[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.]

AGENDA. THESE ARE ITEMS THAT ARE USUALLY ROUTINE IN NATURE THAT CAN USUALLY BE HANDLED AT THE STAFF LEVEL.

IT'S THE MINUTES AND A REPLAY OF A RELEASE AND LOT.

IF SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO PULL THAT OFF, WE CAN DO SO.

OTHERWISE I CAN JUST ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AT THIS POINT.

MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A MOTION MADE BY DAN AND A SECOND BY JASON.

ALL IN FAVOR IF YOU RAISE YOUR HAND.

THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

THE FIRST ITEM WE HAVE IS THE PUBLIC HEARING IS ITEM 3A, 2230 SOUTH BURLESON BOULEVARD

[A. 2230 S Burleson Blvd (Case 22-017): Hold a public hearing and consider a zoning change request from “A” Agricultural, to “SF16” Single-family dwelling district-16, to allow for the development of one single-family residence on approximately .96 acres. ]

CASE 22-017 TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST FROM AGRICULTURAL TO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT 16 TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON APPROXIMATELY 0.96 ACRES.

THANKS. GOOD EVENING.

SORRY ABOUT THAT. FOR THE RECORD LINE SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF BURLESON.

SO THIS CASE IS FOR, LIKE YOU MENTIONED, 2230 SOUTH BURLESON ALSO ADDRESSED ON THE COUNTY WEBSITE IS 2250 STELLA STREET.

THIS IS A LOT THAT'S JUST JUST UNDER ONE ACRE IN SIZE.

AND THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A ZONE CHANGE.

SO THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED AG THE DEFAULT ZONING AND THEY'VE REQUESTED A ZONE CHANGE AT SF 16 TO BUILD ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, AS YOU SEE THERE AS A COMP PLAN AND THE ZONING. SO THIS THIS AREA WILL MENTION IS ZONED FOR A REGIONAL OFFICE COMMERCIAL. PART OF THE PLAN IS ALSO IN THE IH-35 OVERLAY.

SO SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON WHY WE'RE KIND OF COMING FORWARD WITH A REQUEST FOR SF-16. SO WE'VE HAD A FEW DEVELOPERS COME IN TO THIS PROPERTY AND JUST BASED OFF THE THE STREET THAT IT FRONTS AT FRONT STELLA NOT BURLESON BOULEVARD BASED ON THE SHAPE OF THE DRIVE OR THE SHAPE OF THE LOT AND THE FACT THAT IT'S LESS THAN ONE ACRE, IT REALLY DOESN'T YIELD ANY DEVELOPMENT FOR REGIONAL IMPACT.

IT DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF VALUE AS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

SO THE CURRENT PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY IS LOOKING TO DO A SINGLE FAMILY STAFF LOOKED AT THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

WE LOOKED AT THE IT'S RIGHT ADJACENT TO THE EDGE, DOESN'T HAVE TWO WAY ACCESS.

IT'S KIND OF ON A NOT ACCESS THROUGH ROAD OF STELLA STREET AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE COMFORTABLE RECOMMENDING A SF-16 EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT A REGIONAL OFFICE OUR COMMERCIAL.

WE DID SEND A NOTICE OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET AND WE POSTED A SIGN ON THE PROPERTY.

TO DATE, WE'VE RECEIVED ZERO INQUIRIES ABOUT THIS PARCEL.

SO THIS IS THIS PICTURE I TOOK A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO OF THE LOT, AS YOU'LL SEE.

SO THAT'S LOOKING AT IF YOU'RE AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SERVICE ROAD AND STELLA STREET.

SO AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S THE HOUSE WILL FACE.

STELLA STREET WOULDN'T REALLY YIELD ITSELF TO COMMERCIAL TYPE USES.

AND WOULD THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING AN APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST.

[00:05:02]

AND AT THIS TIME STANDING BY FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND THE PUBLIC HEARING.

PERFECT. THANK YOU.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 635.

AND I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION DOWN THE STELLA STREET.

IS THAT OTHER HOUSES? IS THAT WHAT THOSE ARE? SO IF YOU SEE THE SCREEN, IF YOU WERE TO DRIVE DOWN STELLA ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE, YOU WOULD SEE ALL HOUSES IN THE ETJ.

AND THEN ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, THERE'S ONE KIND OF PRE EXISTING KIND OF COMMERCIAL TYPE USE. IT'S AN OLD KIND OF METAL BUILDING WITH SOME CARS.

SO THAT'S THE ONLY USE.

IT'S NOT RESIDENTIAL IN THAT AREA.

OKAY, I'LL TRY TO FIGURE IT OUT, I JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK.

THANK YOU. YES.

OKAY. BUT ANYBODY LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS AND I DON'T SEE ANYTHING, SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS.

AND IF NOT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THREE A.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE REZONING FROM AG TO SF-16 CASE 22-017.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION MADE BY ADAM AND A SECOND BY JASON.

ALL IN FAVOR IF YOU RAISE YOUR HAND.

AND THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

ALL RIGHT. ON ITEM 3B, WHICH IS 2325 SOUTHWEST WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, BEAR RIDGE, CASE

[B. 2325 SW Wilshire Blvd (Bear Ridge) (Case 22-027): Hold a public hearing and consider a zoning change request from “A”, Agricultural, to “SF7" Single-family dwelling district-7, to allow for residential development on 158.407 acres. ]

22-027, TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST FROM AGRICULTURAL TO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT SEVEN TO ALLOW FOR THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 158.407 ACRES.

AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, SO THIS WILL BE CASE 22-027 AND 22-028 WOULD BE TWO ACTION ITEMS, BUT I'LL BE PRESENTING WITH ONE PRESENTATION LET ME GO AHEAD AND JUST CALL THE ATTORNEYS.

LET ME KNOW. CALL ITEM 3C AS WELL, WHICH IS 2325 SOUTHWEST WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, BEAR RIDGE, CASE 22-028 TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST FROM AGRICULTURAL TO A SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED TO ALLOW FOR A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 14.75 ACRES. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

SO THIS CASE IS KNOWN AS BEAR RIDGE.

SO THIS IS A TWO REQUESTS, TWO INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS IN TWO CASES BEING PRESENTED AS ONE FOR 2325 SOUTHWEST WILTSHIRE.

SO THE APPLICANT IS MATT POWELL AND THE OWNER IS WALTER MATYASTIK.

BOTH ARE HERE TONIGHT ALSO TO SPEAK AFTER WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO LOOKING AT THIS SITE, I KNOW WE'RE KIND OF FAMILIAR FROM A COUPLE OF MEETINGS AGO, BUT TO KIND OF GO OVER, IT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SECTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH ALLOWS FOR DIFFERENT MIXTURES OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

SF-7 AND SF-A ARE BOTH USES THAT CONFORM TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THE SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED AG, WHICH IS THE DEFAULT ZONING ON THIS LOCATION.

SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN INITIAL ZONING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE PARCELS.

OF NOTE, YOU'LL SEE THERE'S, ON THE SCREEN, THERE'S ONE LITTLE RED AREA THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE ZONING, SO THAT IS NOT IN THE MEETS AND BOUNDS FOR THE DRAFT ORDINANCE.

IT'S EXCLUDED.

AND THEN YOU'LL SEE SF-7 IN THE BLUE AND THEN THE PURPLE AREA IS THE SF-A.

SOME DIFFERENCES THAT I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT FROM THE LAST PROPOSAL THAT YOU HEARD.

THE MIXED USE MULTIFAMILY COMPONENT IS NO LONGER PART OF THIS PROPOSAL AND THE CONNECTION THROUGH TO WICKER WAY IN THE WILDWOOD ESTATES IS NO LONGER BEING A PROPOSED WITH THIS ZONING CHANGE.

SO IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, I DID HIGHLIGHT SOME KIND OF LIKE PRELIMINARY SIZES AND DENSITIES. I JUST, YOU KNOW, THAT IS WHAT THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO DO THERE.

I JUST WANT TO KIND OF REITERATE, THOUGH, THIS IS A ZONING REQUEST.

SO THOSE KIND OF PLANNING FUNCTIONS WILL YOU'LL SEE THOSE AGAIN WHEN THE PLAT COMES THROUGH IF THE ZONING IS APPROVED.

THE SIZE IS ASKED FOR.

OUR STAFF REPORT, THOUGH, PROPOSED ARE 7000 TO 20000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE WITH THE AVERAGE SIZE OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET.

THE SF-A PROPOSAL IS FOR TOWNHOMES WHICH YOU'LL SEE THERE AT THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY WHICH KIND OF BUFFERS.

SO THE SF-7 IS KIND OF ADJACENT, HAS SOME ADJACENT SF-7 ALREADY AND THEN IT KIND OF TAPERS OFF TO WHERE THE.

SF-A WOULD BE, SOME UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE.

SO WE HAVE PROVIDED SOME INFORMATION ON WHAT WILL BE REQUIRED.

HOWEVER, I JUST WANT TO STATE THAT THOSE ARE FUNCTIONS OF PLANNING AND THOSE WILL BE SUBMITTED AND REVIEWED BY CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND THAT THE GRANTING ARE DENIAL OF APPROVAL OF ZONING DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE BUILDING OF ANYTHING.

[00:10:04]

SO THE PLANNING STILL HAS TO COME AND ALL THE REVIEWS OF ALL THE TECHNICAL AND ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS WILL HAVE TO BE APPROVED AND REVIEWED AND BROUGHT BACK BEFORE YOU, BEFORE ANYTHING CAN BE BUILT ON THE SITE FOR THE TWO PROPOSALS.

SO TONIGHT WE'RE JUST KIND OF LOOKING AT THE ZONING, BUT THERE IS SOME PRELIMINARY INFORMATION THAT WE DID WANT TO PROVIDE TO YOU IN CONSIDERATION.

TRAFFIC. SO TIA HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY AND TXDOT.

THEY'LL HAVE TO DO A FULL TIA REQUIRED WITH THE FINAL PLAT.

SO WHAT THAT MEANS, WE'RE NOT REALLY TALKING ABOUT THOSE THINGS, BUT THEY ARE A CONCERN.

SO IF THESE REPORTS COME BACK AND THE STUDIES COME BACK AND IT DOESN'T SUPPORT THE PROPOSED DENSITY OR THE PROPOSAL BY THE APPLICANT, HE WON'T BE ABLE TO BUILD THAT.

SO HYPOTHETICALLY, IF HE'S GOING TO BUILD 300 HOUSES AND ALL THE STUDIES COME BACK WITH THE FINAL PLAT AND SAY, HEY, IT CAN ONLY SUPPORT 100, HE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BUILD 300 JUST BECAUSE HE HAS THE ZONING.

YOU STILL HAVE TO HAVE THE ENGINEERING STUDIES.

JUST WANT TO KIND OF MAKE THAT DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE TWO.

SO ALL THAT WILL BE LOOKED AT AND REVIEWED BY LICENSE PROFESSIONALS DURING THE PLANNING PHASES. WE SENT OUT NOTICE OF THIS TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE POSTED IN THE NEWSPAPER AND POSTED A SIGN.

SO WE RECEIVED FOUR LETTERS THAT I PROVIDED TO YOU IN YOUR PACKET AND VIA EMAIL OF OPPOSITION OF NOTE, THESE FOUR PROPERTIES ARE MAJORITY IN THE ETJ, SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND FOR THOSE.

WE'VE HAD VERY LITTLE PHONE CALLS TO DATE.

I KNOW WE HAD QUITE A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF OPPOSITION LAST REQUEST.

I KNOW THE APPLICANT HAS WORKED WITH THE SURROUNDING TALKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT.

SO WE HAVE SEEN A SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN THE NUMBER OF INQUIRIES ABOUT THIS PROJECT.

SO STAFF WE WORKED WITH.

APPLICANT WE KIND OF REVIEWED IT.

WE LOOKED AT OUR PLAN AND WE LOOKED AT THE REQUESTS AND THE ADJACENT USES ON THE SITE.

SO LOOKING AT THE FACT THAT THE DEFAULTED AG NEEDS A ZONING, THERE IS ALREADY SF-7 ADJACENT ON THE NORTH AND THE WEST END OF THIS PROPERTY.

STAFF RECOMMENDS AN APPROVAL OF AN SF ZONING FOR 20 2027.

IT'S ALSO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMP PLAN, THE SF-A.

WE'RE ALSO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL ON THAT BECAUSE IT DOES MEET THE COMP PLAN AND THE PROPOSAL IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THAT.

AND AGAIN, ZONING DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE BUILDING OF ANYTHING.

WE WILL HAVE PLATS WILL COME BACK, ENGINEERING, CIVIL REVIEWS, ALL THOSE WILL BE REVIEWED AND VETTED AND HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS BEFORE ANYTHING CAN EVER BE BUILT ON THE SITE.

AT THIS TIME. I KNOW THE APPLICANT AND THE OWNER ARE HERE TO SPEAK.

I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND JUST STANDING BY FOR ANY QUESTIONS IN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

AND I DO HAVE WALTERS AND MATS.

WOULD YOU GUYS LIKE TO SPEAK FIRST OR LISTEN TO THE CONCERNS? LET ME GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:43.

AND IF YOU WOULD, JUST IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR US.

OKAY. EXCUSE ME.

YES, I AM WALTER MATYASTIK.

I RESIDE AT 1520 THOMAS PLACE IN FORT WORTH, TEXAS, AND I AM THE OWNER AND DEVELOPER OF THIS PROPERTY. I WANT TO LET YOU GUYS KNOW THE MEETING WE HAD A FEW MONTHS AGO.

I LISTENED TO ALL THE ISSUES THAT WE HAD.

I WOULD LISTEN TO THE NEIGHBORS IN THE WILDWOOD EDITION.

I LISTENED TO YOUR CONCERNS AND I ADDRESSED AS MANY AS I POSSIBLY COULD.

FIRST OF ALL, I WENT TO MY NEIGHBORS AND I WENT TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER AND FOUND A WAY TO NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

I DID THAT TO ALLEVIATE THE CONCERNS OF THE TRAFFIC FOR THEM THROUGH THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH I FELT LIKE SPEAKING FOR MY NEIGHBORS.

I THINK THEY'RE VERY PLEASED WITH THE WAY THINGS TURNED OUT.

ALSO, THE SINGLE FAMILY RENTAL UNIT HAS BEEN ELIMINATED FROM THE DEVELOPMENT, SO THAT'S NO LONGER A CONCERN.

ONCE AGAIN, I HEARD THE CONCERNS.

I LISTENED TO YOU GUYS.

AND SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU KNEW THAT WHEN I CAME BACK TODAY.

IT'S NOT JUST REGURGITATING THE SAME THING.

THIS IS TOOK OFF, ADDRESSED VIRTUALLY EVERY ISSUE.

THE I KNOW ANOTHER CONCERN PEOPLE HAVE HAD HAS BEEN DEALING WITH DRAINAGE AND THINGS SUCH AS THAT. THAT'S ALWAYS A CONCERN WHEN YOU'RE DOING DEVELOPMENT.

BUT EVEN THOUGH THIS IS REALLY NOT A PART OF WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY, I WANT YOU TO KNOW WHAT I FOUND OUT. NOW WE'VE DONE THE DETENTION ANALYSIS ON THE SITE, AND THIS PROPERTY IS DIFFERENT THAN A LOT BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN A FLOODPLAIN.

IT HAS A FEMA FLOOD PLAIN DESIGNATION, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY WHEN THEY DO THESE DESIGNATIONS, THEY ACTUALLY DO THE CALCULATIONS AS IT'S BUILT.

[00:15:03]

PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.

THEY THINK, WELL, I'M GOING TO BUILD HOUSES, IT'S GOING TO CHANGE.

BUT WHEN FEMA DOES THEIR CALCULATIONS, THEY ASSUME FULLY DEVELOPED.

THEY DON'T ASSUME IT'S GOING TO STAY, ESPECIALLY INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT IT.

THEY ACTUALLY HAD IT CALCULATED BASED UPON SF-7 BECAUSE 96% OF THE HOMES IN THE SIDE OF CITY OF BURLESON ARE ZONED SF-7.

SO THAT'S HOW THEY DO THEIR CALCULATIONS BECAUSE WE ARE BUILDING A LITTLE BIT LARGER LOTS LIKE LED TO EXPLAIN IT'S GOING TO BE CLOSER TO TEN.

I MEAN, SOME ARE SMALLER, BUT SOME ARE 20,000 SQUARE FEET JUST BECAUSE IT'S A CONFIGURATION. OUR AVERAGE SIZE IS ALMOST 10,000.

SO WE'RE ACTUALLY GENERATING LESS WATER ON THE SITE THAN WHAT FEMA HAD CALCULATED WHEN THEY DID THEIR 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN.

I DID NOT KNOW THIS LAST TIME I'VE DONE MY RESEARCH, BUT I FOUND THIS OUT AND I SAID, I KNOW THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE THAT THAT'S ADDRESSED IN ZONING, BUT IT IS BEING ADDRESSED BY THE PROPER ENGINEERS.

AND BUT I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE WERE ADDRESSING IT FULLY.

I'M SURE THERE'S A LOT MORE THINGS I CAN SAY.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? I JUST APPRECIATE YOUR TIME LISTENING.

SO I'VE GOT ONE QUESTION FOR YOU.

AND IT WAS ONE OF MY CONCERNS LAST TIME.

THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT, IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, THERE WAS ONLY ONE MAIN ONE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT [INAUDIBLE] THE FIRST TIME IT CAME THROUGH, OR SO WE TALKED ABOUT SO THAT THE TWO KIND OF TRAFFIC RELATED AND MICHELLE PROBABLY MORE INTELLIGENT TO SPEAK ON THESE THAN ME BUT WHERE THE WICKER WAY CONNECTION, WHICH IS GONE.

AND THEN WICKER HILL ROAD, THE ROAD THAT HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO CONSTRUCT FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL CONNECT TXDOT 174, I'M SORRY.

AND THAT'S WHERE THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY WILL COME IN AT THAT POINT, WHICH WILL DETERMINE HOW MANY HOUSES CAN BE BUILT THERE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT, RIGHT, MICHELLE? CORRECT. AND IF NEED BE, A LIGHT CAN BE INSTALLED ON 174.

THERE'S ALREADY WE EXPECT A LIGHT TO BE INSTALLED.

AND I KNOW THAT WAS CONCERNED WITH SOME OF THE PEOPLE AS WELL LAST TIME.

SO I APPRECIATE ADDRESSING THAT AS WELL.

SURE. NOW, MICHELLE, I MEAN, I'VE WORKED WITH MICHELLE FOR ALMOST A DECADE.

THAT LIGHT WAS ALWAYS ANTICIPATED TO BE BUILT.

IN FACT, THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN THE CITY HAS GENERATED ALWAYS HAD THAT FOR IT'S A 90 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY. I'M DEDICATING TO THE CITY BECAUSE THE CITY ALWAYS ASSUMED IT WOULD BE A TRAFFIC SIGNAL. SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS ASSUMPTION THE WHOLE TIME.

AS FAR AS THE THE INTERACTION, THE WAY IT CONNECTS, THAT'S ALL DONE.

BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK ON THE THE PLAN, I'M GLAD IT'S STILL UP.

YOU CAN SEE THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES IS AN A PD.

WE CONNECT THROUGH THAT EVENTUALLY.

I MEAN, THAT'S HOW SOME OF THE ROAD ACCESS IS MITIGATED BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO GET IN AND OUT, BUT YOU HAVE TO BUILD OUR PORTION TO GET TO THEIR PORTION.

AND IN A WAY I'VE BEEN KIND OF A HOLDING IT UP BECAUSE I COULDN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT WORK ALONG THE HIGHWAY IN ORDER FOR THAT PORTION OF BURLESON TO BE DEVELOPED.

I THINK AT THIS POINT WE'VE MADE ALL THESE ADDRESSES, WE ADDRESS ALL THE ISSUES, BUT IN THAT SECTION THERE THERE'S SF-7, TOO.

I MEAN, WE'RE SURROUNDED BY SF-7 BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT MOST OF THE CITY OF BURLESON IS.

WICKER HILL WILL BE EXTENDED TO CONNECT TO FM 731.

AS IT CONTINUES, AS DEVELOPMENT CONTINUES, IT WILL BE A DIVIDED ROADWAY IN.

AND SO THAT WILL ALSO ACT AS YOUR TWO WAYS IN AND OUT.

BUT THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT, THE CONNECTIONS TO WICKER HILL WE'RE LOOKING AT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ALSO HAVE THOSE TWO CONNECTIONS IN AND OUT.

OK.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

THAT. ALL RIGHT, MR. POWELL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? NO, I DON'T.

SURE. I'LL JUST. ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO COME SPEAK AT THIS POINT AND ASK QUESTIONS OR HAVE CONCERNS? ALL RIGHT.

TAG YOUR IT, MR. POWELL.

OH, I'M SORRY. YES, SIR.

I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T SEE YOU BEHIND THE PODIUM THERE.

YEAH. MY NAME IS STEVE PASCARELLI.

I LIVE 2005 IN BURLESON, TEXAS.

I HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THIS.

I MEAN, I'M SURE THE PEOPLE LIVE HERE IN BURLESON, WHICH THE DEVELOPER DOESN'T AT THE MOMENT LIVE IN BURLESON.

IF YOU NOTICE THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT WE ARE HAVING IN BURLESON NOW ON 174, WE'RE

[00:20:04]

GOING TO JOIN ANOTHER ROAD INTO 174.

THAT'S A GRAVE CONCERN FOR IT'S NOT JUST ME.

THERE'S A LOT OF RESIDENTS I'VE TALKED TO MANY, MANY PEOPLE.

THE SENTIMENTS THAT HE'S TALKED TO, A LOT OF THE RESIDENTS.

WELL, AS A MATTER OF FACT, I'VE TALKED TO MANY PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON VILLAGE CREEK, AND I CAN BRING A LOT OF THEM HERE IN THE NEXT MEETING.

THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERN THAT THIS, THAT THE VILLAGE CREEK, THE AMOUNT OF SEWAGE WATER THAT'S GOING TO BE PUMPED INTO IT, AND THEN WITH THE ADDITIONAL WATER THAT'S GOING TO BE COMING THROUGH THERE, THROUGH THIS NEXT DEVELOPMENT.

AND THERE'S ALSO CONCERN IF I MEAN, I KNOW YOU GUYS KNOW MORE THAN EVEN HOW MUCH DEVELOPMENT HAS HAPPENED IN BURLESON IN THE LAST YEAR, HOW MANY APARTMENT BUILDINGS HAVE COME UP? HOW MANY HOW MUCH HAVE WE ALREADY DEVELOPED? AND ARE WE READY AT THIS STAGE TO DO ANOTHER TWO OR 300 HOMES OR WHATEVER THE DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSING? I MEAN, THESE ARE QUESTIONS I THINK YOU GENTLEMEN AND LADIES HERE REALLY NEED TO TAKE IN CONSIDERATION FOR US, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING HERE NOW, WHAT THE IMPACT IS GOING TO HAVE ON US. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING A THOROUGH STUDY OF THE FLOODPLAIN.

AND THIS GENTLEMAN IS SAYING THAT RIGHT NOW.

IT'S ALREADY, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, HE'S SAYING THAT THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN WAS CONSIDERED FOR HOUSES DEVELOPED AND ON ALL THIS AGRICULTURAL LAND.

WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AN INDEPENDENT STUDY THAT SHOWS THIS IS NOT FROM SOMEBODY WHO'S DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY. I'VE STATED THIS BEFORE, AND I REALLY BELIEVE IT'S ALSO BURLESON'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THIS IS DONE BY AN INDEPENDENT BODY.

AND IF I NEED TO BRING MORE PEOPLE HERE THAT LIVE ON VILLAGE CREEK TO SHOW OUR VOICE BECAUSE THIS GENTLEMAN HASN'T TALKED TO ANYBODY.

I KNOW I'M VILLAGE CREEK. HE MAY TALK TO PEOPLE THAT ARE AROUND OTHER AREAS, BUT HE HASN'T TALKED TO ANY OF US ON VILLAGE CREEK.

AND I CAN BRING A LOT OF PEOPLE, SO I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LONG TERM GOAL IS FOR BURLESON. I'M SURE I'M ALL FOR DEVELOPMENT, BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE LIVING ON VILLAGE CREEK THAT HAVE BEEN HERE FOR 20 YEARS PLUS AND HAVE BEEN CLOSE TO BEING FLOODED ALREADY.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU'VE SEEN ANY PICTURES OF THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT COMES THROUGH IF WE HAVE A MAJOR FLOOD.

IT'S UNBELIEVABLE.

AND I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE EXPRESSED THAT LAST TIME WE WERE HERE.

SO, YOU KNOW, I'VE HEARD FROM DIFFERENT PEOPLE HERE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A STUDY DONE AND TO HAVE SOME PEOPLE REVIEW THE STUDY.

BUT I'M STILL PUSHING FOR AN INDEPENDENT STUDY DONE BY THE CITY.

THAT'S OUR CHOSEN BY THE CITY, NOT BY THE DEVELOPER, THAT WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THIS WATER AND HOW IT'S GOING TO AFFECT ALL OF US THAT LIVED HERE FOR 20 OR 30 YEARS. THAT'S MY MAIN CONCERN.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR LISTENING.

I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.

I DID.

I GOT IT. THANK YOU.

OK. WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? I'LL PICK IT UP AGAIN.

OKAY.

MATT POWELL 1108 SOUTH DOBSON MR. CHAIRMAN, HONORABLE COMMISSION, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING.

WE APPRECIATE ALL THAT YOU DO FOR THE CITY.

JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS LIKE IT'S BEEN SAID BEFORE, THIS IS NOT YOUR FIRST LOOK AT IT.

WE LISTENED TO SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WERE MADE AT THE LAST MEETING.

WE ADDRESSED VIRTUALLY ALL THE CONCERNS, STARTING WITH THE THE THE WILDWOOD COMMUNITY, WORKING WITH THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER.

WE FOUND THE DOCUMENT TO WHERE THAT THOROUGHFARE DID NOT HAVE TO BE CONNECTED THROUGH.

SO WE'VE REVISED THAT CONNECTION.

THE OTHER WAS THE AVILA PROJECT WITH THE RENTAL COMMUNITY.

WE'VE REMOVED THAT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT.

THAT WAS ANOTHER STICKING POINT THAT A LOT OF CONCERNS WERE MADE ON.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WANT TO REALLY KIND OF MENTION IN TERMS OF THE IMPORTANCE IS THE LAST THE LAST REVIEW YOU HAD AT THIS, THE CONFORMANCE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN WAS A MAJOR ISSUE.

AND AS FAR AS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, THAT'S ONE OF THE PARAMOUNT THINGS THAT YOU REVIEW AND MAKE SURE THAT THE CONFORMANCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS WITHIN CONFORMANCE TO THE COMP PLAN. WE ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMP PLAN NOW.

WE'RE ALSO IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S THE REASON WHY WICKER HILL OR, YOU KNOW, WICKER HILL BOULEVARD HAS THE CONFIGURATION THAT IT HAS AND WILL EVENTUALLY CONNECT OUT TO JOHN JONES, AS MICHELLE HAD MENTIONED.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAD CONVINCED THE OWNER OF, BECAUSE I KNEW THESE QUESTIONS WERE GOING TO COME UP IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC AND DRAINAGE, ALTHOUGH THIS IS A LAND USE

[00:25:06]

APPLICATION, WE WILL BRING FORWARD ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND THE SUBMITTALS DURING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT STAGE FOR THE DRAINAGE ANALYSIS AND THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, THE TIA AND THE DRAINAGE. THOSE HAVE ALREADY BEEN PERFORMED.

THERE ARE NO ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THAT.

AND TO ANSWER THE GENTLEMAN'S QUESTION OVER HERE, WE HAD OUR PRIVATE CONSULTANT PREPARE THE DRAINAGE ANALYSIS SUBMITTED TO FEMA.

FEMA'S REVIEWED IT.

IT'S BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY.

THE CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED IT.

CITY STAFF HAS FORWARDED TO THEIR THIRD PARTY CONSULTANT.

SO THERE'S ACTUALLY CHECKS AND BALANCES OF FOUR CIVIL ENGINEERS REVIEWING THE DRAINAGE STUDY. IT'S NOT JUST A PRIVATE CONSULTANT THAT WE'VE HIRED TO DO THE ANALYSIS AND THAT YOU HAVE TO TRUST OUR OPINION.

BUT IT'S HAD INDEPENDENT REVIEW THROUGH THE FEDS, THROUGH THE LOCAL AND THE THIRD PARTY REVIEWER THAT THE CITY HAS SELECTED.

WHAT'S THAT? YES, SIR.

SIR, CAN YOU? SO YOU GUYS WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO.

OK? SO JUST TO REITERATE, WE'VE GONE BACK TAKING A LOOK AT THE CONCERNS, HAVE ADDRESSED THE CONCERNS.

WE'RE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMP PLAN.

ALL THE OTHER STUDIES HAVE BEEN PERFORMED.

THEY WILL BE PROVIDED THEY'RE ALREADY UNDER REVIEW.

THEY'RE JUST NOT REQUIRED AT THIS JUNCTURE OF THE SUBMITTALS.

SO WE'VE WORKED WITH STAFF.

WE HAVE WE HAVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON TOP OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMP PLAN.

AND I MEAN, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT.

I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE, BUT I MEAN, WE'VE WE CAN CERTAINLY TAKE A LOOK AT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE, BUT WE'VE ADDRESSED ALL THE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS AT THIS POINT. I'M SORRY, IF THAT'S SOMEBODY PHONE.

COULD WE PLEASE SILENCE THAT? THANK YOU. SO THAT BEING SAID, ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE, I'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW.

WE'VE GONE BACK AND WORKED ON THIS FOR THE PAST SIX WEEKS, BROUGHT IT FORWARD AND HAVE ADDRESSED THE CONCERNS THAT WERE THAT WERE AN ISSUE BEFORE ON THE FIRST SUBMITTAL.

SO THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT.

WE MAY CALL YOU BACK UP FOR SOME QUESTIONS.

LET'S LISTEN TO EVERYTHING ELSE.

AND THAT'S KIND OF GO. THAT'S FINE.

OKAY. SO NO QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT? NOT RIGHT NOW, BUT MAYBE IN A FEW MINUTES.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

YES, MA'AM. I DIDN'T FILL OUT A CARD BECAUSE THAT'S OKAY.

GO AHEAD AND COME UP HERE AND YOU CAN FILL UP ONE HERE IN JUST A SECOND.

THE ONLY THING I GUESS I'M ASKING IS NOW INTRODUCE YOURSELF.

MY NAME IS CINDY PASCARELLI.

I LIVE BY VILLAGE CREEK RIGHT OFF OF 731 ACROSS FROM THE WINERY.

AND SIR, IF YOU WOULD COME TO OUR PROPERTY AND THESE PEOPLE PROPERTY ALONG THE WAY THAT HAVE INVESTED THEIR LIFE IN THESE PROPERTIES.

YOU COULDN'T POSSIBLY SAY THAT EVERYTHING IS SAFE OR THAT THAT DRAINAGE IS NOT GOING TO AFFECT THIS.

THIS IS A COUNTRY CREEK THAT YOU'RE GOING TO TURN INTO.

A RIVER THAT'S SUPPOSED TO HANDLE A LOT, AT LEAST IS ALL I'M ASKING IS TO PUT YOUR EYES ON IT AND TALK TO MORE PEOPLE THAN JUST PEOPLE WHO ARE 300 FEET AWAY FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT. I MEAN, IF ANY ONE OF YOU LIVED IN THESE AREAS, YOU WOULD HAVE A GRAVE CONCERN AND YOU WOULD BE UP HERE.

AND TRUST ME, THE FUTURE FARMERS OF AMERICA IS RIGHT THERE AND WE'VE SEEN THE WATER FLOOD. YOU WANT TO TELL ME THAT YOU WOULDN'T BE AFRAID THAT YOUR KIDS ARE OUT THERE WITH THEIR ANIMALS AND THERE GETS A FLASH FLOOD? I MEAN, YOU NEED TO PUT YOUR EYES ON IT.

JUST PUT YOUR EYES ON IT AND TELL ME.

DON'T JUST LOOK AT A BUNCH OF MAPS AND ALL THAT.

GET OUT THERE AND LOOK.

THAT'S ALL I ASK.

AND THEN TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK.

NOT A BUNCH OF CALCULATIONS BY FEMA.

GET OUT THERE.

SEE WHEN IT RAINS, WHAT HAPPENS? AND ONE OF THOSE KIDS DROWNED BECAUSE NOBODY PAID ATTENTION.

I DON'T GET IT.

WHY ARE WE HERE? WE HAVE TO BE SERIOUS TO LOOK AT THIS STUFF.

THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING. PUT YOUR EYES ON IT.

THAT'S ALL I GOT TO SAY.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

THANK YOU. DOES ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? MY NAME IS RICHARD HOLLIBY.

[00:30:01]

I OWN 32 ACRES RIGHT BESIDE THIS PROPERTY, AND I SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH THE SUBDIVISION GOING IN. YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE YOU BOUGHT LAND DOWN IN THE LOW, LOW PROPERTY, THAT'S YOUR FAULT, NOT MINE.

I'VE GOT PROPERTY THAT'S PART OF MY PROPERTY FACES 174, JUST LIKE THIS PROPERTY.

AND THEN I PROBABLY GOT A THOUSAND FEET ON ONE SIDE AND 500 FEET AT THE BACK OF MY PROPERTY. THAT'S ADJACENT TO WHAT THIS MAN PROPOSING.

AND I SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH THE SUBDIVISION GOING IN.

THAT'S ALL I NEED TO SAY.

THANK YOU. AND IF YOU COULD FILL OUT A CARD FOR US AS WELL, PLEASE.

THIS ONE, YOU CAN TAKE IT TO YOUR SEAT.

CAN'T READ OR WRITE, MA'AM.

YOU HAVE TO FILL IT OUT WITH. ALL RIGHT.

WE'RE STILL IN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? ALL RIGHT. YES. BILL.

JANISH 117 NORTHEAST CLINTON I'VE SPOKEN QUITE A BIT ABOUT ALL THESE PROPERTIES AND STUFF AND JUST FOR RECOLLECTION, IT'S A LITTLE OVER 43,000 SQUARE FEET PER ACRE.

NOW YOU'RE TALKING 150 SOMETHING ACRES.

THAT'S 7000 SQUARE FEET.

SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LESS THAN ONE SIXTH OF AN ACRE.

HOUSES BUILT HERE IN THE FORTIES AND FIFTIES HAD A LOT SIZES THAT SIZE AND LARGER.

MOST OF THE PROPERTIES YOU SEE NOW, SOME OF THEM WILL BE SF-7S, WHICH WAS A HUGE MISTAKE FOR BURLESON TO KEEP ALLOWING THAT.

THAT HAS CREATED A LOT OF FLOODING CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PART OF ALL SUITS ON WHERE I'VE HAD TO GO AND TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT WITNESS.

I DO APPRECIATE SOME CHANGES THAT THEY'VE MADE ON NOT GOING THROUGH SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS. THAT'S A STEP UP.

I'D LIKE TO SEE IT BE ON THIS BE ZONED FOR A MINIMUM OF AN ACRE, AND I THINK THAT'S ABOUT AS FAR AS I WOULD PUSH IT.

802 I'VE BEEN OVER THERE SOME HOMES THAT HAVE FLOODED.

THAT'S ABOUT WHERE THE CREEK STARTS.

THERE'S MAY STILL BE AN ACTIVE LAWSUIT FROM A PROPERTY OWNER OFF 802, I DON'T KNOW IF IT SETTLED RECENTLY, BUT THERE WAS AN ACTIVE ONE WHERE THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY WAS JUST CUT OFF. THAT'S NOT THE ONLY PROPERTY THAT'S LIKE THAT.

MOST OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES IN THE RAIN, NOT EVEN A HEAVY RAIN.

IT WOULD CUT OFF THE PROPERTY IN THE BACK WHERE THEY CAN'T GET TO THEIR LIVESTOCK OR WHATEVER. AN INCH OF RAIN ON GRASS WILL BRING ABOUT 27,000 GALLONS OF WATER, WHICH DOESN'T SOUND LIKE A LOT.

BUT IF YOU GET A TWO OR THREE OR FOUR INCH RAIN ON THE LAND, THAT'S ALREADY SOAKED UP ABOUT AS MUCH AS IT CAN. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A FLASH FLOOD THAT IS A LOT OF WATER THAT WILL FLOOD.

THAT CREEK IS ON TOP OF A HILL.

THE WATER IS ONLY GOING TO GO ONE OF A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS BACK TOWARDS 802 OR DOWN THE HILL. THIS WILL DO A LOT OF EROSION AND DAMAGES TO THESE PROPERTIES, TAKING TOPSOIL AND EVERYTHING WITH IT.

LIKE I SAID, I DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THIS FIGHT.

I JUST HATE SEEING PROPERTY OWNERS AND HOMEOWNERS GET FLOODED OUT WHERE IT CREATES A LOT OF DAMAGE. ONE ACRE MINIMUM IS THAT'S WHERE I WOULD SETTLE.

I WOULDN'T GO WITH ANYTHING SMALLER.

APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.

YEAH, WE'RE STILL OPEN.

YES. HUH.

ALL RIGHT. OH, I JUST WANTED TO SAY ONE THING ABOUT THE OTHER GENTLEMAN THAT SPOKE ABOUT PROPERTY. HE SAID THAT IT'S PEOPLE'S FAULT IF THEY BOUGHT PROPERTY AT A LOWER LEVEL.

WELL, PEOPLE BOUGHT IT, THAT WAS PROBABLY LOW LEVEL IN THE PRESENT STATE.

IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING SO MUCH MORE WATER TO THE CREEK AND THE FLOODING POTENTIAL, THAT IS NOT I MEAN, THAT'S NOT A VERY SMART STATEMENT, IN MY OPINION, TO MAKE TO SAY IF YOU BOUGHT A LOWER LEVEL, THEN IT'S BASICALLY YOUR FAULT IF YOU GET FLOODED.

IF SOMEONE DEVELOPS A PROPERTY AND THEN THE REPERCUSSIONS HAPPEN, I MEAN, THAT'S A WHOLE ANOTHER SITUATION. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF US, THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE LIVE ON VILLAGE CREEK THAT HAVE SEEN THE LARGE AMOUNT OF WATER BUT HAVEN'T BEEN FLOODED.

BUT THE POTENTIAL IS WHAT WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT.

SO THANK YOU.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

JUST TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THESE DRAINAGE ISSUES, ALTHOUGH WE'VE HAD LIKE I'D MENTIONED, WE'VE HAD FOUR ENGINEERS, HYDRAULIC ENGINEERS LOOK AT THIS THROUGH THE PROCESS FROM THE FED LOCAL AND THE PRIVATE CONSULTANTS.

[00:35:03]

ONE OF THE REASONS I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE NOTICED OR NOT, THE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED AREA, IT'S DIFFERENT LOOKING THAN IT WAS IN THE FIRST SUBMITTAL.

WE HAVE THAT IMMEDIATELY SOUTHEAST PORTION RIGHT THERE ADJACENT TO THE DRILL SITE.

RIGHT NOW, DETENTION IS NOT REQUIRED BASED ON THE HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS, BUT WE ARE POSITIONING OURSELVES IF WE GET DEEP INTO THE ENGINEERING REVIEW, WHICH IS NOT, LIKE I'D MENTIONED, NOT PART OF THIS JUNCTURE OF THE PROCESS.

THIS IS STRICTLY LAND USE DESIGNATION.

BUT WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT, WE DO HAVE A DESIGNATED AREA FOR DETENTION IF NEEDED.

RIGHT NOW, THE REPORTS AND THE HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS, ALL THE HECK RUNS, ALL THE CUES, EVERYTHING DOES NOT REQUIRE DETENTION.

BUT WE HAVE REDESIGNED THAT AREA JUST IN CASE WE GET INTO THE 12TH HOUR AND WE'RE GETTING COMMENTS BACK FROM THE THIRD PARTY REVIEWER THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THE DETENTION ANALYSIS IF IT IS REQUIRED, BUT CURRENTLY IT'S NOT.

SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE NOTE THAT WE ARE KEEPING AN EYE ON THE DRAINAGE ANALYSIS AND HOW THE DEVELOPMENT MATURES BACK TOWARD THE CREEK.

SO WE ARE CERTAINLY LOOKING AT THAT, WE'RE COGNIZANT OF THAT, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THE DRAINAGE ANALYSIS COMES BACK IN THE FINAL FORM AND FINAL REVIEW, THAT IT REQUIRES DETENTION.

WE HAVE AN AREA WITHIN OUR DESIGN TO ACCOMMODATE THAT.

SO RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE TO, BUT WE'RE WAITING ON THE FINAL THE FINAL REVIEW.

ALL THE ALL THE PRELIMINARY REVIEWS HAVE INDICATED THAT IT'S NOT REQUIRED.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. YEAH.

QUICKLY, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE.

AND WHEN I MENTIONED IT, 27,000 GALLONS PER INCH OF RAIN.

YOU TALK ABOUT TWO INCH RAIN THAT IT'S 54,000 WAS CLOSER TO 55,000.

YOU DO AN SF-7 IN THIS AREA.

YOU TALK ABOUT CEMENT ROADS, CURBS, SIDEWALKS, BACK PORCHES, ANYTHING ELSE, ANY GROUND STRUCTURES THAT TAKES AWAY GRASS AND SOIL.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 60 TO 70% GONE OF WATER ABSORPTION IS GOING TO WATERSHED.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 12, 15 MILLION GALLONS OF WATER PER ONE INCH OF RAIN POSSIBLY GOING BACK TOWARDS PEOPLE'S PROPERTY.

THAT'S A LOT. DETENTION POND, 1 MILLION.

IT'LL OVERFLOW. I DON'T KNOW WHAT SIZE THEY'RE THINKING ABOUT, BUT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 12 TO 15 MILLION GALLONS OF WATER.

THANKS. ALL RIGHT.

JUST ONE LAST THING. I UNDERSTAND OFF THE CUFF, QUOTING ALL THESE QUANTITIES AND THE AMOUNT OF FLOW. I MEAN, THAT'S FINE FOR CONVERSATION WE'VE HAD FOUR HYDRAULIC ENGINEERS DO THE CALCULATIONS IN A POST DEVELOPMENT MODEL.

AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT.

WE'RE, I MEAN, THIS IS POST DEVELOPMENT FOR SEPARATE ENGINEERS HAVE LOOKED AT IT.

AND THAT'S THE DRAINAGE ANALYSIS THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY.

AND THAT'S WHAT'S UNDER REVIEW.

OKAY. THANK YOU. GOOD ONE.

ALL RIGHT. LAST TIME WE'VE HEARD THE SAME VERSE FOUR TIMES HERE.

THIS IS, IF YOU GOT SOMETHING NEW, WE CAN HEAR IT.

BUT BECAUSE WE KEEP HEARING THIS PUBLIC THIS ANALYSIS BY THESE ENGINEERS, AGAIN, THESE ARE NOT PRIVATE ENGINEERS ASSIGNED BY THE CITY.

BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE SOMEONE I'D LIKE TO SEE MAYBE WE NEED TO TAKE A VIDEO, A MOVIE FOR YOU FOLKS HERE AND FOR THIS GENTLEMAN HERE.

WHEN WE DO HAVE A FLASH FLOOD AND SEE WHAT IMPACT IT REALLY HAS TO SAY, THERE'S NO IT'S GOING TO MEAN NOTHING IS I MEAN, IT'S JUST IT'S BEYOND BELIEF.

I'M JUST I MEAN, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN JUST SAY, THIS GUY SAID THIS, BUT NO ONE'S EVER BEEN TO THE PROPERTY OR SEEN OR TALKED WITH THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON NOW WITHOUT FURTHER DEVELOPMENT ANYWAY.

HOPE THAT HELPS.

THANKS. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE I CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING? ALL RIGHT. I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AT THIS POINT, COMMISSION, I'LL OPEN IT UP TO US.

I HAVE TWO COMMENTS.

QUESTION ABOUT THE WATER.

IF AT THE POINT AND WE WERE NOT CONSIDERING THAT RIGHT THIS MOMENT, BUT AT THE POINT WHEN THEY DO SUBMIT THEIR PLANS, OUR DEPARTMENT, OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO LOOK AT THOSE PLANS AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO APPROVE THOSE PLANS.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.

AND WE DO HAVE DESIGN STANDARDS AND WE THERE'S INDUSTRY STANDARDS OUT THERE AS WELL.

[00:40:02]

WE DO HAVE A 2004 MASTER DRAINAGE STUDY THAT THE CITY DID DEVELOP, AND IT IS BASED ON FULLY DEVELOPED FLOWS. WE ARE CURRENTLY UPDATING THE VILLAGE CREEK MODEL RIGHT NOW THROUGH A CONSULTANT THAT THE CITY HIRED AND IS FUNDING THAT WORK.

THE DEVELOPERS ARE REQUIRED TO TAKE THEIR MODEL TO OUR MASTER DRAINAGE STUDY, WHICH IS MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN FEMA, AND IT'S BASED ON FULLY DEVELOPED FLOWS LIKE THE DEVELOPER DID SAY THAT IS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY, STAFF REVIEWS IT, AND THEN OUR THIRD PARTY REVIEWER REVIEWS IT AS WELL BEFORE IT'S SUBMITTED TO FEMA.

AND IT HAS TO CONFORM TO ALL OF THE CITY STANDARDS? AND SO IS THAT GOING TO WHAT HAPPENS IF ALL THAT IS APPROVED AND THEN THE FLOODING, THEN THE THE DEVELOPMENT OR THE PEOPLE DOWN THE HILL STILL GET FLOODED? IS THERE ANY WHAT THEN? I MEAN, DO WE GOT IT'S NEVER HAPPENED.

I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU THAT IT HASN'T, BECAUSE THE STORMS WE DESIGNED WE DESIGNED TO 100 YEAR STORM. YOU HAVE 500 YEAR STORMS. YOU HAVE STORMS THAT ARE GREATER.

YOU HAVE BLOCKAGES IN THE CREEK.

YOU CAN'T ACCOUNT FOR EVERY SINGLE THING THAT MAY HAPPEN DURING A FLOOD.

THESE ARE INDUSTRY STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED FOR YEARS AND THEY TIE BACK INTO A CERTAIN PART OF THE CREEK.

THE STUDY DOESN'T.

WHEN THEY TIE BACK IN, THEY TIE BACK INTO THE FLOWS THAT ARE IN THE MODEL, SO THEY'RE NOT INCREASING THE FLOWS.

ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE A NO RISE CERTIFICATION OR NO RISE POLICY.

SO THEY CAN'T CREATE A RISE IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

AND THAT'S THAT'S AGAIN, MORE CONSERVATIVE.

A LOT OF CITIES ALLOW OR FEMA ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE A ONE FOOT RISE.

WE ALLOW NONE.

SO THEY HAVE TO STAY WITHIN THOSE BOUNDARIES RIGHT NOW.

SO IT'S IT'S MORE CONSERVATIVE.

WE HAVE HIGHER STANDARDS AND WE'RE TRYING TO DO OUR BEST TO LOOK OUT FOR THE OTHER RESIDENTS AROUND THE AREA SO THEY DON'T GET FLOODED.

IS THAT RIGHT? AND WE DO LOOK AT DETENTION BECAUSE IF YOU REMEMBER, I'VE SAID THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES, YOU DON'T WANT TO CREATE THAT PEAK ON PEAK SITUATION.

IF YOU HOLD THE WATER BACK NEAR A FLOODPLAIN WITH DETENTION, YOU HAVE THE WATER COMING DOWN FROM UPSTREAM.

IT'S BEING RELEASED FROM THE DETENTION POND.

YOU HAVE THAT PEAK ON PEAK.

IT MAKES A MUCH HIGHER ELEVATION OF WATER WHICH CAN CAUSE FLOODING.

YOU GET THE WATER IN THE SUBDIVISION NEXT TO A CREEK OUT FASTER DOWNSTREAM BEFORE THE FLOW COMES FROM UPSTREAM.

SO THAT'S THE WHOLE GOAL IS TO KEEP THE WATER LEVEL.

AND I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF A MODEL.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE CALCULATIONS, YOU HAVE TO HAVE INDUSTRY STANDARDS.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYBODY ELSE? QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? I MEAN, I GUESS I HAVE A COMMENT.

YOU KNOW, I DO SEE A LOT OF DUE DILIGENCE IN THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT.

YOU TOOK OUT A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT BEFORE, AND I RESPECT PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO THEIR PROPERTY.

SO, YOU KNOW, I RESPECT THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT THE FLOODING.

ALSO RESPECT, YOU KNOW, WALTER, THE LANDOWNERS RIGHT TO HIS PROPERTY.

AND IT IS WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND WITH THAT SAID, I DON'T HAVE A CONCERN AT THIS POINT.

WE ARE VOTING ON A ZONING CHANGE HERE.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING BEING BUILT AT THIS POINT.

SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS HERE.

JASON, YOU MADE A GOOD POINT. TONIGHT IS SOLELY LAND USE OF HOW IT GOES.

THEN, AS MICHELLE SAID, IT'S GOT TO GO THROUGH TEN DIFFERENT STEPS.

AND IF ONE OF THOSE STEPS ISN'T MET, THE DEVELOPER HAS TO STOP, CANNOT PROCEED.

IT DONE AT THAT POINT, WHETHER IT'S TRAFFIC, WHETHER IT'S WATER, WHETHER IT'S SIDEWALK WIDTH, WHATEVER IT MAY BE.

ONCE IT GETS TO THAT POINT, EVERYTHING HAS TO BE CHECKED.

AND AGAIN, LAND USE.

IF YOU OWN YOUR LAND AND IF SOMEBODY ELSE, YOUR NEIGHBOR SAYS, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

THAT KIND OF GOES AGAINST WHAT WE'RE BUILT ON.

AS LONG AS IT FITS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH IS WHAT THE CITY IS TRYING TO IMPLEMENT HERE. AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS.

AS YOU MENTIONED, JASON, ALL THE ISSUES, NOT ALL THE ISSUES, MOST OF THE ISSUES THAT I HAD LAST TIME WHEN I VOTED HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED OR HAVE BEEN TAKEN A LOOK AT.

AND THE OTHER ONES WILL BE LOOKING AT THE NEXT STEP.

AND AGAIN, ONCE WE GET TO THAT STAGE, IF IT'S NOT MET, WE CAN VOTE IT DOWN.

IT'LL BE SHUT DOWN AT THAT POINT.

BUT AS FAR AS LAND USE TONIGHT IS, CAN THIS GO FROM AGRICULTURAL TO SF-7 AND OR SINGLE

[00:45:09]

FAMILY ATTACHED IS THE ONLY REASON WE'RE HERE TONIGHT.

SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M LOOKING AT THIS.

ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, I WILL ENTERTAIN.

LET'S GO FIRST ON THE MOTION ON T3B, WHICH IS AGRICULTURAL TO THE SINGLE FAMILY.

SEVEN ON THE 158.407 ACRES.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I RECOMMEND THE TO APPROVE THE ZONING FOR FROM AG TO SF-7 CASE 22-027.

SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION MADE BY ADAM AND A SECOND BY JASON ON THAT.

ALL IN FAVOR IF YOU'D RAISE YOUR HAND.

THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

NOW LET'S DO 3C, WHICH IS AGRICULTURAL, A SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED ON 14.75 ACRES.

[C. 2325 SW Wilshire Blvd (Bear Ridge) (Case 22-028): Hold a public hearing and consider a zoning change request from “A”, Agricultural, to "SFA" Single-family attached, to allow for residential development on 14.75 acres. ]

MOVE TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE FROM AG TO SF-A 22-028.

SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION MADE BY ADAM AND A SECOND BY JASON ON THAT ALL IN FAVOR.

IF YOU RAISE YOUR HAND.

AND THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

OK, THIS WILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL IN TWO WEEKS.

THREE WEEKS? DO WE HAVE A DATE? IT SHOULD BE. I DON'T WANT TO MISQUOTE.

LET ME SEE. I BELIEVE IT'LL BE APRIL 18TH.

I BELIEVE APRIL 18TH.

IT'S POSTED ON THE WEBSITE.

WE PUT IT IN THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S THE 18TH.

SO, GUYS, GET YOUR NEIGHBORS, GET EVERYBODY, BRING THEM BACK AND LET CITY COUNCIL KNOW AT THAT POINT AND THEN THEY AGAIN VOICE YOUR OPINIONS AT THAT POINT.

THANK YOU, GUYS, ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 3D, WHICH IS THE ORDINANCE MODIFICATIONS FOR TEXT

[D. Ordinance modifications for text amendments to Article 1 - General Provisions, Article 2 - Platting Policies, Article 3 - Plat Requirements, Article 4 - Community Facilities Policy, and Article 9 - Appendicies (Community Facilities Contract) of Appendix A – Subdivision and Development (Case 21-099): Hold a public hearing and consider an ordinance amendment designating the Planning and Zoning Commission as the approval body for preliminary plats, final plats, and replats; modifying the requirements for preliminary plat exemptions; and amending the form community facilities contract (CFC). ]

AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE ONE, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE TWO, PLANNING POLICIES, ARTICLE THREE, PLAT REQUIREMENTS, ARTICLE FOUR, COMMUNITY FACILITIES POLICY AND ARTICLE NINE APPENDICES FOR THE COMMUNITY FACULTIES CONTRACT OF APPENDIX A SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT CASE 21-099.

I READ THE REST OF THIS SO LONG.

ALL RIGHT. TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT DESIGNATION FOR THE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS THE APPROVAL BODY FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLATTS FINAL. PLATTS AND RE PLATTS MODIFYING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT EXEMPTIONS AND AMENDING THE FORM COMMUNITY FACILITIES CONTRACT.

THE END. ALL RIGHT, SO THIS WAS PRESENTED BACK IN SEPTEMBER, SO THE PLANNING PORTIONS HAVE NOT CHANGED. I'LL GO WITH THOSE QUICKLY.

THAT NEW EDITION IS THE CFC CONTRACT PORTION.

SO ESSENTIALLY, JUST FOR A BACKGROUND FOR AUDIENCE OR ANYBODY LISTENING AT HOME, CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO AMEND THE PLAT APPROVAL PROCESS TO MAKE YOURSELVES P AND Z COMMISSION, THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY FOR PLATS AND THE ET-J AND CITY LIMITS.

THIS WILL ALLOW PLATS TO MEET THE REGULATIONS AND CODE AS WRITTEN TO BE APPROVED BY P AND Z. IT'LL ALLOW THE PROCESS TO GO QUICKER AND ALSO CONFORM TO THE 30 DAY SHOT CLOCK.

ALL PLATTS WILL STILL GO THROUGH THE CURRENT DAC APPROVAL PROCESS AND REVIEW AND BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH ALL ENGINEERING, BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

SO NO STANDARDS ARE WEAKENED OR CHEAPENED OR LESSENED IN THIS PROCESS.

THE CHANGES. SO THE SUMMARY IS ESSENTIALLY THIS BODY WILL BECOME THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY AND THEN ANY WRITTEN APPEALS FROM A DENIED PLAT WOULD STILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION. SO WE'RE NOT DENYING ANYBODY THEIR RIGHT TO APPEAL AND GO TO CITY COUNCIL.

WE'VE ALSO CLARIFIED THE LANGUAGE REGARDING THE EXEMPTION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT PROCESS.

OUR CODE CURRENTLY MENTIONS A COMBINATION PLAT WHICH TAKES YOU TO A SECTION THAT'S NO LONGER PRESENT.