* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:03] ALL [Planning and Zoning] RIGHT. IT IS SEVEN O'CLOCK. YEP, WE ARE HOT MIC. ALL RIGHT. IT IS SEVEN O'CLOCK. SO LET'S CALL THIS SESSION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7TH, 2023 TO ORDER. FIRST UP IS ROLL CALL ALL. UH, LET'S SEE. WE HAVE, UH, COMMISSIONER SCHWARTZER ABSENT. HOW ABOUT COMMISSIONER MORRIS HERE? HOW ABOUT COMMISSIONER LAWYER HERE? COMMISSIONER BOYER HERE. UH, COMMISSIONER MEYER HERE. AND COMMISSIONER LEE HERE. AND COMMISSIONER HUDSON IS HERE. NEXT UP WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. UH, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. NO PUBLIC COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT, THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM FOUR, CONSENT AGENDA. UH, ITEM 4.1, CONSIDERATION IMPOSSIBLE ACTION ON THE MEETING MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR SCHEDULED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 3RD, 2023. 4.2 CONSIDERATION, IMPOSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED SJS. PRELIMINARY PLA 11.139 ACRES, MORE OR LESS OF LAND ONE COMMERCIAL LOT LOCATED ON LIER LOOP 4.3 CONSIDERATION, IMPOSSIBLE ACTION ON COVERED BRIDGE LOTS ONE AND TWO BLOCK A AND LOTS ONE AND TWO BLOCK H PHASE ONE AMENDED PLAT 0.724 ACRES, MORE OR LESS OF LAND RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED AT COUNTY ROAD. 1 38 4 0.4 CONSIDERATION, IMPOSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED HUDDLE CROSSING, PHASE FOUR, SECTION 16, FINAL PLAT 2.444 ACRES, MORE OR LESS OF LAND OPEN SPACE LOCATED AT CARL STERN DRIVE. 4.5 CONSIDERATION, IMPOSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED NORTHTOWN COMMONS. LOT FIVE BLOCK, A FINAL PLAT, 1.291 ACRES, MORE OR LESS OF LAND ONE COMMERCIAL LOT LOCATED ON LIMMER LOOP AND 4.6 CONSIDERATION, IMPOSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED CLA H EDITION. FINAL PLAT 3.039 ACRES, MORE OR LESS OF LAND LOCATED ON CLATON HOFF LANE. SO I WOULD LIKE TO PULL 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, AND 4.6. ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT? ALL RIGHT, HEARING NO OBJECTIONS, THEN WE WILL CONSIDER FOR CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 4.2 AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 4.2 AS WRITTEN. ONE SECOND. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY VICE CHAIR LEE AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LAWYER. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MAYOR? MAYOR. ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE THEN I WILL CALL FOR VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES. SIX ZERO. ALL RIGHT. 4.1. UM, I ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS WITH STAFF, BUT I NOTICED, UH, THAT 5.2 AND 5.3 WERE NOT COMPLETE. 5.2 IS CORRECTED YOU ON THE, WHEN YOU'RE GONNA SIGN 5.3, I'LL ADD THE MOTION AND THEN I'LL HAVE YOU SIGN THAT AFTER. PERFECT. SO THAT WOULD BE A NO ACTION ON 4.1, CORRECT? I'VE GOT, I GOT ONE QUESTION ON 4.1, UM, 4.1, 4.1 IN 4.1, UM, THERE'S SIX EYES TO ZERO NAYS, AND THEN 4.2 HAS SEVEN EYES TO ZERO NAYS. WHAT WAS THE DISCREPANCY WITH THE SIX TO ZERO AND THE SEVEN TO ZERO? THAT ONE WAS ANSWER THAT, THAT ONE WAS BECAUSE COMMISSIONER MORRIS WAS NOT PRESENT, WAS NOT HERE AT THE DEF. DECEMBER I RECUSED CUZ I DIDN'T, WASN'T AT THE MEETING WITH I'LL ADD MINUTES. OKAY. YEAH, THAT'S ALL. I COULDN'T REMEMBER IF THAT WAS THE MEETING. AND SO IF WE COULD ADD THE NOTES THAT HE RECUSED HIMSELF. THINK SO. YOU SURE IT WAS? YES. WAIT, NO, ME, WASN'T IT LAST MEETING WAS THAT WAS ME. THAT WAS THE PREVIOUS ONE. WAS HE? THAT WAS ME. YOU RECUSED YOURSELF? YES. OKAY. SO WE NEED TO, BECAUSE I WASN'T HERE FOR THE DECEMBER MEETING, SO I RECUSED MYSELF FROM VOTING ON THE MINUTES. YEAH, MINE WAS PREVIOUS TO THAT. OKAY. YEAH. EVEN IF WE COULD ADD THAT [00:05:01] TO THAT AND I WAS SUPPOSED TO SIGN SOMETHING. WE'LL GET THAT. I HAVE THE FORMS. I'LL GET IT. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. SO WE'LL GET THOSE CORRECTIONS AND THAT'LL BE NEXT AGENDA. ALL RIGHT. UH, 4.3. UH, THE QUESTION I HAD FOR STAFF, UM, KINDA ALREADY GOT ANSWERED, BUT THE PLAT CORRECTION, I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT THE FOUR LOTS EAST OF DANA DRIVE WE'RE NOT PART OF THIS PLAT CORRECTION. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND THEN I HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT. THE, UM, ENTITY NAME, UH, IS INCORRECT. WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE'S RIGHT, BUT YOU HAVE AN ARROW, AROYO CAP TWO DASH ONE, UH, AND THEN IN THE SIGNATURE LINE IT'S JUST A ROO CAP TWO. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'LL GET FLAGGED WHEN THEY GO TO RECORD IT. I SEE THAT. THANK YOU. YEAH, SO I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE'S RIGHT, BUT, UH, I HAVE A FEELING THEY'LL THEY'LL FLAG THAT AND THEN WON'T LET THEM RECORD THAT WHEN THEY TAKE IT DOWN TO THE COUNTY. I'LL LET TIM KNOW. THANK YOU. SO AN AMENDMENT DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE SHOT CLOCK OR ANYTHING, SO WE'LL BE SEEING THIS ONE COME BACK. IS THAT CORRECT? WE WILL NOT SEE THIS ONE COME BACK. THAT WAS JUST, WE WILL JUST LET THEM KNOW BETWEEN AROYO CAP TWO DASH ONE, UM, VERSUS THE AROYO CAP TWO IN UNDERNEATH JEFFREY'S SIGNATURE. OKAY. UM, WE'LL JUST LET THE APPLICANT KNOW. THEY'LL JUST FLAG IT AND FIX. DO WE HAVE A PLAN FOR, UM, THE ENTRANCE OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TO GET FINISHED BEFORE HOUSES START GETTING BUILT? BECAUSE WE WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE AN ENTRANCE TO, UM, SOUTHGATE BEFORE HOUSES STARTED GETTING BUILT AND THAT ONE NEVER CAME UP. AND SO NOW THEY'RE ALL COMING DOWN CASSANDRA DRIVE AND KAT'S LANE INTO MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND CAUSING A LOT OF ISSUES. SO, SO ON YOURS, THEY ACTUALLY STARTED WITH THAT NORTHERN SECTION, RIGHT? AND THEN THEY HAVE THAT CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DOWN TO 1 38 ON THIS ONE. THIS IS, UM, FOR, I CAN CHECK WITH COVERED BRIDGE. THIS WAS STRICTLY JUST TO FIX THOSE LINE CALLOUTS. UM, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEIR CONSTRUCTION, UM, IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE ON THIS ONE. OKAY. I JUST KNOW THAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE ENTRANCES FOR BOTH WHEN WE WERE AT COUNCIL AND THEY NEVER FOR THE, I WILL DOUBLE CHECK WITH THE PUBLIC WORK SIDE AND SEE WHERE THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES ARE GONNA BE. I KNOW THIS IS, UM, THAT SECTION OF THE SOUTHEAST LOOP IS VERY CLOSE TO BEING FINISHED. OKAY. AND LAST I'VE HEARD. YEAH, BECAUSE I DREW DOWN IT THE OTHER DAY AND IT WAS ALL THE WAY UP TO A CERTAIN POINT AND THEN IT WAS JUST A DIRT. YEAH, IT'S STILL, DANG, I, NO, THIS SECTION IS PRETTY CLOSE. YEAH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT THEN. UH, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON FOUR THREE? THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 4.3. UH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE, UH, CORRECT ENTITY NAME PROVIDED. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MEYER AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOYER. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? OKAY, HEARING NONE THEN I WILL CALL FOR VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO. NEXT IS 4.4. UH, QUESTION I HAD WAS, WILL ACCESS TO THE LEASING CENTER BE FROM CARL STERN OR FROM THE LISTED ACCESS EASEMENT? IT SHOULD BE FROM THE LISTED ACCESS EASEMENT. OKAY. AND THEN FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO THAT IS, DOES THAT ACCESS EASEMENT MATCH UP WITH THE WESTERN DRIVEWAY OF THE APARTMENTS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CARL STERN, OR IS THIS GOING TO REQUIRE A CUT THROUGH THE MEDIAN? THIS IS NOT DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE APARTMENTS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CARLSTON. OKAY. IT, IT LOOKED LIKE IT MIGHT LINE UP, BUT I WASN'T QUITE SURE. THIS IS, UM, FURTHER WEST OF THAT. OKAY. SO IT IS A LITTLE BIT FURTHER WEST. IS THAT GOING TO REQUIRE US TO CUT INTO THE MEDIAN? BECAUSE THERE IS, IT SHOULD NOT A MEDIAN RIGHT THERE. IT SHOULD NOT, NO. OKAY. SO IT'LL JUST BE A, UH, WRITE AND WRITE OUT TYPE. CORRECT. OKAY. WITH THE CHAIR'S COMMENT ON ACCESS, DO WE NEED TO ADD A NOTE THAT SAYS NO DIRECT ACCESS WILL BE GIVEN TO CARL STERN IF YOU'D LIKE ONE? YES. THAT, THAT WOULD BE GOOD. [00:10:04] ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM THEN? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 4.4. OKAY. I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE 4.4 WITH THE ADDITION OF THE NOTE THAT NO DIRECT ASSET ACCESS WILL BE GIVEN FROM THE LEASING CENTER TO CARL STERN. CAN WE JUST SAY FROM THE LOT TO CARL STONE BOULEVARD, PLEASE? THAT WOULD WORK, YES. THANK YOU. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HUDSON, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOYER. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, I WILL CALL FOR VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES. 6 0 4 0.5. ALL RIGHT. THE QUESTION I HAVE ON THIS ONE IS THE DRIVEWAY THAT WILL ACCESS LIMBER LOOP. MM-HMM. . UM, THIS IS KIND OF GOING BACK TO AN ISSUE THAT WE HAD LAST SESSION WHERE I DO NOT THINK SEVEN DRIVEWAYS WITHIN 2000 FEET OF 1660 IN LIER LOOP IS A GOOD IDEA. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY WAY WE CAN GET A REAR ACCESS APPROVED TO CUT DOWN ON THE NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS THAT THESE BUSINESSES ARE GOING TO BE RECEIVING. SEMIS, DELIVERY TRUCKS, EVERYTHING ELSE THAT CLOSE TO THAT ALREADY CONGESTED INTERSECTION. SO I THINK YOU'LL SEE ONCE WE GET INTO THE P U D THAT'S LATER IN THIS AGENDA, ALL OF THESE DO HAVE THAT JOINT ACCESS EASEMENT. SO THIS ONE ALREADY HAS ON THIS WESTERN BOUNDARY, A 30 FOOT JOINT ACCESS EASEMENT THAT YOU SEE ON THE WEST SIDE OF LOT FIVE. OKAY. AS WELL AS ON THE SOUTHEAST, UM, SORRY, SOUTHWEST PORTION OF THIS, OFF OF THIS PLAT. IT ALSO HAS A JOINT, UM, DRIVEWAY ONTO, UM, FM 1660 SOUTH. SO IS IT, SO THAT'S ALREADY BEEN CONTEMPLATED WITH THE OVERALL, UM, DEVELOPMENT OF THIS ENTIRE TRACT. OKAY. SO THEY WOULD NOT, UH, AM I HEARING THEN THEY'VE ALREADY GOT THEIR OWN DRIVEWAY SET OUT FOR THIS ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT TRACKED ITSELF. OKAY. THEY'RE SHARING. SO JUST TO CONFIRM, LOT THREE OR LOT SIX IS NOT GONNA HAVE AN ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINT, RIGHT? THEY SHOULD NOT BECAUSE THEY DON'T MEET THE SPACING REQUIREMENTS. OKAY. THEY'VE ALREADY PLANNED OUT FOR THEIR DRIVEWAYS. THAT MAKES ME FEEL A LOT BETTER ABOUT THAT INTERSECTION. WE'RE SPENDING A LOT OF TIME AND MONEY ON IT. WHY MESS IT UP. ALL RIGHT THEN. UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON 4.5? UH, YEAH. IN THE SIGNATURE BLOCK FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER, UH, LOOKS LIKE THEY FORGOT TO FILL OUT THE TITLE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. AND THEN THEIR DATES, THEY, UH, LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE USING AS AN OLD BLOCK. THEY HAVE 2022 FOR ALL THE, THE YEARS THROUGHOUT THE, THE PLAN SHEET, BUT YEAH, IT'S SALVADOR SANCHEZ AND THEN JUST TITLE. SO HE NEEDS TO UPDATE THAT TO THE MANAGING MEMBER. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON 4.5 THEN? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MOTION TO ACCEPT 4.5, UH, WITH THE CORRECTION OF ADDING THE TITLE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER OR REPRESENTATIVE WITHIN THE SIGNATURE BLOCK IN UPDATING THE YEAR 2 20 23. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MEYER AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOYER. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION THEN I WILL CALL FOR VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO. NEXT IS 4.6. UH, MY CONCERN ON THIS ONE WAS THE PLAT SHOWS CLA ENDORF AS HAVING A CUL-DE-SAC, CUL-DE-SAC TYPE CIRCLE. HOWEVER, CLAT ANDORF DOES NOT HAVE THAT FEATURE. HLA HOFF? YEAH. DOFF. SO HALF HOFF. OKAY. MY BAD. , I WROTE IT DOWN. UH, IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT CUL-DE-SAC THERE THAT, THAT CIRCLE LOLLIPOP, WHATEVER WE WANT TO CALL IT. IT'S JUST STRAIGHT ROAD. SO I'M WONDERING [00:15:01] DOES THE, IS THAT GOING, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S COMING ALONG OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD NEED TO BE CORRECTED? IT DOESN'T APPLY NECESSARILY TO THIS PARTICULAR LOT, BUT IT IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO IT TO THE NORTH. UH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT WAS A TEMPORARY TURNAROUND, UH, PREVIOUS AND IT WAS ADJACENT, BUT THAT IS WILLIAMSON COUNTY. SO WE WILL LET WILLIAMSON COUNTY DECIDE WHEN AND IF THEY WANT TO ABANDON THAT RIGHT OF WAY. OKAY. PERFECT. WHY DID I WRITE CLAP ANDORF. OKAY. . ALL RIGHT. UM, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON 4.6. ALL RIGHT, THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 4.6. UH, I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT ITEM 4.6 AS WRITTEN. ALL RIGHT. SECOND. SECOND. OH, GET IT FIRST. . ALL RIGHT. SO I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LEE AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TO LAWYER. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, I WILL CALL FOR VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES. SIX ZERO. NEXT IS ITEM 5.1. HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED VILLAGE AT JUDO STATION. PRELIMINARY PLA 30.481 ACRES MORE OR LESS OF LAND ONE MULTI-FAMILY LOT LOCATED ON COUNTY ROAD 1 38. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR HEAD OF STATION PRELIMINARY PLAT. UM, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THE PROPOSED PRELIM IS A SINGLE MULTIFAMILY LOT THAT CONSISTS OF JUST OVER 30 ACRES. IT IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE EXISTING COUNTY ROAD, UM, 1 38. AND THEN THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY IS ACTUALLY THE FUTURE SOUTHEAST LOOP. SO WE HAVE HAD A, UM, SEVERAL CALLS WITH THE APPLICANT AS WELL AS THE COUNTY AND H AND T V TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ENSURING THAT THE ACCESS IS SAFE AND IS ALSO REFLECTED AS WHAT WAS APPROVED WITH THAT PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT THAT WENT THROUGH, UM, ABOUT MID LAST YEAR WITH CITY COUNCIL. WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE ACCESS WITH THIS TRACT OVERALL. SO YOU CAN SEE HERE, UM, NOW YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE ON THE SCHEMATIC WHERE THE SOUTHEAST LOOP GOES THROUGH AND YOU CAN SEE THAT, UM, DRAINAGE AREA TO THE, UM, SOUTHEAST OF THEIR TRACT. AND AGAIN, THAT COUNTY ROAD TO THE SOUTH. SO AGAIN, IT'S JUST A SINGLE, SINGLE MULTI-FAMILY LOT. MM-HMM. . UM, WITH THAT, THE, THE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLOT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS IN THE UDC AND THEIR, UM, PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT AS IT WAS APPROVED. AND WITH THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND AGAIN, IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ALL RIGHT, SO SINCE THIS DOES CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:18 PM AND IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT, THEN. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:18 PM AND OPEN IT UP TO DISCUSSION FROM THE DIAS. SO I JUST WANNA ASK MY NORMAL RIGHT OF WAY QUESTION. WITH ALL THOSE CHATS WITH WILLIAMSON COUNTY, HAVE WE VERIFIED THAT THEY'RE ALLOTTING THE FULL 440 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE, UM, SOUTHEAST LOOP? SO WE KNOW FOR THIS PORTION, AND I KNOW OUR CITY ENGINEER, MATT RECTOR IS HERE. UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT WAS NOT JUST ON THIS PROPERTY TO GIVE UP THE RIGHT OF WAYS, WE UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WE KNOW THAT THEY DO HAVE THEIR FULL WIDTH IN THE, UM, RIGHT OF WAY PERFECT. BEFORE THE SOUTHEAST LOOP AND IT'S BEING BUILT CURRENTLY. YEAH, BUT I, I'M, I WAS REFERRING TO THE FULL BUILDOUT CUZ WE'VE HAD SOME ISSUES WITH THE OTHER LOCATIONS WHERE THEY DIDN'T ALLOW THE FULL BUILDOUT RIGHT OF WAY AS THEY STARTED POTENTIALLY DEVELOPING. SO JUST MAKING SURE NOW THAT THE FULL RIGHT OF WAY IS ALREADY ALLOCATED. I BELIEVE THEY HAVE THEIR FULL OUT. OKAY. YEAH, I HAVEN'T HEARD DIFFERENTLY. SOUNDS GOOD TO ME. THEN. WE JUST HAD A CALL I THINK LAST WEEK CUZ I GOT, I THINK WE HAD A CALL ON THURSDAY AS WE WERE DOING THE PACKET. YEAH. OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. AND JUST AS A REFRESHER, THE ACCESS IS GOING TO BE FROM THE SOUTHWEST LOOP FRONTAGE ROAD AND NOT 1 38. SO I BELIEVE THE WAY THAT IT WILL HAPPEN BECAUSE THEY HAVE ENOUGH UNITS, I BELIEVE THEY'LL HAVE JUST OVER 270 UNITS OR SO, IS THAT THEY WILL HAVE ACCESS FROM BOTH SIDES. ORIGINALLY WITH THE PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEN IT CAME TO P AND Z, THE ACCESS WAS SHOWN TO BE OFF OF COUNTY ROAD 1 38 AND THEN ONCE IT GOT TO COUNCIL, IT WAS SHOWN TO BE THEN OFF OF, UM, THE SOUTHEAST LOOP. BUT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE ACCESS OFF OF BOTH RIGHTS OF WAY. BUT I BELIEVE THE PRIMARY ACCESS IS [00:20:01] GOING TO BE OFF OF THE SOUTHEAST LOOP. OKAY. BECAUSE, UH, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS WITH P AND Z WHEN IT WAS DISCUSSED AT P AND Z THAT CONSTRUCTION WOULD THEN BE ON VERY NARROW AND WINDY AND TWISTY 1 38? CORRECT. AND THEN ONCE THE SOUTHEAST LOOP IS THROUGH, THAT'S GOING TO BE A MUCH, UM, PROBABLY MORE CONDUCIVE TO THE LEVELS OF TRAFFIC. THERE'LL BE A NICER ROADWAY TO BE ABLE TO TRAVERSE DOWN AND ONCE THEY'RE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, I BELIEVE THAT PORTION OF SOUTHEAST LOOP IS GONNA BE OPENING FAIRLY SOON. SO IT'LL PROBABLY BE A BETTER ROADWAY FOR THEM. PERFECT. OKAY. UH, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON 5 1 1? YEAH, I'VE GOT A, A COUPLE. UM, THIS IS JUST FOR TRAINING REALLY. UH, I'VE NOTICED SOME PLATS HAVE TOPO LINES AND SOME DON'T. DO WE REQUIRE TOPO ON PRELIM? YES. GOTCHA. OKAY. SO TYPICALLY YOU'LL SEE THEM ON TOPO. I KNOW THAT WE DID JUST HAVE A FINAL PLOT THAT HAD THAT IF THEY INCLUDED, A LOT OF TIMES THE COUNTY DOES STILL REQUIRE IT, SO WE DON'T HAVE THEM TAKE IT OFF IF IT'S GONNA BE A, A CO REVIEW BETWEEN THE COUNTY, BUT TYPICALLY WE'RE ONLY GETTING TOPO ON OUR PRELIMS, BUT NOT ON OUR FINALS. UM, FINALS WE TRY TO BACK OFF A LITTLE BIT ON, UM, THE COMPLEXITY OF THE REVIEW MM-HMM. . OKAY. AND THEN JUST A COUPLE OTHER ONES. UM, JUST A TYPO. ARIZONA IS ARIZONA, UM, AND THEN I HAVE THAT FIXED. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WOULD BE FLAGGED AT, UM, WHEN THEY GO TO RECORD, BUT JEFFREY JACOB'S INFORMATION IS ABOVE HIS SIGNATURE, NOT BELOW IT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT GET FLAGGED OR NOT. I'M TRYING TO THINK IF I'VE EVER HAD THAT. IT'S A PRELIM SO WE, IT WON'T GET FLAGGED, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY HAVE IT JUST CORRECTED IN THE FILE. OKAY. OKAY. AND THEN JUST SO IT IS ON THE RECORD, UM, THE LETTER OF INTENT FROM DECEMBER HAS A DIFFERENT AMOUNT THAN THE LETTER OF INTENT FROM SEPTEMBER. CORRECT. AND WE JUST WANTED YOU TO SEE THAT THEY ARE WORKING ON THEIR PARKLAND LETTER OF INTENT. WE KNEW THAT ONCE WE CAME THROUGH, UH, OR THE PARK STRUCTURE CAME THROUGH WITH THE PARKLAND ORDINANCE CHANGES, WE WANTED YOU TO SEE THAT WE ARE GETTING THAT INFORMATION NOW WITH EACH OF THE APPLICATIONS. UH, THE PARKMAN LETTER OF INTENT, OR AT LEAST FEE AND LIE, WILL NOT ACTUALLY BE DUE UNTIL FINAL PLAT. SO YOU'LL SEE THOSE FINALIZED NUMBERS. OKAY. BUT WE DID WANNA SEE THAT, UM, WE ARE NOW GETTING THAT INFORMATION AND WANNA PROVIDE YOU THOSE THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION TO WITH EACH OF THESE APPLICATIONS. AND CHAIRPERSON, UM, HUDSON, YOU DO HAVE A QUESTION IN THE AUDIENCE FOR THIS ONE? IT IS STILL A PUBLIC HEARING, I BELIEVE. UH, CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT OH, YOU DID? OKAY. SORRY. I I THINK WE CAN TAKE A QUESTION. IT'S FROM AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. YEAH. AREN'T THEY GONNA TERMINATE ONE 30? PLEASE USE THE MIC . AREN'T THEY GONNA TERMINATE 1 38? UM, JUST ASK THE BETWEEN TWO 90. VERY SPEED. THEY'RE GONNA BREAK IT UP SO IT'S NOT A THOROUGH FERRY ANYMORE. HMM. SO I KNOW THEIR EVENTUAL PLAN IS THAT THEY'LL ACTUALLY PUT 1 38 TO THE EAST OF THIS PROPERTY. RIGHT. SO IT'LL STILL HAVE THE ONE 90 DEGREE, BUT THEN IT'S GONNA JUST GO NORTH RIGHT. AND CONNECTED INTO SOUTHEAST LOOP ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS. OKAY. AND THAT'S WHY, UM, AND I WAS TOLD BY COUNTY THAT THEY WERE GONNA TERMINATE THAT FOR UNIT ONLY EACH 90 DEGREE CURVE AND GOES IN IT'S RIGHT AT MY DRIVEWAY IS GONNA ONLY NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE NORTH. BUT NOT JUST CHECKING ON THAT. OKAY. I I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT THEM TERMINATING 1 38. I'VE, THAT'S, I MEAN I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 42 YEARS. MM-HMM. , I'VE SEEN ANY NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS IN THE OFFICE. I WOULD LIKE IT TERMIN. . OKAY. ALL RIGHT. PEOPLE COMING INTO MY HOUSE, PULL 'EM OUT, THE MM-HMM. . YEAH, I CAN IMAGINE THOSE ARE PRETTY TIGHT . YEAH. THAT'S WHY WE DON'T WANT CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC. YEAH. OH, I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO KNOW. YEAH, I COULD, IMA YOU COULD PROBABLY GET IN CONTACT WITH THE STAFF AND THEY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE A COUNTY CONTACT FOR YOU TO DOUBLE CHECK TO MAKE SURE THAT IS ANOTHER REASON WHY WE'RE MORE FOCUSED ON TRYING TO GET IT ON THE SOUTH LOOP SIDE. THE MAJORITY OF THE CONSTRUCT, THE TRAFFIC BEING ON THE SOUTH LOOP SIDE VERSUS 1 38 BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON WITH 1 38. YEAH. WELL I'VE GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE WANT TO BUY MY PROPERTY WITH PARKS THERE. UH, BUT I'M IN THE APPARENT REALLY? MM-HMM. SEWER WATER. I HEAR YOU. I'M NOT GOING IN HERE. SO GOOD. WE APPRECIATE THAT. ALL RIGHT. UM, SO ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON, [00:25:01] UH, 5.1, JUST TO CLARIFY FOR THIS, UM, THE LETTER OF INTENT FOR THE FEE IN LIEU, IS THAT FOR THE ENTIRE UNIT STATING THAT THEY'RE NOT GONNA PROVIDE ANY PARKLAND? OR IS THAT A PERCENTAGE? I I WAS READING IT AS NO PARKLAND IS BEING PROVIDED. THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASSUMING. CUZ YOU MENTIONED ABOUT 276 UNITS MM-HMM. . SO IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'LL BE ZERO PARKLAND MM-HMM. . CORRECT. SO TYPICALLY WITH MULTI-FAMILY, THEY MIGHT HAVE THEIR OWN AMENITIES INTERNAL, BUT IT WOULDN'T COUNT FOR PARKLAND THAT WE WOULD HAVE FOR A DEDICATION OF PUBLIC PARKLAND SINCE IT BE, THEY'LL JUST PAY THE, UM, FEE SINCE IT'D BE PRIVATE AMENITIES VERSUS OKAY. JUST, JUST DOUBLE CHECKING. I KNOW WE'D HAD RECENTLY THE WHOLE LIKE CHANGING THE, THE AMOUNTS AND EVERYTHING FOR PARKLAND, SO I WAS JUST MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE STILL GONNA HAVE SOME TYPE OF ACTUAL YEAH, THEY'LL HAVE THEIR OWN AMENITIES. ESPECIALLY I KNOW THAT WITH THE P U D AND I DON'T HAVE IT AS PART OF THE, UM, THIS BECAUSE OF THE PLAT, BUT I KNOW THAT THEY HAD AMENITIZED SEVERAL THINGS ON THEIR PROPERTY JUST WITH THE, UM, FLOOD PLAN AND THERE'S THE LOWER LYING AREAS AND THE PONDING OVER THERE. IT WAS ACTUALLY A REALLY PRETTY SITE THAT THEY HAD PLANNED OUT WITH THAT P U D THAT THEY'LL STILL HAVE TO, UM, DEVELOP TO. YEAH, I REMEMBERED SEEING THAT. I THINK THEY EVEN HAD A RETENTION BASIN WITH THE WALKWAY OR SOMETHING, SO. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION, JUST AN OVERALL PLOT QUESTION. I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT IT A WHILE BACK. UM, BUT ARE WE GOING, WHEN WE DO THE CODE REWRITE, ARE WE GONNA REVISIT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE 10 FOOT PEEWEE, FIVE FOOT PUE? YES. THREE FOOT PUE. JUST DO AN ALL-ENCOMPASSING MM-HMM. DRY AND WET UTILITY. PEEWEE. OKAY. YES, ABSOLUTELY. I THINK WE'RE GONNA CLEAN UP A LOT OF THINGS AND MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE STREAMLINED. OKAY. SO THAT WE'RE NOT SEEING THAT WE'RE PUTTING CERTAIN THINGS ON CERTAIN SIDES OF LOTS. WE'RE JUST GONNA TRY TO STREAMLINE ALL OF IT. SO IT'S VERY SIMPLE. OKAY. I THINK THAT'LL MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT EASIER. OKAY. FOR EVERYBODY. ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON 5.2? 5.1. 5.1. I'M SORRY. YES. 5.1. UH, ALL RIGHT THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 5.1 I MOTION TO APPROVE 5.1 WITH THE UPDATED, UH, SIGNATURE LINE, UH, WITH ALSO CORRECTING, UH, THE TYPO. THANK YOU. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LEE AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOYER TO APPROVE MEYER MEYER. MEYER. WOW. YOU'RE GOOD GETTING ALL THESE NAMES WRONG, AREN'T I? I'M JUST MESSING UP, AREN'T I? ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MEYER AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOYER TO APPROVE 5.1 WITH CORRECTIONS. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, I WILL CALL FOR VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES. SIX ZERO. NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO 5.2. HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING IN POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED WILCO RANCH. PHASE TWO, SECTION TWO, LOT 10 BLOCK D REPLAT, 2 4 4 ACRES, MORE OR LESS OF LAND RESIDENTIAL LOT LOCATED ON COUNTY ROAD ONE 19 AND LIER LOOP. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. THE, UH, PROPOSED UH, REPLAT THAT YOU SEE HERE SEEKS TO ADD A RESIDENTIAL LOT BACK TO THE FINAL PLAT THAT WAS INADVERTENTLY LEFT OFF THE FINAL AT RECREATION. UM, BUT IT WAS SHOWN ON THE FINAL PLAT ADD APPROVAL. UM, SO AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, WE HAVE A, UM, LOCATION MAP. WE HAVE THE PLAT OR THE, EXCUSE ME, THE REPLAT HERE. AND THEN THE, UH, PROPOSED RE PLAT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION REGULATION. SO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. AND JUST AS A REMINDER, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ALL RIGHT. SO BEING THAT THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:29 PM IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ALRIGHT, HEARING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:29 PM AND OPEN IT UP TO DISCUSSION FROM THE DIAS. JUST TO CONFIRM, WAS THE ONE THAT THEY ADDED BACK IN 10 A OR 11 A OR BOTH? SO ORIGINALLY 10 A AND 11 A WERE THERE AND THEN WHEN THEY RECORDED IT, THEY REMOVED THE LINE, SO NOW THEY HAVE TO REPLANT TO ADD IT BACK IN. AH, SO IT WAS JUST ONE AND NOW IT'S, OKAY. SO WHEN IT GOT, WHEN IT CAME TO YOU THE FIRST [00:30:01] TIME, IT WAS THERE AS 10 AND 11 MM-HMM. , BUT THEN WHEN IT GOT RECORDED IT WAS UM, I THINK THEY RECORDED IT AS 10, SO NOW THEY HAVE TO ADD IT AS 10 A AND 11. OKAY, THAT'S FINE. YEAH, I WAS JUST DOUBLE CHECKING. IT WASN'T LIKE AN AMENITY LOT OR SOMETHING. NO, AND I THINK WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IS YOU CAN SEE, UM, AT BLOCK C JUST, UM, NORTH I THINK IS THE WAY THAT THIS LIES. UM, SO THERE ARE SOME LARGER LOTS NORTH OF THIS AS OR ABOVE ON BLUEGILL. YEAH, SO PROBABLY FIRST. SO IT JUST KINDA MADE SENSE. I WAS LIKE, I AT FIRST LOOKED AT IT AND I WAS LIKE, WHAT, WELL, WHICH ONE IS THIS? AND THEN WHEN YOU ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THE ORIGINAL PLOT YOU'RE LIKE, OH, THEY REALLY DID JUST LEAVE OFF TWO LOTS. SO THEY JUST WANTED THEIR LOT BACK AS THAT IT WAS APPROVED. NICE. YEAH. OKAY. ANY, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON 5.2? ONE QUESTION, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THEY DON'T GET DENIED WHEN THEY GO TO RECORD. UM, SO AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SIGNATURE LINE IT SAYS THAT CW WILCO LLC BEING THE OWNER IN THE SIGNATURE BLOCK, IT HAS JOHN CORK PRESIDENT. MM-HMM , DO THEY HAVE TO PUT THAT, THAT JOHN CORK PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT OF CW WILCO LLC. SO TYPICALLY THIS IS THE WAY THAT LOOKED ON THE OTHER REPOT. SO, AND THEY ACCEPTED IT? YEAH. OKAY. SO IT LOOKED EXACT. I MEAN THIS LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE THE PREVIOUS AND THEY WERE GOOD WITH IT LAST TIME. I THINK THEY SHOULD BE GOOD WITH IT, BUT IT ALSO DEPENDS ON WHO'S WILCO'S REVIEWER THIS TIME. OKAY. TRULY . YEAH, USUALLY AS LONG AS THE NAME MATCHES, BUT YOU'LL SEE IN THIS ONE THEY HAVE CW LE UH, LT AND THEN CW WILCO. SO AS LONG AS THOSE TWO MATCH UP, THEY SHOULD BE OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM THEN? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE UH, 5.2 AS PRESENTED SECOND. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOYER OR AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORRIS. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT, THEN I WILL CALL FOR VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO. NEXT 5.3 HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE REV REVISED PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING ORDINANCE REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS NORTHTOWN COMMONS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 28.449 ACRES, MORE OR LESS OF LAND LOCATED ALONG LIMMER LOOP EAST OF FM 1660 NORTH. RIGHT. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. UM, THIS IS THE PUT AMENDMENT. THIS IS THE ONE THAT WE WERE ACTUALLY SPEAKING OF EARLIER THAT HAD A FINAL PLAT ON IT TONIGHT. SO THIS IS ABOUT 28 ACRES. IT IS AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LIMMER LOOP AND FM 1616 NORTH. AND, SORRY, LET ME NOT MESS WITH MY COMPUTER RIGHT NOW. UM, AND THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHIN THE HUD TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE COMMERCIAL USES USES, THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE B ONE DISTRICT. UM, MAINLY THAT THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE DAYCARE CUZ IT SOUNDED LIKE IN THE P U D IF YOU READ IT A CERTAIN WAY, IT SOUNDED LIKE IT WAS THE DAYCARE WAS ACTUALLY LIMITING ALL COMMERCIAL USES TO 10,000 SQUARE FEET. AND THAT REALLY WASN'T THE INTENT. IT WAS JUST THAT DAYCARE USES COULD BE UP TO THAT, UM, 10,000 SQUARE FEET ALSO TO UPDATE THE FENCING STANDARDS TO ALLOW FOR MURALS ON THE BUILDINGS. I KNOW THAT THAT WAS A DISCUSSION POINT THE LAST TIME THAT WE HAD UM, P AND Z AND SO THERE WAS SOME CLARIFICATION THERE. ALSO TO PROVIDE UP TO 25% OF COMMERCIAL USES WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS THAT WOULD BE SECONDARY TO THAT MAIN USE. AND THEN, UH, REMOVE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY THAT COULD CONNECT DIRECTLY INTO MAKER MEADOWS, WHICH WAS ALSO A DISCUSSION POINT. UM, SO HERE ARE THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS FOR A COMMERCIAL USE. UM, THAT'S PART OF WHY THIS IS COMING FORWARD. UM, AGAIN, AND THEN ALSO HERE IS THAT LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR YOU SO YOU COULD KIND OF SEE THE WAY THAT THIS WOULD BE DEVELOPED. AND THEN ALSO FROM THE P U D, THIS IS HOW WE HAVE A LITTLE CLICKER THING. UM, THIS IS HOW THIS COULD BE DEVELOPED. BUT I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A DISCUSSION LAST TIME THAT WE WERE HERE WHEN IT GOT TABLED OF HOW THAT WOULD BE DEVELOPED. BUT YOU CAN SEE ON THAT FART EASTERN SIDE, UM, WHERE THAT RIGHT OF WAY WAS, BUT THEN ALSO TO THE SOUTH SIDE ON THE STEP ROAD THAT DOES FEED INTO MAKER. BUT I THINK THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION AT COUNCIL AND JUST IN THE COMMUNITY IN GENERAL THAT HAVING THE INDUSTRIAL AREAS FEED DIRECTLY INTO RESIDENTIAL HAS BEEN A LITTLE PROBLEMATIC FOR THE COMMUNITY IN GENERAL. WE ONLY HAD ONE PERSON SAY THAT THEY WANTED IT TO STAY. WE DID DO TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS WITH TWO NOTICES ON THIS. WE HAD ONE PERSON WITHIN THAT 600 FEET SAY THAT THEY WANTED IT TO STAY. AND THEN WE HAD [00:35:01] ONE PERSON, UH, COME AND SPEAK AT CITY COUNCIL SAYING THAT THEY REALLY WANTED IT TO THAT STREET TO GO AWAY. SO WHILE WE DISCUSS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN AT MAN MEADOWS AND THAT STREET AND THAT STUBB STREET, THAT REALLY IS NOT A PART OF THIS PROJECT, WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT IS UM, IS HAVING THAT RIGHT OF WAY THAT HAS NOT BEEN DEDICATED AS RIGHT OF WAY. IT WAS JUST A PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY. IS REMOVING THAT GOING TO BE PROBLEMATIC? WE KNOW FROM THE E S D, UM, AS WELL AS THE REVIEWERS THAT IT WAS NOT PROBLEMATIC FOR THE PROPERTY ITSELF. UM, I DID, I WAS ABLE TO SPEAK TO THE I S D. THEY SAID IT DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING AS FAR AS WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT AT, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE CURRENT REALITY RIGHT NOW. SO FROM THE CITY STANDPOINT, IT REALLY WAS NOT AN ISSUE TO HAVE THAT STREET NOT CONTINUE THROUGH. UM, SO IT'S REALLY JUST UP TO DO WE WANT TO CHANGE THE PD TO TAKE OUT THAT RIGHT OF WAY AS WELL AS THE OTHER ITEMS. SO THE OTHER ITEMS THAT WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE TONIGHT, THE OTHER ITEMS THAT CAME UP FOR DISCUSSION LAST TIME WERE THE MURALS. I KNOW THAT THERE WAS THE REQUEST TO ONLY HAVE THE MURALS FACE NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, SO RIGHTS AWAY OR NON-RESIDENTIAL. THERE WAS THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE LIGHTING THAT WAS ALLOWED IN THE PD. I THINK IT SAID UP TO 40 FEET. SO SOMETHING AT 25 FEET. SO I DO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS TIME TO RESPOND TO THOSE. AND THEN THERE WAS ONE MORE ITEM, UM, AND I THINK IT REALLY JUST HAD TO DEAL WITH THAT RIGHT OF WAY AND WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. THE ONLY THING THAT I AM AWARE OF IS BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THERE WERE WATER WASTEWATER CONNECTIONS THERE, THAT WE WOULD END UP HAVING EASEMENTS IN THAT RIGHT OF WAY INSTEAD OF HAVING THAT FULL RIGHT OF WAY IF IT IS, UM, PROPO, IF IT IS ACTUALLY REMOVED FROM THAT P U D. SO, UM, BECAUSE WE'VE HELD THAT PUBLIC HEARING TWICE, THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE TONIGHT AND WE DO HAVE THAT PUBLIC HEARING STILL TABLED AT COUNCIL. SO WE WILL HAVE THAT PUBLIC HEARING, UM, AGAIN ONCE WE GET TO CITY COUNCIL. OKAY. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, THERE IS NO PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT ON THIS? THERE IS NOT BECAUSE WE'VE HELD TWO. OKAY. AND WE'VE NEVER HAD ANYBODY SPEAK ON IT AND WE ONLY HAD ONE PERSON SPEAK AT COUNCIL. SO WE UM, LEFT IT OPEN AT CITY COUNCIL SHOULD ANYBODY STILL WANT TO SPEAK. BUT I THINK, UM, THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ONLY HAVING ONE PERSON SPEAK WAS MORE THAN ENOUGH TIMES TO MAKE IT KNOWN THAT WE ARE CHANGING SOMETHING IN THIS AREA. MM-HMM. . I AGREE. ALL RIGHT. SO SINCE THERE IS NO PUBLIC HEARING, I WILL OPEN IT UP TO DISCUSSION. UNLESS ACTUALLY WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE. IF, UH, THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANY STATEMENTS BEFORE WE BEGIN OUR DISCUSSION, THAT WOULD BE PERFECTLY FINE. I THINK WE'RE FINE JUST TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL THEN I WILL OPEN IT UP TO DISCUSSION FROM THE DIAS. ALL RIGHT, WELL I'M GONNA FLIP BACK TO MY NOTES FROM LAST SESSION. WHILE YOU'RE FLIPPING, I WOULD ASK, SO THIS EXHIBIT C THAT'S ON HERE IS IS THE MASTER PLAN. SO THESE ARE THE ACCESS EASEMENTS THAT ARE PLANNED TO HAPPEN? CORRECT. AND HAVE THESE ALL ALREADY BEEN COORDINATED WITH TECH DOT? I'M ASSUMING SO SINCE THEY'RE ON THE CONCEPT, THE ONLY ONES THAT TECH.IS INVOLVED WITH THOSE, THE ONE ON 1660 AND THAT IS COORDINATED WITH TECHO. PLEASE COME UP TO THE MIC SIR, PLEASE COME UP TO THE MIC. OKAY, THANK YOU. SO THE ONE ON 1660 HAS BEEN COORDINATED WITH TECHO, UH, LIVER LOOP OBVIOUSLY IS NOT A TEXAS TECH TALK. SORRY, SORRY, THAT'S WHAT I MEANT. UM, SO I WAS JUST, YEAH, I WAS JUST CHECKING BASED ON SPACING CUZ ON THE PREVIOUS 4.5 I HAD KINDA ASKED THE QUESTION IF LOT SIX WAS GONNA HAVE AN ACCESS EASEMENT AND ON THIS IT WILL TO THE EAST. I THINK IT'S PRETTY MUCH BUILT OUT THIS WAY. I THINK POTENTIALLY WE ARE DOWN ONE CUL-DE-SAC, ONE OF THE CUL-DE-SACS DIDN'T GET BUILT, BUT IT'S ALL PRETTY MUCH AT THIS LEVEL AS APPROVED. OKAY. YOU TALKING ABOUT LOCK SIX OR LOT FIVE. AND THEN ON THE NORTH SIDE WHAT WE HAVE ASKED ANYONE WHO'S TRYING TO COME IN IS MATCH WHAT'S OVER HERE. SO WE'RE NOT GETTING THE CONFLICTS ABOUT SIX. OKAY, THANK YOU. YOU OVERALL PLAN A MEDIAN LIER LOOP LONG TERM? YES. I FROM AN ENGINEER, , YAY. [00:40:01] CITY ENGINEER. I'M CITY ENGINEER. YES, THERE IS GOING TO BE A MEDIAN LI LOOP. UH, SO LOOKING AT THAT AND SMALL PARKING BASED ON SCHEMATICS FROM THE LATEST DESIGN. IT LOOKS LIKE THE FIRST DRIVEWAY, THE EASTERNMOST DRIVEWAY ALONG, SORRY, THE WESTERNMOST DRIVEWAY, LONG LIMB LOOP WILL BE, UH, MOVEMENT RESTRICTED BECAUSE THEIR MEDIAN THERE, SECOND DRIVEWAY, WHICH ALREADY EXISTS WILL ALSO PROBABLY HAVE SOME RESTRICTIONS ON IT, THIRD DRIVEWAY AND IN THE MIDDLE. IT DOESN'T SEEM TO EXIST RIGHT NOW. OR FOURTH DRIVEWAY SEEMS TO BE CLEAR OF ALL OF THE OTHER MOVEMENTS THAT ARE PART OF THE, UH, AND THEN JUST TO CLARIFY, THERE WON'T, THERE ISN'T AN INTENT TO PUT A MEDIAN WEST OF THAT. UH, LET'S SEE, FOURTH DRIVEWAY. SO THE FIFTH DRIVEWAY WOULD BE UNRESTRICTED MOVEMENT LEFT OR RIGHT OUT OF THAT DRIVEWAY. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE RIGHT OF WAY? ALL, ALL THE WAY AT THE RIGHT SIDE, THE ONE THAT SAYS PUBLIC STREET, 60 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY. RIGHT THERE, THERE, THERE, AT THIS POINT THERE IS NO PLAN TO WHY ANYONE REMOVE IT. LOCATION. OKAY. YEAH, THAT'S PRETTY FAR. I MEAN EVEN TO THE FOURTH, YOU'RE FAR ENOUGH AWAY TO HAVE ANOTHER INTERSECTION PER TEXT DOT STANDARDS. MM-HMM. 1400 FEET. YEAH, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ABOUT 2000 FEET JUST BASED ON MY GOOGLE MAP MEASUREMENT FROM 1660 TO THE EDGE OF, UH, CAROL MEADOWS. OKAY. AND JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY, YOUR ACCESS ON 1660 WITH TEXT DOT, IS THAT GONNA BE FULL ACCESS OR IS IT RESTRICTED AT ALL? IT'S UH, IT'S RESTRICTED. RIGHT. AND RIGHT OUT OR WERE YOU ABLE TO GET A THREE QUARTER RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT. OKAY. SO THE, THE REQUEST IS TO REMOVE, LOOKING AT THIS ONE, TO REMOVE THAT FAR WESTERN STREET EASTERN. EASTERN EASTERN, YES. THE FAR EASTERN STREET, THAT IS PART OF THE REQUEST, CORRECT? CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. BUT THAT, THAT SAME LOCATION WOULD STILL REMAIN AN ACCESS POINT, RIGHT? IT WOULD JUST BECOME POTENTIALLY CUL-DE-SAC LIKE THE OTHER LOCATIONS OR JUST END INTO A BUSINESS? SO THE DRIVEWAY WOULD STILL ESSENTIALLY BE IN ABOUT THE SAME LOCATION? UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THESE TWO, I THINK THE BUILDING WOULD BE, I MEAN IT MIGHT SCOOT A LITTLE BIT, BUT YEAH, I MEAN THERE WOULD STILL BE A DRIVEWAY THERE FOR THAT USE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND IS THE MODIFICATION TO THE MURALS SOMETHING YOU COULD WORK WITH OR IS THAT A NON-STARTER? I THINK GREG MIGHT BE THE GREG AT TECTONIC MIGHT BE THE ONE THAT SPEAKS TO THAT. UH, THE WAY THE LANGUAGE IS WORDED, IT'S, IT'S STILL CITY COUNCIL OR CITY STAFF STILL HAS TO APPROVE THE MURAL. SO WE'RE NOT GONNA PUT SEA ROCK CITY ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. SO, UH, SOMEBODY, SOMEBODY WILL BE, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY WILL BE HAPPY WITH WHAT THEY DO. I MEAN, GREG WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT DOING THAT ON, HE'S GOT THAT BIG WALL THAT FACES 1616 AND HE JUST THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING INTERESTING TO DO. SO YEAH. AND THEN, UH, WHAT ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THE PARKING LOT LIGHTING? UH, WE, WE HAVE NO PROBLEM. NO ISSUE WITH THAT. NO ISSUE WHATSOEVER. OKAY. SO I GUESS THE, THE ONE THING THAT I HAVE, AND THIS ISN'T NECESSARILY WITH THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION REQUEST, BUT WE TOLD A ADJOINING DEVELOPER TO PUT A STREET IN. THEY DID. AND NOW THAT STREET GOES NOWHERE. SO I'M KIND, I'M KIND OF WONDERING, ARE WE SETTING OURSELVES, SETTING THE CITY UP FOR A LEGAL DEBATE, A LAWSUIT OR [00:45:01] SOMETHING SIMILAR BECAUSE WE DID MANDATE THAT THEY WILL PUT A STREET IN AND THAT STREET DOESN'T GO ANYWHERE. SO BY REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT FOR A STREET, ARE WE SETTING THE CITY UP FOR A LAWSUIT? IS IS THERE A P U D OR IS THERE SOMETHING WHERE WE'VE, WE THE CITY SAID THAT WE WOULD GIVE THEM ACCESS TO LIER LOOP FROM THAT ACCESS POINT. I, I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S ANYTHING SAYING ACCESS TO LIER LOOP, BUT WE DID MANDATE THAT THERE IS A STREET THERE. UH, IF, IF THERE'S NOTHING SET IN STONE, THERE'S NOT AN AGREEMENT. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'D HAVE ANYTHING TO COME BACK ON THE CITY. AND THEN REALLY IT'S JUST DEVELOPMENT CHANGES OVER TIME. AND SO AT THE TIME THAT MADE SENSE, BUT NOW IT DOESN'T, NOW THAT DEVELOPMENT'S COMING IN AND THAT WOULD BE A, A COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR RIGHT THERE. UM, BUT UNLESS IT'S, YOU KNOW, IN A P U D OR IT'S IN MM-HMM. SOMETHING ELSE. I THINK IT'S JUST NO, I, I, I COMPLETELY AGREE. I MEAN LAST SESSION I WAS ARGUING THAT HEY, WE SAID THERE'S GONNA BE A STREET IN THERE. THERE NEEDS TO BE A STREET IN THERE, BUT TALKING WITH THE RESIDENTS AND SO ON. YEAH. AND YOU KNOW, HEARING THE INPUT FROM THE I S D ET CETERA, THAT DOESN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE TO HAVE A COMMERCIAL STREET DUMPING DIRECTLY INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD. HOWEVER, WE DID REQUIRE A STREET AND NOW WE'RE CONSIDERING SAYING NO, THERE'S NOT GONNA BE ONE. IS THAT SETTING US UP FOR PROBLEMS? THAT'S MY BIG CONCERN WITH THIS. DO YOU KNOW OF ANY OTHER AGREEMENT THAT WE'VE SAID WE'D GIVE THEM ACCESS FROM THAT POINT TO BLOOMER? I DON'T, UM, I THINK WHEN WE KNOW BETTER WE START TO DO BETTER. I MEAN CERTAINLY I THINK BACK WHEN WE ANNEXED AND EVEN WHEN WE ZONED IT, I DON'T THINK WE HAD MOBILITY MASTER PLANS AND THE TRANSPORTATION PLANS AND MM-HMM. , UM, I THINK WE HAVE CERTAINLY HOPEFULLY LEARNED TO STOP PUTTING THE EMPLOYMENT AND THE HIGHER INTENSITY USES DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO OUR RESIDENTIAL AREAS. UM, SO I CAN SEE THE POINT THAT WE DEFINITELY NEED THOSE CONNECTIVITY POINTS, BUT I HOPE WE CAN START MAKING THOSE KIND OF WORK A LITTLE BIT BETTER BETWEEN THOSE TWO USES. MM-HMM. . UM, CUZ CERTAINLY, I MEAN MY BIGGEST CONCERN THEN IS HEARING THAT WE'VE DONE THE SAME THING THAT WE HAD DONE TO AN ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD OVER, UM, BETWEEN ANOTHER BUSINESS PARK AND AN ADJACENT RESIDENCE AND HEARING THAT AGAIN AND THAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, THAT WE'RE CONTINUING TO MAKE THOSE SAME MISTAKES AGAIN AND AGAIN. RIGHT. UM, I DON'T THINK THAT WE'VE DONE THAT. I KNOW THAT MAKER MEADOWS WAS JUST, IT'S UM, ZONE SINGLE FAMILY MM-HMM. , SO THERE IS NO P U D FOR THAT. AND I THINK IT PREDATES THE MAJORITY OF OUR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS. UM, CERTAINLY I THINK SOMETHING THAT WE COULD ALWAYS DISCUSS INTERNALLY, BUT I THINK IT'S ONE OF THOSE LESSONS LEARNED. UM, YEAH, I, I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO HAVE TRUCK TRAFFIC GOING THROUGH MAKER MEADOWS. THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME WHATSOEVER, BUT WE DID SAY THERE'S GOING TO BE A STREET THERE. AT LEAST WE IMPLIED IT HEAVILY. WELL WE TOLD, WE TOLD MAKER MEADOWS TO PUT A STREET IN, SO YEAH. THAT, THAT'S A PRETTY HEAVY IMPLICATION THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE A STREET. SO IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON 5.3? I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S A SOLUTION TO THIS STREET THING. SO I STILL, AS I SAID BEFORE IN THE LAST TIME THIS WAS UP, IF THERE REALLY NEEDS TO BE A SOLUTION TO CONVERT THAT TO A POCKET PARK. I KNOW YOU'D BE REMOVING CONCRETE AND ALL OF THAT, BUT SOMEHOW CONVERTING IT TO SOMETHING THE RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COULD USE. CUZ THEY ONLY HAVE ONE OTHER PARK TO THE SOUTH. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT COULD BE FUNDED OR ACHIEVED, BUT I, I THINK THE RESIDENTS WOULD PROBABLY PREFER SOMETHING LIKE THAT OVER A STREET THAT'S JUST GOING TO GET BLOCKED OFF AND USED TO PARK RVS ON. MM-HMM. JOY COULD DEDICATE IT TO CITY AS A PARK. IT'S REALLY SMALL , BUT PROBLEM DEDICATING IT TO THE CITY AS A PARK IS THAT IT'S ON THE CITY'S DIME TO RIP OUT CONCRETE AND RIGHT. PUT A PARK THERE, BUT IT COULD BE AN OPTION. [00:50:02] YEAH. SO I'M, I'M JUST WONDERING DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS FOR THIS? I THINK THIS IS OUR CHANCE JUST TO, TO CLEAN IT UP. I THINK MAYBE BACK IN THE DAY IT MADE SENSE, WE DON'T, SOUNDS LIKE WE DON'T HAVE ANY WRITTEN AGREEMENT THAT WE WOULD GIVE THEM THAT THAT STREET TIMES CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT CAME AND DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO, TO PUSH IT THROUGH NOW. SO IT WAS OUR CHANCE TO CLEAN IT UP AND THEN THEY'LL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY'RE GONNA DO WITH THAT DRIVE. I MEAN, THEY COULD ALWAYS, I AS YOU SAID, IT'S NOT DEDICATED, IT'S NOT RIGHT OF WAY ON ON THEIR SIDE PROPERTY. IT IS NOT WITHIN, IT WAS A PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY MM-HMM. , UM, THAT WAS CONTEMPLATED WITHIN THIS P U D WHEN IT WAS CREATED, BUT IT WAS NEVER DEDICATED OR PLATTED AS RIGHT OF WAY. WONDER IF THEY COULD REPLAT THAT AND BUILD ANOTHER HOUSE. SO IT IS PLATTED IN MEGER AS RIGHT OF WAY, BUT RIGHT. OKAY. AND WE KNOW THAT THERE'S UH, I THINK I BELIEVE WATER AND WASTEWATER BECAUSE ON THIS SIDE WE KNOW THAT THERE'S WATER WASTEWATER. MM-HMM. MM-HMM. , THERE'S, SO THERE'S SOMETHING IN THERE AT LEAST FOR WATER WASTEWATER PURPOSES. UM, SO WE KNOW ON, UM, THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW. SO THAT IS ONE THING I WOULD WANNA CAUTION IS I WOULDN'T WANT TO, UM, DO ANYTHING ON THE P U D THAT WOULD HINDER THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE BECAUSE THAT REALLY ISN'T ON THEM TO FIX WHAT IS OFFSITE THAT THEY DO NOT OWN. RIGHT. I WOULD SAY LET'S LOOK AT IT INTERNALLY OR DIRECT STAFF TO BRING SOMETHING FORWARD. CERTAINLY WE HAVE, UM, A MAYOR AND A COUNCIL MEMBER IN ATTENDANCE TONIGHT. THEY CAN BRING THAT UP FOR COUNCIL COMMENT OR SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE TO THE, UM, FURTHER, UM, DIRECT STAFF AT SOME POINT TO TAKE A LOOK INTO THIS IN THE FUTURE. BUT I WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KEEP THE P U D AMENDMENT AS THE P U D AMENDMENT MM-HMM. AND THEN WE DEAL WITH THE OFFSITE THINGS AS A SEPARATE ITEM TO NOT THEN BELABOR ANYTHING WITH THE APPLICANT WHO REALLY DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SOMETHING THAT CAME BEFORE THEM OFFSITE THAT THEY DON'T KNOW EXACTLY. UH, IT, IT IS BY NO MEANS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO FIX THIS CONFLICT. THIS TO ME IS A CITY GENERATED CONFLICT. SO, UM, I GUESS THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE IS LOOKING AT THE, UH, THE BLUE MAP. YES. OKAY. SO THE, UH, THE WATER AND WASTEWATER EASEMENTS BASICALLY RUN ALONG THE LINE BETWEEN 49 4 93, 818 AND PAGE 39. PAGE 39, THANK YOU. AND 4 93 8 20, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S ROUGHLY WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED. I'M CATCHING UP. I BELIEVE THEY ARE SOMEWHERE IN THAT GENERAL VICINITY. OKAY. AND THE PROPOSED USE AND LAYOUT. UM, I'M SEEING THAT THE PARKING LOT IS, AND WE WEREN'T QUITE SURE EXACTLY WHERE THE DRIVEWAY WAS INTO THE, INTO THE PROPOSED, UH, UH, WHAT WAS IT, DOLLAR GENERAL. MM-HMM. . SO I WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT THROWING THEIR PARKING LOT OVER THOSE EASEMENTS AND THEY'LL HAVE TO DO EASEMENTS. SO IF THERE'S SOMETHING IN THERE WE CAN GET THROUGH THE EASEMENTS DURING THE SITE PLANNING AND THROUGH THE ENGINEERING REVIEW. OKAY. OKAY. YEAH, THOSE ARE DEFINITELY, THAT'S A, SOMETHING THAT WE CAN FIGURE OUT DURING SITE PLANNING. ALL RIGHT. AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE PROPOSED BUILDING, OR THE PROPOSED LOT IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HERE IS 300 AND 396 FEET DEEP OFF OF LIMMER MM-HMM. , AND IF I READ CORRECTLY, THAT'S 600 FEET FROM LIMMER TO THE STUB. CORRECT. THEY STILL HAVE SPACE TO HAVE OTHER COMMERCIAL USES BACK IN THERE, WHICH IS ALREADY AN ALLOWED USE WITHIN THIS P U D. UM, AS IT IS, IT TRULY IS JUST REMOVING THAT, UM, PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY FROM THE P U D SO THAT THEY WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO PLAT AND DEVELOP THOSE PROPOSED USES. OKAY. WITH AN INTERNAL, UM, SOME SORT OF INTERNAL ROADWAY SYSTEM. ESSENTIALLY A PRIVATE DRIVE SYSTEM SO THEY COULD STILL BE ABLE TO PLAT AND FUNCTION. OKAY. AND, AND THEN GOING BACK TO THE, UH, THE LESSONS LEARNED FROM CERTAIN INDUSTRIAL PARKS AND HOUSING AREAS, UM, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FOLLOW THE SAME RULES THAT WERE IN PLACE AS FAR AS LOADING DOCKS, SCREENING, ET CETERA. SO WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE A LOADING DOCK FACING EITHER ME MEADOWS OR CAROL MEADOWS FOR EXAMPLE, [00:55:01] AND ON, SO FOR ON THIS SIDE, IT'S ALL COMMERCIAL USES ANYWAY, SO YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THAT AND THE LOADING DOCKS WOULD BE OTHERWISE DESCRIBED WITHIN THE PD. SO I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS OUR ANY, IT WAS ALLOWED ANYWAY, BUT ON THIS END IT WAS ALL, I BELIEVE B ONE USE SAYS ANYWAY. OKAY, PERFECT. JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR TROUBLE. OKAY. WELL LET'S SEE THEN, UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON 5.3. SO NOW THAT THE, NOW THAT THE PORTION TO THE EAST IS POTENTIALLY RECONFIGURED WITH THE BUSINESS POTENTIALLY COMING IN AND, AND THE ROAD NO LONGER THERE, I WAS LOOKING AT THE SIGNS PORTION, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE AT THE MOMENT WE ONLY LIMITED TO ONE MULTI OR TWO MULTI-TENANT SIGNS AND THE ONE IS BETWEEN 10 AND 13, BUT AT THE MOMENT WE'RE NOT ALLOWING ANY ADDITIONAL ONES TO THE EAST. UM, DO YOU KNOW IF THEY WOULD POTENTIALLY WANT TO CHANGE THAT OR TRY TO REQUEST AN ADDITIONAL ONE NOW THAT THEY'VE NO LONGER HAVE A ROAD THERE? OR DO YOU, IS IT STILL GOOD TO JUST GO WITH THE, WHAT'S IN THE, UM, DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR SIGNAGE? THERE'S A SIGN DOWN HERE TOO, SO I WOULD SAY THAT WE WOULD JUST STICK WITH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. I WOULD SAY IF IT'S SILENT IN THE P U D STICK WITH WHAT'S THE UDC BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE A LARGER MONUMENT SIGN FOR A MULTI-TENANT AREA EVERY 100 FEET. OKAY. AND THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET ANOTHER ONE IN. YEAH, NO, EASILY FOR SURE. OKAY. THEY SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH SPACE IF IT'S, I WAS JUST CHECKING FOR THEM. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY WEREN'T LIMITED NOW THAT THEY WERE RECONFIGURED THAT WE WEREN WE WANTED TO MAYBE CHANGE THE LANGUAGE TO HELP THEM OUT, BUT LET'S CONDITION THAT THEY CAN HAVE ONE MORE JUST IN CASE. OKAY. YEAH, JUST HAVE ONE. WE WANNA MAKE IT AS JUST IN CASE WE WANNA MAKE IT GOOD FOR YOU ALL AS WELL, JUST IN CASE, JUST IN CASE ONE MORE MULTI-TENANT SIGN JUST IN CASE WE, YOU NEVER KNOW. NO. AND THEN I GUESS THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE IS, UH, REGARDING, UH, 18 WHEELER ACCESS. I KNOW CURRENTLY 18 WHEELERS WILL PARK IN THE SUICIDE LANE ON LIMMER OFFLOAD INTO, UH, I BELIEVE IT'S TEXAS FIXTURES. AND IF LIMMER IS GOING TO BE WIDENED AND BE A HEAVIER USE, I THINK THAT'S EXCEPTIONALLY DANGEROUS. IS THERE A METHOD, A PLAN IN PLACE, ANYTHING LIKE THAT TO GET THOSE 18 WHEELERS OFF OF LIMMER WHEN THEY'RE LOADING AND OFFLOADING? I CAN GET SOMETHING UP HERE. I'M PULLING A MAP UP REALLY QUICK. KIND OF INTERESTING THAT THEY'RE BEING ALLOWED TO OFFLOAD RIGHT NOW ON THE SHOULDER. YEAH. MR. RUSS, THAT'S NOT ONE OF YOUR BUILDINGS ANYMORE, IS IT FOR TEXAS? TEXAS FIXTURES? IT IS. THEY ARE. SO IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU COULD DO TO HAVE THE 18 WHEELERS PULL ONSITE TO UNLOAD AN OFF AS, AS A GENERAL, AS A GENERAL RULE WE PULL OFF, BUT SOMETIMES THERE'S ONE ALREADY IN THERE. MM-HMM. AND THEN THEY GO OUT AND GRAB AND IT'S OBVIOUSLY 1660 S GETTING OR LIVER'S GETTING WAY TOO BUSY TO DO THAT, RIGHT? MM-HMM. . SO, UH, TO, TO ME, YOU KNOW, I, I LIVE DOWN THE BLOCK BASICALLY, RIGHT? AND I SEE THOSE 18 WHEELERS AND THE GUYS OFFLOADING PALLETS, THE STUFF, AND I'M JUST LIKE, OH GEEZ, I WILL, UH, I WILL HAVE A LITTLE COME JESUS MEETING WITH ABOUT AND, AND SEE IF WE CAN GET THE TRUCKS OUT OF THE ROAD. YOU KNOW, THEY MIGHT HAVE TO WAIT IN THE MIDDLE FOR A MINUTE, BUT WE DON'T NEED TO BE OUT THERE WITH THE FORKLIFT PULLING STUFF OFF THE ROAD. TRAFFIC'S WAY TOO HEAVY. YEAH. YEAH, I SEE THAT. AND IT JUST, I'M LIKE, OH, COME ON. WHEN WE MOVED THERE, YOU KNOW, IT WAS LIKE, YEAH, YOU KNOW, YOU WAS LIKE WATCHING PAINT. WERE I LOOKING FOR TRAFFIC MEAN? WHEN, WHEN I BUILT MY HOUSE IT WAS, YOU KNOW, LIER WAS NICE AND QUIET AND NOW WOW. IT'S NOT THAT'S BECOME A VERY BUSY ROAD. YES, EXACTLY. YEAH. I'LL HAVE A DISCUSSION. WON'T THERE BE A MEDIAN THERE THOUGH, SO WE'LL KNOW. NO, NO, RIGHT THERE THERE'S NOT GONNA BE A MEDIAN ACCORDING TO, UH, ACCORDING TO MATT IT'LL JUST BE IN THE DOUBLE THAT'LL JUST BE TURN YEAH, THE TURN LINE. RIGHT. I CALL IT A SUICIDE LANE, BUT YEAH. RIGHT. I UNDERSTOOD. YEAH, CONTINUE. I THOUGHT THE MEDIAN WAS EXTENDING TO THERE. NOPE. NO. DOESN'T MAKE IT THAT FAR, I DON'T THINK ACCORDING TO THE LAST DRAWING OR I HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOST RECENT DRAWING, SO I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE. OKAY. THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT. SO THEN TO REITERATE, JUST SO I AM CLEAR ON THE STAFF [01:00:01] LEVEL BEFORE WE GET THIS READY FOR COUNCIL, UM, LIGHTING WILL BE LIMITED TO 25 FEET. 25 FEET. OKAY. I JUST SAID 30 BECAUSE IT'S 30 FEET IN THE PD. SO THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL WILL BE NO MORE THAN 25 FEET. MM-HMM. . OKAY. AND MURALS WILL FACE NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OR RIGHTS OF WAY AND WE'LL STILL HAVE THE STAFF APPROVAL. CORRECT. OKAY. AND THEN, UM, WE WILL HAVE ONE MORE MULTITENANT SIGN ALLOWED ON THAT COMMERCIAL, THE FAR EASTERN END. MM-HMM. HMM. TO GIVE A TOTAL OF THREE. YEAH. TO GIVE THEM A TOTAL OF THREE MULTITENANT SIGNS. FOUR. THEY HAVE ONE, THEY HAVE ONE ON THE CORNER OF FOUR. OH, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. I DO HAVE A QUESTION. IS THAT, IS THAT ALLOWED OR PERMITTED TO BE A LIT SIGN? THEY WOULD, IT WOULD JUST FOLLOW THEIR SIGN ALREADY ALLOWED, BUT THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO HAVE THAT, UM, MULTI-TENANT SIGN ON THAT FAR END BECAUSE THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY MULTI-TENANT GROUPINGS. RIGHT. MY MY CONCERN IS THAT WE'VE GOT A BRIGHTLY LIT SIGN OR A ROTATING DISPLAY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, LITERALLY 150 FEET FROM SOMEONE'S BACK WINDOW. THAT'S RIGHT. WE WANTED THE SIGNAGE TO BE, I'M SORRY, WE WANTED, UM, YOU HAD BROUGHT UP THE LAST TIME WE WANTED EVERYTHING TO BE, UM, SHIELDED DOWN. MM-HMM. . MM-HMM. . OKAY. THE LIGHTS TO BE SHIELDED. YEP. I'M, I'M FINE WITH ANOTHER SIGN. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S NOT BLASTING IN SOMEONE'S BEDROOM WINDOW. OKAY. OKAY. YOU SAID THE WE DON'T WANT THE MURALS TO FACE RIGHT OF WAY. NO, I'M SORRY. NON-RESIDENTIAL AND RIGHTS OF WAY, BUT NOT, NOT, UM, NOT RESIDENTIAL. RIGHT. SO THEY CAN FACE NON-RESIDENTIAL, NON-RESIDENT. OKAY. NON-RESIDENTIAL AND THEY CAN FACE YEAH, I THOUGHT THAT'S A POINT IS ALLOWED TOWARDS RIGHT OF AWAY. OKAY. YEAH. GOTCHA. AM I MISSING ANYTHING ON THAT? SO WE'LL HAVE THE OR MULTI-TENANT AND WE'LL DO SOMETHING I WOULD STILL SAY WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO BE LIT, BUT DO YOU WANNA ONLY BE THE OUTLET? WHAT IS IT THAT THE SIGNAGE? YEAH, I, I WOULD SAY ANY, UH, ANY, UH, GEEZ, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO CALL IT. ILLUMINATED OR ANY, ANY OF THE SIGNS THAT ARE ACTUALLY NO EMCS. NO EMCS, JUST DON'T KNOW THE LIT, JUST NO EMCS. YEAH. I, I DON'T KNOW THE PROPER, PROPER SITE. ELECTRONIC MESSAGING CENTER. SO THAT'D BE WHERE IT'S JUST A BIG FLASHING. EXACTLY. COME STOP HERE, STOP. BUT IT COULD BE LIKE CABINET, LIKE A NORMAL INTERNALLY LIT. IT COULD BE, COULD BE ENCLOSED AND IT'S LIT FROM INSIDE THAT BACK LIT. THAT WOULD BE FINE. FRONT BACK LIT. BACK LIT. OKAY. BACK LIT OR FRONT LIT, BUT NOT AN ACTUAL ELECTRONIC NO SIGN. OKAY. YEAH, ABOUT THAT THEN. YEAH. OKAY. I THINK THAT WOULD BE OKAY. AND THEN JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, I'M RUNNING INTO THIS ANOTHER JURISDICTION. EMCS DOES NOT LIMIT TO WHERE THEY CAN'T USE LEDS. IT'S JUST AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGING CENTER. RIGHT? JUST NOT THE MESSAGING. OKAY. NOT THE CHANGEABLE. RIGHT. UNCHANGEABLE DOESN'T NEED NUMBERS LIKE FOR GAS. RIGHT. OKAY. BUT IT IS CHANGEABLE. , THAT MEANS NO IMMUTABLE. OKAY. OKAY. SO I THINK I'M GOOD IF YOU CAN MAKE THE MOTION. I THINK THAT IS EVERYTHING. YOU THINK WE MISSED ANYTHING? I DO NOT BELIEVE SO. OKAY. THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 5.3 EXCEPT THE MOTION HAS OUTLINED BY STAFF . OH, OH CHEATER. . SHE WAS HOPING SOMEBODY WOULD REMEMBER ALL OF THAT. , WHICH IS ONE MORE MULTI-TENANT SIGN EQUALING FOUR, THAT MEANS NO EMCS, BUT THEY COULD BE BACKLIT OR CABINET IN A MULTI-TENANT SIGN PER THE UDC, UM, LIGHT POLES NO MORE THAN 25 FEET, BUT THE LIGHTS HAVE TO BE SHIELDED AND MURALS CAN FACE NON-RESIDENTIAL OR RIGHTS OF WAY. AND THAT WOULD STILL BE STAFF APPROVED. AND THAT'S IT. THE UPDATING THE BEN STANDARD THAT'S ALREADY IN THERE. DO WE WANT TO INCLUDE ANYTHING ABOUT 18 WHEELERS? JUST WAIT FOR JESUS. HE'S JUST GONNA TALK ABOUT YEAH. YEAH, MR. RUSS IS GONNA TAKE CARE OF THAT ONE. OKAY. SO WE'RE GOOD. DO WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE ROAD THE RIGHT OF WAY? NO, THEY'RE GONNA DO IT. ALL SET. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. SO I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORRIS AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOYER TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL WITH THE THREE NOTES AS WE LAID OUR STAFF. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? THEN I WILL CALL FOR VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. [01:05:01] OCEAN PASSES 60. NEXT IS 5.4 CONSIDERATION, IMPOSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED THOMASON SUBDIVISION. PRELIMINARY PLAT 53.14 ACRES, MORE OR LESS OF LAND 141 RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED ON COUNTY ROAD 1 32 AND COUNTY ROAD 1 33. THE LAST PLOT THAT WE HAVE FOR Y'ALL TONIGHT IS THE, UH, PRELIMINARY PLA FOR, UH, THOMPSON SUBDIVISION. UM, IT AS IT'S BEING PROPOSED, UH, IT'LL BE 141, SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, THREE OPEN SPACE LOTS. UM, THERE'LL BE ONE LIFT STATION LOT, UM, AND THERE'LL BE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION. UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE THE LOCATION MAP THERE FOR YOU. WE'VE INCLUDED, UH, THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, UM, AS IT'S PRESENTED. UH, THE PRELIMINARY PLA IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. SO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. AND JUST TO NOTE, THERE WAS ALREADY A, UM, PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS BEFORE, WHICH IS WHY THERE'S, UM, NO PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO, UH, QUESTION ON THIS ONE. AND FORTUNATELY WE HAVE THE MAYOR HERE, SO HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER, BUT I BELIEVE THIS WAS KIND OF THE IMPETUS FOR US RE-LOOKING AT, UH, UH, FEE IN LIEU OF, FOR PARKLAND FEE IN LIEU OF, UH, TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES, ET CETERA. UM, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD SEE? I NOTICED WE HAD A, A PARKLAND, UH, PARKLAND FEE IN LIEU OF AGREEMENT EARLIER, AND THAT WAS IN FRONT OF A FINAL PLANT, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. SO IS THAT SOMETHING WE WOULD SEE ON THIS ONE AS WELL? IS THAT A REQUIREMENT WHEN THEY SUBMIT FOR OUR PRELIM PLA WELL, I KNOW IT IS FOR THE FINAL PLOT FOR THE FINAL, UM, RIGHT. SO YOU WOULD SEE THAT AT THAT TIME. UM, OKAY. I'D HAVE TO GO BACK IN OUR FILES TO SEE IF WE ALREADY HAVE, UM, ANYTHING FROM THEM RIGHT NOW. BUT YOU WOULD SEE IT AT THE FINAL PLOT. YEAH. I, AGAIN, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY FROM WATCHING IT AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WHEN IT WAS DISCUSSED AS, UH, I THINK IT WAS P D AT THAT TIME MM-HMM. , UM, YEAH, THAT WAS KIND OF A BIG ISSUE. THEY WERE, THEY WERE SAYING, YEAH, WE'RE GONNA HAVE, YOU KNOW, X NUMBER OF LOTS AND WE'LL GIVE YOU, YOU KNOW, PENNIES. RIGHT. ESSENTIALLY, AND I WANNA MAKE SURE WE DON'T, WE DON'T GET INTO TROUBLE CONFLICTING WITH THE P D IF WE'RE, IF WE'VE CHANGED OUR PARKLAND FEESS. SO THE PARKLAND FEE LOOKS LIKE ITEM FIVE ONE, THEY HAD THE, THE PARKLAND FEE, PARKLAND LETTER OF INTENT, AND THAT'S A, THAT WAS A PRELIM, UH, PRELIM PLOT AS WELL. RIGHT. SO THEN, SO WE PROBABLY HAVE IT FOR THIS ONE, AND IF NOT, DOES OUR CHECKLIST FOR PRELIM PLATS INCLUDE THEM TO, UH, SUBMIT A PRELIM, I'M SORRY, A PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE. WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS MOVING FORWARD. WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE GET THAT AT THE PRELIM FOR Y'ALL. OKAY. YEAH. THAT AND PUT IT ON THE APPLICATION IF IT'S NOT THERE. OKAY. THAT, THAT'S MY BIG CONCERN WITH THIS ONE IS I REMEMBER COUNSEL SAYING, HEY, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, PENNIES FOR PARKLAND. RIGHT? THAT'S NOTS A PARKLAND LETTER FROM 10 26 OR 21. SO TO CLARIFY, DON'T SEE IT. THE LAST PAGE LETTER ON THE BACK IS THE PARKLAND LETTER. IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR? IT'S NOT TALKING ABOUT FEE AND LIEU, BUT YEAH, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS NO, SO THEY'RE STATING HERE THAT THE, THE, WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING TO DEDICATE WILL SATISFY BY PROVIDING LOT 12 BLOCK A. BUT WHAT I REMEMBER DISCUSSING, AND SOMEBODY WOULD'VE TO REMIND ME IF WE MADE THIS CHANGE OR IF WE'RE PLANNING TO MAKE THIS CHANGE IN THE UDC, THAT THEY CANNOT TECHNICALLY GET AWAY WITH ALLOWING PARKLAND THAT IS WITHIN A FLOOD PLAIN RIGHT. AS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. AND RIGHT NOW THIS ENTIRE PARKLAND IS IN THE FLOOD PLAIN. EXACTLY. SO THAT'S NOT TECHNICALLY A ALLOWED PARKLAND DEDICATION. SO THEY WOULD EITHER STILL NEED TO PAY THE FEE IN LIEU, OR THEY WOULD HAVE TO DEDICATE ADDITIONAL SPACE SOMEWHERE ELSE. YEAH. I, I DON'T WANT THIS TO GO FORWARD WITHOUT PARKS GETTING IN THERE AND SAYING MM-HMM. , YOU GAVE US A DRAINAGE DITCH THAT'S NOT OKAY. YES. YEAH. NOW I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER BACK WHAT OUR DECISION, I DON'T KNOW IF WE WERE ABLE, IF WE MADE THE DECISION OR IF IT WAS SOMETHING THAT FUTURE WE NEEDED TO MAKE THE DECISION. BUT I KNOW WE HAD DECIDED THAT PARKLAND COULD NOT BE IN FLOODPLAIN. RIGHT. AND THAT DID GO TO COUNCIL. THAT QUOTE SHOULD BE IN EFFECT. YES. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. I BELIEVE IT'S IN EFFECT THE PARKLAND, AM I WRONG ON THAT [01:10:01] LATER? RESTART. THE, THE REVISED PARKLAND IS NOW IN EFFECT. SO THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY'RE GONNA DEDICATE THAT PROPERTY IN THE BACK. DOES THAT MEET THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT? I'M SORRY, THE, UH, PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS? SO THIS IS STILL THE PRELIM THAT'S STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION. OKAY. BECAUSE OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE EVEN SAYS YOU ARE NOT DEDICATING, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. YEP. FLOOD. MM-HMM. REMEMBER THAT FROM BEFORE. SO, CAUSE WE WERE REFERENCING THE, THE LETTER WHERE THEY'RE SAYING THAT SATISFIES BY HAVING THE FLOODPLAIN AS A PARK LANE. RIGHT. SO WE'RE JUST MAKING SURE EVEN THIS PRELIMINARY LEVEL THAT THAT'S NOT, IT'S EITHER NOT ACCEPTED OR THAT THEY NEED TO CONSIDER THE FEE TOMORROW. WELL, IT PROBABLY DID BACK IN 21, BUT NOT NOW. YEAH, RIGHT. NO, AND IT SHOULDN'T EVEN HAVE BEEN IN 21 BECAUSE OUR ORDINANCE HAS BEEN THE SAME FOR PARKLAND MM-HMM. . ALTHOUGH SOMETIMES THERE WERE ITEMS THAT GOT THROUGH THAT WERE FLOODPLAIN. SO THIS ONE, THE ONLY THING THAT MAY HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS ONE IS THAT THIS ONE WAS ALSO ATTEMPTING TO BE A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. SO THERE WERE SOME OTHER THINGS THAT WERE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS ONE. OKAY. AND I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AND SEE IF THERE WAS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON THIS TO SEE IF FOR SOME REASON THERE WAS SOME SEPARATE AGREEMENT DONE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS BECAUSE THE PI NEVER ACTUALLY CAME TO FRUITION. AND I CAN CERTAINLY GET YOU THAT, BUT JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE SAYING IT, WE CAN STRIKE THAT IF WE ARE WRONG FOR SOME REASON, UM, WE CAN ALWAYS BRING THAT BACK ON THE FINAL PLAT. OKAY. AND GIVE YOU THAT INFORMATION. I HAVE NOT SEEN A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON THIS. UM, AND WE HAVE ALL THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS ONLINE ON THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MAP MM-HMM. AND I COULD NOT FIND ONE. OKAY. SO I CAN'T SEE WHERE WE HAD MADE THAT AGREEMENT AND JEFF, OKAY. UM, WHITE, THE PARKS DIRECTOR ALSO SEES THESE, SO JUST BECAUSE THEY SAY IT DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE. EXACTLY. BUT ALSO AN OPEN SPACE DRAIN AND SLOT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IT IS OPEN SPACE PARKLAND. IT JUST MEANS IT'S OPEN SPACE. OKAY. SO AGAIN, I'M JUST, I'M JUST WANTING TO CLARIFY, I KNOW WE'RE ONLY AT PRELIMINARY PLAT, BUT WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER IS STATED IN HERE THAT IF THE LETTER IS STATING THEY'RE SATISFYING PARKLAND WITH THAT OPEN SPACE DRAINAGE LAB THAT IS FALSE, THEY CANNOT SATISFY PARKLAND WITH THAT. SO EVEN IF THEY'RE SAYING IT AT THIS POINT, THEY STILL HAVE TO COME THROUGH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT AND THE PARKS BOARD TO SATISFY THAT. AND UNTIL WE GET THEIR LETTER THAT IT'S NOT SATISFIED, THEY CAN SAY THAT THAT'S HOW THEY WANT TO AT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT STAGE. OKAY. BUT UNTIL IT'S ACTUALLY SATISFIED, AND WE HAVE THAT LETTER AT THE FINAL PLAT STAGE SAYING YES, IT'S SATISFIED AND THEY HAVE AGREED TO IT FOR WHATEVER REASON. BECAUSE THERE MIGHT BE A REASON, THERE MAY BE, AND MAYBE I'M JUST NOT, UM, LIKE THEM, A MASTER MOBILITY PLAN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. OR IT COULD BE IN THE PARKS MASTER PLAN THAT THIS, THIS IS PART OF THAT TRAIL PLAN THAT THEY HAVE. YEAH. RIGHT. THEN THAT WOULD BE A REASON THAT WE WOULD ACCEPT FLOODPLAIN BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THAT TRAIL MASTER PLAN. UM, THERE ARE REASONS WHY YOU WOULD ACCEPT FLOODPLAIN. I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS ONE OF THOSE AREAS, BUT IT COULD BE, UM, THAT'S WHY YOU WOULD ACCEPT IT. YEAH. BUT UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY HAVE THAT LETTER, I MEAN, THEY CAN CALL IT MASHED POTATOES, BUT IT WON'T MAKE IT TRUE. OKAY. OKAY. I'LL JUST, I'LL JUST MAKE A FOLLOW UP NOTE THEN FOR WHEN WE GET A FINAL PLAN MM-HMM. . YEAH, EXACTLY. THAT'S PART OF THE CHECKLIST NOW. IT IS. AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE STARTING TO SEE ALL OF THESE, UM, JUST SO THAT YOU SEE THAT WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION TO IT. SO THIS ALSO TRIGGERS YOU TO ALSO PAY ATTENTION TO IT. MM-HMM. , EVEN THOUGH THE ORDINANCE HASN'T CHANGED, THE, THAT ORDINANCE TRULY HAS NOT CHANGED. UM, SORRY. BUT WE WANT YOU TO SEE WHAT WE ARE ALSO SEEING WITH EACH OF THESE APPLICATIONS. UNDERSTAND. GOOD. GOOD. OKAY. THANKS. YEAH. AND YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH ALL OF THE, THANK YOU, WITH EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE DONE IN THE LAST, I'M GONNA SAY SIX MINUTES WITH PARKS TO GET THIS MOVING FORWARD SO THAT IT IS PART OF OUR PROCESS TO SEE THIS, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT EXCLUDING THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN. OKAY. NO, WE ARE NOT EXCLUDING IT. BUT ALSO JUST SO THAT YOU SEE ON PRELIMS, WE'RE SEEING THIS INFORMATION, IT'S NOT FINALIZED YET, BUT JUST SO THAT YOU SEE THAT WHAT WE ARE SEEING THAT THIS IS TRIGGERING, NO, THAT SOUNDS BAD. THAT IT'S TRIGGERING FOR ALL OF US. THAT'S NOT WHAT I, I MEAN THAT IT TRIGGERS ALL OF US TO ASK MORE QUESTIONS SO THAT IT ALSO THEN GETS FINALIZED BECAUSE PLATS REALLY ARE THAT STATUTORY APPROVAL. MM-HMM. . BUT ALSO THAT IT'S, IT DOES HAVE US ASK MORE QUESTIONS. IS THIS MEETING THE ORDINANCE? IS THIS WHAT'S GOING ON? BUT ALSO THAT WE'RE STILL AT THE PRELIM STAGES. HEY, ARE WE LOOKING AT THIS? IS IT SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO CONDITION? HEY, WHO'S LOOKING AT THIS? HAS PARKS SEEN IT? HAS THE PARKS BOARD APPROVED IT? WHAT ARE WE DOING? AND THEN WE GET TO IT AT FINAL PLAT STAGE. SO YOU'LL SEE IT AT FINAL PLAT STAGE THAT IT'S EITHER BEEN APPROVED OR NOT AND HERE NEXT STEPS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, BEN? ON 5.4, I JUST WANTED TO MY NORMAL RIGHT OF WAY QUESTION. SO FOR 1 33, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE ENOUGH RIGHT AWAY WAS THERE, I KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CURRENT PLAN IS, BUT [01:15:01] THE FUTURE 1660 REALIGNMENT, UM, I'M PRETTY SURE IS FOLLOWING 1 33 AT THAT POINT. UM, WHICH WILL BE OBVIOUSLY WIDER THAN THE CURRENT COUNTY ROAD. SO JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK THAT, THAT THAT WAS ALREADY ALLOCATED FOR WHATEVER THE, THE FULL 1660 BUILD OUT POTENTIALLY WOULD BE. I BELIEVE IT WAS FOR THIS PORTION BECAUSE IT WAS ACTUALLY GIVING UP. UM, IT WAS SHOWING THE F 120 FEET OR JUST OVER THAT. AND THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER PORTION, THERE'S ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT ON THE WEST SIDE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. UM, THAT'S ALSO GIVING UP A PORTION OF RIGHT OF WAY OVER THERE AS WELL. OKAY. OKAY. SO THAT SHOULD THEN MATCH UP WITH THE SOUTH SIDE THAT'S GOING THROUGH THE HU OHIO SUBDIVISION. YEAH. NOPE. SOUNDS GOOD. AND, AND AS A FOLLOWING NOTE, AND AGAIN THIS IS A CLARIFYING THING I'VE MENTIONED BEFORE, I'VE NOTICED SOME PLATS DO ACTUALLY PUT INSTEAD OF RIGHT AWAY VARIES, THEY PUT THE MINIMUM IN THE MAXIMUM. IS THERE SOME TYPE OF RULE SOMEWHERE THAT WE CAN TRY TO IMPLEMENT STATING THAT THEY MUST ACTUALLY PUT THE MEN AND MAX RIGHT AWAY ALONG THAT SECTION? BECAUSE THE CHALLENGE IS WHEN YOU JUST PUT VARIES, VARIES COULD LITERALLY MEAN THERE'S 40 FOOT THERE TO PUT A TWO-LANE ROAD OR THERE COULD BE 300 FOOT FOR A FREEWAY. I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY A SURVEYING RULE. MATT, DO YOU KNOW WHEN THEY ACTUALLY ARE ALLOWED TO PUT VARIES? BECAUSE I THINK THE WAY THAT IT'S BEEN EXPLAINED TO ME, IF THEY CAN FIND PINS, THEY CAN THEN, IF THEY TRULY HAVE IT PINNED ON EITHER SIDE, THEY CAN SAY THIS IS HOW WIDE THE RIGHT OF WAY IS. BUT IF THEY CAN'T ALWAYS FIND PINS OR THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PINS FOR SURVEYING RULES, THEN THEY HAVE TO PUT VARIES BECAUSE THEY CAN'T ACTUALLY MARK GOT IT. HOW OFTEN OR HOW WIDE IT IS. SO SOMETIMES IT COULD BE 35, SOMETIMES IT COULD BE WIDER, BUT IF THERE AREN'T ENOUGH PINS AND THEY'RE NOT OUT THERE TO ACTUALLY SET THE PINS, THEY HAVE TO PUT VARIES FOR SOME SURVEYING RULE. SO. SO I KNOW STAFF ALREADY DOES THE RESEARCH THEN TO DETERMINE VARIES WHAT THE RIGHT OF WAY IS. VARIES RIGHT BEFORE THEY APPROVE THE PLATS. SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR IS HOW MUCH RIGHT OF WAY WE NEED. SO IF THEY'RE PUTTING VARIES, BUT WE KNOW ABOUT HOW MUCH IS OUT THERE CUZ THEY'RE PUTTING BERRIES BUT WE KNOW THEY'VE ALSO BEEN MARKED, WELL IT'S ABOUT 52 FEET CUZ WE KNOW HOW WIDE THE PAVEMENT IS. YEAH. THEN UM, STAFF IS LOOKING AT HOW MUCH DO WE ACTUALLY NEED BASED ON OUR MOBILITY MASTER PLAN AND HOW MUCH RIGHT OF WAY DO WE ACTUALLY NEED ULTIMATELY. OKAY. AND THEN WHAT'S FAIR CUZ WE USUALLY LIKE TO DO HALF AND HALF, NOT THREE QUARTERS IN A QUARTER TYPICALLY. AGAIN, I'M JUST MAKING SURE CUZ HAPPEN . MM-HMM . I'M JUST MAKING SURE THAT WHEN WE'RE AT FULL BUILDOUTS OF DIFFERENT THINGS, WE'RE NOT CUTTING INTO PEOPLE'S BACKYARDS AND CHOPPING OFF HALF THEIR BACKYARD. NOW WE'RE NOT GONNA SPEAK THAT INTO EXISTENCE. I MEAN IT'S ALREADY GONNA HAPPEN IN SOME OTHER DEVELOPMENTS. I'M JUST SAYING , WE'RE GONNA THINK POSITIVE. ALL RIGHT. UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH THE RIDE OF WAY DEDICATION? DO THEY NEED TO PROVIDE A MEETS AND BOUNDS FOR THAT AREA SOMEWHERE LIKE IN A TABLE ON THE PLAT SO WE KNOW THE ACTUAL AMOUNT BEING DEDICATED. SO TYPICALLY THEY WOULD DO THAT ONCE WE GET TO FINAL PLAT. I THINK HONESTLY FOR ME IT'S TYPICALLY CLEANER TO HAVE IT IN A SEPARATE DOCUMENT IS THE WAY I LIKE TO SEE IT FOR PARKLAND AS WELL AS RIGHT OF WAY, EXCUSE ME. AND THEN ALSO HAVE IT WRITTEN IN ON THE PLAT JUST BECAUSE THEN YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A DEED AND IT'S NOT MISSED AT THE COUNTY. UM, BECAUSE AT PLAT RECORDATION, WELL AT LEAST FOR PARKLAND YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SEPARATE DEED ONCE YOU GO TO FUNDING FOR ANYTHING AT THE STATE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SEPARATE DEED, NOT JUST A PLAT, HEY THIS PARKLAND GOT DEDICATED TO ME. BUT A LOT OF TIMES FOR RIGHT OF WAY IT'S NICE TO HAVE A SEPARATE DEED FOR RIGHT OF WAY AS WELL. AND THEN YOU HAVE A FULL MEETS AND BOUNDS AND A SURVEY AND EVERYTHING FOR IT AS WELL. I USUALLY JUST LIKE SEPARATE INSTRUMENTS. IT'S NICE. MM-HMM. , BUT YES. UM, AND THEN IF YOU DO IT BY PLAT YOU WOULD USUALLY HAVE MEETS AND BOUNDS ANYWAY BECAUSE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE IT BY LOT BLOCK. SO YOU WOULD END UP, UM, YOU GET THE BEST MEETS AND BOUNDS THAT WAY. OKAY. AND DO WE, I'M GOING, SORRY, GOING THROUGH THE PLAT NOTES, IS THERE A NOTE IN THERE ABOUT THE DEDICATION OF THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THEN DO WE SPECIFY THAT THAT THE RIGHT OF WAY WILL BE DEDICATED VIA SEPARATE INSTRUMENT? UM, WE WILL ONCE IT'S ON THE FINAL PLAT, BUT TYPICALLY ONCE IT'S ON THE FINAL PLAT YOU'LL JUST SEE RIGHT OF WAY AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE A DOCUMENT NUMBER IN A BLANK AND WE WON'T, SO WE REQUIRE IT TO BE DEDICATED PRIOR TO PLAT, FINAL PLAT RECORDATION AND THEN YOU WRITE IT IN ON THE FINAL PLAT. DANG. OKAY. THAT'S AWESOME. I LIKE IT THAT WAY, NOT MESSING AROUND. OKAY. THAT WAY YOU KNOW IT'S DONE AND THEN THE COUNTY DOESN'T MISS IT AT RECORDATION. AND THEN SO CUZ YOU KNOW SOMETIMES WHEN YOU'RE CHECKING WCAD AND YOU'RE LIKE, BUT I THINK THAT'S RIGHT OF WAY. MM-HMM , IF ANYTHING HAPPENS BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S HUMAN AND MISTAKES CAN HAPPEN AND YOU CAN MISS ONE THING AND THEN YOU DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S ACTUALLY THE RIGHT OF WAY HAS BEEN DEDICATED. SO AS LONG AS IT'S DONE BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT, THEN YOU CAN ALWAYS GO BACK AND DOUBLE CHECK AND THEN THE CITY HAS THE DEED AND SOMEBODY HAS RECORDED THE DEED AND IT'S [01:20:01] REFERENCED ON THE, SO THERE'S JUST THAT CHECKS AND BALANCES FINALLY. SO THEN WOULD WE UPDATE THIS PLAT FOR ON AT FINAL PLOT? IT'D SAY CR 1 33. 1 33 RIGHT OF WAY. DEDICATION, INSTRUMENT NUMBER, THANK YOU. SUCH AND SUCH. MM-HMM . OKAY. AND THEN THAT WOULD BE DEDICATED AND EVERYBODY WOULD'VE SIGNED OFF ON IT AND THEN IT WOULD BE WRITTEN IN AND THEN THE FINAL PLOTT WOULD BE RECORDED. OKAY. AND SO THAT WOULD EITHER BE PRIOR TO THEM, EITHER THEY WOULD THEN POST FISCAL IF THEY'RE GONNA BE DOING THE IMPROVEMENTS OR AFTER ACCEPTANCE THEY WOULD RE, WE WOULD END UP AND THEN WE RECORD THAT AFTER WE'RE HAPPY WITH IT AND THEN WE RECORD THE PLAT AFTER ACCEPTANCE OR THEY POST FISCAL. AND JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY, WHAT'S OUR FISCAL, IS IT 110 OR 120%? MAN? 110. I THINK EVERYBODY'S DOING THE WORK RIGHT NOW. MOST PEOPLE ARE POSTING PHYSICAL. ALL RIGHT. UM, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON 5.4? SO A UM, A SIDEWALK QUESTION UM, UNDER THE PLAT NOTES. UM, SO NUMBER SIX DOES EXPLAIN THAT THEY RUN ON BOTH SIDES OF ALL STREETS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION, BUT IT DOESN'T STATE ANYTHING ABOUT BOUNDING. I UNDERSTAND IT'S COUNTY ROADS SO THAT THAT'S ONE THING WE'VE BEEN IFFY ON IS WHETHER WE'RE REQUIRING SIDEWALKS ALONG COUNTY ROADS. UM, I KNOW IN SOME SITUATIONS WE DO AND SHOULD UM, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S A VERY RESIDENTIAL BASED AREA, UM, AT MINIMUM I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE ENFORCE CONNECTION TO THE ACCOMPANYING NEIGHBORHOODS. UM, SIDEWALK WISE, IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO ENFORCE SIDEWALKS ALONG THE BOUNDING ROADS, I KNOW AT THE MOMENT IT WOULD ONLY BE TO THE SOUTH CUZ THAT'S I THINK THE ONLY ONE THAT'S FULLY DEVELOPED OUT. MM-HMM . BUT EVENTUALLY OTHER LOCATIONS WOULD, WOULD HAVE SIDEWALKS AS WELL. I MEAN PERSONALLY ME IT HONESTLY SHOULD STILL HAVE THE THE BOUND ON THE STREET ON THE COUNTY ROADS AS WELL. BUT I KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING WE'VE DISCUSSED BEFORE. THAT ISN'T ALWAYS THE CASE. IT'S USUALLY AN UH, SIDEWALK THAT STUB OFF OF MONTE FORTE ROAD. MM-HMM . YEAH, I'M SAYING AT MINIMUM WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT THOSE ARE CONNECTED TO THIS DEVELOPMENT. UM, I'M STILL AN ADVOCATE THAT I THINK WE ACTUALLY NEED PATHS ALONG THE COUNTY ROADS BECAUSE AND MANY OTHER LOCATIONS CURRENTLY THAT ARE COUNTY ROADS, THEY'RE BECOMING QUICKLY NOT COUNTY ROADS, THEY'RE BECOMING MORE RESIDENTIAL CONNECTORS AND HAVING SIDEWALKS ALONG THERE ARE ESSENTIAL TO PREVENT ACCIDENTS THAT I HAVE SEEN. MM-HMM SEEN NUMEROUS TIMES. SO WHO MAINTAINS THOSE? THE MATT? THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DISCUSS UM, ON COUNTY ROAD 1 33 IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE A COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY FOR NOW BEFORE WE TAKE OVER, CAN WE REQUIRE SIDEWALKS ALONG IT? IS THAT EVEN PART OF WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO END UP BUILDING? DON'T WE'RE GOOD. I KNOW THERE ARE ALREADY PORTIONS OF WHERE THEY'RE BUILDING ROAD THAT'S ALREADY LIMITS. I WOULD THINK THAT DEFINITELY. AND IF WE DO PUT SIDEWALKS IN THERE, WHO MAINTAINS THE LANDSCAPE LIKE THE MOWING AND STUFF LIKE THAT, WOULD THAT BE THE HOA OR WOULD THAT BE THE CITY? BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE TEND TO HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS IS WHEN WE ADD SIDEWALKS LATER, THEN THEY GET OVERGROWN AND STUFF LIKE THAT AND THEN PEOPLE CAN'T WALK ON 'EM ANYWAY. SO IF IT'S CITY RIGHT OF AWAY, NOT HAVE TO GO BACK IS VERIFY WE CAN SEE RIGHT AWAY. TYPICALLY LANDOWNER BEING CLOSE TO MAINTAIN ALL THE WAY TO THE CURB. ONE OF THOSE UTILITY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE. I WOULD BE VERY HESITANT TO SAY THAT IF IT'S THE RIGHT OF WAY, WE WANT THE CITY MAINTAIN THAT CAUSE CORRECT. MM-HMM THERE'S A LOT BETTER TO DO AT THEIR TIME. OH, ABSOLUTELY AGREE. THAT'S WHY I'M KIND OF BRINGING IT UP BECAUSE IF WE ARE GONNA, IF WE ARE GONNA ADD THIS IN WHERE THEN I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE ADDED THAT THAT'S ALSO AN HOA. [01:25:02] YOU KNOW, SO THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING IF THERE'S A SPECIFIC LAW THAT PREVENTS US FROM HAVING THAT AS PART OF THE CONVERSATION. THAT'S WHY I ALSO WANTED TO BRING THE SIDEWALK THING UP NOW BECAUSE IF IT'S PUT IN AS THE DEVELOPMENT IS BEING PLACED, THEN I'M PRETTY SURE AND YOU GUYS KNOW THE CODE, I'M PRETTY SURE THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THE, THE LANDOWNER I E PASS IT ON TO THE HOA WOULD HAVE TO BE THE ONE TO THEN MAINTAIN THAT TO THE CURB. LIKE YOU'RE STATING IF WE DO IT AFTER THE FACT AND THEN DECIDE, OH NOW THE CITY OWNS THE ROAD, LET'S PUT A SIDEWALK IN, NOW THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE. YES. SO THAT'S WHY I WAS SAYING WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S IN THERE NOW, IF THAT'S THE PLAN TO PUT THAT CONNECTION POINT. YEAH. AND ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING UH, FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ALONG 1 33, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY GOING INTO THE BACK OF THE NINTH GRADE CENTER RIGHT NOW. IT, IT WILL PROBABLY CONNECT, WHICH MEANS WE'LL CROSS THE STREET. WELL BUT 1 33 WON'T. NO THEY'RE STILL A BIG GAP. THIS IS, THIS IS OVER HERE. EIGHTH GRADE CENTER'S WAY OVER HERE, BUT NO, YOU ARE RIGHT. I THINK YEAH, MAIN HIPPO DRIVE AT SOME POINT IS PROBABLY SUPPOSED TO GO ALL THE WAY TO 1 33. THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M THINKING. SO THAT, THAT COULD BE, THAT COULD BE SOMETHING WE LOOK AT 15 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD AS A SAFE WALK TO SCHOOL ROUTE. OKAY. HOW ABOUT THIS? HERE ME OUT. LET'S CHANGE THE SIDEWALK NOTE TO MATCH THE STANDARD NOTE THAT INTERNAL AND BOUNDING. MM-HMM IF WE CANNOT GET THE COUNTY TO AGREE, WE CAN CHANGE IT AT THE FINAL PLOT THAT WE CAN STRIKE THE NOTE ON THAT. OKAY. WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN GET THE COUNTY TO AGREE. YEAH, SOUNDS GOOD. WE'LL ASK FOR IT IF THEY SAY NO, THAT'S ALL WE CAN DO IS ASK. YEAH. WORST CASE WE SAY WE GET A NO. YEP. OKAY. YOU WON'T BE LIKE, OKAY, OKAY. I'LL ASK REACH OUT TO ME. YEAH CUZ I'M THINKING WE JUST HAD CALLS WITHIN THE LAST FEW WEEKS BUT I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING SIDEWALKS ANYWHERE ON THOSE SCHEMATICS. RIGHT. I KNOW THE LAST TIME WE HAD THE CALL YOU WERE STILL ON THE PRIVATE SIDE. . I KEEP BRINGING IT UP. WE'RE REALLY GONNA HAVE ACTIVITY. YOUR OTHER PROJECT HAVE SIDEWALKS. ALL THESE PLACES DON'T, ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE, BUT THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS ON THAT. YEAH, YEAH. LIKE YOU SAID, LIKE, I MEAN LET'S JUST ASK, LET'S JUST MAKE HAVE IT BE A CONDITION. WE'LL ASK THE QUESTION IF WE WERE TOLD NO, WE HAVE, WE STILL HAVE TIME. THIS IS NOT A FINAL PLAT. WE AT LEAST WE'LL HAVE THE ANSWER. I DO NOT REMEMBER SEEING IT. TYPICALLY THE COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE SIDEWALKS ON THOSE ROADS. OKAY. BUT WE WILL HAVE A REQUEST. A REQUEST, YEAH. WE'LL HAVE, I MEAN THE WORST CASE WE WE'RE TOLD NOW. YEP. ALL RIGHT. UH, ANYTHING FURTHER ON 5.4 THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 5.4. SO I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 5.4 WITH THE ADDITION FOR PLAT NOTE SIX TO MODIFY IT TO INCLUDE SIDEWALKS BOUNDING THE SUBDIVISION. SECOND. ALL RIGHT, SO I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LEE AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LAWYER. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE I WILL CALL FOR VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED. SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO. AND THAT BRINGS US TO DEVELOPMENT ITEM SIX, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT. I HAVE A REALLY FUN REQUEST FOR YOU GUYS. MAY WE PLEASE HAVE UM, COULD YOU PLEASE CLEAR YOUR CALENDARS, UM, FOR TWO MEETINGS IN MARCH? WE'RE THERE, WE WE'VE HIT THE JACKPOT. UM, THE EED C HAS BEEN SO BUSY AND WE NEED TO HAVE TWO MEETINGS. UM, WE HAVE A P AND Z MEETING ON MARCH 7TH AND I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE ONE ON MARCH 21ST CUZ THAT DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH ANY POTENTIAL ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WHICH I DON'T THINK WE WILL HAVE. BUT UM, THAT WOULD BE SUPER HELPFUL BECAUSE I BELIEVE AND THAT'S TENTATIVE BECAUSE WE WILL BE HAVING, UM, WE DO HAVE, WITH THE EVO ANNOUNCEMENT THAT CAME IN, THEY HAVE PLATS, THEY HAVE TWO PRELIM AND FINAL. UM, BUT IN ORDER TO TRY TO GET THEM THROUGH AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, UM, WE NEED TO GET THOSE IN BACK TO BACK. SO TO TRY TO GET THEM THE PRELIM ON MARCH 7TH AND TO GET THAT FINAL PLAT IN, THEY NEED TO SUBMIT THAT IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS. SO WE NEED TO HAVE THOSE BACK TO BACK IF WE COULD POTENTIALLY TRY TO GET A QUORUM. JUST GIVING YOU A HEADS UP. LISTEN, SEND AN EMAIL OUT. LET, LET'S RUN THROUGH REAL QUICK. I KNOW CUZ WE'VE GOT ONE MISSING, BUT I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU GUYS A HEADS UP IF WE KNOW [01:30:01] WE CAN'T MAKE IT, WE CAN'T MAKE IT, BUT RIGHT. I I HAD NO PROBLEM. JUST FYI ON, UH, TUESDAY, MARCH 21ST IS THE DIVERSITY INCLUSION COMMISSION, BUT IT DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH ME. TYPICALLY THEY MEET AT UPSTAIRS, SIX UPSTAIRS. THEY USUALLY GO UPSTAIRS. OKAY. YEAH, WE COULD GO REALLY FAST. ONE FLAT. I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUES. OKAY. OKAY. I'M GOOD. I'M GOOD. I'M GOOD. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING. ALL RIGHT. THE BEST. THANK YOU. UM, ANGEL, YOU SENT ON AN EMAIL IN THE MORNING. MM-HMM. AND THEN I WILL LET THE APPLICANT KNOW. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO THAT THEY KNOW THAT THEY CAN BE A GO. I HAVE NOT EVEN GOTTEN A SUBMITTAL FOR THEM, BUT I WAS JUST TOLD 'EM I WAS GONNA TRY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. YEAH. THANK YOU SO MUCH. YEAH, YOU GAVE US HEADS UP, UH, TWO MONTHS BACK. HEY, WE'RE GONNA GET BUSY . I KNOW. I WAS LIKE YOU GUYS, IF EDC ACTUALLY DOES THIS, WE'RE REALLY GONNA BE BUSY. THANK YOU. SO, UM, I GOT THE PRELIM YESTERDAY AND THEN AS SOON AS I SAW IT I WAS LIKE, OH, OKAY, I SEE WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE DONE TO US. SO WE WILL BE VERY BUSY IN MARCH. IT'S GOING TO BE WONDERFUL. UM, AND THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE FOR YOU RIGHT NOW. UM, I DO HAVE ANOTHER REMINDER JUST IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T DONE IT YET, TOMA DONE. AND IF YOU STILL NEED THE EMAIL AGAIN, I CAN SEND THAT BACK OUT. I KNOW ANGEL SENT THAT OUT JANUARY, THE CHUMA TRAINING COMMA. YES. I FORGOT ABOUT THAT TOO. I JUST HAD AN ISSUE WITH TRYING TO PRINT MY CERTIFICATE SO I SENT IT TO ANGEL AND SHE TOOK CARE OF IT. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I DID TOO. I WAS LIKE, NOPE, IT AIN'T PRINTING. NEVERMIND . OKAY. I THINK I'VE SEEN ONE OF YOU FOR THE LAND USE FUNDAMENTALS TRAINING. IF ANYBODY ELSE WANTS IT, IT IS VIRTUAL, BUT I WILL NEED TO KNOW BY THE END OF THE WEEK. WHAT'D YOU SAY? LAND USE FOR THAT? LAND USE FUNDAMENTALS. WHAT? WHEN IS THIS FUND? YEAH, COULD YOU SEND THAT OUT? BACK AGAIN? YES, I CAN SEND IT BACK OUT. I SENT A RESPONSE TO THAT AND WHEN I SAY I WILL SEND IT BACK OUT, ANGEL IS AN ANGEL AND SHE BE SENDING THAT BACK OUT. , DO NOT SEND THAT OUT PLEASE. WOULD, WOULD WE HAVE TO NOTICE A POSSIBLE QUORUM FOR THAT OR NO? SINCE IT IS VIRTUAL? SINCE IT'S VIRTUAL? NO, I DON'T THINK SO. NO. BUT I WILL DOUBLE CHECK WITH, UM, ANGELA BECAUSE SHE MAY JUST FOR SAFETY'S SAKE, JUST EVEN THOUGH IT'S VIRTUAL. BLESS HER. BLESS. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. ALL RIGHT. WELL THEN, UH, LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. SJO , RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. SO, UH, HAVING NO OTHER BUSINESS, WE WILL, WE WILL ADJOURN THIS MEETING IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AT 8:32 PM. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.