>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. IT'S 6:30.
[00:00:03]
I'LL CALL THE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14TH, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING IN SESSION.DAN, WOULD YOU PLEASE GIVE US OUR INVOCATION?
>> HEAVENLY FATHER, WE THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS FOR THE CITY OF BURLESON ON THE BEHALF OF THE CITIZENS.
ASKING FOR YOUR GUIDANCE AND PROTECT OUR FIRST RESPONDERS AND OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AS THEY GET ABOUT THE DUTIES OF THEIR EVERYDAY BUSINESS.
WE ASK ALL THIS IN YOUR NAME. AMEN.
>> PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE.
THE FIRST ITEM WE HAVE IS CITIZENS APPEARANCES, AND ANYBODY CAN USE THIS TIME TO COME UP AND SPEAK ON AN ITEM THAT IS NOT LISTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.
IF ANYBODY WANTS TO COME UP AND SPEAK RIGHT NOW, THEY CAN.
NEXT IS THE CONSENT AGENDA AND
[2. Consent Agenda All items listed below are considered to be routine by the Planning and Zoning Commission and will be enacted with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of the items unless a Commissioner or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence. Approval of the consent agenda authorizes the Development Services Director to place each item on the City Council agenda in accordance with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations.]
THESE ITEMS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, WILL BE ENACTED IN ONE MOTION UNLESS SOMEBODY FROM THE AUDIENCE OR THE P&Z COMMISSION WANTS TO PULL AN ITEM.IF NOT, THEN I WILL NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
>> I DON'T WISH TO PULL AN ITEM, BUT I HAVE A QUESTION.
>> OKAY. SURE. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE.
I LIVE AT 8316 COUNTY ROAD 528.
UNTIL WE HAD DISCOVERED THAT ORIGINAL SURVEY THAT WAS MADE FROM OUR WILL WAS INADEQUATE AT 90 FEET ACROSS THE PROPERTY WAS LEFT OFF.
WHEN I CALLED TO TALK TO A SURVEYOR ABOUT THIS IS WHEN I FOUND ABOUT AS BEING IN THE ETJ.
DOES THE CITY NOT NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS OF BEING PUT IN THE ETJ?
>> BECAUSE NOBODY ON MY STREET KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS A NOTICE THAT ONCE THE ETJ IS CREATED, NOT EVERYBODY GETS NOTIFIED.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? NO, NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
>> HAVE A MOTION BY JASON AND A SECOND BY CHRIS.
ALL ON FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
ALL OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
ALL RIGHT. NEXT UP ARE OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS.
[A. Bluebird Meadows Planned Development located northeast of the intersection of FM 1902 and County Road 910B (Case 21-109): Hold a public hearing and consider a request to amend the Bluebird Meadows PD, Planned Development Ordinance (D-047).]
OUR FIRST ITEM WILL BE ITEM 3A AND THIS IS THE BLUEBIRD MEADOWS PLAN DEVELOPMENT LOCATED NORTHEAST OF INTERSECTION OF FM 1902 AND COUNTY ROAD 19B.>> THANK YOU, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
FOR THE RECORD, JP'S UK DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SENIOR PLANNER PRESENTING CASE 21-109, THE BLUEBIRD MEADOWS PLAN DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT.
THE CITY OF BURLESON SUBMITTED THIS APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER, THE BLUEBIRD MEADOWS HOA, AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 73.7 ACRES.
THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, SPECIFICALLY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT D-047.
THE APPLICATION IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY IS NOT PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE SITES ZONING, BUT RATHER AMEND THE EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.
WHY DOES THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT NEED TO BE AMENDED? THE SUBJECT PLAN DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE BLUEBIRD MEADOWS REPLAT UNDER CASE NUMBER 21-106, WHICH IS ON TONIGHT'S CONSENT AGENDA.
THIS REPLAT IS PROPOSING THE CREATION OF THREE RESIDENTIAL LOTS FROM A PREVIOUSLY PLATTED COMMON AREA IN PHASE TWO OF THE BLUEBIRD MEADOWS SUBDIVISION.
IF APPROVED, THE CREATION OF THOSE THREE LOTS WILL INHERENTLY IMPACT THE EXISTING PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND IT MUST BE AMENDED IN ORDER TO ACCURATELY REFLECT THOSE CHANGES.
SOME OF THOSE CHANGES INCLUDE UPDATING THE EXHIBITS,
[00:05:01]
SUCH AS THE EXISTING PD ORDINANCE.THE CURRENT EXISTING PD ORDINANCE UTILIZES THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT AS AN EXHIBIT AND OFTEN REFERENCES THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ALL RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THROUGHOUT THE PD.
IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE IMAGE ON THE SCREEN, YOU CAN SEE NUMBER 1 AND NUMBER 3, LOT SIZE REFERRED TO EXHIBIT A OR NUMBER 3 REFERRED TO EXHIBIT A.
THIS IS A SECTION WITHIN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT THAT REFERENCES THE EXHIBIT QUITE A FEW TIMES..
THE ISSUE WITH THIS IS THAT THE EXHIBIT DOES NOT REFLECT THE PROPOSED THREE LOTS THAT THE ACCOMPANYING REPLAT IS REQUESTING.
THE EXISTING PRELIMINARY PLAT DOES CONTAIN ALL OF THE BLUEBIRD MEADOW SUBDIVISION.
HOWEVER, LIKE I MENTIONED, IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED HERE TODAY.
SOME ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT'LL HAVE TO BE AMENDED ARE THE COMMON AREA LANGUAGE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THIS WILL HAVE TO BE CHANGED OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE THE COMMON AREA IS GOING TO BE IMMEDIATELY IMPACTED BY THE CREATION OF THE THREE LOTS AS THE THREE LOTS ARE BEING CREATED OUT OF THE COMMON AREA.
I'M SURE SOME OF YOU ARE AWARE THAT THE BLUEBIRD MEADOWS SUBDIVISION HAS A PRETTY LENGTHY HISTORY AND SO I WANTED TO TOUCH ON SOME KEY DATES FOR YOU.
ON MAY 13TH, 2004, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE ORIGINAL REQUEST TO SHIFT THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT THIS WAS UNDER ORDINANCE D-023.
THEN ON AUGUST 25TH, 2005, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS UNDER D-047, AND THIS IS CURRENTLY THE MOST ACCURATE AND UP-TO-DATE PLAN DEVELOPMENT THAT WE HAVE.
THE SITE THEN BEGAN TO BE PHASED, PLATTED, AND DEVELOPED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLAN DEVELOPMENT, WHICH LIKE I MENTIONED, IS D-047.
DURING THE APPROVAL PROCESS OF PHASE 2, FINAL PLAT, THE APPLICANT WAS GRANTED APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A PLAYGROUND AND MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO COMMON AREA D. I'VE HIGHLIGHTED COMMON AREA D ON THE PICTURE ON YOUR SCREEN THAT IS REALLY GOING TO BE THE SUBJECT OF TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION.
AFTER PHASE 2 WAS DEVELOPED, THE IMPROVEMENTS MADE TO COMMON AREA D, WE'RE NOT SATISFACTORY TO THE BLUEBIRD MEADOWS HOA.
IN EFFORT TO IMPROVE THE COMMON AREA, THE CITY OF BURLESON ENTERED INTO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OR AN MOU WITH BLUEBIRD MEADOWS HOA, LIKE I SAID, IN EFFORT TO IMPROVE THE COMMON AREA.
THE PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE OF THE MOU IS TO DOCUMENT THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE HOA MAY IMPROVE ITS PARK AMENITIES AND THE CITY MAY IMPROVE THE CONNECTIVITY AND SO PIGGY-BACKING OFF OF THE PURPOSE.
THE THREE MAIN GOALS OF THE MOU INCLUDE IMPROVING THE PARKS AMENITIES, IMPROVING THE PARKS CONNECTIVITY, AND THEN CREATING THREE NEW RESIDENTIAL LOTS FROM THE PREVIOUSLY PLATTED COMMON AREA D. THE IMAGE ON THE SCREEN YOU CAN SEE I HAVE LOTS 18, 19, AND 20 HIGHLIGHTED THOSE ARE THE THREE LOTS THAT THE ACCOMPANYING REPLAT IS PROPOSING TO CREATE OUT OF COMMON AREA D. COMMON AREA D WAS ORIGINALLY ABOUT 3.8 ACRES, YOU CAN SEE HERE NOW IT'S ABOUT 2.7 THESE THESE THREE LOTS ARE GOING TO TAKE UP ABOUT A LITTLE OVER ONE ACRE.
THEN THIS IS THE CURRENT APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PHASE 2 OF BLUEBIRD MEADOWS, AND THIS IS WHAT IS UTILIZED CURRENTLY AS THE EXHIBIT IN THE EXISTING PLAN DEVELOPMENT.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S ABOUT 3.8 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE AND THE POND THAT YOU CAN SEE THERE ALSO IS NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE.
THIS IS WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED BY THE ACCOMPANYING BLUEBIRD MEADOWS REPLAT.
OBVIOUSLY THE CHANGE BEING THE CREATION OF THREE LOTS AND SUBSEQUENT REDUCTION OF THE EXISTING COMMON AREA D. AS WE DISCUSSED, THE SUBJECT BLUEBIRD MEADOWS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MUST BE AMENDED IN ORDER TO ACCURATELY REFLECT THE CHANGES BEING MADE BY THE ACCOMPANYING REPLAT.
THIS IS WHAT SOME OF THOSE AMENDMENTS WILL LOOK LIKE.
IF YOU TAKE A LOOK TO THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN, THE VERY FIRST THREE THINGS YOU CAN SEE IN RED ARE ALL PRETTY SIMILAR.
THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST REOCCURRING AMENDMENT THAT WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD TODAY.
A LOT OF THIS LANGUAGE READS AS, AND AS AMENDED BY EXHIBIT A1.
THE REASON FOR THAT IS THE ACCOMPANYING REPLAT WILL HAVE TO BE UTILIZED AS
[00:10:02]
AN EXHIBIT BECAUSE THE CURRENT EXHIBIT WITHIN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT IS THAT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT.LIKE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, THAT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE THREE LOTS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED IN THE REPLAT.
SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT'S BEING AMENDED, YOU CAN SEE AT NUMBER 7, THE DENSITY 214 LOTS.
OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S THREE LOTS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED, SO THE NUMBER OF LOTS WITHIN THE PD NEEDS TO BE UPDATED AS WELL.
I DID HAVE SOMEONE FROM THE PUBLIC REACH OUT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT BLUEBIRD MEADOWS CASES 17-119 AND 17-131.
I WANTED TO TOUCH ON THOSE TWO REQUESTS BRIEFLY.
IN 2017, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT AND ACCOMPANYING PRELIMINARY PLAT, SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD TODAY.
HOWEVER, TODAY IT'S A REPLAT, RATHER THAN A PRELIMINARY PLAT.
ALSO, WHAT DIFFERENTIATES THE TWO PROPOSALS IS THAT THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT THAT CAME FORWARD IN 2018 REQUESTED TO RELOCATE THE PARK AMENITIES TO A DIFFERENT COMMON AREA, AND UPDATE THE FENCING LANGUAGE.
I PUT A STAR, AND I HIGHLIGHTED THE TWO IMPORTANT PARTS OF THIS MAP HERE.
THE HIGHLIGHTED SECTION IS COMMON AREA D, THE SUBJECT LOCATION THAT WE'VE HIGHLIGHTED ALL NIGHT HERE.
THEN THE STAR IS THE OTHER COMMON AREA.
THE APPLICANT WAS PROPOSING TO TAKE ALL OF THE PARK AMENITIES THAT WERE LOCATED IN COMMON AREA D, AND BRING THEM OVER TO COMMON AREA A, WHICH IS WHERE YOU COULD SEE THE STAR.
THEN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT WAS PROPOSED WAS REQUESTING TO CREATE SEVEN RESIDENTIAL LOTS FROM THE EXISTING COMMON AREA.
THIS IS THE ACTUAL PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
YOU CAN SEE THERE'S NO OPEN SPACE, THERE'S NO COMMON AREA.
THAT'S SEVEN LOTS THAT WERE PUT INTO THE CURRENT OPEN SPACE.
AT LEAST, THAT'S WHAT THEY PROPOSED TO DO.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT BOTH OF THESE REQUESTS WERE WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT IN OCTOBER OF 2018.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICTS TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, AND WEST, MOSTLY BEING RESIDENTIAL USES.
HOWEVER, DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM FM 1902, THERE IS A MIDDLE SCHOOL WITH THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING.
THEN IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST, THE SUBJECT SITE ABUTS THE ETJ BOUNDARY, WHICH APPEARS TO HAVE RESIDENTIAL USES.
THE CITY'S IMAGINE BURLESON 2030 MIDPOINT UPDATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS SITE AS NEIGHBORHOODS.
THIS ZONING AMENDMENT ALIGNS WITH THE GOALS AND THE OBJECTIVES IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
FOR PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES, LETTERS WERE MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
NOTIFICATIONS WAS PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER, AND A SIGN WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY.
STAFF RECEIVED TWO INQUIRIES FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING THIS REQUEST AND ONE FORMAL LETTER OF OPPOSITION.
YOU CAN SEE THE ONE LETTER OF OPPOSITION IS DEPICTED BY THAT RED BOX IN THE IMAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN.
THE BLUEBIRD MEADOWS HOA DID PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THESE AMENDMENTS.
IN THIS REQUEST, I HAVE ATTACHED THEIR LETTER OF SUPPORT ABOVE, AND IT IS ALSO IN YOUR PACKETS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO THE BLUEBIRD MEADOWS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, D-047.
THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS ARE REQUESTED: OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO BLUEBIRD MEADOWS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE D-047.
IF YOU'VE GOT ANY QUESTIONS, I AM AVAILABLE.
I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:44 PM, AND ASK IF ANYBODY FROM THE AUDIENCE WANTS TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THIS.
>> IF I MAY, I DO HAVE A PUBLIC MEETING SPEAKER CARD THAT WAS SUBMITTED ONLINE TODAY THAT I'D LIKE TO READ INTO THE RECORD.
>> WE RECEIVED THIS PUBLIC MEETING SPEAKER CARD THIS AFTERNOON FROM DARREN RAY, ADDRESS AT 1522 GRASSY MEADOWS DRIVE, BURLESON, TEXAS, REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR ITEM THIS EVENING.
THE COMMENT NOTES THAT THEY ARE OPPOSED TO THE AMENDMENT TO BLUEBIRD MEADOWS PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE D-047,
[00:15:01]
CASE 21-109, AND THE REPLAT OF PHASE 2 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSES ON LOTS 18, 19, AND 20, BLOCK 7, CASE 21-106, AS THEY WILL OBSTRUCT OUR VIEW FROM LOT 3, BLOCK 7.I ALSO JUST WANT TO NOTE FOR CLARIFICATION, REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, EVERY RESIDENT IN BLUEBIRD MEADOWS WAS NOTICED IN ADDITION TO 300 FEET AROUND THE SUBJECT SITE.
JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT FOR THE RECORD.
>> THANK YOU, JENNIFER. DOES ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO COME AND SPEAK ON THIS ITEM TONIGHT? SURE, IF YOU'LL JUST COME IN.
JUST SAY YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.
YOU'LL NEED TO FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD TOO, WHEN YOU'RE FINISHED.
>> I'M SORRY. WE JUST LIKE THE RAIN IN HERE.
>> [LAUGHTER] KID'S ACTIVITIES.
I LIVE ON PHASE 225 OF BLUEBIRD MEADOWS AT 6508, DO CHECK.
I AM ON THE HOA BOARD AS THE TREASURER.
WE JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, WE ARE DOING A VOTE WITH THE RESIDENTS, AS FAR AS IF THE RESIDENTS WOULD LIKE TO SELL THE PROPERTY SO WE COULD PUT THAT MONEY BACK INTO OUR COMMUNITY.
SO FAR, WE'VE HAD ABOUT 55 VOTES OUT OF THE 135-ISH RESIDENTS' VOTE SO FAR.
RIGHT NOW, WE'RE AT ABOUT 37 YES, AND ABOUT 15 NO.
I THINK THAT'S THE MATH. I DON'T KNOW.
I HAVE TO LOOK AT IT, BUT IT'S ROUGHLY ABOUT THAT NUMBER.
SO FAR, WE'RE PRETTY FAVORABLE INTO SELLING THOSE LOTS SO WE CAN GET A BETTER PARK, AND WE CAN DO MUCH, HAVE A BETTER COMMUNITY, AS FAR AS THAT SIDE OF THE COMMUNITY IS CONCERNED.
I KNOW THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE LOOKS OF IT.
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, PEOPLE LIKE THEIR VIEW OF THE FIELD.
YOU'D LIKE NOT HAVING PEOPLE LIVING THERE.
WE HAD SPOKEN AS A BOARD WITH [INAUDIBLE], THE PRESIDENT.
WE HAD OFFERED SOME OF THE RESIDENTS, IF THEY WANT US TO HELP THEM WITH FENCING TO MAKE IT MORE OF A PRIVACY FENCE OR SOME TREES.
WE'RE MORE THAN WILLING TO WORK WITH THEM.
I KNOW WE CAN'T MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY, BUT AT LEAST, WE CAN HAVE A COMMON GROUND SO WE CAN HAVE A BETTER PARK FOR THE KIDS, BUT THEN ALSO GIVE PEOPLE SOME MORE PRIVACY THAT'S EXPECTED OF BLANK FIELD FOR THAT FIELD.
WE ARE TRYING MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, BUT WE'RE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE SPACE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT.
>> YES, MA'AM. ANYBODY ELSE? YES.
>> HI, MY NAME IS AMY FRANK'S, RESIDENT BLUEBIRD MEADOWS, PHASE 235, ADDRESS IS 6512 BLUE JACK.
I'M ALSO THE SECRETARY OF THE HOA.
WE ARE HERE TO SHOW SUPPORT FOR THIS MEASURE.
HAVE TO FORGIVE US FOR COMING IN LATE.
GENTRY DID MEAN TO BE HERE, BUT ILLNESS GOT A HOLD OF HIS HOUSEHOLD, WE HAD SOME RESTRUCTURING TO DO.
BUT VERY MUCH LIKE LESLIE SAID, OUR MAIN GOAL IN THIS IS TO PROVIDE A GOOD, USABLE, COMMUNITY SPACE FOR THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IDEALLY, IF THIS GETS APPROVED, IF WE SELL THE LOTS, ALL THE FUNDS FROM THE SALE OF THOSE LOTS WOULD BE INVESTED BACK INTO THAT SPACE, NOT ONLY THAT GREEN SPACE, BUT ALSO AROUND OUR POND AS WELL.
WE'RE TRYING TO THINK OF ALL THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN OUR COMMUNITY.
IT IS PROBABLY A MAJORITY OF YOUNGER FAMILIES, BUT WE DO HAVE RETIRED COUPLES THERE.
WE ALSO HAVE SINGLE RESIDENTS THERE, WE HAVE RESIDENTS WITH OLDER KIDS, WE HAVE RESIDENTS WHOSE KIDS MAY NOT USE THE PLAYGROUND, BUT THEY'RE VERY INTERESTED IN FISHING IN OUR POND.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO JUST CREATE SOME COMMON AREAS, SOME COMMON SPACE THAT EVERYBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAN ENJOY.
ALSO, LIKE LESLIE SAID, WE'RE MORE THAN WILLING AND I THINK GENTRY MAY HAVE SPOKEN WITH SOME OF THOSE NEIGHBORS WHO WILL BE IMMEDIATELY IMPACTED THAT SURROUND THAT GREEN SPACE WITH WORKING WITH THEM TO DO WHAT WE CAN DO TO HELP MITIGATE THE ADDITION OF THOSE THREE LOTS AND THEIR HOUSES.
LESLIE AND I ARE AVAILABLE IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS IN REGARDS TO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
>> OKAY. I GUESS THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS THAT YOU HAVE PUT THIS FOR A VOTE [OVERLAPPING] TO THE HOUSES, AND IF IT GETS APPROVED TONIGHT AND CITY COUNCIL APPROVES IT, THEN I GUESS IT'S SUBJECT TO THE VOTE OF THE HOA,
[00:20:02]
AND IF THE HOA APPROVES IT, THEN IT'LL GO THROUGH AND IF NOT, THEN IT [OVERLAPPING] STAYS.>> THEN IT WILL NOT. THAT IS A COMMITMENT THAT WE MADE TO OUR NEIGHBORS, TO THE RESIDENTS THERE, REGARDLESS OF WHAT PNZ DECIDES, REGARDLESS OF WHAT CITY COUNCIL DECIDES IF IT GOES FORWARD, IF THE MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD DO NOT WANT TO SELL THOSE LOTS, WE WILL NOT GO FORWARD.
>> OKAY. IS THERE A DEADLINE FOR THE VOTE [OVERLAPPING]?
>> IT IS THIS FRIDAY, I BELIEVE AT 11:59 PM, WE WANTED TO GIVE RESIDENTS TIME TO ASK QUESTIONS OF US, ATTEND THE HEARING HERE, ATTEND THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING NEXT WEEK.
WE JUST WANTED TO GIVE THEM PLENTY OF TIME TO REALLY BE THOUGHTFUL AND THINK ABOUT IT.
>> DOES THE HOA OWN THAT PROPERTY?
>> OKAY. THAT'S GOOD, THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL OPEN.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO COME SPEAK? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:51 AND ASK THE COMMISSION IF THEY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
>> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS; IS THE REASON WHY YOU'RE SELLING THESE LOTS OR WANTING TO HAVE THESE LOTS IS SO THAT YOU CAN PUT THE MONEY BACK INTO THE PLAY AREAS, OR THE COMMON AREAS?
AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT VERY BIG, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF HOUSES THERE.
OUR ANNUAL HOA DUES ARE $300 A YEAR, AND PRETTY MUCH WHERE WE STAND NOW, WHAT WE GET IN A YEAR IS JUST ENOUGH TO COVER BASICALLY OUR YEARLY EXPENSES.
EVERYTHING FROM MOWING, WHICH IS A HUGE PART OF OUR BILL.
MOWING IS PROBABLY OUR BIGGEST EXPENSE.
ELECTRICITY FOR THE PUMP IN OUR PONDS, PROPERTY TAXES, LIABILITY INSURANCE, THINGS LIKE THAT.
HONESTLY, SELLING THESE THREE LOTS, IN ADDITION TO PROVIDING FUNDS FOR US TO ADD AMENITIES AND UPGRADE OUR COMMON AREAS, IT'S ALSO GOING TO HELP ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE BURDENS ON US, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO MOW THOSE THREE LOTS ANYMORE.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO PAY PROPERTY TAXES ON THOSE THREE LOTS ANYMORE.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AS BIG OF A LIABILITY IF WE SELL THOSE THREE LOTS AND THEY'RE DEVELOPED AS JUST HAVING A BIG BLANK OPEN FIELD RIGHT NOW.
THERE'S JUST A LOT OF PROS FOR SELLING FOR US.
>> YOU SENT THIS TO A VOTE TO THE HOMEOWNERS.
WHAT IS IT, 130 ELIGIBLE VOTERS AND 55 HAVE RESPONDED?
>> YOU SAID THAT THERE WAS AN OVERWHELMING SUPPORT FOR THIS TO HAPPEN?
>> YES SIR. AS OF THE LAST TIME WE CHECKED, I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHEN IT WAS LAST UPDATED.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. YES, 55 TOTAL HAD VOTED.
THERE WERE A TOTAL OF 16 NO, A TOTAL OF 38 YES, WITH ONE ABSTENTION.
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS WE WOULD LIKE TO GET IF WE CAN, AND THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY WE HELD A VOTE OPEN AS LONG AS WE DID, WE WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO GET AT LEAST 85, 86 VOTES, AND BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE KIND OF A TWO-THIRDS PORTION OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD, SAYING WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD REPRESENTATIVE MAJORITY.
>> WE SENT THEM OUT LAST TUESDAY, SO ABOUT A WEEK.
>> HISTORICALLY, HOW DOES THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS ALIGN WITH OTHER THINGS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE VOTED ON?
>> TO BE QUITE HONEST, WE HAVEN'T VOTED ON ANYTHING YET.
IT WAS JUST TURNED OVER TO US MID-MAY FROM THE DEVELOPERS, SO THIS IS THE FIRST BIG VOTE THAT WE'VE HAD ON ANYTHING.
>> OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. THAT'S ALL.
>> MAY I SAY ANYTHING? THERE WERE A FEW OF US THAT WERE AROUND IN THOSE 17 CASES, BUT I'M GLAD TO SEE SOME POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS BEING MADE ON ESPECIALLY THE PARK THERE.
THAT WAS SOME CONCERN A FEW YEARS AGO.
BUT IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE THEN, WE NEED TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT CASE NUMBER 21-109.
>> THE MOTION BY DAN AND A SECOND BY JASON.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ALL OPPOSED? NO. MOTION PASSES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
ALL RIGHT. NEXT UP IS ITEM 3B,
[B. Ordinance modification for Article 2. Platting Policies (Case 21-099): Hold a public hearing and consider an ordinance amending ordinance B-582 (A0508), being Article 2. Platting Policies, to modify the Final Plat and Replat policies selecting Planning and Zoning Commission the approval body for Final Plats (FP) and Replats (RP) within the City limits. ]
THIS IS AN ORDINANCE MODIFICATION FOR ARTICLE 2 PLANNING POLICIES, CASE 21-099, AND [INAUDIBLE] GOOD TO SEE YOU.>> GOOD TO SEE YOU AS WELL. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
BLIND PEERS, PLANNER, CITY OF BURLESON PRESENTING CASE 21-099.
[00:25:08]
THIS IS ESSENTIALLY AMENDMENT TO OUR SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE IS OUR APPENDIX ALPHA.IN EARLY AUGUST, CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO AMEND THE PLAT APPROVAL PROCESS ESSENTIALLY TO MAKE THIS COMMISSION P&Z THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY FOR PLATS AND THE ETJ AND CITY LIMITS.
ESSENTIALLY, TO ALLOW APPLICANTS AND PLATS BASED ON THEIR MERITS AND MEET THE REGULATIONS AND OUR CODE IS WRITTEN TO BE APPROVED AT THIS LEVEL AND TO POTENTIALLY SAVE SEVERAL WEEKS OF THEIR APPROVAL PROCESS.
THIS WILL NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT ALL PLATS WILL STILL GO THROUGH COMPLETE THE AC REVIEWS.
THEY'LL STILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH ANY ENGINEERING BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
JUST A BRIEF SUMMARY AND THEN I'LL SHOW SOME OF THE BREAKDOWN, BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY IN THE CODE WE'VE AMENDED EVERYWHERE TO MAKE P&Z THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY ON PRELIMINARY, FINAL, AND REPLATS IN THE CITY AND ETJ, ANY WRITTEN APPEALS ARE FOR DENIED PLATS.
ANY APPLICANT THAT ESSENTIALLY WRITES TO US AND APPEALS THE DECISION TO THIS BOARD WE'LL STILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL FOR A HEARING.
WE'VE ALSO CLARIFIED WHY WE'RE DOING THIS UPDATE SOME LANGUAGE ON EXEMPTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT PROCESS, SOMETHING THAT WE'RE ALREADY DOING, THE LANGUAGE WASN'T VERY GOOD, WE UPDATED THAT.
THIS IS A BREAKDOWN OF THE SECTIONS IN THE CODE.
I DON'T WANT TO BORE YOU TO DEATH WITH TEXTS, BUT I'VE TRIED TO SUMMARIZE ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'VE DONE.
BUT IT CLARIFIES ANYWHERE WHERE IT SAID THAT A PLAT WILL GO TO P&Z AND CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL ESSENTIALLY JUST SAY P&Z OR CITY COUNCIL, IT GIVES THAT FLEXIBILITY THAT IT MEETS THE INTENT THAT THIS BOARD CAN APPROVE PLATS.
IT STILL HAS THE LEGAL LANGUAGE THAT IF IT'S APPEALED THEY'LL GO TO CITY COUNCIL.
THIS BREAKS INTO THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS.
SECTION 2 AND WITHIN ARTICLE 2 IS ESSENTIALLY THE APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISIONS.
I SAID, IT STILL ALLOWS FOR P&Z, BUT IT HAS CITY COUNCIL STILL IN THERE FOR SOME REASON.
IF P&Z COULDN'T MEET OFF DENIED AND IT WAS APPEALED.
IT STILL CAN GO TO CITY COUNCIL, IT DOESN'T TIE THE HANDS OF THE CITY IN ANY WAY IN THAT REGARD.
ARTICLE 3 IS FOR PRELIMINARY PLATS.
IT JUST MODIFIES THAT APPROVAL TO SAY THAT IF P&Z.
AGAIN, IT WOULD GO ON TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FOR APPEALS OF THIS BOARD'S DECISION ONLY.
THEN WE ADDED THIS SECTION THAT CLARIFY EXEMPTIONS.
ESSENTIALLY, IF A SUBDIVISION IS BUILT IN ONE PHASE, CURRENT PROCESS WAS THAT A COULD BYPASS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT PROCESS.
HOWEVER, OUR CODE HAD SOME OLD LANGUAGE ABOUT ESSENTIALLY A COMBINATION PLAT.
SOMETHING THAT WASN'T EXISTENT, HAD BEEN REMOVED IN YEARS PRIOR.
WE JUST WENT IN THERE AND CLEAN THAT UP TO SPECIFY THAT IF THEY BUILD IT IN ONE SINGLE PHASE, THEY CAN GO STRAIGHT TO A FINAL PLAT, WON'T CHANGE ANY OF OUR PROCESSES THE WAY THEY CURRENTLY ARE.
JUST CLEANS UP OUR LANGUAGE IN THE CODE.
AGAIN, JUST CHANGES A LITTLE BIT OF THE LANGUAGE TO SHOW THAT P&Z IS THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY.
THE SAME AGAIN FOR THE REPLATS. IN SECTION 3.6.
IN YOUR PACKET, IT HAS THE EXACT WORDS, BUT ESSENTIALLY WE'VE CHANGED 'ANDS TO ORS' OR 'SHALLS TO WILLS'.
IT JUST VARIES. MINOR CHANGES IN THE LANGUAGE.
AT THIS TIME. STAFF REQUESTS THEY OPEN THE HEARING, CLOSE THE HEARING, AND THEN WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONING CHANGE FOR THIS AMENDMENT.
I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT THE TEXT OR THE UPDATE.
>> THANK YOU. LINE. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6: 58 AND ASK IF ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WANTS TO SPEAK.
[LAUGHTER] SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6: 59 AND ASK ANYBODY ON THE COMMISSION.
>> IS THIS SOMETHING THAT OTHER CITIES HAVE TAKEN OVER AND DONE.
I MEAN, A LOT OF WE'RE DOING THAT ARE? WHY DID THIS?
DEFINITELY DIFFERENT CITIES HAVE GONE TO P&Z OR ARE SOME JUST HAVE CITY COUNCIL AS THEIR AUTHORITY DOESN'T EVEN GO TO P&Z.
THERE'S A MIX ACROSS IN TEXAS.
A LOT OF CHANGES HAPPENED WITH A 30-DAY SHOT CLOCK REQUIREMENT.
REALLY JUST TO GET DEVELOPERS THAT ARE MEETING THE INTENT AND PLATS.
ESSENTIALLY, IF A PLAT COMES BEFORE YOU, YOU'RE DISAPPROVING OR APPROVING IT BASED ON ITS MERITS OF A PLAT AND IF IT MEETS THE CODE.
CITY COUNCIL HAVING P&Z BE IN THAT AUTHORITY, IS NOT UNCOMMON.
GENERALLY IN A CITY THAT HAS, I WON'T SPEAK FOR CITY COUNCIL, BUT THEY HAVE FAITH IN THE P&Z IS DOING THEIR PART.
[00:30:03]
WE'VE SEEN THOSE CHANGES.SOME CITIES STILL GO THROUGH FULL HEARINGS FOR EVERY PLATS.
A LOT OF CITIES ARE TRANSITIONING TO ALL PLATS ON CONSENT AGENDA.
THERE'S JUST A VARYING DEGREE OF HOW CITIES DO IT.
BUT THIS IS WELL WITHIN OUR, WE'RE NOT OUTSIDE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OR ANYTHING BY MAKING THESE AMENDMENTS.
>> IS THIS IN ANY WAY GOING TO MAKE IT MORE OR MAKE IT WHERE THE GENERAL PUBLIC WOULDN'T HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF CERTAIN THINGS THAT MAY BE GOING ON IN THE CITY.
>> NARRATIVES GOES. I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO TRY AND PULL THE WOOL OVER SOMEBODY'S EYES OR SOMETHING COMING IN THAT THEY MIGHT NOT-
>> TRUE. DEFINITELY, THIS WON'T CHANGE OR TAKE AWAY ANYBODY'S ABILITY TO MAKE COMMENTS OR TO ATTEND A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PLAT.
ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE NOTIFIED IF THERE WAS ANY WAIVER OR VARIANCE REQUESTS FROM THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, IT WOULD STILL GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS AS IT DOES TODAY WITH NOTICES AND IN PUBLIC HEARING.
IT ISN'T AN ANY INTENT TO NOT ALLOW PUBLIC INPUT.
IT'S PURELY AN INTENT TO ALLOW DEVELOPERS AND APPLICANTS AND ESPECIALLY REPLATS BASIC ITEMS THAT MEET THE CODE IS WRITTEN TO GET TO APPROVAL WITHIN THAT 30 DAYS VERSUS HAVING AN ADDITIONAL MEETING, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CONSIDER A LOT OF ITEMS ARE ON CONSENT AGENDA ITEM HERE AND THEN THEY GO ON CONSENT AGENDA ITEM THERE.
IT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY ANY RIGHTS, WE'RE NOT INFRINGING UPON ANYBODY'S ABILITY TO SPEAK OR BE A PART OF THE PROCESS FOR THE PLANNING.
>> IS THIS GOING TO GO ON CONSENT OR IS IT GOING TO STILL BE IN THE 4A?
>> IT WILL STILL BE THE SAME WAY THAT YOU DO IT NOW.
A PLAT THAT CURRENTLY IS ON CONSENT AGENDA, IT'LL STILL BE IN CONSENT AGENDA, IT JUST WON'T GO TO CITY COUNCIL.
YOU'LL BE THE ROLE OF AUTHORITY IF IT REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING NOW, IT WILL STILL REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE DIDN'T CHANGE ANY OF THAT LANGUAGE.
THE ONLY LANGUAGE THAT WAS CHANGED IS JUST THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY AND THEN SPECIFICALLY PUT LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT IF IT'S APPEALED IT WILL STILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL THAT NOBODY THOUGHT THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE THEIR RIGHT TO APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL.
>> WHICH WOULD BE THE CASE RIGHT NOW ANYWAYS, IF YOU GUYS DENIED AN ETJ PLAT, THEY COULD APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL ANYWAY, DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE ANYTHING.
WE JUST MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT NOBODY THINKS WE'RE MAKING ANY SHORTCUTS STILL FULL DAC REVIEW.
THEY'RE GOING TO GET ALL THE SAME COMMENT LETTERS.
IT'S STILL GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL OUR ENGINEERING CIVIL REVIEWS.
IT'S JUST YOU GUYS ARE NOW ON THE HOT SEAT FOR APPROVING IT.
>> I THINK THAT MAKES IT MORE CRITICAL FOR US WHEN WE CONSIDER ZONING CHANGES.
>> I THINK IT'S EASY FOR US SOMETIMES WHEN A ZONING CHANGE COMES UP, LIKE, YEAH, CHANGE IT TO THIS NOT THAT BIG A DEAL.
THEN THREE FOUR YEARS LATER YOU GET A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WAS NOT AT ALL WHAT YOU WANTED IN THAT AREA, BUT YOU HAVE REALLY NO CHOICE TO DENY IT IF IT MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA.
I WOULD BE MUCH MORE CAUTIOUS OF APPROVING SOME TYPE OF ZONING CHANGE WITHOUT SOME TYPE OF PLAN, A WRITTEN PLAN OR PLAN ON RECORD OF WHAT'S GOING TO GO THERE, THAT MAYBE THE WAY WE'VE DONE THINGS IN THE PAST.
>> I AGREE. STAFF ENCOURAGES ANY ZONE CHANGES TO ALWAYS HAVE A PLAT WITH IT.
WE CAN'T ALWAYS MAKE THEM DO THAT.
THEY HAVE CERTAIN RIGHTS, BUT THAT IS PRETTY COMMON WITH A LOT OF CITIES.
WITH ZONE CHANGES, THEY WANT TO SEE THE PLAT OR THE SITE PLAN ALONG WITH IT.
THIS WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING WITH THE ZONING ASPECT OF IT.
ZONING, IT'LL STILL GO THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THAT'S STILL A VERY DISCRETIONARY, WHEREAS PLATS ARE APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED BASED ON THEIR MERITS AS A PLAT AND THE REGULATIONS.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I WOULD NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE OR DENY, [LAUGHTER] JUST A MOTION.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, WITH REGARDS TO APPENDIX B, ZONING REGULATION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, CASE 21-100, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> JUST TO INTERVENE, THIS ONE IS 21-099. THAT WAS [OVERLAPPING]
>> OH, SORRY. I PULLED UP A PAGE AS A REFERENCE SO WHEN I'M SPEAKING, I HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.
>> COME ON, JASON. [LAUGHTER].
>> YEAH, I KNOW. [LAUGHTER] SORRY.
WITH REGARDS TO CASE 21-099, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> I GOT A MOTION BY JASON AND SECONDED BY CHRIS.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
OPPOSE, NO. MOTION PASSES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
[00:35:01]
NEXT ONE, ITEM 3C,[C. Ordinance Modification for the Commercial Site Plan (CSP) process (Case 21-100): Hold a public hearing and consider an ordinance amending ordinance B-582 (A0508), being Appendix B, Zoning Ordinance, to modify the Commercial Site Plan (CSP) process. ]
ORDINANCE MODIFICATION FOR THE COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN PROCESS, CASE 21-100.WELCOME BACK, LIDON. [LAUGHTER]
>> GLAD TO BE BACK. [LAUGHTER] THIS ONE IS 21-100, THE ZONING REGULATIONS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.
IN THAT SAME MEETING WHERE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO AMEND THE PLANNING PROCESS, THEY ALSO HAD US LOOK AT THE COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS FOR AMENDING THAT PROCESS AS WELL.
THIS IS TO ALSO ALLOW APPLICANTS THAT ARE FOLLOWING THE REGULATIONS AND CODES AS WRITTEN TO BE APPROVED AT THE DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE BY GOING THROUGH P&Z AND CITY COUNCIL.
THIS CAN SAVE PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT ASKING FOR ANY WAIVERS OR VARIANCES QUITE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME IN THE PROCESS.
AGAIN, ALL SITE PLANS WILL STILL GO THROUGH EVERY REVIEW THEY CURRENTLY DO TODAY, DAC, CIVIL, BUILDING, AND THEY WILL STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH EVERY STANDARD THAT WE HAVE IN OUR CODES.
THE SUMMARY OF THE AMENDMENT IS IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE APPROVAL PROCESS.
LIKE I SAID, IT WILL GO THROUGH DAC.
HOWEVER, JUST THE IMPORTANT ASPECT HERE IS THAT ANY SITE PLAN THAT REQUIRES A WAIVER, A VARIANCE, OR ZONING CHANGE REQUESTS OR IS TIED TO ANY TYPE OF ZONING, WILL COME BEFORE P&Z AND CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPROVAL.
I'VE MADE THIS CHART OF SOME RECENT CASES.
THIS IS JUST TO SHOW YOU VISUALLY ALL THE CASES THERE ON THE LEFT WITH THE CURRENT PROCESS AND IF WE APPROVED THIS AMENDMENT, YOU WOULD STILL SEE ALL THOSE CASES.
BECAUSE HTEAO, VOLKSWAGEN, ALL THOSE ONES ARE MASONRY, STILL GOING TO COME BEFORE YOU.
THE DEPOT ON MAIN, JASCO CARWASH, ANY OF THOSE PROJECTS ARE ZONINGS OR PDS, YOU'RE STILL GOING TO BE APPROVING THAT AND RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL.
ALSO ANYTHING THAT HAS ANY WAIVERS, WHETHER IT'S LANDSCAPING, SETBACK.
WE HAD THE ELLISON ON THE PLAZA, THEY HAD BUILDING LINE AND LANDSCAPING SETBACKS, YOU WOULD STILL SEE ALL THOSE PROJECTS.
THE TYPE OF PROJECTS THAT YOU WOULDN'T SEE IF THIS WERE APPROVED ARE THINGS SUCH AS ALLSTAR PROPERTIES WHERE THEY DID THAT LITTLE 800-SQUARE FOOT ADDITION.
THEY WEREN'T ASKING FOR ANY WAIVERS, ANY VARIANCES.
IT DIDN'T IMPACT INGRESS, OR EGRESS, OR THE SITE SUBSTANTIALLY.
THE JOHN JONES RETAIL CENTER, THEY WERE 100 PERCENT MASONRY, DIDN'T ASK FOR ANY WAIVERS, THEY HAD THE ZONING.
YOU WOULDN'T SEE THAT, THAT WOULD GET APPROVED AT DAC.
VALVOLINE OIL CHANGE WAS ONE, THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR ANY WAIVERS, I THINK THAT WAS DONE LAST YEAR, SO THAT WOULD BE ONE.
IF IT WENT UNDER THE PROCESS AFTER THIS WAS APPROVED, IT WOULD BE APPROVED AT THE DAC LEVEL.
NOW, THE MINUTE THEY ASK FOR ANY WAIVER OR ANY VARIANCE, THAT'S OUT THE WINDOW AND IT'S RIGHT BACK BEFORE P&Z AND CITY COUNCIL.
THE MAIN PUSH TO THIS IS TO HELP DEVELOPERS GET THROUGH THE PROCESS TO GET THEIR PROJECTS WHEN THEY MEET OUR CODE.
IT'S ALSO SOME INCENTIVE TO MEET OUR CODE, DON'T ASK FOR 90 PERCENT MASONRY BE WAIVED, DON'T ASK FOR A LOT OF WAIVERS.
I THINK YOU'RE STILL GOING TO SEE THE MAJORITY OF SITE PLANS.
THERE WILL BE THE ADDITIONS, THE SMALL ONES THAT WILL BE ABLE TO BE APPROVED AT DAC, WHICH CITY COUNCIL DIRECT US, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT'S APPROPRIATE LEVEL FOR THOSE PROJECTS THAT AREN'T ASKING FOR ANY CONCESSIONS.
AGAIN, A BREAKDOWN WITH THE PLATS, IT JUST CLARIFIES THE LANGUAGE ESSENTIALLY.
WE'VE WRITTEN IT SO IT MAINTAINS CONTINUITY BETWEEN OLD AND NEW CASES.
THE LANGUAGE IS WRITTEN VERY CAREFULLY THAT THERE IS NO CONFUSION IF SOMEBODY COMES IN TODAY AND THEY HAD A SITE PLAN THAT THEY'RE WANTING TO AMEND, WHERE THEY WOULD FALL UNDER THE APPROVAL PROCESS, OR ONE THAT COMES IN AFTER THIS WAS APPROVED, SHOULD IT BE APPROVED.
IT'S VERY CLEAR. WE'VE MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT ANYTIME THEY ARE REQUESTING ANY ZONING, ANY VARIANCE, ANY WAIVER, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH P&Z AND CITY COUNCIL.
WHEN THE DAC GETS THESE REQUESTS, WE'RE NOT TELLING THEM UPFRONT YOU'RE NOT GOING THROUGH P&Z AND CITY COUNCIL.
WE'RE GOING TO REVIEW IT, WE FIND THE SMALLEST WAIVER REQUEST, THEN THEY GET PUT ON THEIR AGENDA, JUST LIKE ANY CASE WITH TODAY.
SMALL THING, SECTION SITE PLAN IN CHAPTER 50 JUST SAYS THAT, "SITE PLAN SHALL BE FILED WITH CITY COUNCIL." WE JUST CHANGE THAT TO SAY "DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE." ALL THAT DOES IS IT JUST MEANS IF IT MEETS WHAT WE'RE AMENDING, WE CAN APPROVE IT WITHOUT GOING TO CITY COUNCIL, DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT CANNOT GO TO CITY COUNCIL.
IT JUST GIVES US THAT FLEXIBILITY TO MEET THE INTENT OF WHAT CITY COUNCIL HAS DIRECTED STAFF.
WE PUT SOME IN OLD TOWN DESIGN STANDARDS, AND THERE ARE SOME IN HERE,
[00:40:04]
YOU SEE MOBILE HOME AND FOR THE TRAILER PARKS, SAME LANGUAGE ON BOTH OF THOSE.IT JUST SAYS THAT IT'S FILED WITH THE DAC, WHICH TO BE HONEST, IT'S ALWAYS FOLLOWED WITH THE DAC BEFORE YOU SEE IT ANYWAY.
IT CLEANS THAT LANGUAGE UP TO BETTER ALIGN WITH WHAT WE'RE ALREADY DOING.
THEN FOR OLD TOWN, STILL IT'S GOING TO BE A RECOMMENDATION BY EITHER THE DSRC, THE DOWNTOWN REVIEW COMMITTEE.
THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT WILL BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
THEY'RE STILL GOING TO REVIEW THAT.
IF THERE'S A WAIVER, IT'S COMING TO P&Z, CITY COUNCIL.
IF THEY REVIEW IT AND THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY WAIVERS OR VARIANCES, THEN IT COULD BE APPROVED BY DAC, THE SAME AS ANY OTHER PLACE.
AGAIN, JUST TO REITERATE, THE BIG THING IS IT'S [INAUDIBLE] IN FACT A SMALL HANDFUL OF SUBMITTALS, BUT IF ANY WAIVER, ANY VARIANCE, THERE'S NO DISCRETION.
THEY ASK FOR ANY CONCESSION, ANYTHING FROM OUR CODE, IT COMES TO P&Z, IT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL.
EVEN IF WE CHANGE LATER IN THE FUTURE WHAT THINGS ARE WAIVERABLE OR VARIANCES- SPEAKING NOW, I GUESS WE COULD USE MASONRY AS AN EXAMPLE.
THAT WOULD AFFECT MAYBE THE FIRST THREE ON THIS LIST, BUT THE MAJORITY OF THESE HAVE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST OR PD SO STILL GOING TO BE A SMALL PERCENTAGE THAT ARE AFFECTED BY THAT.
MAJORITY ARE GOING TO STAY THE WAY THEY ARE TODAY. PARDON ME.
WE REQUEST THAT YOU WOULD OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AFTER THAT CLOSE THE HEARING AND THEN WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE FOR APPENDIX BRAVO, THE ZONING REGULATION ORDINATES FOR THE SITE PLANS AND I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT THIS PROCESS OF THE AMENDMENTS.
>> THANK YOU, LIDAN. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:11 AND THEN I'LL WAIT FOR THE CLOCK TO CHANGE.
DOES ANYBODY WANT TO COME SPEAK? I DON'T SEE ANYBODY SO I WILL CLOSE IT AT 7:12.
[LAUGHTER] AND ASK THE COMMISSION, IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
>> THANKS FOR LEAVING IT OPEN FOR A FULL MINUTE.
[LAUGHTER] MAYBE THIS WAS THE SAME THING.
WAS THAT JASCO'S CAR WASH, THE SAME THING AS THE TOMMY'S CAR WASH? IS IT THE SAME THING?
>> THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT CAR WASHES.
I DON'T THINK YOU'VE ACTUALLY SEEN THE JASCO SITE PLAN YET.
I THINK YOU GUYS SAW THE ZONING THAT WAS A SUP.
[OVERLAPPING] WHAT I WAS TRYING TO REITERATE THERE IS, SHOULD YOU CHANGE THIS TODAY AND SAY IT GOT APPROVED AND CITY COUNCIL MET RIGHT AFTER YOU GUYS BECAUSE THAT HAD A SUP ASSOCIATED WITH IT, YOU WOULD STILL SEE THAT SITE PLAN.
>> THE TOMMY'S ONE WAS PRETTY POPULAR.
WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED WITH THAT ONE?
>> I DON'T HAVE THAT DATA IN FRONT OF ME.
I WAS NOT HERE WHEN THAT WAS APPROVED.
IF THEY HAD ANY [OVERLAPPING].
[OVERLAPPING] IT WAS SITE PLAN ZONING. SORRY, WE WOULDN'T SAY.
>> IF I MAY. [OVERLAPPING] THE ONE CASE WAS APPROVED BY SITE PLAN ZONING FOR CAR WASH USE ONLY AND IN THOSE INSTANCES THEN THAT PARTICULAR ITEM WILL COME BACK BEFORE YOU FOR THE COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
>> THE ONE ON HALSBURY WAS COMMERCIAL ZONING.
>> WE WOULD HAVE STILL SEEN THEM?
>> YEAH. ANY ZONING OR SUP THAT REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THAT SITE PLAN, WHETHER IT MAYBE A MONTH LATER WHEN THEY OFFICIALLY GET THE SITE PLAN READY.
YOU MAY SEE A CONCEPT PLAN WITH THOSE ZONINGS LOTS OF TIMES.
THAT SITE PLAN IS STILL GOING TO COME THROUGH, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET OFF THE HOOK BECAUSE WE DID OUR ZONING AND WE WAITED SIX WEEKS AND THEN WE DID OUR SITE PLAN.
STAFF WILL BRING THAT ONE TO YOU.
WANT TO MAKE SURE IT ALIGNS WITH WHAT YOU APPROVE WHEN YOU GAVE THEM THE ZONING, AND TO JUST BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN FOR US.
>> WHEN APPLICANTS BRING THESE THINGS TO THE DAC, THE DAC, THEY DON'T COMMUNICATE WITH THEM LIKE, HEY, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY WAIVERS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THIS THING THROUGH P&Z OR CITY COUNCIL OR WHATEVER.
I THINK THE BENEFITS OUTWEIGH THE RISKS, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT NOTHING SLIPS THROUGH, LIKE, IF WE CAN DO THIS WITHOUT ANY WAIVERS, NOBODY REALLY HAS TO SEE IT.
WE JUST HAVE TO GET THROUGH THE DAC.
>> THE TENNIS STAFF IS ALWAYS TRANSPARENT.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY DEALS WITH ANYBODY.
WE'RE GOING TO BE TRANSPARENT. IT'S WHAT'S THE CODE.
WE FOLLOW THE CODE, JP AND I LIVE BY THE CODE AND WHAT THE RULES SAY. PEOPLE HATE US FOR IT.
BUT IF IT'S REQUIRES A ZONING, IF IT'S A PERMITTED USE, AND SOMEONE SAYS I WANT TO BUILD A HTO IN A GR AND THAT'S PERMITTED BY THE ZONING AND THEY DECIDE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO THE TEAK WOOD AND GO 100 PERCENT MASONRY, THEN THEY WON'T COME BEFORE YOU BECAUSE THEY ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT.
THERE WOULD BE NOTHING FOR YOU TO DISAPPROVE ANYWAYS, [NOISE] BECAUSE THEIR MERITS TO THEIR PROJECT WILL MEET THE CODE AS WRITTEN.
[00:45:02]
IN THAT CASE, THEY WOULD, BUT IF THE MINUTE THEY SAY WE WANT TO TEAK WOOD OR THEY NEED A WAIVER THAT, THEY HAVE TO COME BEFORE YOU.THERE MAY BE CASES WHERE SOMETHING THAT'S PERMITTED BY RIGHT ANYWAYS, THAT THE APPLICANT SAYS, HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT, I HAVE IN THAT 30 PERCENT OF THAT ARE PANELING ON MY FRONT OF MY BUILDING.
I'LL JUST DO IT ALL BRICK, SO IT LOOKS NICER.
I DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH TWO MONTHS AND MEETINGS.
I THINK THAT'S A WIN FOR US BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR ZONING ANYWAY.
THERE'S NO MECHANISM BY WHICH YOU WOULD DISAPPROVE THAT PROJECT ANYWAYS.
ANYTHING THAT HAD SOMETHING TIED TO IT, THEY GAVE YOU THE DISCRETIONARY ABILITY TO DISAPPROVE IT, SUCH AS ZONING OR SUPS, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE.
IF ANYTHING, THEY PROTECTS THE COMMISSION FOR MAYBE POTENTIALLY INADVERTENTLY DISAPPROVING SOMETHING WITHOUT A BASIS BECAUSE IT'S NOT BASED OFF ZONING.
>> I WAS THINKING, AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT LANGUAGE.
THERE WAS SOME LANGUAGE AND RECENTLY CHANGED IN SOMETHING.
FORGIVE ME FOR ALL THIS VAGUENESS, BUT MY MIND WAS GOING TOWARDS LIKE A KINDLE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IF SOMEONE WERE TO JUST TRY TO PUT A KINDLE SOMEWHERE WHERE NOT DESIRABLE.
>> THOSE KINDLES, I THINK I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT WAS A COUPLE YEARS AGO.
THEY MADE SOME AMENDS. IT'S A SUP REQUIRED.
IF IT HAS AN SUP, EVEN IF THEY MEET ALL THE 100 PERCENT, YOU'LL STILL GOING TO SEE IT BECAUSE IT'S ZONING, TIED TO ZONING.
ANYTHING WITH THAT TIED TO A ZONING ARE A SPECIFIC, THEY ARE REQUEST.
YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IT. THERE WON'T BE ANY SURPRISES.
IT SHOULD BE NO SURPRISE IF SOMEBODY BUILDS AN ICE CREAM STORE AND A ZONING WHERE IT'S A 100 PERCENT PERMITTED, AND THEY DO 100 PERCENT MASONRY OUT.
THERE WON'T BE ANY, THIS PROJECT, HOW DID THIS HAPPEN? IF THEY NEED SOME PERMISSION, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THAT SITE PLAN.
>> I'D LIKE TO CHIME IN ON THAT.
AS LIDAN SAID, AND WE DO OUR BEST TO ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANTS TO PROCESS THOSE SUPS AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLANS CONCURRENTLY BECAUSE IT WORKS TO THEIR BENEFIT FOR YOU ALL TO SEE BOTH OF THOSE AT THE SAME MEETING.
WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO THAT AS WELL, SO THEY ARE PROCESSED CONCURRENTLY.
>> YES. THEY STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW EVERY STATE FEDERAL LAW IN ANY OTHER AREAS OF THE CODE.
THAT'LL BE COVERED IN TATTOOS OR SUPS ANYWAY.
YOU'RE DEFINITELY COVERED THERE.
>> CAN I HAVE A CLARIFICATION HERE? YOU SAID MASONRY A BUNCH OF TIMES.
I THOUGHT THE LEGISLATURE SAID THAT WE COULD NOT MANDATE MASONRY ANYMORE, SO [OVERLAPPING].
>> GO AHEAD. [LAUGHTER] NO, I'LL LET YOU [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU ARE CORRECT. THERE WAS A HOUSE BILL 31, 67, I THINK IS THE ONE.
BUT IT'S IN OUR CODE AND WE DO REQUIRE THAT MASONRY WAIVERS BE PROCESSED.
WHAT I WAS ALLUDING TO IS IF WE CHANGE THAT IN THE FUTURE WHERE BECAUSE THE HOUSE BILL [NOISE] HAS THAT IF WE CHANGE THAT, YOU'D STILL SEE THE MAJORITY OF SITE PLANS WAS ALL SAYING.
CURRENTLY, OUR PROCESS IN THE CITY IS THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING THAT WAIVER FROM OUR CODE AND THE MASONRY REGULATIONS ARE STILL IN OUR CODE.
>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE'RE STILL ABLE TO KEEP IT IN OUR CODE WHEN THE LEGISLATURE SAID WE CAN'T DO.
>> I THINK THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SPEND THE TIME TO REWRITE ALL THE CODES AND SO THEY'RE JUST BLINK IT GIVEN IF YOU ASK FOR A WAIVER, IT WAS AN ANTICIPATION.
I THINK THAT THE LEGISLATURE WAS GOING TO UNDO THAT AT SOME POINT.
>> YEAH. A LOT OF CITIES HAVE KEPT THE LAST CITY I WAS IN AND KEPT IT IN THEIR CODE BECAUSE THEY WERE HOPING IT WOULD BE REPEALED.
I DON'T WANT TO STEP ON A CITY ATTORNEYS OR SAY ANYTHING AND I GET A HAND SLAP.
>> I'M NOT TRYING TO OPEN CAN OF WORMS BECAUSE SOMEBODY COMES AND CHALLENGES THAT.
>> WE STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND ANY MASONRY APPROVAL.
GENERALLY, IF THE REST OF THE PROJECT MEETS THE CODE, STAFF IS GOING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THIS BOARD AND I THINK LEGAL COUNSEL PROBABLY WOULD BE ABLE TO, IF YOU DECIDED YOU WANTED TO DISAPPROVE SOMETHING BASED ON A MASONRY, WE WOULD PROBABLY TALK TO LEGAL COUNSEL JUST TO MAKE SURE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS THAT WE'RE COVERED.
>> I THINK WE COULD DISAPPROVE IT ANYWAY.
>> WELL, DAN, THE WAY MANDY EXPLAINED IT WHEN IT ALL CAME ABOUT WAS THAT IF IT WAS AN SUP, WE COULDN'T TELL THEM WHAT THEY COULD DO OR COULDN'T DO.
IF IT'S NOT AN SUP, THEN YOU COULDN'T.
THAT'S THE WAY MANDY EXPLAINED IT WHEN SHE BROUGHT BEFORE US, THAT IF IT WAS AN SUP, THEN THE CITY HAD THE RIGHT TO SAY THEN YOU HAVE TO DO IT THIS WAY.
>> THE BOARD'S APPROVAL DISCRETION IS IN ZONING AND YOU COULD CONSIDER SUP ZONING.
YOU CAN DISAPPROVE SOMETHING BASED OFF, IT'S LIKE A FUNNEL.
[00:50:01]
ZONING, IT'S VERY OPEN-ENDED.LOT OF DISCRETION, PLAT, NOT ANY DISCRETION.
IF IT MEETS A CODE, YOU SHOULD APPROVE IT.
WHEN IT'S A ZONING OR AN SUP ZONING RELATED, YOU HAVE A LOT OF DISCRETION.
AS A BOARD, YOU HAVE A LOT MORE LEEWAY IN HOW YOU CAN APPROVE IT OR DISAPPROVE IT.
IT'S STILL SHOULD BE AN OCCURRENCE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ITEMS.
>> JUST TO BE CLEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IF THEY MEET EVERY OTHER CRITERIA, BUT THEY'RE ASKING FOR 10 PERCENT REDUCTION IN THE MASONRY THING, IT'S GOING TO COME BEFORE US?
>> THANK YOU. THESE ARE TYPICALLY SOUNDS LIKE MINISTERIAL VOTES ANYWAY.
>> THERE ARE SOME PLACES IN THE CITY WHERE WE WOULD STILL HAVE MASONRY AUTHORITY, ESPECIALLY IN THE OLD TOWN AND ALL THAT.
I MEAN, THAT BUT AGAIN IT'S UP TO, AND YOU DON'T WANT TO BE THE FIRST ONE TO TEST THAT CASE.
>> JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
FROM A COMMISSION STANDPOINT, I KNOW YOU ALL DISCUSS MASONRY, BUT PROBABLY NOT 100TH OF THE TIME THAT STAFF DOES.
WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME DISCUSSING MASONRY AND OUR GOAL IS TO MEET STATE LAW AND THAT'S WHAT WE DO.
I THINK THERE MAY BE IS A PERCEPTION THAT WE PROCESS A LOT OF MASONRY WAIVERS, BUT WE DO NOT.
I THINK THIS YEAR WE PROBABLY HAVE PROCESSED FOUR, WHICH IS LESS THAN LAST YEAR. THERE WERE 12.
SINCE STATE LAW HAS BEEN IN EFFECT, PLANNING COMMISSION NOR COUNCIL HAS DENIED ANY MASONRY WAIVER.
I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD AND THAT'S NOT OUR INTENT FOR CHANGING THE CODE.
WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF TAKING A LOOK AT THE ZONING CODE AS A WHOLE.
AT THAT TIME CUMULATIVELY, WE MIGHT TAKE A LOOK AT MASONRY AGAIN, UNLESS COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF TO LOOK AT IT INDEPENDENTLY.
IF THEY DO, THEN WE'LL BRING IT BACK BEFORE YOU.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? IF NOT, WE'LL NEED A MOTION ON THIS ITEM.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CASE 21_100.
>> I GOT A MOTION BY CHRIS AND I'LL GIVE THIS ONE TO BRENDA. SECOND BY BRENDA.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
ALL OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
WE DO NOT HAVE ANY REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS, ANY COMMUNITY INTEREST ITEMS. DON'T SEE ANY. WE'LL HAVE EXECUTIVE SESSION, SO I'LL ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:22.
[NOISE]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.