[00:00:03]
[1. CALL TO ORDER]
ITEM 1 IS THE INVOCATION. DAVID. FATHER, FOR THE MANY BLESSINGS THAT YOU BESTOWED UPON US AND ON THE CITY OF BURLESON, WE'RE THANKFUL. WE PRAY, FATHER, THAT WE'LL CONTINUE TO WALK IN YOUR PRESENCE AND WALK IN YOUR WISDOM TONIGHT AS WE CONSIDER THE ISSUES THAT ARE BEFORE US.I THANK YOU, FATHER, FOR THE ONES THAT ARE ON THIS DAIS TONIGHT, AND THE STAFF AND THEIR COMMITMENT TO THE CITY OF BURLESON AND FOR THE MANY THINGS THEY DO FOR THEM. IN YOUR NAME WE PRAY. AMEN. PLEASE JOIN ME FOR THE PLEDGE.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? ALL RIGHT.
[3. CONSENT AGENDA]
SEEING NONE. WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.ALL ITEMS LISTED BELOW ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AND WILL BE ENACTED WITH ONE MOTION, UNLESS A COMMISSIONER OR CITIZEN REQUESTS IT TO BE TABLED.
OTHERWISE, I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION. I MOTION TO APPROVE.
I SECOND. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY ASHLEY, A SECOND BY BETH.
ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HANDS. ALL RIGHT. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
[4.A. 1500 CR 602 (Case 25-258): Hold a public hearing and consider and take possible action on an ordinance for a zoning change request from defaulted “A” Agricultural to “SF10” Single-family for the development of a single-family subdivision with minimum lot sizes of 10,000 square feet. (Staff Contact: Lidon Pearce, Principal Planner)]
ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO SECTION 4, PUBLIC HEARING.ITEM 4.A. 1500 COUNTY ROAD 602 (CASE 25-258): HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE FOR A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST FROM DEFAULTED "A" AGRICULTURAL TO "SF10" SINGLE-FAMILY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION WITH MINIMUM LOT SIZES OF 10,000FT². STAFF CONTACT IS LIDON PEARCE.
THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR. AS YOU MENTIONED, THIS IS A ZONING REQUEST FOR 1500 COUNTY ROAD 602.
THE APPLICANT IS CLAY CHRISTIE WITH CLAY MOORE ENGINEERING.
AND THIS, AS YOU MENTIONED, IS A REQUEST FROM AG TO SF 10.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THAT'S SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF AN ANNEXATION REQUEST.
SO THE WAY WE DO ZONING, BECAUSE IT WILL MEET UP AT COUNCIL, IF THE ANNEXATION DID NOT OCCUR OR WAS DENIED, THEN THE ZONING CHANGE WOULD NOT OCCUR. THEY WOULDN'T HEAR THAT.
SO ANY RECOMMENDATION TODAY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF AN ANNEXATION.
SO THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY IN THE ETJ. IF ANNEXED, IT WOULD BE A DEFAULTED A AGRICULTURAL, AND IT IS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SECTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THAT IS THE YELLOW. THE LIGHT GREEN IS GENERALLY FLOODPLAIN AREA.
THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
SO WHAT THIS SHOWS IS A PROPOSAL OF 96 LOTS WITH AN AVERAGE LOT SIZE OF APPROXIMATELY 11,000FT², MINIMUM LOT SIZE 10,000. AND THEN THE MAXIMUM THAT WAS ON THIS ONE WAS AROUND 20,000FT².
THIS IS JUST ENTITLEMENT OF THE LAND. SO THIS IS JUST A BASIC CONCEPT, WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED OFF A MYRIAD OF DIFFERENT SUBMITTALS THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY BE REQUIRED BEFORE ANY DEVELOPMENT. THIS SLIDE JUST SHOWS YOU SOME ADJACENT SUBDIVISIONS.
AND JUST GENERALLY SHOWING YOU KIND OF THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE.
WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT IS WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS.
AND IT'S BASED PRIMARILY ON THE EXISTING DENSITY AND LOT SIZES IN THE AREA.
BUT IN MARCH OF 2001, AN ANNEXATION REQUEST WAS DENIED BY COUNCIL, AND BECAUSE OF THAT DENIAL, NO ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THE ZONING REQUEST. THAT WAS FOR A PD WITH 10 TO 16,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS.
IN DECEMBER OF 21, ANOTHER ANNEXATION REQUEST WAS SUBMITTED AND DENIED BY COUNCIL, AND THAT WAS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH 10 TO 21,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. IN THE PAST, STAFF RECEIVED INQUIRIES BASED OFF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS.
[00:05:05]
SO I WILL SAY FOR THIS REQUEST, WE'VE RECEIVED ONE LETTER OF OPPOSITION THAT CAME IN.IT WILL BE IN YOUR PACKAGE. IT CAME IN AFTER HOURS JUST RIGHT BEFORE THIS MEETING. PRIOR TO THAT, STAFF RECEIVED NO INQUIRIES OR PHONE CALLS. BUT THESE WERE SOME THINGS THAT STAFF WANTED TO NOTE THAT WERE BROUGHT UP IN THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS.
ONE WAS DENSITY. ONE WAS TRAFFIC AND ROADS. ONE WAS LOT SIZE CONCERNS, COMPATIBILITY ISSUES AND THEN INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROMISE AT RENFRO AND COUNTY ROAD 602. AGAIN, STAFF'S RECEIVED NO.
THERE'S NO SUBMITTALS, SO WE HAVEN'T REVIEWED ANYTHING RELATED TO THIS PROPOSAL.
AND AS I MENTIONED AT THE TIME OF THIS REPORT, WE HAD NO FORMAL OPPOSITION.
STAFF REVIEWED EVERYTHING THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO US.
WE DETERMINED THAT WHILE THE REQUESTED USE DOES ALIGN WITH NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE PROPOSED LOT SIZE AND REQUESTED BASE ZONING DISTRICT DO NOT CONFORM WITH THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND LOT SIZES IN THE AREA.
SO BASED ON THAT, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE DISAPPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE FOR ZONING CHANGE.
IF ANNEXATION IS DENIED, THEN NO ZONING CHANGE WOULD OCCUR ON THE PROPERTY, WOULD REMAIN IN THE ETJ.
AND THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THE ETJ, JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE, IS ONE ACRE LOT SIZE.
I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LIDON. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:06 P.M.
I DO HAVE A FEW SPEAKER CARDS HERE, SO WHENEVER I SAY YOUR NAME, IF YOU STILL WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM. DAVE LOCKARD.
IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
AND I'M ACTUALLY THE APPLICANT, SO IF WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND WE CAN DO OUR APPLICANT PORTION HERE.
GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION. CLAY CRISTY, CLAY MOORE ENGINEERING, 3231 HARWOOD AVENUE IN BEDFORD.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME THIS EVENING COMING TO PRESENT OUR 602 ESTATES PROJECT WITH YOU GUYS.
FIRST WE WERE TALKING ABOUT JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE WERE IN THE OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF THE OVERALL PLAN AND THE LAND USE OF THAT WHICH THE RESIDENTIAL USE AND WHAT WE HAD WAS THERE. AND THEN IN WORKING WITH HIM, AS LIDON MENTIONED, IT WAS PRESENTED TO US THAT JUST THE LOT SIZE AND THE DENSITY WAS THE CONCERN AND KIND OF THE DETERMINING FACTOR THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL HERE.
THE THING THAT WE WANT TO KIND OF BRING FORWARD WITH YOU GUYS AND KIND OF TALK TO YOU A LITTLE BIT IN REGARDS TO THAT IS, WHILE WE DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT SMALLER LOTS OVER HERE THAN, SAY, THOSE THREE NEIGHBORHOODS, WE DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER DENSITY TO THE NORTHWEST AND A LITTLE BIT FURTHER ALONG SYDNEY COURT THERE, A LITTLE BIT SMALLER LOTS THAT ARE THERE. BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE THE THREE THERE.
THE ONE THING THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE AND KIND OF PRESENT TO YOU GUYS IN CONTEXT OF THAT IS THAT, WHILE WE DO HAVE THE SMALLER SF 10 AND THE 96 LOTS THAT WE HAVE PRESENTED THERE IN THE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN THAT WE HAVE, THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND THAT IS THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THE SMALLER LOTS, BUT THE BACK WESTERN PORTION OF THE LOT IS GOING TO REMAIN VASTLY UNDEVELOPED, AND IT WOULD REMAIN THAT WAY THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OF WHAT WE HAVE.
AND SO WE HAVE A TOTAL OF 80 ACRES, AND WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY 96 LOTS AT THE CURRENT TIME.
AND WE KNOW WE HAVE TO WORK WITH CITY ON THE PLATTING AND FINALIZING THAT AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
AND WHENEVER YOU TAKE THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT IN THE 96 LOTS, THAT GETS US ON AN AVERAGE OF ABOUT 0.8 ACRES PER LOT IS FOR THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WOULD GET CLOSE TO SOME OF THE OTHER ONES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT WERE THE ONE ACRE MINIMUMS, THE COUNTY LOT THAT WAS ONE ACRE MINIMUM. BUT THAT WOULD ALSO ALLOW US TO LEAVE, YOU KNOW, A LARGE PORTION AND A LARGE PORTION OF THAT LAND BE MORE OF A PRESERVE AREA, KIND OF NATURAL PRESERVE AREA.
[00:10:01]
TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. AND SO THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY I'M TRYING TO GET THIS PROPERTY TO FUNCTION.AS LIDON ALSO MENTIONED, THIS PROJECT HAS COME BEFORE P&Z AND CITY COUNCIL BEFORE.
PLEASE NOTE WE ARE DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT GROUP.
WE ARE DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT TEAM. WE ARE HERE TO WORK WITH THE CITY TO TRY TO PRESENT OUR CASE TO YOU GUYS AND FIND A SOLUTION THAT WORKS FOR THE CITY OF BURLESON, AS WELL AS FOR OUR DEVELOPMENT TEAM. I KNOW THAT ANOTHER THING THAT WAS CONCERNING AND SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP TO US BEFORE ALSO WAS THE TRAFFIC AND THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT WOULD BE ON 602. WE DID HAVE A TRAFFIC CONSULTANT GO THROUGH AND WORK THOSE NUMBERS, ANALYZE THAT. I KNOW THAT WAS A LITTLE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE NOT REQUIRED RIGHT AT THIS POINT, BUT JUST KNOWING THE CONVERSATION AND KNOWING WHERE THAT GOES.
THE TRAFFIC STUDY DID COME IN WITH WHAT THAT IS.
IT IS NOTED AT 602 AND RENFRO THAT, YOU KNOW, EVENTUALLY THAT THAT TRAFFIC AND EVERYTHING THAT'S THERE, AND THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT IN THE PAST, I BELIEVE, THAT TRAFFIC SIGNAL WOULD BE WARRANTED AT SOME POINT IN TIME.
AND ABOUT THE PROPORTIONALITY FROM THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 35% OF OF OUR DEVELOPMENT TOWARDS THAT DEVELOPMENT, TOWARDS THAT TRAFFIC SIGNAL, WHICH AS WE GET INTO THE DETAILS WITH ENGINEERING AND STAFF AND EVERYTHING ELSE WE'D BE WILLING TO COORDINATE AND WORK WITH ON, ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THAT PORTION AND WHAT IS NEEDED THERE WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO I ALSO HAVE MY COUNTERPART, JOHN HUFFMAN, WITH US HERE THIS EVENING REPRESENTING OWNERSHIP AND THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE AS WELL HERE FOR YOU GUYS. AND WE ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER AND TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT ANYBODY MAY HAVE.
DOES ANYONE ON THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THESE TWO GENTLEMEN? ALL RIGHT. IT DOESN'T MEAN NOTHING WILL COME UP LATER, BUT.
WE'LL BE HERE. ALL RIGHT. I APPRECIATE YOU. THANK YOU GUYS.
ALL RIGHT. NEXT ONE. MR. ROBERT. IS IT SHERROD? SHERROD. OKAY. COME ON UP.
ROBERT W SHERROD, JR. 1100 COUNTY ROAD 602. COMMISSION MEMBERS, GOOD EVENING.
THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR QUITE SOME TIME. A LOT OF US IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OBJECT TO THIS HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE REASONS IN THIS SITE HISTORY.
THE DENSITY, THE TRAFFIC AND THE LACK OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON 602, LOT SIZE CONCERNS, COMPATIBILITY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, COMPLETELY OUT OF COMPATIBILITY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, COMPLETELY. AND PREVIOUS INTERSECTIONS UP THERE ON 602 HAVE BEEN PROMISED, I HEAR THAT'S QUITE A WAYS DOWN THE ROAD. THE OTHER ISSUE FOR ME IS ALL OF THE RUNOFF WATER FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WILL BE SIGNIFICANT. IF YOU LOOK BACK AT THE PLAT, THERE WILL BE HUGE AMOUNTS OF RUNOFF WATER.
COMMISSION MEMBERS, CONSIDER THIS. THERE'S REALLY NOTHING CHANGED FROM WHEN THIS WAS TAKEN UP IN 2021, AND THE DENSITY SIZE IS COMPLETELY OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. SHERROD. ALL RIGHT. LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE CLAIRE WALLACE.
THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME. I LIVE AT 648 CHRISTOPHER, WHICH IS THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF 602.
I LIVE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HILL. WHEN THEY COME DOWN THAT HILL, THEY HAVE TAKEN OUT TWO OF MY CARS,
[00:15:02]
THEY HAVE TAKEN OUT MY RETAINING WALL, THEY HAVE TAKEN OUT A TELEPHONE POLE ON A COUPLE OCCASIONS.THE OTHER DAY I WAS PULLING OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY, A BLUE CORVETTE COMES FLYING OUT OF THAT HILL.
HE WAS NOT VISIBLE TO ME UNTIL I WAS IN THE STREET.
HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR HIS EVASIVE ACTION AND THE SPEED, HE ENDED UP GOING THROUGH MY NEIGHBOR'S YARD.
HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR HIS SPEED DEMON DRIVING, HE ALMOST TOOK OUT THEIR ELECTRICAL DEAL, WAS ABLE TO MANEUVER AROUND BACK ON THE ROAD AHEAD OF ME AND SPED RIGHT ON. THE LAST TIME I SPOKE AND TALKED ABOUT THIS, THE ONLY THING YOU DID WAS PUT A YELLOW STRIPE DOWN THE LINE THREE DAYS AFTER THIS MEETING. SO I'LL ASK YOU AGAIN, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO PROTECT ME AND MY PROPERTY? I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU, MISS WALLACE. NEXT UP, RILEY MCCHESNEY.
BEFORE ANY ZONING CHANGE IS CONSIDERED, A THIRD PARTY HYDROLOGIC, AND HYDRAULIC STUDY SHOULD BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY IF IT HASN'T BEEN ALREADY, NOT THE DEVELOPER. WE MOVED HERE BECAUSE THIS IS PART OF BURLESON IS UNIQUE, ACREAGES SPACE AND A SEMI-RURAL CHARACTER NOT FOUND ELSEWHERE. PLACING NEARLY 90 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS DIRECTLY AGAINST 1 TO 2 ACRE PROPERTIES BREAK ZONING CONTINUITY, AND PERMANENTLY ALTERS THE AREA'S ESTABLISHED LAND USE PATTERN.
WE ALSO HAVE CHILDREN ATTENDING ALL THREE SCHOOLS SURROUNDING THIS CORRIDOR.
YES, THAT'S A LOT OF KIDS. SO WE EXPERIENCE RENFRO TRAFFIC EVERY DAY AT PEAK HOURS.
THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD HAS TWO AND A HALF CARS PER HOUSEHOLD, SO MULTIPLY THAT BY 90.
ROUGHLY 225 VEHICLES A DAY GOING UP AND DOWN THE ROADS.
LASTLY, THIS PROPOSAL IS MATERIALLY SIMILAR TO THE PLAN THE CITY REJECTED 6 TO 1 IN 2021 WITHOUT RESOLVING DRAINAGE, FLOODWAY IMPACTS, ZONING, COMPATIBILITY AND TRAFFIC HAZARDS.
WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COMMISSION TO UPHOLD THE PRIOR DECISION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ONE.
IS IT NIKKI? PLEASE COME UP. I DON'T WANT TO BUTCHER THE LAST NAME.
MY NAME IS NIKKI HABERSTROH. THERE, A LITTLE SHORT.
AND WE SPOKE AT THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETINGS.
SO, AGAIN, WE DO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE SAME REJECTION.
ONE THAT I WANTED TO MAKE CLEAR TO WAS THE SIGNIFICANT CONCERN OF COUNTY ROAD 602 ITSELF.
SHE MENTIONED ALL THE ACCIDENTS AND EVERYTHING, IT WAS ACTUALLY A PRIVATE COMPANY THAT WE PUT THE STRIPE THERE JUST TO TRY TO KEEP PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROAD. IT HELPS TREMENDOUSLY, BUT IT'S STILL PEOPLE.
[00:20:09]
MORNING DROP OFF, THE DAILY POLICE PRESENCE OFFICER DIRECTING THE TRAFFIC AT WEST RENFRO SCHOOL CONSISTENTLY CAUSES TRAFFIC TO BACK UP WAY BEYOND THE INTERSECTION. I KNOW IT WAS PROBABLY THERE TO HELP THE KIDS GET IN AND OUT OF SCHOOL, BUT IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE JUST TO GET ON TO RENFRO, BECAUSE I GO AT A PEAK HOUR AND IT IS QUITE DIFFICULT.IT'S ACTUALLY, I SAY A PRAYER EVERY DAY WHEN I GO TRY TO GET ON THAT ROAD BECAUSE IT IS PRETTY BAD.
IT IS A VERY DANGEROUS INTERSECTION. AS A CONCERNED RESIDENT, I'M ONCE AGAIN REQUESTING THAT THE P&Z COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PERSONALLY VISIT THE ONGOING DEVELOPMENT SITE AT NORTH BRIDGE COURT, AND IT'S HIGHLY RECOMMENDED TO OBSERVE THE AREA IN THE MORNING, SPECIFICALLY WHEN STUDENTS ARE BEING DROPPED OFF AT SCHOOL TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S ALL THE CARDS I HAVE.
WAS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT DIDN'T FILL OUT A CARD THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY, BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO THE COMMISSION, I WOULD LIKE TO READ SOMETHING FROM COMMISSIONER BRANDON CRISP, WHO COULDN'T MAKE IT TONIGHT, BUT HE DID WRITE IN AN EMAIL WITH HIS CONCERNS.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ THAT. BRANDON STATES. I LIVE OFF 602 AND I DRIVE THIS ROAD EVERY SINGLE DAY, MULTIPLE TIMES. WHILE I'M NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT, AS I DO BELIEVE THAT BURLESON NEEDS TO GROW TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE WANT, I AM OPPOSED IF THE CITY ISN'T GOING TO ONE, TAKE OVER MAINTENANCE OF COUNTY ROAD 602 AND FIX THE ROAD, AS RIGHT NOW IT IS ALMOST LIKE DRIVING DOWN A ROLLER COASTER WITH ALL OF THE BUMPS, PATCHES AND FILLED IN HOLES.
AND TWO, FIGURE OUT A PLAN FOR THE CONTINUED INCREASE OF TRAFFIC FROM 602, GOING ON TO RENFRO WITHOUT ANY SORT OF TRAFFIC MITIGATION PLAN AT THE INTERSECTION OF 602 AND RENFRO, LIKE EITHER A TRAFFIC SIGNAL SIGNS OR AN IMPROVED BUILD OF THE INTERSECTION.
AND AGAIN, THAT WAS FROM COMMISSIONER BRANDON CRISP.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE FROM THE COMMISSION THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, ASK QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. I KNOW THAT THIS IS COMING FROM. I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BUT I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT I AM REALLY WORRIED ABOUT THE COUNTY ROAD BEING ABLE TO SUSTAIN A DEVELOPMENT OF THAT SIZE. I'VE BEEN IN THAT AREA.
I USED TO DRIVE THAT WHENEVER I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL BACK TEN YEARS AGO.
YEAH, I KNOW. AND I DO HAVE TO SAY THAT TRAFFIC ON RENFRO IS PRETTY HORRENDOUS, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE GOING EITHER DIRECTION. AND I'VE BEEN ON COUNTY ROAD 602 MULTIPLE TIMES WITH JUST DRIVING TO THE AREA.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT WITHOUT ACTUAL MAINTENANCE TO TURN THIS INTO A ROAD THAT THE CITY CONFORMS TO ONE THAT IS ACTUALLY PAVED AND TAKEN CARE OF, AS WELL AS INCLUDING IN STOPLIGHTS.
I HAVE ALMOST BEEN HIT MULTIPLE TIMES BY PEOPLE WHO JUST SPEED OVER THAT, AND I FEAR THAT WITH THE DENSITY OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, THAT IT´S JUST GOING TO MAKE IT WORSE WITHOUT ANYTHING BEING DONE, AS WELL AS THE FLOODPLAIN.
THAT'S A LOT OF HOMES, AND THAT'S A LOT OF CLEARING TO BE DONE THAT COULD SEVERELY AFFECT THAT FLOODPLAIN AND THE FLOOD RUNOFF TO DIFFERENT PROPERTIES. SO I'M NOT AGAINST A DEVELOPMENT AT ALL BECAUSE I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT BURLESON DOES NEED TO HAVE ROOM FOR CITIZENS, BUT I DON'T. I JUST WANT TO, SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU.
THE CITY, WITH THIS PROPOSAL HAS NOT GOTTEN ANY ENGINEERED STUDIES, SO I WOULD JUST BE COGNIZANT IF WE'RE MAKING COMMENTS RELATED TO THINGS THAT WOULD BE IN AN ENGINEERED STUDY, SUCH AS FLOOD STUDIES, DRAINAGE STUDIES.
YES. TRAFFIC STUDIES, WE HAVEN'T REVIEWED THOSE.
SO THOSE ARE NOT THINGS WE'RE PROBABLY PREPARED TO COMMENT ON AT THIS TIME.
[00:25:09]
A COUPLE DID AND THE DOWNSTREAM ASSESSMENT, APART OF ANY DEVELOPMENT IF THIS WAS TO BE ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD, WE WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE THOSE DRAINAGE STUDIES AND DUE TO CITY CODE AND CITY AND EVEN FEMA REQUIREMENTS, WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO RAISE THE WATER SURFACE ELEVATION, MEANING THAT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AND WITH THE INCREASE OF RUNOFF AND EVERYTHING ELSE, THAT HAS TO BE CONTROLLED IN A WAY THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE EXISTING FLOODPLAIN AND THE EXISTING FLOODING FROM DOWNSTREAM OF YOUR SITE, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO INCREASE OR RAISE THAT FLOOD WATER.SO DEPENDING UPON HOW THAT WOULD DO, THAT IS MITIGATED IN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS, WHETHER IT BE THROUGH TIMING OF WHEN THE WATER GETS THERE OR PASSING THROUGH AND OR DETENTION AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. BUT THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE WOULD BE REQUIRED AND HELD TO AS A DEVELOPER THROUGH THE CITY ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS FEMA REQUIREMENTS, THAT WE WOULD NOT BE INUNDATING THE GENTLEMAN, YOU KNOW, THE DOWNSTREAM PROPERTIES, ANY MORE THAN WHAT THE EXISTING CONDITIONS DO TODAY.
AND SO THAT WAS JUST ONE THING TO KIND OF BRING UP AND TO SPEAK OF.
BECAUSE THAT IS OBVIOUSLY A CONCERN ANY TIME THAT YOU DO DEVELOPMENT, LIKE I SAID, WE ARE EXCITED TO BE HERE. WE'RE EXCITED TO BE DEVELOPING IN BURLESON, BUT THAT'S A PRETTY GENERAL STANDARD ACROSS ANYWHERE WHERE WE COME IN TO TRY TO MITIGATE THAT AND PROPERLY DO THAT IN A WAY TO WHERE IT DOES NOT CAUSE THOSE NEGATIVE IMPACTS DOWNSTREAM. AND I'LL JUST ECHO THAT. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE.
SORRY. I KNOW YOU GOT SPEAKERS COMING. YOU KNOW, NOISE COMING FROM ALL OVER.
BUT JUST ECHO LIDON´S COMMENTS AND THE APPLICANT'S COMMENTS.
JUST REMEMBER, THERE'S TWO PARTS WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH ZONING.
AND WE HAVE ORDINANCES IN PLACE, OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, OUR CITY ENGINEER.
I MEAN, WE MAKE SURE THOSE THINGS ARE IN PLACE TO REMAIN LEGAL AT THE DESIGN PHASE, OUR ENGINEER WILL MAKE SURE THAT THE SUBDIVISIONS CAN BE CREATED THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS, SO WE DON'T HAVE NECESSARILY ISSUES WITH THE FLOODING CONCERN.
LIGHT, NOISE, TRAFFIC, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, DENSITY, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THOSE THINGS MAY BE.
BUT JUST ASSUME THAT THE ENGINEERING CAN BE DONE AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION. THE MAINTENANCE OF THE ROADS, WOULDN'T THAT BE JOHNSON COUNTY? THAT WOULD BE RATHER THAN BURLESON? THAT WOULD BE THE FOR THE REPAIR AND THE UPKEEP AND THE UPGRADE? THE ZONING CASE BEFORE YOU. BUT YES, IF THE COUNTY ROAD IS.
MAINTENANCE IS OWNED BY WHOEVER HAS THAT PART OF THE ROAD. NOW, IF THE ANNEXATION OCCURS.
IN GENERAL, SOMETIMES IMPROVEMENTS AND THINGS CAN OCCUR UNTIL DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS.
BUT YES, IF A ROAD IS IN THE CITY, THEN WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE.
IF IT'S IN THE COUNTY, JOHNSON COUNTY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE.
IN THIS INSTANCE. SORRY. MORE NOISE FROM THE OTHER SIDE.
SO THERE ARE SOME PORTIONS THAT ARE SPLIT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY.
LIDON, I'M SURE YOU'LL CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
BUT ONE OF THE WEAKNESSES, IF YOU WANT TO DESCRIBE IT THAT WAY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS, WHILE IT DOES HAVE ZONING SPLIT OUT BETWEEN VARIOUS DIFFERENT TYPES OF FAMILY HOMES, IT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE DENSITY AND THE MIX OF THOSE ISSUES, THAT'S LEFT TO US.
THAT IS CORRECT. SO COUNCIL IN GENERAL HAS BROAD DISCRETION AT THE ZONING PHASE.
SO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RESIDENTIAL IS VERY BROAD.
IT COULD BE MULTIFAMILY, TOWNHOMES, LARGE, RURAL LOTS, URBAN LOTS.
IT ENCOMPASSES A WIDE MIX OF. WHERE THE DISCRETION OF THIS COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL COMES INTO IS LOOKING AT COMPATIBILITY WITH PREVAILING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS. WHAT EXISTS, VICINITY, YOU KNOW, IS IT, AM I DOING A SPOT ZONING? AM I PUT IT IN THE RIGHT PLACE? ALL THOSE THINGS ARE WHERE YOU HAVE BROAD DISCRETION, IF YOU LOOK AT IT AS A FUNNEL, ZONING IS THE WIDE END. AND ONCE YOU GET TO LIKE PLATS AND PERMITS, IT'S VERY NARROW.
YES OR NO, MEETS CODE, DOESN'T MEET THE CODE.
[00:30:07]
SAY, MULTIFAMILY LARGE 4000 PEOPLE, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY TECHNICALLY MEET THE COMP PLAN.SO THAT'S WHERE THE ZONING DISTRICTS AND OUR ORDINANCE COME INTO PLAY THERE.
SO STAFF LOOKS AT THE REQUESTED ZONING DISTRICT AS WELL AS THE COMP PLAN.
YEAH. AND IN THIS CASE, TO ME, IT SEEMS LIKE THE.
AND I MAY BE OUT OF LINE HERE, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THE ISSUE IS REALLY MORE OF A DENSITY ISSUE, AND THE FACT THAT YOU'VE GOT ONE AND TWO AND THREE ACRE LOTS.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT EVEN YOU GET THERE THROUGH 602.
SO THAT TO ME IS, WHERE I'M COMING FROM IS, WHAT'S THE DENSITY ISSUES? ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE COMMISSION? ONE MORE CHANCE FOR ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE TO COME SPEAK.
COUNTY ROAD 602. I'VE LIVED IN COUNTY ROAD 602 FOR 22 YEARS NOW.
WHEN I MOVED THERE AT 1820, THERE WERE NO NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE SOUTH OR NORTH OF ME, THEY ARE NOW.
2/100, [INAUDIBLE], WHICH GOES THROUGH MY PROPERTY, IS FLOODED SIX TIMES IN THE PAST 18 MONTHS.
SO THAT'S MUCH HIGHER THAN WHAT A 500 YEAR FLOODPLAIN IS.
AND IT BACKS UP FROM MR. SHEROD´S PROPERTY ON THE FLOOD COMPLETELY ALL THE WAY BACK TO WHERE PINNACLE STATES IS NOW, ONTO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THAT, WHICH CREEPS INTO THE OTHER SIDE OF PINNACLE ESTATE.
SO THE FLOODING IS WELL KNOWN, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THE AMOUNT OF DETENTION PONDS THAT ANY DEVELOPER COULD PUT IN IN THAT AREA WOULD RECTIFY THE AMOUNT OF RUNOFF YOU'RE GOING TO GET IF YOU PUT IN 96 MORE HOMES IN THE CONCRETE THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT STUFF.
AND I'M NOT AGAINST. I'M A BUSINESSMAN HERE IN TOWN.
WE'VE HAD A BUSINESS HERE FOR 30 YEARS, WE'RE ONE OF JOHNSON COUNTY'S LARGEST EMPLOYERS.
SO I KNOW DEVELOPMENT COMES. HOWEVER, I THINK THERE'S COMMON SENSE TO IT, AND 602 IS IN NOW.
A TRAFFIC STUDY AT 602 AT 1:00 IN THE AFTERNOON IS GOING TO BE FINE.
AT 11:00 AT NIGHT, IT'S GOING TO BE FINE. BUT IF YOU WANT TO GO UP THERE BETWEEN THE HOURS ABOUT 6:15 AND 9:00, GOOD LUCK GETTING ON THE RENFRO SAFELY. NOW YOU CAN TAKE A CHANCE AND DART OUT THERE AND MAYBE NOT GET HIT.
OR GO SOUTH ON 602 AND COME OUT ON THE SOUTH END OVER THERE BY THE SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD 35.
AND THAT'S THE ONLY SAFE WAY TO GET IN TOWN. AND IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE.
SORRY. IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE, UNLESS THE ROADS ARE DRASTICALLY IMPROVED.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT'S A COMMON SENSE SITUATION TO PUT 96 MORE HOMES OUT THERE RIGHT NOW.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THE ONE ACRE WOULD BE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IF THIS WERE TO GO FORWARD.
AND I DON'T SEE THE DEVELOPER WANTING TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT CUTS INTO THE REVENUE THAT THEY CAN GET.
SO I'M AGAINST IT. I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COMMITTEE TO GO WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF DISAPPROVAL.
I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. LOCKARD. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? ANYONE ELSE IN THE COMMISSION? ISSUE, BUT RENFRO IN RENFRO TEXTILE ROAD, ISN'T IT IN THE TXDOT? I BELIEVE. SO ANY STREET LIGHTS OR ANYTHING THAT WOULD EVER TAKE PLACE, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE TXDOT APPROVED, I WOULD THINK. BUT I THINK RENFRO'S TXDOT. IT IS.
YEAH? YEAH. AGAIN, WE'RE GETTING OFF SUBJECT FOR THE ZONING.
WELL, ANYWAY, THAT'S ALL I JUST WANT TO ASK. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE ON THE COMMISSION, AUDIENCE, THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:34 P.M.
AND I WILL HEAR A MOTION FROM THE COMMISSION.
A MOTION TO, AS PRESENTED, RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE ZONING CHANGE CASE NUMBER 25-258.
[00:35:09]
I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION BY DAN, A SECOND BY MICHAEL.ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS. LOOKS.
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. THANK ALL OF YOU GUYS.
[4.B. 2245 SW Wilshire Blvd (Case 25-305): Hold a public hearing and consider and take possible action on an ordinance for a zoning change request from “A” Agricultural to “SF7” Single-family for development of approximately 13 single-family lots. (Staff Contact: Lidon Pearce, Principal Planner)]
ALL RIGHT. NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM 4.B.2245 SOUTHWEST WILSHIRE BOULEVARD. CASE 25-305.
HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE FOR A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST FROM AGRICULTURAL TO ¨SF 7¨ SINGLE-FAMILY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 13 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS. STAFF CONTACT, LIDON PEARCE.
THE APPLICANT IS MATT POWELL AND THE OWNER IS WALTER MATYASTIK.
THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE TO SF 7 SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES.
THIS WOULD BE PART OF THE BEAR RIDGE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS CURRENTLY EXISTING, OR BEING DEVELOPED.
ALL RIGHT. SO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THIS IS A COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL.
THERE IS A SLIVER THAT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED A AGRICULTURE.
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY LAYOUT THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
THIS IS TO SHOW HOW THEY WOULD INTEGRATE THOSE LOTS INTO THE EXISTING BEAR RIDGE.
SO YOU SEE THEY ESSENTIALLY EXTEND LOUIS LANE TO AND THROUGH, AND THEN ADD THE 13 LOTS.
EACH LOT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 7500 TO 11,000FT².
I PROVIDED ONE LETTER THAT WAS PROVIDED TO STAFF THAT WAS IN SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT.
SO YOU HAVE THAT THERE AT THE PODIUM. SO STAFF'S DETERMINED THAT THE REQUESTED ZONING DISTRICT BEST ALIGNS WITH THE ADJACENT EXISTING CONNECTING SF 7 ZONING AND SUBDIVISION. THE PREVAILING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS IN THE AREA AND THAT COMMUNITY, COMMERCIAL AND ON THAT PARCEL WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP, HAVING NO FRONTAGE OR DIRECT ACCESS ON A MAJOR STREET.
SO WITH THAT IN MIND, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGE.
AND I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THE DEVELOPER´S HERE AS WELL.
ALL RIGHT. THANKS. AND I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:37 P.M.
MR. MATYASTIK, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? HI, THERE. YEAH. YES, I'M WALTER MATYASTIK. MY ADDRESS, 1520 THOMAS PLACE, FORT WORTH, TEXAS.
I AM THE DEVELOPER OF THE PROPERTY. WE ARE CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING THE FIRST PHASE, WHICH ALL THOSE LOTS THAT YOU SEE WITH HADLEY, MAGGIE, LOUIS, MY DOG'S NAME, BY THE WAY.
AND MICHAEL, THAT HAS BEEN PAVED, AND WE'RE FINISHING UP RIGHT NOW.
WE KNEW WHEN THE INITIAL DESIGN, WHEN WE HAD LOUIS STOPPING THERE, THAT IT COULD GO THROUGH.
AND THAT'S WHY WE ACTUALLY DID END IT WITH THE IDEA THAT IT WAS GOING TO EXTEND.
WE WEREN'T SURE, BUT WE STILL HAD TO BE PREPARED.
WE EXTENDED THE SEWER LINE, STREETS, EVERYTHING READY TO GO.
COME TO FIND OUT, IT DOES MAKE SENSE TO GO AHEAD AND COMPLETE THAT.
SORRY. BECAUSE WHAT WE DO IS, IF YOU GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS OH, THERE YOU GO.
YOU CAN SEE WHERE LOUIS EXTENDS OUT AND THEN COMES TO CAVE ROAD ACROSS THE FUTURE STREET, WHICH IS FAIRFIELD, IS CAVE ROAD. SO THAT CREATES ANOTHER INTERSECTION THAT ALL LINKS TO THE SUBDIVISIONS, WHICH ARE ALL SF 7.
AND THE OTHER PHASE, WHICH IS OWNED BY TAYLOR MORRISON.
TAYLOR MORRISON IS THE ONE WHO SENT THE SUPPORT BECAUSE THEY OWN ALL THE OTHER ADDITIONAL ACREAGE.
BUT MY POINT IS, THIS WAS ALL. GOOD LORD, SORRY.
SO THAT'S WHY I COME BACK TO YOU TODAY. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:39 P.M.
AND I WILL HEAR A MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE CASE 25-305.
[00:40:01]
I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. I HAVE A MOTION BY DAVID, SECOND BY CLINT.ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS.
THERE ARE NONE. THERE ARE NO GENERAL ITEMS, NO COMMUNITY INTEREST ITEMS, AND NO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
I'LL ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:40 P.M.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.