[00:00:02]
THERE WE GO.ALL RIGHT, IT IS SEVEN O'CLOCK.
SO LET'S CALL THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR TUESDAY, APRIL 4TH TO ORDER.
FIRST UP IS ROLL CALL AND I SEE COMMISSIONER MORRIS HERE AND I SEE YOU.
AND COMMISSIONER MEYER HERE AND MYSELF, COMMISSIONER HUDSON.
UH, NEXT UP IS, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT AND I DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, IS THAT CORRECT? NO PUBLIC COMMENTS.
ALL RIGHT, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM FOUR, CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 4.1 CONSIDERATION, IMPOSSIBLE ACTION ON THE MEETING MINUTES FROM THE SPECIAL CALL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 21ST, 2023, 4.2 CONSIDERATION, IMPOSSIBLE ACTION ON VILLAGE AT HURO STATION.
FINAL PLA 30.481 ACRES, MORE OR LESS OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CR 1 38 AND SOUTH OF THE SOUTHEAST LOOP.
ITEM 4.3 CONSIDERATION, IMPOSSIBLE ACTION ON STAR RANCH COMMERCIAL BLOCK.
FINAL PLAT 3.155 ACRES MORE OR LESS OF LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF STAR RANCH BOULEVARD AND SH ONE 30 FRONTAGE ROAD.
4.4 CONSIDERATION IN POSSIBLE ACTION TO DISAPPROVE THE PROPOSED HU CROSSING.
HUTTO CROSSING FOUR SECTION 18, FINAL PLAT 22.04.
FIVE ACRES MORE OR LESS OF LAND 34 LOTS LOCATED NORTH ON CARL STERN DRIVE.
ITEM 4.5 CONSIDERATION, IMPOSSIBLE ACTION TO DISAPPROVE THE PROPOSED LIDDELL WALKER.
PHASE ONE FINAL PLAT, 25.134 ACRES MORE OR LESS OF LAND 86 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, ONE AMENITY LOT AND ONE PARK LOT LOCATED ON COUNTY ROAD 1 32.
AND ITEM 4.6 CONSIDERATION, IMPOSSIBLE ACTION TO DISAPPROVE THE PROPOSED NORTHTOWN COMMONS BLOCK A LOTS TWO THROUGH FOUR FINAL PLATT 2.684 ACRES, MORE OR LESS OF LAND THREE COMMERCIAL LOTS LOCATED ON FM 1660.
SO IS THERE ANY OF THESE ITEMS THAT ANYONE WOULD WISH TO PULL FROM CONSENT? UM, I WOULD LIKE TO PULL ITEMS FOUR, ONE AND FOUR.
ANY OBJECTIONS TO PULLING 41 AND 43 FROM CONSENT? ALL RIGHT, THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 42, 4 4 4 5, AND FOUR SIX.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOYER AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MEYER TO APPROVE CONSENTED.
AGENDA ITEMS 4.2, 4.4 4.5, AND 4.6 AS PRESENTED.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT, HEARING NONE, I WILL CALL FOR VOTE.
NEXT IS ITEM 4.1 CONSIDERATION IMPOSSIBLE ACTION ON THE MEETING MINUTES FROM THE SPECIAL CALLED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 21ST, 2023.
SO THIS IS PART, THIS IS PARTIALLY A CLARIFICATION AS TO HOW THE MINUTES WERE TYPED.
SO FOR ITEM FIVE, ONE FROM THE PREVIOUS WEEK WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THE SIDEWALK PREVIOUSLY, UM, THE CLARIFICATION THAT WE HAD THE DEVELOPER AGREE ON WAS THAT WAS NOT JUST CONNECTING TO ED SCHMIDT, THAT THAT THEY NEEDED TO WORK TO CONNECT IT TO THE ACCOMPANYING NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT'S IN THE VERBIAGE, UM, THAT IT'S NOT JUST CONNECTING TO EDGE SCHMIDT, BUT THEY ARE CONNECTING TO THE ADJOINING NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE WEST.
AND I THINK THE ONLY REASON, UH, MY IMPRESSION OF WHY THAT CAME OUT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO CROSSWALK.
DO YOU HAVE PEOPLE TO INVITE PEOPLE TO CROSS EDGE SCHMIDT MID-BLOCK WITHOUT A CROSSWALK? YEAH, BUT I THINK PART OF THE DISCUSSION WE HAD IS THAT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, THEY WILL HAVE TO LOOK AT A MID-BLOCK CROSS POTENTIALLY.
AND I KNOW SOME OF IT MIGHT COME UP WHEN THE NEW DEVELOPMENT TO FARTHER TO THE NORTH COMES, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY NEED TO LOOK AT AS A DEVELOPER.
UM, I WILL HAVE HER MODIFIED JUST AS I END TO THE WEST WITH THE EMORY CROSSING BOULEVARD.
THAT WAS THE ONLY, ONLY CATCH ALL ABOUT
[00:05:01]
SIDEWALK CONNECTIVITY.ANYTHING ELSE ON, UH, 4.1 THEN? THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 4.1.
I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT ITEM FOUR ONE WITH THE ONE SIDEWALK VERBIAGE CHANGE.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LEE AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOYER.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, I WILL CALL FOR VOTE.
NEXT IS ITEM 4.3 CONSIDERATION, IMPOSSIBLE ACTION ON STAR RANCH COMMERCIAL BLOCK C LOTS FOUR THROUGH FIVE.
FINAL PLAT 3.155 ACRES, MORE OR LESS OF LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF STAR RANCH BOULEVARD AND SH ONE 30 FRONTAGE ROAD.
SO THIS QUESTION IS, MY OTHER THING I ALWAYS BRING UP IS RIGHT OF WAY.
SO LOOKING AT THE DETAILS AND DOING SOME OF MY OWN MEASUREMENTS RIGHT NOW, IT STATES THAT THERE'S AN 80 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY ON STAR RANCH BOULEVARD.
THE CURRENT ROADWAY WIDTH ALREADY IS 70 PLUS FEET, WHICH DOES NOT HAVE SIDEWALKS AT THE MOMENT OR ANY OTHER FEATURES IN THE FUTURE.
UM, MULTIPLE THINGS WILL HAPPEN.
ONE, THE ADDITION OF A POTENTIAL TURN LANE, UM, AN ADDITION OF A PROPER TURNING RADIUS AT THE CORNER, UM, CURRENTLY WITH ONLY AN 80 FOOT RIGHT AWAY IS NOT GONNA ALLOW FOR ANY OF THOSE FEATURES.
AND BASED ON THE ACTUAL VERBIAGE IN NODE 11 OF THIS, IT REQUIRES A FIVE FOOT TREE LAWN WITH A SIDEWALK.
AND AT THE MOMENT, BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY FIVE FOOT AVAILABLE ON EACH SIDE OF THE CURRENT EXISTING ROADWAY, THAT IS NOT ENOUGH SPACE TO PUT A TREE, LAWN AND A SIDEWALK.
BRIAN, WHAT PAGE ARE YOU ON? UM, IT WAS NOTE 11.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE OR DO I NEED TO TRY TO EXPLAIN IT BETTER?
PART OF THAT IS JUST ON THE MUD SIDE, BUT WE DON'T MM-HMM.
SO WE DEFER TO THE COUNTY ON IF THEY WILL NEED SIDEWALKS OR WHAT ELSE WILL OCCUR OVER THERE.
SO EVEN THOUGH THE NOTE IS IN THE FINAL PLAT VERBIAGE THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO DO, WE DON'T HAVE TO HOLD THEM TO IT.
SO THEY WILL POTENTIALLY, THEY COULD DO IT ON THEIR OWN YARD.
UM, BUT A LOT OF THAT WE JUSTER TO WILLIAMSON COUNTY IF THEY'RE GOING TO, UM, STRIKE ANY OF THE NOTES BECAUSE WE'RE APPROVING IT.
WILLIAMSON COUNTY ALSO STILL HAS TO APPROVE IT.
I, I GUESS MY WORRY THOUGH IS, I MEAN, LIKE I'M SAYING IT'S A NOTE IN THERE AND WE'RE APPROVING IT, THEN WILLIAMS COUNTY IS APPROVING IT.
BUT IF THEY GO AHEAD AND APPROVE IT WITHOUT NOTICING THAT THAT RIGHT AWAY IS NOT ADEQUATE TO ACCOUNT FOR WHAT IS REQUIRED IN FUTURE GROWTH, THEN THEY MIGHT BE KICKING THEMSELVES LATER WHEN SOMETHING IS DEVELOPED AND THERE'S NO ACTUAL SPACE TO, LIKE I SAID, PUT THE SIDEWALKS IN OR PUT FUTURE ROAD GROWTH IN.
I DEFINITELY THINK IT'LL BE INTERESTING THAT WILLIAMSON COUNTY, I BELIEVE STILL DOES NOT REQUIRE TIAS.
SO A LOT OF THIS IS FLYING BLIND ON THAT ONE, BUT YEAH, IT IS IN THE NOTE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO, HOPEFULLY IT SAYS IF POSSIBLE PUT THE SIDEWALK IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, BUT WE'RE NOT POSSIBLE.
THEN THEY HAVE TO MOVE IT OUTSIDE OF THAT.
AND THEN THE TREE LAWN'S OUTSIDE OF THAT.
BUT FOR A LOT OF THIS, WHEN WE'RE PLATTING, WE ARE NOT THEN LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN.
IT'S ONLY, THE ONLY TIMES THAT WE WILL LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN IS IF IT'S IN OUR, UM, S D A OR SPECIAL, UM, IN THE, IN THE SPECIAL ANNEXATION AREA, UM, AROUND, MOSTLY JUST AROUND HB.
I DON'T THINK IT ACTUALLY GOES ALL THE WAY NORTH UP TO THIS ROADWAY.
WE ONLY LOOK AT THE PLATS ON THESE.
SO IS THAT SOMETHING WE COULD INCLUDE IN A NOTE TO WILLIAMSON COUNTY? WE CAN MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION, BUT WILLIAMSON COUNTY CAN.
YEAH, BECAUSE I, AS FAR AS I KNOW, WILLIAMSON COUNTY DOES NOT REQUIRE SIDEWALKS RIGHT NOW.
IS THERE A DECISION, BUT HEY, THIS IS SOMETHING WE NOTICE AND IT'S THAT IT'S NOT REQUIRED, IT'S NOT SAYING THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD NOT PUT THEM IN BECAUSE STAR RANCH IS A MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND THEY DO HAVE A LOT OF SIDEWALKS IN THAT, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
TYPICALLY, I KNOW WITH, EVEN WITH TEXT OUT THOUGH, THEY DON'T WANT SIDEWALKS ADJACENT TO, UM, ANY FRONTAGE ROAD OR IT'S PRETTY DIFFICULT TO GET THEM IN JUST FOR SAFETY REASONS.
YOU TYPICALLY DON'T WANNA INVITE PEOPLE.
UM, WHEN YOU HAVE THAT INTERCONNECTIVITY THAT YOU HAVE WITHIN STAR RANCH, YOU WANT THE PEDESTRIANS ON THE INSIDE, NOT THE OUTSIDE.
AND I'M, AND I'M REFERRING TO THE STAR RANCH PART, NOT THE FRONTAGE ROAD PART, OF COURSE.
BUT TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS WHAT IS HERE AND POTENTIALLY ANYTHING ELSE.
BUT, UM, I WANNA CLARIFY THE NOTE.
WE CERTAINLY CAN AND IF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, WE CAN ALWAYS DISCUSS AFTER THE FACT.
UM, WE JUST KNOW THE LAST THING THAT THIS WAS ON AS A T I A, THERE WAS AN OVERALL T I DONE MM-HMM.
[00:10:01]
THAT'S WHY IT WAS ON, IT MET ALL OF THE MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS.BECAUSE, BECAUSE THE OTHER PIECE LOOKING AT PAGE 11 IS IF YOU LOOK AT HOW THE ACTUAL LOT IS FOR THE CORNER THERE, IT IS NOT GOING TO ACTUALLY EVEN ALLOW FOR THE CURRENT TURNING RADIUS THAT IS THERE FROM STAR RANCH TO THE FRONTAGE ROAD.
CUZ BASED ON, AGAIN, MEASUREMENTS THAT I'VE TAKEN, 80 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY IS GOING TO CUT INTO WHAT EVEN THE CURRENT TURNING RADIUS IS AT THAT CORNER.
SO THAT IS ANOTHER WORRY THAT IF THEY'RE ONLY ALLOWING 80 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S GOING TO WORK.
WHEN THE TURNING RADIUS BACK OUT TO SH ONE 30 WHERE IT IS NOW YES.
THAT'S BUILT RIGHT NOW? YEAH, IT'S ALREADY BUILT.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M, AND AND THAT'S WHY I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE DISCREPANCY IN MY HEAD BECAUSE IF THAT IS ALREADY BUILT OUT AND IT IS WIDER THAN 80 FEET ALREADY, I REMEMBER EXACTLY 84 FEET OR SOMETHING, 85 MAYBE.
SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS PLAID IS ACTUALLY GOING ALL THE WAY TO THAT CORNER WHEN THAT WILL ACTUALLY BE IN THE CURRENT DRIVE LANE.
ANYTHING ON THAT ONE? YEAH, WE CAN LOOK INTO IT, BUT OKAY.
THIS IS BASED ON THAT ORIGINAL AND THEN THIS IS GOING TO BE A, THIS IS NOT RETAIL THOUGH, ON THAT FIRST SLOT.
AND AGAIN, I'M, I'M JUST TRYING TO BRING IT UP NOW BECAUSE I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS.
MAYBE THE, MAYBE WHEN THE ORIGINAL START RANCH WAS PLANNED OUT, IT WAS ONLY A TWO-LANE ROAD THERE AND THEY DIDN'T ACTUALLY EXPAND IT AND PUT A TURNING RADIUS THERE.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M JUST BRINGING IT UP NOW TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALLOCATING, LIKE I SAID, FOR THE SIDEWALKS, BUT ALSO TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT CUTTING OURSELVES OFF IN THE FUTURE.
WE CAN CERTAINLY, WITH THAT 15 FOOT PUE AND THEN THE BUILDING SET BACK OF THE REST, I THINK THEY CAN FIX IT.
BUT WE COULD DO SOMETHING WHERE, UM, WE CAN PASS THIS ON WITH A APPROVAL WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR A CORNER CLIP JUST TO HAVE THAT TURNING RADIUS.
CUZ THAT WOULD BE THE USUAL IS THAT YOU WOULD JUST HAVE A CORNER CLIP ON THE LOT MM-HMM.
DO WE NEED TO PUT THAT AS PART OF OUR MOTION THEN, OR? YES, PLEASE.
SO JUST THE CORNER CLIP YOU SAID THE SIDEWALKS WERE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ADDRESS.
THE SIDEWALKS ARE SUFFICIENT BUT WE CAN'T REQUIRE THEM IF THE COUNTY'S NOT GONNA REQUIRE THEM.
WE HAVE TO TAKE A BACKSEAT TO THAT.
JUST BE WITH THE CONSENT AGREEMENT AND THE REST.
SO EVEN THOUGH WE'RE APPROVING THE PLAT, IT'S A STRANGE ONE BECAUSE IT'S A CONSENT AGREEMENT MUD THAT'S THROUGH THE CITY, BUT WE DO NOT, AND I KNOW THAT WE'VE PROVEN THIS A FEW TIMES HERE,
UM, BUT IT, WE CAN'T REQUIRE IT.
SO WE CAN PUT IN SOME OF OUR THINGS AND THESE ARE THE STANDARD PLAT NOTES FOR, UM, STAR RANCH.
SO TYPICALLY IT DOES OCCUR AND THEY MAKE ALL ATTEMPTS.
ANY UH, FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? I HAVE ONE SMALL THING JUST GOING THROUGH THE NOTES.
THERE'S JUST ONE SMALL TYPO ON NOTE 21, UH, WITHDRAWAL.
IT'S EITHER WITHDRAWAL OR WITHDRAWAL.
UH, RIGHT NOW IT'S W I T H D R A W L.
THERE'S AN A MISSING OR THE L CAN GO.
THAT'S ALL I GOT
ANY UH, FURTHER DISCUSSION? UH, I'M GONNA RECUSE MYSELF FROM, FROM THIS VOTE.
YEAH, WE'LL GET YOU A TO WE FOLD Y YEP.
GOOD THING WE'VE GOT ONE OF THOSE.
SO I'M GONNA MAKE A NOTE HERE.
UM, ALL RIGHT THEN, UH, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 4.3.
UH, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT ITEM FOUR THREE WITH THE ADDITION OF ONE SPELLING ERROR AND A REVIEW OF THE RIGHT OF WAY ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER TO ALLOW FOR A ADEQUATE TURNING RADIUS.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LEE AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOYER.
[00:15:01]
ON THE MOTION? OKAY, THEN I WILL CALL FOR VOTE.MOVING ON TO ITEM 5.1, CONSIDERATION, IMPOSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED TOWN.
WEST COMMONS, SOUTH TOWN, WEST COMMONS.
SECTION EIGHT, PRELIMINARY PLAT 15.7215 ACRES, MORE OR LESS OF LAND ONE COMMERCIAL LOT LOCATED ON ALLIANCE BOULEVARD AT US 79 WEST.
COMMISSIONERS, YOU HEARD THE PUBLIC HEARING LAST TIME WE HAD ZERO OPPOSITION.
SO JUST TO GO OVER THIS ONE THAT YOU SAW LAST TIME, IT'S, UM, APPROXIMATE 46.65 ACRE TRACT NORTHEAST CORNER OF ALLIANCE BOULEVARD IN 79.
UM, AND SO IT'S SURROUNDED ESSENTIALLY BY EITHER LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OR EXISTING COMMERCIAL.
AND THIS IS THE FIRST STEP IN THAT PLOTTING PROCESS.
UM, VERY SOON YOU WILL START SEEING DIRT MOVING.
WE ARE, UM, ABLE TO SHORTEN THAT TIMEFRAME JUST A LITTLE BIT.
SO THEY'RE GOING TO, UM, GET THEIR PRE-CON IN AND, UM, START MOVING DIRT OVER THERE.
SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE SOME REALLY EXCITING STUFF OCCURRING.
UM, WITH THAT, HERE IS THE OVERALL PLAT THAT YOU CAN SEE.
IT KIND OF SURROUNDS THAT EXISTING Y M C A AND THEN, UM, EVERYBODY ALWAYS KNOWS WHERE STARBUCKS AND THE DRY CLEANERS ARE, AND THAT'S OUT FRONT OF THAT WITH THAT.
UM, AND THEN WITH THE NEWER STRIP CENTER OUT FRONT WITH, UM, THAT WAS BUILT IN THE LINE PROBABLY LAST TWO YEARS, AND THAT'S JUST TO THE SOUTH OF IT.
UM, SO WITH THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE DRAINAGE PLAN WILL BE FINALIZED PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.
UM, JUST SO THAT THERE, UM, WE ARE CLEAR THE FINALIZATIONS, THERE WERE SOME NOTES BACK AND FORTH AND THERE JUST WAS NOT TIME TO HAVE THEM INCLUDED IN THE DRAINAGE PLAN.
SO WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT ANY OF THOSE FINAL NOTES ARE PUT INTO DRAINAGE PLAN PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, WHICH MEANS FINAL PLAT CAN COME IN, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND DISCUSS, BUT IT WAS REALLY MINOR THINGS AND ENGINEERING WAS GOOD ON HAVING THIS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT.
IT'S MORE CLARIFICATION THAN ANYTHING.
WELL, I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON THIS.
SO LOOKING AT, UH, PAGE 30 LOT ONE IS 15.7215 ACRES, AND THAT'S WHAT'S, CAN I MAKE A TYPO? I DID.
THAT'S WHAT'S PO POSTED UP IN THE AGENDA NOTES AS WELL, BUT THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION SAYS FOR YOU'RE, IT'S, I'M SORRY.
I JUST DIDN'T DO THE, UM, IT'S 15.
NO, I DIDN'T DO THE POWERPOINT RIGHT.
I WAS LOOKING AT THAT AND I'M LIKE, HOW 15.72 AND THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
YEAH, IT'S GETTING REALLY BIG YOU GUYS.
THAT'S ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS.
THAT'S FROM, I USE THE SAME, UM, SLIDE BASE AS CTC, EMORY AND CTC.
UH, SECOND QUESTION IS, UH, THERE'S A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY RUNNING BETWEEN Y M C A AND LOWE'S, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY CUTTING ACROSS THAT NORTHERN BLOCK.
IS THAT GONNA BE RETAINED? YEAH.
UM, THAT'S ACTUALLY GONNA BE BEHIND, BUT NONE OF THOSE EASEMENTS ARE BEING REMOVED.
AND THEN THE SITE PLANS THAT, UM, WE'RE STARTING TO SEE ARE NOT REMOVING THAT EITHER.
SO THERE WILL STILL BE, UM, REALLY GOOD CROS ACCESS AMONG THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WAS A BIG DEAL BOTH FOR THE DEVELOPER AS WELL AS STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT WE STILL HAVE ALL THAT CROSS CONNECTIVITY.
AND IT'S BEEN SEAMLESS WITH THEM.
UH, WHAT I'M NOT SEEING THAT ON HERE.
I'M SEEING WHERE THE, THE CUT IN FOR THE, UH, DRAINAGE IS ON THE, UH, EAST SIDE OF THE LOT.
YOU WILL SEE THAT LIKELY ON THE FINAL PLAT.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN WE'RE GONNA START, UM, GETTING INTO AND POTENTIALLY, DEPENDING ON WHERE BUILDINGS END UP, A LOT OF TIMES YOU'LL ACTUALLY NOT SEE IT ON A PLAT.
WE'LL DO IT BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT, UM, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANNA PUT SOMETHING ON A PLAT AND THEN HAVE TO TAKE IT BACK OFF AT, AT THE SITE PLAN BECAUSE WE CAN'T PUT A BUILDING OVER IT.
SO THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF IT, WE KNOW THAT WE'RE WORKING ON IT.
IT'S JUST NOT WHAT WE'RE GONNA REFLECT JUST BECAUSE BUILDINGS HAVE TO GET CITED.
WE KNOW WE'RE STILL GONNA HAVE THAT CROSS CONNECTIVITY.
MY, MY BIG CONCERN WITH THAT DRIVEWAY IS THAT'S A FAST ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES.
FIRE GETS TO REVIEW ALL OF OUR THINGS TOO.
SITE PLANS, PRELIMS, FINALS, SITE PLANS, UM, AND BUILDING PERMITS.
THEY, THEY HAVE A HAND IN EVERYTHING BECAUSE IT, IT'S NOT REALLY A PUBLIC STREET, IT'S AN INTERNAL DRIVEWAY.
SO, BUT HERE, ESPECIALLY WITH HOUSE 79 BACKS UP, WE ALL KNOW THAT.
UM, MYSELF INCLUDED, WE DO TAKE SOME OF THOSE, UM, GREAT LITTLE HATO SHORTCUTS.
UM, SO YEAH, WE'RE ALL AWARE, BUT SO IS THE DEVELOPER AND WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THIS FUNCTION, BUT THEN ALSO MAKE SURE THAT THE PEDESTRIANS ARE ALWAYS SAFE, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE WORKING ON INTERNAL TO THAT SITE PLAN.
[00:20:01]
WELL THOSE WERE MY QUESTIONS ON IT.UM, MY, MY NORMAL QUESTION OF RIGHT AWAY AGAIN.
UM, SO ALLIANCE BOULEVARD AT THE MOMENT IN TRUE FASHION HAS THE VARIES INSTEAD OF THE ACTUAL RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH I REALLY HOPE DEVELOPERS MOVING FORWARD CAN GET BETTER AT RESEARCHING MINIMUM OF MAXIMUM AT LEAST, AND PUTTING 'EM ON THEIR PLATS.
UM, BUT BECAUSE OF THAT, I KNOW WE'D ALREADY HAD THE DISCUSSION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST, THAT IS KIND OF IN PROGRESS.
I THINK WE WENT THROUGH PRELIMINARY, I'M NOT SURE IF WE WENT THROUGH FINAL YET, UM, ABOUT BUILDING OUT ALLIANCE, UM, MORE FULLY.
SO BECAUSE OF THAT, DO WE KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT OF WAY IS REQUIRED FOR ALLIANCE BASED ON THIS DEVELOPMENT AND THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT? I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD BECAUSE I DON'T THINK ALLIANCE WAS FULLY CALLED OUT IN THE MOBILITY MASTER PLAN AS A MAJOR ROADWAY.
UM, I KNOW THAT WE SHOULD HAVE FINAL RIDE OF WAY WIDTH WITH THE FINAL PLAT THAT YOU WILL STILL BE SEEING.
UM, BUT YEAH, I KNOW THAT ADJACENT THERE WAS A MINOR RIGHT OF WAY GIVE, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S, IT'S, IT'S ACTUALLY A PRETTY SMALL RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH.
AND, AND LIKE I SAID, AS LONG AS THE ACTUAL WIDTHS ARE IN THE FINAL PATH, THEN THAT'LL BE FINE JUST TO VERIFY.
CUZ A LOT OF TIMES, ONCE IT'S AN OLDER ROAD AND THIS ONE IS UM, IT'S, IT TRULY VARIES, YOU KNOW.
AND THEN WE DID HAVE, WITH THAT TOWN WAS COMMON SIX, THERE WAS A SMALL RIGHT OF WAY, UM, DONATION AT THAT POINT.
AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION IS, SO I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THE KIND OF CONNECTION ROAD BETWEEN THE Y M C A AND AND LOWE'S AT THE MOMENT, BUT SO THE CONNECTION TO THE SOUTH, SO BETWEEN THIS DEVELOPMENT AND THE, THE STARBUCKS ET CETERA, BASED ON THIS PLAT DIAGRAM HERE, I'M NOT EXACTLY SEEING WHERE THAT ACCESS ROAD IS AND CURRENTLY, IF I'M INTERPRETING IT RIGHT, THIS PLAT IS ACTUALLY GOING INTO WHERE THAT ACCESS ROAD IS LOCATED.
THERE IS A SLIGHTLY, BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT NORTH OF WHERE THAT IS CUZ IT'S JUST BEHIND STARBUCKS SO IT'S REALLY MM-HMM.
BUT THIS, THE ACCESS ROAD I KNOW OF THAT I TAKE A LOT BETWEEN LOWE'S THAT'S KIND OF SKIRTS AROUND THIS WHOLE DEVELOPMENT.
POINTING AT AND THEN ALSO AT THE SOUTH OUTSIDE WHAT I'M REALLY ASKING.
SO, SO THIS IS LIKE THE STARBUCKS AND EVERYTHING MM-HMM.
SO THIS ROAD HERE THAT'S GOING IN BETWEEN MM-HMM.
SO THE, I'M ASSUMING THIS IS THE ROAD RIGHT HERE BASED ON THE, THE SCHEMATIC, BUT THIS CLOUD IS ACTUALLY GOING INTO THE ROADWAY OF COURSE.
SO WHAT I'M JUST VERIFYING IS THAT THIS ROADWAY WILL DEFINITELY HAVE TO CONTINUE BEING HERE.
SO I'M, I'M MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO CLAT OR BUILD ANYTHING INTO THAT ROADWAY.
NO, THEY CAN'T JUST CUZ IT'S A RECORDED EASEMENT.
IT'S JUST THAT THAT THE PAVEMENT THERE IS ALREADY KIND OF, YOU'RE RIGHT.
I WAS JUST MAKING SURE CUZ SINCE IT'S A PRIVATE ENTITY, WE USUALLY CAN'T DICTATE ROADWAYS AS MUCH.
AND FOR PRELIMS, I MEAN CUZ IT'S MORE OF A DRIVE WHILE, BUT FOR PRELIMS YOU CAN'T REMOVE, YOU CAN'T REMOVE UM, AN EASEMENT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO ONCE WE SEE THE FINALS AND THEN WE ALSO SEE THE SITE PLANS, IT IT'LL ALL FUNCTION.
UM, FROM WHAT I'M SEEING, THEY'RE SUPER MOTIVATED TO KEEP ALL OF THAT INTERNAL TRAFFIC, UM, MOVING.
UM, NO, I'VE ASKED THIS A HUNDRED TIMES, BUT JUST TO CONFIRM, UH, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ATLAS 14.
WE DON'T HAVE TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE NOTE.
UM, I MEAN ENGINEERING DIDN'T CALL.
IF YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CALLING OUT ATLAS 14, WE CERTAINLY CAN.
I KNOW THAT THAT IS WHAT THE DRAINAGE WAS, UM, REVIEWED TO.
WAS ATLAS 14? UM, ACTUALLY I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON, ON THE DRAINAGE PART.
SO WE'VE GOT THIS HILL KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE OF IT.
THINGS THERE WAS ONLY, UM, THERE WERE ACTUALLY MINOR CHANGES WITH ATLAS 14 WITH THE SITE BECAUSE THEY HAD PLANNED FOR THEIR DETENTION.
UM, THAT ALREADY EXISTS AND SO IT KIND OF BREAKS AND THEN IT WORKS.
THEY ARE COMPLYING WITH EVERYTHING, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I'M JUST THINKING THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO FLATTEN THAT HILL OUT.
SO THAT THEY HAVE SHARED DETENTION MM-HMM.
IT'S THAT LARGER KIND OF RECTANGLE LOT AT THE BACK, BUT THEN THEY ALSO HAVE A LARGER, UM, DRAINAGE AREA ON THE EAST SIDE AND SO THEY ARE ABLE TO, I MEAN THERE REALLY IS A LOT OF DRAINAGE ON THE SITE.
[00:25:01]
OKAY.WELL IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 5.1.
I'LL, UH, ENTERTAIN A MOTION OR TO, OR PROVIDE A MOTION TO ACCEPT 5.1 AS IS SECOND.
MAKE SURE YOU INCLUDE THE CONDITION OF THE DRAINAGE PLAN.
OH, PER THE DRAINAGE PLAN PER ATLA 14.
AND YOU GOOD WITH THAT? SECOND? ALL RIGHT.
SO I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORRIS AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOYER.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? OKAY, THEN I WILL CALL FOR VOTE.
NEXT IS ITEM 5.2 CONSIDERATION, IMPOSSIBLE ACTION ON HIGHLANDS OF HATO.
FINAL PLAT 12.71 ACRES, MORE OR LESS OF LAND LOCATED ALONG LIMMER LOOP IN THE INTERSECTIONS OF WESTFIELD AND SHERMAN STREETS.
SO THIS IS ONE THAT'S ACTUALLY KIND OF JUST BEEN HANGING OUT THERE.
UM, IT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LIMBER LOOP SO EVERYBODY KIND OF PASSES BY AND IT HADN'T BEEN DEVELOPED YET AND IT'S OUT IN FRONT OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT'S FINALLY GETTING ITS FINAL PLAT.
OOPS, SORRY, THAT ONE IS NOT WHAT I WANTED IT TO SAY.
UM, SO ESSENTIALLY IT HAS BEEN IN ITS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, THEY'VE GOT THEIR CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS.
THEY ARE A LITTLE BIT ENCUMBERED BY THE OVERALL LARGE ENCORE EASEMENT, BUT WE HAVE SEEN WITH THE CHURCH AND OTHER THINGS IN THAT SAME AREA THAT THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE IT WORK.
UM, I DON'T PERCEIVE THAT WE WILL END UP HAVING ANY VARIANCES ON THIS ONE IN THE FUTURE, BUT IT'S JUST REALLY TO FINALIZE, UM, A RE AN OTHERWISE AREA THAT COULD BE RETAIL.
WE DO KNOW THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A TIF PAYMENT INVOLVED.
UM, WE KNOW THAT THERE'S GOING TO END UP BEING SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO LIMMER PROBABLY WITH THOSE FUNDS AND ALSO THE C I P THAT'LL BE COMING FORWARD TO YOU.
UM, BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY GOING TO BE A PART OF THIS PLAT ONLY BECAUSE THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH SPACE TO KEEP MOVING EVERYTHING AROUND.
WE JUST KNOW IT'S GOING TO CHANGE AND THAT'LL HAVE TO BE A MUCH LARGER LIMBER LOOP DISCUSSION IN FULL.
BUT WITH THAT THEY MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR, I THINK THIS ONE WENT THROUGH A FEW REVIEWS.
IT'S ACTUALLY BEEN ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SUBDIVISION.
WELL I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE.
UH, FIRST IS ON SHEET ONE, WHICH IS PAGE 33.
UH, I SEE A PROPOSED ACCESS POINT AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S RIGHT OVER THE PIPELINE EASEMENT, IS THAT CORRECT? THEY CAN DO THAT.
WAIT, YOU SAID PAGE 33? YEAH, HOLD ON.
UH, THE ONE ON THE SCREEN, THE ONE THAT'S ON THE SCREEN.
IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'VE GOT THEIR PROPOSED ACCESS POINT AND IT'S RIGHT OVER THE PIPELINE.
YOU CAN DO UM, ACCESS EASEMENTS OVER THAT.
IT'S BETTER TO HAVE IT ON A PAVEMENT.
I MEAN THEY'LL HAVE TO PULL THE PAVEMENT UP IF ANYTHING EVER HAPPENS BUT, RIGHT.
THEY JUST CAN'T BUILD OVER THE EASEMENT.
I'M SEEING, SO THE NEXT PAGE I'M SEEING ONE DRIVEWAY ACCESSING LIMBER LOOP POTENTIALLY YES.
LET'S NOT PUT DRIVEWAYS EVERY 50 FEET.
SO THEY HAVE REALLY TRIED TO COMPLY, BUT ALSO THEY ARE RECOGNIZING THAT WE HAD LIER LOOP.
UM, CONCERNS JUST WITH TRAFFIC AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE AS WELL.
SO THEY WORKED REALLY WELL WITH STAFF AND THEY ONLY HAVE THAT ONE AND THEN THEY OF COURSE THEY HAVE OTHER SIDE STREETS.
NO, THIS WAS ONE THAT WE'RE LIKE, OKAY, THEY GET IT.
UM, AND FINAL QUESTION, IS THERE ANY SORT OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ASI, ASIDE FROM WESTFIELD STREET AND SHERMAN STREET SIDEWALKS? SO WITH THIS, THEY WILL, SO THERE'S NOTHING COMING FROM THE RESIDENCES THAT ARE BEHIND IT.
UM, THERE WERE NO GREEN LINKS IN THAT AREA, BUT THERE WILL BE SIDEWALKS AND THERE IS THE NOTE THAT THERE WOULD BE SIDEWALKS THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO INSTALL ACROSS THE ENTIRE FRONT AND THEN WITHIN IT, ONE OF THE SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE IN THE UDC RIGHT NOW IS ALSO PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY.
SO THAT YOU CAN KIND OF HAVE, UM, EVEN IF IT'S JUST THE PAINTED AREA
[00:30:01]
OF LIKE, HEY, THIS IS WHERE YOU SHOULD WALK, THIS IS WHAT YOU CAN DO.ESPECIALLY KNOWING THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE THAT LONGER CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT ACROSS THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, SO THEY WILL HAVE TO INSTALL SIDEWALKS.
UM, ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE TO PUT A CROSSWALK AT THE DRIVEWAY IN OF ANY SORT TO ACCESS THE SIDEWALK ON THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SIDE? IF, CUZ I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A LIGHT CONTEMPLATED THERE THEN POTENTIALLY, BUT I HAVE NOT SEEN THE LIGHT BE APPROVED YET OR THOSE PLANS.
YEAH, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THE LIGHT, YEAH, THE CONNECTIVITY WOULD HAVE TO BE THERE.
IT'S SIMILAR TO I THINK WHAT, UM, COMMISSIONER LEE BROUGHT UP EARLIER, THAT ONCE WE KNOW THAT THERE'S THAT CONNECTIVITY, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SIDEWALKS ALSO CONNECT.
BECAUSE, YEAH, I KNOW THAT THE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT CROSSWALK AT SHERMAN MM-HMM.
IF IT'S AT A NO, I THINK THAT REALLY DOES INVITE THAT, THAT MID-BLOCK CROSSING THAT YOU DON'T WANT HAVING IT AT A SIGNAL IS GOING TO BE YOUR SAFER BET.
UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING OTHER TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURE THAT WOULD BE PUT IN.
BUT I CAN'T IMAGINE BREAKING UP LIMMER LOOP THAT WAY.
UM, SO I'M NOT AWARE THAT THERE WOULD BE A CROSSING AT THAT DRIVE MILE.
I HAD A QUESTION, UM, ON THAT.
THE, IN THE INSERT THERE WHERE IT SHOWS, UH, THE PROJECT SIDE, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN SEE HETO PARK NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE NORTH, BUT THE HETO SQUARE, NORTHERN, YOU KNOW, THOSE STREETS AREN'T IN THERE.
WHAT KIND OF BARRIER OR, YOU KNOW, CUSHION DO YOU HAVE BETWEEN THIS COMMERCIAL AND I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR THOSE, UH, THOSE RESIDENTIAL HOMES BACK UP? SO TYPICALLY WITH B2 TO SF ONE, AND I THINK THIS IS B2, UM, THIS SHOULD BE B2 THAT, UM, IT'S USUALLY 25 FEET.
THEY CAN GET A SLIGHT REDUCTION IN THAT IF THEY PUT IN A MASONRY WALL AND DO ALL THOSE THINGS.
BUT TYPICALLY WHAT YOU'RE GONNA END UP GETTING IS JUST, IT'S A 25 FOOT, IT'S TYPICALLY JUST LANDSCAPING.
BUT NO, UH, NO WALLS OR, OR MASONRY WALLS OR CINDER BLOCK OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
I THINK THE BIGGER ONE BACK THERE IS, THERE ARE SO MANY DIFFERENT DRAINAGE EASEMENTS AND OTHER THINGS THAT YOU CAN KIND OF SEE LIKE YEAH.
THAT COULD GET IN PAGE 35 AND 37 IS THE BEST PLACE TO SEE THEM.
CAN I SAY THAT AGAIN? UH, 35 AND 37.
SO THERE ARE A LOT OF EASEMENTS THAT A LOT OF TIMES YOU WON'T GET ANYTHING IN JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T BUILD OVER IT.
SO THAT'S WHERE THIS ONE IS A VERY CONSTRAINED SITE.
IT'S 150 FEET OF UTILITY EASEMENTS THERE.
SO THEY'LL HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A SETBACK BACK THERE
BUT TYPICALLY I THINK IT IS 25 FEET JUST OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
AND THEN LANDSCAPING OTHER THINGS IN THAT BUFFERY YARD AREA.
I KNOW IT'S NOT, IT'S MORE OF A COMMENT, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY BUILD WITHIN MAYBE A HUNDRED AND SOMETHING FEET OF SPACE.
I THINK SOME OF THESE MAY END UP BEING LOTS THAT ARE COMBINED.
WE HAVE HAD ACTUALLY USERS ACTUALLY HAVE SAID YEAH, WE CAN BUILD WITHIN THAT.
I MEAN IT'S BECAUSE IF YOU DO A LONGER SKINNIER KIND OF LINEAR BUILDING YEAH.
IT, AND IT'S ALSO EASIER LIKE WE'VE DONE AT OTHER LOCATIONS WHERE YOU FRONT LOAD THE BUILDING AND THEN YOU PUT PARKING BEHIND IT.
SO I MEAN IT'LL JUST BE VERY INTERESTING.
UM, KIND OF A FOLLOW ON QUESTION TO THE CONNECTIVITY WITH SHERMAN STREET.
I KNOW THERE HOPEFULLY IS AN ASSESSMENT COMING SOON TO FIGURE OUT WHERE TO ACTUALLY PUT THAT CROSSWALK CUZ OF THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CUZ WE ARE WAY PAST IT NEEDING TO HAPPEN.
IS THERE ANY, DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S ANY SIGNAL WARRANTS YET FOR SHERMAN STREET TO BE ABLE TO PUT A SIGNAL IN A CROSSWALK THERE YET? I DON'T KNOW, BUT I CAN DOUBLE CHECK WITH MATT AND I CAN SEND AN EMAIL OUT TO THE GROUP.
IF I CAN ANSWER IF EITHER IF YES WE HAVE ONE OR WHAT THEY THINK THE TIMING MIGHT BE.
BECAUSE IF, IF NOT, WE WOULD DEFINITELY NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO WORK WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT TO TRY TO PUT WE, IF WE CAN'T GET A SIGNAL THERE SOON, THEN WE ARE GONNA HAVE TO DO A MIDBLOCK CROSS AS MUCH AS WE DON'T WANT TO.
SOMETHING THERE'S GONNA HAVE TO BE SOME KIND OF ACCESS THERE.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 5.2.
I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE IT AS WITH THE, UH, INFORMATION THAT ASHLEY'S GETTING ON THE THE SIGNAL WARRANT.
SO I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOYER AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LEE, UH, TO APPROVE 5.2 WITH THE SIGNAL WARRANT INFORMATION.
[00:35:04]
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE I WILL CALL FOR VOTE.NEXT IS ITEM SIX, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT.
UM, I HAVE TWO THINGS FOR YOU.
UM, FIRST THE RFQ FOR THIS IS GONNA BE FUNNY.
SO THE RFQ OR REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, UH, WENT OUT.
IT WAS ACTUALLY PUBLISHED LAST FRIDAY.
UM, SO WE WILL START TO SEE WHO IS PUTTING IN FOR, UM, REDOING OUR FULL UDC.
SO I'M EXCITED TO GET ON THAT ONE.
ARE, ARE WE GONNA SEE ANY OF THAT, UH, THIS WEEK AT COUNCIL OR TWO WEEKS? UH, I DON'T EVEN THINK, LET ME SEE THE CALENDAR.
I DO NOT THINK IT WOULD BE AT COUNCIL.
UM, I BELIEVE THE DEADLINE IS APRIL 24TH OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
SO THEN WE'LL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THEM AS A STAFF.
WE'LL HAVE TO BRING SOMETHING TO COUNCIL SAYING THIS IS THE ONE THAT WE'RE PICKING.
UM, WE'VE GOTTEN A FEW BITES OR INTERESTS.
WE KNEW THAT PEOPLE WERE GONNA BE KIND OF LOOKING AROUND JUST BECAUSE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS JUST DONE.
UM, BUT I THINK IT'LL BE INTERESTING ESPECIALLY, UM, WE'RE, I WILL BE REQUESTING THAT OBVIOUSLY Y'ALL ARE HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THAT JUST BECAUSE IT'S GONNA HAVE TO COME HERE ANYWAY FOR RECOMMENDATION.
UM, BUT POTENTIALLY LEANING ON YOU AS THE BOARD.
EVEN IF WE DO TEAMS. THAT'S WHAT WE FIGURED OUT WITH A COMP PLAN.
I THINK THAT WORKED REALLY WELL IS, HEY, IF WE HAVE A TEAMS CALL, WE CAN KIND OF, PEOPLE CAN DO THIS OVER THEIR LUNCH BREAK.
WE CAN ALL GET TOGETHER, BUT WE DON'T ALL HAVE TO PHYSICALLY BE TOGETHER, UM, USING SOME OF THOSE SAME METHODS THAT WE KIND OF LEARNED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SO THAT WILL START IN EARNEST PROBABLY EARLY SUMMER, WHICH WILL BE EXCITING.
AND THEN THE OTHER, ONLY OTHER THING I HAVE FOR YOU TONIGHT IS DON'T FORGET THAT WE ACTUALLY DO, UM, WE HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR A SPECIAL CALLED ON FOUR 18, UM, THAT WE HAD ASKED ABOUT.
AND I THINK WE ARE GOING TO NEED IT.
I'LL TRY TO STACK AS MANY THINGS.
WE'RE TRYING TO SPLIT 'EM UP IF WE KNOW WE HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED SPLIT 'EM UP BETWEEN THE TWO SO WE'RE NOT UM, HERE TOO LATE ON ANY OF THEM.
KNOWING THAT EVERYBODY'S TIME IS PRECIOUS.
UM, I DO HAVE A QUESTION, COMMENT.
I HAVEN'T SEEN THE MINUTES FOR MARCH 7TH.
WE HAD THE SPECIAL NO, YOU'RE RIGHT.
I'LL DOUBLE CHECK WITH WE'RE DONE.
I KNOW, I THINK IT, IT MAY HAVE HONESTLY JUST BEEN THAT.
UM, I WILL DOUBLE CHECK WITH ANGEL ON THAT.
AND THEN ALSO THE OTHER, UM, IF WE DID NOT HAVE IT ON AN AGENDA, OBVIOUSLY WE WILL NOT JUST HAVE YOU SIGN THAT, WE'LL HAVE TO BRING IT BACK.
BUT I'LL MAKE SURE THAT GETS ON THAT UM, APRIL 18TH.
I KNOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IT STARTING IN THE SUMMER.
I KNOW FOR THE COMP PLAN IT WAS A SEPARATE GROUP THAT WAS FORMED FOR IT FOR THE UDC, SINCE IT'S VERY FOCUSED ON PLANNING.
UM, WILL THIS COMMISSION ACTUALLY BE A PART OF THAT GROUP BY DEFAULT OR WILL IT JUST BE SELECT MEMBERS? KIND OF LIKE THE COMP PLAN? IT REALLY DEPENDS ON WHAT COUNCIL DECIDES.
UM, I THINK, I KNOW I WOULD ASK IF Y'ALL COULD ALL BE INVOLVED JUST BECAUSE SO MUCH OF WHAT WE DO AS A GROUP RELIES ON WHAT THE UDC IS.
UM, CERTAINLY I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF EXPERTS ON THIS BOARD THAT WOULD WANNA BE INVOLVED.
I KNOW THAT UM, COMMISSIONER SHORT FAGER HAD SAID THAT BEFORE JUST ON THE, THE LANDSCAPING PORTION AND THEN JUST, I MEAN HONESTLY JUST GENERAL DEVELOPMENT KNOWLEDGE.
I MEAN I THINK COMMISSIONER MIND YOURSELF, WILL YOU GET THAT ONE OF JUST, HEY THIS IS HOW OTHER PEOPLE HAVE DONE IT.
HEY WHAT ABOUT THIS? UM, GETTING SOME OF THAT INTO THE UDC IS GONNA BE VITAL.
I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO BE INVOLVED ONLY EVEN JUST BY DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO BE THE RECOMMENDING BODY.
BUT CERTAINLY MY REQUEST WOULD BE TO HAVE THIS GROUP AND THEN SOME OTHERS INVOLVED.
UM, INSTEAD OF JUST A FEW FROM THIS.
I THINK THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MADE SENSE.
IT WAS THE OVERARCHING, WE DIDN'T WANNA HAVE TOO MUCH JUST OF THE VOICE OF P AND Z.
UM, AND CERTAINLY ONE OF OUR E TG MEMBERS AND SOME UM, SOME OF THOSE ON THE ISD BOARD AND OTHERS FROM THE COMMUNITY.
BUT I THINK FOR THE UDC, BECAUSE IT IS SO PARTICULAR, MAYBE ADDING TO THIS GROUP, NOT JUST TAKING PORTIONS OF THIS GROUP WOULD BE MM-HMM.
I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GONNA BE MANDATORY.
IT'LL BE AN AS AS YOU CAN PARTICIPATE STYLE.
I DO WANNA MOVE FAIRLY FAST KNOWING HOW MANY JUST THINGS I'VE WRITTEN DOWN FROM THE UDC THAT I SEE THAT ARE PROBLEMATIC.
UM, AND THEN CERTAINLY MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE MAKING SPACE FOR ALL THE CONNECTIVITY AND THOSE UM, KIND OF NEW IDEAS AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UM, REALLY SHOW WHAT HATO IS MADE OF AND THAT, YOU KNOW, THE HIPPO WAY IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN PEOPLE ARE EXPECTING.
AND THEN ALSO START LOOKING AT UM, EVEN SOME WATER SAVING MEASURES.
CAUSE I KNOW THAT THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GONNA END UP GOING JUST AS A STATE, NOT JUST AS THE REGION.
AND WE'RE STILL PLANNING OR HOPING TO HAVE ENGINEERING
[00:40:01]
TACKED ONTO THAT AS WELL.THAT ACTUALLY IS PART OF THE RFQ.
MAINLY JUST BECAUSE IF WE UPDATE ALL THE UDC AND THE U AND THE ENGINEERING CRITERIA MANUAL IS NOT UPDATED AT THE SAME TIME WE ARE ONCE AGAIN DISJOINTED.
UM, AND WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE HAVE ANYBODY COMING IN TO DEVELOP THAT OUR MANUALS ARE MEETING OUR STANDARDS ASMA.
IF YOU DO FIND OUT WHEN IT IS ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA OKAY.
TO KIND OF MAKE THAT DECISION, LET US KNOW SO WE CAN OH ABSOLUTELY.
UH, NOTHING ELSE FOR UM, DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR.
SO THAT LEADS US TO, CAN I, UH, ASK A QUESTION TO OUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES? I'M TRYING TO VET IT RIGHT NOW, BUT YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU GO TO THE AGENDA MEETINGS, THE PROBLEM I WAS HAVING IS I HAVE A 30 PAGE PACKET THAT I DOWNLOADED FROM THE AGENDA MEETING.
UM, SO, UM, YOU KNOW HOW ON THE, THE UH, AGENDA MEETING YOU CAN CLICK ON THE P AND Z BUT TO THE RIGHT IT SAYS DOWNLOAD.
MM-HMM
THAT'S WHY I WAS WORKING OFF AND CONFUSED ABOUT PAGE NUMBERS.
AND THE ONE THAT'S ON, IF YOU GO DOWNLOAD THE PACKET YEAH.
SO I EMAILED ANGEL CUZ I THINK THE ONLINE VERSION DID NOT HAVE ITEM FIVE TWO ON IT.
BECAUSE WHEN I DOWNLOADED IT TODAY OR EVEN LAST WEEK, I ALWAYS DOWNLOAD A COPY AFTER I REVIEW IT AFTER IT'S UPLOADED.
SO I ALWAYS DO LIKE YOU ARROW DOWN AND DOWNLOAD.
BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK AT WITH CIVIC CLERK CUZ I KNOW ON ANOTHER ONE THAT WE HAD ON THIS PACKET, I'LL TRY TO VET IT A LITTLE MORE AND THEN REACH OUT TO YOU AND ANGEL SO Y'ALL HAVE SPEND SO MUCH TIME ON IT.
I CAN FIND OUT WHAT'S BUT EVEN WE CAN JUST SAY, HEY THIS, THIS CAME UP, CAN CIVIC CLERK LOOK INTO IT? OKAY.
MORE THAN, BECAUSE IT WAS THE SAME FOR ME WHEN I DOWNLOADED IT WAS, IT DID NOT HAVE FIVE TWO IN IT AT ALL.
CUZ WHEN I DOWNLOADED IT, I KNOW TODAY AND THEN LAST WEEK.
BUT I HAVE TO DO, I HAVE TO DO A FEW EXTRA STEPS WHEN I DO IT.
I DON'T JUST CLICK ON IT BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU KIND OF GET LIKE A, WELL I MEAN I KNOW THIS IS A LIVING DOCUMENT UP AND SOMETIMES EVEN HOURS BEFORE, BUT HOW DO YOU DO REVISION CONTROL? YEAH.
OURS IS NOT UM, STOP EDITING CHANGE AFTER ON FRIDAY.
ONCE WE POST THE AGENDA, WE'RE DONE.
I DOWNLOADED THIS ON SUNDAY AND IT'S 30 PAGE AND TODAY IT'S 37TH.
YEAH CUZ LAST WEEK ONCE IT WENT LIVE I GOT A 37.
IS THAT ALL A VIOLATION OF ANY KIND? UM, IF IT'S A CONTINUING ISSUE, I KNOW THAT WHAT WE POSTED, I DON'T THINK THE AGENDA PER SE YOU KNOW, CHARACTER BY CHARACTER, THE AGENDA IS NOT, IS PROBABLY NOT CHANGED.
YEAH, NO, THAT'S SOMEHOW THERE'S BEEN SOME PAGES ADDED.
BUT THAT, THAT'S WHAT WORRIES ME IS THE PACKET THAT I HAD WAS 37 PAGES.
THE ONE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT OUT WAS 37.
UM, I KNOW TODAY AT ONE POINT I DOWNLOADED IT, I DIDN'T GET EVERYTHING AND I WAS LIKE WHERE'S, BUT IT WASN'T FIVE WHEN, WHEN YOU SENT OUT.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN? UH, THE EMAIL, THE THE LINK.
THE LINK LINK THAT WE RECEIVED THAT ANGEL SENDS OUT.
SO I DON'T GET THE UH, DOUBLE CHECK CAUSE I KNOW YOU HAVE A FEW UM, EMAIL ADDRESSES.
MAKE SURE THAT ANGEL'S SENDING IT TO THE ONE THAT YOU PREFER TO.
ANGEL ONLY SENDS A LINK TO THE AGENDAS PAGE.
YEAH CUZ WE DON'T HAVE A DIRECT LINK TO THE PACKET WHEN THEY GET YOU BIG.
SO I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT HAPPENED CUZ IT WAS THE SAME FOR ME YET DOWNLOADED AT SUNDAY AND IT ONLY HAD 37.
AND THEN THE OTHER THING THAT WE DISCUSSED EARLIER IS, WELL SOME OF THE, I DUNNO WHAT PAGES ARE BUT 13 THROUGH 18 OF THE 30 PAGE DOCUMENT.
YOU CANNOT READ IT ALL AND YEAH.
AND MAGNIFICATION MAKES IT WORSE ACTUALLY.
THE IT, SO IT LOOKS LIKE THE PDF PAGES, WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN DOWN THE PDF PAGES OUT OF BLUEBEAM ONCE WE PDF THEM AGAIN ARE BLURRY WHEN WE ADD THEM TO THE PACKET.
THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION, I DON'T THINK IT'S A PRINTING RESOLUTION.
IT MIGHT BE REDUCING THE RESOLUTION CUZ WHEN YOU ADD COMMENTS IN BLUEBEAM IT'S MASSIVE.
THEY'RE HUGE FILES PER BUT IF THAT'S THE CASE THEN WE JUST NEED TO KNOW INTERNALLY THAT OKAY.
BUT WE HAVE TO UH, WE HAVE TO DOWNLOAD THE HIGHER RESOLUTION.
WE MAY HAVE JUST BEEN GOING WITH THE SMALLEST BECAUSE WELL AND ALSO THE COLOR, THE THE FONT COLOR BLUE ON WHITE MAKES THE EDGES EVEN LESS DISCRIMINATORY.
SO WE'RE GOING FOR STRAIGHT CHAOS HERE.
WE DID NOT MEAN TO DO THAT FOR YOU
NO, I JUST, IT'S A PROCEDURAL THING NOT TO BE SOLVED NOW MAKE IT HIGHER RESOLUTION.
IF YOU'RE DOING IT FOR PRINTING, YOU CAN MAKE IT A LESS, LESS WELL AND MAYBE NOT BECAUSE EVEN ON THE PRINTING IT, IT WASN'T SHOWING UP CUZ WE NOTICED THAT BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT 'EM AND ONLINE IT WASN'T AS BAD
CUZ I KEPT LOOKING AT IT, I WAS LIKE, IS IT NOT DOWNLOADING ALL THE WAY BECAUSE I MEAN IT LOOKED FUZZY FOR ME.
AGAIN, IT'S NOT TO SOLVE NOW JUST PROCEDURAL.
AND, AND CERTAINLY I THINK AS WE GO THROUGH, BECAUSE WE'RE START FINALLY STARTING TO PUT THINGS ON FOR DENIAL WHERE YOU'LL SEE ALL THE COMMENTS, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THAT WORK AS BEST AS POSSIBLE.
IT'S REALLY JUST TO GIVE YOU GUYS THE ABILITY TO SAY, OKAY, WE ACTUALLY, YOU CAN SEE THE PURPLE, YOU CAN SEE THE RED, UM, CUZ PLANNING IS PURPLE AND RED IS ENGINEERING.
SO YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE'S JUST A MULTITUDE OF COMMENTS ON THERE.
BUT CERTAINLY, YEAH, BECAUSE LAST TIME IT WAS OKAY, THE WAY THAT WE UPLOADED, I THINK SJS IT DID FINE.
[00:45:01]
YES.SO THAT'S WHY I WAS LIKE, OKAY, WE DID THE EXACT SAME THING AND THE PACKET DID NOT LOOK THE EXACT SAME WAY.
WE DOWNLOADED IT THE SAME WAY AND ALL OF A SUDDEN IT DIDN'T SHOW UP THE SAME WAY.
IT'S TRYING TO BE FUNNY, BUT MY WIFE SAYS IF I'M TRYING TO BE FUNNY, IT'S NOT FUNNY.
WELL, BUT YOU ALSO NOTICED ON THIS PACKET WE HAD FONT CHANGES AND WE DON'T CHANGE THE FONT WHEN WE'RE TYPING.
UM, AND THAT WAS ONE TO ME THAT I NOTICED AND I WAS LIKE, WELL I DON'T LIKE THAT.
AND WE, I KEPT GOING BACK IN AND TRYING TO CHANGE IT.
I WAS NOT HAPPY NO
SO THAT'S WHERE I'M LIKE, NO, THIS MAKES SENSE TO ME.
LIKE I DON'T LIKE WHEN A FONT CHANGES ON THE FRONT PAGE.
SO IF THERE'S NOTHING FURTHER, UH, LET'S ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT EIGHT 40 OR 7 46