Feb 14, 2023 Planning & Zoning Commission

[00:00:01]

ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY.

[1. Call to Order]

SO I WILL CALL THE FEBRUARY 14TH VALENTINE'S DAY EDITION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

AND THE FIRST ITEM IS THE INVOCATION.

AND I'LL GO AHEAD AND GIVE IT, IF YOU'LL PLEASE, BY YOUR HEADS.

DEAR GOD, WE JUST THANK YOU FOR THE RAIN THAT YOU'VE GIVEN US.

AND AND WE JUST ASK THAT YOU BE WITH US TONIGHT AS WE MAKE DECISIONS FOR THE CITY AND WE JUST ASK THAT YOU BE WITH THIS CITY AS WE CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD IN THE GREAT GROWTH THAT YOU'VE GIVEN US.

AND WE JUST ASK THIS IN YOUR SON'S NAME, AMEN.

PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM WE HAVE IS CITIZENS APPEARANCES.

AND THIS IS FOR ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME AND SPEAK ON SOMETHING THAT'S NOT LISTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT.

AND SO I WILL OPEN IT UP IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME SPEAK.

SEEING NONE, WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA.

[3. Consent Agenda]

IF NOT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

MOTION TO APPROVE.

ALL RIGHT. SECOND THAT.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I GOT A MOTION BY DAVID AND A SECOND BY CLINT.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

ALL RIGHT. OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT, THIS IS ITEM 4A.

[4A. 1101 CR 1021 (Case 23-004):]

LIDON? GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.

LIDON PEARCE, SENIOR PLANNER, CITY OF BURLESON.

THIS IS SHOWN ON 71THE SCREEN FOR A LOT THAT'S BEING BISECTED BY LAKEWOOD DRIVE AT 1101 COUNTY ROAD 1021.

IT'S APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES IN SIZE AND THE APPLICANT IS THE CITY OF BURLESON.

SO THIS PARCEL IS CURRENTLY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SECTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED TO AGG.

SO THIS RESORT IS NECESSARY BECAUSE AS WE'VE BUILT THE LAKEWOOD DRIVE, IT'S REQUIRED RE-PLANNING FOR OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.

AND SINCE IT CUTS THAT LOT IN HALF, IT'S NOW LESS THAN THE THREE ACRE MINIMUM REQUIRED TO BE ZONED AS AG.

SO WE'RE REQUESTING TO REZONE THAT TO SFE FOR POTENTIALLY SOME FUTURE SELL OR DEVELOPMENT TO BE HAD.

BUT WE CAN'T ADMINISTRATIVELY MEET ALL WICKETS OF A FUTURE PLAT THAT'S IN THE REVIEW WITH IT NOT MEETING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE.

HENCE WE ARE REQUIRED TO REQUEST A ZONE CHANGE.

SFE BEING THE LARGEST SINGLE FAMILY ZONING THAT IS ALSO IN CONFORMANCE WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

WE DID SEND OUT A PUBLIC NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS, PLACED IT IN THE NEWSPAPER AND I POSTED A SIGN ON THE PROPERTY.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE FOR THE CHANGE TO SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE BASED ON IT CONFORMING WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT USES AND LOT SIZES.

AND I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. LIDIN. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'LL OPEN THE HEARING AT 603.

ASK IF THERE'S ANYBODY FROM THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.

SEEING NONE. I'LL CLOSE THE HEARING AT 6:03 AND ASK THE COMMISSION HAS ANY QUESTIONS.

AND IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MOTION TO APPROVE 23-004.

SECOND.

THE MOTION BY CLINT AND A SECOND BY MICHAEL.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

ALL RIGHT, ITEM 4B.

[4B. 500 CR 1021 (Case 22-164):]

AND CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE FOR A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST FROM A, AGRICULTURE, TO SFE SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE DISTRICT FOR 500 COUNTY ROAD 1021.

CASE 22-164.

LIDON? ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING AGAIN.

SO THIS PROPERTY, AS YOU'LL SEE ON YOUR SCREEN OFF A WICKER HILL DRIVE ADDRESS IS 500 COUNTY ROAD 1021.

THIS PROPERTY IS IN A SIMILAR SITUATION.

IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED AG AND IT'S LESS THAN THREE ACRES.

THE OWNER WISHES TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY FOR SINGLE FAMILY USE, AND SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE IS OUR LARGEST ZONING DISTRICT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMP PLAN. SO THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED SFE TO BUILD A FUTURE HOUSE.

I BELIEVE THEY'LL EVENTUALLY SUBMIT A PLAT TO SPLIT IT INTO TWO LOTS.

WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED A PLAT APPLICATION AS THIS TIME BECAUSE IN MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT WE INFORMED THEM THE LAW IS NON CONFORMING TO OUR ZONING OF AG.

IT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SECTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AS I MENTIONED, ZONED AGRICULTURE.

[00:05:04]

THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH OUR PLANNING PROCESS AS WELL AS CONFORMANCE TO ALL ADOPT A BUILDING CODE AND PERMITTING PROCESSES AFTER THE ENTITLEMENT PHASE OF THE ZONING TONIGHT.

AND WITH CITY COUNCIL WE PLACED SIGN ON THE PROPERTY.

POSTED IN NEWSPAPER AND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES WERE SENT TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS AN APPROVAL FOR SFE SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE BASED OFF CONFORMANCE WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE ADJACENT LOT SIZE.

MOSTLY LOTS ARE ONE ACRE OR LARGER IN SIZE THAT ARE OUT THERE.

A LOT OF THESE ARE HAVE THE DEFAULT AG, BUT WE FELT THIS WAS THE BEST ZONING IN CONFORMANCE TO OUR PLAN.

AND I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, LIDON.

JUST A QUICK QUESTION.

THE MINIMUM ON SAP IS ONE ACRE? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

ONE ACRE MINIMUM SIZE FOR A LOT.

SO IF HE WAS GOING TO PLAT, HE COULD KEEP THAT.

HE WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO GET TWO LOTS MAXIMUM SO HE COULD HAVE A ONE ACRE AND A 1.9 OR A 1.5, 1.4 OR ANY VARIATION OF THAT.

BUT NO LOT COULD BE LESS THAN ONE ACRE.

THE ONE ACRE. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. THIS IS ALSO A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:06 AND ASK IF ANYBODY FROM THE AUDIENCE HAS WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

SEEING NONE. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:06 AND ASK THE COMMISSION IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, AND IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

I DO HAVE ONE. YOU SAID SOME OF THE BUILDINGS WERE GOING TO BE REMOVED.

THERE'S THAT ONE METAL STRUCTURE.

ARE THEY RESTRICTED TO EVER BEING ABLE TO CONVERT THAT INTO ANY TYPE OF A RESIDENTIAL? SO THEY HAVE TO MEET ALL BUILDING CODES.

SO LET'S SAY THEY PLAT FIRST, OFF THE PLAT AND THEY WANTED TO CONVERT THAT TO A RESIDENCE.

THEY'D HAVE TO MEET EVERYTHING IN THE 2018 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE AND THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAVE TWO DWELLING UNITS.

SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE THEN BECOME THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT.

SPEAKING WITH APPLICANT, THAT IS NOT THE INTENT TO CONVERT THAT.

THE INTENT IS TO BUILD A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND MOVE THAT ON THE PROPERTY SO THAT IT HAS A WORKSHOP WHICH WOULD BE ALLOWED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS AND ORDINANCES. YEAH, BECAUSE THE SECOND RESIDENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN MY NEXT QUESTION.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO LIKE A MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITE OR A RENTAL PROPERTY.

THEY'D HAVE TO FOLLOW OUR CODES.

IF HE WANTED TO DO A SECOND HOUSE, THAT'S WHERE THE PLANNING COMES INTO PLAY AND HE SPLITS IT INTO TWO ONE ACRE OR LARGER LOTS, AND THEY WOULD EACH HAVE A SEPARATE DWELLING UNIT. THANK YOU.

YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MOTION TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE FOR THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST.

IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE DISTRICT CASE 22-164 SECOND.

I HAVE A MOTION BY MICHAEL AND THE SECOND BY BILL.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

ITEM 4C WE WILL BE CONSIDERING APPROVAL OF A RE PLAT OF LOT 1-R-1 BLOCK 13 OF THE ORIGINAL TOWN OF BURLESON.

[4C. Original Town of Burleson; Lot 1R1, Block 13 (Case 22-162):]

LIDON? ALL RIGHT.

GOOD EVENING. FOR THE LAST TIME, HOPEFULLY THIS NORMALLY WOULD BE ON CONSENT, BUT WE ARE RECOMMENDING AN APPROVAL WITH A CONDITION.

THAT CONDITION IS BASED OFF THE PLAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU IS AN OLD TOWN.

IT HAS THE ALLEYS THAT ARE GOING TO BE ABANDONED.

THAT WILL BE DONE BY AN ORDINANCE.

IT GOES TO COUNCIL.

SO STAFF OTHER THAN THAT, THE PLAT MEETS ALL OF OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATION ORDINANCES.

SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE RE PLAT WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE CSO NUMBER FOR THE ALLEY WILL BE PLACED ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT, THE MYLAR PRIOR TO THE PLAT BEING FILED.

HENCE IT'S OFF FOR CONSENT.

SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT WE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE.

YOU APPROVE SOMETHING ON CONSENT THAT HAD A CONDITION ON A PLAT SINCE IT'S NOT SOMETHING NORMALLY YOU SEE.

OKAY, THANK YOU, LIDON.

SO THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'LL OPEN IT AT 6:09, ASK IF ANYBODY HAS ANYTHING.

MR. BOND? NO.

WE'LL CLOSE IT AT 6:09 AND ASK THE COMMISSION IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD ASK IS ANY OF [INAUDIBLE] THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO AWAY WITH.

IS THERE ANY EASEMENTS, ISSUES OR UTILITIES? SO IT DOESN'T AFFECT NECESSARILY THAT, BUT BECAUSE IT'S AN ALLEYWAY, WE DO TITLE SEARCHES TO MAKE SURE VERIFICATION OF OWNERSHIP OF THOSE ALLEYS.

AND THEN WE WILL TAKE THAT FORMALLY IN AN ORDINANCE TO COUNCIL.

IT'S FOR, PART OF THAT IS FOR THE ALLEYS THAT EXISTED.

YOU HAVE AN OLD TOWN.

THESE ALLEYS A LOT OF TIMES WERE GENERATED OVER COURSES OF SOMETIMES 100 YEARS, JUST THE WAY THEY USED TO LAYOUT BLOCK AND BLOCK.

IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S NOW OCCURRING, THEY NEED TO BE ABANDONED, BUT IT WON'T IMPACT.

WE WON'T BE VIOLATING ANY OTHER KIND OF EASEMENTS OR ANYTHING WITH THAT.

EVERYTHING WILL BE DONE WITH PLAT JUST BECAUSE IT'S AN OLD TOWN.

[00:10:03]

SO THEY GO TO THE COUNTY, RECORD A PLAT REFERENCES OUR CSO.

THAT COUNCIL APPROVED THE ABANDONMENT OF THAT ALLEY AND OLD TOWN.

YEAH, I WAS JUST MAKING SURE THAT NOBODY WAS GOING TO GET STUCK WITH ANY EXPENSES.

I UNDERSTAND. TYPICALLY WHAT YOU DO IS YOU RESERVE WHEN YOU ABATE IN THE ALLEYWAY, YOU WOULD RESERVE A UTILITY EASEMENT UNDER IT.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MOTION TO APPROVE.

IT'S JUST FOR THE RECORD, THAT MOTION IS TO PROVE WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE CSO ORDINANCE NUMBER FOR THE ALLEY ABANDONMENT BE PLACED ON THE FACE OF THE PLOT.

OKAY, I HAVE A MOTION BY DAVID AND A SECOND BY DAN TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM IS 4D BELLE OAK ESTATES CASE 22-169.

[4D. Belle Oak Estates (Case 22-169):]

I'LL PASS IT OVER TO JP THANK YOU.

MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION FOR THE RECORD.

JP DUCAY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PRESENTING CASE 22-169.

THIS IS A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST AND THE OWNER IS WILLIAM, WHERE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 39.696 ACRES AND IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY ROAD 1020 AND COUNTY ROAD 914.

SO BEFORE WE JUMP INTO THE ZONING INFORMATION ON THE SITE, WE FIRST KIND OF HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THE HISTORY OR THE BACKGROUND OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.

IN 2006, THIS SITE WAS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF BURLINGTON'S EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.

AND THIS IS WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY PLATTED AND SUBDIVIDED INTO ONE ACRE RESIDENTIAL LOTS.

SO THE IMAGE ON THE SCREEN, YOU CAN SEE ALL HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN.

THAT IS THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE TODAY.

THIS IS HOW IT WAS PLATTED.

YOU CAN SEE ALL OF THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS ON THE IMAGE THERE.

THEN IN 2016, THE BELLE OAK ESTATES DEVELOPMENT WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF BURLESON AND WHEN IT WAS ANNEXED IT WAS GIVEN A DEFAULT ZONING OF AGRICULTURAL.

FOR WHATEVER REASON, THERE WAS NEVER AN ALTERNATIVE ZONING DISTRICT THAT WAS PROPOSED WHEN IT WAS ANNEXED.

AND SO IT'S JUST REMAINED AGRICULTURAL TILL THIS DAY SINCE 2016.

THEN LAST YEAR, IN 2022, THE BELLE OAK ESTATES SUBMITTED A RE PLAT AND WHEN STAFF WAS DOING A REVIEW OF THE RE PLAT, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE DEFAULT AGRICULTURAL ZONING THAT STILL EXISTED ON THAT SITE WAS UNSUITABLE FOR THE ONE ACRE LOTS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY PLATTED.

AS THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF THREE ACRES FOR ANY AGRICULTURALLY ZONED LOTS.

SO THE OWNER AND APPLICANT WAS INFORMED THAT THEY SHOULD REZONE THE PROPERTY TO A MORE CONDUCIVE ZONING DISTRICT.

AND THEY THEN SUBMITTED A ZONING CHANGE REQUESTING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT WITH A COUPLE CONDITIONS AND A BASE ZONING OF SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE.

THE TWO CONDITIONS THAT THEY REQUESTED WERE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FROM 100 FEET TO 60 FEET.

AND THE SECOND CONDITION WAS REGARDING FENCING AND MATERIAL FENCING AND MATERIAL OR FENCING LOCATIONS IN RELATION TO THE FLOW OF WATER.

IN REGARDS TO THE FENCING.

AS FOR THE ZONING WE TOUCHED ON, IT IS AGRICULTURAL CURRENTLY AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

IT FALLS UNDER TWO DESIGNATIONS.

IT FALLS UNDER NEIGHBORHOODS AND IT FALLS UNDER THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL.

IT IS IN COMPLETE CONFORMANCE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS DESIGNATION.

IT IS NOT IN PERFECT CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL.

HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE RESIDENTIAL USE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE WAS DEEMED AS GOING TO BE RESIDENTIAL LONG BEFORE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS EVEN IMPLEMENTED.

STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST.

FOR NOTICING THERE WAS NOTICES MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THERE WAS A NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER AND THERE WAS A SIGN POSTED ON THE PROPERTY.

WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANYTHING FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING THIS REQUEST.

AS FOR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, STAFF SUPPORTS THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AS IT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND IT BRINGS THE BELLE OAK DEVELOPMENT INTO ZONING COMPLIANCE.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, MYSELF AND THE APPLICANT ARE AVAILABLE.

[00:15:03]

IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANYONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 615 AND TURN IT OVER TO THE COMMISSION FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

AS THIS IS STILL SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE IS ONE ACRE LOT STILL.

THAT IS CORRECT. IT'LL REMAIN THE ONE ACRE LOT.

YEP. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE FENCING PART WHERE THE DRAINAGE.

IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT COULD CAUSE ANY ISSUES WITH DRAINING OF SOMETHING? YOU KNOW, IF WE HAD A BIG STORM OR SOMETHING GOT CLOGGED IN THERE.

SO THE WHOLE I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, SO I DON'T KNOW.

BUT I'M SURE MY RESPONSE TO THAT WOULD BE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THAT CONDITION IS TO ELIMINATE ANY OF THOSE POSSIBILITIES.

IT IS TO ENHANCE OR BENEFIT THE FLOW OF WATER IN REGARDS TO THE FENCING ON THE SITE AND WHAT FENCING IS NORMALLY REQUIRED.

FOR RESIDENTIAL, IT'S THERE'S A MULTIPLE DIFFERENT TYPES OF FENCING THAT THAT IS ALLOWED.

THIS CONDITION IS LIMITING THOSE MATERIALS TO BENEFIT THE FLOW OF WATER AT THE SITE.

SO IT'S LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF OPTIONS THAT YOU HAVE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR THAT VERY PURPOSE.

WELL, YOU'RE ASKING FOR AN EXCEPTION, THOUGH.

NO, IT'S JUST LIMITING THE TYPES OF MATERIALS THAT YOU CAN UTILIZE FOR FENCING IN THIS DEVELOPMENT.

SO IN MOST INSTANCES, TO ADD TO THAT, IF YOU'RE OVER A DRAINAGE EASEMENT, WE WOULD NOT ALLOW A FENCE TO BE CONSTRUCTED.

IF YOU ARE GOING TO CONSTRUCT A FENCE, THESE ARE THE MATERIALS THAT WE PREFER IN THAT.

AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY IT'S A PD REQUEST.

IS THIS THE ONLY FENCE LOCATION THAT'S GOING TO BE EXACTLY LIKE THIS? OR ARE THERE GOING TO BE MULTIPLE? I'M NOT SURE.

AND THE ONLY REASON I WAS LIKE YOU HAD MENTIONED WORRY ABOUT DEBRIS, LIMBS DETACHING AND STUFF LIKE THAT CAUSING FLOODING ISSUES.

I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT MIGHT FLOOD ADJOINING PROPERTIES.

WERE DAMAGED, THIS MIGHT FALL BACK ON THE HOMEOWNER.

I'M NOT SURE ABOUT FENCING LOCATIONS.

THIS WAS JUST A REQUEST THAT THEY HAD FOR FENCING IN GENERAL.

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THERE'S SWELLS THAT ARE LOCATED ALONG THE PROPERTY LINES THAT DO CROSS.

IT IS GOING TO BE THE PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT STAYS CLEAR.

YEAH. THANK YOU. THAT'S WHAT I THINK.

I WONDER IF YOU GUYS HAD ANY CONCERNS.

NO, WE HAVE. WE HAVE THESE.

THIS. THIS OCCURS QUITE OFTEN, BUT IT ALLOWS THEM TO GO AHEAD AND FENCE IN THEIR YARD AND IT ALLOWS THEM, IF THEY HAVE SMALL PETS OR SMALL KIDS OR I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO BECAUSE THEY CAN GO THEY CAN GO ACROSS THE DRAINAGE SWELL.

BUT THEN YOU HAVE THAT GAP AND THEN, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WANT TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THEIR KIDS IN OR THEY'RE SMALL DOGS.

AND SO THIS ALLOWS THAT.

YEAH, I UNDERSTAND. I'VE SEEN THE FENCING.

THEY'LL TILT UP AND I KNEW THAT THAT WOULDN'T BE APPLICABLE HERE.

RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MOTION TO APPROVE TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT ON CASE NUMBER 22-169.

SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY CLINT, SECOND BY DAN.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS.

PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

ALL RIGHT. LAST ITEM'S 4E BELLE OAK ESTATES CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A PLATS CONTAINING 31 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND TWO

[4E. Belle Oak Estates; Lots 1R, 2R, 3R, 4R, 5R, 6, 7, 8R, 9R, 10, 11R, 12R and Common Lot 13, Block 1, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4R, 5R, 6R, 7R, 8R, 9, 10, 11, 12R, 13R, 14R, 15R, 16R, 17, 18, 19R and Common Lot 20, Block 2 (Case 22-155): ]

JP IS OUR PRESENTER.

THANK YOU. SO, LIKE THE LAST PLAT THAT LIDON HAD DISCUSSED, THIS PLAT WOULD TYPICALLY BE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PREVIOUS PLAN DEVELOPMENT THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED.

STAFF IS ASKING THAT IT BE CONDITIONALLY APPROVED UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED IS GOING TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL.

SO THIS WILL THIS PLAT WILL ESSENTIALLY BE CONDITIONALLY APPROVED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT COUNCIL WILL APPROVE THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PLAT.

IF ANY COMMISSIONER WISHES TO MAKE SUCH A MOTION, THE MOTION I WOULD RECOMMEND WOULD BE CONDITIONALLY APPROVE THE PLAT IN CASE 22-155 CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT IN CASE NUMBER 22-169 BY CITY COUNCIL.

YOU CAN JUST SAY THE MOTION, HE SAID.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO REPEAT THAT.

[00:20:01]

I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.

THANK YOU, MICHAEL. GOOD JOB.

ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS.

DO WE HAVE ANY COMMUNITY INTEREST ITEMS? AND WE DO NOT HAVE ANY EXECUTIVE SESSION.

SO I WILL ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:20.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.