[00:00:02] GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. AT 6 P.M. I'LL CALL THE SEPTEMBER 15, 2026, PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING TO ORDER. [1.CALL TO ORDER] FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS GOING TO BE THE INVOCATION. DAVID, CAN YOU LEAD US, PLEASE, SIR? FATHER, WE'RE THANKFUL FOR TODAY. WE'RE THANKFUL FOR THE LORD THAT WE'LL CONTINUE TO SEE [INAUDIBLE] MODERATE. WE'RE THANKFUL FOR THE INDIVIDUALS THAT SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION AND FOR THE DEDICATION THAT THEY'VE SHOWN THROUGHOUT THE YEARS. GIVE US WISDOM TONIGHT AS WE LOOK AT YOUR ISSUES. FOR IT IS IN YOUR NAME WE PRAY. AMEN. ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO ITEM TWO. WE HAVE CITIZEN APPEARANCES. SO IT'S A TIME FOR ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM NOT LISTED ON THE PUBLIC AGENDA. SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. [3.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 SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE, STAFF OR COMMISSION HAS AN OBJECTION. OTHERWISE I WILL HEAR A MOTION. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE. I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT. HAVE A MOTION BY BETH, SECOND BY ASHLEY. ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HANDS. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO ITEM 4A, WE HAVE 279 WEST HIDDEN CREEK PARKWAY ZC26-007. [4.A.279 W Hidden Creek PKWY (ZC26-007): Hold a public hearing and consider and take possible action on a zoning ordinance change request on approximately 8.216 acres of land from “PD”, Planned Development, to “PD”, Planned Development. (Staff Contact: Emilio Sanchez, Deputy Director)] HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON A ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGE REQUEST ON APPROXIMATELY 8.216 ACRES OF LAND FROM PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. STAFF CONTACT IS EMILIO SANCHEZ. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS. FOR THE RECORD EMILIO SANCHEZ, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPUTY DIRECTOR. THE REQUEST THAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS FOR ZONING CASE 26-007 AT 279 WEST HIDDEN CREEK PARKWAY. THE APPLICANT IS MR. TIM WINDMILLER REPRESENTING ASCENT DEVELOPMENT AND THE STANDARD AT CHISEN HALL, WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THEY ARE REQUESTING A ZONING CHANGE FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. AS YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR, THIS IS A PORTION OF THE HIDDEN VISTAS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FROM EARLY 2000, AND THERE HAVE BEEN MANY ITERATIONS AND CHANGES THROUGHOUT THE YEARS, AND MR. WINDMILLER IS REQUESTING A CHANGE TO THE PD FOR A BOUTIQUE HOTEL THAT'S GOING TO BE AT THE KIND OF THE SOUTH WEST OF THE PROPERTY. CURRENTLY AGAIN THEIR CURRENT ZONING IS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS AS FLOODPLAIN OR OPEN SPACE. THIS IS A RENDERING OF THE FUTURE BUILDING FOR BUILDING B. THE CURRENT PD ONLY ALLOWS FOR A FOUR STORY BUILDING. MR. WINDMILLER IS REQUESTING UP TO EIGHT STORIES IN THE NEW PD, BUT THEY'RE ONLY REQUESTING TO BUILD SIX. THEY WERE JUST GIVING SOME EXTRA DESIGN STANDARD GUIDELINES IF THEY'RE NEEDED. ALSO IN THIS REQUEST IS FOR MORE THAN 50% GLASS ON ANY ONE ELEVATION. THAT'S ANOTHER CHANGE TO THE PD. THOSE ARE THE ONLY CHANGES TO THIS PORTION OF THE PD. THE SLIDE IN FRONT OF YOU DESIGNATES THE KIND OF THE NEW BUILDING OUTLINED IN RED, ALONG WITH ALL OF THE EXISTING PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND BUILDINGS. IF YOU GUYS ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, ALL OF THOSE PARKING SPACES AND LANDSCAPING WENT IN PRIOR TO ANY OF THE FIRST BUILDINGS BEING BUILT, SO THERE'S NO CHANGES TO THE SITE. THIS IS JUST AN OPEN PAD SITE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO CONSTRUCT THIS ON. WE DID SEND PUBLIC NOTICES TO ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT, PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER, AND POSTED A SIGN ON THE PROPERTY AND HAVE NOT HAD ANY SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION EMAILS OR PHONE CALLS. STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUESTED ZONING DISTRICT PD WOULD ALIGN WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE. I'D BE HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS FROM YOU, AND THE APPLICANT IS IN THE AUDIENCE TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:04 P.M.. SIR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK OR JUST ANSWER QUESTIONS? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE COMMISSION IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS. [00:05:05] I HAVE A QUESTION. AND THIS IS TO THE CITY PLANNING CHANGING IT FROM FOUR STORIES TO HIGHER. WHY? WHAT WAS THE RATIONALE FOR HAVING IT FOUR STORIES IN THE FIRST PLACE? I MEAN, WHAT ARE WE CHANGING THAT WAS MEANT TO BE FOUR AND NOW UP TO EIGHT. SO I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DEFER TO MR. WINDMILLER. HE HAS A LITTLE BIT MORE HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE. THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER WAS PETER THOMAS, AND THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE WITHIN THE ORIGINAL PD BACK IN THE EARLY 2000S. SO UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T HAVE THAT EXPERTISE OF WHY THEY LIMITED TO FOUR STORIES, BUT MR. WINDMILLER MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT A LITTLE BETTER. THAT WAS JUST THE ORIGINAL PD THAT PETER THOMAS DID WHEN HE DEVELOPED ALL THE HOUSING AND LEFT THAT AS A COMMERCIAL SPACE ON THE FRONT SIDE. AT THE TIME, WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT THE DEMOGRAPHIC WOULD REALLY SUPPORT WHAT LEVEL OF HOTEL THAT WE WERE GOING TO EVEN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO. AND WE GOT APPROVAL FROM HILTON. THEY SIGNED OUR FRANCHISE AGREEMENT FOR A TAPESTRY, BUT THEY REQUIRED 91 ROOMS. SO THE ONLY WAY TO GET THAT IS TO GO UP TO SIX STORIES. WELL, IN BURLESON, WHAT DO WE HAVE THAT'S EIGHT STORIES IN BURLESON. OH, WE DO NOT. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. I MEAN, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING, BECAUSE IT APPEARED TO ME THAT THE FOUR STORIES MAY HAVE COME FROM CITY PLANNING OVERALL FOR THE CITY, AND THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT'S OVER FOUR STORIES. AND SO NOW WE'D BE DOING SOMETHING. WE'D BE DOING SOMETHING A DIFFERENT WAY THAT SETS A PRECEDENCE FOR HIGHER STORY BUILDINGS. SO I GUESS TO MAYBE GIVE YOU A LITTLE CONTEXT, THE I-35 OVERLAY DISTRICT ALLOWS UP TO 120FT, AS LONG AS YOU CAN MEET SOME CERTAIN SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, WHICH WOULD BE ALMOST 12 STORY'S HIGH. SO THERE IS THE ABILITY WITHIN THE CITY TO CONSTRUCT SOMETHING THAT TALL. IT'S JUST NOT BEEN PLACED ON THE GROUND THAT WAY ALONG I-35. OKAY, THANKS. I LIKE THE IDEA. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A GREAT, GREAT SUCCESS THERE, AND I DON'T SEE ANYTHING GOING BEHIND IT. NOTHING GOES BEHIND. SO, YOU KNOW, I COMMEND YOU FOR, DOING THIS. I REALLY, I REALLY LIKE IT A LOT. AND I THINK YOU'LL BE REAL SUCCESSFUL WITH IT. YEAH. I MEAN, THE BACK OF THE HOTEL, HE DOESN'T HAVE PICTURES OF IT, BUT THEY ALL HAVE THE CORNERS HAVE SUITES WITH BALCONIES LOOKING AT THE GREENBELT. WE'RE TYING IT INTO THE TRAIL SYSTEM SO PEOPLE CAN WALK IN. THEY CAN WALK OVER FROM THE BALL FIELD. SO TO ME IT'S GOING TO BE A HUGE ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY. JUST AS REFERENCE THE BUILDING THAT'S TO THE LEFT OF THIS FACING. YES. WHERE THE WAS THE POKER ROOM IS UPSTAIRS. YEAH. HOW MANY STORIES IS THAT? THAT'S A THREE STORY BUILDING. THREE STORY. OKAY. SO IT'LL BE QUITE A BIT HIGHER. IT'LL BE QUITE A BIT HIGHER THAN THAT. PROPORTIONALLY THOUGH, THAT ROOM HAS MORE SPACE ON EACH FLOOR. RIGHT. BECAUSE IT WAS DESIGNED AS OFFICE SPACE. SO WE WON'T HAVE QUITE AS IT WILL BE TALLER BUT NOT PROPORTIONALLY AS TALL. LIKE IF I WERE TO DOUBLE THAT BUILDING INTO SIX STORIES, IT WOULD BE EVEN TALLER THAN THE HOTEL BECAUSE THOSE ROOMS ARE 12. EACH FLOOR IS LIKE 12 OR 14 FOOT. YEAH. AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT BETWEEN THE FLOORS. GOTCHA. SO THANK YOU. TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE PROJECT. JUST A QUICK QUESTION. PARKING AND FIRE WITH A NEW DEAL IS FIRE ON BOARD? THEY ARE. OKAY. FOR THE PARKING IT ACTUALLY GOING TO A BOUTIQUE HOTEL ACTUALLY DECREASED THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR THE. BUT THE ORIGINAL PD HAD THIS SPECIFIC BUILDING AS A FOUR STORY OFFICE SPACE, WHICH REQUIRED MORE PARKING THAN. YES, SIR. OKAY. YEAH, THAT WAS A BIG PART OF WHAT WE WANTED IS WE DON'T WANT TO OVER PARK IT OR HAVING TO PARKED CARS SOMEWHERE ELSE. SO IT DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE ANY OF OUR PARKING. IT'S GOING TO BE A MASSIVE TRAFFIC JAM AT THE LIGHT. WELL, WE'RE LUCKY. WE'RE BLESSED. WE HAVE A SEPARATE EXIT WHERE THEY CAN GO OUT AND TURN RIGHT AND LINE UP FROM TWO DIFFERENT SIDES. BUT YEAH, IT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BLESSED TO HAVE A LIGHT THERE NOW. SO. YES. ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY MORE COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO SPEAK ON, SIR? NO, THANK YOU ALL. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:09 P.M. AND HEAR A MOTION, PLEASE. MOTION TO APPROVE ZC26-007. I'LL SECOND THAT. YEAH. ALL RIGHT I HAVE A MOTION BY DAN OR BY DAVID? A SECOND BY DAN. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS. [00:10:02] LOOKS LIKE THIS PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 4B, HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON [4.B.Hold a public hearing and consider and take possible action on an ordinance amending the text of the city’s zoning ordinance codified in Appendix B, Zoning, Article V, Supplemental Regulations of the City of Burleson Code of Ordinances. (Staff Contact: Tony D. McIlwain, Development Services Director)] AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE CODIFIED IN APPENDIX B ZONING ARTICLE FIVE SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF BURLESON CODE OF ORDINANCES. THE STAFF CONTACT FOR THIS WAS TONY MCILWAIN. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. THIS ITEM TONIGHT REPRESENTS OUR NEXT ITERATION OF UPDATES TO THE CITY'S RESPECTIVE ZONING CODE. WE DID A REVIEW OF OUR SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS, AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IS UPDATING VARIOUS SECTIONS TO PRETTY MUCH HAVE THEM MEET WHAT WE'RE DOING FROM A WORK PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT IN OFFICE AND WHAT WE REQUIRE OF DEVELOPERS WHEN THEY COME INTO THE CITY. MOST NOTABLY, WE'VE ADDED A PROVISION TO THE CITY'S COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS TO ILLUSTRATE THE EXTENTS OF ON SITE SEPTIC FACILITIES. WE OFTENTIMES WILL HAVE COMMERCIAL SITE PLANS SUBMITTED. THEY'RE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR WHEN WE REVIEW THEM. AND THEN IT LEADS TO AN ALTERATION OF THE COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN ON THE BACK END, WHICH IS TWICE AS MUCH WORK FOR THE DEVELOPER. WE WANT TO ARTICULATE THAT IN THEIR REQUIREMENTS SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS UP FRONT WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE BUILDING PLACEMENT ALONG WITH THE PARKING. AND WE THINK THAT WILL CERTAINLY LEAD TO SOME MORE FAVORABLE OUTCOMES FROM ALL INVOLVED. WE'RE LOOKING AT CLEARING UP WHAT I THINK IS A TYPO. THAT'S SOMETHING I CAN CHALK IT UP TO. BUT WE'VE GOT A BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND THINGS YOUR YARD STRUCTURES THAT'S 18FT. IF YOU'VE DONE THIS LONG ENOUGH, TYPICALLY YOUR SETBACKS END IN A ZERO OR FIVE, RIGHT? IT'S NOT AN ODD NUMBER LIKE 18FT. AND I DID SOME RESEARCH. I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT CAME TO BE, BUT WE'RE PUSHING IT OUT TO 20FT BECAUSE THAT'S TYPICALLY WHAT WE OPERATE ON. NOW WE'RE MINDFUL THAT WE DON'T WANT TO LEAVE ANYBODY WITH A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. BUT I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. WE DON'T RECALL PERMITTING ANYTHING IN 18FT. SO IT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT HAD BEEN OVERLOOKED FOR YEARS. BUT IF YOU ARE GOING TO DO A PROJECT AND YOU HAVE A CARPORT, FOR INSTANCE, AND YOU'RE COMING OFF A SIDE STREET OR AN ALLEY, YOU'RE 20FT, NOT 18FT. AND SO WE THINK THAT WILL ALIGN WITH THE SETBACKS BETTER FOR THE REST OF THE STRUCTURES ON THE SITE. ANOTHER THING THAT WE'VE NOTICED IS THAT WE'VE HAD APPLICANTS COME IN TO DO PROJECTS ALONG I-35 WHEN THEY GET TO THE HEIGHT SECTION. WE'VE GOT A REFERENCE TO THE SPINKS AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT. WELL, THAT YOU HAVE TO SEARCH HARD TO FIND THAT DOCUMENT NOWADAYS. AND SO WHAT STAFF HAS BEEN DOING FOR YEARS IS LOOKING AT THE IH-35 HEIGHT REGULATIONS. AND THAT'S THE DE FACTO HEIGHT REGULATIONS THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING. WE'RE REMOVING THE REFERENCE TO SPINKS AND SUBSTITUTING THAT WITH THE IH-35 REFERENCE. YOU DO HAVE HEIGHT REGULATIONS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY, OBVIOUSLY, BUT WHEN YOU GET TO THAT SECTION, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A NOD FOR A DEVELOPER TO GO IN CHECK THE HEIGHTS. NO REFERENCE TO SPINKS IS ALL THERE IN THE ZONING CODE. WE THINK THAT MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO DECIPHER AND FIGURE THINGS OUT. SO HERE, MOST RECENTLY, THE STATE HAS HAD LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS THAT HAVE MADE IT EASIER FOR THINGS LIKE FOOD TRUCKS TO TAKE PLACE IN CITIES, AND IN DECIPHERING ALL THE CHANGES IN STATE LAW. WE'VE GOT A WHOLE SECTION OF THE CITY'S SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS THAT WERE VERY REGULATORY, AND WE EVEN HAVE SNOW CONE STANDARDS THAT HAVE REQUIREMENTS. SO OUR CODE COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION DID A REVIEW OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDING THAT WE MAKE MULTIPLE REVISIONS TO BRING OURSELVES CURRENT WITH THE STATE REQUIREMENTS. THE STATE HAS PREEMPTED MUNICIPALITIES FROM DOING ANYTHING BEYOND WHAT THE STATE REQUIRES. SO WE'VE TAKEN A LOT OF TEXT OUT OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS. SO IF YOU'RE DOING A SNOW CONE STAND, IF YOU'RE DOING IF YOU'RE A MOBILE FOOD VENDOR, IF YOU'RE STATIONARY FOOD VENDOR, WE ARE NOW TAKING OUT ALL THOSE REGULATIONS AND YOU DEFAULT TO THE STATE'S REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE WE CANNOT BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE STATE. THAT WOULD BRING US, OF COURSE, IN LINE WITH STATE LAW, BUT IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR SOMEONE WHO IS UTILIZING ONE OF THOSE BUSINESS MODELS TO COME IN AND NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE CITY'S RED TAPE THAT CAPTURES THE SCOPE OF THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE PROPOSING THIS TIME, VERY LIGHT COMPARED TO SOME OF WHAT YOU'VE BEEN DOING HERE OVER THE LAST FEW MEETINGS. BUT I WANT TO SAY, YOU MAY RECALL WE HAD THIS BROAD CONVERSATION ABOUT MANDATORY MINIMUM PARKING STANDARDS. THOSE STANDARDS ARE IN THE CITY SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS. AND WHEN WE PRESENTED THIS TO YOU AT YOUR JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL STAFF WAS GOING TO EMBARK ON MAKING CHANGES TO THE MANDATORY [00:15:06] MINIMUMS. THAT IS STILL IN PLAY, BUT IT REQUIRES A MUCH DEEPER DIVE THAN WE THOUGHT BECAUSE ALL PARKING REGULATIONS ARE CREATED EQUAL. AND WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO PROPOSE SOMETHING TO YOU, IT FITS. AND WE DON'T HAVE A BUSINESS THAT IS UNDER PARKED BECAUSE WE'VE MONKEYED AROUND WITH THE MANDATORY MINIMUM PARKING STANDARDS, THAT LEADS TO OTHER ISSUES WITH PARKING ADJACENT TO OTHER PROPERTIES. SO WE'RE GOING TO BRING THAT BACK TO YOU HERE IN THE NEAR TERM. AND IT'S GOING TO BE PART OF ANOTHER FORAY INTO THE SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS THAT WE WERE PROPOSING TONIGHT. SO MORE WORK CONTINUES, IS WHAT I WANT TO SAY. BUT I TOLD THE CITY MANAGER, WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO TAKE IT IN SMALL BITES TO GET TO WHERE WE WANT TO GET. BUT THAT CONCLUDES THE CHANGES. WE ATTACHED THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT SHOWED SOME OF THE STRIKETHROUGHS AND UNDERLINED TEXT. I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE PRIOR TO OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL RIGHT. THANKS, TONY. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:16 P.M. AND TURN IT OVER TO THE COMMISSION. I DO HAVE A QUESTION. YES, SIR. SO WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT THE I-35 CORRIDOR AND SORT OF THE SPINKS ORIGINAL SPINKS LANGUAGE. SO LIKE THAT'S IT'S ABOUT HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. AND SO MY QUESTION BECOMES LIKE, HOW FAR DOES THAT STRETCH? SO IF WE JUST CALL IT AN I-35 CORRIDOR, DOES THAT GO ALL THE WAY DOWN TO ALVARADO? AND THAT'S NOT REALLY NECESSARY TO HAVE THOSE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS THAT FAR SOUTH VERSUS CLOSE TO THE AIRPORT. SURE. SO A VERY GOOD QUESTION. YOU'VE GOT TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN. WE'VE GOT A STATIC ZONING REQUIREMENT THAT WE'RE PROPOSING THAT STRETCHES THE FULL LENGTH OF WHAT WE CONSIDER THE I-35 DISTANCE OF THE I-35 OVERLAY DISTRICT. NOW, THE SPINKS AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT HAD MORE HAD THE SAME REQUIREMENTS, BUT ALSO HAD TO DEAL WITH THE CONICAL AIRSPACE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANES LANDING. SO WHAT STAFF DOES IS WE HAVE MEETINGS WITH FORT WORTH. WE DID THIS RECENTLY, A FEW YEARS AGO. AND IF THERE ARE CHANGES THAT FORT WORTH NEEDS TO HAVE REGARDING THE AIRPORT, BECAUSE WE'RE PART OF A, I GUESS, COLLABORATIVE, WE WOULD THEN BRING THESE CHANGES BACK TO YOU AND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE SURE THAT IF YOU ARE EITHER THE CITY OF BURLESON OR THE CITY OF FORT WORTH, WE'RE ALIGNED. WHAT WE'RE FINDING IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE REFERENCE IN THE CODE, PEOPLE LITERALLY COULDN'T FIND THE DOCUMENT. AND I SAID, WELL, I CAN'T FIND THE DOCUMENT AND I'M THE DIRECTOR. WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING? AND THE FEEDBACK WAS, WE'VE BEEN FOLLOWING THE IH-35 CORRIDOR. I SAID, WELL, IS THAT THE SAME THING? AND THEY SAID, WELL, THE HEIGHTS ARE THE SAME. SO I'M LIKE, OKAY. SO WE USED THAT AS THE BASIS TO PUT IN THE HEIGHTS IN CERTAIN PARTS OF THE CODE. SO I FELT COMFORTABLE JUST TAKING THE REFERENCE OUT. NOW, WHAT I WILL TELL YOU IS THAT WE CAN'T SUPERSEDE ANY FAA REQUIREMENTS ANYWAY. SO MOST OF THE TIME IF YOU'RE COMING IN TO DO A PROJECT AND YOU REALLY GET DOWN TO VERY DETAILED, THERE'S A FORM, I THINK IT'S CALLED 7460 THAT EACH DEVELOPER HAS TO FILL OUT, SUBMIT TO THE FAA. AND THE FAA SAYS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BRING YOUR BUILDING HEIGHT DOWN. THAT'S WHAT YOU DO REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE CITY REQUIRES. SO WE FEEL COMFORTABLE AND WE DON'T THINK THAT THE WE MENTIONED 120 FOOT ALLOWANCE. YOU DON'T SEE IT BECAUSE THERE'S A VERY SMALL MARKET FOR IT WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO SOUTH. BUT EVEN THEN WE DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO INTERFERE WITH THE AIRPORT REQUIREMENTS. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 06:18 AND HEAR A MOTION. I HOPE I SAY THIS RIGHT. I MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE TO THE CITY CODE ORDINANCE CODIFIED IN APPENDIX B ZONING ARTICLE FIVE, SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF BURLESON CODE OF ORDINANCES. SECOND. YEAH. SECOND. A MOTION BY ASHLEY, A SECOND BY MICHAEL. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS. AND THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THAT DOES IT FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS. THERE ARE NO REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS, NO GENERAL ITEMS, NO COMMUNITY INTEREST ITEMS AND NO EXECUTIVE SESSION. I'LL ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:19 P.M.. THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.