[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:03]
IT'S 06:00 PM, I WILL CALL THE OCTOBER 10TH PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING INTO ORDER.
THE FIRST ITEM IS GOING TO BE THE INVOCATION.
DAVID, CAN YOU LEAD US, PLEASE?
>> FATHER, WE'RE THANKFUL FOR THE BREAK IN THE WEATHER, AND LORD, WITH IT COMES ALL A VERY GREGARIOUS FALL OF EVENTS AND WE PRAY FOR YOUR SAFETY AND THE ENJOYMENT OF THE CITY OF BURLESON AND AROUND IT.
LORD, WE PRAY THAT TONIGHT THAT YOU'LL GIVE US WISDOM AND WE WILL UNDERSTAND THE THINGS THAT ARE HERE BEFORE US, AND THAT WE'LL DECIDE ACCORDINGLY.
FOR IT'S IN YOUR NAME WE PRAY. AMEN.
>> WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
IT'S TIME FOR ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT CAN SPEAK ON ANYTHING THAT IS NOT LISTED ON A PUBLIC HEARING.
I'LL OPEN IT UP IF ANYONE FROM THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO COME SPEAK.
SEEING NONE WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[3. CONSENT AGENDA]
THESE ARE ITEMS ENACTED WITH ONE MOTION UNLESS SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE COMMISSIONERS' STAFF WOULD LIKE TO PULL AN ITEM.OTHERWISE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> MOVE THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
>> I HAVE A MOTION BY DAVID AND A SECOND BY CLAN.
ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
[4.A. The Prairie at Chisholm Trail (Case 23-149): Hold a public hearing and consider an ordinance for a zoning change request from “A”, Agricultural to “PD" Planned Development for a single-family attached and townhome development with a commercial component located at 6401 CR 910Z.]
IT TAKE US INTO SECTION 4, PUBLIC HEARING.HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE FOR ZONING CHANGE REQUEST FROM A, AGRICULTURAL TO PD PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT WITH THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENTS LOCATED AT 6401 COUNTY ROAD 910Z.
ITS TOP PRESENTER IS LEIDEN PEARCE.
>> THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
THIS IS A ZONE CHANGE FOR THE PRAIRIE AT CHISHOLM TRAIL, A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS THE CHAIR MENTIONED AT 6401 COUNTY ROAD 910Z.
YOU CAN SEE THAT BLUE OUTLINE ON YOUR SCREEN THERE OF THE CHISHOLM TRAIL PARKWAY.
AS HE MENTIONED, THIS IS A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS LOCATED WITHIN OUR CHISHOLM TRAIL CORRIDOR SECTION OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AS MENTIONED, THE CURRENT ZONE IN A IS AGRICULTURAL.
YOU'LL SEE THE NOTE THERE ON THE BOTTOM AND AS YOU PROBABLY READ IN THE STAFF REPORT, STAFF DETERMINED THIS CREST IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND PURSUANT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION, AN AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IF REZONED FOR THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL.
THIS IS A CONCEPT PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
THE BLUE THERE IS A SFA PRODUCT PROPOSING 251 LOTS, AND THEN THE GREEN HIGHLIGHTED OR A TOWNHOME PRODUCT.
YOU'LL SEE THE ONE COMMERCIAL LOT THERE IN YELLOW.
THIS HAS GOT A TOTAL OF 626 SLOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 112 ACRES.
FOR THIS PUBLIC HEARING, WE DID MAIL TO PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE MOST CURRENT JOHNS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORDS.
WE PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER.
I POSTED A SIGN ON THE PROPERTY.
AS OF RIGHT NOW, STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO FORMAL OPPOSITION.
WE'VE ONLY HAD ONE PHONE CALL JUST ASKING WHETHER STAFF WAS SUPPORTING OR NOT ON THIS REQUEST.
JUST AS A NOTE, AS WE HAVEN'T HAD A ZONING CASE IN A WHILE THAT POTENTIALLY COULD HAVE MORE INPUT.
IF WE DO RECEIVE ANY FORM OF OPPOSITION OR LETTERS OR ANYTHING IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUESTS OUR SUPPORT.
AFTER THIS WAS POSTED, STAFF WILL EMAIL A COPY TO ALL OF YOU AND WE'LL ALSO PRINT IT OUT FOR YOU AT THE MEETING.
THE SAME THING WILL GO FOR COUNCIL IF WE RECEIVE ANY FORMAL LETTERS AND SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION AFTER THIS MEETING, THOSE WILL GET EMAILED AND PRINTED OUT AND WE'LL COURTESY THE COMMISSION JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE CASE.
BUT AT THIS TIME, WE'VE RECEIVED NO FORMAL OR INFORMAL OPPOSITION ON THE REQUEST.
STAFF REVIEWED THE ZONING CHANGE REQUESTS AND WE ARE PRIMARILY MAKING A RECOMMENDATION FOR DISAPPROVAL BASED ON THE REQUEST NOT MEETING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WE ALSO HAD THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS WE JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT TO YOU.
IT DOES ALLOW IN THE LANGUAGE PROVIDED ABOUT AN APPLICANT, SEE COMMERCIAL ON THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL TRACT.
FOR US, SEVERAL OF THOSE USES THAT WE CURRENTLY ALLOW ON COMMERCIAL BY RIGHT,
[00:05:04]
WOULD NOT BE COMPLIMENTARY TO THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES.THERE'S SEVERAL USES YOU WOULDN'T PUT IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THE TOWNHOME LOTS ARE SMALLER THAN WHAT WE WERE CURRENTLY ALLOWED BY OUR SFA DISTRICT.
THE DENSITIES THAT ARE PROPOSING ARE NOT COMPLIMENTARY TO THE ADJACENT SUNDANCE ADDITION TO THE WEST OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
WE LOOK A LOT AT ADJACENT LAND, LOT, SIZES, AND USES.
THEN IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT DOES TALK SPECIFICALLY IN THIS AREA ABOUT ROBUST LANDSCAPING BEING PROVIDED.
THE PD LANGUAGE IS JUST BASELINE LANDSCAPING, SO THAT DOESN'T MEET THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS WELL.
WITH THOSE THINGS IN CONSIDERATION, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL OF THIS ZONING CHANGE REQUEST.
I HAVE A CLUE TO MY PRESENTATION.
HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT THE ZONING CHANGE PROPOSAL, AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL.
I BELIEVE HE ALSO HAS A SHORT PRESENTATION FOR THE COMMISSION.
>> THANK YOU, LEIDEN. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 06:06 PM.
WE DO HAVE SOME SPEAKER CARDS HERE.
WE HAVE MR. NATHAN PINKERTON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK?
>> THE FLIER SHOWED A BUFFER ZONE.
HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS BUFFER ZONE IS.
HAVE YOU GUYS SEEN THESE FLIERS?
>> I CAN ANSWER THAT IF IT'S POSED A COMMISSION.
THE PARCEL AND THEN WHAT WE DO IS IN OUR MAPPING SYSTEM, WE SELECT A PARCEL AND THEN WE PUT A BUFFER, A 300-FOOT BUFFER, THAT'S OUR ZONING NOTIFICATION BUFFER.
STATE LAW REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 200 FEET, AND THEN THE CITY OF BURLESON HAS ADDED 100 FEET TO THAT TO ENCOMPASS EVERYBODY.
IT'S JUST SHOWING YOU IF YOUR PROPERTY FELL ON THAT BUFFER AND YOU ARE ON THE MOST CURRENT J CAT APPRAISAL DISTRICT.
IF YOU RECENTLY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, YOU WOULDN'T GET A NOTICE POTENTIALLY BUT IF YOU'RE ON THE MOST RECENT RECORDS THAT WE HAVE, YOU'LL GET A LETTER.
ANYTIME THERE'S A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
ALL THAT BUFFER IS JUST SHOWING, HEY, YOU'RE WITHIN 300 FEET AND WE'RE NOTICING IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW THAT THERE'S A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST IN YOUR BACKYARD, SO TO SAY.
>> SO IT'S NOT AN ETJ OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?
>> NO, SIR. THAT'S NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ETJ.
IT'S JUST A NOTICING BUFFER FOR OUR STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS.
>> I NOTICED YOU ONLY HAVE ONE ACCESS GOING TO THIS WHOLE PROPERTY HERE.
HOW DO YOU GET BY THAT UNLESS YOU'RE GOING TO PUT SOME OTHER ROADS IN?
>> I CAN ANSWER THAT IF IT'S ALL RIGHT WITH THE COMMISSION.
THIS IS THE ENTITLEMENT PHASE IS JUST ZONING.
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE ZONING WAS APPROVED? THE APPLICANT IS STILL REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH THE PLANNING PHASE AND THE CIVIL REVIEW PHASES AND IN THOSE PHASES, THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT THINGS SUCH AS TRAFFIC, IMPACT ANALYSIS.
THOSE ARE WHEN WE START TO LOOK AT THE ENGINEERING FUNCTIONS AND IF AT THAT TIME IS DETERMINED THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH ACCESS, OR THEY GOT TO PUT A SIGNAL LIGHT IN, OR THEY GOT TO PUT A TURN LANE IN, THOSE THINGS ARE TRIGGERED AT THAT PHASE.
AT THIS PHASE, IT'S JUST LAND USE.
THIS CONCEPT IS JUST A CONCEPT, IT'S NOT THE GOSPEL, IF YOU WILL.
>> SO I'M WAY TOO EARLY ON MY CONCERN.
>> IT'S A VALID CONCERN, IT'S JUST THAT IT COMES AT A DIFFERENT PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. NOW MR. MATT POWELL.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSION THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING.
WE APPRECIATE YOU ALL TAKING THIS AGENDA ITEM UP.
WE DO HAVE A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION.
MILIO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LOADING THAT UP FOR US.
HOPEFULLY, THIS WILL ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS.
I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH A FEW OF THESE SLIDES.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE, MR. COVEY. I'LL HAND IT OFF TO HIM AFTER I THINK ABOUT SEVEN OR EIGHT SLIDES.
WHAT I WANT TO DO IS TALK ABOUT THE PROPERTY.
SOME PARTICULARS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS WHY THERE'S SOME CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH IT, NOT ONLY FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE BUT ALSO FROM OTHER ACCESS UTILITIES AND SOME OTHER THINGS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BUT I APPRECIATE THAT, LEIDEN.
OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS JUST A LAND-USE APPLICATION, AND WE CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THE ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF IT IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.
[00:10:03]
REDUNDANT DUE TO THE PRESENTATION BY STAFF.I THINK Y'ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE LOCATION.
IT'S JUST WEST OF THE TOLLWAY.
THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST SOUTHWESTERN TIER OF THE CITY LIMITS BASED ON THE TOLLWAY ALIGNMENT AND HOW THINGS TRANSPIRED OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS.
I THINK THE CITY JUST APPROVED ONE LAST MONTH.
WE DON'T HAVE A COPY OF THAT AT THIS POINT BUT SAME WITH THE LOCATION.
HERE'S ANOTHER SLIDE THAT SHOWS SIMILARLY TO WHAT STAFF HAD SHOWN.
IT'S GOT SOME DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION, IT'S GOT ONE POINT OF ACCESS.
THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS, I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A MINUTE.
IN REGARDS TO THE COMP PLAN THE 2010 COMP PLAN WAS APPROVED AND THEN WE DID A 2020 MIDPOINT JUST A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.
IT HAPPENED IN THE MIDST OF COVID AND THERE WAS A LOT OF ZOOM MEETINGS AND A LOT OF SIDEBAR MEETINGS IN REGARDS TO COUNSEL AND STAFF.
THE 2020 VERSION OF THIS IS WHAT IS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DO WANT TO POINT OUT AND I'D LIKE TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION, THE BOTTOM PART OF THAT, THAT SHOWS IN THE CHISHOLM TRAIL CORRIDOR OVERLAY IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF OUR TRACT, THAT SHOWS WITHIN THE COMP PLAN BUT IS NOT WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.
THE BOLD, DARK LINE WITH THE RED IN-BETWEEN IT THAT JOGS AROUND THE SIDE IS CURRENTLY WHAT WE SHOW OR TO BE KNOWN AS THE CITY LIMIT LINE.
NOW, I'LL COME BACK TO THAT IN A MINUTE.
BUT DUE TO SOME OF THE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPERTY, WE FEEL THAT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION LENDS ITSELF BETTER TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, SOMETHING THAT'S NEGOTIATED, SOMETHING THAT P AND Z WOULD GIVE INPUT ON AND ALSO ULTIMATELY, COUNCIL.
WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND WHY STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE IT IS CONTRARY TO THE COMP PLAN.
HOWEVER, THE COMP PLAN IS A PLANNING DOCUMENT IT'S USED FOR GUIDANCE AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH SPECIFIC ZONING CASES AND AS WE DRILL DOWN SITE-SPECIFIC IN TERMS OF LAND USE THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
THEN, AS I MENTIONED, THIS IS UNIQUE FOR A LOT OF REASONS.
ONE, IT'S ADJACENT TO THE TOW-AWAY AND IT'S IN THE SOUTHWESTERN POCKET OF THE CITY.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'LL GET TO ON THE NEXT SLIDE BUT IN CONJUNCTION WITH SOME OF THE RECENT LEGISLATION PASSED DOWN IN AUSTIN, THE TIER 2 AND THE OPT-OUT ETJ, THERE ARE SOME LIMITATIONS THAT THE CITY HAS IN REGARDS TO SOME OF THE EXPANSION OF THE CITY LIMITS AND WITHIN THE MTP PLAN THAT WAS ADOPTED IN 2016.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED ON THIS SITE, OBVIOUSLY, WHEN THE TOLLWAY CAME THROUGH, IT SEVERED SOME OF THE TRACKS.
THERE WAS A PORTION OF THIS TRACK THAT GOT SEVERED.
THE JOSHUA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT TRACK WAS SEVERED IN THE SOUTHERLY TRACK WAS.
CHANNEL ROAD 910 WAS CLOSED, AND AT THAT TIME, THE DESIGN WAS A BACKAGE ROAD TO SERVICE THESE LOTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE TOLLWAY.
WHEN YOU SEE THESE Z DESIGNATIONS, THAT'S A TXDOT DESIGNATION OF A BACKAGE ROAD.
NOTHING THAT WAS REALLY IMPROVED AS FAR FROM THE CITY GUIDELINE OR CITY STANDARDS FOR IMPROVEMENT BUT AT THAT TIME, THE COUNTY WAS WORKING WITH TXDOT ON THESE ALIGNMENTS, AND THAT'S WHAT COUNTY ROAD 910Z, IS WHICH THE ONLY POINT OF ACCESS IS FM 917.
THAT PRESENTS ONE OF THE MAIN STICKING POINTS AS FAR AS THE COMP PLAN, IN MY OPINION, IS IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE COMP PLAN AND WE'RE LOOKING AT A GENERAL RETAIL COMMERCIAL OFFICE, HIGH-DENSITY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING, PROBABLY MORE VERTICAL IS THIS PARTICULAR DESIGNATION.
THOSE TYPE OF LAND USES ARE MORE OF A DESTINATION LOCATION, SO TO SPEAK, WHERE PEOPLE OBVIOUSLY GO TO WORK AND GET SERVICES FROM A VARIETY OF CONSULTANTS, OR DOCTORS OR WHATEVER.
COUNTY ROAD 910Z IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THAT WITHOUT SOME CHANGES.
[00:15:05]
IT'S JUST NOT A DESTINATION LOCATION BASED ON THE LAND USE DESIGNATED IN THE COMP PLAN.THE OTHER IS THAT RIGHT THERE WHERE COUNTY ROAD 910Z, THAT TXDOT BACKAGE ROAD TAG IS ON THE SLIDE IMMEDIATELY WEST IS A MINOR ARTERIAL, WHICH IS A 90-FOOT ARTERIAL WHICH RUNS FROM COUNTY ROAD 913 ALL THE WAY TO 917.
THAT PARTICULAR ARTERIAL WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC DUE TO THE TIER 2 AND THE OPT-OUT LEGISLATION THAT WAS RECENTLY ADOPTED SEPTEMBER THE 1ST OF THIS YEAR.
THE ABILITY FOR THE CITY TO PROBABLY EXTEND THAT MINOR ARTERIAL 90-FOOT THROUGH THE ALIGNMENT OF COUNTY ROAD 911 IS MOST LIKELY NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE THE SOLUTION TO THIS HIGHER DENSITY THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO SUPPORT COMP PLAN BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO NEED ACCESS INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT IF IT'S VERTICAL AND IT'S HIGHER DENSITY, AND WE'VE GOT MEDICAL OFFICE, COMMERCIAL, GENERAL RETAIL OF THAT NATURE.
MTPS ARE PERPETUALLY BEING SCRUTINIZED AND UPDATED BASED ON ALL THE OTHER CONSTRAINTS AND CHARACTERISTICS.
THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MAKES THIS A UNIQUE PIECE OF PROPERTY IN RESPECT TO ACCESS, RESPECT TO THE COMP PLAN, RESPECT TO THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN, AND SOME OTHER ISSUES REGARDING UTILITIES.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT AS WELL.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THAT, BUT I'D BE WILLING TO ANSWER ANY IF YOU HAVE SOME.
NEXT SLIDE. IN TERMS OF UTILITIES, AND AGAIN, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DIVE DOWN INTO THIS TOPIC.
THIS IS LAND USE, THIS IS NOT ENGINEERED, IT'S NOT A REQUEST, IT'S NOT FINAL PLAN, IT'S NOT CIVIL PLANS, BUT JUST TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE, SOME OF THE CHALLENGES RELATED TO THIS PROPERTY AND ITS UNIQUENESS, OF COURSE, TO THE LEFT IS A 2010 MASTER SEWER PLAN.
THE NUMBER 13 RIGHT THERE ABOVE THE 2020 CIP, ONCE AGAIN, THESE ARE PLANNING DOCUMENTS, AND STAFF AND COUNCIL THEY HAVE TO DO THESE.
WE GET OUT IN FRONT OF THESE THINGS OVER A 10,20,30-YEAR PERIOD.
IN 2010, IT WAS THIS PARTICULAR BLUE LINE RIGHT THERE WAS ONLY 2020 CIP.
MY ONLY POINT TO THAT IS THAT'S COME AND GONE AND USUALLY, THOSE THINGS DO COME AND GO OVER TIME BECAUSE THEY'RE A PLANNING DOCUMENT, JUST LIKE THE COMP PLAN.
THE 2015 DOCUMENT, THE UPDATE TO THE MASTER SEWER PLAN, SHOWS THAT THIS 2020 VERSION OF THE CIP MOVES TO 2025, THE OTHER GREEN LINE TO THE RIGHT OF THE 2035 CIP.
IF IN FACT, THAT IS TRUE, AND THE CITY WAS PLANNING ON EXTENDING SEWER DOWN HERE IN 2035 THAT MEANS THIS PROPERTY IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE DEVELOPABLE TILL 2040.
THAT'S HOW FAR OUT THESE THINGS GO.
THAT'S THE OTHER REASON I MENTIONED THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN BECAUSE IT'S ANOTHER PLANNING DOCUMENT, AND I THINK THE LAND USE NEEDS TO BE SUPPORTED BY NOT ONLY THE MASTER SEWER PLAN AND THE MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN BUT ALSO THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
THIS APP PRESENTS ITS CHALLENGES REGARDING UTILITIES.
NOW, WE HAVE THE CITY OF BURLESON.
OBVIOUSLY, IT'S IN CITY LIMITS, SO THEY WOULD BE SERVING SEWER.
JOHNSON COUNTY SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT HAS A CNN FOR THE WATER.
OBVIOUSLY, WE'VE DONE THIS ON OTHER PROJECTS, BUT NEGOTIATING BETWEEN THE CITY AND [INAUDIBLE] TO RELINQUISH RIOTS, THAT'S ALSO A LONG PROCESS AND PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAPPEN, BUT IT'S A POSSIBILITY IN TERMS OF SEWERING THIS.
ON THE 2015 SECTION SLIDE, THE PROPOSED CHISHOLM TRAIL THAT'S IN PROCESS RIGHT NOW, IS IT LIFT STATION?
>> NO, SIR. THAT'S THE LIFT STATION ABOUT A MILE NORTH OF HERE.
THERE'S COUPLE LIFT STATIONS IN THE CHISHOLM SUMMIT PROJECT, I'M GLAD YOU BRING THAT UP.
THERE IS ABOUT 22,000 LINEAR FEET OF SEWER BEING EXTENDED THROUGHOUT AROUND THE CHISHOLM SUMMIT PROJECT NOW WITH A COUPLE OF LIFT STATIONS.
BUT THAT LIFT STATION IS ON 1902 BY THE TOLL WAY NORTH OF HERE.
WHICH THE OTHER SINCE YOU BRING THAT UP,
[00:20:03]
CHISHOLM SUMMIT PROJECT, THE HOOPER BUSINESS PARK RIGHT NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS YOU'RE GOING TO SEE MORE OF THAT COMP PLAN, TOP PRODUCT, A MEDICAL OFFICE, COLLEGE CAMPUS, GENERAL RETAIL COMMERCIAL IN THE BUSINESS PART.THAT'S WHERE THAT'S GOING TO LAND.
YOU WOULD SEE THOSE USERS COMING ONLINE BEFORE THIS AREA WOULD, OBVIOUSLY, SO THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY I SAY IF IT'S SEWER LINE GETS BUILT IN 2035, YOU'RE LOOKING MORE AT 15 PLUS YEARS DOWN THE ROAD FOR THAT PARTICULAR LAND USE TO COME TO FRUITION.
THIS WAS IN STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU LEIDEN FOR GOING THROUGH THOSE.
AT THIS TIME IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, I'D LOVE TO ANSWER THEM.
OR IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HAS ANY QUESTIONS.
AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO HAND THIS OFF TO THE APPLICANT, MR. COVEY, IF NO ONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME.
WHAT IS THE PROPERTY, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS PROPERTY THAT'S RIGHT ON TOP OF THE PICTURE. WHAT IS THAT?
>> THERE'S ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE.
SOMETIMES IT'S GOOD TO HAVE SOME FLOODPLAIN, SOMETIMES IT'S NOT.
WE USE IT A LOT OF TIMES TO MITIGATE DRAINAGE.
THERE'S SOME PARK HIKING BIKE TRAILS AND MAYBE SOME PARKLAND DEDICATION.
BUT THE OTHER THING IN REGARDS TO THE AXIS, THE ENTIRETY OF THIS EASTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY HAS CONTROLLED ACCESS BY TEXT DOT, SO 910Z IS THE INTEREST OF THE PROPERTY.
YOU WOULDN'T EXTEND 910Z UP BECAUSE IT'D BE COST PROHIBITIVE.
PLUS YOU WOULD GET INTO ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT'S A ONE-ACRE PROJECT THAT'S PROBABLY BEEN ON THE GROUND FOR THE LAST 35, 40 YEARS, IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST AND TO THE NORTH.
YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT THE LAND USE IN TERMS OF EVERYTHING TO THE IMMEDIATE WEST, BUT IT'S ALSO TRUE TO THE NORTH AS WELL.
>> HAVE YOU TRIED TO NEGOTIATE WITH TEXT DOT AT ALL ON ANY?
>> I HAVE NOT. I'LL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO THAT.
THAT'S USUALLY A HARD NUT TO TURN WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH TEXT DOT, ESPECIALLY ON A BRAND NEW TOLL WAY.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME.
IF SOMETHING COMES UP AFTER THE END OF THE PRESENTATION OR ANOTHER PERSON IN THE AUDIENCE, I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF I CAN.
>> HI, GOOD EVENING. HOW'S IT RUNNING? I WANTED TO JUST TOUCH ON JUST SOME OF THE BUSINESS ASPECTS AS AN ENTREPRENEUR, I THINK IN TERMS OF DOLLARS AND CENTS, AND IT'S JUST MY JOB.
I APPRECIATE HIM COVERING ALL THE LAND USED ITEMS. IS IT UP AND DOWN?
>> IT'S TO THE RIGHT. CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS?
I LIVE IN PLANO, SO I'M WITH LANDVEST DEVELOPMENT AND WE DEVELOP PROPERTIES ALL ACROSS NORTH TEXAS.
WE WENT THROUGH THESE ALREADY.
FOR ME, IT WAS REALLY INTERESTING TO LOOK AT THE TAX VALUE.
THE PROPERTY IS NOT OBVIOUSLY GENERATING A LOT OF TAX VALUE AT THE MOMENT AND IT REALLY LOOKED LIKE THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY TOO GET SOME TAX VALUE, AND NOT REALLY COST THE CITY ANYTHING BECAUSE IT'S A COUNTY ROAD, DOESN'T REALLY COST THE CITY ANYTHING TO PUT SOMETHING OUT THERE IF THE DEVELOPER IS HANDLING ALL THE COST.
THIS NUMBER WAS REALLY INTERESTING TO ME AS WE MODELED IT WITH YOUR CURRENT TAX RATE.
IT'S 1,000,001 A YEAR AND THEN YOU MODEL THAT OVER 30 YEARS IS ABOUT 53 MILLION TO THE CITY SO THAT'S JUST AN INTERESTING THING TO THINK ABOUT IF A PROJECT LIKE THIS WAS PUT IN PLACE.
I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PRODUCT THAT WE WOULD TYPICALLY DO AND SHOW SOME OF THE ONES THAT WE'RE DOING CURRENTLY IN OTHER CITIES.
WE'VE GOT THE SAME PD LANGUAGE WITH THE CITY OF ANNA.
YOU GUYS ARE PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH THEM SO THAT'S A PROJECT THAT THE CITY WAS REALLY WELCOMED.
THEY'VE BEEN GREAT TO WORK WITH SO FAR AND THEY REALLY LIKE THE PRODUCT.
LEIDEN MENTIONED ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING AND I THINK IF WE LOOK AT SOME OF THESE RENDERINGS, I THINK WE WOULD PROBABLY MORE THAN ADDRESS THE LANDSCAPING ITEM AND WOULD LOVE TO ADD MORE LANDSCAPING IF WE CAN WORK WITH THE CITY ON THAT.
OUR TOWNHOME PORTION, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE TOWNHOME PORTION TOWARDS THE TOW WE COUNT AS A BUFFER, JUST BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT THE NOISE FACTOR.
THAT WORKS REALLY WELL ON THE TOW SIDE.
OUR TOWNHOME CONCEPT, IT IS PARK CENTRIC.
WE TOOK THE STREETS OUT OF THE FRONT AND I JUST DESIGNED THIS PROJECT OR THIS PRODUCT FROM SCRATCH, TO REALLY INCORPORATE A LOT MORE GREEN SPACE AND CITIES HAVE REALLY LIKED IT FROM THAT STANDPOINT.
[00:25:01]
YOU CAN SEE FROM THE RENDERINGS, BECAUSE IT HAS, IT'S AN ARCHITECTURAL TERM MUSE, M-U-S-E, IS WHAT YOU CALL THAT SPACE IN THE MIDDLE SO ALL THE TOWNHOMES LOOK INTO THE GREEN SPACE, VERY HEAVILY LANDSCAPED, AND IT'S JUST A VERY COMMUNAL TYPE OF LIVING.THEIR REAR ENTRY, TWO CAR GARAGE, 20-FOOT WIDE APRONS, YOU CAN PARK TWO CARS IN THE BACK AND THEN THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOME ADDITIONAL PARKING.
NOW, WE USE THE MODERN PERIOD DESIGN STYLE, SEEMS TO FIT REALLY WELL IN THIS PART OF THE WORLD, EVERYBODY LIKES IT.
NOW ON THE SINGLE-FAMILY PRODUCT, THAT COULD BE A RANGE OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
THESE ARE SOME RENDERINGS OF SIMILAR PRODUCT THAT WE'VE DONE BEFORE SO SIMILAR DESIGN STYLE WITH THAT MODERN PRAIRIE LOOK, AND THAT SEEMS TO BE VERY POPULAR.
AGAIN, LANDSCAPING IS A KEY ELEMENT, SO LEIDEN I'D LIKE TO TALK WITH YOU GUYS MORE ABOUT THAT IF THERE'S WAYS TO INCORPORATE MORE LANDSCAPING.
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT OUR OPTIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL.
IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ZONING AND WE DON'T HAVE TO GET APPROVAL TO DO THE FIVE-ACRE SUB-DIVIDE.
NOT REALLY IDEAL. I DON'T THINK IT'S REALLY IN THE BEST INTEREST TO THE CITY, BUT IT IS OUR BACKUP OPTION SO I WANTED TO JUST PRESENT THAT TO YOU AND JUST CONTRAST THE TWO.
IF WE GO THAT ROUTE, WE CAN DO THE FIVE ACRES AND PRIVATE ROAD, PRETTY SIMILAR TO THE LARGE LOT SUBDIVISIONS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN HERE.
NOT MUCH TO IT. PRETTY SIMPLE.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY THOUGH AND I CAN CONTRAST THAT IF WE LOOK AT THE TAX REVENUE.
THE CURRENT PROPOSED PD ZONING, IT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE, IT'S ABOUT A MILLION A YEAR DIFFERENCE AND THAT'S 43,000,000/30 YEARS IN TAX REVENUE, SO IT DOESN'T TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST TO LOOK AT THAT AND SAY, HEY, IT'S DEFINITELY BETTER FOR THE CITY TO APPROVE SOMETHING THAT HAS A LITTLE BIT MORE DENSITY THAN JUST FIVE-ACRE LOTS.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? ON THE FIVE-ACRE LAYOUT? I HAD A COUPLE OF THINGS ON UTILITIES.
WE ALREADY COVERED THOSE, WHO CAN SERVE UTILITIES.
ON CORE BE ELECTRIC WAS THE ONLY THING THAT HASN'T BEEN MENTIONED.
IT IS A LONG WAY ON SEWERS, SO WE'D HAVE TO WORK THROUGH THAT PARTICULAR ELEMENT, BUT THAT'S LATER IN THE PROCESS.
>> YEAH. THAT'S ALL THE SLIDES I HAD, BUT I'D LOVE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION, SEE WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE.
>> YEAH. WE SHOWED THE MODERN PERIOD LOOK ON THE CONCEPTION PICTURE.
DO YOU HAVE ONE, A CONCEPTUAL PICTURE OF THE PROPOSED LOT SIZES SO WE CAN SEE A COMPARISON?
>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ON THE LAYOUT? TALKING ABOUT THIS LAYOUT?
>> NO, THE ONE WHERE IT SHOWED A PICTURE OF THE HOMES.
>> WHAT IS THE RENDERING LOT SIZE?
>> THERE'LL BE 50 FOOT WIDE LOTS.
>> IN THE RENDERING, IT'S GOOD QUESTION.
I THINK THEY'RE 50S, I'M PRETTY SURE.
THEY LOOK A LITTLE BIT CLOSE THOUGH, SO THEY COULD BE SOMETHING SLIGHTLY SMALLER.
>> BECAUSE I WAS HOPING THAT YOU'D HAVE A PICTURE, SHOW WHERE YOU SEE THE BURGER AND THE REAL BURGER.
I WAS HOPING YOU WOULD HAVE SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT MORE TO SCALE OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE COMPARED TO IF I GO GET A BURGER, YOU HEAR A BURGER, BUT IT COULD BE THIS BIG. LITTLE BIT ONE.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS HOPING YOU WOULD HAVE.
>> I THINK THESE ARE LAID OUT AS 50S, BUT IT LOOKS TIGHT.
THESE COULD BE 40S OR SOMETHING SMALLER, BUT 50S IS WHAT WE HAVE DRAWN CURRENTLY.
ANY FEEDBACK FROM YOU GUYS ON? THE LAYOUT THAT WE HAVE, AGAIN, IS CONCEPTUAL AND WE'RE OPEN TO BEING COLLABORATIVE.
THAT'S HOW WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN WITH ANY CITIES THAT WE'VE WORKED WITH.
WE LOVE THE COLLABORATIVE PROCESS AND THERE'S A LOT OF WAYS THAT WE CAN DO THE THINGS THAT YOU NEED AT THE SAME TIME OF ACCOMPLISHING THE THINGS THAT WE NEED.
>> DID I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY THAT THERE'S EITHER THE FIVE-ACRE LOT OR THE ZONING REQUEST THAT YOU'VE GOT IN FRONT OF US TODAY?
>> YEAH. THAT'S WHAT MAKES SENSE FOR US.
IT'S A BUSINESS ON A CHARITY, OBVIOUSLY, SO WE HAVE TO KEEP DOLLARS MOVING.
THE FIVE-ACRE OPTION IS THERE, BUT IT'S NOT IN EVERYBODY'S BEST INTEREST TO DO THAT IF WE DON'T HAVE TO.
>> WELL, HAVE YOU TRIED TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE CITY AND COME INTO CONFORMANCE WITH SOME OF WHAT YOU'VE BEEN?
>> DEFINITELY. IN OUR CONVERSATIONS, I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING, THAT WAS A NEW ONE FOR ME.
BUT IN OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CITY, THEIR HANDS ARE TIED BECAUSE THE COMP PLAN,
[00:30:01]
SO THEY CAN'T REALLY RECOMMEND AND GO TO THE NEXT STEP WITHOUT ZONING FIRST.LYDE, MAYBE YOU CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
>> I CAN. WHEN WE WERE RECEIVED A SUBMITTAL WITH A PROPOSED PD STAFF MAKES COMMENTS ON THAT PD LANGUAGE, STAFF DID PROVIDE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LANGUAGE.
IT'S INFORMATIONAL. WE CAN'T FORCE THEM TO INCORPORATE IT AT OUR LEVEL.
WE'VE SEEN SOME OTHER DEVELOPMENTS RELATED TO INCREASING LANDSCAPING.
WE PROVIDED SOME STANDARDS ON SOME OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
THE APPLICANT DID NOT INCORPORATE ANY OF THOSE COMMENTS INTO THEIR PD LANGUAGE, BUT STAFF DID PROVIDE COMMENTS RELATED TO DESIGN AND LANDSCAPING, REAR ENTRY, SOME OF THOSE QUALITY DESIGN THINGS THAT WE CONCERN OURSELVES ABOUT WITH THE LANGUAGE AS OPPOSED TO THE PICTURES.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO MAYBE HAVE A LARGER DISCUSSION.
I GUESS I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THOSE WERE SUGGESTIONS TO INCORPORATE.
THE PD LANGUAGE IS VERY FLEXIBLE.
THAT'S THE NICE THING ABOUT A PD.
>> I WOULD STATE THAT, OBVIOUSLY, STAFF PROVIDES COMMENTS ON PD LANGUAGE AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO HELP THEM GET THE BEST PRODUCT FORWARD.
FROM A CITY PERSPECTIVE, COUNCIL AND PINZI WERE TO RECOMMEND AND APPROVE THE PD AS WRITTEN.
THEY'D HAVE TO REZONE, WHICH AT THAT TIME, WE CAN'T HOLD THEM TO ANYTHING, THEY HAD THOSE REVISED.
GENERALLY, IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO REVISE A PD, WE WOULD REQUEST MAYBE THEY EITHER TABLE THE REQUEST OR PULL THE REQUESTS AND RESUBMIT.
BUT STAFF HAS PROVIDED ROUNDS OF COMMENTS RELATED TO THOSE ASPECTS.
>> IN REGARD TO THAT, ARE THERE OTHER ITEMS AS YOU GUYS ARE SEEING THESE THOUGHTS OF IT'S YOUR JOB TO PLAN AHEAD AND LOOK AHEAD.
WHAT ARE THINGS THAT YOU WANT TO SEE ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS THAT WOULD MAKE IT SOMETHING YOU'D BE MORE HEAVILY CONSIDER.
>> NOW, I'LL GO AHEAD AND SPEAK UP ON THIS.
THE LOT SIZES REALLY BOTHER ME PERSONALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CITY AT SOME POINT IN TIME DO MINIMAL LOT SIZES.
BUT I UNDERSTAND WHERE THIS IS AT.
ALSO, I UNDERSTAND THAT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, THE LOT SIZE THAT THEY HAVE NOW, I'D LIKE TO SEE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE UNIFORM AND NOT SO DRASTIC.
AGAIN, THIS IS PERSONAL AND ALSO LOOKING OUT FOR THE CITY'S INTEREST, THAT WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT TEXAS BEING WORTH IT TO THE CITY.
THE MILLION DOLLAR DIFFERENCE, YOU ALSO HAVE TO WEIGH IN WHAT WOULD THE DIFFERENCE BE IN THE EXTRA WEAR AND TEAR ON ALL THE EXTRA TRAFFIC.
AS FAR AS WATER, SEWER, STREET MAINTENANCE, STUFF LIKE THAT.
POLICE PRESENCE, FIRE DEPARTMENT, STUFF LIKE THAT.
I THINK THAT ONE WOULD FAR OUTWEIGH THE OTHER ONE.
I THINK IT'D BE IN THE CITY'S BEST INTEREST.
AGAIN, PERSONALLY, MY DECISION AND THE WAY I SEE IT IS PUSHING FOR LARGER LOT SIZES ON THAT.
THE CARGOS, I LIKE TO DESIGN STUFF LIKE THAT, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE LAYOUT DONE WITH HARDWARE LOT SIZES.
>> TELL ME BECAUSE WE WERE FITTING THE SINGLE-FAMILY, THE 50-FOOT IS IN WHO ARE FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINES.
WHAT ARE YOU THINKING WITH LARGER LOT SIZES ACCORDING TO YOUR THOUGHTS.
FIFTY SEEM TO BE PRETTY STANDARD, ARE YOU THINKING 60S OR WHAT
>> IT DEPENDS ON THE STREETS, IT IS GOING TO THROW IT ALL OFF.
AGAIN, YOU HAVE THE WATER DRAINAGE AND STUFF THAT'S GOING TO GO TO THE EXISTING CORNER.
THAT'S NOT SO MUCH THE ISSUE AS IS THE WHOLE WAY OUT, IT'S COMPARING TO WHAT YOU HAVE ADJOINING PROPERTIES.
>> TELL ME A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT. WHAT'S YOUR VISION THERE? WHAT DO YOU SEE?
>> I'M GOING TO INTERJECT, MAKERBETSY, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY, MR. KEVIN, YOU HAVE AN APPLICATION PENDING IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION TODAY.
WHAT I'D RECOMMEND IS NOT QUIZ THEM ON WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE.
I THINK WE HAVE A COMP PLAN IN PLACE THAT SHOWS WHAT WE ENVISION.
I THINK WE HAVE AN APPLICATION THAT'S CURRENTLY IN PLACE SO THAT THEY CAN VOTE UP AND DOWN ON.
WHAT I DON'T WANT TO HAVE IS A DISCUSSION ON SOMEHOW WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM THE COMP PLAN THAT'S IN PLACE.
AS YOU WELL KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO ZONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A COMP PLAN.
I DON'T WANT TO PUT MY COMMISSIONERS IN A POSITION WHERE THEY SPEAK AGAINST SOMETHING THAT'S NOT REPRESENTED IN THE CITY'S COMP PLAN AT THIS TIME.
>> YEAH. I GOT THAT. THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU.
>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION, PLEASE.
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE PROPOSED TOWN HOME LOT SIZES AND WHAT THE CITY CURRENTLY REQUIRES?
>> I CAN ANSWER THAT. OUR SFA REQUIRES A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 2,500 SQUARE FEET.
THE PROPOSED IN THE PD IS 1,400 SQUARE FEET.
THE LOT WIDTH REQUIRED FOR OUR MINIMUM IS 25 FEET.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 20 FEET.
THE LOT DEPTH IN OUR ORDINANCE IS A MINIMUM OF A 100 FEET.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 70 FEET.
[00:35:02]
>> THAT IS WITH THE TOWN HOME LOTS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. BUT WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A TOWN HOME IF THERE'S AN SFA.
>> UNDERSTOOD. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT FOR THE RECORD.
>> I THINK I JUMPED ON THE BANDWAGON IN RELATIONSHIP DENSITY.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE CAN DO THIS OR NOT, BUT I'D BE INTERESTED IN THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE DENSITY BETWEEN THE HEALON AND ALLSBERRY PROJECT AND THIS PROJECT, BECAUSE WE STRUGGLED THROUGH THIS SAME ISSUE THERE WITH THAT DENSITY ISSUE.
THE COMMERCIAL PLOT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A SUBDIVISION DRAWS A LITTLE BIT OF CONSTERNATION IN RELATIONSHIP TO COMMERCIAL.
IT COULD BE ANYTHING RIGHT THERE IN THE MIDDLE OF SUBDIVISION.
>> JUST TO CLARIFY ON THAT COMMERCIAL, THERE'S AN ACCESS ISSUE BECAUSE OF TURNING OFF THAT MAJOR STREET.
WE CAN'T REALLY PUT HOUSE LOTS THERE.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE COMMERCIAL.
IT COULD BE DESIGNATED AS A PARK OR IT COULD BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN, JUST BECAUSE OF THE ACCESS, WE COULDN'T PUT HOUSES THERE.
>> I'M GOING TO JUMP IN AND SAY ONE MORE THING. SORRY.
>> IT'S BEEN AWHILE SINCE WE'VE ENCOUNTERED THIS ISSUE.
LEIDEN, IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED AG.
>> IF YOU WERE TO READ OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES, TYPICALLY WHEN YOU-ALL, THE COMMISSION, IF IT WERE TO DENY A ZONING APPLICATION, IT TRIGGERS A THREE-FOURTHS REQUIREMENT, MEANING COUNCIL, IF IT WAS TO OVERRIDE THE DENIAL MADE BY THE COMMISSION, IT WOULD REQUIRE THREE-FOURTHS MAJORITY CITY COUNCIL.
THAT DOES NOT APPLY, HOWEVER, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A DEFAULT ZONING.
TECHNICALLY, THE WAY THE LAW LOOKS AT IT IS BECAUSE THIS IS DEFAULT AG, IT'S NEVER BEEN GIVEN A ZONING AND IT IS ENTITLED TO A ZONING.
IF THE COMMISSION DOES DETERMINE TO DENY THIS APPLICATION, IT WILL NOT TRIGGER THE THREE-FOURTHS MAJORITY WHEN COUNCIL REVIEWS IT.
>> WELL, FOR ALL THE REASONS STATED IN STAFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THIS, I INTEND TO VOTE NO WHEN THIS COMES FOR A VOTE.
THE DENSITY IS MY MAIN PROBLEM, IT'S LIKE A BMI ON A PERSON.
WE'D GO IN LOOKING AT IT AND NOTHING NEEDS TO BE TRIMMED DOWN.
[BACKGROUND] MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY.
THANK YOU FOR INTERJECTING THERE.
I APPRECIATE THAT AND I APPRECIATE STAFF.
ONE OF THE THINGS IN REGARDS TO SOME OF THE STAFF SUGGESTIONS WE MADE THROUGH THE PROCESS.
IT WAS CLEAR THAT STAFF WAS NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS DUE TO IT BEING OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMP PLAN.
SO FOR US TO GO THROUGH THE EXPENSE OF DOING THE ENGINEERING AND ADDRESSING SOME OF THESE DETAILS, WE KEPT THE APPLICATION AS IT WAS BECAUSE WHETHER WE DID THAT OR NOT, WE KNEW STAFF WAS GOING TO RECOMMEND OR NOT RECOMMEND THIS TO THE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL.
SO SINCE THIS IS A PD, ONCE AGAIN, I GO BACK TO ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT I'D MENTIONED.
IT'S A NEGOTIATED ZONING CASE.
THIS SITE HAS SOME CHALLENGES. IT'S UNIQUE.
WE WANTED TO GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM BY THEIR VOTE OR COMMENT FROM THE COMMISSION.
AS IT MOVES FORWARD TO COUNCIL, WE WOULD LOVE TO GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM COUNCIL AS WELL.
IF IT'S DENSITY, WE CAN ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES, ITS LAND USE, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT.
SO MOVING FORWARD, IF WE GET SOME MAYBE IT'S A COUNCIL WORKSHOP, MAYBE IT'S WORKING WITH STAFF.
I'M NOT SURE BUT WE'RE WILLING TO MOVE FORWARD AND WORK THROUGH SOME OF THESE ITEMS IF WE CAN DEAL WITH THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND COME TO TERMS WITH A NEGOTIATED ZONING PACKAGE THAT FITS THIS SITE, THAT'S BENEFICIAL TO THE CITY AND ITS CITIZENS AND THE LANDOWNER AND THE DEVELOPER.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT IGNORING STAFF AND I WOULD NEVER DO THAT.
IT'S JUST THAT WE'D HAVE THE SAME RESULT RIGHT NOW, IF WE WERE ADDRESSING SOME OF THESE DIMENSIONAL ISSUES, SOME OF THE WIDTH ISSUES ON THE STREET, SOME OF THE OTHER PRODUCT IN TERMS OF THE DENSITY, BUT ITS LAND-USE.
WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE IS COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO MEDICAL OFFICE HIGH-RISE.
[00:40:03]
SO THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO WRAP OUR HEAD AROUND, IS THE 2020 MID POINT, ARE THERE ANY FLAWS IN IT DUE TO SITES SPECIFICITY OF THIS PARTICULAR TRACT? THAT'S REALLY THE QUESTION.DOES THE CURRENT 2020 MIDPOINT APPLY BASED ON THE CONSTRAINTS OF THIS SITE? IS THAT WHAT P AND Z AND IS THAT WHAT COUNCIL REALLY EXPECTS FOR THIS PARTICULAR TRACK BECAUSE THE COMP PLAN IS A TOOL THAT WE USE TO MOVE FORWARD AND ADDRESS THESE ISSUES.
SO I APPRECIATE YOU INTERJECTING THERE, IT'S A LAND USE ISSUE AND WE'RE WILLING TO HEAR ANY FEEDBACK EITHER IF YOU WANT TO DIRECT THAT THROUGH STAFF SO WE CAN DO A SIDEBAR OFFLINE OR IF WE DO MOVE TO COUNSEL, THERE ARE SOME IMPLICATIONS REGARDING THE DEFAULT ZONING THAT'S COMING THROUGH AND COUNSEL THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE THIS SCRUTINY JUST LIKE EVERY ONE OF YOU ARE AND WE EXPECT THAT.
SO THE QUESTION AT HAND IS THE DENSITY ISSUES, I THINK WE CAN WORK THROUGH, IT'S THE LAND USE ISSUES THAT ARE GERMANE TO THE QUESTION AT HAND.
>> HOPEFULLY THAT'S SOME CLARIFICATION.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. POWELL.
DO ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS FOR THESE TWO AS IT PERTAINS TO THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST AS IT STANDS NOW?
>> WELL, I JUST WANT TO SAY FOR THE BENEFIT OF EVERYONE ON THIS COMMISSION THAT I DON'T HAVE ANY PHILOSOPHICAL OBJECTION TO THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT'S BEING PROPOSED BUT I AM VERY, VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT PART OF TOWN.
SINCE IF YOU PUT THAT MAP BACK UP THERE, YOU GO STRAIGHT ACROSS FROM THIS ACROSS THE CHISHOLM TRAIL PARKWAY IS MY SUBDIVISION AND YOU'RE LUCKY TO GET A POLICE CAR OUT THERE WHEN YOU NEED ONE.
YOU DANG SURE AIN'T GOING TO GET A FIRE TRUCK OR AN AMBULANCE IF YOU NEED ONE.
WE GOT TO RELY ON THE COUNTY ESD TO GET OUT THERE.
THE DENSITY IS MY MAIN OBJECTION AND THAT MAY BE AND UNDERSTATEMENT TO WHAT MR. POWELL WAS TALKING ABOUT.
SO LAND-USE ISSUE AT THIS STAGE, BUT I'M WITHIN A MILE, AS THE CROW FLIES OF THAT LOCATION AND THE CITY SERVICES THAT WE AS TAX-PAYING BURLESON RESIDENTS SHOULD RECEIVE, WE DON'T RECEIVE IT NOW.
SO DENSITY IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO ME AS AN ISSUE.
CAN THAT'D BE WORKED OUT WITH STAFF LATER AND THEN MAYBE IT WAS CITY COUNCIL.
AS MR. [INAUDIBLE] SAID, WE CAN'T BE NEGOTIATING FROM THE DIETS UP HERE AND AGAIN, I'M NOT PHILOSOPHICALLY OBJECTING TO THE IDEA OF HAVING RESIDENTIAL THERE AT ALL.
NOW, UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S NOT IDEAL LAND USE GIVEN THE CHALLENGES THERE FOR PUTTING MEDICAL OFFICES AND SUCH.
SO MAYBE RESIDENTIAL IS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE PROPERTY, BUT I'M GOING TO VOTE NO IF FOR NO OTHER REASON IS TO REGISTER MY OBJECTION.
SO WHEN THIS GOES TO COUNSEL, THEN I WILL BE ABLE TO DISCUSS IT WITH EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S SQUASHED TOGETHER, A BUNCH OF RESIDENTIAL SQUASHED TOGETHER RIGHT THERE AND IT'S BEEN SOMETHING SINCE I WAS ON THE CITY COUNCIL AND ON THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BEFORE THAT, TRYING TO GET THE CITY TO RECOGNIZE THAT HAD ANNEX THAT AREA BACK IN 2005 AND 2008 AND HAS DONE REALLY VERY LITTLE TO SERVICE THE AREA.
AND I DON'T WANT TO IMPOSE MORE DRAW ON ON CITY SERVICES.
NOT AGAIN, RESIDENTIAL IS FINE, BUT THE DENSITY FOR ME IS TOO MUCH.
I'M GOING TO VOTE NO, AND FOLKS CAN VOTE AND HOWEVER THEY DECIDE IS BEST FOR THEM.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, TODD. IF NOBODY ELSE HAS ANY COMMENTS AND WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, TURN IT OVER TO THE COMMISSION.
>> CHAIR THERE MAY BE, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC HAS ANY COMMENTS.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE SPEAKER CARDS. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE.
>> YEAH, WE JUST HAD THE TWO MR. PINKERTON.
>> OKAY. JUST WANTED TO VERIFY. I THINK WE'RE GOOD THEN.
>> OKAY. THEN I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 06:44 P.M.
I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE COMMISSION FOR ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
[00:45:01]
>> YOU'RE READY FOR THE MOTION? AS IT RELATES TO THE CASE 23-149, THE PRAIRIE AT CHISHOLM TRAIL I VOTE THAT WE DENY THE REQUEST AS PRESENTED.
>> A MOTION BY DAVID, A SECOND BY TODD. ALL IN FAVOR.
RAISE YOUR HANDS. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
SO THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST IS DENIED. ALL RIGHT.
MOVING ON TO REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS.
THERE ARE NONE, NO COMMUNITY INTERESTS ITEMS, NO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
I WILL ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 06:45 P.M.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.