[00:00:01]
>> GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. IT'S 6:00 PM SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS MEETING INTO ORDER.
[1.CALL TO ORDER]
THE FIRST ITEM WILL BE THE INVOCATION.DAVID, CAN YOU DO THAT FOR US, SIR?
>> SURE. FATHER FOR YOUR WISDOM AND YOUR BLESSINGS TONIGHT, WE PRAY THAT YOU WILL BE WITH US IN A SPECIAL WAY AS WE CONSIDER THE BUSINESS BEFORE US TONIGHT.
MAY WE LOOK AT IT WITH CLARITY, WITH THOUGHT AND THAT WE MAY DO THE BEST AT ALL FOR THE INVOLVED FOR THOSE OF THE CITIZENS OF BURLESON.
FATHER, WE THANK YOU FOR THE GREAT WEATHER.
FOR IT'S IN YOUR NAME, WE PRAY. AMEN.
>> PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE.
NEXT ITEM IS CITIZEN APPEARANCES.
THIS IS A TIME FOR ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE TO COME SPEAK ON ANYTHING THAT IS NOT LISTED IN 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]
ALL ITEMS LISTED ARE ENACTED WITH ONE MOTION UNLESS SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE, COMMISSION OR STAFF WOULD LIKE TO PULL AN ITEM.OTHERWISE, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA.
>> YOU HAVE A MOTION BY CLINT AND A SECOND BY ASHLEY.
ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND.
[Items 4.A & 4.B]
I'M GOING TO CALL BOTH OF THESE TOGETHER.WE'RE GOING TO PRESENT BOTH OF THESE AT THE SAME TIME.
HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR AN ORDINANCE FOR A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST FROM PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO GR, GENERAL RETAIL FOR FOOD AND BEVERAGE SALES GROCERY STORE WITH RETAIL.
ITEM 4B IS CASE 24-114-1679 SOUTHWEST WILSHIRE.
CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR A RESOLUTION FOR COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN WITH A VARIANCE TO CHAPTER 63, SIGN REGULATION, SECTION 6357 PERTAINING TO MULTI TENANT PYLON SIGNAGE.
STAFF PRESENTER IS LYDON PIERCE.
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION AND CHAIR. THANK YOU.
AS YOU MENTIONED, THIS WILL BE FOR A ZONE CHANGE IN A SITE PLAN FOR A SPROUTS GROCERY STORE WITH GENERAL RETAIL PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
THE LOCATION IS AS YOU MENTIONED, 1679 SOUTHWEST WILSHIRE, AND IT'S HIGHLIGHTED ON THE SCREEN IN THE LIGHT BLUE AREA.
THE SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED FOR PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL MULTI FAMILY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA, AND APPLICANTS JUST ZONING IT TO BASE GENERAL RETAIL FOR THE GROCERY STORE AND RETAIL.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS URBAN MIXED USE, AND THE CURRENT ZONING, AS I MENTIONED, IS THAT PD.
IT LOOKS VERY SIMILAR TO, IF YOU'VE SEEN SPROUT STORES IN THE METROPLEX, THERE'S SOME SIMILAR ONES.
THEY'RE LOOKING AT APPROXIMATELY 2,300 SQUARE FEET WITH ABOUT 1,800 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL.
IT'LL BE SINGLE STORY, AND THE USE AS OUR CODE IS FOOD AND BEVERAGE SALES.
WE SENT OUT PUBLIC NOTICES, PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER, AND POSTED A SIGN ON THE PROPERTY.
AT THIS TIME, FOR THE ZONING CHANGE, WE'VE RECEIVED NO FORMAL OPPOSITION.
HERE'S OUR RECOMMENDATION. AGAIN, I'LL GO THROUGH THIS AND THEN THE SITE PLAN, AND THEN WE'LL ASK FOR TWO SEPARATE ACTION ITEMS AT THE END.
WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT IT MEETS AND ALIGNS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE.
OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES DOES REQUIRE ANYTIME YOU HAVE A SITE PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH A ZONE CHANGE THAT THEY'RE ASSOCIATED WITH EACH OTHER.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE PUTTING THESE CASES TOGETHER.
THIS IS THE COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN FOR THE SAME LOCATION.
AS YOU MENTIONED, WE DO HAVE A SIGN VARIANCE THAT COUNCIL WILL MAKE A SEPARATE DETERMINATION ON WHEN THEY HEAR THE ZONING AND SITE PLAN AS WELL.
AGAIN, VERY SIMILAR, SAME BUILDING.
WE HAVE LOOKED AT OUR CONFORMANCE AND OUR SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS, AND THIS USE BUILDING AND EVERYTHING WITH CREDITS FOR LANDSCAPING, THEY'RE ABLE TO MEET OUR CODE.
THEY ARE MEETING THE REQUIRED PARKING, REQUIRED ADA, AND THEY HAVE A GRAPHIC HERE, NOT THE BEST, BUT YOU CAN JUST SEE AN OVERVIEW OF THIS IS WHAT THE LANDSCAPING WILL LOOK LIKE FOR THIS AREA.
[00:05:03]
I'M GOING TO GO OVER THE SIGN VARIANCE.ESSENTIALLY, BECAUSE OF WHERE THEIR LOT IS LOCATED, YOU SEE THEY'RE A LITTLE LAND LOCKED.
THEY'RE NOT DIRECTLY ON WILSHIRE.
THEY'RE REQUESTING TWO MULTI-TENANT'S PYLON SIGNS.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE 540 SQUARE FEET AND 30 FEET IN HEIGHT.
BASED OFF THE LOCATION AND STAFF'S FINDING, WE ARE ALSO IN SUPPORT OF THAT VARIANCE AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION FOR THE SITE PLAN.
AT THIS TIME, I'LL ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE LAND USE ZONING, SIGN VARIANCE, OR THE SITE PLAN.
>> THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:06 PM.
I'LL ASK IF ANYONE FROM THE AUDIENCE WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
THEN I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE COMMISSION FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
IF THERE ARE NONE, THEN WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:06, AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FIRST FOR ITEM 4A.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 4A.
IT LOOKS LIKE CASE NUMBER 24-062.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MICHAEL.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS.
>> CHAIR, 4B, WE'RE SEEING A SEPARATE FOR 4B. SORRY ABOUT THAT.
>> I'M SORRY. WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ITEM 4B.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE 4B CASE 24-114.
>> MOTION BY CLINT, SECOND BY ASHLEY.
ALL IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR HANDS.
[4.C.465 Forgotten Ln (Case 24-108): Consider a recommendation of approval for a resolution authorizing a site plan for a cold storage facility with a waiver to Appendix C, Article V, Business Park Design Standards, related to the orientation of the loading area. (Staff Contact: Lidon Pearce, Principal Planner) ]
465 FORGOTTEN LN, CASE 24-108.CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SITE PLAN FOR A COLD STORAGE FACILITY WITH A WAIVER TO APPENDIX C, ARTICLE 5, BUSINESS PARK DESIGN STANDARDS RELATED TO THE ORIENTATION OF THE LOADING AREA.
STAFF PRESENTER IS LYDON PIERCE.
>> THANK YOU AGAIN. THIS, AS YOU MENTIONED IS AT 465 FORGOTTEN LN.
THIS IS A SITE PLAN WITH A WAIVER.
THE REASON YOU ARE HEARING THIS CASE, AS OPPOSED TO THE STAFF APPROVAL IS BECAUSE OF THE WAIVER.
ANYTIME WE HAVE A WAIVER TO ONE OF OUR REQUIREMENTS, THE SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED TO BE HEARD AND APPROVED BY P&Z AND CITY COUNCIL.
THIS AREA IS CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AS EMPLOYMENT GROWTH, AND IT IS ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
THAT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ESSENTIALLY SAYS THAT OUR BUSINESS PARK DESIGN STANDARDS IN OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES APPLY TO THIS AREA.
IN THE SITE PLAN REVIEW, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THAT THE LOADING BASE FACE I35.
THE WAY THOSE STANDARDS ARE IS THAT'S CURRENTLY NOT ALLOWED TO FACE I35.
HOWEVER, THIS SITE, AS YOU'LL NOTICE, THERE'S PROPERTIES IN BETWEEN IT AND I35 SO WE BROUGHT THAT FORWARD AS A WAIVER.
THE STAFF IS MAKING A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BASED OFF THAT.
THE REST OF THE SITE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF OUR SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS.
THEY'RE MEETING ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ORIENTATION OF THOSE BAY DOORS.
THIS IS A RENDERING OF WHAT THE COLD STORAGE.
YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN SOME COLD STORAGE IN I35, NOT A TYPICAL OF ANYTHING YOU WOULD SEE OUT THERE.
THEIR LANDSCAPING MEETS OUR INTENT.
IF YOU SEE ON YOUR SCREEN, THESE ARE THE LOADING BAY DOORS RIGHT HERE, AND THEN YOU HAVE SOME LANDSCAPING HERE.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE'S PROPERTIES THAT ARE RIGHT HERE THAT HAVE VEGETATION AND SCREENING THAT ARE BETWEEN THEM IN I35 AS WELL.
WE LOOKED AT ALL THE SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS, AND THEY WERE IN CONFORMANCE WITH ALL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THAT ONE NOTE THAT SAYS, THE ORIENTATION OF THE LOADING DOORS.
WE SUPPORT THE WAIVER BASED ON THE SITE NOT HAVING THAT DIRECT FRONTAGE ON I35, AS WELL AS THE EXISTING TREE CANOPY THAT'S IN PLACE TODAY AND THE PROPOSING LANDSCAPE OF THIS SITE WHEN IT'S DEVELOPED.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION FOR A COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN WITH A WAIVER TO THE BUSINESS PARK DESIGN STANDARD SECTION 752.
I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, THAT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER FOR YOU,
[00:10:01]
RELATED TO THE SITE PLAN OR THE WAIVER REQUEST.>> THANKS LYDON. I'LL OPEN THIS PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:10 PM.
IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? NO. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE COMMISSION IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANYTHING.
>> ANY PARTICULAR REASON FOR THE INCREASE IN PARKING PROVIDED?
>> WE HAVE MINIMUM STANDARDS, BUT A LOT OF TIMES THE APPLICANT JUST BASED OFF WHAT THEY KNOW THEY'LL NEED FOR THEIR USE AS FAR AS WHETHER IT'S AREAS FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES OR ADDITIONAL PARKING, THEY'LL PROVIDE MORE.
IN THIS CASE, THEY NEED MORE THAN WHAT WE WOULD REQUIRE.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT PROHIBITS THEM FROM HAVING ADDITIONAL PARKING.
STAFF GENERALLY WON'T GIVE THEM A COMMENT RELATED TO THAT, UNLESS THEY CAN'T MEET ANOTHER STANDARD.
IF THEY WANTED TO HAVE 5,000 PARKING SPACES AND ZERO LANDSCAPING, THEN WE WOULD GIVE THEM A COMMENT, HEY, YOU NEED TO DECREASE THE PARKING SO YOU MEET THE OTHER STANDARDS.
BUT IN THIS CASE, THEY'RE ABLE TO SATISFY BOTH REQUIREMENTS.
>> DOES ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE UP HERE? NO. WE'LL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:11 PM AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE CASE 24-108. SORRY.
>> I HAVE A MOTION BY DAVID AND A SECOND BY CODY.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS.
THEN MOVING ON TO ITEM 4D 1530 CANDLER DRIVE CASE 24-064.
[4.D.1530 Candler Dr (Case 24-064): Hold a public hearing and consider a recommendation of approval for an ordinance for a zoning change request from “PD”, Planned Development to “PD" Planned Development for Lot 3, Block 1, Shannon Creek Development, “The Cottages at Candler Drive”. (Staff Contact: Lidon Pearce, Principal Planner)]
HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR AN ORDINANCE FOR A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST FROM PD PLAN DEVELOPMENT TO PD PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR LOT 3 BLOCK 1, SHANNON CREEK DEVELOPMENT.THE COTTAGES AT CANDLER DRIVE.
THAT PRESENTER IS LEIDEN [PHONETIC].
>> HI. THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANKS AGAIN.
AS YOU MENTIONED, THIS IS FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT ON CANDLER DRIVE.
THAT AREA YOU'LL SEE IS IN THE BLUE HIGHLIGHT.
IN OUR COMP PLAN, IT'S IN THE TOD, TRANSIT ORIENTED DISTRICT, AND THEN THE CURRENT ZONING IS PLAN DEVELOPMENT.
THE ZONING THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS ON THIS PROPERTY WAS APPROVED IN 2018 AND IT ALLOWS FOR THE DENSITY AND PRODUCT THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING ASKED FOR TONIGHT.
THE REQUEST THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IS ESSENTIALLY THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO DO TWO-STORY UNITS VERSUS ONE-STORY.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY ADDITIONAL DENSITY.
THEY'RE ASKING FOR A PRODUCT THAT WILL LOOK MORE LIKE TOWN HOMES AS OPPOSED TO DUPLEXES OR QUADPLEXES.
IF THIS ZONING CHANGE WERE DENIED TONIGHT, THE APPLICANT IS STILL ENTITLED TO BUILD THIS PRODUCT.
IT'LL JUST BE A SINGLE STORY RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT AS OPPOSED TO A TWO-STORY.
WHEN I SAY TWO-STORY, THAT'S TWO STORY FOR ONE FAMILY, NOT TWO FAMILIES LIVING ONE BELOW AND ONE ATOP EACH OTHER.
IT'S NOT LIKE YOUR TRADITIONAL APARTMENTS.
THE ZONING IN 2018 REQUIRED THAT THE APPLICANT COMES BACK WHEN THEY ARE READY TO DEVELOP THE SITE WITH A PROPOSED LAYOUT FOR COUNCIL AT THAT TIME TO SEE BEFORE THEY COULD MOVE FORWARD, SO THE APPLICANT BROUGHT FORWARD A PROPOSED LAYOUT THAT MET THE DENSITY AND MET THE STANDARDS OF THE CURRENT ZONING.
HOWEVER, THEY WANTED TO DO A TWO-STORY PRODUCT, WHICH THEY FELT WOULD BE A MORE ATTRACTIVE PRODUCT, WOULD FIT IN BETTER, AND IT ALIGNS MORE WITH WHAT'S TYPICALLY ALLOWED IN EVERY OTHER RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT IN THE CITY.
GENERALLY, WE DON'T HAVE ANY RESTRICTIONS.
THEY SAY YOU CAN'T DO TWO STORY IN OUR OTHER BASELINE ZONING DISTRICTS.
BY THE CURRENT ZONING IN PLACE TODAY, THEY CAN DO 110 DWELLING UNITS.
THEY'RE PROPOSING 100 DWELLING UNITS, SO 10 LESS WITH THIS PRODUCT.
JUST AS A MATTER OF NOTE, IF THIS ZONING WERE DENIED FOR THE TWO-STORY INSTEAD OF ONE-STORY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND REVISE THE LAYOUT.
SPEAKING WITH THE APPLICANT, THEY WOULD PROBABLY REMOVE THE GARAGE FEATURES, MORE SURFACE AREA PARKING, AND IT WOULD FROM STAFF'S OPINION, LOOK MORE LIKE A QUADPLEX OR DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT AS OPPOSED TO A TOWN HOME.
I JUST REITERATE THAT BECAUSE THIS ZONING IS NOT REALLY FOR THE ENTITLEMENT OR THE DENSITY. THEY ALREADY HAVE THAT.
REALLY, THE CONSIDERATION HERE IS THE LAYOUT AND THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO TWO-STORY TOWN HOMES AS OPPOSED TO ONE-STORY DUPLEXES OR QUADPLEXES.
THEY DO HAVE SOME AMENITIES IN THE ZONING.
THIS IS ALL THE SAME STANDARDS THAT WERE IN THE PREVIOUS ZONING.
WE JUST HAVE CARRIED THOSE OVER FORWARD.
YOU'LL SEE THEY'RE PROPOSING A DOG PARK, PICKLEBALL COURT, CLUBHOUSE, POOL, ALL THAT IN THIS CURRENT LAYOUT.
[00:15:02]
WITH THIS ZONING, IF APPROVED, YOU'D BE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL FOR THEM TO HAVE TWO-STORY VERSUS ONE-STORY UNITS, AND IT WOULD BE THE LAYOUT AS YOU SAW THIS SCREEN.SIDEWALK. THESE ARE ALL THE SAME STANDARDS THAT WERE IN THEIR ORIGINAL ZONING.
WE DID NOT CHANGE ANY OF THOSE.
WE KEPT THE SAME ENTITLEMENTS BECAUSE THEY WERE ALREADY ENTITLED.
THEY'VE ALREADY WENT THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING INVESTING PROCESS FOR ALL THOSE ENTITLEMENTS.
WE DID SEND OUT A PUBLIC NOTICES, AND WE HAVE RECEIVED ONE EMAIL AND TWO LETTERS IN OPPOSITION.
YOU HAVE THOSE WITH YOUR PACKET ALONG WITH THE UPDATED STAFF MEMO.
I APOLOGIZE. THERE WAS A TYPO IN THE ORIGINAL MEMO.
THEY SAID 140. THEY'RE ONLY PROPOSING 100 UNITS, SO APOLOGIES FOR THAT.
ESSENTIALLY, THE TWO LETTERS THAT YOU RECEIVED ARE OPPOSING.
THEY MENTIONED MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEXES.
I WOULD STATE THE APPLICANT IS NOT PROPOSING OR ALLOWED TO DO YOUR TRADITIONAL APARTMENT COMPLEXES.
WHEN WE SEND OUT THESE NOTICES, A LOT OF TIMES IT DOESN'T HAVE THE STAFF REPORT, SO THEY MAY NOT HAVE ALL THE DETAILS, SO SOMETIMES PEOPLE ARE PRONE TO ASSUME THE WORST CASE, RIGHTFULLY SO, AND WE ENCOURAGE THEM TO SHOW UP AND HEAR THE PRESENTATION AND VOICE THEIR CONCERNS.
THIS RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF IS BASED OFF ESSENTIALLY THAT STAFF BELIEVES THAT FROM THE PEDESTRIAN POINT OF VIEW, THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY VIEW THAT THE TWO-STORY PRODUCT WILL LOOK NICER AS OPPOSED TO A ONE-STORY PRODUCT.
GENERALLY, THAT MEANS THAT THEY CAN INCORPORATE THE GARAGES, MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE FAMILIES IN THE HOMES THAT COULD HAVE CORRELATION OF PROPERTY VALUES IN MAYBE A MORE POSITIVE WAY THAN A DUPLEX LOOKING PRODUCT.
STAFF CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT, BUT GENERALLY, WE'RE LOOKING AT THOSE TYPE OF THINGS.
WE ALSO FEEL THAT IT WILL ALIGN MORE WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT AS A TOWN HOME TYPE DEVELOPMENT AS OPPOSED TO A DUPLEX QUADPLEX DEVELOPMENT.
WITH THAT IN MIND, STAFF IS MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE ZONING TO ALLOW FOR TWO STORIES AS OPPOSED TO WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO TODAY WITH NO ACTION OF ONE STORY.
I AM HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION.
I KNOW IT'S A LOT, BUT ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT THAT OR FROM THE PUBLIC, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER.
>> THANKS, LEIDEN. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:18.
IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD WISH TO COME SPEAK ON THIS ITEM?
>> STATE YOUR NAME AND YOU ADDRESS.
>> MY NAME IS KODY, K-O-D-Y, MARTIN.
ADDRESS IS 1524 GRACE ANNE COURT.
I'M RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM WHERE THIS IS BEING BUILT.
MY CONCERN IS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS FOR HERE, BUT ORIGINALLY, WE'RE TOLD IT WAS GOING TO BE A AGE LIMIT OR AN OLDER FOLKS HOME.
>> I CAN ANSWER THAT IF THAT'S OKAY, CHAIR.
IN 2018, WHEN THEY WERE ORIGINALLY GOING THROUGH, THEY WERE LOOKING AT, AND I WENT BACK THROUGH AND LOOKED AT THE PRESENTATION, THEY THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO 55 AND UP, BUT THEY WEREN'T GOING TO AGE RESTRICT IT.
THAT WAS WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT GOING BASED ON THE MARKET AT THAT TIME.
THERE WAS NO RESTRICTIONS IN THE ZONING, THE ENTITLEMENTS THAT SAID IT HAD TO BE THAT.
BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY ENTITLED, WE WEREN'T IMPOSING THAT RESTRICTION NOW BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAD BEEN APPROVED WITHOUT THAT RESTRICTION IN '18, BUT YOU ARE RIGHT.
THEY DID, AT THAT TIME, ANTICIPATE POTENTIALLY BEING SENIOR HOUSING, BUT AT THIS TIME, THEY STILL COULD DO THAT, BUT THEY WERE NEVER GOING TO AGE RESTRICT IT.
>> THEN ALSO, I'M SURE IT WAS, BUT WAS A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS EVALUATED?
>> YEAH. AT THE ZONING ENTITLEMENT PHASE, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY DONE AT THAT PHASE, BUT THOSE PRODUCTS, WHEN THEY GO THROUGH THEIR PLATTING AND THEIR CIVIL REVIEWS FOR THE OTHER PORTIONS, THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT ALL THAT ENGINEERING DOCUMENTATION, THEIR TIAS AND EVERYTHING.
EACH STEP AS YOU GO THROUGH, WHEN THEY START GETTING TO THE CONSTRUCTION, YOU CAN ENTITLE SOMETHING AND SAY, YOU CAN BUILD THIS, BUT IF THE ENGINEERING DOESN'T SUPPORT IT WHEN THEY SUBMIT THAT, DOESN'T MEAN THEY GET TO GO BUILD IT.
JUST BECAUSE WE ENTITLE IT, DOESN'T MEAN NECESSARILY, BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION MORE BLUNTLY, YES, ENGINEERING REVIEWS AND THINGS WERE SUBMITTED WITH THE INITIAL DEVELOPMENTS.
>> THAT'S INCLUDING WITH THE NEW BOWLING ALLEY THAT WAS BUILT?
>> WHEN YOU DO THAT, THAT HASN'T NECESSARILY TAKEN EFFECT ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENT PIECES.
THE ALLEY CATS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CAME AFTER THIS PRODUCT.
ALLEY CATS, I THINK, WAS 2020, 2021.
WHAT HAPPENS IS THE DEVELOPMENT THAT OCCURS AFTER THE INITIAL DEVELOPMENT,
[00:20:04]
THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO IMPROVE IF THEY HAVE TO IMPROVE LIGHTS OR RIGHT-HAND TURN LANES.SOMETIMES IT'S WHO GOT THERE FIRST AS FAR AS ENTITLEMENT.
>> IS THAT SOMETHING THAT STILL NEEDS TO BE APPROVED AS FAR AS TRAFFIC LIGHTS AND ANYTHING THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?
>> THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE FOR THIS.
WHAT HAPPENS IS IF THEY WERE COMING IN AND ASKING FOR MORE DENSITY, SO THEY'RE APPROVED UP TO 110, BUT IF THEY CAME IN AND SAID, WE WANT TO DO 300, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO GET UPDATED ANALYSIS, AND THEN WE'D HAVE TO POTENTIALLY PUT IN MORE TURN LANES, THOSE THINGS THAT COULD BE TRIGGERED, BUT THEY'RE NOT INCREASING THE DENSITY FROM WHAT THE ORIGINAL APPROVALS WERE.
>> MAKES SENSE. DO Y'ALL HAVE AN ANTICIPATED START DATE OR WHEN IT'S GOING TO BE COMPLETED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?
DO YOU HAVE A ROUGH, IF THIS GETS APPROVED, WHEN YOU THINK YOU MAY START BREAKING GROUND?
>> WE DON'T HAVE AN EXACT TIMELINE. SORRY.
>> THIS IS THE APPLICANT. I'LL LET HIM SPEAK TO THAT.
JUST REALIZE SOMETIMES THESE THINGS GET ENTITLED.
I'VE SEEN PROJECTS GET ENTITLED FOR DECADES.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF SILVER LEAF HOMES WITH THE APPLICANT ON THE ZONE CASE.
AS LEIDEN MENTIONED, WE ARE REALLY JUST ADDING SOME DETAIL THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED DURING THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL AND REALLY FEEL LIKE THAT THIS CURRENT PLAN, IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT AND IT IS A STEP UP IN PRODUCT VERSUS WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED.
WE DON'T HAVE AN EXACT TIMELINE.
THERE'S STILL OBVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND ENGINEERING TO GO THROUGH, BUT I WOULD IMAGINE IT WOULD TAKE PROBABLY MOST OF THE REST OF THIS YEAR TO GET THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
I WOULDN'T ANTICIPATE ANY CONSTRUCTION BEGINNING UNTIL NEXT YEAR.
WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
>> ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM?
>> QUESTION I HAD WAS, SO IS THIS APPLICATION GOING TO INCLUDE ANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND/OR IS IT GOING TO BE LIMITED TO AS FAR AS A TARGET PRICE FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO LIVE THERE?
>> I CAN LET THE APPLICANT IF HE HAS, AS FAR AS THAT'S AFFORDABLE FOR ME MAYBE DIFFERENT THAN SOMEONE ELSE, SO AS FAR AS TARGET ANTICIPATED PRICE AT THE HOMES?
>> YEAH. WE'RE OBVIOUSLY STILL WORKING THROUGH THAT AND THAT'S MARKET DEPENDENT, BUT AS WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED IS ALREADY IN PLACE IS THAT IT IS APPROVED FOR RENTAL, SO THAT IS STILL THE PLAN AND THE SIZE OF THE PRODUCT IS STILL SOMEWHAT IN DETERMINATION, BUT WE ANTICIPATE THAT BEING ANYWHERE 1000-1600 SQUARE FEET AND HAVING TWO AND THREE BEDROOM AND TWO OR 2.5 BATH.
SOME OF THE UNITS HAVE TWO CAR GARAGES.
IT'S A REALLY NICE PRODUCT THAT HAPPENS TO BE SUITED FOR RENTAL.
>> THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE ELSE FROM THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK.
THERE'S NO ONE, I'LL OPEN IT UP TO THE COMMISSION FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
>> BACK SLIDE UP. ONE, I THINK MAYBE TWO.
THERE'S A PICKLEBALL COURT LISTED ON HERE, BUT THERE'S NOT ONE IN THE DETAIL.
>> AGAIN, THEY HAD ENTITLEMENT.
WE DIDN'T ADD THEY'RE ALREADY ENTITLED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, SO FOR US TO GO BACK AND SAY, WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE YOU TO DO SOMETHING ELSE AFTER YOU'VE ALREADY GONE THROUGH THE PUBLIC VESTING AND PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FOR ENTITLEMENT.
THEY'VE ADDED THE PICKLE COURT AS ONE OF THEIR AMENITIES AND THIS LAYOUT IS PART OF THE ORDINANCE THAT'S APPROVED, BUT WE DIDN'T GO BACK AND SAY, NOW HINDSIGHT, WE WANT YOU TO GIVE US THIS, GIVE US THAT.
WE DIDN'T DO THAT, SO WE KEPT THEIR ENTITLED STANDARDS THAT THEY WERE ALREADY GRANTED BY CITY COUNCIL WITH THE CHANGE THAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR TWO STORY.
WE DIDN'T GO BACK AND MAKE THEM PUT IN NEW STORES.
>> MY POINT BEING IS YOU SEE A GRAPHIC AND YOU EXPECT IT TO BE THERE, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DETAIL, IT'S NOT THERE, SO IN THEORY, THEY COULD DO THIS WITHOUT PUTTING THE PICKLEBALL COURT IN.
[00:25:01]
>> THIS CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN WILL BE PART OF THE AMENDING ORDINANCE THAT GOES IF APPROVED.
IF THEY THEN SUBMIT, LET'S SAY FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, AND THAT IS JUST GONE, STAFF WOULD HAVE THEM BRING IT BACK.
NOW, LET'S SAY THEY CHANGE IT TO A TENNIS COURT INSTEAD OF A PICKLEBALL COURT BECAUSE EVERYBODY DECIDES THEY DON'T WANT TO PLAY PICKLEBALL COURT, PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BRING IT BACK TO YOU BECAUSE IT WOULD MEET THE INTENT OF HAVING THAT AMENITY THERE.
I THINK YOU'VE SAID THIS, BUT I WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR.
THE APPLICANT IS ALREADY ENTITLED TO BUILD DUPLEXES FOR RENTAL ON ALL OF THIS PROPERTY, CORRECT?
>> THEY ARE ENTITLED TO BUILD 110 DUPLEX, TRIPLEX QUADPLEX UNITS, A SINGLE STORY, TODAY ENTITLED.
>> REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU DO, SO IF COUNSEL DIDN'T APPROVE THE ZONING REQUEST, THEY COULD GO BACK AND MEND THEIR LAYOUT TO REMOVE THE GARAGES, RECONFIGURE IT AND MOVE FORWARD IN THE PROCESS TO BUILD IT. THEY'RE ALREADY ENTITLED.
>> IT APPEARS THAT WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS NICER VERSIONS THAT THEY ARE MAKING THEM NICER WITHIN THEIR APPLICATION HERE THAN WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY ALREADY APPROVED AND SO IF WE APPROVE THIS, THEY'RE BUILDING SOMETHING NICER FOR BURLESON THAN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.
>> STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE TWO STORY PRODUCT WILL FIT MORE WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IT WOULD BE A NICER I USE THAT WORD CAUTIOUSLY PRODUCT.
IT'S ALWAYS, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS LAYOUT OF WHAT THEY'VE PROPOSED WILL BE NICER THAN WHAT THEY COULD DO BY RIGHT TODAY.
>> I'VE GOT TWO QUESTIONS HERE.
THE MATERIAL TYPES ON THE OUTSIDE IS GOING TO BE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING.
>> WE CAN'T REGULATE MATERIALS ANYMORE.
THE STATE TOOK THAT AWAY FROM US IN 2018, 2019 TIME FRAME, BUT IF YOU LOOK THROUGH THE ORDINANCE AT THE BACK, THERE'S PICTURES.
PART OF THEIR STANDARDS IS THEY HAVE TO DEVELOP IT AND LOOK LIKE THOSE PICTURES, AND THOSE UNITS IN THAT PICTURE ARE NICER LOOKING MATERIAL.
IF THEY CAME BACK AND SAID, WE'RE GOING TO DO ALL REALLY UGLY METAL BUILDINGS.
WE WOULD SAY IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THESE PRETTY PICTURES.
YOU GOT TO GO BACK TO P&Z AND AMEND THIS, BUT UNFORTUNATELY WE CAN'T REGULATE BUILDING MATERIALS.
>> I DIDN'T KNOW IF THEY PROPOSED TO A CERTAIN QUALITY.
>> I BELIEVE IF YOU LOOK IN THE ACTUAL YOUR PACKET, THERE SHOULD BE SOME PICTURES AT THE BACK.
I WOULD SAY IT'S A NICE LOOKING PRODUCT.
>> THE DOG PARK AND PICKLEBALL COURT, IS THAT GOING TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC?
AGAIN, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S DICTATED IN THEIR ORIGINAL ENTITLEMENT, SO WE WOULDN'T GO BACK AND RENEGOTIATE WHAT THEY'RE ORIGINALLY ENTITLED TO.
I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THEY WOULD MAKE IT FOR THEIR CITIZENS ONLY IS WHAT I WOULD IMAGINE, BUT I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.
DO YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE THAT DATA?
>> THE INTENT WOULD BE FOR THE RESIDENTS.
SINCE IT IS PRIVATE PROPERTY, THEN HAVING IT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC WOULD BRING SOME LIABILITY INTO PLAY.
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, IT'S NOT BEING DEDICATED TO THE CITY AS PUBLIC PARKLAND OR ANYTHING.
LIKE YOU MENTIONED INSURANCE AND LITIGATION, SO I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF.
>> NO, YOU'RE GOOD. I KNOW IT WAS MENTIONED, YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT TRYING THE PRICE IN WHICH THESE WILL POSSIBLY GO UP.
I CURRENTLY LOOK AT A LOT OF APPRAISALS, AND I HAD ONE RECENTLY ACROSS MY DESK FOR SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR.
IT WAS A TWO STORY TOWN HOME THAT WAS RECENTLY BUILT.
HOWEVER, IT'S NOT IN A COMMUNITY AS THIS ONE IS.
IT WAS RECENTLY APPRAISED, I WANT TO SAY MAYBE ABOUT ONE TO TWO MONTHS AGO, AND IT CAME IN AROUND $540,000 WITH AN ESTIMATED MARKET RENT OF $2,800.
FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN, THESE HAVE BEEN WHEN GOING UP.
THEY ARE VERY WELL DONE AND LIKE THE DEVELOPER HAS SAID, THESE ARE APARTMENTS.
THESE ARE TOWN HOMES AND THAT HAVE MULTIPLE ROOMS, MULTIPLE BATHROOMS, THESE HAVE GARAGES AND FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN AND WHAT THE TRENDS I HAVE SEEN COMING ACROSS MY DESK, APPRAISAL WISE THESE TYPICALLY GO INTO THE MID 500 TO UPWARDS THE 600,000 WHEN IT COMES APPRAISED.
NOW, MARKET RENT, THAT'S AGAIN, DEPENDING ON THE MARKET AND HOWEVER THAT IS, BUT THE ESTIMATED MARKET RENT FOR THE PROPERTY THAT I HAVE SEEN MOST RECENTLY IS ACCORDING TO THE APPRAISAL, AROUND $2,800 A MONTH.
[00:30:02]
IF THAT ALLEVIATES ANY OF YOUR FEARS LOOKING AT MONEY WISE AND WHAT RENT IS GIVES US AND I BELIEVE, HOPEFULLY, THE CITIZENS A BETTER VIEW ON WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO IN, BUT LIKE I SAID, THIS ISN'T WHAT I'VE SEEN IS IN OUR COMMUNITY IT'S JUST A TOWN HOME GOING UP OVER IN KENNEDALE, SO.GOING FROM THE SINGLE STORY TO THE DOUBLE, IS THAT GOING TO CHANGE PARKING OR THAT SORT OF THING OR HOW MANY PARKING SPACES ARE WE ALLOTTED FOR.
>> IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR CODE, IT WOULDN'T CHANGE THE REQUIRED PARKING FROM BEING SINGLE OR TWO STORY.
THE REQUIRED BY THE CODE WOULD STAY THE SAME, BUT IN SPEAKING WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT WHAT IF SCENARIOS, BASED ON WHAT THEY'D HAVE TO DO TO MEET THEIR PERFORM AND GET TO THE RIGHT VALUE RENTS THAT THEY WANT TO SEE AND THEN THE RIGHT PRODUCT APPRAISAL, THEY WOULD MOST LIKELY HAVE TO REMOVE THE GARAGES AND YOU WOULD HAVE MORE ON STREET PARKING IF IT WENT TO A SINGLE STORY.
THAT WAS PART OF ONE OF THE REASONS STAFF WAS MORE IN SUPPORT IS BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE UNITS WITH ONE AND TWO CAR GARAGES, LESS ON STREET PARKING AS OPPOSED TO GETTING RID OF THAT TO MAKE A LARGER QUADPLEX WITH NO GARAGES AND ON STREET PARKING ONLY, BUT AS FAR AS THE CODE IS CONCERNED REQUIRED PARKING FOR A SINGLE STORY HOUSE IN A SUBDIVISION AND IT TWO STORY DOESN'T INCREASE IT.
>> OKAY. I LIKE THE DOUBLE STORY, SO LET'S JUST MAYBE.
>> NO, IF THEY WERE PUTTING ANOTHER FAMILY ON TOP, LIKE THESE WERE GOING TO BE GARDEN STYLE APARTMENTS WITH A UNIT ON TOP OF A UNIT, THEN YES, THEY WOULD HAVE INCREASED, BUT THEY WOULD NOT BE AUTHORIZED TO DO THAT, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.
>> IF NO ONE ELSE ON THE COMMISSION HAS ANY COMMENTS, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:32.
>> MR. CHAIR, CAN I ADD JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS?
>> AS YOU DELIBERATE OR AS THE COMMISSION DELIBERATES ON WHETHER TO APPROVE OR DENY THIS ITEM, I WOULD JUST REMIND THE BODY THAT IT'S THE GOAL OF THE CITY OF BURLESON TO OFFER AS DIVERSE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AS POSSIBLE.
I KNOW PRICE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, AND THAT'S FINE.
I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO GET ALL THE FACTS, BUT WHEN YOU CONSIDER THIS ITEM, REMEMBER WHAT YOUR ZONING REQUIREMENTS ARE.
I KNOW WITH THIS PROPERTY IS ALREADY ENTITLED IT, BUT WE'RE ENTITLING IT FURTHER, LIGHT AIR NOISE, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
LOOK AT THOSE ITEMS. DON'T CONSIDER PRICE.
>> I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:33 PM AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM THE COMMISSION.
I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CASE 24-064.
>> MOTION BY MICHAEL AND A SECOND BY CLEN ALL IN FAVOR. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
THAT'S IT FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS.
THERE ARE NO REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS, NO COMMUNITY INTEREST ITEMS, AND NO EXECUTIVE SESSION THIS EVENING SO I'LL ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:34 PM.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.