[Planning and Zoning]
[00:00:03]
IT IS SEVEN OH ONE AND I WILL CALL THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR TUESDAY, AUGUST 2ND, 2000 TO 22 TO ORDER FIRST WE HAVE ROLL CALL AND WE HAVE BRIAN LEE HERE.
CURT SHORT FAGER HERE, SUSANNA BOYER, AND BART HUTCHINGS IS NOT HERE.
AND WE HAVE COMMISSIONER MEYER AND LAWYER, BOTH ABSENT.
AND MYSELF, COMMISSIONER HUDSON IS HERE.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? I SEE THESE WERE FOR FOUR OR 5, 4, 6 47.
NO ONE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 4.1 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE MEETING MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR SCHEDULED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 5TH, 2022.
ANY DISCUSSION COMMENTS, THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 4.1.
I MOVED THAT WE ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOYER AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LEE.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION THEN I WILL CALL FOR VOTE ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
SAME SIGN MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO ITEM 4.2 CONSIDERATION.
IMPOSSIBLE ACTION ON THE MINOR MODIFICATION APPLICATION OF KONA, TEXAS BARBECUE FOOD TRUCK TO BE LOCATED IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AT 2 0 9 FARLEY STREET.
THIS IS FOR A MINOR MODIFICATION IS MOST OF YOU KNOW, THIS IS ACTUALLY KIND OF WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER ALMOST EXISTING FOOD TRUCK COURT.
UNFORTUNATELY, ALL OF THOSE TRUCKS ARE REQUIRED TO GET THIS MINOR MODIFICATION ON THEIR OWN.
UM, SO THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.
THIS IS REALLY JUST GOING TO BE ALMOST A REPLACEMENT OF THE BARBECUE PLACE THAT JUST LEFT.
THEY'RE DOING A BRICK AND MORTAR IN TEMPLE.
UM, SO THIS IS ALMOST A PLUG AND PLAY OPTION FOR THIS CORNER.
SO AGAIN, IT'S DOWNTOWN HOURS ARE DECIDED BY THE ORDINANCE TO BE BETWEEN 7:00 AM AND 8:00 PM.
AND UM, THIS REQUEST MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE.
SO STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
AND DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE? YES WE DO.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, DO HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, UH, IS 7:00 AM TO 8:00 PM.
DOES THAT TIMEFRAME WORK FOR YOU? OKAY.
I DIDN'T SEE A BREAKFAST MENU.
THAT'S WHY I WAS KINDA ASKING LIKE, HEY, THAT'S KIND OF EARLY.
UM, AND I'LL, AND I DIDN'T WANT TO THROW OUT NOW THAT YOU MENTIONED 11 TO FOUR, ONE OF THE THINGS A LOT OF RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IS HAVING LATER FOOD OPTIONS BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE GET HOME LATER AND DOWNTOWN IS VERY SCARCE IN THOSE EVENING HOURS.
AND I KNOW SOME OF THE COMPANY FOOD TRUCKS DO STAY OPEN IN THE EVENINGS.
SO JUST A POTENTIAL THING AS YOU PROGRESS YOUR CLIENTELE TO POTENTIALLY OPEN LATER, THAT'S ON THE PLANE TO SEE TRAVEL.
AND OBVIOUSLY DURING KEY TIMES DURING DOWNTOWN HOW-TO LIKE FESTIVALS, FARMER'S MARKETS WALLS.
SO STAY OVER THERE FOR THOSE TIMES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 4.2.
I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT 4.2 IS WRITTEN I'LL SECOND.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LEE AND A SORRY, VICE CHAIR, LEE.
AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SHORT FAGER.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT, THEN I WILL CALL FOR VOLT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE FOR THE PROPOSED BELLIARD OF SCHMITZ CREEK PRELIMINARY PLAT 30.3, ONE ACRES.
MORE OR LESS OF LAND TO MULTIFAMILY, RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ONE COMMERCIAL LOT LOCATED OFF OF EDGE MITT AND FUTURE LIVE OAK EXTENSION.
[00:05:02]
ALL RIGHT, SO OUR, THIS IS JUST A PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSIONER, SO NO ACTION, NO ACTION TAKEN ON THIS ONE.THAT'S WHAT I WAS CHECKING ON.
THEN I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:07 PM.
AND IS THERE ANYONE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT, THEN I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:07 PM.
AND AS THERE IS NO ACTION WE ARE DONE WITH THAT ITEM.
NEXT IS ITEM 4.4 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED DURANGO FARMS PHASE THREE FINAL PLAT, 10.5, FIVE, FOUR ACRES, MORE OR LESS OF LAND, ONE COMMERCIAL LOT LOCATED SOUTH OF LIMOR LOOP OFF OF F M 1660.
THIS IS A FINAL PLAT FOR THE DURANGO FARMS. UH, IT'S JUST ONE COMMERCIAL LOT IT'S ZONE PLAN, UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S A MIXED USE PARCEL, AND I INCLUDED THE, UM, PUD IN YOUR PACKET.
SO YOU CAN HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF REFERENCE AT THIS POINT.
THEY'RE PROPOSING, UM, SOME SITE GRADINGS AND RETAINING WALLS AROUND THE CREEK, THERE A DETENTION POND AND AN OUTFALL STRUCTURE.
UH, WE DON'T HAVE A SITE PLAN IN PLACE, BUT I THINK THAT'LL BE OUR NEXT STEP, BUT I THINK IT'S WHAT THEY PROPOSED IS MULTIFAMILY AND THAT'S ALLOWED PER THE PUD, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A SITE PLAN WITH DETAILS.
IT MEETS ALL OF OUR STAFF REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANNING.
ALRIGHT, THEN I WILL OPEN THIS UP TO QUESTIONS.
UH, SO DRAINAGE, UM, I KNOW YOU JUST MENTIONED BECAUSE ABOUT HALF, HALF, THE LOT IS IN THE RIPARIAN SETBACK OR A QUARTER OF IT'S IN THE FLOOD PLAIN.
SO YOU SAID THEY'RE GOING TO ADDRESS ALL OF THAT WITH RETENTION WALLS, ET CETERA, WHEN THEY BUILD OUT THIS THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE, UM, SUBMITTED.
UH, IT'S JUST TO DO THE, I DIDN'T REVIEW THIS ONE, REMEMBER ANYTHING.
I WAS JUST WONDERING, CAUSE LOOKING AT THE, AND I DON'T KNOW WHICH DIAGRAM PROBABLY A COUPLE MORE DIAGRAMS FROM NOW.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE IT IN THE SLIDES OR NOT NOW, BUT AT ONE OF THE PAGES HERE.
UM, THE ONE PAGE I DIDN'T READ IN MY NOTES, UM, THE RIGHT PERIOD SETBACK IS ACTUALLY ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH THE PROPERTY.
SO THERE WILL BE A LARGE SECTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT THEY'LL HAVE TO, UM, MITIGATE THE DRAINAGE ON WHICH I'M ASSUMING THEY'LL FIGURE OUT AND SITE PLAN.
WE HAVE KIND OF LOOKED AT WHAT OTHER OPTIONS THEY HAVE.
I KNOW THAT WE SOMETIMES WE'LL DO A LARGER DRAINAGE STUDY THAT WOULD THEN POTENTIALLY REDUCE THAT, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THROUGH A VARIANCE WITH THAT LARGER STUDY, UM, SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
SO THEY HAVE SOME OPTIONS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED, BUT WE'RE NOT REALLY, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY KNOW HOW MUCH THEY NEED OR WOULD POTENTIALLY NEED IF ANYTHING, UM, UNTIL WE GET THAT SITE POINTING.
CAUSE RIGHT NOW WHAT IT SOUNDED LIKE IT WAS MOSTLY GOING TO BE PARKING AND SOME OF THE LANDSCAPE AREA.
UM, AND SO WE STILL HAVE TO KEEP THOSE OUTSIDE OF THAT.
LIKE I SAID, I'M JUST MAKING SURE AS LONG AS IT'S ADDRESSED AT SOME POINT, CAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO BUILD ANYTHING WITHIN FLOOD PLAIN BECAUSE ONE OF THE NOTES, EXCUSE ME, ONE OF THE NOTES STATED THE NORMAL NOTE OF THAT, ALL I'M SORRY, FOUNDATIONS WILL BE AT LEAST ONE FOOT ABOVE FLOOD PLAIN.
AND THEY PUT A NOTE IN HERE THAT THE ONES FRONTING THE FLOOD AREA WILL BE AT LEAST TWO FEET ABOVE.
LIKE I SAID, I'M JUST WANTING TO MAKE SURE, AS IN SOME OTHER DEVELOPMENTS WE'VE HAD THAT, THEY'RE NOT JUST GOING TO TRY TO RAISE IT HIGHER, TO DEAL WITH POTENTIAL FLOODING AND TRY TO BUILD INTO THE FLOOD PLAIN.
ONE QUESTION I HAD, UH, WAS REGARDING HOW THE ACTUAL AREAS OF THE SITE THAT CAN BE DEVELOPED THAT AREN'T FLOODPLAIN AND RIPARIAN SETBACK.
DO WE HAVE ANY CONCEPT AT THIS POINT OF HOW ACCESS IS GOING TO BE GIVEN TO THAT PART OF THE SITE FROM 1660? SO THERE IS AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY THE FAR NORTH.
SO IT'S LIKELY THAT THAT'S WHERE IT'S GOING TO COME FROM.
I DID GET CONFIRMATION FROM THE APPLICANT THAT THEY ARE NOT LOOKING AT TAKING DIRECT ACCESS FROM THAT SMALL CUL-DE-SAC THAT'S TO THE EAST.
YOU SEE ON THERE, THAT WAS ONE THING THAT WE HAD ASKED ABOUT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME SORT OF SECONDARY FIRE ACCESS THAT WOULD HAVE ENGAGED IN A KNOX BOX ON IT.
ONCE WE GET INTO SITE PLANNING IF NECESSARY, BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THEY WOULD HAVE ENOUGH, UM, UNITS ON THIS LOT BECAUSE IT IS SO CONSTRAINED THE FLOOD PLAIN.
TYPICALLY YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT SPRINKLERS IN TWO POINTS OF ACCESS UNTIL YOU'RE ABOVE I THINK A HUNDRED UNITS FOR MULTI-FAMILY.
SO YOU THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE JUST FINE WITH THAT ONE SHARED ACCESS DRIVE TO THE NORTH THAT ALSO THEN I BELIEVE GOES STRAIGHT TO THAT CELL TOWER IS OVER THERE.
ARE WE GOING TO BE CUTTING THROUGH RIPARIAN SETBACK AND FLOODPLAIN TO GRANT ACCESS TO THIS SITE? NO.
AND IF THEY DID, JUST TO BE ABLE TO CROSS THAT FLOOD PLAIN, THERE'D BE A LOT MORE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO INTO AS FAR AS THE ENGINEERING WORK, TO BE ABLE TO CROSS THAT ONE
[00:10:01]
POINT.SO I DO, I DO WANT TO BRING UP A NOTE BECAUSE BACK IN JULY, 2021, WHEN WE WERE REVIEWING THIS BEFORE, UM, I BELIEVE FOR THE PUD PUD EDIT AT THAT POINT, POTENTIALLY TRYING TO REMEMBER WHAT THAT WAS.
IT WAS BLATANTLY STATED BY THE DEVELOPERS THAT THIS WOULD BE COMMERCIAL USED AS COMMERCIAL B ONE EXCLUSIVELY BECAUSE WE HAD NUMEROUS RESIDENTS THAT CAME IN AND TALKED ABOUT IT BEING BUTTED UP AGAINST RESIDENTIAL.
THEY HAVE A, IN THE POD THEY'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE UP TO A 60 FOOT HOTEL, WHICH OBVIOUSLY COULD NOT GO THAT CLOSE TO RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE OF WINDOWS.
SO THEY EXPLICITLY STATED THAT IT WOULD BE, BE ONE COMMERCIAL.
SO NOW THAT WE'RE HEARING IT'S POTENTIALLY MULTI-FAMILY, THAT IS A HUGE ISSUE.
NOT EVER CHANGED TO NOT MAKE IT BE ONE ON THAT SITE.
IT WAS JUST THAT, THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE THINKING.
I THINK AT THE POINT THAT WE WERE STILL CHANGING IT, THEY WERE THINKING IT WAS PROBABLY GOING TO BE COMMERCIAL STILL.
UM, BUT IT LOOKS, I WOULDN'T EVEN NECESSARILY CALL THIS MULTIFAMILY IS PROBABLY GONNA BE MORE LIKE TOWNHOUSE.
UM, SO IT'S STILL, IT'S NOT THE, IT'S NOT THE B ONE, BUT THE PITE ALLOWS FOR THEM TO DO EITHER RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL IS GOING TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT WORSE OF A TIME ON HERE JUST BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF FLOODPLAIN, YOU PROBABLY WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO MAKE IT WORK AND THERE'S NO FRONT END.
SO IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE A DESTINATION, NOT A DRIVE BY.
LIKE I SAID, THOUGH, I'M STILL BRINGING UP WHAT THE DEVELOPERS STATED NUMEROUS TIMES NOW.
THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO, UM, THEY, THEY WERE AWARE OBVIOUSLY OF ANY FLOODING WHENEVER THEY STATED THAT BEFORE.
UM, AND WE HAD PLENTY OF RESIDENTS THAT VOICED BACK THEN AND THE DEVELOPER STATED WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO WITH COMMERCIAL.
SO WANTING TO STATE THAT AGAIN, THAT, THAT THEY NEED TO GO AND LIVE UP TO WHAT THEIR ARE THAT THEY HAVE STATED, UM, AND NOT SWITCH IT JUST BECAUSE OF THINGS THEY POTENTIALLY FIND OUT LATER ON OR EASE OF BEING ABLE TO USE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS.
UM, THAT'D BE STATED IN BEING IN WRITING AS TO, I KNOW, AND THAT'S ONE THING THAT I HOPE WE CAN FIX A LITTLE BIT IN THE FUTURE WITH SOME OF OUR PUDS AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND ALL OF THAT, BECAUSE THIS IS NOW THE ONLY BEEN DOING THIS FOR A YEAR AND THIS IS ALREADY PROBABLY THE SIXTH OR SEVENTH TIME THAT WE'VE HAD TO, WE'VE HAD TO STATE WHAT A DEVELOPER HAS SAID.
UM, AND THEN NUMEROUS TIMES, AND NOW THEY'VE WENT BACK ON IT.
IN MY VIEW, I WOULD ALMOST, I WOULD ALMOST DENY THIS JUST BECAUSE OF THAT, BUT THAT'S MY OPINION.
SO IT'S NOT LEGAL TO DENY THE PLAT BASED ON YOUR ZONING REQUIREMENT AND THE REASON THE ZONING CALLS IT OUT AS MULTIFAMILY IN THE BUD.
I DIDN'T KNOW ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS.
THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 4.4.
I MOVED TO, UH, RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL, UH, BASED OFF THE STACKER STAFF RECOMMENDATION A SECOND, RIGHT.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCHWARZENEGGER AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOYER TO RECOMMEND AND TO APPROVE FINAL PLAT, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
ALL RIGHT, THEN I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
CONSIDER ACTION REGARDING A SUBDIVISION VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS FOUR 11 AND 4 21 EDGE BOULEVARD, 2.2, FIVE ACRES, MORE OR LESS OF LAND FOR DRIVEWAY SPACING LESS THAN 425 FEET.
UH, DID YOU WANT TO, UH, SPEAK PRIOR TO PRESENTATION? ALL RIGHT.
THEN WE HAVE, UH, WE HAVE A JACK ZANGER AND UH, SHEESH MISRA.
JACK, DO YOU WANT ME TO SHOW THEM WHAT YOU'VE CHANGED FIRST? OKAY.
LET ME, LET ME GO THROUGH IT AND I'LL SHOW YOU.
SO NOW THE VARIANCE IS THE FIRST THING.
UM, SO THE BACKUP INFORMATION IS STILL IN YOUR PACKET.
UM, BUT JUST TO GO BACK FOR, THIS WAS WHAT WAS SHOWN BY THE PLAT, THE ONE DRIVEWAY IN THE MIDDLE.
AND THEN THE LAST TWO MONTHS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, UM, THESE TWO DRIVES NORTH AND, AND THE LAST TIME THEY ADDED A RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT TO THE NORTH DRIVE, BUT KEPT THE SOUTH.
SO, UM, THAT'S WHAT THEY DID LAST TIME THAT WE TALKED
[00:15:01]
ABOUT.SO WHAT THEY'VE DONE IN THIS, AND I'M CALLING THIS THE FINAL, THE FINAL PROPOSAL, UH, THEY HAVE REMOVED THE DRIVEWAY TO THE NORTH AND THEY ONLY HAVE THE DRIVEWAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
AND THEN THEY HAVE, UM, AGREED BECAUSE THEY HAVE COMMON OWNERSHIP TO THE PROPERTY, TO THE NORTH, THAT THEY WILL USE THAT ACCESS AND TAKE ACCESS, UM, FROM THE SITE TO THE NORTH, THE DESC IS THE DAYCARE.
UM, AND SO NOW WE ONLY HAVE ONE DRIVEWAY THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR, AND IT IS 162 FEET FROM THE NEAREST DRIVE TO THE SOUTH.
AND THE DRIVE TO THE SOUTH IS THE ONE THAT IS KIND OF ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE CHURCH.
UM, IT'S THIS ONE ON THE SCREEN FOR THE LARGE BUILDINGS.
SO NOW THEY WILL HAVE ONE, ONE POINT OF ACCESS FROM THE SOUTH THAT GOES, AND THEN THEY WILL USE THAT, UM, NORTH TO THE NORTHERN PROPERTY.
AND ONCE THAT GETS BUILT OUT, ALL MAKES SENSE.
BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE CHANGED THE REQUEST TO.
SO I MOVED THIS UP, SO I FELT LIKE IF YOU APPROVE THE VARIANCE, THEN WE'RE ONE STEP CLOSER.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THIS VARIANCE, THEN WE CAN JUST SEND IT AGAIN.
SO, AND THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE AND THERE, UH, THEY'VE PREPARED SOME SITE PLAN CHANGES TOO, BUT THIS ONE IS JUST THE VARIANCE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS AND YOU ALL ARE THE DECIDING BODY FOR THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE DRIVERS SPACING.
WAS A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION.
YOU WANT TO ACCOMMODATE THE FIRE LANE.
AND, UH, TRUCK TRACKS ALSO DECREASES BY FIVE, WHICH IS A MINIMUM, WHICH IS LOWER THAN THE MINIMUM THAT THE CITY.
SO THE NORTHERN OR SOUTHERN DRIVEWAY ARE ALL THE OPTIONS.
I KNOW COMMISSION SOUTHERN ENTRANCE, ANDREW CHASE PROVIDES WORKING FOR OWNERSHIP WITH AN INVESTMENT OF THIS SIZE.
UM, IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE BUILDING FACING THE CENTER OF THE CITY AND WHAT WOULD REALLY WANT TO HAVE A DRIVER THE FRONT OF THE VILLAGE AND NOT, UM, REDUCING THE SEPARATION FROM 4 25, 1 62 SEEMS LIKE A LOT WHEN I'M JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT, UM, THE SPEED LIMIT CHANGES FROM 35 TO 50 AT THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY.
LOWE'S THE DRIVEWAYS FROM THE INTERSECTION TO THIS PROPERTY.
UM, MOST OF THEM ARE APPROXIMATELY SEPARATED BY 200 FEET, WHICH DOESN'T EAT THE 250, 35 MILE AN HOUR MINIMUM.
I BELIEVE THERE'S ONE THAT IS ABOUT AND FUTURE MEDIAN ON THE EXTRA, UM, INCREASE.
UM, IT JUST REALLY LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER A WOW.
UM, THE DRIVEWAY TO THE FRONT.
UM, WITH THAT, I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION.
I THINK FOR ME, I KNOW WE'VE TALKED EXTENSIVELY ABOUT DRIVEWAYS PROBABLY MORE THAN WE EVER WANTED TO TALK ABOUT TO ME.
I THINK IT IS A GOOD COMPROMISE.
I KNOW WE WERE ORIGINALLY WANTING TO MOVE IT TO THE NORTH, BUT AS YOU DISCUSSED, IT DOES MAKE SENSE WHERE IT'S AT AND, AND ALSO JUST FOR EASE OF ACCESS BECAUSE, UM, ONE OF THE FIRST PLACES PEOPLE DO WHEN THEY FIRST COME IN IS GOING TO BE PULLING TO THE LOBBY AREA.
AND BASED ON THE CURRENT SETUP, THERE'LL BE ABLE TO PULL DIRECTLY IN WITHOUT HAVING TO GO MAKE A U-TURN OR FLIP ACROSS LANES OF TRAFFIC OR SOMETHING.
SO THAT'S ALSO A THING THAT YOU'D WANT TO MAKE SURE IS AS WELL KNOWN.
UM, THE 162 IS STILL A LITTLE WORRISOME, BUT LIKE I SAID, THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN ADDRESS ONCE EDGE MINT IT'S REDONE IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE WHO KNOWS IF WE'LL HAVE MEDIANS OR FIVE LANES OR, UM, WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE.
SO TO ME, IT, IT MAKES SENSE THAT THIS COULD WORK, UM, AND NO MAJOR CONCERNS AND JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM.
CAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
UM, NOW THAT YOU'RE GOING TO THE NORTH WITH THAT, THAT OTHER ACCESS THERE'S NO OTHER ACCESS POINTS ALLOWED BEYOND THE ONE THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE AT LOT ONE.
[00:20:02]
SO, SO SORRY, THE ONE, THE ONE THAT'S GOING TO THE NORTH THERE.SO THE ONLY OTHER ACCESS POINT YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW IS FOR LOT ONE WHERE THE DAYCARE IS THERE NO OTHER ENTRY POINTS AUTHORIZED RIGHT ON THE, ON THE PROPERTY.
UM, COMPLETE THE FIRELIGHT OR WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING AND THEN COME THE FIRE LIGHT CONNECTION THROUGH THERE.
I, LIKE I SAID, I WAS JUST MAKING SURE WE, WEREN'T GOING TO TRY TO PUT ANOTHER, ANOTHER ACCESS POINT SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THE HOTEL AND THE DAYCARE IN THE FUTURE.
I SPENT A SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN THE SPEED LIMIT.
STAFF WOULD NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ANOTHER, UM, ACCESS POINT HAS YOUR CAUSE.
YOU'RE ALREADY AT 404 FEET NOW BETWEEN THEM, WHICH IS ALREADY, STILL UNDER THE ALLOWED SPACING, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT.
IF THE SPEED LIMIT WOULD BE REDUCED, BUT OTHERWISE IT WOULD DEFINITELY NOT BE LOUD WOULD NOT RECOMMEND ANOTHER.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS? BECAUSE THE ONE TO THE NORTH IS ALREADY PLANTED AS A SHARED ACCESS POINT FOR THAT LOT.
SO THESE TWO AND THAT LOT IS SO SMALL.
THE REMAINDER, IT LOOKS MUCH IN PERSON.
AND, AND THERE SHOULDN'T HONESTLY, THERE SHOULDN'T BE A NEED BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE THROUGH ACCESS TO THE REAR AND THE FRONT OF ALL THE PROPERTIES.
SO I WOULDN'T THINK YOU'D NEED ANOTHER ACCESS POINT.
AND I DON'T THINK IT'S EVEN ALLOWED IN THE, THE VERBIAGE OF THE WRITEUP EITHER THINK THEY'RE AT THEIR MAX NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS.
THAT'S THAT'S THE ONLY THING WE TALKED ABOUT.
DAVID, MR. MIRED BROUGHT UP ABOUT DRAINAGE BEFORE, BUT I THINK WE ADDRESSED THAT BECAUSE AT ONE POINT YOU WERE GOING TO PUT THE RETENTION BASIN UNDERGROUND IN THE FRONT OF THE HOTEL, BUT I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO MOVE THAT RIGHT TO UNDERNEATH PARKING OR SOMETHING POTENTIALLY.
IS THAT THE CASE? YEAH, WE HAVE SOME FLEX, BUT IT WILL NO LONGER BE IN THAT ACCESS EASEMENT OR AGAINST THE ROADWAY, CORRECT? ANDREA? NO, YOU WON'T GO ACROSS THE FRONT ANYMORE.
THE ACCESS, THESE METALS HAVE TO BE REARRANGED TO GO, UH, LIKE THEY WERE ORIGINALLY YEAH.
SO IT WILL NOT CROSS ANY, SORRY.
WRONG TERMINOLOGY, UTILITY EASEMENTS.
IT WILL NOT CROSS ANY OF THE UTILITIES MINTS THAT ARE AGAINST THE ROADWAY.
THAT WAS WHAT COMMISSIONER MEYER HAD BROUGHT UP LAST TIME.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ON 4.5, THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
I MOVED THAT WE, UH, APPROVED 4.5 AS WRITTEN AND I WILL SECOND THAT.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOYER AND A SECOND BY MYSELF TO APPROVE 4.5 AS WRITTEN ANY QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT.
WITH THAT, I WILL CALL FOR VOTE ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE REVISED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PUD ZONING ORDINANCE REQUESTS FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 4 11, 4 21, 4 31 AND 4 41
MORE OR LESS OF LAND WHAT'S 2, 3, 4, AND FIVE OF THE EMORY FARMS, COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON EDGE BOULEVARD.
[00:25:01]
SO THIS'LL BE THE THIRD ITERATION OF THE PUD, UM, REVISION.AND THE LAST TIME WE SAW, UM, THE TWO DRIVEWAYS, THE 25 FOOT LANDSCAPE SETBACK, BUT THE ONE OF THE MAJOR ISSUES THAT REMAINED WERE THE WINDOWS ON THE BACK.
AND THEY HAD TALKED ABOUT, UM, THIS WAS THE EXISTING NORTH VIEW SOUTH VIEW.
AND THEN THE ISSUE WAS REALLY WITH THE WEST, I THINK.
AND THEY HAD TALKED ABOUT THE FOURTH FLOOR BEING OPAQUE, THIS CURRENT REVISION, THEY HAVE, UM, REQUEST, THEY HAVE FLIPPED THE BUILDING.
SO NOW THE EAST ELEVATION ON THIS SHEET IS NOW THE WEST.
SO THOSE IT IS THE TALLER ELEVATION, BUT IT WILL BE THE FEWER WINDOWS ELEVATION.
ON-SITE I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THAT LAST TIME IS MAYBE AN OPTION.
AND SO THEY'VE AGREED TO DO THAT.
AND SO NOW THE WEST IS THE TOP AND THE EAST IS THE BOTTOM AND THEY ALSO BROUGHT THEIR ARCHITECT TONIGHT AND THEY HAVE SOME MORE DETAILED DRAWINGS IF, UH, WE CAN, I CAN OPEN UP AND WE CAN LOOK AT, BUT THE BULK OF IT IS TO CHANGE THAT THEY ALSO ADDED, UM, SOME SPECIFIC TO GET A, AN EVERGREEN LANDSCAPING SCREEN BACK THERE.
THEY HAVE THE MASONRY WALL AND NOW LIVE OAKS AND THEN SOME SHRUBS THAT WILL GET TALLER AS WELL.
SO THEY WILL PLANT THOSE IN THAT 25 FOOT SETBACK AREA.
SO THOSE ARE THE PRIMARY CHANGES, THE FLIPPING OF THE ELEVATIONS AND THEN ADDING SOME EVERGREEN OPTIONS TO THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER.
UM, AND THEN OF COURSE THE DRIVEWAY SPACE.
AND I CAN OPEN THIS REALLY QUICK AND I THINK WE CAN SEE THIS ONE A LITTLE BETTER.
UM, I THINK LAST TIME IT WAS REALLY HARD TO SEE, I KNOW THE ARCHITECT WANTED TO HAVE THIS AVAILABLE TO SHOW IF YOU ALL HAD ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS AND, AND THEY CAN ANSWER THOSE BETTER.
SO ULTIMATELY IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S JUST NO WINDOWS ON THAT SIDE BECAUSE YOU HAVE A, YOU HAVE THE STAIRWELL TO THE NORTH OF THAT END AND THEN YOU JUST WON'T HAVE ANY WINDOWS TO THE UNITS TO THE SOUTH OF THAT END.
THE, THE EXISTING WINDOWS ON THAT ELEVATION CURRENTLY LABELED EAST.
SO THIS IS ON THE SCREEN IS THE ELEVATION THAT WILL BE SEEN FROM THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE.
AND THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE STAIRWELL WINDOWS.
SO EXCEPT FOR THE FIRST ONE, RIGHT.
IT LOOKS LIKE POTENTIALLY END OF HALLWAY WINDOWS.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ACTUALLY IN THE STAIRWELL, BUT YES, THEY'RE NOT.
THEY'RE NOT TO ROOMS. SO THAT'S YEAH, THERE ARE NO CONDENSER UNITS ON THIS SIDE.
SO THAT WAS A CONCERN AS WELL.
MY, UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH.
SO I'M LOOKING AT THE FLOOR PLAN AND IT APPEARS ON, I GUESS THIS IS THE WEST SIDE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
YOU'VE GOT, IS IT YOUR KITCHEN DOWN THERE ALONG WITH THE DINING AREA? OTHER SIDE, FIRST FLOOR.
IN THE CORNER IS THE FITNESSES.
AND FOR THOSE, ARE THEY SERVED BY A ROOFTOP RTU OR ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE PAD MOUNTED CONDENSERS ON THE GROUND? IT WOULD HAVE A COMMENT BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO HAVE ME GO THERE AS YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE GO.
SO WHAT WE WERE JUST SAYING, WE ALWAYS JUST LOOK AT IT.
I GUESS THE SAME THING WOULD BE FOR THE, YOUR KITCHEN AREA OR YOUR PREP SERVING AREA.
ARE THEY, IS IT GOING TO BE UNITS ON THE, ON THE GROUND LEVEL? THEY'RE ALSO, UM, I'M ASSUMING THAT'S JUST OF YOUR DINING BUFFET, THE FOOD PREP AREA.
NO, THERE WOULDN'T BE SOME EXHAUST FANS SINCE IT'S A PUBLIC.
[00:30:03]
OKAY.IT'S, IT'S GOING TO BE A COMBINATION, THE MAKEUP AND THE OFFICIANT, WHICH IS ON THE MOVE AND THEN THEY MIGHT NEED IT.
HAS SOME, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING? I DO HAVE SOMETHING.
UM, SO ONE PROBLEM THAT I'VE HAD WITH, WITH THIS IS THE HEIGHT AND UDC VERY CLEARLY SPELLS OUT 45 FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT, UH, WHETHER OR NOT THAT INCLUDES A 12 FOOT PARAPET, THAT'S UP FOR DEBATE AND DISCUSSION.
BUT THIS IS STATING THAT THE HEIGHT IS GOING TO BE 50 FEET BEFORE THE PARAPET.
WHY, WHY DOES THIS BUILDING NEED THE EXTRA FIVE FEET IS UNDERSTOOD, BUT THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING IS LISTED AT 50.18 FEET.
SO WHY DOES THIS BUILDING NEED TO BE THE TALLEST BUILDING IN HUDDLE? WHY DOES IT NEED AN EXTRA 5.18 FEET? IF WE WERE TO REDUCE THE BENEFIT, IF THAT IS, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PARAPET HEIGHT, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT, THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING SHOWN AT 50.18 FEET.
AND THAT, THAT IS AN ERROR ALL ABOUT THE TRUST.
IT WAS THE BOTTOM OF THE TRUST IS THAT 45, 2 AND AN EIGHT.
SO, AND YOU, I THINK YOU'VE CONFIRMED.
WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY IS BASICALLY YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME ROOFTOP UNITS OUTSIDE AIR, ET CETERA.
SO THEY'RE SCREENED, WHICH IS A GOOD THING.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE PARAPETS THAT ARE FIVE FEET TALL.
SO IT'S JUST THE MAIN ARCHITECTURAL SLANTED FEATURES THAT ARE GOING TO GO ABOVE, WHICH I'M ASSUMING IS YOUR ELEVATOR AND THE OVERRUN FOR YOUR ELEVATOR.
UM, THE BAD FIT ACTUALLY DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH
THE TWO SLANTED PIECES THAT ARE POPPING UP, ONE OF THOSE IS FOR YOUR ELEVATOR OVERRUN OR NO, JUST THE AESTHETIC.
I DON'T HAVE AS MUCH PROBLEM WITH A PARAPET.
I MEAN, I'VE, I'VE SEEN THESE KINDS OF THINGS ON STEEPLES, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, WHERE THEY'RE NOT ACTUAL ACCURIDE SPACES AND THEY DO EXPAND AND EXTEND ABOVE THE 45 FOOT LIMIT.
MY CONCERN IS WE HAVE A 45 LIMIT, 45 FOOT LIMIT IN HUDDLE.
WE SHOULD, WE SHOULD MAINTAIN THAT.
ACCORDING TO THAT, THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW, THOUGH, NOTHING ABOUT 45 FOOT WILL BE OCCUPIED BECAUSE OF THE TOP OF THAT FOURTH FLOOR, WINDOW IS STILL AT 45.2 FEET.
SO ALL THAT'S ABOVE THAT AS THE TRUSSES, PARAPET, ET CETERA, SCREENING FOR, UM, SCREENING FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.
AND I'M FINE WITH ALL OF THAT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT PUTTING LIVABLE SPACE ABOVE 45 FEET.
IS THERE A ROUGH PLAN THAT YOU CAN SHOW IN THAT SET? THAT'S OUR ROOF PLAN IN THIS SET? UM, SO THE SITE PLAN ACTUALLY, UM, UH, JACKS SITE.
UH, DON'T THINK THAT'S IN MY PRE, SO THEN THE TWO LARGE RECTANGULAR BOXES, I'M ASSUMING ARE YOUR OUTSIDE AIR UNITS? DEFINITELY.
THE OTHER ONE THAT IS OUTSIDE THE SCREEN ELEMENT, I'M ASSUMING IT'S GOING TO BE TALLER THAN FIVE FEET.
SO IS IT GOING TO BE VISIBLE BASED OFF OF THE LOCATION AND THE PROXIMITY TO THE PARAPET? OKAY.
BECAUSE WE ONLY NEED, I THINK MAYBE WE NEED 13 AND ABOUT THE FLOOR OR THE ELEVATOR TALK TO SO WE WILL BE QUITE SELECTIVE.
[00:35:01]
JUST FOR CURIOSITY SAKE, BECAUSE IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.UH, THE REASON WHY WE HAVE TO GO A LITTLE BIT HIGHER, THE FIRST FLOOR IS AT 12 FEET.
AND SINCE WE HAVE SO MUCH OPEN SPACE, LARGELY THE STRUCTURE IS GOING TO BE CALLED STEEL COLUMNS.
SO WE WILL NOT BE GETTING ENOUGH CEILING HEIGHT.
AND THE MINIMUM THAT YOU WANT IN A, IN A LOBBY AREA WOULD BE NICE.
SO WE HAVE TO GO WITH, AND THE WAY THIS IS A STIGMA OR WITH THE STICK FRAME WORKS ITS BEST TO ADD 11 INTO AN APP.
DO YOU WANT TO HAVE AT LEAST EIGHT? SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S A BABY.
AND THAT'S WHY WE ENDED UP WITH 45 AND A FRACTION.
AND LIKE I SAID, THE SCREENING AND THE PARAPETS, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED TO INCLUDE THAT HEIGHT JUST BECAUSE OF THE MECHANICAL FEATURES ON THE ROOF.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE PARAPET BEING COLOR.
I APPRECIATE YOUR ALL'S, UH, REVISIONS THAT YOU'VE MADE AFTER OUR COMMENTS.
LAST TIME TO ADDRESS WHAT WE WERE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT, UM, ROTATING THE BUILDING IS A DEFINITE AND UNDERSTAND THE AESTHETIC AND THE, THE MAIN ENTRANCE ISSUES.
BUT IT APPEASES OUR, OUR CONCERNS WITH THE NEIGHBORS BEING NEXT DOOR.
SO I HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS TODAY.
ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT, WELL THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 4.6.
I MOVED FOR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL ON 4.6 AS IT IS PRESENTED AS SECOND.
RIGHT? SO I HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL, TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER BOYER AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SCHWARTZENEGGER ANY QUESTION ON THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT, THEN I WILL CALL FOR VOTE ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
SAME SIGN MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO.
AND NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 4.7, NO CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE EMORY FARMS, COMMERCIAL AMENDED PLAT FOR LOTS FOUR AND FIVE KNOWN AS FOUR 11 AND 4 21 EDGE BOULEVARD, 2.2, FIVE ACRES, MORE OR LESS OF LAND.
THIS IS THE ASSOCIATED PLAT, UH, REPLAT FOR THIS PROJECT AND WE DO HAVE A CONDITION.
THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO CHANGE IT.
THE ACCESS EASEMENTS ON THE PLANT.
SO THE ONE CONDITION IS RECOMMENDED AN APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITION.
THE NEW ACCESS EASEMENT LOCATIONS ARE REFLECTED ON THE FINAL VERSION PER THE VARIANCE THAT YOU ALL APPROVED.
THAT'S THE ONLY STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON 4.7? OKAY.
THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 4.7.
I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM FOUR SEVEN WITH THE STAFF, RECOMMENDATION THAT WITH THE CHANGES TO THE ACCESS EASEMENTS TO MATCH THE DRIVEWAY VARIANTS IN ITEM 4.5.
I HAVE A MOTION BY VICE-CHAIR LEE AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOYER.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT.
THEN I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
SAME SIGN MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO, NEXT ITEM, FIVE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, DIRECTOR REPORT.
I DON'T REALLY HAVE TOO MUCH FOR YOU.
I SHOULD PROBABLY GIVE YOU AN UPDATE IN THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT TODAY IS ON SPIRITS LASTING.
UM, WE'RE REALLY EXCITED FOR IT, BUT SAD FOR US.
SO, UM, WE'RE WE'RE GOING TO BE FINE.
UM, BUT YEAH, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH, OH MY GOD.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'RE HANDLING THIS.
SHE MIGHT HAVE IT WORSE THOUGH.
CAUSE HER, HER WINTER IS GOING TO BE A LOT WORSE THAN MINE.
[00:40:01]
I'M REALLY GOOD BOOTS ALL BEING ON SPEED DIAL.UH, I KNOW WE WERE FLOATING SEVERAL DATES FOR, UH, THE C PACK, CORRECT.
SO I WILL BE SENDING OUT A SEPARATE EMAIL ON THAT.
AND THE ONLY THING I REALLY DID WANT TO TELL YOU BESIDES OUR SAD NEWS FOR THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT, UM, THE COMP PLAN GROUP, FREESE AND NICHOLS, AND THEN ALSO, UM, SIMPLE CITY, WE'LL BE MAKING A PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL ON THE 18TH.
UM, IT'S NOT THIS THURSDAY, THERE'LL BE TWO WEEKS FROM TOMORROW OR I'M SORRY FROM THURSDAY.
CAUSE THAT WILL BE ON THE AGENDA.
SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE THERE IN PERSON.
IT SHOULD BE FAIRLY SOON ON THE, I THINK, FORWARD IN THE AGENDA.
SO, YOU KNOW, USUALLY ONCE WE GET THROUGH ALL THE PROCLAMATIONS AND UM, THE GREAT UPDATES THAT WE ARE GIVEN, THEN WE'LL GET INTO THOSE PRESENTATIONS.
I THINK WE'VE GOT ONE FROM ISO RATING AND THEN WE'VE GOT THE FRIESEN NICOLE'S, UM, COMP PLAN UPDATE.
SO WE'LL HAVE THOSE TWO THINGS FOR YOU.
AND THEN THE C PACK STUFF WILL COME OUT SEPARATELY.
SO IT'S NOT EVERYBODY ON HERE AS ON THE PACK, BUT THOSE WILL COME OUT, BUT CERTAINLY THEY KIND OF WANT TO GIVE COUNCIL AN IDEA OF LIKE WHERE WE ARE, BUT WE ALSO WANTED TO WAIT FOR OUR NEW CITY MANAGER TO GET HERE.
I BELIEVE HE WILL BE, UM, PHYSICALLY HERE TOMORROW, BUT CERTAINLY WANT TO JUST POUNCE, UM, RIGHT AWAY.
GIVE HIM, UH, GIVE HIM A LITTLE MINUTE.
UM, BUT WE'LL BE ABLE TO THEN GET HIM UP TO SPEED AS WELL AND HOPEFULLY START TAKING BACK OFF.
BUT I'VE SEEN ABOUT TWO THIRDS DONE.
IT'S ACTUALLY STARTING TO COME TOGETHER.
UM, AND IT'S GETTING EXCITING.
SO I'M EXCITED TO, TO HAVE, Y'ALL SEE THAT COUNSEL, BUT THEN ALSO BRING SOME MORE UPDATES.
SO AS WE GET MORE, I CAN PASS IT OUT TO EVERYBODY.
WELL THEN I'M WITH NOTHING, NOTHING ELSE ON THE AGENDA.
UH, LET US ADJOURN THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AT 7:43 PM.
AND YOU DIDN'T WANT TO FLIP THE TABLE.