D LIKE SPECIFICALLY LINED OUT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT LEVEL THREE BEHIND THIS LOT.
[00:35:01]
AND THAT'S FINE, JACK AND I HAVE WORKED THROUGH SITE PLANS SO MUCH.I THINK WE PROBABLY BOTH THOUGHT IT WAS IN HERE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T START OUT THIS WAY.
SO WE'RE BACKED INTO GETTING INAPPROPRIATE SECOND.
WE CAN ADD THAT AS A CONDITION.
THE, UH, LEVEL THREE BUFFER, UH, LANDSCAPING, IS THAT GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT TO BLOCK LIGHT FROM A THREE OR FOUR STORY BUILDING? BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NATIVE SMALL TREES AS PART OF THAT MIX, NOT LARGE, SMALL, WHICH GENERALLY I BELIEVE HAVE A HEIGHT BETWEEN 20 AND 30 FEET.
SO THE UDC, UM, REQUIRES THAT NO, UM, GLARE OR DIRECT LIGHTING EXCEED THE BOUNDARY.
AND, UH, WE WILL PROVIDE A DETAILED LIGHT LIGHTING PLAN FOR THAT.
AND IN OUR LIGHTING, WE'LL STOP AT THE FIRE LANE.
SO YOU HAVE ZERO FOOT CANDLES BEYOND THE FIRE LANE? NO.
WELL ALSO I WOULD, I WOULD ASSUME WHAT THE ORIENTATION OF THE BUILDING THAT YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE ANY LIGHTING COMING FROM THE BUILDING IN THE REAR, CORRECT.
THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE PARKED.
THERE WOULD NOT BE PARKING AND THERE PROBABLY NOT EVEN WINDOWS THAT DIRECTION.
IT'S PROBABLY TOO EARLY, BUT DO YOU KNOW IF YOU PLAN ON DOING ANY LIGHT POLES IN THE BACK FOR THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY OR JUST WALL PACKS ON THE BUILDING? NO BALLPARKS HERE, SCRATCH THAT DECORATIVE LIGHTING.
DECORATIVELY DO YOU KNOW AROUND WHAT FOOT CANDLE IT IS AT THE PROPERTY LINE AND IS THERE IT IS ZERO UP AGAINST RESIDENTIAL.
THEY CAN DO A 20 FOOT TALL, UM, STREET LAMP IN THE PARKING AREA, BUT THEN WHEN THEY DO THEIR OTHER LIGHTING PLAN, THEY'LL PLACE THOSE ON TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO OVERFLOW IT A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN PART OF THE CYCLING.
I THINK IF WE, IF WE REDUCE AND I KNOW THIS IS THE NEXT ITEM, BUT REDUCE THAT TO WRITE THEM RIGHT OUT, DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE A PORK CHOP OR EVEN KNOCK DOWN STICKS IN THE SUICIDE LANE JUST TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM TURNING LEFT AND HOPPING THE, THE PORK CHOP.
AND I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THAT WITH THE ONE FAR TO THE NORTH TOO.
I MEAN, THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT SOON.
IF REGIMENT DOESN'T GET WIDENED IN THE NEAR FUTURE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT AT NUMEROUS ENTRANCES BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY HELPING THE CURBS ALL OVER TOWN.
I, I DEFINITELY DO NOT LIKE ADDING MORE DRIVEWAYS WITHOUT A ON, IN WRITING PLAN ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH ED SCHMIDT.
SO IF WE CAN MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS ABSOLUTELY.
AND NOT CRIPPLE THESE BUSINESSES, I THINK WE NEED TO DO IT.
AND PORK CHOP OR A RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT, I THINK IS A WAY TO DO IT.
AND THAT'S NOT ALL THAT, UH, IT'S NOT AS CUMBERSOME TO TAKE THAT OUT.
SHOULD ED SCHMIDT EVER GET WIDENED? NO, ABSOLUTELY AGREE.
AND JUST TO VERIFY, I'M LOOKING AT THIS DIAGRAM THAT SEPARATE RIGHT NOW, WHICH I KNOW THE, THE BOTTOM PORTION IS NOT COMPLETELY ADEQUATE, BUT I KNOW.
SO AT THE TOP, WHICH I GUESS WOULD BE THE EAST.
SO YOUR, UM, DRAINAGE, SORRY, NOT DRAINAGE.
YOUR RETENTION BASIN IS ACTUALLY THERE ON THE STREET SIDE.
UM, AND THEN YOU HAVE A SIDEWALK ON THE EDGE OF THAT.
AND JUST WANTING TO VERIFY THAT THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT'S BEING ALLOWED IS ACTUALLY NOT STARTING UNTIL THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT SIDEWALK.
UM, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SEE THAT FROM HERE, WE'RE MATCHING THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH.
IT LOOKS LIKE THE SIDEWALKS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, BUT WE, YEAH, WE HAVE PUT SIDE WE'LL HUCKS IN RIGHT AWAY AS BEFORE, AND THEN WE NEED TO RIP THEM UP.
AND THE MAIN REASON I'M SAYING THAT IS BECAUSE BASED ON ONE OF THE OTHER DIAGRAMS, I'D HAVE TO FIND IT AGAIN, THAT ACTUAL DRAINAGE BASIN IS GOING TO BE BUDDED DIRECTLY UP TO THAT SIDEWALK.
SO WHAT THE REASON I'M SAYING THAT IS WHEN WE DO WIDEN ED SCHMIDT, HOPEFULLY IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING
[00:40:01]
CRAZY THERE TO LIKE REMOVE THE SIDEWALK OR TRY TO BUILD A SIDEWALK OVER THE CONCRETE DRAINAGE BASE.AND NOW WE, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T ALLOW ADEQUATE ROOM.
SO THE DETENTION WE'RE PROPOSING THERE, UM, WE'LL BE UNDERGROUND IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
UM, AND TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION EARLIER ABOUT THE CULVERTS, UH, WE, WE DID DO A, UM, A DRAINAGE STUDY AND THOSE COVERT CONCEPTS, UM, HAVE BEEN STUDIED AND, AND THEY, THEY WILL ACCOUNT FOR, UM, THE DOWNSTREAM CAPACITY AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
AND MY COMMENT ABOUT THE CULVERTS WASN'T ABOUT CAPACITY.
IT WAS ABOUT LOCATION BASED ON FUTURE GROWTH.
BECAUSE THE BIG THING, WHAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT HERE IS WE NEED TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING THAT GETS BUILT ALONG THIS ROAD IS BEING BUILT FOR WHEN THERE IS NOW MULTIPLE LANES APPROACHING INTO THAT RIGHT OF WAY NOW.
SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT NO DRAINAGE IS BEING BUILT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT WE'RE NOT PUTTING A SIDEWALK THERE.
THAT'S GOING TO GET RIPPED OUT IN TWO YEARS, BECAUSE IT'S NOW ON THE RIGHT OF WAY.
AND LIKE YOU SAID, YOU ALREADY ANSWERED THE QUESTION ABOUT THE RETENTION BASIN, IF IT'S TRULY UNDERGROUND.
AND THAT ISN'T A BIG DEAL THAT THAT'S LIKE A, LIKE I SAID, WE'RE JUST WANTING TO VERIFY ALL OF THAT LINES UP.
THIS IS, THIS, THIS WILL BE REVIEWED ATLAS 14.
SO NO, UNLESS THEY HAVE TO COME BACK IN AND CHANGE.
WELL, THEY'RE DOING AN AMENDED PLAN.
THEY WOULD HAVE JUST DOUBLE-CHECKED THAT IT STILL SUFFICED.
SO, UM, I MAY HAVE MISREAD THIS, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE NORTHERN LOTS.
I BELIEVE THAT'S TWO AND THREE TO MAINTAIN A 35 FOOT HEIGHT.
AND ON THE SOUTHERN LOTS, YOU'RE GOING TO REQUEST A FULL FOUR STORY, 35 ISN'T IT IS TECHNICALLY FOUR STORIES, BUT THERE'S NOT A LIVABLE FOURTH STORY ON THAT.
IF I'M REMEMBERING THE REVIEWS OR THE PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS CORRECTLY, THAT'S 50 FOOT IS WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING 35 FEET.
THEY'RE REALLY, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT A 50 FOOT AND THE UDC LIMITS AT 40, DOES IT NOT? WE HAVE A 45.
WE, IT DOESN'T CLARIFY WHERE IT, WHERE THE LINE IS, RIGHT.
IF YOU'RE AT THE TOP OF THE RIDGE LINE OR IF YOU'RE AT THE TOP OF THE FLOOR.
SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF SUBJECTIVITY IN THERE.
SO, BUT IF IT SAYS YOU CAN DO A FOUR-STORY, WE USUALLY YOU'LL MAKE A FOUR STORY WORK.
THAT'S WHY THIS ONE I STRUGGLED WITH WHEN I REVIEWED IT, BECAUSE IT WAS WAY UNDER THE PARAMETERS FOR THEIR FOUR STORY, THE 35 FEET JUST WASN'T GOING TO WORK.
AND THAT, THAT WAS PART OF THE REASON WHY IN 2019, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING ALIGNMENT AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, BUT IT SEEMED OKAY BECAUSE IT IS ONLY THREE STORIES LOOKING OVER TREES, NOT FOR, BUT THEY DID PRESENT THE FOUR STORY, CONCEPTUAL PLAN OLD ONE SHOWED FOUR STORIES.
CAUSE THEY ORIGINALLY CAME BACK IN TO JUST DO A SITE PLAN.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'VE WORKED ON LANDSCAPING AND THINGS.
AND THEN AT THE REVIEW, LIKE YOU, THIS IS TOO TALL.
UM, ARE WE GRANTED THEM IN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANTS FOR NOT WE, BUT STAFF FOR SIDEWALKS, IT LOOKS LIKE IN THE UDC SAYS EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALKS.
AND ON THE SITE PLAN, WE'RE SHOWING FOUR FOOT SIDEWALKS.
SO THE UDC CHANGED AFTER THIS WAS PLOTTED WITH THE AMENDED PLAT, WE COULD MAKE THE, IT WOULD BE AWKWARD WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S AROUND.
IT IS GOING TO BE THE FOUR FEET TO THEN CONNECT INTO EVERYTHING ELSE IS FOUR FEET AROUND IT.
FROM WHEN IT'S PLOTTED, YOU GO BACK TO THIS.
AGAIN, MAYBE I'M MISREADING IT, BUT PAGE 1, 25 OF THE PACKET LOOKS LIKE THREE STORIES TO ME.
I MIGHT BE MISREADING IT THOUGH ON PAGE 1 22 THAT'S SO, YEP.
THAT ONE'S FOR 1 23, THOSE ARE FOUR ELEVATIONS OR 1 24 IS FOR 1 25, 1 23 IS FOR, THOSE WERE WHAT WAS REMOVED.
[00:45:01]
IS 4, 1 25 IS 3, 1 20.I JUST WANT IT TO BE REALLY UNCONFUSING THAT YOU HAVE UPDATED ELEVATIONS OF WOODY TO COMPUTER FROZE, WHICH, I MEAN, I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP THE ELEVATION.
SO MY CONCERN AND GOING BACK TO THE TREES AND WE'VE HAD ANOTHER PROJECT, I THINK IT WAS AN APARTMENT.
I MEAN, SO THE WINDOWS ON THE THIRD FLOOR ARE STARTING AT 30, WHAT? 35, 37 FEET UP.
AND SO WE'RE 60 FEET AWAY FROM THE BACKYARDS.
AND THOSE HOUSES APPEAR TO ONLY HAVE LIKE A 15 TO 20 FOOT BACKYARD.
SO, I MEAN, BASICALLY WE'VE GOT WHAT SIX, EIGHT WINDOWS ARE SHINING RIGHT BACK INTO SOMEBODY'S BACKYARD.
NOW, BASED ON THE SETUP THOUGH, THE WINDOWS SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTLY NO, ACCORDING TO THIS, THE WINDOWS ON THOSE, IF YOU GO TO PAGE 84 THERE'S EAST AND WEST ELEVATIONS, AND THERE'S ALL THESE WINDOWS ON THE WEST ELEVATION THAT WILL BE OVERLOOKING ALL THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I TOTALLY THOUGHT THERE WOULD NOT BE.
NOW IF IT WAS THE OTHER ELEVATION, I WOULDN'T HAVE A CONCERN, BUT THAT CHANGES THE PLAN DRASTICALLY.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE THE STAIRWELL AND, UM, THE SEPARATION, UM, DOES MEET THE VISIBILITY SETBACK FOR, FOR THE BUILDING HEIGHT.
WELL, YOU'VE GOT STAIRWELL IN THE MIDDLE, BUT IT APPEARS ON THIS ONE THAT EVERY SINGLE FLOOR HAS FOUR WINDOWS.
THAT WOULD BE, AND IT SHOWS WHAT I WOULD SAY IS TRUE.
IT'S THIS ONE HE'S ASKING THEM OUT.
THE EAST FACING ELEVATION LOOKS, YEAH, THAT'S FAIRLY WINDOWLESS.
IT'S ALMOST, THEY NEED A SWAP, BUT THAT'S YOUR RIGHT.
BUT IF THEY SWAP THEN THAT I WOULDN'T HAVE A CONCERN, BUT WE HAVE ALL THESE BUILDING LAYOUT.
I REMEMBER THAT BEING A BIG ISSUE EXACT BACK IN 2019.
AND I REMEMBER WEST TALKING ABOUT THAT TOO.
IS IT JUST MAYBE LABELED INCORRECTLY? NOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLAN, IT APPEARS THAT THE FRONT SIDE WHERE THE SWIMMING POOL IS, IS THEIR CONFERENCE AREA.
SO IT APPEARS, IT MATCHES THE ELEVATION OF THE EAST END WITHOUT THE WINDOWS, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY NOT.
I MEAN, COUNCIL WENT THROUGH HOURS OF DISCUSSION ON IT.
WE'VE GONE THROUGH HOURS OF DISCUSSION ON IT THAT THAT'S A, NON-STARTER HAVING WINDOWS ON THE WEST SIDE AND HAVING WINDOWS ON A FOURTH STORY.
NOW THOSE, THOSE ORNAMENTAL TREES, THE SMALL MADE OF TREES, AREN'T GOING TO CUT IT FOR ANY SORT OF VISIBILITY IN THAT CASE.
I THINK WE'D LIKE TO ASK TO TABLE THIS AND BRING IT BACK.
I APPRECIATE YOU MAKING THAT OFFER UP.
UH, WOULD THAT REQUIRE US RE NOTICING PUBLIC HEARING? OR COULD WE, WOULD WE BE ABLE TO TABLE TO THE NEXT, UH, NEXT MEETING AND NOT RE NOTICE BECAUSE THIS DID HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON IT.
AND WE DIDN'T GET ANY RESPONSES.
SO NOW COULD WE ALSO APPLY THAT TO FOUR SEVEN AND UH, YEAH, FOUR, SEVEN AND FOUR EIGHT AND TABLE, ALL OF THOSE, OR DID YOU STILL WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH THE DRIVEWAYS AND THE, UH, THE AMENDED PLAT? UM, IF IT'S ALL THE SAME, I THINK IT'D BE BEST TO TABLE ALL OF THEM.
ONE MORE QUESTION THAT I DISCOVERED LATE AS WE'RE TALKING.
UM, SO READING INTO THE COMMERCIAL PRIDE HERE, UM, ONE OF THE STATEMENTS SAYS WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE PUD, SO THIS IS THE COMMERCIAL PUD.
SO JUST FOR CURIOSITY, WHERE EXACTLY IS THE BOUNDARY OF THIS ENTIRE PEN, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE RESIDENCES RIGHT.
SO THE ENTIRE COMMERCIAL JUST, OKAY.
[00:50:01]
FROM THE DAYCARE.WELL, EVEN INCLUDING, IS THAT INCLUDING RIO GRANDE COMPLEX? NO.
SO JUST EVERYTHING FROM THE DAYCARE DOWN, IT'S JUST, THIS IS LOT FOUR AND FIVE THAT'S ON THE SCREEN.
SO I FEEL LIKE THIS, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS ACHIEVABLE, BUT LOOKING ON PAGE 70 OF THE PACKET.
UM, SO TALKS ABOUT COMMON OPEN SPACE AND PARKLAND, AND BASED ON THE SIZE OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID, IT STATES IN 3 41 WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE PUD 1200 FEET OF TRAIL AND 15 ACRES OF PARK AND OPEN SPACE WILL BE PROVIDED.
BECAUSE BASED ON IF THAT'S JUST THE COMMERCIAL AREA, THAT WOULD BE ABOUT A THIRD OF THE COMMERCIAL AREA.
SO SINCE WE'RE TABLING AND BRINGING IT BACK AND JUST PUT INTO THAT RED LINE, MAKE A NOTE OF THAT ALSO IN THE RED LINE.
WELL, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE ITEMS, 4, 6, 4, 7, AND FOUR EIGHT.
PER, UH, FOR CLIENT'S REQUEST.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE, SO BEFORE WE DO THAT, I GUESS FOR THE DISCUSSION, DO WE WANT TO RE WE'RE TABLING? WHICH ONE? AGAIN? 4, 6, 4, 7, 4, 8.
SO WE WANT A TABLE FOR SIX RIGHT NOW.
DO YOU WANT TO OPEN FOR SEVEN? SINCE THAT ONE HAS A PUBLIC HEARING ALSO AND HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING SO THAT WE CAN BE, HAVE THAT COVERED AND THEN TABLE IT AFTERWARDS? I LIKE THAT IDEA.
UM, COMMISSIONER LEE, ARE YOU OKAY WITH RE WITH DRAWING? YES.
THE MOTION TO TABLE FOUR SEVEN AND FOUR EIGHT.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, THEN I WILL CALL FOR VOTE ALL IN FAVOR OF TABLING FOR SIX, SAY AYE.
NEXT DOES ITEM FOUR SEVEN, WHICH HAS A PUBLIC HEARING.
I BELIEVE WE'VE DO WE NEED TO DO ANY PRESENTATION ON THIS ITEM PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING? SINCE WE HAVE A REQUEST TO TABLE AND JUST OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THEN I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:53 PM.
IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISHING TO DISCUSS THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:53 PM.
I'LL LET YOU FINISH YOUR NORMAL.
I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU, YOU DID MENTION GOING AHEAD AND TABLING ALL THREE OF THESE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO ASK TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR YOU GUYS BRINGING THIS BACK.
DID YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND, AND APPROVE JUST THE DRIVEWAY SPACING PIECE? OR DO YOU THINK THAT YOU GUYS MIGHT ADJUST SOMETHING THAT WOULD CHANGE THAT AS WELL? MOVING FORWARD? I REALLY DON'T THINK WE WILL, BUT I'D LIKE TO KEEP THE FLEXIBILITY.
JUST WANTED TO VERIFY AND MAKE IT EASIER ON YOU ALL.
IF YOU WANTED TO HAVE ONE LESS PIECE TO DO WITH, UH, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, THEN I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE ITEM 4.7.
RIGHT? WE HAVE A MOTION BY MYSELF AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOYER TO TABLE 4.7.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, THEN I WILL CALL FOR VOTE ALL IN FAVOR OF TABLING 4.7 AND SAY, AYE.
ALL OPPOSED, SAME SIGN MOTION PASSES.
SIX ZERO ITEM 4.8 DOES NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO MOTION TO TABLE ITEM 4.8 SECOND.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY MYSELF AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SCHWART FAGER TO TABLE 4.8.
[00:55:01]
THE MOTION, THEN WE'LL CALL FOR VOTE ALL IN FAVOR OF TABLING 4.8, SAY AYE.NEXT IS ITEM 4.9 HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED STAR RANCH PARCEL 19, A TOWNHOMES PRELIMINARY PLAT 12.04, THREE ACRES.
MORE OR LESS OF LAND ONE RESIDENTIAL LOT LOCATED ON ELM PARK STREET.
UH, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ONLY, IS THAT CORRECT? NO ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY US.
DO WE HAVE A PRESENTATION? I'M HAPPY TO GO THROUGH IT.
THIS IS A, UM, PLAT THAT IS IN MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT 22.
SO THE COUNTY AND THE CITY DO A SIMULTANEOUS PLAT REVIEW.
WE STILL HAVE OUTSTANDING COMMENTS AS TO THE COUNTY, BUT THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING PER OUR HUDDLE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AND SO THAT IS WHAT THIS IS FOR.
UM, THE STAR RANCH PARCEL 19 IS FOR TOWNHOMES.
UM, THEY'VE SHOWN TOWNHOMES ON THIS PARCEL FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
IT'S NOT THE ENTIRE, THE R 37 2 4 6 5, THE LITTLE LEG THAT JETS SHOULD NOT BE PART OF IT.
AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE THAT, UM, STOPS.
UM, AGAIN, THE UDC REQUIRES THIS PUBLIC NOTICE ABOUT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT STAGE, BUT STATE LAW IS CLEAR.
THERE'S NO LAND USE CONTROL IN THE ETJ.
AND WE HAVE SPOKEN TO A, QUITE A NUMBER OF, UM, NEIGHBORS.
AND I EXPLAINED TO THEM, WE DON'T HAVE ANY LAND USE CONTROLS IN STAR RANCH, BUT WE'VE CERTAINLY APPRECIATED THEIR CONCERNS.
UM, THIS IS JUST THE LOOK AND THIS PLAT IS NOT FOR ACTION.
IT'S NOT COMPLETE, IT'S NOT APPROVED OR RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL, BUT THIS IS THE LAYOUT OF THE PROPERTY.
AND I CAN SEE WHERE IT HAS THE LEG.
WELL THIS RECORDERS THEY PUBLIC HEARING.
SO I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:57 PM.
IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? YES, SIR.
I KNEW IT ALL OF THIS WELL FOR, UH, FOR, UH, RECORDING PURPOSES.
COULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS 3 0 4 FINS DOWN STREET? RIGHT.
UM, REALLY I I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, UM, UH, WHAT THAT WILL DO TO THE PRICE OF MY HOME, PUTTING UP TOWNHOMES IN THIS AREA, UM, TAXES, THAT SORT OF THING IS WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT.
UM, PARKING AREAS, ANOTHER ISSUE.
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ON THAT, UH, EAST SIDE OF ELM STREET WHEN YOU'VE ALREADY GOT NON PARKING ON THE WEST SIDE? UH, MANY OF US HAVE FRIENDS THAT COME OVER AND WE HAVE LARGE, UM, EVENTS IN EACH OF OUR HOMES.
UH, WILL YOU BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT? UM, SO THOSE ARE SOME OF, UH, OUR CONCERNS.
I, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE NOT DO THAT, THAT THERE IS SOME OTHER VIABLE, UM, THING THAT CAN BE DONE WITH THAT PROPERTY.
NAME IS STEPHANIE RANDOLPH AND ONE-ON-ONE FORT WILLIAM STREET.
UM, I BACK DIRECTLY TO THE RS 0 2 0 8 8 5, UM, ON THE MAP I'M ON THE END UNIT AND THE DOUBLE LAW ON THE SIDE AND DIRECTLY BEHIND MY HOME AND THE TWO HOMES THERE IS A DRAINAGE EASEMENT.
UM, AND SO I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD TOWN HOMES.
MY HOUSE SITS KIND OF ABOVE, AND YOU CAN EVEN SEE THE SLOPE, IT DRAINS DIRECTLY INTO THAT PIECE OF LAND AND THERE IS A DRAINAGE EASEMENT.
UM, MY CONCERN IS IF THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD ON IT, WHAT IF THEY'RE GOING TO RIP IT UP? I MEAN, I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CAN DO THAT WITHOUT PUTTING SOMETHING ELSE IN PLACE.
UM, GETTING DISRUPTING THAT EASEMENT IS ONE PROBABLY GOING TO FLOOD ALL OF THOSE NEW TOWNHOMES INTO IF THERE'S NO PROPER DRAINAGE FROM MY PROPERTY.
I HAVE A POOL AND I HAVE A LARGE YARD AND I DON'T WANT
[01:00:01]
THE WATER COMING BACK AND FLOODING MY HOUSE AS WELL.UM, SO I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP WHERE IT GOES, MY CONCERN IS, ARE THEY, YOU KNOW, CAN THEY BUILD RIP THAT UP AND PUT IN SOMETHING ELSE? ARE THEY GOING TO BUILD MAYBE BEHIND IT? THAT'S MY CONCERN IS I DON'T WANT THAT DISRUPTED.
UM, SO WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOME, I WAS TOLD THAT AS A DRAINAGE AND WATER CONSERVATION AREA, AND IT WOULD PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE BUILT ON BECAUSE OF THAT.
SO THAT'S MY MAJOR CONCERN WITH THAT DEVELOPMENT GOING IN RIGHT BEHIND ME.
UM, THE SECOND BIG CONCERN I HAVE IS THE INGRESS AND EGRESS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE ACCESS POINTS.
THERE, IT'S A SMALL PIECE OF LAND WITH THE GOLF COURSE AND STRAIGHT ON THERE'S MAYBE 10 HOUSES.
THERE IS NO EXIT POINT THERE'S ONE WAY IN AND OUT OFF OF ELM STREET.
THERE IS NO WAY TO EXIT BECAUSE THE HOUSES MEET THE GOLF COURSE.
SO THERE'S NO EVEN A SPACE TO EVEN TRY AND BUILD AN EXIT ON THAT SIDE.
SO THERE IS ONE AN ENTRANCE OFF OF ELM STREET.
UM, SO THAT WOULD BE MY CONCERN FOR FIRE SAFETY, ANY KIND OF SAFETY.
WE DON'T HAVE MORE THAN ONE ACCESS POINT IN AND OUT OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THAT'S A CONCERN FOR ME AS WELL.
SO, AND THEN, UM, JUST A GENERAL QUESTION AND CONCERN.
HOW FAR FROM THE PROPERTY LINE ARE THEY ALLOWED TO BUILD BEHIND MY FENCE? HOW MANY FEET DO THEY HAVE TO BE JUST IN TWICE FOR THIS KIND? JASON, DO WE HAVE A, A TECHNICAL ANSWER ON THAT ONE? THERE'S NO ZONING.
THIS WOULD GO THROUGH THE COUNTY AFTER PLANNING.
UM, THOSE ARE MY, I HAVE OTHERS, BUT THOSE ARE MY MAIN CONCERNS OF SAFETY AND EVERYTHING WITH MY HOME.
UM, I DO HAVE ANOTHER KIND OF QUESTION ON THIS ONE, UNDERSTAND IT'S PUBLIC HEARING, BUT IS THERE A WAY WE CAN GET THE PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS THERE, A TRANSCRIPT OR A COPY OF THIS TO WILLIAMSON COUNTY SINCE WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OF IT, AT LEAST GET THESE ADDRESSED AT WILLIAMSON COUNTY WHERE IT CAN BE HANDLED? YES, CERTAINLY.
UM, ANYBODY WHO HAS QUESTIONS FOR WILLIAMSON COUNTY, CAUSE THEY WOULD BE THE ONES TAKING OVER THE SITE PLANNING AND THE REST OF IT.
I WOULD SAY JUST CONTACT WILLIAMSON COUNTY DIRECTLY, UM, IT'S ADAM BOAT, BOAT TEAM.
UM, AND THERE'LL BE THE BEST ONES TO ANSWER ANY OF THE SITE PLANNING QUESTIONS BECAUSE THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY'S GOING TO TAKE ON.
UM, WE JUST, WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAKE ON THAT SITE PLANNING JUST BECAUSE OF STATE LAW.
UM, WE ONLY TO HAVE TO HELP OUT WITH THE PLANTING.
AND AS MS SPEAR SAID, WE HAVE TO DO A CONCURRENT REVIEW BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY.
UM, I HAVE NOT SEEN EVERYTHING COME BACK, SO IT'S JUST THE PUBLIC HEARING ONLY, BUT THIS WILL, THE PLAT WILL COME BACK HERE.
THE ONLY REASON THAT ANYBODY WAS NOTIFIED IS BECAUSE THE UDC REQUIRES NOTIFICATION STATE LAW, ACTUALLY DOESN'T FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT.
UM, SO REALLY THEY'RE JUST DEFINING WHAT THEY HAD ALREADY DEFINED ON THEIR CONCEPT PLAN WITH A PLOT TO CREATE THEIR, UM, DEVELOPMENT LOG.
BUT THE REST OF IT, AS FAR AS THE PRIVATE DRIVES SETBACKS, WHERE THEY LOOK LIKE THAT'S ALL UP TO THE COUNTY AND AGAIN, COUNTY DOESN'T HAVE ZONING.
UM, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE OR WHAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY GET.
AND I'M THINKING WITH THE EMERGENCY, UH, EMERGENCY SERVICES ACCESS, ET CETERA, THAT WAS MENTIONED, THE DRAINAGE EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT ACTUALLY REVIEWS IT WITH OUR PLATS.
IT'S PART OF OUR PROCESS INTERNALLY, BUT WE DID NOT, THEY HAVE NO CONCERNS.
THEY'LL REVIEW THE SITE PLAN AS WELL.
UNFORTUNATELY, THAT ONE'S ETJ AND WE DON'T GET TO PLAY WITH IT THIS WAY THROUGH, UM, JUDY SUMMERS THREE OR FOUR OFFENSE TOWN.
OUR HOME IS RIGHT ON THE CORNER OF ELM PARK AND FINN'S TOWN.
SO WE WOULD HAVE THOSE LIKE JUST A FEW FEET AWAY FROM US, RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.
UM, TWO THINGS, UM, ONE THE ELECTRICAL COMPANIES AREN'T ABLE TO HANDLE WHAT THEY HAVE THERE YET.
CAN THEY HANDLE MORE HOMES THERE? THAT'S A QUESTION.
UH, THE OTHER THING IS, DO WE HAVE ACCESS TO A MAP OF WHAT WAS SHOWN AT FIRST WHILE AGO? OH, CAN WE GO BACK ONE AND COULD WE HAVE A COPY JUST TO SEE IT? IS THERE A CUP? IS THERE A COPY ONLINE SOMEWHERE? OH, GOOD.
THIS MAP ON THE RIGHT IS IN THE P AND Z PACKET ONLINE.
OUR PUBLIC NOTICES ARE ALWAYS ONLINE AS WELL.
[01:05:01]
THIS IS ONLINE AS UNDER OUR PUBLIC NOTICES AS WELL.SO THIS IS THE MAP THAT WAS SENT OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS ON THE LETTER.
AND I GUESS, CAN YOU GIVE HER AN EMAIL ADDRESS? I CAN MAKE SURE THAT.
AND IN A SMALL NOTE, UM, FOR YOU ALL BASED ON THE MAP, IF I'M READING IT RIGHT, I DON'T THINK THIS ACTUALLY GOES UP TO FENCE TOWN STREET OR EVEN TOUCHES TANDEM INDUSTRY.
IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS ONLY, ONLY IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS A SMALL PORTION ACROSS FROM GREEN ROCK COVE AND FOX ROAD COV.
SO I DON'T THINK IT TOUCHES ANYWHERE OF THOSE OTHER TWO STREETS.
I'M JUST LOOKING AT SO WHERE YOU SEE IT THERE, WHERE YOU SEE THE R 0 2 0 8 8 5.
IT ONLY GOES UP TO LIKE THOSE FIRST TWO.
UM CUL-DE-SACS SO IT ACTUALLY DOESN'T EVEN GO FURTHER NORTH TO WHERE YOUR STREET IS.
THERE'S A SCHOOL SITE PROPOSED ON THAT PORTION NEXT TO YOUR, TO FINN'S TOWN.
THERE'S A SCHOOL SITE SHOWN ON THEIR CONCEPTUAL PLAN NEXT TO FENCE TOWN.
UM, SO THAT THIS CURRENT ONE ENDS RIGHT HERE AND YOUR STREET, IF I CAN REACH IS UP HERE.
AND SO WHAT, UM, WHAT ARTIMUS SAYING IS THAT THIS IS THE PART THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SHE IS SAYING THAT THERE'S A SCHOOL SITE THAT'S POTENTIALLY GOING TO GET BUILT UP HERE.
SO THE TOWNHOMES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE ACTUALLY DOWN HERE, SO IT WILL AFFECT THE OTHER, UM, THE OTHER LADY'S PROPERTY, BUT IT WON'T AFFECT ACROSS FROM YOUR PROPERTY.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY MENTIONED ELM PARK, THEN STRAIGHT ACCESS THAT THEY'LL BE TAKING THAT'S THEIR ONLY WAY INTO THE TOWNHOMES IS ELM PARK TRAFFIC, THEN GO.
SO DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING? OKAY.
THEN I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:08 PM.
AND SINCE THIS IS PUBLIC HEARING ONLY IT REQUIRES NO ACTION ON OUR PART.
NEXT IS THE MASTER PLAN ITEM FIVE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT.
THERE'S NOT REALLY MUCH TO REPORT THIS MONTH.
I KNOW THAT THIS IS A LITTLE BIT LONGER OF AN AGENDA.
OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE A LITTLE BIT INTRODUCED AND THEN WE MAY HAVE ONE MORE NEW MEMBER.
SO ONCE WE GET A FULL BOARD AGAIN, THE LEGAL PUT ON THE, UM, ELECTIONS FOR CHAIR VICE CHAIR.
I JUST DON'T WANT TO DO IT WITHOUT THE, EXACTLY.
I KNOW I WAS GOING TO ASK IF THAT NEEDED TO BE A PUBLIC REQUEST TO ADD AN AGENDA ITEM FOR THOSE, IT WILL HAPPEN AUTOMATICALLY.
WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT EVERYBODY APPOINTED AND WE'VE, UM, MS. LAWYERS COMING OFF MOST LIKELY, UM, OR SHE'S UP FOR REAPPOINTMENT.
SO IF THAT HAPPENS OR WHOMEVER IS APPOINTED TO THAT SEAT, UM, WE JUST, WE SHOULDN'T DO IT NOW FOR MISSING A PERSON YET.
NO, I, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT.
I WAS GOING TO ASK THAT IT BE PUT ON FOR NEXT, EXCUSE ME.
UM, AS LONG AS WE HAVE SOMEBODY APPOINTED, IF IT'S NOT, IF WE'RE NOT APPOINTED BY THE TIME WE SHOULD BE, COUNCIL'S GREAT ABOUT IT.
UM, BUT IF WE'RE NOT APPOINTED BY THAT, I WOULD HOLD OFF.
BUT OTHERWISE THAT'S THE INTENT.
UM, ALSO I'M WONDERING IF I NEED TO ADD AN, A REQUEST, AN AGENDA ITEM FOR DISCUSSION OF, UH, WHAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT EARLIER KIND OF A P AND Z ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURAL CHANGES.
YEAH, WE CAN, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS I CAN TELL YOU, THERE WAS A LIST SHARED.
IF YOU WANT TO SHARE IT, WE CAN SHARE, I CAN SHARE THAT WITH THE REST OF P AND Z.
ONCE WE HAVE EVERYBODY APPOINTED, UM, MOST OF THOSE ITEMS ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE COMPLETED JUST BECAUSE OF STAFFING LEVELS.
RIGHT NOW, THERE WAS A LOT OF STUFF THAT WE CAN CERTAINLY WORK ON, BUT IT'S JUST NOT, UM, IT'S, WE'RE NOT, AND I WOULDN'T WANT TO OPEN THIS UP FOR ACTION, BUT I WOULD WANT TO OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION IN CASE OTHER OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE IDEAS OR, YOU KNOW, EVEN WANT TO SHOOT DOWN SOME OF THIS, SOME OF THESE OTHER IDEAS ABOUT WE'LL SEND IT OUT.
THEY HAD JUST SENT OVER THE LETTERS OF, YOU KNOW, COULD WE DO THIS? COULD WE DO THAT? CAN WE HAVE SOME DIFFERENT MAPS ONLINE THINGS, BUT I ONLY HAVE ONE GIS PERSON, SO RIGHT.
UM, ADDITIONAL MAPPING AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
IT'S PRETTY, WE'RE, WE'RE AT CAPACITY FOR THAT POSITION RIGHT NOW.
UM, I WILL SAY ONCE WE GET INTO THE BUDGET, MAYBE IF
[01:10:01]
WE HAVE MORE STAFFING AND WE'RE ABLE TO FILL THAT POSITION, BUT A LOT OF THIS IS GOING TO BE BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE JUST HAVE A VERY SMALL TEAM RIGHT NOW.AND I FIGURE IF WE'RE ASKING IN PUBLIC, THEN THERE'S A RECORD OF IT.
AND YOU KNOW, MAYBE COUNCIL CAN START TAKING ACTION ON IT.
AND SPEAKING OF COUNCIL, I'D LIKE TO WELCOME THE NEW COUNCIL LIAISON TO P AND Z COUNCIL MEMBER.
ROBIN SUTTON IS REPLACING OUR LONG TIME LIAISON, PETER GORDON.
HOPEFULLY WE DIDN'T BITE TOO MUCH.
WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT IS ABOUT IT.
SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WILL ADJOURN THIS SESSION AT 8:11 PM.