[00:00:02]
FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE INVOCATION. DAVID, CAN YOU LEAD US, PLEASE, SIR? SURE, FATHER. WE'RE THANKFUL FOR THE BLESSINGS THAT YOU BESTOW UPON US ON A DAILY BASIS.
FOR IT'S IN YOUR NAME WE PRAY. AMEN.
ALL RIGHT. NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS CITIZEN APPEARANCES.
SEEING NONE THERE. AND MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[3. CONSENT AGENDA]
ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE ENACTED WITH ONE MOTION.UNLESS SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE, COMMISSION OR STAFF WOULD LIKE TO PULL AN ITEM.
OTHERWISE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I MOTION TO APPROVE.
NO. SECOND. WHO WAS THAT? OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY ASHLEY.
A SECOND BY BRANDON. ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND.
PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. NEXT IS THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4.A 420 COUNTY
[4.A. 420 County Road 1021(Wicker Hill) (Case 25-341): Hold a public hearing and consider and take possible action on a zoning ordinance change request from “A”, Agriculture, to “SF16”, Single Family Dwelling District-16. (Staff Contact: Emilio Sanchez, Deputy Director)]
ROAD 1021. RICKER HILL CASE 25-341. HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON A ZONING ORDINANCE.GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. AGAIN THIS IS A ZONING REQUEST CHANGE FOR 420 COUNTY ROAD 1021, WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS WICKER HILL ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS MARSHALL MILLER.
THE OWNER IS ANDY MULLINS. AND AS THE COMMISSIONER AS THE CHAIRMAN STATED, THIS IS A ZONING CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL TO SF 16 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN, ON THE PICTURE ON YOUR LEFT OF THE SCREEN, THE CURRENT ZONING IS AGRICULTURE. THIS IS THE DEFAULT ZONING FOR THAT PROPERTY.
ONCE IT WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, THERE WAS A I DON'T RECALL IF IT WAS A MOBILE HOME OR A SMALL HOME THAT WAS ABANDONED AND DILAPIDATED, THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE FROM THE PROPERTY.
SINCE THIS PROPERTY IS LESS THAN THE 3 ACRES THAT AG REQUIRES IT WAS ALSO UNPLATTED AT THAT TIME.
SO THEY HAD TURNED IN A PLAT TO PLAT THE PROPERTY SO THAT THEY COULD INSTALL A NEW RESIDENTIAL HOME.
AT THAT TIME, THEY REALIZED NEED TO CHANGE THE ZONING BECAUSE THE THREE ACRES THAT'S REQUIRED BY AG, THEY ONLY HAD 0.99 ACRES. AND THEN AFTER THE PLAT, THEY HAD TO DEDICATE A PORTION OF WICKER HILL ROAD THAT TOOK THEM DOWN TO LIKE 0.8 ACRES WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO REZONE TO SF 16. SO THEY HAVE THE ABOVE 16,000FT².
AND THE PICTURE ON YOUR LEFT, EXCUSE ME, ON YOUR RIGHT, DESIGNATES THIS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS NEIGHBORHOODS, WHICH SF 16 DOES FIT IN THAT CATEGORY? WE DID SEND NOTIFICATIONS TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT.
ALSO PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER ALONG WITH POSTED A SIGN ON THE PROPERTY, AND AT THIS TIME, STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO FORMAL OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
ALL RIGHT. THANKS, AMELIA. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:04 P.M.
I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT IS ANYONE FROM THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ONE? NO. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE COMMISSION. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, FROM THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING THIS LAST WEEK, THERE'S GOING TO BE A RECOMMENDATION OR A FOLLOW THROUGH FOR US NOT TO BE REVIEWING PLATS? THAT IS CORRECT. CAN YOU HELP US UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT.
[00:05:01]
ABOUT THE SO I'LL JUST SAY THIS AND I'M SURE THE CITY ATTORNEY IS ABOUT TO TO INTERJECT, BUT THAT IS NOT ON YOUR AGENDA THIS EVENING.SO WE WE REALLY DON'T NEED TO SPEAK TO THOSE ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA.
I'LL SAY WE CAN ADD A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM TO DISCUSS THAT AT MORE LENGTH, BUT I THINK GIVEN THE POST REQUIREMENTS AND THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, WE I DON'T THINK WE'RE POSTED FOR THAT KIND OF OPEN ENDED DISCUSSION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? ALL RIGHT.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:05 AND HEAR A MOTION.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CASE 25-341. I'LL SECOND.
ALL RIGHT. HAVE A MOTION BY MICHAEL. SECOND BY ASHLEY.
ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO ITEM 4. B 275, COUNTY ROAD 714.
[4.B. 275 County Road 714 (Case 25-324): Hold a public hearing and consider and take possible action on a zoning ordinance change request from “PD”, Planned Development, to “PD”, Planned Development. (Staff Contact: Emilio Sanchez, Deputy Director)]
CASE 25324. HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON A ZONING ORDINANCE.CHANGE REQUEST FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO PD PLAN DEVELOPMENT STAFF CONTACTS.
YOU MAY KNOW DRIVING BY THE PROPERTY, IT'S SUBDIVISION NAME IS PECAN GROVE.
THE APPLICANT IS MR. TIM WINDMILLER, REPRESENTING BURLESON PECAN GROVE LLC AND GRAHAM HART HOME BUILDERS, LLC. AND AGAIN, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR FOR A ZONING CHANGE OR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PD FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AS WELL.
THE PICTURE ON YOUR LEFT OF THE SCREEN DESIGNATES THE CURRENT ZONING AS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
THE SCREEN SHOWS CURRENTLY WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, WHICH IS VERY CLOSE TO THE SF SEVEN.
THEY'RE SINGLE FAMILY 7000 SQUARE FOOT ZONING DISTRICT.
SO I PUT THIS TABLE TOGETHER TO JUST KIND OF GIVE YOU THE DIFFERENCES, AND I'M NOT GOING TO READ THROUGH EACH ONE, BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OF THOSE FOR YOU, WITH THE ONLY CHANGE BEING THE FLOOR AREA, THE MINIMUM FLOOR AREA IN SF SEVEN IS 1000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM, OR 1250 SQUARE FOOT FOR ANY LOTS PLATTED AFTER 11 ONE OF 2003, AND THE APPLICANTS ARE PROPOSING A MINIMUM 1600 SQUARE FOOT FOR THEIR FLOOR AREA.
WE DIDN'T SEND PUBLIC NOTICES TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE PROPERTY PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER, AS WELL AS POSTED A SIGN ON THE PROPERTY. AND AT THIS TIME, WE DID HAVE ONE PHONE CALL LATE LAST WEEK IN OPPOSITION FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY. SO ON YOUR ON YOUR SCREEN THERE, IT'S PROPERTY OWNERS NUMBER 21.
STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST DOES ALIGN WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. AMELIA. OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 608.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE. THAT MIGHT HELP YOU GUYS. OKAY.
SO WE STARTED THIS PROJECT BACK IN 2018, AND THAT WAS BEFORE A HOUSE BILL CAME INTO EFFECT THAT KIND OF CHANGED WHAT THE CITY COULD ENFORCE AND NOT ENFORCE. AND SO IN THE MEANTIME, WE THAT WAS ALL HAPPENING.
WE DID THE PD AND THEN MICHELLE, WHO WE WORKED WITH AT THE CITY, SAID, HEY, YOU NEED TO WRITE YOUR ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES FOR THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ENFORCE. AND SO THERE'S SOME CONFLICTS IN WHAT WE HAVE WITHIN OUR CURRENT PD AND WHAT HOMEOWNERS WOULD LIKE TO DO.
AN EXAMPLE OF THAT IS WHEN WE DID THIS BURLESON DIDN'T REALLY HAVE A TREE ORDINANCE, SO THERE'S TREES IN THE TREE ORDINANCE THAT WE COULD USE, BUT OUR PD DIDN'T LIST THEM, SO WE CAN'T USE THEM.
[00:10:02]
SO EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE ALLOWED EVERYWHERE WITHIN BURLESON, A HOMEOWNER IN OUR COMMUNITY CAN'T USE A TREE.THAT'S IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WE COULD BECAUSE IT'S NOT LISTED.
OKAY. ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE HAVING IS THE WAY THE PD WAS WORDED.
WE HAVE REALLY 65 FOOT WIDE LOTS AND 75 FOOT WIDE LOTS, BUT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WORD THE PD IN A WAY WHERE THE LOTS THAT ARE 75 FOOT OR LESS FALL ON THE 65 FOOT REQUIREMENT, IF A LOT IS 65.1, THEY'RE TRYING TO ENFORCE THE STANDARDS OF A 75 FOOT WIDE LOT. WELL, THE HOUSE WON'T NECESSARILY BE ABLE TO BE SET BACK THAT FAR BECAUSE THE LOT ISN'T THAT BIG.
IT'S A 65 FOOT WIDE LOT. SO THERE'S JUST LITTLE DISCREPANCIES WITHIN THE PD THAT WE'RE TRYING TO RESOLVE, MAINLY. SO WHEN THE PLANS COME IN FROM THE BUILDERS AND GO THROUGH REVIEW, THEY CAN APPROVE THEM MUCH QUICKER EFFICIENTLY.
AND THEN THE ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE CAN DO THAT.
SO WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE DENSITY OF THE COMMUNITY.
WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE HOUSE SIZES THAT WE WANT TO GO ON THE LOTS.
WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE LOT SIZE. IT'S DONE. IT'S REALLY WE'RE TRYING TO JUST FIX ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT CAN BE CONTROLLED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE AND TAKE THAT OFF OF US. YOU KNOW, DYLAN AND THE GUYS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, ARE DOING PLAN REVIEW.
OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT INFORMATION. IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE COMMISSION HAS ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNS? DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT. SO I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:11 P.M.
AND HEAR A MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE. SORRY. BEFORE WE JUMP IN.
MICHAEL, DID YOU ASK IF ANYONE ELSE WANTED TO SPEAK IN THE PUBLIC HEARING? YOU DID? OKAY. I JUST MISSED THAT. SORRY. NO.
YOU'RE GOOD. MOTION TO APPROVE CASE NUMBER 25-324.
NO. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. MOTION BY DAVID. SECOND BY DAN.
ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
THANK YOU ALL. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THERE ARE NO REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS.
NO GENERAL ITEMS, NO COMMUNITY INTEREST ITEMS, NO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
I'LL ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:12 P.M.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.