[00:00:01]
GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY, THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE WAITING THERE FOR US.[1. Call to Order.]
WE WERE WAITING FOR IT TO BE OFFICIALLY 6:30 P.M.SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE GOT THINGS STARTED OFF RIGHT.
THANK YOU FOR COMING OUT THIS EVENING.
HAPPY NEW YEAR! WELCOME TO THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING HERE ON JANUARY 6, 2022.
DAN KUBIAK, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
HOPEFULLY, I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY AN AGENDA IN THE BACK SO YOU CAN READ THE ORDER THAT WILL BE TAKING ITEMS UP THIS EVENING.
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION HERE FOR ABOUT PROBABLY ABOUT PLUS OR MINUS 20 MINUTES, MAYBE 30 MINUTES MAX.
WE'RE ABOUT TO JUST GO DO THAT RIGHT NOW WHERE WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS A FEW ITEMS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY.
SO WE'RE GOING TO GO IN AND DO THAT REALLY QUICKLY, COME RIGHT BACK AND THEN WE'LL START GETTING INTO THE AGENDA.
IN THE ORDER THAT YOU SEE IT ON HERE, WE MIGHT MOVE ITEM 11 UP IN FRONT OF ITEM 10.
BUT OTHER THAN THAT, GENERALLY THE ORDER THAT'S ON HERE.
SO JUST SO YOU CAN KIND OF TRY TO TIME THINGS OUT.
AND WHEN I COME BACK, I'LL GIVE A FEW MORE KIND OF, YOU KNOW, LAY OF THE LAND IN TERMS OF HOW THIS PROCESS ALL WORKS FOR ANYBODY WHO HASN'T HASN'T BEEN OUT HERE BEFORE.
SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO IN A REGULAR SESSION, WHICH
[2. A. Executive Session: Pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, Sections 551.071. Refer to posted list attached hereto and incorporated herein. Executive Session may be held, under these exceptions, at the end of the Regular Session or at any time during the meeting that a need arises for the Planning and Zoning Commission to seek advice from the City Attorney as to the posted subject matter of this Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Section 551.071: Consultation with attorney. B. Reconvene: Action necessary on items discussed in Executive Session.]
IS THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.AND AS CHAIRMAN, I HEREBY ADVISE YOU THAT WE ARE GOING INTO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551 DASH OR .
071 TO SEEK LEGAL ADVICE FROM OUR CITY ATTORNEY.
THANK YOU, EVERYBODY, FOR YOUR PATIENCE TOOK 14 MINUTES, SO LESS THAN I THOUGHT, HOPEFULLY OFF TO A GOOD START TONIGHT BECAUSE I KNOW WE'VE GOT SOMEWHAT FULL AGENDA AND WE ALSO HAVE A SIGN BOARD MEETING AFTER THIS AS WELL.
SO WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO BE AS EXPEDITIOUS AS WE CAN.
SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND PICK THE AGENDA BACK UP IN ORDER RIGHT NOW.
ITEM NUMBER THREE HERE, IF THERE'S ANY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS FROM STAFF.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR, CHAIRMAN COMMENTS, MAYBE I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAYBE GET INTO
[4. Chairman Comments.]
THIS RIGHT NOW REALLY QUICKLY.BUT JUST FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVEN'T BEEN HERE BEFORE, OR MAYBE IN A LITTLE WHILE, THE WAY THE THE EVENING WILL WORK IS WE'LL GO THROUGH THE AGENDA IN ORDER.
FOR EACH ITEM STAFF WILL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A PRESENTATION.
WE'LL ASK ANY QUESTIONS WE MIGHT HAVE.
THE APPLICANT WILL COME UP FOR A BRIEF PRESENTATION AND WE'LL ASK ANY QUESTIONS.
THEN WE'LL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR EACH ITEM WHERE YOU'LL BE ABLE TO COME UP AND COMMENT ON EACH ITEM.
WE'RE GOING TO LIMIT THAT TO THREE MINUTES, AS WE ALWAYS DO KIND OF IN HERE AND AT COUNCIL, YOU'LL SEE THERE'S SOME LIGHTS KIND OF ON THE DAIS UP THERE.
THEY'LL BE KIND OF GREEN AND THEY'LL GO TO YELLOW.
I THINK AFTER TWO MINUTES AND THEN IT'LL BLINK RED AFTER THREE.
AND AGAIN, THAT'S JUST BEING COGNIZANT AND CONSIDERATE THAT WE'VE GOT A LOT OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.
SO WE JUST HAVE TO PUT SOME KIND OF END TIME ON IT.
WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE FACE US DURING YOUR COMMENTS, PLEASE DIRECT THEM AT US.
AND TO THE EXTENT THEY CAN BE FOCUSED SPECIFICALLY ON WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DELIBERATE ON, THAT'S THE MOST HELPFUL FEEDBACK FOR US.
FROM THERE, WE'LL DELIBERATE AND VOTE ON SOME KIND OF RECOMMENDATION AND THEN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.
SO THAT'S THAT'S GENERALLY, I GUESS, A ROUGH IDEA OF HOW THIS WILL WORK.
SO WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO OUR CONSENT AGENDA THIS EVENING, WHICH
[CONSENT AGENDA]
HAS TWO ITEMS ON IT.ITEM FIVE CONSIDERATION OF OUR MINUTES FROM OUR NOVEMBER 18TH MEETING IN 2021 AND THEN A PLAT FOR THE PRIMROSE OFFICE BUILDING ITEM NUMBER SIX.
I THINK STAFF, WE CAN TAKE BOTH THOSE ITEMS TOGETHER FOR A MOTION.
AND I THINK ITEM SIX, AS WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT PREVIOUSLY, THAT PLAT IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL PRIOR APPROVALS AND DOESN'T HAVE ANY VARIANCES TO IT.
SO I GUESS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS COMMENTS ON THE MEETING MINUTES OR ANYTHING TO COMMENT ON THAT? IF NOT OTHERWISE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEMS NUMBER FIVE AND SIX ON OUR AGENDA.
SO WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO OUR REGULAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN,
[7. Consider: ZA21 -0093, Site Plan for Lonesome Dove Baptist Church Addition on property described as Lot 1R1R, Block 1, Lonesome Dove Baptist Church Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, and located at 2380 Lonesome Dove Ave. (also called Lonesome Dove Rd.), Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: "CS" Community Service District. SPIN Neighborhood #2. PUBLIC HEARING]
WHICH IS A SITE PLAN FOR LONESOME DOVE BAPTIST CHURCH, AND I'LL ASK STAFF TO GO AHEAD AND START THE PRESENTATION, PLEASE.THIS IS A REQUEST FOR AN APPROXIMATELY FOURTEEN THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE LONESOME DOVE CHURCH, LOCATED AT TWENTY THREE EIGHTY LONESOME DOVE AVENUE.
THIS WOULD BE FOR AN ADDITIONAL OR NEW WORSHIP CENTER IN THE IN THE CHURCH
[00:05:03]
FACILITY, ROUGHLY WITH APPROXIMATELY THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY SIX SEATS.THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THIS PROPERTY IS PUBLIC SEMIPUBLIC, AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT.
THIS IS A AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY SHOWN IN BLUE FOR THE CHURCH.
THIS IS A VIEW LOOKING IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION FROM LONESOME DOVE AVENUE.
THIS IS THE PARSONAGE FACILITY ON THE SOUTH END OF THE PROPERTY AND JUST TO THE RIGHT IS THE EXISTING CHURCH FACILITY.
A VIEW LOOKING IN A NORTHWESTERLY DIRECTION.
AND WITH A CHURCH FACILITY IN THE FOREGROUND.
THIS IS THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN DONE IN 1999.
IT INCLUDED ROUGHLY A 6000 SQUARE FOOT FELLOWSHIP EDITION AND AN EDUCATION BUILDING ON THE SITE.
AND IN 2017, THERE WERE 12 ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES ADDED ON THE [INAUDIBLE] DRIVEWAY INTO THE CHURCH SITE.
THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AREA SHOWN IN GREEN IS THE PROPOSED ADDITION ONCE AGAIN JUST UNDER FOURTEEN THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT.
THE LIGHTLY SHADED GRAY AREAS ARE NEW PAVING AND PARKING TO BE INSTALLED WITH THE ADDITION.
AND ONCE AGAIN, THE FACILITY WILL CONTAIN APPROXIMATELY THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY SIX SEATS.
THIS IS A VARIANCE EXHIBIT SHOWING VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED.
THREE OF THOSE PERTAIN TO DRIVEWAYS.
THESE ARE PREEXISTING DRIVEWAYS, CURRENT STACKING DEPTH ON THOSE AS APPROXIMATELY 40 FEET WITH THE ADDITIONAL PARKING STACKING DEPTH ON THOSE WOULD BE REQUIRED AT A MINIMUM OF 75 FEET.
THIS WOULD APPLY TO ALL THREE DRIVEWAYS.
ALSO ON THIS CENTER DRIVEWAY, THE WIDTH OF THAT DRIVEWAY IS APPROXIMATELY 17 FEET, MINIMUM WIDTH REQUIRED FOR NONRESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY'S 24 FEET.
AND THERE IS A VARIANCE FOR SIDEWALKS.
A MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK IS REQUIRED ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF LONESOME DOVE AVENUE.
WITH ANY SITE THAT REQUIRES A COUNCIL APPROVED SITE PLAN AND INCREASES THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROPERTY ABOUT 20 PERCENT OR MORE.
ADDITIONALLY, WITH THE CHANGES TO THE SITE, THIS PROPERTY AND ITS ZONING AND USE IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A SOLID, OPAQUE FENCE WHERE IT ABUTS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, AN EIGHT FOOT SOLID FENCE IS REQUIRED ALONG THE WEST AND SOUTH BOUNDARIES WHERE THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY ABUTS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, AND APPLICANT IS REQUESTING RELIEF OF THAT REQUIREMENT.
THIS IS WRITTEN ITEMIZATION OF THOSE VARIANCES.
THESE ARE THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS FOR THE NEW WORSHIP AND SANCTUARY AREA.
THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN FOR THE SITE.
THERE WILL BE A DETENTION STRUCTURE INSTALLED WITH THE ADDITION AND PARKING BEING PROVIDED.
[00:10:01]
AND A DRAINAGE AREA MAP.THIS IS PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN.
THE APPLICANT WILL BE PROVIDING SANITARY SEWER TO THE TO THE NEW FACILITY.
WE HAVE RECEIVED RESPONSES NOTED WITH THE RED DOT AND OPPOSITION FROM PROPERTIES DIRECTLY ABUTTING THE WEST AND SOUTH BOUNDARIES.
THERE ARE 14 ADDITIONAL RESPONSES NOTED IN FAVOR AND ONE UNDECIDED THAT WERE OUTSIDE OF THE 300 FOOT NOTIFICATION AREA AND THEN, OF COURSE, RESPONSE FROM THE CHURCH NOTING THEIR FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PROPOSAL.
WITH THAT, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OTHER THAN THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE APPLICANT.
THANK YOU DENNIS, I GUESS REAL QUICK JUST CONFIRMING.
THIS APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S LAND USE PLAN.
IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING.
SO IT'S A SITE PLAN APPLICATION, AND IT HAS FOUR VARIANCES PREDOMINANTLY RELATED TO PREEXISTING CONDITIONS.
FROM THE COMMISSION ON THIS ONE.
I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT YOU SAID THEY WERE PROVIDING SANITARY SEWERS THAT NOT, IS IT ON SEPTIC NOW? IT IS ON SEPTIC RIGHT NOW.
QUICK QUESTION ON THE VARIANCES, DENNIS.
I KNOW THAT SOME OF THEM WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN PRIOR REQUESTS OUT OF THE FOUR.
HOW MANY OF THOSE WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED? THE DRIVEWAY STACKING AND WIDTH VARIANCES WERE APPROVED WITH APPROVED WITH PREVIOUS REQUESTS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THE COUNCIL.
AND THEN THE FENCE SCREENING REQUIREMENT WITH THE 99 PLAN THAT WAS DONE WAS APPROVED BY OUR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND THEY WERE GRANTED RELIEF FROM THAT FENCING REQUIREMENT AT THAT TIME.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FOR NOW? OKAY.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE APPLICANT UP ON THIS ITEM.
AND STAFF USUALLY DOES A PRETTY GOOD, THOROUGH PRESENTATION, SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED AN EXHAUSTIVE PRESENTATION, BUT DEFINITELY PLEASE, YOU KNOW, FEEL FREE TO MAKE OPENING COMMENTS, NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, BY THE WAY.
AND THEN WE CAN ENTER INTO ANY Q&A AS WELL.
I'M THE LEAD PASTOR AT LONESOME DOVE BAPTIST CHURCH.
TWENTY THREE EIGHTY LONESOME DOVE ROAD.
IF I CAN MAKE JUST AN OPENING COMMENT, THE DOVE WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1846 IN THE VERY SAME PROPERTY THAT WE SEE HERE.
THE HISTORY AND TRANSCENDENCE OF THE CHURCH IS REALLY INCREDIBLE.
WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, FOLKS GATHERED FOR CHURCH ON OUR PROPERTY DURING THE CIVIL WAR.
THEY GATHERED FOR CHURCH DURING THE WAR TO END ALL WARS.
THEY GATHERED DURING THE ALLIED INVASION WHEN THE FATE OF THE FREE WORLD HUNG IN THE BALANCE AS ROCKY BALBOA FOUGHT IVAN DRAGO.
THEY GATHERED ON OUR PROPERTY.
THE CHURCH WAS HERE BEFORE THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, BEFORE LAKE GRAPEVINE, BEFORE ONE DROP OF SHINER BEER WAS EVER BREWED.
OUR MEMBERS HAVE WATCHED OVER THE YEARS AS NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE SPRUNG UP ALL AROUND US AND RIGHT UP TO OUR PROPERTY.
ALL THE CONSTRUCTION, TRAFFIC, THE DIRT, THE NOISE, BUT SIGNS OF LIFE AND GROWTH AND PROGRESS TEMPORARILY UNCOMFORTABLE AT TIMES.
BUT THAT'S HOW GROWTH AND PROGRESS OFTEN IS.
WE ADJUSTED AND ULTIMATELY WE'RE HAPPY FOR ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS.
THANKFUL TO BE LOCATED IN A GROWING NEIGHBORHOOD AND A VIBRANT COMMUNITY LIKE SOUTHLAKE.
THE LIFE AND GROWTH THAT WE'RE EXPERIENCING AS A CHURCH RIGHT NOW HAS BEEN SLOW AND STEADY.
IT'S A REFLECTION OF THE GRACE OF GOD, AND I THINK IT'S A REFLECTION OF THE GROWTH AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS AREA.
WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE IS NOT A WAL-MART, A WAL-MART IS NOT BEING BUILT OR MEGACHURCH.
IT'S A THIRTEEN THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WITH A HUNDRED PARKING SPOTS.
THERE ARE HOUSES WITHIN A MILE OF US THAT ARE BIGGER THAN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING.
THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET HAS A BIGGER FOOTPRINT THAN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AS A CHURCH.
THIS EXPANSION IS MUCH NEEDED FOR OUR LITTLE GROWING CHURCH.
I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN A PART OF MICHIGAN THAT'S TERRIBLY DEPRESSED, AND IT'S
[00:15:04]
NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE DETROIT LIONS FANS.IT'S JUST A TERRIBLY DEPRESSED PART OF THE COUNTRY, MILES OF EMPTY FACTORIES AND DILAPIDATED HOMES.
THERE IS SOMETHING WORSE THAN GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND I CAME FROM IT.
I'M THANKFUL FOR THIS COMMUNITY, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE GROWTH.
I THINK SOUTHLAKE'S BEST DAYS ARE AHEAD OF THEM, AND I THINK THE DOVE'S BEST DAYS ARE AHEAD OF IT.
FOR ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE YEARS, WE'VE CELEBRATED WITH OUR NEIGHBORS WITH THE CHANGE IN THE GROWTH, AND NOW WE'RE ASKING YOU TO CELEBRATE WITH THE CHANGE IN THE GROWTH WITH US.
AND IF I CAN JUST FINISH WITH THAT QUOTE FROM THAT GREAT WARRIOR POET ROCKY, IF I CAN CHANGE AND YOU CAN CHANGE, YOU CAN ALL CHANGE.
ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE? YEAH, JUST MAYBE FOCUSING REALLY QUICKLY.
AND I THINK THE VICE CHAIRMAN KIND OF WENT THERE.
I'LL MAYBE LET HIM GO THERE ON ONE OF THE OTHER ONES, BUT ON.
AND THIS IS MORE KIND OF NUTS AND BOLTS ON THE ZONING.
I THINK CITY STAFF, THERE'S NOT CURRENTLY ON THE MASTER PLAN.
I GUESS I KNOW THERE'S NOT A SIDEWALK ON THE WEST SIDE OF LONESOME DOVE RIGHT NOW, AND I KNOW THE DITCH ON BOTH TO THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH OF THIS IS FAIRLY PROHIBITIVE.
BUT I GUESS IDEALLY IN THESE SITUATIONS, REGARDLESS OF THAT, WE KIND OF IDEALLY LIKE TO GET GRANTED KIND OF A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT JUST IN CASE WE EVER FIND IT WITHIN THE CITY'S PLAN TO BUILD A SIDEWALK, I GUESS.
IS THAT AT ALL ACCURATE? YES, SIR.
I MEAN, YOU DO HAVE AN OPTION TO REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT CONSIDER DEDICATING A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT IN CASE A FUTURE SIDEWALK WAS EVER BUILT.
IF THAT IS THE CASE, YOU WOULD STILL GRANT THE VARIANCE WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT THE THE APPLICANT WOULD BE WILLING TO GRANT A 10 FOOT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT.
AND SO IF THE CITY DOES HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A CONNECTION, THEN THAT EASEMENT WOULD BE THERE TO ALLOW THE CITY TO COME IN AND CONSTRUCT AT SOME FUTURE DATE.
DOES THAT ALL MAKE SENSE? ABSOLUTELY.
OK, OK, WE MIGHT NOTE SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN A POTENTIAL MOTION.
AND I GUESS I WILL KIND OF JUMP AHEAD TO THE, I GUESS, THE FOURTH VARIANCE REGARDING THE FENCING MATERIAL.
I MEAN, I THINK THAT ONE GIVEN, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE FEEDBACK WE'VE GOTTEN ON THIS APPLICATION, THAT'S A TOUGHER ONE FOR US TO GRANT, I THINK JUST SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, I THINK THAT'S ONE THAT I WOULD EITHER NOT BE WILLING TO GRANT OR WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU TALK TO THE NEIGHBORS ABOUT AND SEE WHAT THEIR PREFERENCE WOULD BE KIND OF ALONG THAT WESTERN AND SOUTHERN BOUNDARIES.
SO I MEAN, I GUESS, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? I DO UNDERSTAND THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NEED A COMMENT FROM OUR ARCHITECTS OR ENGINEERING ON THE FENCE AND WHY WE'RE REQUESTING IT TO CONTINUE, BUT THEY'LL BE FREE TO OFFER SOMETHING IF YOU WANTED THAT.
I'LL SEE IF MAYBE ANY OF THE COMMISSION NEEDS IT.
I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF HAVE THAT DIALOG WITH YOU THAT THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE A VARIANCE THAT WOULD BE GRANTED.
THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT IF YOU WANT SOME RELIEF FROM IT, IT MIGHT BE JUST PART OF A CONVERSATION WITH NEIGHBORS WHERE THERE'S MUTUAL AGREEMENT ON ON WHAT WOULD BE DESIRABLE.
SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO I NOTICED IN THE ONE OF THE PICTURES WE WERE SHOWING THERE, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY MUST HAVE DONE SOME DRAINAGE WORK IN FRONT OF THE AND IT LOOKS LIKE A NEW PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY WAS POURED.
WHY DIDN'T YOU GUYS GO AHEAD AND MAKE THAT TO THE FUNCTION UP TO THE CODE WIDTH WHEN YOU DID THAT? WE DID NOT DO THAT.
OK, SOUTHLAKE AND GRAPEVINE DID THAT.
JUST PUT BACK WHAT WAS THERE? I THINK I'M NOT TOTALLY SURE.
THEY IMPROVED IT TREMENDOUSLY.
BUT THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE AND GRAPEVINE WORK TOGETHER ON THAT, ON THAT DITCH AND ON THE DRIVEWAYS.
WE MAYBE CLARIFY THAT REAL QUICK WAS WAS THE CITY WITH CITY OF SOUTHLAKE INVOLVED IN THAT? [INAUDIBLE] WE BELIEVE GRAPEVINE CAME IN AND DID IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ANY COMMUNICATIONS WITH OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, BUT WHEN THE QUESTION WAS ASKED, IT WAS I WAS TOLD IT WAS THE GREAT CITY OF GRAPEVINE DID IT, BUT MAYBE THE PASTURE SAW A CITY SOUTHLAKE TRUCK OUT THERE.
CITY OF GRAPEVINE FUNDS WERE SPENT ON THAT PROJECT ON CITY OF SOUTHLAKE LAND.
I DON'T KNOW IF IF THE CITY WAS INVOLVED.
I KNOW GRAPEVINE WAS INVOLVED.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE DRAINAGE, THE [INAUDIBLE]? YES.
WELL, WE MAINTAIN OUR DITCHES.
SO YOU KNOW, IT'S IT WAS DONE TO ADDRESS SOME, SOME CONCERNS OVER IN THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE.
TO WHAT EXTENT THE CITY SOUTHLAKE WAS INVOLVED IN THE CLEANUP? I CAN'T ANSWER THAT, BUT I KNOW THE CITY OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE WAS INVOLVED IN.
I DIDN'T MEAN IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, I THINK THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE WAS INVOLVED IN THE FUNDING OF IT IN GRAPEVINE TOOK CARE OF THE PROJECT.
IF I REMEMBER, THAT'S HOW THAT WORKED.
OKAY, MAYBE THAT'S KIND OF SOME FOLLOW UP THAT WE CAN GET ON THIS JUST TO FIGURE
[00:20:04]
THOSE DETAILS OUT.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THIS? I'VE GOT A QUESTION.
IT'S PRETTY MUCH ALONG THE SAME LINES AS COMMISSIONER SPRINGER, WHICH RELATES TO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SIGNIFICANT GROWTH IN TERMS OF YOUR ABILITY TO ACCOMMODATE FOLKS IN THIS STRUCTURE.
IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT THAT TWENTY FOUR FOOT THROAT IS TOO NARROW FOR THAT, GIVEN A RAPID GROWTH.
THAT'S IT'S KIND OF AN IMMEDIATE REACTION THAT I LIKE YOUR COMMENT ON THE SECOND ONE.
I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT, I GUESS, TO ASK A QUESTION ON WHICH RELATES TO THE FENCING THAT THE CHAIRMAN RAISED.
WHAT DIALOG HAVE YOU HAD OVER THE PAST, YOU KNOW, RECENT RECENT PAST WITH NEIGHBORS? AND WHAT DO YOU GET? IS THE FENCING PART OF THE THE ISSUE THAT THEY HAVE? AND HOW HAVE YOU DECIDED YOU MIGHT ADDRESS THAT? YEAH.
SO WE MET WITH THE NEIGHBORS LAST WEEK HAD ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF MEETING.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY THEY ARE REQUESTING THAT WE PUT A FENCE THERE.
WE WE THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE TO CONTINUE RIGHT BECAUSE OF THE SPACING BETWEEN THE PARKING AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND BECAUSE THE WAY THAT LINE WORKS WITH UTILITY AND EASEMENTS, WE THINK IT'S A DIFFICULT SITUATION FOR A FENCE TO BE.
BUT I COULD HAVE CIVIL ENGINEERING OR ARCHITECTS SPEAK TO THAT.
THERE WAS ANOTHER QUESTION YOU WOULD ASK OH, ABOUT THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY.
YEAH, MY QUESTION WAS JUST, YOU KNOW, FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, IS THAT TWENTY FOUR FOOT THROAT GOING TO BE PRACTICALLY TOO NARROW REALLY TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S SLOW GROWTH IS STILL GROWTH? YES, ACCORDING TO MY UNDERSTANDING, THE THE TRAFFIC REVIEW THAT CIVIL ENGINEERING PLACE WITH THE CITY SHOWS THAT THIS IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE FOR WHAT WE NEED AS A CHURCH, BUT THAT THAT'S JUST MY UNDERSTANDING.
I HAVE A SIMILAR COMMENT TO THAT RELATED TO THE THROAT DEPTH OR WIDTH, I'M SORRY ON THAT SOUTHERN PORTION THAT I GUESS CITY OF GRAPEVINE PUT IN, IT LOOKS SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN THE ONE THAT YOU GUYS ARE PROPOSING.
IT DOESN'T LOOK AS WIDE FROM THAT ANGLE, BUT THE AERIAL? WELL, THE SITE PLAN MAP LOOKED LIKE IT WAS PRETTY WIDE.
I HAVE THE SAME KIND OF CONCERN THAT IT'S JUST A LITTLE TIGHT AT TWENTY FOUR FEET.
AND I THINK REAL QUICK, YOU MEANT AT LESS THAN 24 FEET, IS THAT AM I SAYING THAT RIGHT? YEAH, IT'S BECAUSE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IS THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO GO TO TWENTY FOUR FEET.
WELL, MINIMUM REQUIREMENT TWENTY FOUR FEET, RIGHT STAFF? JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE.
THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT, IT'S AT CENTRAL DRIVEWAY THAT'S AT ABOUT 17 FEET THAT SERVES THE DROP OFF AREA ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE CHURCH THAT IS DEFICIENT WHERE THAT.
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THAT.
OK, SO MY QUESTION WAS, IS THERE IS THERE A DESIGNATED TRAFFIC FLOW PATTERN IN AND OUT OF HERE OR IS IT JUST EVERYBODY'S ON THEIR OWN? FOR THE NEW DEVELOPMENT? YEAH.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE I THINK IT'S THE THE WEST SIDE THERE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT OUR CHURCH DRASTICALLY NEEDS BECAUSE OF GROWTH AND BECAUSE OUR EXISTING BUILDINGS ARE DISCONNECTED IS WE NEED A CENTRAL DROP OFF POINT.
SO YOU CAN COME ALL THE WAY UP THERE TO THE NORTH, DRIVE ALL THE WAY AROUND AND COME AND PARK IN THE BACK THAT THAT NEW THE NEW BUILDING CONNECTS OUR CHILDREN'S WING AND THE WORSHIP CENTER.
CURRENTLY, PEOPLE GOING BETWEEN BUILDINGS, PEOPLE WALK AROUND.
IT'S JUST THIS UNITES ALL OF THAT AND WILL MAKE A REAL NICE FLOW OF TRAFFIC FOR THE CHURCH, IT'LL COME FROM THE NORTH.
COME, COME ALL THE WAY IN PARK WALK IN THERE, KIDS GO INTO THE CHILDREN'S WING.
EVERYONE ELSE GOES INTO THE WORSHIP CENTER.
AND PART OF THIS WORSHIP FACILITY IS A VERY LARGE KIND OF MEETING AREA KIND OF FELLOWSHIP AREA AND NOT LARGE, BUT IT'S THERE.
IT ALLOWS US TO DROP KIDS OFF AND HEAD TO THE WORSHIP CENTER.
BUT MY MY CONCERN OR MY THOUGHT ON IT WAS THAT IF YOU ONLY HAD ONE WAY TRAFFIC, LIKE EVERYBODY COMES IN ONE ENTRANCE AND GOES OUT THE OTHER, YOU DON'T HAVE THE NARROWNESS OF THE DRIVE DOESN'T PLAY AS BIG A PART BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TWO WAY TRAFFIC ON IT.
SO MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING YOU OUGHT TO CONSIDER.
I THINK THE NATURAL FLOW OF THE PLAN IS GOING TO END UP BEING THAT WAY AS WELL, BUT THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
I'VE GOT A QUESTION IT MAY BE MORE FOR STAFF THAN THAN FOR THE PASTOR, BUT THE 17 FOOT FOUR INCH THROAT WIDTH IS A HISTORICAL VARIANCE.
AND THE APPLICANT SPOKE ABOUT A TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE CITY
[00:25:07]
THAT INDICATED THAT THIS WAS SUFFICIENT FOR THEIR NEEDS.DID DID YOU GUYS GET A CHANCE TO REVIEW THAT STUDY? I DON'T RECALL SEEING IT, BUT I MAY JUST HAVE MISSED IT IN MY PACKET.
I DO NOT BELIEVE A FULL TRAFFIC STUDY WAS PROVIDED FOR THIS ITEM.
BUT AS YOUR AND YOUR CIVIL ENGINEER IS HERE TONIGHT, WOULD HELP.
WELL, THAT WOULD BE BETTER DIRECTED TO HIM, I THINK.
I GUESS IS THE CIVIL ENGINEER.
CAN GO AHEAD AND COME UP AND PLEASE JUST STATE NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
AND I THINK YOU HOPEFULLY KIND OF HEARD THE QUESTION.
HI I'M [INAUDIBLE] WITH KIRKMAN ENGINEERING 52 HUNDREDS, 5200 STATE HIGHWAY 121.
WE DID THE TRAFFIC WORKSHEET THAT'S REQUIRED BY SOUTHLAKE.
AND SO I HAD TALKED WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND THEY SENT ME SOME PREVIOUS RECORDS THAT WERE DONE FOR TRAFFIC CONES.
AND SO WE IT'S NOT BASED OFF THE DRIVEWAY WIDTH, BUT IT'S BASED OFF THE NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS.
AND SO WE HAVE THE THREE REQUIRED DRIVEWAYS THAT THEN MEETS THE TRAFFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LONESOME DOVE ROAD.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR EITHER THE APPLICANT OR CIVIL ENGINEER? YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ON THE PASTOR SAID SOMETHING ABOUT UTILITY EASEMENTS OR SOMETHING WAS A PROBLEM WITH PUTTING THE FENCE IN.
SO THERE'S AN EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT THAT RUNS ALONG THE WESTERN AND SOUTHERN BORDER, WHICH IS WHERE THE RESIDENTS ARE LOCATED, AND SO THERE'S AN EXISTING DRAINAGE PIPE THAT'S THERE.
I BELIEVE IT WAS PUT IN BY THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE.
AND I'M ASSUMING IT WAS ALSO WORKED OUT WITH SOUTHLAKE BECAUSE IT'S ON SOUTHLAKE PROPERTY.
BUT SO YEAH THERE IS AN EXISTING DRAINAGE EASEMENT THERE.
AND THEN THERE'S ALSO THE RESIDENTS HAVE EXISTING FENCES THAT COME ONTO THAT EASEMENT AND INTO THE CHURCH'S PROPERTY.
AND SO WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO DISTURB THOSE AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO ADD ANYTHING ADDITIONAL AS WELL.
SO THE HOMEOWNERS HAVE FENCES ALREADY? THEY HAVE THERE'S WIRE FENCES AND SOME WOODEN FENCES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR NOW? OK.
I THINK WE'RE GOOD FOR NOW, WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OUR PUBLIC HEARING AND IF WE NEED TO CALL YOU BACK, WE WILL AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN ON OUR AGENDA DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND KICK THAT OFF.
LIKE I REFERENCED EARLIER, WHAT WE'LL DO IS I KNOW THERE WERE A NUMBER OF COMMENT CARDS FILLED OUT.
SOME PEOPLE WANTED TO SPEAK, SOME DID NOT.
SO I'LL READ OUT THE COMMENT CARDS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DID NOT WANT TO SPEAK BUT WANTED TO REGISTER EITHER THEIR SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION SO WE CAN GET THAT NOTED ON THE RECORD.
AND I'M GOING TO APOLOGIZE AHEAD OF TIME.
THIS IS THE HARDEST PART OF THIS JOB IS READING BOTH HANDWRITING AND NAMES, SO I APOLOGIZE IF I GET IT WRONG, BUT I PROMISE I'M DOING THE BEST I CAN.
SO TO KICK OFF THE PUBLIC HEARING TODAY.
I THINK I'VE GOT WEBER [INAUDIBLE] AT 3304 JACKSON COURT IN SOUTHLAKE DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK BUT IS IN OPPOSITION.
CINDY LOOKS LIKE MUELLER MILLER PEN KIND OF GAVE OUT AT ONE ZERO FIVE FIVE EAST DOVE ROAD DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT IS IN SUPPORT.
SAME ADDRESS ONE ZERO FIVE FIVE EAST DOVE ROAD DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK IS IN SUPPORT.
JOYCE HARBOR 1450 SOUTH WHITE CHAPEL DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK BUT IS IN SUPPORT.
IT LOOKS LIKE BOYCE HARBOR SAME ADDRESS 1450 SOUTH WHITE CHAPEL DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK IS IN SUPPORT.
MIKE ELLER 306 SOUTH FIRST STREET DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK BUT IS IN SUPPORT.
JOSH HOLCOMB, WHO IS AT 1224 INDIAN TRAIL ROAD, DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK IS IN SUPPORT.
JOHN [INAUDIBLE] I BELIEVE AT 3550 BERNIE LANE DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK BUT IS IN SUPPORT.
JOEL MCKINNEY, WHO LIVES AT SIXTY EIGHT FORTY ONE INWOOD DRIVE, I BELIEVE DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK BUT IS IN SUPPORT.
LEANNA JOHNSON TWENTY FIVE TWENTY EIGHT BROADWAY DRIVE DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK BUT IS IN
[00:30:01]
SUPPORT.SAMANTHA BOWEN 5101 SPRING LAKE PARKWAY DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK BUT IS IN SUPPORT.
REED BARRON FIFTY ONE LOOKS LIKE 01 SPRING LAKE PARKWAY DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK BUT IS IN SUPPORT.
GINGER STOVER TWENTY THREE EIGHTY LONESOME DOVE ROAD DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK BUT IS IN SUPPORT.
CALEB STOVER, I BELIEVE SIXTY FIVE THIRTY TWO STONE LAKE COURT STEVEN LAKE.
DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT IS IN SUPPORT.
MELISSA [INAUDIBLE] 3550 BERNIE LANE DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK BUT IS IN SUPPORT.
MIKE YESENIA, MIKE AND YESENIA CARTER APOLOGIES.
THIRTY SIX TWENTY ONE BANDERA RANCH ROAD DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK BUT IS IN SUPPORT.
ISABELLE CARTER THIRTY SIX TWENTY ONE BANDERA RANCH ROAD DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK BUT IS IN SUPPORT.
SHERRY JOHNSON 2528 BROADWAY DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK BUT IS IN SUPPORT.
EMILY HIGGINS 501 TURNER ROAD DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK BUT IS IN SUPPORT.
MELANIE [INAUDIBLE] I BELIEVE 1833 RIVIERA LANE, SOUTHLAKE DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK BUT IS IN SUPPORT.
RYAN [INAUDIBLE] SAME ADDRESS, I BELIEVE.
1833 RIVIERA LANE DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT.
GOT A COUPLE OF THEM HERE THAT DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK, BUT DID NOT CIRCLE SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION, BUT MIA BELLA CARTER THIRTY SIX TWENTY ONE BANDERA RANCH ROAD IS PRESENT AND STEVEN TRAN AT SIXTY THIRTY THREE SUNDOWN DRIVE DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK WHO'S ALSO PRESENT, SO I DID DID MY BEST.
BUT NOW I'VE GOT A FEW, JUST A FEW COMMENT CARDS HERE ON PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AND JUST DRAWING IN RANDOM ORDER HERE.
I'M A DRAW ROBERT [INAUDIBLE], I THINK 2405 TAYLOR STREET WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM AND AGAIN, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COME UP.
YOU'LL SEE THE LIGHTS COME ON AGAIN, THE THREE MINUTE LIGHT.
JUST ASK YOU TO BE FOCUSED AND EXPEDITIOUS AND POLITE AND APPRECIATE YOU COMING OUT TONIGHT.
ROBERT [INAUDIBLE] 2405 TAYLOR SAW I WAS ONE OF THE RED DOTS THAT'S WITHIN THE THREE HUNDRED FEET.
YOU KNOW, FOR THE SCREENING BARRIER, THERE'S SOME CHAIN LINK FENCES IN THAT, BUT YOU KNOW, WE NEED THE EIGHT FOOT PROPER SCREENING BARRIER THAT'S REQUIRED.
WHEN THE CEMETERY WAS EXPANDED, THE CITY REQUIRED A SCREENING BARRIER, SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULDN'T CONTINUE THAT PRACTICE.
THE REQUIRED SIDEWALK, I'D LOVE FOR THERE TO BE ANOTHER SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY FEET OF SIDEWALK THERE.
THERE'S ABOUT TWO THOUSAND FEET BETWEEN LONESOME DOVE ESTATES AND EMERALD ESTATES ENTRANCES THERE.
THIS WOULD COVER ABOUT A THIRD OF THAT, SO THAT'S A GREAT START.
FOR TRAFFIC, I THINK THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE FOR ONLY FORTY FEET OF THE STACKING DEPTH SHOULDN'T BE GRANTED.
IT'S A NARROW ROAD, THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC.
THE FULL 75 FEET STACKING DEPTH SHOULD BE REQUIRED AND THE FULL WIDTH FOR THE CENTER DRIVEWAY OF TWENTY FOUR FEET TO ALLOW PROPER EMERGENCY ACCESS TO THE STRUCTURES.
LIGHTING, SO I ALREADY HAVE LIGHT POLLUTION AND LIGHT TRESPASS FROM THE EXISTING LIGHTING ON THE CHURCH BUILDING.
I UNDERSTAND THAT WAS DONE IN 1999, WHATEVER, BUT YOU KNOW THIS IS.
ANY NEW LIGHTING THAT CAN'T BE MORE DISRUPTIVE THAN WHAT IS ALREADY THERE.
SO, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO BE REALLY FOCUSED ON THAT FROM THE CITY MAKING SURE WE'RE MEETING THE INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE.
FOR TREES, THEY'RE REMOVING 15 MATURE TREES THAT RANGE IN DIAMETER FROM 17 INCHES TO FORTY TWO INCHES FOR A TOTAL DIAMETER OF FOUR HUNDRED AND TWENTY TWO INCHES AND THEY WANT TO REPLACE IT WITH 14 THREE INCH TREES.
OK, I KNOW THAT'S ALLOWED BY SECTION SEVEN POINT TWO OF THE ORDINANCE, FIVE EIGHTY FIVE E.
THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, I'D ASK THAT YOU GRANT A VARIANCE TO THAT PER SECTION NINE POINT TWO OF THAT ORDINANCE AND THEN IMPLEMENT THE THE SECTION.
I'M SORRY, SECTION FIFTEEN POINT TWO ALLOWS YOU TO GRANT A VARIANCE TO THAT, BUT THAT YOU ENFORCE SECTION NINE POINT TWO, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE FULL REPLACEMENT OF ALL THE DIAMETERS SO THE FULL FOUR HUNDRED AND TWENTY TWO INCHES.
THE PROJECT, AS IS, HAS THREE FACADES, SO THERE'S TWO EXISTING AND THERE WOULD BE A NEW THIRD ONE.
I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE UNIFORM FACADES IN THE BUILDING SO WE DON'T HAVE AN
[00:35:03]
EYESORE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.AND THEN THE THE NOISE THAT'S JUST KIND OF REINFORCES THE BARRIER.
BUT WITHOUT THE BARRIER, THE NOISE IS JUST GOING TO BE THAT MUCH MORE DISRUPTIVE ON THE PROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION AND WHILE THE CHURCH IS BEING USED.
SO THOSE ARE KIND OF MY COMMENTS.
NEXT CARD I HAVE IS ROBERT CAR, 2412 TAYLOR, I BELIEVE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM.
I AM NOT DIRECTLY IMPACTED, I LIVE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF TAYLOR STREET.
HOWEVER, I DO HAVE A CONCERN WITH THE DRAINAGE.
THE DRAINAGE IN OUR AREA IS ABYSMAL AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
THERE'S A LOT OF IMPERVIOUS GROUND COVER BEING ADDED WITH THIS ADDITION, WHICH I'M NOT A CIVIL ENGINEER.
DON'T KNOW IF THE RETENTION POND IS ADEQUATE.
BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE RETENTION POND FILLS UP? WE HAVE ENOUGH DRAINAGE ISSUES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT NOW WITHOUT THIS MUCH IMPERVIOUS GROUND COVER BEING ADDED AND CONTRIBUTING FURTHER TO OUR ISSUES WITH DRAINAGE.
OTHER THAN THAT, I'M HERE TO SUPPORT MY NEIGHBORS AND THEIR CONCERNS.
LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT DIRECTLY IMPACTED, BUT I CAN SEE THEIR CONCERNS WITH THE LIGHTING, THE FENCING, THE DRAINAGE.
NEXT COMMENT CARD I HAVE IS I THINK IT'S THIRTY EIGHT OR I'M SORRY, DAVID HARDING AT 3813 [INAUDIBLE] STREET SOUTHLAKE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM.
IT'S GREAT TO HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY AND THANKS FOR LISTENING.
WE ARE TRANSPLANTED AUSTRALIANS, WE'RE AUSTRALIANS.
WE'VE BEEN LIVING HERE FOR 17 YEARS AND ATTENDING THE DOVE.
WE LIVE ABOUT A TWO MINUTE WALK AWAY.
WE DEAL WITH THIS WHOLE ISSUE OF SOUTHLAKE AND GRAPEVINE BEING ON DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE ROAD.
IN FACT, OUR HOUSE, I THINK, SITS RIGHT ON THE BORDER.
SO SOUTHLAKE IS ON MY DRIVER'S LICENSE.
BUT THE CHURCH ITSELF IS AN AMAZING CHURCH.
NOW I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THERE ARE CONCERNS FROM NEIGHBORS.
ANYTHING LIKE THIS BRINGS CONCERN, CHANGE BRINGS CONCERN.
I WOULD JUST REMIND PEOPLE AND I GUESS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S BEEN INTERESTING, I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN SOME OF THE FORUMS. I RECOGNIZE SOME OF THE NAMES, A LOT OF TALK ABOUT A MEGACHURCH BEING BUILT THERE.
THIS IS AN EXTENSION OF OUR EXISTING BUILDING ON LAND THAT WE OWN THAT THE CHURCH HAS BEEN ON FOR 175 YEARS.
WE HAD A SERIES CALLED LONESOME DOVE WAS AMAZING WHEN I CAME TO AMERICA TO FIND OUT THAT THE SERIES LONESOME DOVE WAS ACTUALLY NAMED AFTER OUR CHURCH BECAUSE THE AUTHOR, LOOKING FOR A NAME FOR HIS TOWN IN HIS BOOK SAW THE LONESOME DOVE BAPTIST CHURCH BUS GO PAST AND THOUGHT, THAT'S A GREAT NAME FOR A CHURCH.
THE HISTORY THERE IS AMAZING, AND I WOULD JUST ASK PEOPLE TO GIVE IT A CHANCE.
IT'S A CHURCH THAT WELCOMES PEOPLE.
IT'S A LIGHT IN OUR, I THINK, IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FOR GOOD.
WE NEED POSITIVE INFLUENCES THESE DAYS MORE THAN EVER, AND WE REACH OUT TO THE COMMUNITY.
AND I WOULD JUST ASK THOSE THAT ARE IN OPPOSITION TO COME AND VISIT, SEE WHAT WE'RE ABOUT.
ONE OF THE CHALLENGES LIVING IN OUR AREA AND I GET THE CONCERNS ABOUT THINGS LIKE SIDEWALKS.
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE FULL SIDEWALKS ALL THE WAY DOWN DOVE AND ALL THE WAY DOWN LONESOME DOVE.
AND I THINK HALF THAT'S GRAPEVINE COUNCIL, HALF THAT SOUTHLAKE.
BUT WE DEAL TODAY WITH ALL OF THE TRAFFIC GOING DOWN TO [INAUDIBLE] PARK.
THE SOCCER FIELDS ARE PACKED ON WEEKENDS AND THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC COMING UP AND DOWN LONESOME DOVE TO THAT MAKES THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT THE THREE, THE EXTRA 100 CAR SPACES AT OUR CHURCH IS GOING TO DELIVER MINUSCULE.
THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS THERE ARE HOUSES GOING UP AROUND THAT DWARF WHAT WE'RE DOING, AND NO ONE SEEMS TO OPPOSE THE HOUSES BEING BUILT.
NO ONE SEEMS TO OPPOSE THE TREES BEING CUT DOWN TO MAKE THESE NEW HOUSES.
WE HAVE A HOUSE BEHIND US AT THE MOMENT THAT MAKES THIS ONE.
SAY HOLD MY, YOU KNOW, HOLD MY BEER.
SO AGAIN, I REMIND PEOPLE TO KEEP IT IN PERSPECTIVE WHAT WE'RE DOING.
AND AGAIN, IT'S FOR A GOOD CAUSE.
BUT PLEASE, I JUST WOULD INVITE PEOPLE TO COME AND VISIT.
SEE WHAT WE'RE ABOUT BEFORE YOU MAKE A DECISION.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE NEIGHBORS.
WE WOULD WELCOME YOU WITH OPEN ARMS AND AND ENJOY AND LOOK, I JUST SAY GOD'S USING US IN OUR COMMUNITY AND WE ARE PRAY THAT WHATEVER THE RIGHT DECISION IS MADE WILL HAPPEN.
[00:40:01]
SORRY, THAT'S RULES AT CITY COUNCIL RULES HERE.WE'LL JUST APPRECIATE YOU ABIDING BY THOSE.
NEXT SPEAKER IS DAVE CALLAHAN, 2411 TAYLOR STREET AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION, I BELIEVE.
GOOD EVENING, DAVE CALLAHAN, 2411 TAYLOR STREET, I CONSIDER MYSELF IN THE BACKYARD OF THE LONESOME DOVE BAPTIST CHURCH AND THEY HAVE BEEN WONDERFUL NEIGHBORS TO ME SINCE 1990.
SO WHEN I SAY OPPOSITION, OPPOSITION IS KIND OF A MISNOMER FOR ME, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THEM EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO BUILD ON THEIR PROPERTY.
BUT WHAT I'D LIKE TO HAVE KNOWN IS IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH EMERALD ESTATES, EMERALD ESTATES IS A MIXED BAG OF ELEVATION TOWARDS THE EASTERN END.
THE OLD FOOTBALL STADIUM AND ITS HIGHER ELEVATION.
AND THEN IT KIND OF DIPS DOWN, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE 30 FEET TO THE FLAT OF TAYLOR STREET AND MY HOUSE OR MY PROPERTY STARTS.
THEY KIND OF AT THE TURN OF TAYLOR STREET, WHERE IT STARTS GOING TO THE SOUTH.
AND THEN IT'S EXTREMELY FLAT ALL THE WAY TOWARDS LONESOME DOVE ROAD.
IT WOULD WOULD NOT PASS A [INAUDIBLE] TEST UNLESS IT WAS AUGUST.
SO I WOULD JUST LIKE THAT TO BE KNOWN THAT DURING TIMES WHERE THE RAIN IS IN EXCESS OF FIVE INCHES OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.
THERE'S THERE'S A LIKE A PERENNIAL DRY RIVERBED THAT THAT OPENS UP AND COMES DOWN FROM THE.
FROM THE NORTH AND TO THE WEST, COMES DOWN THROUGH MY DITCH, COMES DOWN THROUGH MY DRIVEWAY AT THE DEPTH OF ABOUT TWO OR THREE INCHES AND LASTS FOR HOURS AS IT MAKES ITS WAY TO MY BACKYARD.
AND I'VE ALWAYS I'VE ALWAYS BEEN GRATEFUL FOR THE FOR THE CHURCH LOT BECAUSE I KNOW IT ACTED LIKE A WETLAND FOR ME TO KIND OF SUCK WATER FROM MY YARD, WHICH WOULD TAKE WATER AWAY FROM MY HOUSE, WHICH IS ON THE FLAT OF THE PROPERTY.
SO I HAVE NO ELEVATION IN MY YARD.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO SAY THAT I HAVE NO FENCE AT ALL IN MY BACKYARD.
THAT WAS MY CHOICE BECAUSE I LOVE THE CHURCH LOT AND I'VE BEEN I'VE HAD GREAT THE GREAT BENEFIT OF ITS BEAUTY AND ACCESS FOR FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.
I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF A FENCE IF THAT WERE PART OF THE DEAL.
AND I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.
NEXT SPEAKER IS, I THINK IT'S AUGIE [INAUDIBLE] 1260 TAYLOR STREET.
I BELIEVE WE'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION ON THIS ITEM.
I BELIEVE Y'ALL RECEIVED A COPY OF MOST OF THE COMMENTS I'M GOING TO MAKE.
I'LL TRY TO READ THROUGH THEM QUICKLY.
I'M AUGIE SCHILLING 1260 TAYLOR STREET, A 30 YEAR RESIDENT, ONE BLOCK WEST OF THE CHURCH PROPERTY.
MY SPOUSE IS IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING.
FOR NOW, WE MUST OBJECT TO THE EXPANSION OF THE CHURCH FOR THE SPECIFIC REASONS TO BE MENTIONED SHORTLY.
OVERALL, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO STOP THE CHURCH.
WE WANT THE RIGHT THINGS ADDRESSED, AS ALREADY EXPRESSED BY SEVERAL OTHERS FENCING, LIGHTING, DRAINAGE, PARKING, ARCHITECTURAL MATCHING, TREES, ETC.
AND WITH OUR WAYS TO MITIGATE EACH OF THESE, IF ONE WERE TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR INSTEAD OF TAKING AN ATTITUDE, THIS IS WHAT WE CAN GET AWAY WITH AND SEEMINGLY INTENDING TO.
FENCING IS THE MAJOR EXPANSION OF THE BUILDING AND ESPECIALLY THE PARKING ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
THE PARKING ON THE WEST SIDE IS BEING EXPANDED BY ABOUT TRIPLE CURRENT SIZE.
AS THE CHURCH GROWS TOWARDS NEW CAPACITY, THE LEVEL OF ACTIVITY AND TRAFFIC EXPECTS TO GROW SIGNIFICANTLY FROM CURRENT LEVELS.
ALL OF THIS DEMANDS REASONABLE FENCING PROVIDED BY THE CHURCH TO MITIGATE DISTURBANCES OF RESIDENTIAL LIFE.
FURTHERMORE, IT SHOULD BE DONE FIRST TO REDUCE CONSTRUCTION, NOISE AND IMPACT ON NEIGHBORS.
THERE ARE A MULTITUDE OF LIGHTING OPTIONS WHICH SHOULD PROVIDE ANY NEEDED SECURITY FOR THE PARKING AREA WITHOUT IMPACTING NEIGHBORS UNOBTRUSIVELY.
WHY WON'T THEY EVEN EXPRESS A WILLINGNESS TO CLOSELY EXAMINE SUCH OPTIONS AND
[00:45:06]
FIND ONE THAT CAN READILY SATISFY ALL PARTIES? 15 FOOT PLUS TALL POLES WITH LIGHTS THAT SHINE UPWARD OR HORIZONTALLY ARE ABSOLUTELY UNCALLED FOR.I SUGGEST LOWER LIGHTING POLES WITH BOX TYPE OF DESIGN, WHICH SHINES DOWNWARD ONLY AND MOTION SENSORS THAT SHUT OFF LIGHTS WHENEVER NO ACTIVITY IS PRESENT.
THIS IS A MAJOR PROBLEM FOR HOMES ON TAYLOR STREET.
NATURAL DRAINAGE FOR ADJACENT LOTS FLOWS VERY SLOWLY AND POORLY TOWARD THE CHURCH PROPERTY AT TIMES BACKS UP INTO PEOPLE'S GARAGES, INCLUDING MINE AND LITERALLY FLOODS YARDS, INCLUDING PARTS OF MINE AND A REDUCTION IN DRAINAGE DUE TO A TO FENCE FOOTER OR THE LIKES.
AND THAT'S NOT AN OBJECTION TO THE FENCE, IT'S HOW THE FENCE IS BUILT.
OK, BUT THINGS SUCH AS THE, YOU KNOW, IF THEY PUT IN A CONCRETE RAISED FOOTER ON THE FENCE.
PARKING, ELEVATION OR CURBING, ET CETERA.
WILL IT'S GOING TO INCREASE PAVING RUNOFF AND WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO SEVERAL RESIDENTS SECTIONS OF OUR DRIVEWAYS AND EVEN ONE SWIMMING POOL ALREADY FLOOD AFTER MODERATELY HEAVY RAIN.
PARKING THE EXPANSION IS TRIPLING OF PARKING ON THE WEST SIDE ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND MUST BE MITIGATED.
THINGS SUCH AS PERMEABLE PAVEMENT MAY BE OF ASSISTANCE AND.
ANYHOW, ARCHITECTURE, AS MENTIONED, THREE TOTALLY DIFFERENT, WE DON'T OBJECT TO THE MODERN ARCHITECTURE DESIGN, BUT TO HAVE IT NEXT TO A 90 YEAR OLD WHITE BOARD BUILDING, ET CETERA, IS JUST, YOU KNOW, IT'S TERRIBLE ESTHETICS.
SIR IF YOU DON'T MIND WRAPPING UP YOUR COMMENTS.
QUICKLY, BIG TREES ARE BEING TORN DOWN, AND THAT'S UNNECESSARY QUICKLY OF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT HE READ COMMENTS FROM.
I THINK ONLY ABOUT TWO OF THOSE EVEN LIVE WITHIN A MILE OR SO OF THE CHURCH.
AND LASTLY, THE SINGLE RESIDENCE THAT'S ON THAT PROPERTY IS BEING REFERRED TO AS A PARSONAGE.
THERE'S NO SUCH THING, IT'S A RENTAL PROPERTY.
I OBJECT UNTIL THEY DECIDE TO SIT DOWN AND REASONABLY NEGOTIATE WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
JUST TO NOTE, FOR THE RECORD, WE DID GET, I THINK, YOUR FULL LETTER PUT IN OUR PACKAGE AND A CHANCE TO READ THROUGH IT.
OK, LAST COMMENT CARD I HAVE IS DANIELLE [INAUDIBLE].
HOPEFULLY I GET ALL THAT RIGHT.
WANTS TO SPEAK SORRY IN OPPOSITION.
SO I'M DANIELLE [INAUDIBLE] AND I GET TO LIVE NEXT TO THAT GUY.
MY HUSBAND, I ACTUALLY LIVE AT 2415, AND WE ACTUALLY ALSO OWN THE PROPERTY AT 2413.
SO WE OWN TWO PROPERTIES THAT ABUT THIS.
AND LIKE ALL OF MY NEIGHBORS IN, YOU KNOW, TO AVOID REDUNDANCY, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO ANYONE GROWING, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE DONE RESPONSIBLY AND IN COMMUNICATION WITH CURRENT LANDOWNERS.
I THINK I HAVE SENT YOU GUYS A PACKET WITH SEVERAL PICTURES.
YOU CAN SEE THE EXTENT OF THE FLOODING.
IT USED TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A RARE INSTANCE, BUT IT LITERALLY OUR YARDS TURN INTO A RIVER ANYTIME IT RAINS.
AND THAT WHOLE BACK FIELD THAT'S GOING TO TURN INTO A PARKING LOT USED TO ACT AS A PERCOLATION AREA OR A WET LAND LIKE MY NEIGHBOR DAVE HAD MENTIONED.
SO IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT DRAINAGE IS ADDRESSED.
THE FENCING IS AN ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT.
THERE'S ALREADY TONS OF LIGHT POLLUTION.
ONE OF MY CONCERNS OR THOUGHTS IS IS THERE SOME WAY TO MOVE THE PARKING LOT TOWARDS THE TRAFFIC, THE STREET SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO ELIMINATE NOISE, TRAFFIC LIGHTING, INTERFERING WITH THE RESIDENTS ON THE BACK SIDE REGARDLESS IF THERE'S A FENCE OR NOT? AND IF YOU WERE TO DO THAT, SOME OF THE HISTORIC TREES THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WORSHIPING UNDER SINCE BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR, THOSE COULD BE SAVED BECAUSE THAT'S YOU COULD BUILD A PARKING LOT AROUND THOSE PROPERTIES.
I THINK THE VARIANCES ARE UNACCEPTABLE, PARTICULARLY THE FENCING AND THE SIDEWALKS.
THAT'D BE A HUGE STRETCH FOR PEOPLE TO ACCESS.
I MENTIONED IN MY LETTER THAT THE MAKE IS HOMES, FERGUSON PLACE PROPERTIES.
TWENTY EIGHT MORE HOMES, THAT'S MORE TRAFFIC.
THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE A CITY PARK BY THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE IN THERE.
THAT'D BE A GREAT WAY TO CONNECT THE EXISTING AND NEW SIDEWALKS THAT ARE COMING IN.
AND ONE OTHER THING I THOUGHT WAS FUNNY IS THAT THEY'RE MENTIONING THAT THE SIZE OF SOME OF THE HOMES THAT ARE BEING BUILT ARE LARGER THAN THIS EDITION.
BUT THOSE HOMES DON'T HAVE WEEKLY MEETINGS WITH HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE CONVENING, SLAMMING DOORS, MUSIC, THAT KIND OF THING.
SO WE'D LOVE TO WORK WITH THE CHURCH ON LIMITING THE SORT OF MONSTROSITY WE SEE GOING IN AND THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD.
OK, SO THE PUBLIC HEARING'S STILL OPEN.
I GUESS IF YOU WOULD STILL LIKE TO COME FORWARD IF YOU HAVEN'T HAD YOUR SENTIMENT REGISTERED IN SOME MANNER OR ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING REMAINS OPEN.
YOU FEEL FREE TO COME UP HERE IF YOU'D LIKE.
[00:50:04]
OTHERWISE, IF NO ONE ELSE WANTS TO COME UP, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'LL BEGIN DELIBERATING.SEEING NO ONE ELSE WANDER UP, I GUESS WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND I GUESS I JUST WANTED TO RUN THROUGH A FEW THINGS WITH STAFF REAL QUICK.
SO WHILE I GUESS WITHIN THIS APPLICATION, WE'RE NOT MAYBE DIRECTLY VOTING ON A FEW THINGS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP, SUCH AS LIKE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE.
I'M ASSUMING THERE'S NOT A VARIANCE TRIGGERED BY THIS SPECIFIC APPLICATION RELATIVE TO THOSE ARE PREEXISTING STRUCTURES.
IS THAT CORRECT? AND THERE'S NO ARTICULATION, VARIANCES OR ANYTHING WITH THE NEW STRUCTURE THAT.
THAT IS CORRECT, AND THAT IS PRIMARILY DUE TO THE LEGISLATION PASSED IN 2019 THAT FOR PROPERTIES OTHER THAN WHAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED IN OUR CORRIDOR OVERLAY, WE CANNOT IMPOSE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS THAT AFFECT EXTERIOR MATERIALS OF THE BUILDING OR METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE BOTH MATERIALS AND ARTICULATION ASPECTS, ROOF TYPES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
OK, THAT'S THAT WAS THE STATE LEGISLATURE BILL.
AND THEN THINGS LIKE NOISE, I GUESS LIGHTING AND DRAINAGE.
ALL THOSE ASPECTS WILL HAVE TO MEET OUR CITY ORDINANCES IN TERMS OF NOISE, NOISE OR LIGHT POLLUTION.
I GUESS CURRENT OR ANYTHING THAT'S THAT'S PLANNED WOULD HAVE TO MEET OUR.
ANY NEW LIGHTING SYSTEMS OR ALTERATIONS TO WHAT MAY BE PREEXISTING AND NON-CONFORMING MUST COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT LIGHTING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY.
LIKEWISE, ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED ON THE PROPERTY MUST COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S NOISE ORDINANCE.
AND SAME THING WITH DRAINAGE, I KNOW IT'S NOT LIKE AT THIS POINT IN THE PROCESS, WE HAVE A FULL SET OF PLANS, BUT BUT I GUESS BASED ON WHAT CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED SO FAR, THEY'RE ON A PATH TO MEET ORDINANCE.
BUT OBVIOUSLY THE FULL FINAL PLANS WOULD HAVE TO MEET ORDINANCE.
IS THAT CORRECT? OK, THAT'S INCLUSIVE.
NO EVIDENCE IN THE PLANS SUBMITTED NOW THAT THEY WOULD VIOLATE ANY OF THE DRAINAGE ORDINANCES THAT THE PROPERTY PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO.
OK, AND MAYBE CAN WE JUST TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE TREES THAT WAS BROUGHT UP, I GUESS, IN TERMS OF.
YOU KNOW, I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE A TREE VARIANCE NOTED IN THIS APPLICATION, I GUESS.
CAN YOU MAYBE TOUCH ON THAT A LITTLE BIT AS TO MAYBE WHY THAT THAT IS? BASED ON WHAT THE ESTIMATED COVERAGE IS, IT WOULD NOT APPEAR THEY'RE REMOVING BEYOND WHAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO PRESERVE AT THIS POINT.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THAT WHILE THERE'S NOT A VARIANCE TRIGGERED, OBVIOUSLY THAT'S SOMETHING THE APPLICANT COULD IN A DERIVATIVE OF THE SITE PLAN, TRY TO SEE IF THEY CAN IDENTIFY IF THEY CAN POTENTIALLY SAVE SOME, SOME MORE OF THE TREES AT THEIR WILLINGNESS.
I GUESS ANY OTHER JUST FROM THE COMMISSION, ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT BEFORE WE DELIBERATE HERE OR ANYTHING? WELL, I THINK WE COULD GET THE ENGINEER TO.
COME BACK UP AND TALK TO US ABOUT THE DRAINAGE PLAN THAT THEY'VE GOT THERE WITH THE RETENTION BECAUSE IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE DRAINAGE IS TOWARDS DOVE ROAD NOW, WHICH IS TAKING WATER FROM ALL OF THESE RESIDENTS THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IT.
AND SO IT SEEMS LIKE TO ME, THEY MIGHT BE IMPROVING THE SITUATION RATHER THAN SPEAKERS].
DO YOU MIND COMING BACK UP HERE, MA'AM, AND MAYBE JUST TALKING IT THROUGH HIGH LEVEL IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD SOME COMMENTS ABOUT DIRECTION OF FLOW AND MAYBE JUST TALK ABOUT.
WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH WITH THE DETENTION POND AND WHERE THE WATER IS FLOWING FROM AND TO.
YOU CAN USE THE MOUSE ON THERE, IF THAT KIND OF HELPS.
SO TO MY UNDERSTANDING, THERE IS A TWENTY SEVEN INCH RCP THAT RUNS ALONG THIS PROPERTY THAT COMES FROM A DETENTION POND THAT'S NORTH OF HERE.
AND SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE FOLLOWING THE FLOW.
SO THE SITE ALREADY JUST DRAINS TO LONESOME DOVE ROAD.
THAT'S WHY I THINK THEY HAD TO FIX THE DITCHES THAT WERE RUNNING ALONG THERE.
SO WITH THE DETENTION, THE PURPOSE OF PUTTING A DETENTION POND IS TO MITIGATE ANY SORT OF INCREASE TO FLOW FROM THE DEVELOPMENT.
WE ARE USING VERY CONSERVATIVE VALUES.
[00:55:02]
EVERYTHING IS FROM THE SOUTHLAKE'S DRAINAGE MANUAL.EVERYTHING IS TO ONE HUNDRED YEAR STORM, MEANING IT'S NOT GOING TO BE.
IT'S THE IMPACT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED YEAR, NOT FOR DAY TO DAY.
AND SO WE'RE GOING TO OUR PLAN IS TO HAVE EVERYTHING DRAINED TO THE DETENTION POND.
ANYTHING THAT IS ALREADY BUILT AND NOT ABLE TO DRAIN TO THE DETENTION POND WE WE ACCOUNT FOR.
AND SO WE OVERSIZE THE DETENTION POND TO ACCOUNT FOR ANY EXISTING IMPERVIOUS FLOW.
AND SO IT'S GOING TO COME TO THE DETENTION POND, BE DETAINED AND THEN IT'LL OUTFLOW TO THE EXISTING OUTFALL THAT'S AT THE SOUTH EAST CORNER OF THE SITE, INTO THE POND OR INTO THE DITCH.
AM I CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT THE FLOW IS LIKE SHEET FLOW IS COMING FROM THE RESIDENTIAL AREA TOWARDS DOVE ROAD? IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING ON THE THE TOPOGRAPHY THERE? FROM THE RESIDENTIAL AREA TO THE WEST? YES.
I HAVEN'T I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THOSE I TYPICALLY THEY WANT.
WHENEVER RESIDENTIAL IS DEVELOPED, THEY'LL FLOW TO THE FRONT OF THEIR LOT.
THAT'S HOW IT'S USUALLY PREFERRED BY THE INNER CITY ENGINEER AND DEVELOPERS.
BUT THERE IS A THERE IS A HIGH POTENTIAL THAT SOME OF IT IS ALREADY COMING ONTO OUR SITE.
SO THEY'RE PROBABLY JUST BUILT TO THE LAND.
OK, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ENGINEER? OK.
I THINK WE'RE GOOD FOR NOW AND STAFF.
ONE OTHER QUICK QUESTION I HAD I FORGOT.
I MEAN, I THINK AT A MINIMUM WE WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, GET THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT.
AND I CAN PROMISE EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM, I'M AS SENSITIVE AS ANYBODY TO GET A SIDEWALK ALONG THAT ROAD.
BUT I GUESS WHAT WOULD BE THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION OR PLAN THERE IN TERMS OF, I MEAN, WOULD YOU BUILD A SIDEWALK ALONG THAT STRETCH KNOWING THAT, I GUESS, TO THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH, THE.
IT PROBABLY WON'T BE ANY TIME SOON OR WHAT I MEAN.
ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? IS IT ON OUR MASTER PATHWAYS PLAN OR JUST MAYBE A LITTLE MORE CONTEXT THERE? GENERALLY, THE CITY'S APPROACH IS THAT WE WE WANT THE ABILITY TO BUILD SIDEWALKS WITH ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF THIS AREA BEING A RURAL AREA.
AND A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT OCCURRING PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT OF THE ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE SIDEWALKS, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF SIDEWALKS IN THE VICINITY.
HOWEVER, THE GENERAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE CITY IS THAT BASED ON THE ORDINANCE IS THAT WE WANT SIDEWALKS TO BE CONSTRUCTED OR THE ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT SIDEWALKS BECAUSE WE'RE PLANNING NOT TWO YEARS OUT, BUT SIDEWALK PLANS SOMETIMES TAKE 20 YEARS TO BUILD OUT.
BASED ON THE ORDINANCE, THE THE THOUGHT IS THAT SIDEWALK SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED.
HOWEVER, IF THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THEY'RE NOT WARRANTED RELATED TO THE SITE PLAN, THE COMMISSION CAN CONSIDER A VARIANCE IS DISCUSSED EARLIER.
AT A MINIMUM, I THINK IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO REQUIRE THE, YOU KNOW, THE ACCESS EASEMENT.
BUT AGAIN, IF YOU'RE ASKING THE CITY'S POSITION WILL REFER BACK TO THE ORDINANCE INDICATING THAT SIDEWALK SHOULD BE BUILT.
IN THE WAY OF THE WAY IT WOULD FUNCTION, I GUESS IF THAT WAS THE CASE IS OBVIOUSLY IN THE NORTH, I GUESS IT WOULD PROBABLY BLEND INTO THE DRIVEWAY AS AS FAR AS A TERMINUS AND ON THE SOUTH, IT WOULD PROBABLY JUST TERMINATE RIGHT AT THE FENCE LINE TO THE PROPERTY, TO THE SOUTH, I GUESS.
SO FROM A FUNCTIONALITY STANDPOINT, IT MAY BE HARD TO MAKE CONNECTIONS AND CONNECTIONS MAY NEVER OCCUR.
BUT IT WOULD MOST LIKELY HAVE TO BE ALSO ON PRIVATE PROPERTY DUE TO THE LIMITED RIGHT OF WAY OF LONESOME DOVE.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ANYTHING BEFORE WE DELIBERATE.
I MEAN, I GUESS BASED ON WHAT I HEAR HEARD TONIGHT, I MEAN, AGAIN, GIVEN WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DELIBERATE ON RELATIVE TO THE FOUR VARIANCES, I MEAN, I GUESS FOR ME, IT'S A PRETTY, PRETTY EASY NOT TO GRANT THE FOURTH ONE RELATED TO FENCING.
AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO WORK OUT WITH THE NEIGHBORS IN TERMS OF.
IF THERE'S SOMETHING BEYOND THE ORDINANCE THAT'S DESIRED BY THE NEIGHBORS, THEN THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE PRESENTED AND ON SIDEWALKS.
I COULD GO EITHER WAY WITH THE COMMISSION.
I THINK OBVIOUSLY WE WANT THE EASEMENT SO THAT THE CITY CAN DO IT ONE DAY IF WE DON'T WANT TO DO IT NOW, BUT WE WANT EITHER WAY, WE WANT THAT EASEMENT.
AND I'D BE OPEN TO THOUGHTS THERE ON THE FIRST AND SECOND ONES RELATED TO THE
[01:00:01]
DRIVEWAY WIDTH AND DEPTH.I'M PROBABLY OK ON THOSE GIVEN THAT THEY'RE PREEXISTING AND THERE'S THREE THREE DRIVEWAYS.
BUT BUT AGAIN, OPEN TO THOUGHTS ON THAT AS WELL, I GUESS.
YEAH, I'M GOOD WITH THE TWO VARIANCES FOR THE DRIVEWAYS, THE STACKING DEPTH AND THE THROAT WIDTH.
I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU ON THE DEDICATED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT.
I'D LIKE TO HAVE A SIDEWALK, BUT I THINK IT'S PROBABLY MORE APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME TO DO THE THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT.
AND THEN I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU ALSO ON THE THE FENCE ISSUE.
AND YOU KNOW, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, BEFORE THEY GET TO COUNCIL, THEY CAN SIT DOWN WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS.
AND IF THERE'S A BETTER SOLUTION OR A HYBRID SOLUTION OR SOMETHING ELSE, THEN THEY CAN PRESENT THAT TO COUNCIL.
BUT I WOULD SAY, AS I SAID HERE, I WOULD SAY DENIAL ON THAT ONE REQUIRE THE DEDICATED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT.
AND THEN I'M OK WITH THE FIRST TWO.
YEAH, WELL, IN THE FENCING, I WAS THINKING THAT THE IDEAL ONE WOULD BE SOME KIND OF FENCING COMBINED WITH SOME KIND OF LANDSCAPE SHIELD WOULD BE IDEAL, BUT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A DISCUSSION POINT.
I THINK THAT THE MY SUGGESTION THAT I MADE ABOUT MAKING A DEDICATED ONE WAY IN ONE WAY OUT MIGHT HELP ALLEVIATE THAT PROBLEM WITH THE NARROW DRIVEWAYS RATHER THAN HAVING TWO VEHICLES TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, ONE COMING IN, ONE COMING OUT.
MAKES IT RATHER TIGHT, BUT I MEAN, THAT'S JUST ONE THING THAT I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE TO SEE IN THERE.
AND I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE DISRUPTIVE TO THE TRAFFIC FLOW OF THE LOCATION HERE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK YOU DID A NICE JOB OF SUMMARIZING WHAT WE WHAT WE HEARD IS THE ISSUES I WAS KIND OF MAKING THE SAME NOTES AND ALL OF THESE KIND OF SEEM TO SETTLE DOWN AND CENTER AROUND DISCUSSION WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
AND BEFORE THIS DOES GO TO COUNCIL, I CERTAINLY WOULD ENCOURAGE DISCUSSION AND TAKE THOSE ISSUES ONE AT A TIME, WHETHER IT'S TREE MITIGATION, WHETHER IT'S DRAINAGE, WHETHER IT'S LIGHTING, THE CITY HAS ORDINANCE ON EACH OF THOSE THAT I'M COMFORTABLE AND CONFIDENT THAT THOSE WILL BE ADDRESSED.
BUT I THINK THE DIALOG WITH THE NEIGHBORS WILL HELP TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE.
I THINK I'M IN THE SAME COURT AS THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE SPOKEN IN TERMS OF AGREEMENT ON THE DRIVEWAYS, BOTH THE STACKING VARIANCE OR THE STACKING DEPTH AND THE THROAT WIDTH.
YOU KNOW, WE ALL WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SIDEWALKS, BUT WE REALLY DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE SIDEWALKS TO NOWHERE, SO I THINK THE ACCESS EASEMENT ADDRESSES THAT.
AND WHILE I UNDERSTAND THE COMMENT BY THE ENGINEER ABOUT THE UTILITY EASEMENT THAT'S BACK THERE, I THINK THERE ARE WAYS TO ADDRESS THAT NEED TO BE DISCUSSED.
AND I THINK THAT NEEDS AGAIN TO BE A PART OF THE DISCUSSION THAT YOU HAVE WITH THE NEIGHBORS AS YOU LOOK AT GOING FORWARD, IF IN FACT THIS GOES FORWARD.
REAL QUICKLY SO THAT WE'RE NOT REDUNDANT, CONCUR WITH THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS, GRANT THE VARIANCES FOR THE STACKING DEPTH AND THE THROAT WIDTH.
I'M OK WITH THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW NO SIDEWALK, BUT RESERVING PUBLIC EASEMENT FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS.
AND I WOULD BE AGAINST GRANTING THE VARIANCE FOR THE FENCING AND ENCOURAGE THE CHURCH TO MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND WORK SOMETHING OUT THAT IS REASONABLE FOR BOTH SIDES.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? NO NEED FOR REDUNDANT.
MAYBE WITH THAT, THEN I'LL DEFER TO OUR VICE CHAIRMAN HERE TO SEE IF HE CAN CRAFT A MOTION AND WE CAN WEIGH IN ON IT.
SO WITH RESPECT TO THE SIDEWALK VARIANCE, IF WE ARE GOING TO REQUEST AN ACCESS EASEMENT, AM I CORRECT THAT WE WOULD DENY THAT AND THEN OR THE VARIANCES, BUT NOTE THE APPLICANT'S WILLINGNESS TO DEDICATE A 10 FOOT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN ON OUR AGENDA ZA21-0093 SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED JANUARY 5TH 2022.
ALSO SUBJECT TO OUR REVISED SITE PLAN.
REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER TWO DATED JANUARY 5TH 2022.
SPECIFICALLY APPROVING VARIANCE NUMBER ONE VARIANCE REQUEST NUMBER ONE RELATED TO THE STACKING DEPTH.
ALSO SPECIFICALLY APPROVING VARIANCE NUMBER TWO RELATED TO THE THROAT WIDTH.
APPROVING VARIANCE NUMBER THREE RELATED TO THE SIDEWALK, BUT NOTING THE APPLICANT'S WILLINGNESS TO DEDICATE A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT AND THEN DENYING VARIANCE REQUEST NUMBER FOUR RELATED TO THE FENCE AND NOTING OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT THE APPLICANT MEET WITH THE HOMEOWNERS AND TRY AND COME UP WITH SOME ALTERNATIVE.
[01:05:02]
OPPORTUNITIES THERE WITH RESPECT TO FENCING AND THEN FINALLY NOTING THE APPLICANT OR THE REQUEST TO THE APPLICANT TO EVALUATE DEDICATING ONE WAY IN OR ONE WAY OUT TYPE OF TRAFFIC FLOW BEFORE THEY GO TO CITY COUNCIL TO PRESENT THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AS WELL.THANK YOU FOR TRYING TO CAPTURE ALL THAT WE HAVE A MOTION.
OK, THAT MOTION PASSES SEVEN ZERO, AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM BASED ON THE CONDITIONS THAT YOU JUST HEARD THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
IF THEY GO TO THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING, I BELIEVE IT'LL BE ON JANUARY 18TH.
AND THERE'S PUBLIC COMMENT AS WELL ACCEPTED AT THAT MEETING ALSO.
SO THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR COMING OUT TONIGHT.
NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE REST OF OUR AGENDA, STARTING WITH ITEM EIGHT ON ZONING
[8. Consider: Ordinance No. 480-791, (ZA21-0094), Zoning Change and Site Plan for 1800 E. SH 114, to include a variance to the Masonry Ordinance No. 557, as amended, on property described as Lot 1R, Brewer Industrial Addition, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, and located at 1800 E. SH 114, Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: "B-1", Business Service Park District. Proposed Zoning: "S-P-1" Detailed Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #4. PUBLIC HEARING]
CHANGE AND SITE PLAN FOR EAST STATE HIGHWAY 114 RELATED TO A MASONRY VARIANCE.I DID PRESENT THIS DURING THE WORK SESSION.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE, I CAN GO BACK THROUGH THAT.
YEAH, WE SHOULD NOTE THAT FOR THE RECORD YOU DID.
EXCUSE ME, MR. CHAIRMAN, DID YOU DID YOU FORGET TO MENTION WE'VE GOT A SIGN BOARD HEARING THESE PEOPLE MIGHT WANT TO STAY FOR? OH, NO SIGN BOARDS.
NOT USUALLY A BIG, BIG ATTENDEE MEETING, BUT YOU CAN ALWAYS WATCH AT HOME ONLINE, SO THESE ARE ALWAYS RECORDED.
NO, DENNIS, WE DID GO THROUGH THIS IN DETAIL AND WORK SESSION.
APOLOGIES FOR NOT MENTIONING THAT.
SO I THINK YOU CAN PROBABLY JUST KIND OF HIT THE.
I CAN REFER BACK TO ANY SLIDES THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE.
JUST FRAMING THIS UP, THE PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT FOR THIS IS REQUESTING A ZONING CHANGE TO MODIFY THE CURRENT B1 ZONING DISTRICT THAT'S IN PLACE.
REPLACE THAT WITH THE SP1 DETAILED SITE PLAN.
DISTRICT ZONING THAT WOULD RETAIN THE B1 BUSINESS PART DISTRICT USES AND REGULATIONS TO ADD A COMMERCIAL CATERING KITCHEN AS A PERMITTED USE.
THAT SPECIFIC FACILITY WOULD BE LOCATED IN THIS VICINITY OF THE BUILDING AND IS UTILIZING A PREEXISTING COMMERCIAL KITCHEN THAT WAS LEFT BY A PREVIOUS OWNER OF THAT SPACE.
ALSO, PART OF THIS ZONING WOULD ADDRESS NON-CONFORMING CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY, AS IT IS TODAY THAT DO NOT CURRENTLY MEET THE B1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS OR THE CORRIDOR OVERLAY REGULATIONS, AND THAT INCLUDES MASONRY MATERIALS ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING.
AND WITH THAT, I'LL BE GLAD TO REFER BACK TO ANY OTHER ITEMS OR ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
AND OTHER THAN THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE APPLICANTS.
THIS IS BACK ABOUT THE SCREENING AGAIN, EQUIPMENT SCREENING.
THIS IS ONLY FOR THIS ONE PORTION [INAUDIBLE].
ARE WE SAYING THAT NOTHING ON THIS BUILDING IS GOING TO HAVE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING? THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE REQUESTING.
YES, THAT ALL THE EQUIPMENT THAT'S IN PLACE, THAT THERE BE NO ADDITIONAL SCREENING REQUIREMENTS APPLIED TO THE BUILDING ON THE ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE? YEAH, THANK YOU, DENNIS.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE APPLICANT UP ON THIS ITEM.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
AND I THINK PROBABLY MAYBE JUST A BRIEF OPENING STATEMENT AND WE CAN GET INTO ANY Q&A IF THERE'S ANY.
MY NAME IS RICHARD WILLIAMS. I'M WITH OWT ARCHITECTS.
WE'RE AT 509 PECAN STREET IN FORT WORTH.
I REALLY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD IN TERMS OF A SUMMARY.
BASICALLY HERE JUST TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE SCREENING.
IT WAS PRESENTED THAT THE ROOF WOULD NOT SUPPORT.
HOW IS IT SUPPORTING THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IF IT CAN'T SUPPORT A SCREEN? WELL, WE DID HAVE A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER COME OUT AND LOOK AT THE BUILDING, AND HE BASICALLY TOLD US THAT BECAUSE THIS BUILDING IS A PRE ENGINEERED METAL BUILDING, THAT THOSE STRUCTURES ARE TYPICALLY DESIGNED FOR KIND OF A BARE MINIMUM.
I DON'T KNOW THE FULL HISTORY OF THE BUILDING TO KNOW IF IF THE LOADING OF THOSE ROOFTOP UNITS WERE DESIGNED INTO THAT STRUCTURE OR NOT.
NEITHER DID THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, BUT JUST BASED ON HIS ASSESSMENT OF THE BUILDING, THAT HE DID NOT RECOMMEND THAT WE ADD ANY ADDITIONAL LOAD IN THE LOADS FROM A, YOU KNOW, SIX SEVEN EIGHT FOOT TALL SCREEN WALL ON A ROOF CAN BE FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WIND LOADS, RIGHT?
[01:10:02]
WIND LOADS.AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT'S WHAT IS UP THERE EXACTLY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, IS THIS ALL ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT OR IS IT SPLIT SYSTEMS? IT EXHAUST FANS.
IT'S MOSTLY CONDENSERS FOR SPLIT SYSTEMS. THERE'S AN EXHAUST FAN FOR THIS KITCHEN SPACE.
THERE'S A MAKEUP AIR UNIT FOR THE KITCHEN SPACE AS WELL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, INCLUDING DETAILED HVAC FROM OUR EXPERT DOWN HERE? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YEAH, I THINK WE'RE GOOD, THANK YOU, SIR.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING, SO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING IF ANYONE YOU'D LIKE TO COME DOWN AND COMMENT ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM.
SEEING NO ONE WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ONE.
FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY.
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DELIBERATIONS.
BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION, OK, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT ON OUR AGENDA ZA21-0094, SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED DECEMBER 30TH 2021.
FURTHER SUBJECT TO OUR SITE PLAN.
REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER TWO DATED DECEMBER 30TH 2021 SUBJECT TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 480-791 AND NOTING APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED.
A MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND.
OK PASSES 7-0 CONGRATULATIONS, GOOD LUCK AT THE NEXT LEVEL.
WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER NINE ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING, WHICH
[9. Consider: ZA21-0098, Plat Revision for Lots 11R1 and 11R2, O.W. Knight No. 899 Addition on property described as Lot 11, O.W. Knight No. 899 Addition, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, and located at 325 Pine Dr., Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District. SPIN Neighborhood #9. PUBLIC HEARING]
IS A PLAT REVISION FOR LOTS LR1, LR TWO.IN SOUTHLAKE PINE DRIVE THERE IT IS.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THREE TWENTY FIVE PINE DRIVE.
IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED SF1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND IS APPROXIMATELY THREE ACRES IN SIZE, CURRENTLY PLATTED AS A SINGLE LOT.
THE PROPOSAL HERE IS TO REPLAT THE PROPERTY AS A PLAT REVISION, CREATING AN ADDITIONAL BUILDABLE LOT.
THE PROPERTY IS LAND USE DESIGNATED AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND IS CURRENTLY ZONED FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
THIS AERIAL VIEW OF THE SITE, THERE IS AN EXISTING HOME ON THE PROPERTY TODAY.
AND THIS IS THE EXISTING PLAT OF RECORD, THIS WAS PART OF A TWO LOT PLAT THAT PERMITTED TO INDIVIDUAL FLAG LOTS WITH A COMMON ACCESS DRIVE BETWEEN THE TWO.
LOT 11 IS PROPOSED TO BE RE-SUBDIVIDED AND CREATE ANOTHER BUILDABLE, SINGLE FAMILY LOT ON THAT PROPERTY.
THIS IS THE PROPOSED PLAT REVISION.
THIS WOULD BE THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE NEW LOT BOUNDARY, THE NEWLY CREATED LOT WOULD NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON A STREET MEETING THE MINIMUM FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.
THEREFORE VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED TO ALLOW THAT LOT TO HAVE ITS ACCESS THROUGH A PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT.
EXTENDED TO THE LOT BOUNDARY THAT PROPOSED EASEMENTS SHOWN AND RED ON THIS EXHIBIT AND WOULD EXTEND BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT THROUGH THE ADJOINING LOT 10.
AS NOTED, VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED ALLOW THE PROPERTY NOT TO THE PROPOSED LOT UP FRONT ON A PUBLIC STREET AS REQUIRED BY THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY.
AND HAVE THAT LOT SERVED BY PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT? THIS IS THE TREE SURVEY PROVIDED.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM PRESERVATION STANDARDS OF THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE.
AND THIS IS THE CITY'S MASTER TRAIL PLAN.
THERE IS A PLANNED FIVE FOOT TRAIL ALONG LILAC.
HOWEVER, GIVEN THE NEW LOT DOES NOT CREATE STREET FRONTAGE, A SIDEWALK WOULD NOT BE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED FOR THAT LOT.
INSTALLATION OF A SIDEWALK WOULD ONLY BE REQUIRED WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION.
[01:15:05]
TEAR DOWN REBUILD OF THE EXISTING LOT THAT CURRENTLY FRONTS ON PINE.UH, THESE ARE RESPONSES THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE CITY.
THOSE IN RED HAVE NOTED THEIR OPPOSITION.
THE ONE IN BLUE NEAR THE NORTHEAST CORNER NOTED THEY ARE UNDECIDED AS FAR AS IMPACT WITH REGARDS TO OPPOSITION AND HOW NOTICE IS DONE ON A PLAT REVISION NOTIFICATION IS ONLY REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED TO LOT OWNERS WITHIN THE PLATED SUBDIVISION THAT ARE ALSO WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE REPLAT THAT IS BEING PROPOSED.
SO MAJORITY OF THESE RESPONSES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THOSE THAT WERE NOT STATUTORILY REQUIRED TO RECEIVE NOTICE.
WHERE A VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED.
ANY PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN THAT NOTICE AREA THAT CONSTITUTES A 20 PERCENT AREA OF THAT TWO HUNDRED FOOT BUFFER COULD IMPACT THE VOTE REQUIREMENT BOTH FOR P&Z'S RECOMMENDATION AS WELL AS CITY COUNCIL'S FINAL ACTION.
HOWEVER, THAT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE IN EFFECT THAT AT THIS STAGE.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
DO YOU MIND GOING BACK TO THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN AGAIN? JUST WANTED TO.
I GUESS, CAN YOU SHOW THE ONE WHERE I GUESS.
IS THERE ONE THAT KIND OF SHOWS THE WAY DRIVEWAYS WOULD FLOW, I GUESS AS WELL.
AERIAL SHOWS, EXISTING DRIVEWAY LOCATION AND I BELIEVE THE LOOKING AT THE AERIAL, THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO EXTEND THE ACCESS ALONG THIS BOUNDARY, THE ACCESS EASEMENT ALONG I GUESS THE WESTERLY AND NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE ADJOINING LOT 10, WHICH IS NOT TECHNICALLY PART OF THE REPLAT AND THAT WOULD BE ACQUIRED THROUGH A SEPARATE INSTRUMENT RECORDED.
BUT AGAIN, LIKE YOU SAID, I MEAN THAT THAT'S THE FOCUS ON THIS WHEN THE VARIANCE IS EFFECTIVELY THAT THE NEW LOT BEING CREATED IS NOT FRONT ABUT A STREET, I GUESS.
THE SPECIFIC VARIANCES TO THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPOSED LOT DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND WHEN I SAY FRONTAGE ON MAIN STREET FRONTAGE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THIS DRIVEWAY PATH AGAIN, SO THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE THE DRIVEWAY GO ALL THE WAY AROUND THE EXISTING HOUSE OR IS IT IN THE BACK OF THE EXISTING HOUSE WHERE THE POOL IS THERE? IT WOULD GO ALONG THE FRONT OF THE EXISTING HOUSE ON THE ADJOINING LOT TO THE NORTH AND WEST AND THEN ALONG THERE NORTH BOUNDARY.
WELL, ARE YOU GOING TO NEED A GPS TO FIND YOUR WAY HOME BY THE TIME THEY GET THROUGH THIS? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? OK, I THINK I WILL CLARIFY, I THINK I WAS EXPECTING THAT TO PERFECTLY FOLLOW THAT BOUNDARY.
I THINK IT IS KIND OF OVERLAYING WHERE PART OF THAT EXISTING DRIVEWAY SERVES THE EXISTING HOUSE, SO IT'S JUST INSIDE THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE EXISTING LOT.
WE'LL CALL YOU BACK UP IF WE NEED YOUR HELP.
SO DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE FOR THIS ITEM THIS EVENING? YOU DON'T MIND.
I GUESS YOU COME DOWN, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, FOR THE RECORD.
MAYBE YOU CAN KIND OF GIVE US THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE REQUEST.
SO JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT HERE, THE FENCE AROUND THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IS IS ONE FENCE.
THE PREVIOUS OWNERS WERE A MOTHER DAUGHTER COMBINATION AND WE SEEK TO DO SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR.
SO THE HOUSE AROUND THE TOP LEFT HAND CORNER THERE WITH WITH THE RED LINES AROUND IT.
EXCUSE ME, WOULD BE MOM AND DAD'S HOUSE HAVING HAVING MOVED OUT OF STATE TO BE
[01:20:01]
WITH FAMILY AND GRANDKIDS? AND THEN THE THE OTHER LAW AT THE BOTTOM HOUSE, THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WOULD BE MY BROTHER AND HIS FAMILY.AND THEN WE'RE HOPING THAT IF WE CAN SPLIT THAT THREE ACRE LOT UP INTO TWO EQUAL PLATS THAT MY WIFE AND OUR KIDS AND OUR OUR TWIN 18 MONTH OLD FUTURE DRAGONS WOULD BE ABLE TO GROW UP IN THAT HOUSE AND HAVE FAMILY AROUND IN THE IN ONE CONTIGUOUS KIND OF FAMILY COMPOUND, IF YOU WILL.
AND THE PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED LIKE THIS FROM THE BEGINNING, AND WE WISH TO KEEP THAT ESTHETIC.
TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION REGARDING THE THE ROADWAY, THE EASEMENT, AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE MOM AND DAD'S HOUSE.
SO I THINK WE COULD ASSUME THAT THEY WOULD GRANT AN ACCESS EASEMENT FOR THAT.
THERE IS EXISTING CONCRETE THERE THAT ALREADY WRAPS AROUND THEIR HOUSE TO THE BACK SIDE OF IT, WHERE THE GARAGES WE WOULD ONLY NEED TO EXTEND THAT ROADWAY APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED FEET, MAYBE GIVE OR TAKE 10 FEET IN ORDER TO ACCESS A GARAGE AT THE OTHER PROPERTY AS WELL.
WE DIDN'T WANT TO CREATE ANY MORE THAN AN EXTRA HUNDRED FEET OF OF CONCRETE OR PAVERS OR WHATEVER ENDS UP BEING.
WE HAD ORIGINALLY KIND OF LOOKED AT WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE TO PUT A PATH THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY.
BUT IF YOU GO OUT THERE, THE TOPOGRAPHY DROPS OFF VERY DRAMATICALLY FROM THE FRONT TO THE BACK OF THAT PROPERTY.
AND THERE ARE A LOT OF OLD GROWTH TREES ALL OVER THIS PROPERTY, AND WE ARE LOOKING TO PRESERVE AS MANY AS POSSIBLE, IF NOT ALL OF THEM, IN AN EFFORT TO MAINTAIN TREE COVER.
WE'RE GOING TO PLANT MORE TREES.
WE HAVEN'T EVEN TALKED ABOUT WHAT A HOUSE DESIGN MIGHT EVEN LOOK LIKE AT THIS POINT.
WE WANTED TO KIND OF GET THROUGH THIS STEP AND LAY THE FOUNDATION TO SEE IF WE CAN ACCOMPLISH THIS SORT OF THIS FAMILY VISION.
THE LAST THING THAT I WILL SHARE WITH YOU THAT I THINK IS WORTH NOTING IS THAT WE ARE SEEKING TO DIVIDE THE THREE ACRE LOT INTO A TWO ACRE AND A ONE ACRE.
THE ONE ACRE LOT THERE, WHICH WOULD BE WHERE, YOU KNOW, AIR QUOTES MY HOUSE WOULD BE IS ACTUALLY A LARGER LOT THAN ALMOST ALL OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS LOTS.
AND I THINK THAT THAT WAS WORTH NOTING IN IN THE VEIN OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
OK, SO JUST, YOU KNOW, REAL QUICK.
YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU MAY KNOW THAT SIMILAR APPLICATIONS IS THIS ONE.
HAVE A LOT OF THE TIME NOT BEEN MAYBE RECEIVED POSITIVELY BY CITY COUNCIL.
YOU KNOW, I KNOW YOU PRESENTED IN FRONT OF THE CORRIDOR MEETING JUST PROBABLY A FEW MONTHS BACK AND.
YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU HEARD SOME OF THAT SENTIMENT THERE IN TERMS OF MAYBE SOME ALTERNATIVE IDEAS, I GUESS MAYBE.
CAN YOU TALK THROUGH, I GUESS A COUPLE OF THEM WERE, YOU HIT ON IT A LITTLE BIT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF MAYBE A.
POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT ALIGNMENTS FOR THE THE ACCESS TO THE LOT VERSUS THE ONE THAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT OR I GUESS AND STAFFS BETTER AT MAYBE DESCRIBING THIS, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN SOME RECENT CHANGES IN THE ORDINANCES THAT WHERE YOU CAN BUILD KIND OF SECONDARY STRUCTURES AND NOT HAVE TO DIVIDE LOTS IN TERMS OF TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.
AND I THINK THOSE SECONDARY STRUCTURES.
IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE JUST FIVE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET.
I MEAN, THEY CAN BE SOMEWHAT MEANINGFUL IN SIZE.
I GUESS EITHER OF THOSE TWO THINGS, CAN YOU JUST TALK THROUGH BECAUSE THOSE WERE FEEDBACK ITEMS FROM THE CORRIDOR MEETING? CAN YOU JUST TALK THROUGH KIND OF AFTER YOU HEARD THAT? I GUESS WHAT? WHAT KIND OF PLAYED OUT FROM THERE? WHAT WAS YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS? YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
WELL, COULD YOU ASK ME THOSE QUESTIONS AGAIN? JUST FEED THEM TO ME.
MAYBE THE FIRST, THE FIRST ONE ON JUST DRIVEWAY ORIENTATION.
I MEAN, YOU KIND OF LAID OUT THE PROPOSED I MEAN, AND AGAIN, WE OK.
SOME OF THAT'S REALLY NOT OUR PURVEY.
THE PURVEY IS REALLY, YOU KNOW, ARE WE SUPPORTIVE OF HAVING A LOT THAT DOESN'T FRONT US STREET OR NOT? BUT I MEAN, JUST KIND OF CURIOUS.
SO AS FAR AS THE DRIVEWAY, WE DID HAVE THE FIRE MARSHAL OUT TO THE PROPERTY TO KIND OF WALK AROUND, POINT THINGS OUT TO HIM AS WELL AND SOLICIT HIS FEEDBACK.
AND HE INDICATED THAT A VERY GOOD SOLUTION WOULD BE TO HAVE THAT UTILIZED MAJORITY EXISTING ROADWAY RIGHT HERE AND THEN BUILD WHAT THEY CALLED.
I MAY BE MISQUOTING THIS, BUT IT'S A HAMMERHEAD TYPE STRUCTURE TO TURN AROUND FOR A LARGE VEHICLE.
YOU PROBABLY KNOW MORE THAN I WOULD ON THAT.
BUT TO HAVE THAT ALONG THIS LINE HERE, SO THE FIRE TRUCK COULD COME IN, GO STRAIGHT IF THEY NEEDED TO, OR THEY COULD ACTUALLY TURN AROUND AND GO STRAIGHT.
AND HE SAID, WE ARE WELL WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF ANY FIRE HYDRANTS AS FAR AS ACCESS, AND THAT WOULD BE PROBABLY THE MOST LOW IMPACT TO THE PROPERTY AS A WHOLE WOULD BE
[01:25:02]
TO UTILIZE MOSTLY EXISTING CONCRETE THAT'S ALREADY THERE.AND THEN WHAT WAS YOUR SECOND? THE SECOND ONE, I MEAN, THAT'S PROBABLY THE MORE GERMANE ONE.
IT'S JUST RELATIVE TO THE REQUEST FOR THE LOT, PERIOD.
YOU KNOW, THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE WAYS TO THE ORDINANCES NOW THAT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO DIVIDE A LOT.
SURE, STAFF CAN PROBABLY DESCRIBE THAT A LITTLE BETTER THAN I AM.
BUT YEAH, OUR THOUGHT PROCESS IS ON THIS.
SO WE COULD ACTUALLY PROBABLY BUILD A RATHER SIGNIFICANT DWELLING THERE NOW UNDER THE CURRENT CODE WITHOUT GETTING A VARIANCE FOR NOT HAVING THAT STREET FRONTAGE WITH AN EYE TO THE LONG TERM, WE WANTED TO HAVE OUR OWN MAILING ADDRESS.
WE WANTED TO HAVE OUR OWN PROPERTY TAX, SO WE DIDN'T HAVE TO KIND OF GO BACK WITH THE FAMILY AND DO PROPERTY TAX TOGETHER, HAVE OUR OWN ADDRESS, HAVE OUR OWN OUR OWN PLOT PLAT, IF YOU WILL.
SO THAT WAS THAT WAS THE IDEA BEHIND IT.
I'M NOT LOOKING TO SELL THE PROPERTY.
MAYBE, YOU KNOW, LIFE GOES ON RIGHT TIME.
TIME TICKS AWAY, BUT I'M NOT TRYING TO BUILD A SUBDIVISION.
I JUST JUST JUST ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME, AS WAS OUR OBJECTIVE.
OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS THIS ONE.
SO WHAT IS THIS EXISTING CONCRETE? IS THERE? I MEAN, IS IT LIKE A DRIVEWAY NOW? LET'S LET ME SEE IF I CAN.
SO IT COMES IN OFF OF THE STREET RIGHT HERE ON PINE.
AND THEN IF YOU MAKE A LEFT AS YOU'RE GOING DOWN TOWARD THE OTHER HOUSE, IF YOU MAKE A LEFT, THEY GOT A LITTLE ROUNDABOUT WITH A COUPLE OF TREES THERE AND THEN IT GOES ALL THE WAY AROUND BECAUSE THERE'S A BIG RETAINING WALL THERE.
OK, SO IT GOES ALL THE WAY AROUND TO THE GARAGES AND WE WERE GOING TO PROPOSE INSTEAD OF POURING NEW CONCRETE THROUGH THE ENTIRE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO HAVE ABOUT 100 HUNDRED FOOT RIGHT THERE.
MINIMUM THE 12 FEET IS WHAT THE FIRE MARSHAL SAID THAT WE COULD PUT IN THERE AND THAT WOULD GIVE US ACCESS INTO A POTENTIAL GARAGE.
THAT WOULD BE KIND OF THE FIRST ITEM YOU GO TO FOR A RESIDENTIAL VEHICLE.
SO HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT IF YOU'RE A MOVING VAN OR SOMETHING TRYING TO GET IN THERE, IT'S GOING TO HAVE A REALLY HARD TIME.
WE WOULD MEASURE IT OUT TO MEET THE SPECIFICATION OF A FIRE TRUCK AND WE MEASURED IT OUT.
WE WALKED OUT WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL AND HE INDICATED TO US THAT THERE WAS I MEAN, AND WE COULD, YOU KNOW, PROPOSE THAT WHEN WE ACTUALLY GET A BUILDING, BUT THERE WAS ENOUGH TURNING RADIUS THERE FOR A FULL SIZE.
APPARENTLY, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT GOT A NEW FIRE TRUCK AND WE'RE MEASURING AGAINST THE LARGEST ONE THEY HAVE.
AND HE SAID THAT THERE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TURNING RADIUS AROUND THE HOUSE AND THEN COMING DOWN THE SIDE IF WE BUILT THAT ACCESS SO THEY COULD BACK UP AND TURN AROUND.
BUT I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT PRACTICALLY IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE A 60 FOOT MOVING VAN COMES IN THERE, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT TURN.
IF IT'S LONGER, IF IT'S AS LONG OR SHORTER THAN A FIRE ENGINE.
WE'RE GOING TO DESIGN IT SO THEY COULD MAKE THE TURN.
OK, WELL, I THINK YOU PROBABLY BETTER PLAN ON THAT BECAUSE THAT THEY CAN GET A SMALLER FIRE ENGINE IN THERE, BUT LIKE A MOVING TRUCK IS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S GOING TO BE A STANDARD SEMI.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE JUST A, YOU KNOW, A FIRE ENGINE.
SO ANYWAY, SO THE TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THIS, YOU'RE YOU'RE WANTING TO KEEP THE HOUSE THAT'S THERE NOW, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO INTERFERE WITH IT AT ALL.
NO, WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO COMPLETELY RENOVATE IT.
AND THOSE PLANS ARE GOING INTO EFFECT.
ACTUALLY, THIS NEXT WEEK TO TO RENOVATE IT AND TAKE SOME OF THE CORNERS OFF TO ACTUALLY MAKE THAT TURN MORE POSSIBLE.
SO YOU CAN THINK OF THE DWELLING BEING PULLED BACK JUST A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE MOM AND DAD DIDN'T NEED AS MUCH SQUARE FEET AS THERE IS CURRENTLY.
AND YOU HAVEN'T CONSIDERED JUST DEMOING THAT HOUSE AND DO LIKE YOU SAID, JUST GO IN THERE AND MAKE IT AS A LITTLE MINI SUBDIVISION OF YOUR OWN.
IT'S IF YOU GO OUT TO THE PROPERTY, IT'S JUST A VERY UNIQUE TOPOGRAPHY AND THAT WHERE THE WHERE THE HOUSES ARE SITUATED.
AND THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE THE LANDING SPOT OF A HOUSE ANY WAY.
IF YOU WERE TO SCRAPE EVERYTHING DOWN, IT WOULD BE RIGHT IN THAT AREA ANYWAY.
AND THEN THERE'S A POOL ON THE BACK.
SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD ANY MORE POOLS BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT LITTLE KIDS, YOU KNOW, GETTING IN THE POOLS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
AND AS FAR AS COST GOES, LEAVING THE EXISTING FOUNDATION ON THESE TWO, BOTH HOUSES ARE GOING TO BE DRAMATICALLY OVERHAULED, RENOVATED, LEAVING THE EXISTING FOUNDATION IS A SIX FIGURE DECISION, SO WE'RE LEANING TOWARD LEAVING THE ACTUAL EXISTING FOUNDATIONS.
OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
I THINK WE'RE GOOD FOR NOW, BUT AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE MAY CALL YOU BACK UP.
THERE'S A FOLLOW UP, SO THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
ITEM NUMBER NINE ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARINGS, SO GO AHEAD AND
[01:30:01]
OPEN UP PUBLIC HEARING.HOPEFULLY, EVERYBODY WAS HERE EARLIER AND KIND OF SAW HOW THIS WORKS.
I APPRECIATE IF YOU COULD BE CONSIDERATE AND HOLD TO THE THREE MINUTE MARK, GIVEN THE OTHER ITEMS WE HAVE ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING.
I GUESS THE FIRST PERSON I WILL CALL.
OH, AND AND I GUESS THERE WAS A NOTE SCRIBBLED ON HERE ABOUT YIELDING TIME.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T TYPICALLY DO BECAUSE I CAN TURN INTO A DAISY CHAIN THAT GOES FOREVER.
SO EVERYBODY, EACH PERSON KIND OF GETS THEIR THREE MINUTES.
SO WITH THAT, I'LL CALL OUT TO DAN QUITO I BELIEVE, 602 NORTHWOOD TRAIL, HOPEFULLY SAYING THAT CORRECTLY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION ON THIS ITEM.
I'M DAN QUINTO LIVE AT 602 NORTHWOOD TRAIL.
I HAD SIX MINUTES WORTH OF COMMENTS, BUT YOU TOOK CARE OF THREE MINUTES OF THOSE WITH YOUR QUESTIONS, SO IF IT HELPS, WE DO.
OH, I'LL GET CORRESPONDENTS AHEAD OF TIME.
I'LL DO MY BEST TO CUT IT SHORT.
THE SUBDIVISION IS ONLY ASKING FOR ONE VARIANCE, BUT THAT ONE VARIANCE IS REALLY UNDERMINES THE IMPORT AND THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES.
SO THAT ONE VARIANCE THAT RELIEVES THE SUBDIVISION OF HAVING ACCESS TO THE STREET KIND OF PUTS A SPEAR IN THE FOUNDATIONAL REGULATION UPON WHICH ALL OTHER REGULATIONS IN THE ZONING ARE BUILT.
SO ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THAT IS FIRE AND EMERGENCY ACCESS.
WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS A BASICALLY A FIRE LANE THAT'S SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET LONG LINES THROUGH THE BACK OF A COUPLE OF PROPERTIES, GOES DOWN A STEEP SLOPE, TAKES OUT A LOT OF TREES AND HAS NO DIFFICULTY TURN IT AROUND.
THAT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS MEETING OR EXCEEDING THE STANDARDS FOR AN EXISTING FIRE LINE ON A FLAG LOT.
BUT THIS DOES NOT EVEN COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR A FLAG LOT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY STREET FRONTAGE.
ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR FLAG A LOT INCLUDE NOT HAVING ANY IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORING SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, WHICH WE THINK IT DOES HAVE.
FURTHER, IF THIS IS A LEGAL LOT AND IT'S APPROVED TONIGHT.
THERE'S NO REASON FOR THIS NOT TO BE A LEGAL LOT ON OTHER FLAG LOTS WHICH MIGHT LIKE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS NEW LOCK TYPE, WHICH WOULD THEN MAKE POSSIBLE SUBDIVISIONS WITHOUT THE EXPENSE AND DIFFICULTY OF PROVIDING STREET ACCESS AND RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION.
SO THIS VARIANCE AND THIS SUBDIVISION CREATE A NEW LOCK TYPE, WHICH IS A MORE SERIOUS CHANGE THAN IF IT WERE A SIMPLE ZONING CHANGE.
BUT THE ZONING CHANGE WOULD ENABLE THE PROTEST TO BE CATEGORIZED UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 211 INSTEAD OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 212, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 211 DEALS WITH ZONING CHANGES, 212 DEALS WITH VARIANCES UNDER 212.
ONLY PEOPLE WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION.
SO THE WEIRD CONSEQUENCE OF THIS IS THAT THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO ARE PERMITTED TO PROTEST THIS ARE THE APPLICANTS THEMSELVES.
AND THAT JUST DOESN'T PASS THE COMMON SENSE TEST.
SO I WOULD ASK YOU INCLUDING YOUR COMMENTS, PLEASE, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR CHICKEN.
ALL I'M ASKING IS THAT YOU CONSIDER THAT IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS.
AND I GUESS KERRY QUINTO, ALSO AT 602 NORTHWOOD TRAIL, IS WELCOME TO COME UP AND FINISH UP ANY OF THOSE COMMENTS IF SHE'D LIKE.
BUT IF YOU'D RATHER OR NOT, WE CAN JUST NOTE THAT I BELIEVE THAT YOU'RE IN OPPOSITION AND WISH NOT TO SPEAK SO OK, WE WILL DO THAT.
[01:35:02]
I THINK SAME SITUATION HERE FOR DAN CLARK, 227 PINE DRIVE.OK, UM, WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM.
I'M THE PROPERTY RIGHT HERE AND WOULD ADJOIN THE EASEMENT THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR HERE, HERE AND DOWN THROUGH THIS WHOLE SIDE, SO IT DEFINITELY AFFECTS ME.
THERE'S A LOT OF TREES ALONG THERE AND I WOULD HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH RYAN.
THIS IS THE MUCH EASIER PATH IF HE WERE TO GET THIS VARIANCE, WHICH I DON'T AGREE, SHOULD WOULD BE COMING IN THIS, YOU KNOW, COMING IN THIS WAY BECAUSE THIS IS BASICALLY FLAT.
AND AND THEN IF YOU GO THROUGH, I WOULD LIKE TO GO ON RECORD ABOUT THE TWO HUNDRED FOOT QUITE HONESTLY, I HOW CAN THE TWO PEOPLE, AS DAN MENTIONED IN HIS THAT OWN THE PROPERTY, BE THE ONLY TWO NOTIFIED? WE FOUND OUT BY THIS BY ACCIDENT ON SUNDAY NIGHT.
I MEAN, THERE'S AS YOU SAW FROM THAT EARLIER SLIDE, THERE'S A LOT OF HOMES AROUND THERE THAT NOBODY WAS NOTIFIED.
AND OF THOSE HOMES, EIGHT OF THE 13 LOTS HAVE OBJECTED TO IT.
AND WHO KNOWS IF THE OTHER FIVE EVEN KNEW ABOUT IT? SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST CERTAIN SOME THINGS ARE RIGHT AND SOME THINGS ARE WRONG AND AND I KNOW THAT YOU WENT WITHIN THE POLICY, BUT THAT'S THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
SOME OF MY CONCERNS, OBVIOUSLY.
HOPEFULLY, YOU ALL READ THE SHEETS I GAVE YOU.
I'D LIKE TO KIND OF WALK THROUGH A COUPLE OF THEM.
I THINK THIS IF THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED, IT WOULD SOMEBODY LEFT THE PHONE HERE.
IT WOULD TOTALLY CHANGE THE DYNAMICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE FLAG LOTS THERE, HERE, HERE.
OURS AND THIS, THEY'RE ALL OVER AN ACRE.
I MEAN, I'M ALMOST 2.7 ACRES, I THINK, ON OURS ADJOINING IT.
SO THIS DEFINITELY CHANGES IT.
AND QUITE HONESTLY, WHEN WE WE'VE HAD AGENTS TELL US, PROPOSED US TO SELL THIS, TO DIVIDE IT AND SELL IT OUT BECAUSE THE VALUE OF PROPERTY SOUTHLAKE, I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO RUIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE DRIVEWAY LOCATION SURROUNDING, I THINK THAT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, I HAVE TO AGREE THAT THAT'S WRONG.
WE TALKED ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT EARLIER.
THERE'S ALSO A SEWAGE EASEMENT THAT COMES DOWN THROUGH WITH OTHER EASEMENTS, AND THE PAVEMENT WOULD BE OVER THE TOP OF THAT WHERE THEY'RE PROPOSING WHICH, YOU KNOW, THAT'S MY SEWER AND IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE.
AND AS DAN MENTIONED, THIS IS AN INTERIOR LOT, NO ACCESS TO THE STREET.
WHERE ELSE DOES THAT OPEN UP OPTIONS FOR PEOPLE TO TO JUST BUILD ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, PUT ANOTHER LOT IN AND HAVE IT MAKES NO SENSE.
AND THEN REALLY, IS IT A PRECEDENT? I MEAN, QUITE HONESTLY, I DON'T LIKE IT, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE IT ADJOINS ME AND REALLY BOTHERS ME.
BUT I LOOK AROUND THIS AREA AND I LOOK OVER HERE IN WHITE'S CHAPEL.
THESE AREAS CAN ALL BE DIVIDED UP.
ONCE THIS GETS DONE, THERE'S IT'S A PRECEDENCE HAD TO BE DONE.
GIVE ME A COUPLE OF SECONDS HERE.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE BOTTOM LINE IS I THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THAT BY MAKING THIS ACTION, IT'LL REDUCE THE PROPERTY VALUES ALONG THERE AND TO US AND AND QUITE HONESTLY, OUR PRIVACY TREES, THE MULTIPLE TREES DOWN THROUGH HERE.
AND I KNOW THEY'RE NOT HUGE TREES GENERALLY, BUT THERE'S STILL SIX, EIGHT, 10 INCH TREES AND THEY'D BE DESTROYED.
AND THEN LAST COMMENT CARD, SHARON CARD 227 PINE DRIVE, WHICH YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP IF YOU'D LIKE.
OTHERWISE, WE CAN JUST NOTE YOUR OPPOSITION, FOR THE RECORD.
THE PUBLIC HEARING REMAINS OPEN FOR ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO COME UP AND COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.
AND JUST PLEASE STATE NAME AND ADDRESS, FOR THE RECORD, IF YOU COULD.
AND SAME SAME GUIDELINES AS EVERYONE ELSE.
I'M ACTUALLY AT 325 PINES, SO I WON'T SPEND TOO MUCH TIME BELABORING THE SAME POINTS THAT MY BROTHER RYAN ALREADY MADE.
BUT I WILL JUST REITERATE THAT THIS IS A FAMILY PROPERTY.
THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE SOMETHING THAT IS MOVING OUTSIDE OF WHAT THE NORM FOR FAMILIES ARE IN SOUTHLAKE.
THIS IS NOT A SUBDIVISION IN THE IN THE TRADITIONAL SENSE.
IT'S SIMPLY A WAY FOR ALL OF US TO FINALLY LIVE TOGETHER AFTER SO MANY YEARS OF FEELING LIKE WE'VE LIVED SO FAR APART.
WE MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO TRY TO BE VERY GOOD NEIGHBORS, AND WHEN WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, WE ARE ABSOLUTELY OPEN TO ANY KIND OF FEEDBACK AND INPUT FROM NEIGHBORS.
I MEAN, WE CERTAINLY HEARD THAT IN IN OTHER WAYS.
WE'VE ACTUALLY TALKED TO SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS ABOUT THIS ALREADY.
SO ANYWAY, I WON'T TAKE UP ANY MORE TIME, BUT I OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE GIVING MY SUPPORT TO
[01:40:01]
THIS.PUBLIC HEARING REMAINS OPEN IF ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO COME UP AND MAKE A LAST QUICK COMMENT OR TWO.
THAT HASN'T ALREADY LOOKS LIKE WE GOT ONE MORE TAKER HERE.
WELL, SAME THING AS THE OTHER GENTLEMAN, PLEASE NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
WE HAVE A DREAM TO HAVE A FAMILY COMPOUND.
WHEN WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, THAT WAS THE PLAN.
WE DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN A TRACK OF HOMES.
AND WE WANTED TO HAVE A CHANCE TO BE TOGETHER AS A FAMILY.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THE NEIGHBORS ARE OPPOSING IT SO MUCH WHERE WE'VE BEEN MADE A CONCERTED EFFORT TO TALK TO OUR NEIGHBORS, WE'VE IMPROVED THE PROPERTY DRAMATICALLY SINCE WE MOVED IN AND WE INTEND TO CONTINUE DOING THAT.
WE'RE GOING TO DO FENCING AROUND IT.
WE WANT TO KEEP A LOT OF TREES.
WE LIKE THE NATURAL LOOK TO IT.
WE TAKE TREES OUT BECAUSE OF THE ROAD.
WE PLAN TO PUT OTHER TREES IN TO REPLACE THEM.
WE WANT THE TREES AS BAD AS EVERYBODY ELSE DOES.
SO OBVIOUSLY I'M VOTING FOR IT.
I HOPE YOU GUYS WILL CONSIDER THAT.
IT WOULD KIND OF THROW A CURVEBALL AT US WHEN WE HAVE TO RETHINK THIS THING.
SO WE HOPE IT'LL PASS AND WHEN WE GET READY TO PUT THE HOUSE IN THERE, WE WILL BE VERY THOUGHTFUL OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
SO IT'S IT FITS IN WITH THE ENVIRONMENT AND IT'S NOT STICKING OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB.
AND THE OTHER TWO HOUSES ARE GOING TO BE WITH THE SAME THING IN MIND.
WE'RE TRYING TO IMPROVE THE PROPERTY TO MAKE IT NICER, NOT DOWNGRADED.
AND WE HAVE OUR HIGHEST PRIORITY IS TO TRY TO GET ALONG WITH OUR NEIGHBORS, AND I DON'T THINK ANYONE WILL TELL YOU THAT WE HAVE DONE OTHERWISE.
SO HOPEFULLY THAT'LL PLAY INTO IT AS WELL.
AS LONG AS YOU HAVEN'T HAD YOUR THREE MINUTES YET, YOU CAN COME UP.
WE'VE ALREADY NOTED YOUR OPPOSITION, BUT WE'LL OK.
HELLO, I'M SHARON CLARK, 227 PINE DRIVE, YOU HEARD FROM MY HUSBAND, I HAD A COUPLE OF THINGS TO.
I ALSO TALKED TO THE FIRE MARSHAL AND I, YOU KNOW, SHOWED THEM WHAT WAS GOING ON.
AND HE INDICATED TO ME THAT IT WOULD NOT WORK TO TAKE THE DRIVE UP AND OVER ALONG OUR PROPERTY FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES.
HE INDICATED TO ME IT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO GO IN BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES.
I'M JUST SAYING I TALKED TO HIM ON MONDAY.
ALSO, ANOTHER CONCERN IS WHAT IF ONE OF THE WHAT IF SOMETHING HAPPENS, GOD FORBID, AND ONE OF THE HOUSES GOES VACANT? YOU'VE GOT A FAMILY COMPOUND THERE.
AND WHO'S GOING TO BUY A HOUSE WITH THE OTHER TWO PEOPLE IN THE FAMILY? I MEAN, YES, LONG TERM, WHATEVER.
BUT I WANT TO SAY WE LIVED IN WE HAVE LIVED IN SOUTHLAKE 30 YEARS.
ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE OPPOSED TO THIS.
THE AVERAGE TIME THAT THEY'VE LIVED IN SOUTHLAKE OF ALL OF US, EIGHT THAT OPPOSED IT IS 19 YEARS.
WE'VE BEEN THROUGH A LOT OF CHANGE.
WE LIVED IN SOUTHRIDGE LAKES FOR 24 YEARS AND THEN MOVED OUT HERE, WE'RE IN HERE SIX YEARS.
WE DIDN'T NEED THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOW YOU'RE GOING TO PUT A HOUSE IN THERE.
NOT EVEN THINKING THAT THIS WOULD BE SUBDIVIDED.
AND SO I'M REALLY AGAINST IT BECAUSE OF THE TREES THAT I HAVE EVERYTHING OUT THERE.
PUBLIC HEARING REMAINS OPEN FOR ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO COME UP ONE LAST TIME HERE.
GOING ONCE, TWICE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM.
I GUESS I'LL TURN IT OVER TO COMMISSIONERS NOW.
BASICALLY, A POLITE REVISION REQUEST WITH THE VARIANTS THAT THE LOT NOT FRONT ON A PUBLIC STREET, SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND START.
I MEAN, I HAVE TO SAY, I THINK I'M A KIND OF A HARD NO ON THIS ONE.
I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO.
IN FACT, I PURCHASED THE HOME THAT I LIVE IN.
IT HAS A CASITA THAT MY MOM MOVED OUT, MOVED OUT TO TEXAS WITH US.
SHE LIVED IN A SEPARATE BUILDING UNTIL SHE PASSED AWAY.
AND IT'S ALL IN ONE LIGHT, OF COURSE.
BUT SO I UNDERSTAND WANTING TO HAVE FAMILY NEARBY, BUT I JUST CAN'T.
I'M KIND OF A HARD NO ON SUBDIVIDING A PROPERTY THAT DOESN'T HAVE ACCESS TO A PUBLIC ROAD.
I JUST THINK IT SETS A PRECEDENT LIKE THEY WERE MENTIONING.
IT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT I CAN EVEN REALLY CONSIDER OTHER.
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A, I GUESS, A BIT OF A CONFLICT HERE, THOUGH, IN TERMS OF WHAT THE FIRE MARSHAL SAYS IN TERMS OF ACCESS THAT I THINK I'D LIKE TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT.
I THINK THAT'S MAYBE THE RUB FOR ME IS UNDERSTANDING WHETHER THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, CONSIDERATION OR ANYTHING, PERHAPS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF
[01:45:01]
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS UP HERE.BUT I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD AT LEAST BE DISCUSSED AND RESOLVED.
STAFF, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, JUST SHOULD HAVE TOUCHED ON THAT, I GUESS.
AND YOU TOUCHED ON A LITTLE BIT IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH IT'S RELATED TO THIS OR NOT, BUT I MEAN, IT'S YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PROVE UP ACCESS FOR A FIRE TRUCK JUST TO GET A LOT.
SO IF YOU WANT TO CONSTRUCT SOMETHING RIGHT, I MEAN, JUST MAYBE TALK THAT THROUGH FOR.
I MEAN, IN TERMS OF ANALOGY, YES.
I THINK THEY HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY HAD MET PRETTY PREVIOUS OR PART OF THIS APPLICATION WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS A WORKABLE SOLUTION TO THAT SCENARIO AND BASED ON WHAT THEY'VE SAID THERE.
YOU ARE CORRECT WITH THE HOME CONSTRUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE PLOT PLANS AND PLANS ARE SUBMITTED WITH THAT HOME CONSTRUCTION.
RESIDENTIAL FIRE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS WILL HAVE TO BE MET AND SHOWN ON THOSE PLANS THAT COMPLY WITH WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL BELIEVES IS NECESSARY TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
YEAH, I MEAN, IT'S CERTAINLY PERTINENT QUESTION, BUT I THINK THEY COULD EVEN ASK FOR EVEN IF THEY COULDN'T GET THE ACCESS.
OTHER COMMISSIONERS WANT TO JUMP IN.
DR. SPRINGER YEAH, I THINK THIS IS JUST TOUGH.
IT JUST SETS A TOUGH PRECEDENT AND I THINK JUST THE RESALE VALUE OF IT.
YOU KNOW, IF AND WHEN THEY WANT TO SELL OR AT SOME POINT IT WILL BE SOLD.
SPRINGER PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.
I I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO TELL THEM HOW TO RUN THEIR BUSINESS, BUT I THINK THAT I WOULD NOT SPLIT THE LOTS.
I WOULDN'T EVEN TRY TO DO THAT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AS WE SAID BEFORE, IT'S ALL WELL AND GOOD AND EVERYBODY'S GOT GOOD INTENTIONS NOW.
BUT YOU KNOW, ONE OF THESE DAYS, SOMEBODY'S GOING TO DECIDE TO SELL THE WHOLE THING OR SELL OFF THEIR LOT OR WHATEVER, AND IT'S JUST GOING TO LEAD TO A MESS.
AND I ALSO DON'T LIKE SETTING A PRECEDENT FOR SOMETHING THAT.
ANY OTHER? QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DIALOG, COMMISSIONER.
YEAH, AGAIN, THIS IS A LITTLE TOUGH FOR ME, I'M CERTAINLY SYMPATHETIC TO THE APPLICANT'S DESIRE.
BUT I AM I'M GOING TO HAVE TO SAY NO BASED ON THE PRECEDENT OF VARIANTS REQUESTING A LOT WITHOUT ACCESS TO A STREET, SO IT'S A NO FOR ME.
ANY OTHER VICE CHAIRMAN? I MEAN, IT'S IT'S A TOUGH ONE.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE A STRONG OPINION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
I FRANKLY DON'T THINK THIS EVER GETS PAST CITY COUNCIL, SO THAT WOULD PROBABLY DRIVE MY DECISION.
I DON'T THINK THEY EVER APPROVED THE VARIANCE.
YEAH, I DON'T I DON'T I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO ANY OF THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.
SO WITH THAT, I GUESS UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER DIALOG, WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
AND I GUESS, KEN, A QUESTION IF IF THE MOTION IS TO DENY THIS, DO WE HAVE TO SPECIFY THAT WE'RE DENYING THE ENTIRE ITEM OR WE'RE DENYING THE VARIANCE? OR WHAT'S THE RIGHT WAY TO PHRASE THAT YOU CAN JUST DENY, DENY THE THE ITEM OR DENY THE ITEM INDICATING DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE? OK.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DENY ITEM NUMBER NINE ON OUR AGENDA.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND SECOND? OKAY.
OK, JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE USUALLY I SAY THAT I FORGOT TO SAY THAT SO.
SO VOTE YES IS DENY PASSES SEVEN ZERO AND THIS IS THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, SO THIS CAN GO TO CITY COUNCIL IF THE APPLICANT CHOOSES.
IT WILL OBVIOUSLY CARRY THAT DENIAL RECOMMENDATION WITH IT, BUT I SUPPOSE THE APPLICANT COULD ALSO POTENTIALLY MODIFY AS REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION TO THE COUNCIL AS WELL, I GUESS, DIRECTOR BAKER.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND, SORRY? WE DID, YES.
SO THANK YOU, EVERYBODY FOR COMING OUT ON ITEM NUMBER NINE.
[01:50:01]
AND AGAIN, SAME SAME AS A PREVIOUS CASE.IF THAT ONE DOES GO TO COUNCIL.
THE FIRST UPCOMING COUNCIL MEETING IS TUESDAY, THE 18TH.
IT'S ONLY 8:30, DENNIS, IT'S NOT TOO LATE YET.
AND YEAH, THERE WAS A CELL PHONE LEFT DOWN HERE.
SO BUT SOMEBODY CLAIM THAT THANK YOU.
IF IT'S OK WITH EVERYBODY, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THIS A LITTLE OUT OF ORDER
[11. Consider: ZA21-0101, Preliminary Plat for Keen Homeplace on property described as Tracts 1C01E1, 1C01E1A, 1C1E1A1, 1C01E1B, and 1C1E1C, Joel W. Chivers Addition, Abstract No. 350, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, located at 2645 - 2745 Ridgecrest Drive, Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: "SF-1A" Single Family Residential District. SPIN Neighborhood #2. PUBLIC HEARING]
BECAUSE I THINK ITEM NUMBER 11 MAY TAKE A LITTLE BIT SHORTER TIME THAN ITEM TEN, SO WE CAN LET THE APPLICANTS FOR ITEM NUMBER 11 CLEAR OUT.SO WE'LL SKIP 10 REALLY QUICKLY.
I PROMISE WE'LL GET BACK TO IT.
BUT ITEM 11 IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR KEEN HOME PLACE.
SOUTHLAKE AND DENNIS, YOU'RE RIGHT, WE ACTUALLY DID REVIEW THIS ONE IN DETAIL IN OUR WORK SESSION EARLIER, SO I THINK YOU CAN SKIP MS. CHAIRMAN, AND I'LL JUST JUMP TO THE APPROVED CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE SF1A, A ZONING THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE WITH THE PROPERTY WITH THE APPROVAL OF KCA 21040048 ONE ZERO FOUR ZERO ZERO FOUR EIGHT.
AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLOT.
THE PLOT DOES CONFORM WITH ALL CONDITIONS PUT IN PLACE WITH THAT CONCEPT PLAN AND ZONING.
AND I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE FROM THIS POINT.
OK, SO AGAIN, MAYBE AND WE MIGHT DO THIS AGAIN ON THE NEXT ONE, BUT I GUESS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE DENNIS OR KEN, CAN YOU JUST KIND OF OUTLINE AGAIN WHAT OUR PURVEY IS HERE ON PRELIMINARY PLATS? AND JUST CONFIRMING AGAIN, THIS IS IN AGREEMENT WITH ALL PRIOR APPROVALS FOR THIS APPLICATION, CORRECT? YES.
AND THEN JUST RIGHT, THIS THIS IS A WHAT WE CONSIDER A CLEAN PRELIMINARY PLAT.
THE PLAIN ZONING COMMISSION BASED ON TEXAS HOUSE BILL THREE ONE SIX SEVEN, WHICH INCLUDES PRELIMINARY PLATS, REQUIRES YOU TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS BECAUSE THERE ARE NO VARIANCES AS ESSENTIALLY MINISTERIAL FUNCTION.
THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION.
OK, SO AGAIN, SO MUCH STATE LEGISLATURE DRIVEN.
OK, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE? OK, BUDDY, NO QUESTIONS, OK? IS THE APPLICANT HERE ON THIS ITEM.
NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE, AND JUST IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT, I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BUT.
ETHAN MARCUS FIFTEEN NINETY ONE SOUTH GRANVILLE CIRCLE STAFF OUTLINED THIS GREAT.
SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR MR. DIAT'S HERE, IF STAFF HAS ANY QUESTIONS AND ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
ALL RIGHT, I THINK WE'RE GOOD.
SO THANK YOU, WE'LL CALL YOU BACK UP IF WE NEED YOU.
ITEM 11 DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING.
I DID GET ONE COMMENT CARD FROM MR. RICHARD DIAT, WHO SURPRISINGLY ENOUGH SUPPORTS THIS ITEM.
I SUPPOSE YOU'RE OK IF YOU DON'T SPEAK ON THIS JUST DULY NOTED FOR THE RECORD.
ANYONE ELSE WANT TO COME UP AND COMMENT ON THIS ITEM WHILE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS OPEN? SEEING NO ONE ELSE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I GUESS MUSTERS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
COMMENTS WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 11 ON OUR AGENDA.
ZA 20, ONE TWO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED DECEMBER 30TH, 2021 AND ALSO SUBJECT TO OUR REVIEW.
SUMMARY NUMBER TWO DATED DECEMBER 30TH, TWENTY TWENTY ONE.
WE HAVE A SECOND DOWN TO MY RIGHT.
CONGRATULATIONS, GOOD LUCK AT THE NEXT LEVEL.
OK, NOW WE'LL COME BACK TO ITEM 10.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE ON THAT ONE.
[10. Consider: ZA21-0099, Preliminary Plat for The Conservation on property described as Lot 10, Block 2, Harbor Oaks, an addition to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, and Tract 5, Rees D. Price Survey, Abstract No. 1207, Southlake, Texas and addressed as 2970 Burney Ln. and 3185 Southlake Park Dr., Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: "R-PUD" Residential Planned Unit Development District. SPIN Neighborhood #2. PUBLIC HEARING]
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT ALSO FOR THE CONSERVATION.SO DENNIS, I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR YOU HERE, PLEASE.
UH, THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLOT FOR THE CONSERVATION TOTAL AREA REFLECTED IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IS APPROXIMATELY THIRTEEN POINT ONE PORTION OF THAT THIRTEEN POINT ONE ACRES.
A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY ACTUALLY BEING SUBDIVIDED BY WAY OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IS APPROXIMATELY ELEVEN POINT TWENTY FIVE ACRES.
IT INCLUDES SEVEN RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON THAT ELEVEN POINT TWENTY FIVE
[01:55:05]
ACRES.THE PROPERTIES INVOLVED ARE 29 70 BURNIE LANE AND THIRTY ONE POINT EIGHTY FIVE SOUTHLAKE SOUTHLAKE PARK AND I'LL NOTE 29 70 IS A LOT 10 BLOCK TWO OF HARBOR OAKS.
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE PROPERTY IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTIES ARE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY.
THE PORTION OF PROPERTY BEING SUBDIVIDED BY THE PRELIMINARY PLAT ARE WITHIN THIS BOUNDARY AREA.
THIS IS THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED AS PART OF THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
UH, THE PROPERTY IS TO BE SERVED BY A PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT.
AND WAS APPROVED AS PART OF THAT PRELIMINARY OR, EXCUSE ME, APPROVED RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
THIS IS THE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLOT.
THE ELEVEN POINT TWENTY FIVE ACRES IS REFLECTED ALONG THIS BOUNDARY.
A LOT LOT TEN BLOCK TO A HARBOR OAKS, WHICH FRONTS ON BURNING LANE, IS LOCATED ON THIS PORTION OF THE PLATT EXHIBIT.
THIS IS THE APPROVED TREE CONSERVATION ANALYSIS DONE AS PART OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
AREAS IN GREEN ARE ALL PRESERVATION AREAS.
AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED TREE CONSERVATION PLAN.
ALL TREES TO REMAIN ARE SHOWN IN BLUE.
THOSE ANTICIPATED TO BE REMOVED ARE IN RED.
THESE ARE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNER RESPONSES THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, THOSE ARE ALL SHOWN IN RED, ARE IN OPPOSITION.
AND WITH THAT, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
OK, SO DENIS, SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS CASE, GOT ANOTHER PRELIMINARY PLAT.
THIS ONE ALSO CONFORMS TO ALL PREVIOUS APPROVALS.
SO THE STATEMENTS THAT I GUESS DIRECTOR BAKER MADE EARLIER ABOUT RELATIVE TO STATE LAW AND THIS BEING FAIRLY MINISTERIAL IN NATURE IS STILL APPLIES TO THIS ONE AS WELL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF? OK.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR THIS ITEM? MIND.
NAME AND ADDRESS, AND IF THERE'S ANY KIND OF QUICK.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSION MEMBERS, MY NAME'S RICH DEOTTE.
I LIVE AT 112 KEYSTONE IN SOUTHLAKE.
AND I AM ACTING AS THE AGENT FOR THIS PROJECT TONIGHT, WHICH HAS BEEN THROUGH A ZONING CASE ALREADY SUBSTANTIAL CONCERN ABOUT THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND AND ALL OF THE DISCUSSIONS HAVE BEEN HAD.
SO WE WE THINK THIS PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING THAT THE CITY IS EXPECTING AND WE ARE READY TO GET STARTED, SO I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OF THEM.
OK, ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS FOR THE.
THE LAST ITEM HERE ON OUR AGENDA, ITEM NUMBER 10, DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARINGS, SO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING.
I GOT A HANDFUL OF COMMENT CARDS AGAIN.
I'LL START WITH THE ONES WHO DO NOT WISH TO SPEAK BUT WOULD LIKE TO RECORD SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION.
I'LL START WITH I THINK IT'S THELMA WILSON 2930 BERNIE LANE DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK IS IN OPPOSITION.
ELAINA SOTO 1065 HARBOR HAVEN DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK AS AN OPPOSITION.
RICH DEOTTE 112 AT KEYSTONE DRIVE.
I WOULD LIKE TO RECORD HIS SUPPORT FOR THAT ITEM SURPRISING ENOUGH.
JULIA, I THINK STANTIC, SORRY.
2825 BERNIE DOES NOT WISH TO SPEAK WOULD LIKE TO RECORD HER OPPOSITION HANS SCHROEN, 2895 TWENTY EIGHT NINETY FIVE BERNIE LANE DOES NOT MUCH TO SPEAK.
WOULD LIKE TO RECORD HIS OPPOSITION.
NOW I'VE GOT SOME COMMENT CARDS, I BELIEVE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
I THINK STARTING WITH HERE, LET'S SEE GRAHAM.
GRAHAM JOHNSON, HOPEFULLY YOU READ THAT RIGHT.
[02:00:01]
2940, BERNIE LANE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION ON THIS SIDE OF.AND I THINK I THINK YOU'VE ALL BEEN HERE FOR THE WHOLE EVENING, SO HOPEFULLY I DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THE GROUND RULES AGAIN, BUT LET ME KNOW IF I NEED TO HELP.
GRAHAM JOHNSON, 2940 BERNIE LANE.
I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE CURRENT UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE.
IT CURRENTLY CANNOT KEEP UP WITH THE HOUSES ON ITS GRID.
I HAVE CONCERNS THAT THE FIRE CODE IS BLATANTLY BEING DISREGARDED.
I HAVE A QUESTION OF WHY THE LOT MR. HOUSEMAN, WHO PREVIOUSLY OWNED IT, DOES NOT HAVE TO BE REPLATTED, EVEN THOUGH IS CLEARLY IN THE CONSERVATION HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
ON A LIGHTER NOTE, AND FOR ANYONE WHO WASN'T HERE ON THE FIRST GO ROUND, I'D LIKE TO QUICKLY GO OVER SOME OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED.
WE HAVE A LANDOWNER WHO SIMPLY WANTS TO SELL HER PROPERTY, SHE SHOULD HAVE THAT RIGHT.
SHE CARES NOTHING ABOUT DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY.
WE HAVE THE CURRENT OWNER OF HORSEMAN'S LOT, WHOEVER THAT IS.
HE WAS TRYING TO PUT A PUBLIC ROAD THROUGH THEIR PROPERTY, WHICH CLEARLY BREAKS THE CURRENT DEEDS AND RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE IN PLACE ON THAT PROPERTY.
WE HAVE A CHILDISH LAND DEVELOPER THAT ONCE, AS HE ONCE SOLD THE DEAL, THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO SEND MEAN TEXT TO SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS.
WORSE YET, WE HAVE A REAL ESTATE AGENT WHO, IN ORDER TO PROTECT HIS OWN COMMISSION, IS CLEARLY TRYING TO FORCE RACISM INTO A SITUATION WHERE IT DOESN'T EXIST.
THOSE ARE THE TYPE OF PEOPLE THAT ARE POISONING OUR SOCIETY AT SOME POINT, I THINK I WAS ACCUSED OF NOT BEING FROM TEXAS.
NEXT, SPEAKER, I THINK JACK FREDERICKS, IF I'M READING IT RIGHT, 2960 BERNIE LANE, WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION.
JACK FREDERICKS 2960, BERNIE LANE, SOUTHLAKE.
WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THIS IN FRONT OF ALL OF YOU.
SO JUST A REMINDER OF A COUPLE OF FEW THINGS.
ALTHOUGH IT WAS APPROVED, THE LOTS ARE WITHIN THE GUIDELINES OF THE CITY WITHIN ONE ACRE.
BUT IT IS NOT WITHIN THE ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD.
ALL OF OUR LOTS ARE TWO ACRES OR LARGER.
THIS IS A EQUESTRIAN NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS NOT A IN-TOWN DEVELOPMENT.
GRAHAM'S ALREADY SPOKEN ABOUT THE WHAT'S HAPPENING AND HOUSEMAN'S LOT AND HOW THAT'S BEING DIVIDED.
SEEMS TO ME IT'S JUST A WORKAROUND THAT IS A LOT IN AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION IN HARBOR OAKS AND TO GRANT THAT EASEMENT WHEN IN FACT IT WASN'T INTENDED TO DO SO BREAKS OUR COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS.
UTILITIES, WE SPOKE RIGHT AFTER THE GREAT FREEZE, AND ALL OF US IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD LOST GAS BECAUSE OF THE DEMAND, AND WE'VE RAISED THIS BEFORE.
CONCERNED ABOUT WATER, THIS DEVELOPMENT OBVIOUSLY WAS DONE IN THE 70S.
THEIR LARGER CAPACITIES ARE MUCH BIGGER.
HOPEFULLY, WE DON'T HAVE A CHANCE TO TEST THE WATER.
BUT THIS IS, YOU KNOW, BACKS UP TO TO THE LAKE.
AND IF WE HAVE A MAJOR FIRE THROUGH THERE, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE EVEN A BIGGER PROBLEM THAN WE HAD WITH THE NATURAL GAS BECAUSE WE RAN OUT OF NATURAL GAS WITH THE FREE.
SO I THINK UTILITIES NEED TO BE LOOKED AT SEVERELY.
I THINK THAT'S OUR BIGGEST ISSUE.
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AND I'D ASK THE CITY TO CONSIDER ALL OF OUR SAFETY CONSIDERING WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THESE LOTS.
AND THEN THE LAST PIECE IS BACK TO THE EASEMENT.
IF YOU START SETTING THIS PRECEDENT, JUST LIKE THE PREVIOUS APPLICANT I DO UNDER TWO TO AGENDA ITEMS. PREVIOUS.
I KNOW THIS IS DIFFERENT, BUT ALLOWING THESE SMALLER LOTS.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THESE LARGER LOTS CONTINUE TO BE SUBDIVIDED AND IT'S JUST GOING TO RUIN OUR EQUESTRIAN NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK MARY VAN SANT O'CONNOR, HOPEFULLY I SAW THAT RIGHT.
2965 BERNIE LANE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION ON THIS ITEM.
EVENING, MARY VAN SANT O'CONNOR, 2965 BERNIE LANE, WHEN THIS WAS APPROVED, THE CITY COMPLETELY IGNORED THE FACT THAT WE HAD GATES AND RESTRICTIONS THAT PREVENTS A LOT BEING SUBDIVIDED AND USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE THAN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
[02:05:01]
NOW, THIS LOT IS GOING TO HAVE A PUBLIC ROAD PUT THROUGH IT.IT'S BEING SUBDIVIDED FOR A LOT AND THEN A GREEN SPACE, WHICH REALLY BY LAW WILL REQUIRE IT TO BE REPLATED.
WE HAVE OVER A MAJORITY OF THE HOMEOWNERS WHO HAVE SIGNED A PETITION AND JOINED OUR LLC OF PROTECT HARBOR OAKS COALITION.
WE HAVE A SUIT AGAINST WHATEVER OR WHOEVER THE OWNER IS ON 2970 BERNIE LANGE.
IT'S CHANGED HANDS MANY TIMES.
EVERY TIME WE FILE A SUIT, THEY CHANGE HANDS.
SO THEN WE HAVE TO AMEND THE SUIT AND FIND OUT WHO IT HAS.
SO IT'S KIND OF A LITTLE SHELL GAME THAT'S BEEN PLAYED.
IT'S CHANGED HANDS THREE TIMES NOW.
SO YOU WILL BE SETTING A BIG PRECEDENT THAT THIS LOT CAN BE SUBDIVIDED AND THAT OUR [INAUDIBLE] RESTRICTIONS MEAN NOTHING.
ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE FORMER CITY COUNCIL AND THE FORMER MAYOR.
THEY TOLD US TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION.
SO NOW WE HAVE SUITS OUT THERE, IT'S COSTING US MONEY TO DEFEND THIS.
AND THAT WAS UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE.
THEY WEREN'T GOING TO UPHOLD OUR DEEDS AND RESTRICTIONS, BUT THEY ENCOURAGED US TO GO AHEAD AND GET OUT THERE AND DO LEGAL PRECEDENT.
I THINK IT'S IT'S JUST WRONG, AND IT'S JUST COMPLETELY WRONG.
NEXT COMMENT CARD IS I CAN READ THE ADDRESS.
SO HOPEFULLY IF YOU KNOW YOUR ADDRESS, IT'S ROD.
MAYBE IN RICA'S OR I APOLOGIZE.
I'LL LET YOU STATE IT RATHER THAN TRYING IT, SO I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION ON THIS SIDE OF.
GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS ROD ZIELKE WITH ZPS ENGINEERS AND 1111 SOUTH MAIN STREET IN GRAPEVINE, TEXAS.
THE AREA A LOT OWNERS ASKED ME AS A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER TO KIND OF LOOK OVER THIS APPLICATION AND MAKE SOME COMMENTS, AND I KIND OF RUSHED OUT A REPORT TO YOU TODAY.
I HOPE YOU'VE HAD TIME TO REVIEW THAT.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU REVIEW THAT BEFORE YOU MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT, BUT JUST QUICKLY ON THREE MINUTES, IT'S DIFFICULT TO GO OVER ALL THESE COMMENTS.
BUT ONE OBSERVATION IS, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THE WATER SYSTEM THAT SERVES THE ENTIRE BURNIE AREA 200 ACRES AT 80 EXISTING HOMES WITH A SINGLE POINT OF SERVICE AND OVER TWO OR THREE MILES OF INTERNAL WATER LINE IS A CONCERN.
I MEAN, STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE AND PLANNING PRACTICE, AS YOU'RE PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH FROM REVIEWING MANY OTHER CASES, WOULD NOT ALLOW A SINGLE WATER LINE TO SERVE.
AT LEAST MY FAMILIARITY WITH THE CITY CODE MORE THAN 20 RESIDENTIAL LOTS BEFORE IT WOULD HAVE TO BE HAVE A SECOND POINT ACCESS BE LOOPED SO SO THAT THAT CREATES SUSPICION IN ITSELF WHEN YOU LOOK AT A WATER SYSTEM THIS LARGE AND YOU SEE ONE SINGLE POINT OF ACCESS.
SO, YOU KNOW, A WATER DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS, WHICH IS TYPICALLY WHAT CITY ENGINEERS OR CITIES PERFORM TO EVALUATE THE ADEQUACY OF A SYSTEM LIKE THIS SHOULD BE PERFORMED.
ONE OF THE REASONS MY REPORT WAS A LITTLE LATE I'M STILL WAITING TO HEAR SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND SOME RESEARCH I'M DOING IN THE CITY.
BUT WHAT I'M FINDING OUT IS, YEAH, THE THE ONLY FAMILIARITY THAT THE CITY HAS WITH THIS WATER SYSTEM IS WHEN THE FIRE MARSHAL WENT OUT AND DID A POINT PRESSURE TAC PRESSURE CHECK IN A SPECIFIC POINT IN TIME FLOW ANALYSIS.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE WATER DEPARTMENT DOES ALSO.
LET ME EMPHASIZE, THIS IS AN ENGINEERING ISSUE.
WHEN YOU DO A POINT PRESSURE ANALYSIS OR A POINT FLOW ANALYSIS AND A SPECIFIC POINT AND A SPECIFIC TIME, YOU'RE NOT ANALYZING THE DISTRIBUTION WITHIN A TIRE SYSTEM.
THE WATER SYSTEM IS LIKE A LIVING BREATHING ANIMAL.
THE WATER FLOWS FROM HIGH PRESSURE TO LOW PRESSURE, THE HIGH PRESSURE BEING THE DISTRIBUTION POINT THROUGH ITS, YOU KNOW, IN THIS CASE, TWO MILES OF TENTACLES.
AND SO IF YOU GET WHEN YOU TURN THE WATER FAUCET ON IN YOUR HOUSE, THAT DROPS THE PRESSURE.
AT THAT POINT, WATER FLOWS FROM HIGH TO LOW.
OR YOU CAN IMAGINE HOW MANY PRESSURE CHANGES ARE HAPPENING IN THIS SYSTEM.
SO THE DYNAMICS OF A WATER SYSTEM IS VERY COMPLEX THERE.
SOFTWARE THAT MODELS THAT AND EVALUATES THE CAPABILITY OF THE SYSTEM AND WHAT THE IMPACT OF OTHER USES ON THE SYSTEM WOULD BE.
SO WATER DISTRIBUTION, DO YOU MIND CONCLUDING YOUR COMMENTS, SIR?
[02:10:04]
YOU CAN CUT ME OFF.I JUST ASKING IF YOU MIND CONCLUDING YOUR COMMENTS? OK, SO SO.
SO THERE'S WATER DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS IS A COMMONLY DONE THING.
THERE'S PLENTY OF ENGINEERS IN THE AREA.
YOU GET AN INDEPENDENT ENGINEER TO LOOK AT IT, AND HERE'S HERE'S WHAT COULD HAPPEN.
NUMBER ONE, THE ANALYSIS WOULD COME BACK AND SAY THAT THE SYSTEM IS COMPETENT, CAN HANDLE THESE HOMES, COVERS THE CITY, COVERS THE DEVELOPER.
HE SHOULD BE CONCERNED AND ADDRESSES THE RESIDENTS CONCERNS, AT LEAST ON THIS ISSUE.
IF IT COMES BACK AND SHOWS A DEFICIENCY, YOU HAVE A DEVELOPER HERE PRESENTING A PROJECT HE MAY BE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN ADDRESSING THE SYSTEM DEFICIENCY.
I WOULD THINK HE WOULD BE FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF HIS NEW RESIDENTS, COVERS THE CITY, ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS OF THE CITIZENS.
SO IT'S A PRETTY SIMPLE SOLUTION AND IT DOESN'T TAKE THAT MUCH TIME OR EXPENSE.
AND THIS AREA HAS NEEDED THIS FOREVER, AND NOW WE HAVE THE IMPETUS OF ADDING MORE TAX ON THE EXISTING SYSTEM.
SO I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.
I HAVE SOME OTHER OBSERVATIONS.
PLEASE READ THE REPORT, I THINK.
I THINK THEY'RE AS SIGNIFICANT AS THE WATER ISSUE.
NEXT CARD IS, I THINK, RAY CHANCELLOR 890 HARBOR COURT SPEAK IN OPPOSITION.
890 HARBOR COURT, 890 HARBOR COURT.
YES, I'M GOING TO DEVIATE A LITTLE BIT.
CAN YOU PUT THE AERIAL VIEW UP? SOME OF YOU, I DON'T KNOW, AND TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND.
DURING THE 1970S, I DID BIRD BANDING RESEARCH IN THIS AREA PRODUCED FIVE YEARS WORTH OF JOURNALS DOCUMENTING THE WILDLIFE IN THE AREA THAT.
WELL, ACTUALLY, IT'S PART OF THIS PROPERTY, BUT THE IMPORTANT THING AND THE REASON.
IF WE CAN DO IT, IF YOU'LL NOTICE THIS, THIS IS WHAT'S CALLED KIRKWOOD CREEK.
WELL, THIS IS ACTUALLY QUAIL CREEK.
KIRKWOOD CREEK COMES IN FROM THE OTHER SIDE.
BUT NOTICE ALL OF THE TREES THAT ARE HERE IN THE REASON I'M TALKING TO YOU THIS TIME IS AND I DIDN'T PUT IN FAVOR OR AGAINST.
I WANT YOU TO AT LEAST BE AWARE OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING TO THE ECOSYSTEM OF SOUTHLAKE AND WHAT THAT HAS TO DO WITH FUTURE GENERATIONS.
ONCE, ONCE THIS HOUSING ADDITION IS BUILT, YOU'RE STRIPPING OUT A GOOD PORTION.
OF THE ECOSYSTEM THAT SITS HERE AND WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT AND WHY DOES KEN GET TIRED OF ME COMING UP EVERY TIME WE HAVE AN ECOSYSTEM ISSUE IS THAT THIS IS THE [INAUDIBLE] STONE OF THE WHOLE ECOSYSTEM OF SOUTHLAKE.
IF YOU WANT TO GO TO BOB JONES PARK ACROSS THE WAY, ALL OF THAT IS BEING GENERATED RIGHT OUT OF THIS AREA.
AND OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS, THAT'S HOW LONG WE'VE BEEN HERE THE LAST 30 YEARS.
IN THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, WE'VE LOST ABOUT 80 PERCENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, THE HABITAT THAT INCLUDES THE GRASSLANDS AND THE TIMBER.
THIS IS UNUSUAL AND UNIQUE BECAUSE IT SAT THERE SINCE 1952, VIRTUALLY UNDISTURBED.
AND THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING, AND IF YOU LOOK ON THIS SIDE, THIS USED TO NOT BE HERE.
YOU'RE COMING FROM LIBERTY PARK OFF OF DOVE HERE, BUT ONCE THIS IS TAKEN OUT, YOU CAN SEE WHAT'S DOING.
WE'RE CONSTRICTING THIS WHOLE ECOSYSTEM.
AND IT'S GOING TO BE GONE, AND I'M GOING TO TALK IN A HURRY, BUT KEEP THAT IN MIND.
THE SUSTAINABILITY MASTER PLAN SIDEWALK PLAN 20, 30 PLAN, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE SAYS YOU AS A CITY ARE GOING TO PROTECT THIS ENVIRONMENT.
YOU SHOW ME WHERE YOU'RE ACTUALLY DOING THAT.
I CAN WILL PROBABLY TAKE OBJECTION TO THIS.
THERE'S NOT A PERSON IN THE SOUTHLAKE GOVERNMENT AND I'LL INCLUDE THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS HERE THAT CAN TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THAT ECOSYSTEM.
AND I HAVE BEEN DOCUMENTING IT FOR YEARS.
WE RUN GROUPS, WE'VE RUN AT LEAST 50 GROUPS OF PEOPLE UP IN HERE ON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES.
I KNOW I SEE THE ONLY THING I ASK YOU TO.
AS YOU LOOK AT THIS PROGRAM THAT'S BEING PRESENTED, THE SEPTIC SYSTEM, THE TREE COVER, EROSION OR CONTROL WILDLIFE CORRIDORS, ALL OF THOSE ARE GOING TO IMPACT THIS SYSTEM.
[02:15:04]
AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THIS DEVELOPMENT AND HOW IT'S GOING TO AFFECT THIS SYSTEM, YOU'VE GOT PROBLEMS. BECAUSE IT'S LIKE THE OLD ADAGE ABOUT THE OAK TREE, YOU PLANT THE OAK TREE NOT FOR YOU, BUT FOR THE SHADE, FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS AND TRYING TO PRESERVE A LITTLE BIT OF THIS ENVIRONMENT.AND THIS IS I'M HERE IS NOT FOR ME.
BUT FUTURE GENERATIONS, IF YOU DON'T, IF ALL OF THIS DISAPPEARS, FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL NEVER HAVE IT.
AND WE WILL NOTE THAT YOU'RE NOT IN EITHER SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION.
LIKE YOU SAID, YOU'RE JUST COMMENTING.
SO I'M IN THAT NEXT COMMENT CARD.
IS KENNETH AND GLORIA LAND I BELIEVE.
2900 BERNIE LANE, WHO IS OPPOSED, I GUESS I'LL NOTE OPPOSED TO THIS, BUT I WASN'T SURE I WANTED TO SPEAK.
BUT RECORDING OPPOSITION AND THE NEXT COMMENT CARD IS AMY NEWBY, 2885 BERNIE LANE WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION.
HI, AMY NEWBY, 2885 BERNIE LANE, I WANTED TO SPEAK ABOUT THE EXISTING LOT IN HARBOR OAKS, AS MARY HAD MENTIONED, WE HAVE RETAINED LEGAL COUNSEL, AS WE WERE TOLD BY THE CITY.
THE GOVERNOR, THE GOVERNOR, I'M SO SORRY, THE MAYOR, THEY SAID THAT IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ENFORCE OUR DEED RESTRICTIONS, IT'S NOT THE CITY, OK? WE'RE DOING THAT.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE'VE LEARNED A LOT.
NUMBER ONE, WE'VE LEARNED THAT THE EXISTING LAW SHOULD BE REPLATTED AND THAT AS THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, YOU'RE NOT DOING THE RIGHT THING IF YOU DO NOT REQUEST THE APPLICANT TO REPLAT THE EXISTING LOT.
THE LEGAL TERMINOLOGY OF A REPLAT IS REQUIRED TO ALTER OR CREATE NEW LIGHT LINES, ADD OR REMOVE EASEMENTS OR ALTER ANY OTHER ASPECTS OF A RECORDED PLAT.
THEY'RE ADDING AN EASEMENT THERE, ALTERING IT.
THEY'RE PUTTING IN GREEN SPACE.
THE EXISTING LOT WITHIN HARBOR OAKS SHOULD BE REPLATTED.
THAT'S NUMBER ONE, NUMBER TWO ISSUE IS OUR GAS LINE THE OTHER NIGHT ON SUNDAY, WHENEVER IT GOT QUICKLY DROPPED DOWN.
YOU KNOW, IT WAS 70 THAT MORNING AND 20 THAT NIGHT.
WE WERE ALREADY HAVING GAS ISSUES AGAIN.
WE ALREADY HAD NEIGHBORS WITHIN OUR SUBDIVISION WHO COULDN'T GET THEIR FURNACES TO FIRE.
SO IT WASN'T JUST DURING THE ICE STORM.
WE HAVE A MAJOR GAS ISSUE OUT THERE.
AND THEN ROD'S ALREADY SPOKEN ON THE WATER ISSUE.
YES, WE'RE AN OLD SUBDIVISION.
WE HAVE ONE ENTRY POINT TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THOSE ARE ALL, WELL, YOU KNOW, THEIR SAFETY ISSUES FOR OUR FAMILIES.
AND SO WE HOPE THAT YOU ALL TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU ARE SITTING HERE LOOKING AT THIS, THE OTHER PLEASE LOOK AT THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE CITY COMMISSIONERS HAVE PUT ON THE APPLICANT LAST TIME THERE WAS A LIST OF ALL THINGS THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO BEFORE THEY BROUGHT IT BACK.
THEY HAVEN'T BEEN DONE A COUPLE OF THOSE THINGS.
THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO REACH OUT TO SPECIFIC NEIGHBORS ABOUT THINGS THAT HASN'T HAPPENED AND THEY WERE ALSO SUPPOSED TO BRING SOMETHING.
AND I SPECIFICALLY REMEMBER I CAN'T REMEMBER IT WAS LAURA HILL OR JOHN HUFFMAN, BUT ONE OF THEM SPECIFICALLY SAID, YOU GOT TO BRING SOMETHING BACK FROM THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
YOU CAN'T JUST WALK IN HERE AND SAY, OH, THE CORPS SIGNED OFF ON IT.
WHERE IS THE DOCUMENTATION THAT IT IS OK TO DO THIS BRIDGE AND THAT IT YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT IN THE CORRECT MANNER? BUT AGAIN, THE MAIN ISSUE IS THE REPLATING OF THE EXISTING LOT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
AGAIN, AS WE'VE BEEN TOLD, PERCEPTION IS A BIG PORTION OF THE LAW.
EVERY SINGLE DOCUMENT AND EVERY SINGLE SLIDE SHOW THAT YOU SEE THE EXISTING LOT IS A PART OF THE CONSERVATION, NOT HARBOR OAKS.
BUT PERCEPTION AND EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING, IT IS NOW GOING TO BE A PART OF THE CONSERVATION IT NEEDS TO BE REPLANTED TO THE CONSERVATION.
THE PUBLIC HEARING DOES REMAIN OPEN ON THIS ITEM FOR ANYBODY ELSE.
YOU'D LIKE TO COME OUT AND COMMENT.
I'M OUT OF COMMENT CARDS, SO I'LL JUST GIVE IT ONE LAST OPENING HERE FOR ANYBODY ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO COME UP.
NAME AND ADDRESS, FOR THE RECORD, IF YOU DON'T MIND, PLEASE THANK YOU.
PATRICIA BRAYTON, I'M REALLY INTERESTED IN TWO THINGS.
DO YOU MIND TELLING US YOUR ADDRESS? I'M SORRY.
YEAH, AND I'M READY AT THE VERY END IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF HOUSEMAN'S LOT.
BUT ANYWAY, SO I'VE LIVED THERE FOR ALMOST FIVE YEARS, AND I LIVED OVER ON SOUTHLAKE PARK ROAD FOR 13 YEARS.
SOUTHLAKE PARK ROAD HAS SOME TROUBLE WITH WATER PRESSURE.
THEY HAVE THEIR OWN, WELL SYSTEM.
[02:20:02]
ON BERNIE, I'M ON THE PUBLIC WATER, BUT HAVE A WELL FOR MY YARD.BUT IT'S INTERESTING THAT I LIVED ON SOUTHLAKE PARK ROAD AND HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THIS LOT.
THAT'S NOWHERE NEAR SOUTHLAKE PARK ROAD.
SO I'M CURIOUS AS TO HOW WE NOW HAVE SOUTHLAKE PARK ROAD ASSOCIATED WITH A LOT THAT'S ON BERNIE.
AND THERE IS CORE PROPERTY BETWEEN THERE.
NOW, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WAS SHOWN THAT WAY BEFORE.
IT WAS ONLY SHOWN THAT IT WAS ON ON BERNIE, WHICH IS TRUE.
I THINK LAST YEAR WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH ALL THIS, THAT THAT WASN'T IT WASN'T LISTED AS A SOUTHLAKE PARK ROAD ADDRESS.
SO I'M CURIOUS HOW THAT'S CHANGING AND WHY THAT'S CHANGING.
AND ALSO, THE GAS IS THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO MENTION.
SO WE HAD A WATER PRESSURE ISSUE ON SOUTHLAKE PARK ROAD, BUT I'M BURNING.
THE GAS ISSUE CAN BE VERY BAD, VERY BAD, AND I'M AT THE VERY WELL SECOND TO THE END OF ALL THE HOMES THERE.
WE HAVE I BELIEVE IT'S A TWO INCH LINE.
I BELIEVE UP TO BERNIE LANE, IT'S FOUR INCHES AND THEN IT GOES A LITTLE.
I THINK IT GOES PARTWAY BACK FOUR INCH.
THEN IT DROPS TO A TWO INCH LINE.
SO ONCE YOU'RE AS FAR BACK AS HOUSEMAN'S PROPERTY OR MY PROPERTY, THERE'S VERY LIMITED, YOU KNOW, GAS A LOT OF TIMES.
AND DURING SNOWMAGEDDON, WHICH GRANTED WAS AN EXCEPTION, BUT THERE WERE ACTUALLY TWO TANKER TRUCKS ON BERNIE LANE PROVIDING GAS FOR THE HOMES.
SO THEY ACTUALLY HAD TO, YOU KNOW, BRING IN GAS.
SO I THINK THAT'S A BIG PROBLEM FOR US.
LAST CALL, I GUESS, FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM NUMBER 10 ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING.
SEEING, NO OTHER PUBLIC SPEAKERS, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, ANY COMMISSIONER COMMENT? UM, AGAIN, I THINK A LOT OF A LOT OF ISSUES AND ITEMS BROUGHT UP, BUT AGAIN, RELATIVE TO WHAT STAFF HAS TOLD US AND CITY ATTORNEY HAS TOLD US OUR PURVEY THIS EVENING'S FAIRLY NARROW SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? HAD A QUESTION, CAN YOU CLARIFY IS THE THE LOT 10 THAT IS PART OF THIS PLAT THAT WE'RE THAT WE'RE APPROVING, RIGHT? IT IS.
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND THERE'LL BE A FINAL PLAT IN YOUR REVIEW SUMMARY.
THE NUMBER ONE COMMENT IS THAT THE LOT 10 WILL NOT BE PART OF THE THE NEW SUBDIVISION.
THEY ARE SHOWING IT FOR ILLUSTRATION TYPE PURPOSES TO HOW THAT CONNECTION IS GOING TO BE MADE.
IT IS A IT IS A COMMON ACCESS EASEMENT AND NOT A PUBLIC ROAD.
AND I WOULD JUST JUST ONE COMMENT, CHAIRMAN, I HEARD A COUPLE COMMENTS ON THE ATMOS PROJECT.
BEST TO THE CITY ON THE STATUS OF THAT, WE KNOW ATMOS IS WORKING TO SECURE A STAGING AREA OR LAY DOWN AREA TO BRING EQUIPMENT IN.
WE ANTICIPATE THAT PROJECT STARTING HERE VERY SHORTLY.
SO THAT PROJECT STILL IS PLANNING TO MOVE FORWARD ON ALL INDICATIONS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM ATMOS ENERGY CO..
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS.
MR. VICE CHAIRMAN, DO YOU WANT TO? PUT FORTH A MOTION.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 10 ON OUR AGENDA ZA21-0099.
SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATE OF JANUARY 5TH 2022.
AND ALSO SUBJECT TO OUR REVISED PLAT REVIEW.
SUMMARY NUMBER 1 DATED JANUARY 5, 2022.
WE HAVE A SECOND VOTE, PLEASE.
PASSES 7-0, BELIEVE THIS ALSO, I'M ASSUMING DIRECTOR BAKER THIS WOULD APPEAR AT THE JANUARY 18TH COUNCIL MEETING.
THANK YOU, EVERYBODY FOR COMING OUT TONIGHT.
SO NOW I'LL GO AHEAD AND GAVEL OUT OUR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR THIS EVENING.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.