[00:00:02]
ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY IT'S 6:38 P.M..
[1. Call to Order.]
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE WORK SESSION RAN A LITTLE LONG. MY NAME IS DAN KUBIAK, CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HERE IN CITY OF SOUTHLAKE. THANK YOU FOR COMING OUT TO OUR MEETING THIS EVENING, APRIL 17TH.WE'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A MANAGEABLE AGENDA THIS EVENING THAN WE DID THE LAST FEW MEETINGS.
SO WE'LL TRY TO GET THROUGH IT ALL AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE.
DENNIS, MAYBE I'LL START OFF AND SEE IF YOU HAVE ANY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS.
[3. Administrative Comments.]
YES. MR. CHAIRMAN, AS I MENTIONED IN OUR LAST MEETING, WE HAD ANTICIPATED HAVING OUR CIAC MEETING THIS EVENING, BUT NEEDED TO NEEDED TO MOVE THAT TO THE MAY 8TH MEETING.AND SO FOR MAY 8TH, WE'LL CONVENE AT 5:30 P.M.
AND THEN AFTER THAT GOING TO WORK SESSION AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
OKAY. NO, IT SOUNDS GOOD. I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU TO TO DEFINE CIAC FOR EVERYONE AROUND HERE.
THAT'S NOT A CITY GOVERNMENT NERD, BUT YOU DID SO THANK YOU FOR.
IT COULD BE FOR THAT MEETING. YES. SO OKAY. MAY 8TH.
NO T HANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE ANY CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS THIS EVENING.
SO WITH THAT, I THINK WE CAN MOVE ALONG TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA THIS EVENING.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
WE'VE GOT SEVERAL THINGS ON HERE. DENNIS MIGHT BE BETTER JUST TO TAKE THEM ONE BY ONE, I GUESS.I'M ASSUMING JUST TO BE OR YOU TELL ME. YOU ON THE CONSENT AGENDA UNLESS THERE'S A PARTICULAR NEED, YOU MAY TAKE A SINGLE ACTION ON BOTH ITEMS. OKAY, MAYBE I'LL MAYBE I'LL JUST ASK THE COMMISSION, I GUESS ON ITEMS FIVE, SIX AND SEVEN, THE MINUTES.
AND ITEM SEVEN, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ANYTHING WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT ON THOSE? IF NOT, I GUESS WE'LL ENTERTAIN WHATEVER MOTION YOU'D LIKE TO CRAFT, SIR.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE THE ITEMS ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FIVE, SIX AND SEVEN.
WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE, PLEASE.
I GOT NO VOTING SCREEN HERE. JUST TOUCH THE. YEAH.
HAVEN'T YOU DONE THIS BEFORE? 22 YEARS AND COUNTING.
ALL RIGHT. IT'S AT FIVE, DAVID. I THINK WE'RE LOOKING FOR SEE, IT'S OKAY FOR HIM TO HAVE TROUBLE. HE'S STILL A ROOKIE, BUT OKAY. GOOD.
OKAY. SIX ZERO. NO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH EVERYONE ON THAT.
AND THEN WE'LL GET INTO OUR REGULAR AGENDA. WE'VE GOT TWO ITEMS THAT I FAILED TO NEGLECT OR NEGLECTED TO SAY AT THE BEGINNING WHEN WE WERE GOING TO DO JUST OUT OF A COURTESY WAS MOVE UP ITEM NUMBER NINE IN FRONT OF EIGHT. THAT SHOULD BE FAIRLY EXPEDITIOUS.
SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO ITEM NUMBER NINE FIRST.
[9. Consider: ZA25-0019, Preliminary Plat for Linmar Estates, on property described as Lot 3, Joel W Chivers No. 350 Addition and Tract 3D01 , Rees D Price Survey Abstract No. 1207, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and located at 2735 and 2665 N. White Chapel Blvd., Southlake, Texas. Current Zoning: "RPUD" Residential Planned Unit Development. SPIN Neighborhood #1. PUBLIC HEARING]
WHICH IS A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LINMAR ESTATES.YEAH. GOOD EVENING. THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LINMAR ESTATES.
THIS IS FOR A TEN LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON APPROXIMATELY 10.85 ACRES.
AND THE LOCATION IS 2665 AND 2735 NORTH WHITE CHAPEL BOULEVARD.
THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY OFF OF WHITE CHAPEL BOULEVARD.
SO THE FUTURE LAND USE IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND THE ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
AND THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
JUST AN ENLARGED VIEW OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT.
THE TREE CONSERVATION ANALYSIS. AND SOME STREET VIEWS.
AND WE RECEIVED NO RESPONSES. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT ON THIS? ANY QUESTIONS OR. OKAY. WELL WE'LL SEE. AS VICE CHAIR WILL REMIND ME, ITEM NUMBER NINE ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING. SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. AND SEEING NO ONE, I GUESS I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND I'M ASSUMING THE APPLICANT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING HE WANTS.
OKAY. THE APPLICANT SAYS HE'S FINE IF WE'RE FINE.
SO I GUESS UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER DEBATE, AGAIN, IT'S IN FULL CONFORMANCE WITH PREVIOUS APPROVALS.
SO I THINK IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD, I GUESS.
[00:05:08]
SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED APRIL 11TH, 2025, AND ALSO SUBJECT TO OUR DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER ONE DATED APRIL 11TH, 2025. MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL RIGHT.SO PLEASE. AND PASSES SIX ZERO. CONGRATULATIONS AND GOOD LUCK AT THE NEXT MEETING FOR CITY COUNCIL WHICH WILL BE ROUGHLY MAY 6T, MAY 6TH IF YOU KEEP TRACK THERE, SIR.
SO ALL RIGHT, WE'LL GO AHEAD NOW AND JUMP BACK TO THE FINAL ITEM ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING.
[8. Consider: ZA25-0018, Zoning Change, Development Plan and Site Plan for Liberty Commons, on property described as Tracts 3D and 3C02, W R Eaves Survey Abstract No. 500, City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and located at 1963 W. Southlake Blvd and 200 S. Peytonville Ave. Current Zoning: "S-P-I" Detailed Site Plan District and "O-1" Office District. Requested Zoning: "RPUD" Residential Planned Unit Development and "S-P-1" Detailed Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #10. PUBLIC HEARING]
FOR LIBERTY COMMONS. YES. THIS IS A ZONING CHANGE, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND A SITE PLAN.THE CURRENT ZONING IS SP-1 DETAILED SITE PLAN DISTRICT AND O-1 OFFICE DISTRICT.
THIS IS AT 1963 WEST SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD AND 200 SOUTH PEYTONVILLE AVENUE.
WE DO HAVE SOME SITE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
IT TALKS ABOUT PROVIDING ACCESS BETWEEN PLAYERS CIRCLE AND PEYTONVILLE.
SOME CROSS ACCESS THERE. IT STATES THAT ANY OFFICE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND USES, ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE SENSITIVE TO THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, PARTICULARLY THE SOUTHLAKE WOODS NEIGHBORHOOD, PARTICULARLY RELATED TO NOISE, TRAFFIC, BUILDING HEIGHTS, LIGHTING AND VIEWS, AND BUILDING AND BUILDING LOCATION BUILDINGS LOCATED NEAR OR ALONG FM 1709 SHOULD BE NEAR THE FRONT BUILDING LINE, WITH PARKING OR THE MAJORITY OF PARKING BEHIND THE BUILDINGS.
AS I NOTED PREVIOUSLY, THE CURRENT ZONING IS SP-1 AND O-1.
HERE'S A STREET VIEW OF THE PROPERTY. ANOTHER STREET VIEW.
AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DETAIL. THEY ARE PROPOSING 14 RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
AND THEN THEY HAVE A DETENTION POND AND OPEN SPACE.
THE OPEN SPACE IS JUST UNDER 19%. AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DETAIL.
THEY ARE PROPOSING FIVE BUILDINGS. FOUR OF THEM ARE OFFICE PROPOSED AS OFFICE, AND THEN ONE IS PROPOSED AS A, LIKE A C-1 COMMERCIAL. BUT THEY ARE WANTING TO ADD A DRIVE THRU RESTAURANT AS AN ALLOWED USE FOR THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
THAT'S ON LOT FIVE. THIS IS THE MORE DETAILED SITE DATA SUMMARY CHART.
THE DRAINAGE PLAN. AND THESE ARE THE ELEVATIONS FOR THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT.
MORE ELEVATIONS. WE HAVE RECEIVED TWO SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNER RESPONSES, BUT THEY ARE FROM PROPERTIES WITH OUTSIDE THE 300FT. WE JUST RECEIVED THOSE TODAY.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I GUESS MAYBE A COUPLE.
I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY WE'VE SEEN THIS CASE BEFORE, I GUESS, AND IT SEEMED LIKE IF I'M REMEMBERING RIGHT FROM KIND OF WATCHING THE COUNCIL COMMENTS, I THINK PLUS OR MINUS, THE REQUEST WAS TO GET LOT SIZES CLOSER TO HALF AN ACRE.
WAS THAT KIND OF WHAT I'M REMEMBERING? YEAH. OKAY.
AND THEN MAYBE MORE OF A TECHNICAL QUESTION HERE, BUT, I MEAN, LOT SIZES ARE, YOU KNOW, THE NEW INCREASED LOT, LOT SIZES ARE GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE, I MEAN, THEY COULD RATHER THAN DO THIS AS A PUD WHERE THERE'S OPEN SPACE REQUIRED.
I MEAN, THEY COULD POTENTIALLY DO THIS AS LIKE AN SF-20.
YES. THAT WOULDN'T REQUIRE ANY OPEN SPACE. CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. THEY ARE SO THE RPUD IS BASED ON SF-20, BUT THEY ARE REVISING LIKE THE SETBACKS AND LOT COVERAGE A LITTLE BIT.
SO THEY'RE REDUCING THE THEY'RE PROPOSING REDUCED SETBACKS AND INCREASED LOT COVERAGE.
OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF HERE? OKAY. THANK YOU. I THINK I SEE THE APPLICANT OUT THERE, SO I'D ASK HIM TO PLEASE COME ON UP AND STATE HIS NAME AND ADDRESS.
AND THEN, AS I'M SURE YOU GUESS, I'LL SAY, SINCE WE'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE, YOU CAN PROBABLY,
[00:10:01]
YOU KNOW, GET RIGHT TO THE. WHAT'S CHANGED? I THINK THAT'S A BETTER FOCUS.SO RATHER THAN ALL THE OTHER BACKGROUND, I THINK WE KNOW.
THOSE OF YOU THAT WERE HERE IN NOVEMBER WHEN THIS CAME THROUGH P&Z AS A DIFFERENT PROJECT APPROVED THIS PLAN RIGHT HERE WITH 30 LOTS. AND WE WENT ON TO COUNCIL WITH THIS IN DECEMBER, PRESENTED THIS PLAN TO THEM, AND BECAUSE OF SOME LAST MINUTE CONVERSATIONS I HAD WITH SOME OF THOSE MEMBERS, WE ALSO PREPARED A PLAN WITH SLIGHTLY LARGER LOTS.
WE WENT FROM 30 TO 25 AT THAT MEETING. THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE WAS JUST, AS YOU CAN SEE, 9,238.
SO A LITTLE LESS THAN 10,000FT². 10,000FT² AT THAT MEETING SEEMED TO BE THE MAGIC NUMBER, AND WE WERE ASKED TO COME BACK AT THE SUBSEQUENT MEETING IN DECEMBER, SECOND READING WITH LOTS THAT WERE AT LEAST AVERAGE 10,000FT² FROM SOME OF THEM, MINIMUM 10,000FT² FROM OTHERS. SO WE CAME BACK IN DECEMBER 3RD WITH THIS PLAN.
IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT ONE WAY WE COULD GET BIGGER LOTS WAS TO ELIMINATE THE EMANATE THE GREEN BELT BETWEEN THE INTERIOR LOTS THERE, WHICH WE DID. TURNS OUT THAT WAS SUGGESTED FROM ONE SIDE OF THE COUNCIL, BUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COUNCIL LIKED THE GREEN BELT AND WANTED IT BACK IN.
SO YOU KNOW THAT THEY ASKED US TO RETURN WITH SOMETHING THAT THAT COMPLETED THAT GREEN BELT AND HAVE ALL THE LOTS MINIMUM OF 10,000FT². SO THIS 25 LOT PLAN CHANGED IN THE JANUARY MEETING TO A 23 LOT, 22 LOT PLAN, WHERE ALL LOTS WERE AT LEAST 10,000FT².
THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE WAS 11,248. AND WE THOUGHT THIS WAS RESPONSIVE TO THEIR REQUEST.
BUT IN BETWEEN TIME, I GUESS THEY CHANGED THEIR MIND.
AND THE COMMENTS WE GOT ON THAT MEETING FROM AT LEAST, BY THE WAY, THIS WAS I MEAN, THIS WAS VOTED THREE FOR THREE AGAINST. SO IT WASN'T OUTRIGHT REJECTED IT JUST DIDN'T PASS.
BUT THE COMMENTS WE GOT FROM THE THREE THAT VOTED AGAINST IT, ONE WAS YOU KNOW, CONCERNED ABOUT LOT SIZE. SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATIONS SEEMED TO INDICATE THAT THAT WASN'T THAT BIG OF A CONCERN.
BUT ONE BASICALLY SAID THAT THEY WANTED HALF ACRE LOTS.
SO I GUESS CUTTING TO THE CHASE, WE'RE HERE TODAY KIND OF RAISING THE WHITE FLAG AND SAYING, OKAY WE'RE WE'RE GOING RIGHT TO 20,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS.
AND HOPEFULLY THAT WILL MEET THE REQUIREMENT.
WE REALIZE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS WHEN THIS GETS TO COUNCIL.
SO EVEN THOUGH WE'RE SURROUNDED ON THREE SIDES BY COMMERCIAL, THE RESIDENTIAL IS SINCE THEY'RE SF-20 LOTS HERE, THAT WAS WHAT WAS DESIRED. SO AGAIN JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND FOR A COUPLE OF YOU THAT ARE NEW. THIS THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FOR THE AREA.
WE HAVE ALWAYS TRIED TO MEET THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IN THIS INSTANCE.
THERE'S THREE POINTS OF ACCESS TO THE COMMERCIAL, THE EXISTING ONE BETWEEN US AND THE WALGREENS, CENTERED ALONG SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD AND THEN THROUGH AN ACCESS EASEMENT FROM PLAYERS CIRCLE .
FROM THE RESIDENTIAL. THERE'S ACCESS FROM PEYTONVILLE, WHICH ALSO CONNECTS WITH AN ALREADY APPROVED OFFICE SITE PLAN TO THE SOUTH OF US, WHICH WILL, BY THE WAY, PRODUCE A WHOLE LOT MORE TRAFFIC ONTO PEYTONVILLE THAN WE COULD EVER HOPE TO PRODUCE.
[00:15:06]
BE ON PEYTONVILLE, BUT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO TO WORK THOSE INTO THE PROJECT.DURING THAT THE COUNCIL DELIBERATIONS, THERE WAS A LOT OF INTEREST ON TRAFFIC ON TO PEYTONVILLE DURING THE SCHOOL MORNING SCHOOL RUSH TIME. IT WAS SUGGESTED BY ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT THE CITY PLACE A, A NO U-TURN SIGN AT THE END OF THE MEDIAN THAT'S CROSSED THERE. SO PEOPLE COULDN'T COME OUT, GO AROUND AND YOU TURN DURING THE SCHOOL ZONE TIME.
WE AGREED TO FACILITATE THAT. AND THEN AT THE END WE OFFERED TO HAVE THE GATE BE THE EXIT GATE BE NON OPERABLE DURING THE SCHOOL ZONE TIME. SO THAT, THAT EVERYONE LEAVING IN THE MORNING, DURING THAT HOUR AND A HALF OR HOUR LONG, THAT IS WOULD WOULD BE ABLE TO GO OUT PLAYERS CIRCLE AND ACCESS SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD THAT WAY.
SO I THINK ANY CONCERNS ABOUT CONTRIBUTING TO THE TRAFFIC CONFLICTING WITH THE SCHOOL ZONE WAS ADDRESSED, AND I THINK FAVORABLY SO. TO THE COUNCIL I THINK THE REMAINING ISSUE WAS JUST LOT SIZE ON THAT.
SO WE'RE COMING BACK TODAY WITH ALL LOTS THAT, THAT ARE 20,000FT² ABOVE SO THEY MATCH THE SIZE OF THOSE ADJACENT TO US. THE COMMERCIAL PLAN IS BASICALLY THE SAME AS IT WAS.
NO ONE SEEMED TO HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS AND AND A DRIVE THRU RESTAURANT.
OUR ENTRY FROM PEYTONVILLE WOULD BE HERE. THE GATES WOULD BE BACK HERE BECAUSE WE'RE OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE CROSS ACCESS TO THE COMMERCIAL THAT WOULD BE TO THE SOUTH OF US HERE. THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER GATE HERE, BUT WOULD BE FULLY OPERABLE FOR RESIDENTS, SO THEY COULD LEAVE IN THE MORNING TO GET OUT HERE TO SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD WITHOUT AND I THINK IT WOULD BE DESIRABLE FOR THEM TO IF THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC OVER HERE TO AVOID THAT, THAT MESS AS WELL. SO THAT'S THE PLAN WE'RE BRINGING TO YOU.
THE DRAINAGE AND ALL THAT STUFF HAS BEEN CONSIDERED.
HERE'S THE AGAIN, THIS IS SIMILAR IF YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH IT, WE CAN.
BUT HERE'S ALL THE STATISTICS FOR THE COMMERCIAL.
AND HERE'S THE SITE DATA SUMMARY CHART FOR THE RESIDENTIAL.
AGAIN, THIS PART IS AN RPUD 14 LOTS AS OPPOSED TO THE 30.
WHEN YOU FIRST SAW IT, THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE IS OVER A FULL HALF ACRE 21.864 DENSITY OF 1.3 UNITS PER ACRE. DETAIL OF THE COMMERCIAL PORTION IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT DETAIL OF THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION HERE. THESE WERE OUR CONCEPTS FOR THE OFFICE BUILDINGS.
BUT IN ADDITION TO THOSE WE'VE WE'VE SUBMITTED FOUR SIDED ELEVATIONS ON EACH ONE.
SO ANYWAY, THAT'S OUR PLAN, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT ANY OF YOU HAVE.
QUESTIONS? WE'LL HEAR. WHEN DO YOU THINK THEY'RE GOING TO DEVELOP THE COMMERCIAL PART THAT'S ON PEYTONVILLE? ARE YOU SEEING THAT IN THE NEAR FUTURE? I DON'T KNOW.
I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, I GO INTO PLAYERS CIRCLE THERE, YOU KNOW, I HAVE A CHIROPRACTOR THAT'S IN THERE AND GETTING OUT OF ON BACK ONTO 114. I MEAN, ON THE SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD IS A BEAR THERE.
IF THEY IF YOU DID SHUT DOWN THERE THE OTHER DRIVE.
SO I DON'T KNOW BOY THAT'S, THAT'S GOING TO BE A MESS I THINK.
I MEAN I KNOW THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT, BUT I WAS JUST THINKING IF THEY GET THAT COMMERCIAL IN THERE, AT LEAST THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER EXIT POINT FURTHER DOWN PEYTONVILLE, RIGHT.
THE SOONER THE BETTER ON THAT PART, IN MY OPINION.
I AGREE. OKAY SO THIS IS MORE IN THE LINE OF FUTURE PLANNING QUESTION, BACK TO THIS SAME POTENTIALLY COMMERCIAL AREA.
[00:20:05]
THAT? HAVE YOU EVER TESTED THAT? THERE COULD BE SOME OF THOSE MAY OVERLAP INTO OUR EXISTING PROPERTY, BUT YES, WE COULD DO ANOTHER CUL DE SAC DOWN THERE.AND LEAVE WITH HALF ACRE RESIDENTIAL LOTS. YES, ABSOLUTELY.
THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE PREFERABLE. WE AGREE, BUT WE DON'T OWN THE PROPERTY.
CURTIS, DO YOU KNOW OFFHAND JUST WHAT THE TRAFFIC COUNT MIGHT BE LIKE PER HOUR? I GUESS UNDER THIS SCENARIO FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PIECE.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW OFFHAND. WELL, THERE'S ONLY THERE'S ONLY 14 LOTS, WHICH MEANS THAT APPROXIMATELY 125 TRIPS PER DAY, THEY TYPICALLY SAY THAT ABOUT 10% OF THAT HAPPENS IN THE RUSH HOUR.
SO WE'RE TALKING 12 OR 13 TRIPS DURING THE WHOLE RUSH HOUR.
I MEAN, IT'S IT'S MINIMAL. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. I THINK THAT I MEAN, THAT'S JUST IT'S KIND OF MORE OF A GEE WHIZ, I WAS JUST KIND OF CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT KIND OF, AT THIS POINT, WHAT KIND OF TRAFFIC COUNT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT HERE.
AND TO THE EXTENT, I MEAN, THERE AREN'T REALLY ANY GREAT ANSWERS.
BECAUSE IF YOU DO LIMIT THE ACCESS TO PEYTONVILLE, VARIOUS TIME PERIODS FOR, YOU KNOW, REASONS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU ACKNOWLEDGED, I THINK YOU ALSO HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AS YOU SEND IT OUT, YOU KNOW, AS YOU'RE SAYING TO THE WEST AND TO THE EXTENT SOMEONE WANTS TO GO WESTBOUND ON 1709 AT THAT TIME IN THE MORNING, THAT'S ALSO A NOT FUN SITUATION FOR ANYBODY WHO'S DONE IT IN TERMS OF THE THE PACKS OF CARS COMING THROUGH KELLER FROM KELLER THROUGH THROUGH 1709, WHICH I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH ACTIVITY YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE IN THAT BUSINESS PARK AT EIGHT IN THE MORNING, BUT AS RESIDENTS ARE TRYING TO LEAVE. SO, I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU SHOULD BE DOING THAT EITHER.
SO AND I'M MORE SAYING THAT IN CONTEXT OF THE PLANS TO SHUT DOWN PEYTONVILLE JUST, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT DOING THAT CAN CREATE A BAD, I MEAN, A BAD SITUATION THERE.
I AGREE, AND I DON'T THINK THOSE 12 OR 13 TRIPS ON TO PEYTONVILLE WOULD, WOULD BE AN ISSUE.
WHAT THAT STREET'S NAME IS P LAYERS DRIVE WHEN YOU HAVE CARS FROM KELLER DRIVING ABOUT 50 MILES AN HOUR AND YOU'RE TAKING THAT LEFT TURN THAT THAT ALSO CREATES, I THINK, A DANGEROUS SITUATION. I WILL NOTE, BECAUSE I VISIT PLAYERS CIRCLE OCCASIONALLY.
I HAVE A CLIENT IN ONE OF THOSE OFFICE BUILDINGS THAT IF I WANT TO GO LEFT ON SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD, YOU CAN GO THROUGH THE THE WHAT USED TO BE THE TOM THUMB PARKING LOT, WHATEVER THAT IS NOW OVER TO DAVIS, TURN AROUND ON DAVIS AND THEN TURN LEFT. THAT'S I WAS GOING TO SAY THE TEXTBOOK WOULD TELL YOU TO SEND THE LEFT TURNING TRAFFIC TO THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL.
YES. IS WHAT THE TEXTBOOK WOULD SAY FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT.
BUT I MEAN, I THINK IF WE GO THE OTHER ROUTE, WHICH IS FINE, I THINK WE JUST NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST TIME THERE'S A CAR CRASH FROM THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE MADE A DECISION.
SO IN CONFLICT WITH WHAT TRAFFIC WE MADE. WE MADE THE OFFER TO DO THAT.
YEAH, WE MADE THE OFFER TO DO THAT. BUT WE'RE HAPPY EITHER WAY.
YEAH. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THAT? I MEAN, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I THINK THAT CLOSING THAT GATE OFF ANY TIME DURING THE DAY ON PEYTONVILLE, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A GOOD IT'S NOT GOING TO BE RECEIVED WELL AND BY THE RESIDENTS AND I DON'T KNOW, IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM DOESN'T SEEM FEASIBLE. YOU JUST HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT YOU'RE CREATING AN UNSAFE SITUATION SOMEWHERE ELSE BY DOING IT.
SO IT'S NOT A IT'S NOT A CURE ALL. AND IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, LIKE CURTIS BROUGHT UP, YOU CAN CUT THROUGH PLAYERS CIRCLE AND WIND UP BACK INTO THE, YOU KNOW, BACK INTO THE THE OTHER BIG PARKING LOT OVER THERE.
BUT IT'S STILL IT'S LIKE WHO WANTS TO DO THAT EVERY DAY THEY GOT TO COME OUT OF THEIR DRIVEWAY.
YOU KNOW IT'S KIND OF NOT CONVENIENT. OKAY. ON ANOTHER NOTE.
SO PREVIOUSLY, WHEN YOU WERE BEFORE US, YOU HAD SOME ELEVATIONS OF THE HOMES, TOO.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT? THOSE WERE FOR 50 FOOT LOTS.
THESE THESE LOTS ARE MUCH LARGER AND WILL ALL BE CUSTOM BUILT.
[00:25:01]
SO WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THEY'LL BE THE CUSTOM DESIGNED HOMES THAT WE ALL KNOW AND LOVE HERE IN SOUTHLAKE.OKAY. THANKS. YEAH. NO, THE HOME SIZE WAS SOMETHING I WAS KIND OF CURIOUS ABOUT AS WELL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I DO HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION.
WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS FOR THE FENCING THAT'S ALONG THE THAT'D BE THE SOUTHERN BORDER.
ARE YOU PLANNING ON DOING ANYTHING WITH THAT FENCING? I'VE TALKED TO SEVERAL OF THOSE NEIGHBORS DOWN THERE ON THE FIRST ONE, AND SOME OF THEM ARE BRAND NEW FENCES THAT THEY LIKE AND WANT TO REMAIN, AND WE AGREED TO THAT.
SO WE TALKED ABOUT TWO THINGS THERE. NUMBER ONE, REPAIRING IT AND NUMBER TWO OR REBUILDING IT, WHATEVER'S REQUIRED. AND NUMBER TWO, TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR DRAINAGE DOESN'T CONTINUE TO ERODE THOSE THOSE FOUNDATIONS OF THOSE FENCE POSTS. AND THAT'LL HAPPEN WITH THE DETENTION POND THAT WE'RE PUTTING IN.
I MEAN, IT'S HAPPENING NOW BECAUSE THERE'S NO CONTROLLED FLOW.
OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? I MEAN, WE MAY KIND OF JUST DELIBERATE UP HERE IN TERMS OF IF WE WANT TO INSERT ANY LANGUAGE IN OUR MOTION ABOUT ACCESS PREFERENCE OR NOT, BUT WE CAN DEBATE THAT IN A MINUTE.
SO OKAY. WELL, WE MIGHT CALL YOU BACK. SO ALL RIGHT THANK YOU FOR THE QUICK PRESENTATION.
SO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT ON OUR AGENDA DOES CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.
SO I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND COMMENT ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE FEEL FREE. AND I HAVE A CARD HERE. HILARY RABELER, I HOPE I DIDN'T SAY THAT WRONG 602 STONEBURY DRIVE.
SURE, WE'LL WE'LL START IT, BUT JUST GENERALLY TRY TO WRAP UP AS GOOD AS SINCE WE DON'T HAVE A TON OF PEOPLE HERE, WE'RE NOT INCONVENIENCING A LOT OF PEOPLE. SO JUST WE'LL TRY TO PUT YOU ON THE HONOR SYSTEM.
SO THANK YOU. SOUNDS GREAT. THANK YOU. HELLO BOARD MY NAME IS HILARY RABELER.
MY ADDRESS IS 602 STONEBURY DRIVE, SOUTHLAKE.
I AM IN THE SOUTHLAKE WOODS NEIGHBORHOOD, JUST SOUTH OF THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
JUST LIKE CAROL CROSSING I AM I AM OPPOSED TO THIS NEW VERSION OF LIBERTY COMMONS.
SO MY FIRST QUESTION IS, IS I DIDN'T SEE THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WENT THROUGH THE SPIN PROCESS, AND I WAS CURIOUS. I HADN'T HEARD ANY REASON FOR THAT.
AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT HERE IN SOUTHLAKE, WE REALLY WANT TO PROMOTE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT.
AND SO I WAS CURIOUS WHY THAT PART WAS OMITTED, AT SOME POINT, LEARN WHY.
WE CAN WE CAN KIND OF TALK TO STAFF AFTER YOU'RE DONE. OKAY.
PUBLIC COMMENT IS MORE KIND OF Q&A. SURE. SURE.
YEAH. SO WE CAN WE CAN TRY TO CLEAR THAT UP. OKAY.
THANK YOU. THIS IS ZONED FOR SP-1 AND OFFICE DISTRICT.
AND SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE REQUEST FOR THE RPUD ZONING.
PREVIOUSLY FOR CAROL CROSSING, THE REQUEST IS FOR TCD AND NOW RPUD AND SO I'M JUST TRYING TO KIND OF WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THE REASONING FOR THAT. I ALSO WANTED TO ADDRESS THE TREE PRESERVATION.
THE TOTAL EXISTING TREE CANOPY ON THE COMMERCIAL SITE IS 6.03%, AND ON THE RESIDENTIAL, IT'S 19.93%.
WHEN I LOOKED AT THE SOUTHLAKE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, IT SHOWED THAT A COVERAGE BETWEEN 0 AND 20% REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 70% OF THE EXISTING TREE COVER TO BE PRESERVED. AND SO I'M JUST AGAIN WONDERING HOPE TO FIND OUT THE REASON WHY WE'RE DEVIATING FROM THIS, BECAUSE THE PROPOSED PRESERVATION FOR THE COMMERCIAL IS 4.98% PRESERVED AND FOR THE RESIDENTIAL 38.28%. SO QUITE A BIT OFF FROM THE 70%.
AND AGAIN, WE I LOVE SOUTHLAKE FOR ITS BEAUTY AND ITS TREES.
AND I THINK WE HAVE A TREE ORDINANCE THERE FOR A REASON.
THE 7-ELEVEN ALREADY GETS A LOT OF PEOPLE WALKING ACROSS THE ROAD AND LOTS OF LANDSCAPERS,
[00:30:01]
THINGS LIKE THAT. JUST LOTS OF ACTIVITY. I JUST THINK THAT'S A DANGEROUS SITUATION FOR A DRIVE THRU.WITH THE SENIOR HIGH LOCATED ACROSS THE STREET, I THINK THAT'S DANGEROUS.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU FOR COMING OUT THIS EVENING.
AND WE'LL WE'LL TRY TO GET TO SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS WITH STAFF HERE IN A MOMENT, ONCE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OVER. SO THE PUBLIC HEARING DOES REMAIN OPEN FOR ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. AND SEEING NO ONE, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND MAYBE, DENNIS, MAYBE WE CAN KIND OF TAKE THEM, MAYBE ONE AT A TIME, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
MAYBE JUST KIND OF STARTING WITH THE SPIN MEETING PROCESS. I GUESS IS THERE ANY CONTEXT BEHIND THAT IN TERMS OF I MEAN, IT'S IT IS A NEW APPLICATION, BUT I GUESS THERE'S SOME HISTORY THERE OR WHAT IS THERE KIND OF AND I GUESS MAYBE FIRST STARTING WITH I GUESS WE DID KIND OF GIVE PROPER NOTICE FOR THIS MEETING.
I'M ASSUMING IN TERMS OF THE. YEAH, CORRECT. THE REQUIRED NOTIFICATION, YOU KNOW, FOR THE ZONING CHANGE HAS BEEN PROVIDED. SPIN IS ENCOURAGED AND HIGHLY ENCOURAGED.
HOWEVER, IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR A DEVELOPMENT TO GO GO THROUGH OR UTILIZE THAT PROCESS.
WE WE FIND IT BENEFICIAL TO BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE, THE RESIDENTS THAT THAT MAY BE INTERESTED IN THE PROGRAM, BUT IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT. OKAY. SO PROBABLY IN THIS CASE, PROBABLY A LITTLE MORE OF A JUDGMENT CALL WHERE YOU COULD PROBABLY GO EITHER WAY IN TERMS OF RESIDENT FAMILIARITY WITH THE CASE AND BACKGROUND.
AND. OKAY. CERTAINLY. AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS JUST NOT IN THE APPLICANT SCHEDULE TO, TO TO DO THAT OR WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES ON THEIR SIDE OF THIS. OKAY. AND IT MAY BE MOVING TO KIND OF THE RPUD QUESTION ABOUT IN THIS CASE GOING FROM.
I BELIEVE THAT. YEAH, I THINK IT IS O-1 ZONING ON THAT PROPERTY ON THE THE PROPERTY ACCESSING PEYTONVILLE IS O-1 OFFICE AND HAS A CONCEPT PLAN FOR, I THINK, UP TO 8 OR 9,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON IT.
THEY WOULD, OF COURSE, NEED TO COME THROUGH SITE PLAN ZONING OR A SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT AN OFFICE BUILDING, BUT IT DOES HAVE ENTITLEMENT FOR OFFICE CONSTRUCTION AND USE ON THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
THE SP -1 PROPERTY WAS ZONED FOR, AS YOU RECALL, RETAIL NURSERY AND LARGE OUTDOOR GROWING AREA ON THE ON THE SOUTHERN END OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN OUTDOOR COVERED PLANT AREA AND A FAIRLY LARGE INDOOR RETAIL STORE. AND THAT'S THE ZONING THAT'S IN PLACE ON THAT PROPERTY CURRENTLY ON THE BULK OF IT, I GUESS. OKAY. I GUESS THEY'RE TECHNICALLY PART OF IT BEING KIND OF TECHNICALLY DOWN ZONED HERE.
I KNOW CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE, BUT. YEAH. SURE.
SURE. AND THE APPLICANT'S REASONING, YOU KNOW, FOR CHOOSING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, I'D, I'D PROBABLY BE BETTER DEFERRING TO THEM BECAUSE UNDER THE MEDIUM DENSITY, THERE'S OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THEM ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BEING ONE SF -20 BEING A STANDARD ZONING DISTRICT, AS I THINK YOU MENTIONED EARLY ON. AND AND THEN, OF COURSE, THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY IS RETAIL, COMMERCIAL. AND THAT IT WOULD SUPPORT THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY'RE BEING PROPOSED PROPOSING UNDER THE NEW SP-1 ZONING, WHICH IS OFFICE WITH SMALL AMOUNT OF RETAIL ON THAT.
AND WE CAN TALK TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT THIS. BUT IN IN TERMS OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE VERSUS KIND OF BY ORDINANCE. CORRECT. AND BY THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE UNDER A STANDARD ZONING DISTRICT, THE SCALED PRESERVATION THAT WAS MENTIONED DOES APPLY.
[00:35:01]
AND THAT'S TYPICALLY USED AS A GUIDE WHEN, WHEN WE HAVE THE THE SPECIAL DISTRICTS THAT COME IN BEING RPUD BEING ONE OF THEM. SP-1 BEING ANOTHER. AND UNDER THE UNDER STANDARD ZONING DISTRICT UNDER THE PROPOSAL THEY HAD, THEY THEY WOULD POTENTIALLY BE ASKING JUST FOR A VARIANCE TO THAT REGULATION IF THERE WERE AND IF THERE WAS NO OTHER MEANS TO PRESERVE THE TREES AND STILL REASONABLY DEVELOP THE PROPERTY UNDER THE SP-1 AND THE RPUD ZONING AND YOUR STAFF REVIEW SUMMARY, THERE'S SOME CRITERIA IN THERE THAT IS CONSIDERED THERE'S SIX INDIVIDUAL CRITERIA THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED IN LOOKING AT THIS.AND ONE IS PLACEMENT OF OF BUILDING AND PADS, STREETS, EASEMENTS, ETCETERA, MAX, YOU KNOW, DO NOT REALLY OPTIMIZE THE ABILITY TO MAXIMIZE PRESERVATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES ON THE SITE. AND THEN OTHERS ARE YOU KNOW, THERE'S I DON'T BELIEVE THIS PROPERTY IS IDENTIFIED IN ONE OF OUR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREAS, BUT SO THAT MAY NOT BE A PARTICULAR ISSUE.
AND VISUAL EFFECTS OF NON RESIDENTIAL USES MAXIMIZE THE PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TREES AND ADJOINING TO NATURAL OR MAN MADE DRAINAGE. AND THEN AND THEN MAXIMIZE PRESERVATION OF EXISTING PROTECTED TREES ALONG RURAL ROADWAYS.
THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE NEEDS TO DEMONSTRATE TO YOU THAT THEY'RE REACHING THE FULL POTENTIAL OF THESE GUIDELINES, IF YOU WERE TO APPROVE IT, AS THEY THEY'RE PROPOSING IT AND THE APPLICANTS CASE, THEY NEED TO JUSTIFY TO THE COMMISSION. ULTIMATELY, THE COUNCIL THAT THERE'S WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS THE MOST THAT CAN BE DONE AND STILL REASONABLY DEVELOP THE PROPERTY. OKAY.
THAT'S HELPFUL. MAYBE I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT TO COME ON UP IF THAT'S OKAY.
MAYBE. YOU MEAN YOU KIND OF HEARD THE THREE ITEMS THERE? I GUESS MAYBE JUST WOULD LIKE TO KIND OF HEAR YOUR RESPONSE ON BOTH.
YOU KNOW, THE SPIN, WHY THIS PARTICULAR ZONING CATEGORY AND THEN, YOU KNOW, AGAIN ON THE, THE TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS AND IT MAYBE MAKES INTO THAT KIND OF WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE PROPOSING IN TERMS OF A LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT THAT CAN KIND OF COME BACK AND IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF TREES, CALIPER, ETC., YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU CAN MAYBE MITIGATE SOME OF THAT.
SURE. WELL REGARDING THE FIRST ITEM ABOUT SPIN.
YOU KNOW, THIS IS A WELL KNOWN PROJECT THAT WE'VE HAD A LOT OF INPUT ON.
I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT WAS NECESSARY TO DO THAT, BUT WOULD BE HAPPY TO IF IF FOLKS FEEL LIKE THAT'S AN ESSENTIAL THING, BUT WE'RE BASICALLY YOU KNOW, TAKING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FIRST ONE AND TRYING TO, TO MOVE THAT, THAT FORWARD. SO EFFECTIVELY, KIND OF FEELING LIKE HOPEFULLY YOU'RE BEING RESPONSIVE TO MOST OF THE FEEDBACK FROM SPIN, THEREFORE YOU'RE TRYING. OKAY. OBVIOUSLY NOT ALL, BUT MOST OF IT AND MOST IMPORTANTLY FROM THE COUNCIL.
SECONDLY REGARDING THE ZONING OF THE ART USING THE RPUD AND SP-1 AS OPPOSED TO THE TRANSITION ZONING ORDINANCE A LOT OF IT WAS WHAT YOUR INTENTIONS, THE WHOLE POINT OF THE TRANSITION ZONING ORDINANCE, OF COURSE, IS TO TAKE LANDS THAT IS CLEARLY A TRANSITION BETWEEN HIGH TRAFFIC AREAS OR COMMERCIAL AREAS AND RESIDENTIAL, AND ALLOW FOR SOME UNIQUE AND CREATIVE DESIGNS TO DO THAT.
AND IT WAS AN ESSENTIAL TO USE THAT FOR THE FIRST PLAN THAT WE HAD BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF LOTS, DENSITY AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. NOW, AS YOU KNOW, THE TRANSITION ORDINANCE IS NOT NEARLY AS EFFECTIVE OF DOING THAT TODAY AS IT WAS A FEW MONTHS AGO, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN CHANGED. AND WITH THIS LEVEL OF DENSITY, WE DON'T NEED TO BOTHER WITH THE TRANSITION ZONING ORDINANCE. IT FITS MORE THAN COMFORTABLY IN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RPUD FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION.
[00:40:08]
AND THE COMMERCIAL PORTION COULD HAVE ALWAYS BEEN DONE UNDER THE SP-1 DETAILED SITE PLAN ORDINANCE.OKAY. REGARDING WELL, LET ME JUST MAKE ONE COMMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE THE TESTIMONY ABOUT TRAFFIC ONTO PEYTONVILLE. YOU KNOW, AS THE IN THE STAFF PRESENTATION, YOU MAY RECALL THAT THERE'S A SPECIFIC SITE RECOMMENDATION IN YOUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN THAT SUGGESTS A CONNECTION, A TRAFFIC CONNECTION BETWEEN PLAYERS CIRCLE AND PEYTONVILLE, PRESUMABLY TO CONNECT COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC AND OR RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC BETWEEN THE TWO AREAS TO THE PUBLIC.
CLEARLY, THAT WOULD GENERATE A LOT. I'M ASSUMING BACK BACK TO THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL, RIGHT? I MEAN, IT'S KIND OF TRAFFIC 101 IS OKAY. BUT PRESUMABLY THAT WOULD THAT WOULD SUPPLY A LOT MORE ABILITY FOR TRAFFIC TO GO INTO PEYTONVILLE THAN, THAN THIS WOULD. SO I WOULD SAY RELATIVE TO THE DESIRES OF OUR NEIGHBORS, THIS IS A MUCH BETTER SOLUTION THAN FOLLOWING THAT RECOMMENDATION.
NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, THE ONE OR SO ACRE OFFICE SITE THAT WE'RE USING TO GAIN THIS YOU KNOW, PER ACRE, YOU WOULD TYPICALLY FIGURE 10, 12,000FT² OF OFFICE SPACE ON THAT.
PERHAPS THIS LONG AND SKINNY ONE WOULD HAVE SLIGHTLY LESS THAN THAT.
BUT BUT I WOULD SAY THAT JUST THE OFFICE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF, IF THAT WAS A STANDALONE SITE AS IT WAS, WOULD GENERATE AS MUCH OR MORE TRAFFIC AS THIS 14 LOTS OF RESIDENTIAL WOULD EVER GENERATE.
SO I DON'T SEE IN, IN ANY SCENARIO HERE HOW WE WOULD BE ADDING TRAFFIC TO PEYTONVILLE.
YEAH, IT'S ACTUALLY A GOOD POINT BECAUSE I GUESS IN THIS CASE YOU ACTUALLY HAVE ACCESS TO THE WEST VERSUS IN THAT CASE STANDALONE, YOU WOULD NOT. SO IT WOULD BY DEFINITION HAVE TO BE U- TURNING INTO PEYTONVILLE.
YEAH, EXACTLY. AND THIRDLY, REGARDING TREES, AS YOU MAY KNOW, THIS WAS KIND OF A TREE FARM NURSERY FOR A LOT, NUMBER OF YEARS. AND WHEN THAT CLOSED DOWN, ALL THE GOOD TREES WERE REMOVED AND SOLD.
AND IT WAS THERE'S LARGE PORTIONS OF THIS PROPERTY THAT ARE KIND OF SWAMPY.
AND AS YOU MIGHT EXPECT FROM THAT, THERE'S WILLOWS AND A BUNCH OF OTHER TO ME, YOU KNOW, REVIEWING THE SITE, WALKING AROUND IT, MOST OF THE TREES INTERNAL THERE'S 1 OR 2 DECENT TREES, BUT MOST OF THE TREES IN GENERAL ARE WILLOWS AND TRASH TREES AND OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT.
WE HAVE MADE A POINT TO TRY TO SAVE THE PERIMETER TREES HERE BETWEEN US AND THE THE OTHER PROPERTIES, AND CERTAINLY THOSE ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY HERE WERE NEXT TO THIS RESIDENTIAL.
BUT EVEN HERE BETWEEN US AND AND THE THE EXISTING HOMES HERE AND THE THE FUTURE OFFICE SITE IN HERE, WE'RE TRYING TO SAVE THAT. SO WE THINK WE'RE, WE'RE SAVING THE TREES WHERE IT COUNTS AND WHERE THEY'RE SHALL WE SAY, HAVE HIGHER QUALITY TREES. I DON'T KNOW ANY OF THESE TREES ON HERE ARE THINGS THAT SOME PEOPLE WOULD TAKE PICTURES OF.
BUT STILL WE'RE TRYING TO DO THAT. THAT WILL HAPPEN BECAUSE OF THE VERY UNEVEN NATURE OF IT.
BUT ANYWAY THESE WILL THESE WILL HAVE YOU CAN SEE IN THE IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS THERE WE'RE GOING TO BE REQUIRING MULTIPLE TREES IN THE FRONT YARDS FOR EACH EACH RESIDENTIAL HOUSE LOT.
THERE WILL BE TREES ON THE OPEN SPACES PLANTED.
THERE'LL BE TREES ALONG THE ENTRY AS WE COME IN THERE.
AND THEN THERE WILL BE, AS YOU MIGHT EXPECT FOR CUSTOM HOMES, THERE WILL BE EXTENSIVE REQUIREMENTS, ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDSCAPING OF THE LOTS TO A TO A VERY HIGH LEVEL.
MAYBE WHAT I WOULD JUST DO IS IN FUTURE PRESENTATIONS, MAYBE JUST MIX A LITTLE OF THAT INTO IT IN TERMS OF THE CONTEXT OF WHAT YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT WHY A LOT OF THE EXISTING TREE COVER YOU KNOW, WAS WAS LESS THAN IDEAL AND, AND, AND MAYBE A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ON JUST THE LANDSCAPE
[00:45:07]
PLAN IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU CAN GO BACK AND REPLACE IT WITH.THAT WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT OR BETTER. SO I THINK I THINK THAT AT LEAST FOR ME, COVERS IT.
OKAY. SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE WANT TO KIND OF LEAD OFF WITH THOUGHTS ON THIS ONE? I'LL GO AHEAD AND JUST ECHO WHAT COMMISSIONER SPRINGER SAID ABOUT THE CHALLENGES GETTING TO PLAYERS CIRCLE , BECAUSE WE MUST USE THE SAME CHIROPRACTOR. AND I KNOW I'VE HAD TO ADJUST MY TIME.
YOU KNOW, FIRST TIME I HAD AN APPOINTMENT AT 7:50 OR 8 A.M..
OH MY GOSH, I COULDN'T EVEN GET ACROSS COMING GOING WESTBOUND BECAUSE IT STACKS UP SO MUCH.
AND THEN YEAH, GETTING ACROSS AND GOING LEFT.
AND SO THE LIGHT IS, LIKE YOU POINTED OUT, GOING TO BE A LOT SAFER.
IN FACT, BEFORE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT I WAS ALREADY EVEN THINKING ABOUT NOT THE LONG TERM RESIDENTS, BUT EVEN DURING THE CONSTRUCTION TIME WITH BIG TRUCKS AND THOUGHT, OH, THAT'S GOING TO BE A MESS GOING THROUGH THE SCHOOL AREA.
BUT THEN I STARTED THINKING ABOUT THE BIG TRUCKS HAVING TO TO GO TO THE OTHER, SO.
SO I'M NOT REALLY A IN FAVOR OF ANY KIND OF CUTTING THE PEYTONVILLE ACCESS OFF AND ESPECIALLY DURING CERTAIN TIMES BECAUSE THEN LOGISTICALLY, HOW IS THAT EVEN ENFORCEABLE IF IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE BLOCKED OFF? AND THEN WHAT IF THEY DON'T, AND HOW THAT WOULD, HOW THAT WOULD BE EVEN ENFORCED? AND I SAY ALL THAT TO PUT IT IN CONTEXT, SO THAT EVERYONE KNOWS THAT I'M MINDFUL OF THE HIGH SCHOOL.
I DO HAVE A SENIOR WHO DRIVES THERE EVERY DAY.
SO THAT'S MY MY STRONGEST THOUGHTS ARE ABOUT THE INGRESS AND EGRESS, BUT I AM VERY MUCH PLEASED THAT THE LOT SIZES ARE A LOT LARGER. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? WRONG BUTTON.
WOULD THERE BE ANY WAY TO HAVE A CUT THROUGH INTO THAT OTHER AREA SO THAT IT WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO THE U-TURN LIKE THE EXISTING? I GUESS WHAT IS THAT PHYSICAL THERAPY, LIKE RIGHT ON THE THE THE BUILDING THAT'S NEXT TO THE DRIVEWAY TO PEYTONVILLE.
AND YEAH, THAT'S WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE SO I THINK THE ANSWER IS NO.
NO, I GUESS I GUESS I'D KIND OF ECHO THOSE THOUGHTS AS WELL.
I MEAN, I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ON PEYTONVILLE, BUT I THINK YOU COULD LEAD TO AN EQUAL OR WORSE SITUATION OUT ON 1709 BY NOT DIRECTING TRAFFIC TO A TRAFFIC SIGNAL OUT THERE. I THINK IT WOULD BE INTERESTING IF THE APPLICANT KIND OF RAN THE DATA ABOUT IF THAT SITE WAS, YOU KNOW, WHAT ITS LAND USE, OFFICE USE, HOW MUCH TRAFFIC THAT WOULD GENERATE PER DAY, THAT WOULD ABSOLUTELY GO OUT ON PEYTONVILLE VERSUS HERE.
I THINK YOU'D GET IT SPLIT. I MEAN, I THINK YOU'D GET PEOPLE THAT IF IT WASN'T A GREAT SITUATION ON PEYTONVILLE TO TAKE A RIGHT, THEY JUST GO OUT THE OTHER WAY BY DEFAULT. SO I GUESS I PROBABLY WOULDN'T WANT TO, IN A MOTION, PUT ANY KIND OF PREFERENCE ABOUT CLOSING THE GATE, BUT I GUESS COUNCIL AND OTHERS, I'D RATHER JUST LOOK AT THE DATA THOUGH, I THINK. LET'S TRY TO NOT BE, YOU KNOW, ANECDOTAL.
SO I'D LOVE TO JUST LEAN ON DATA THERE TO THE EXTENT WE CAN.
IT LOOKS PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH THE LOTS ON THE SOUTH THAT THEY ARE ADJACENT TO SAME ZONING CATEGORY SF -20 I THINK THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL WAS ASKING FOR, YOU KNOW, JUST BY DEFINITION, RESIDENTIAL IS GOING TO CREATE A LOT LESS TRAFFIC THAN COMMERCIAL.
AND SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE JUST AND ME PERSONALLY, I JUST WANT TO BE CAREFUL FROM A PROPERTY RIGHTS STANDPOINT THAT WHEN WE HAVE AN APPLICANT APPLICATION THAT CONTINUALLY COMES IN FRONT OF US THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PLAN, AND WE'RE NOT AND WE'RE DENYING IT, WE CAN GET IN TROUBLE UP HERE.
SO IN TERMS OF OVERREACHING, SO I'M SUPPORTIVE OF IT AS IT'S PRESENTED.
CAN I MAKE ANOTHER COMMENT REGARDING THE TREES? AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S SOMETHING NECESSARY TO ADD, BUT MAYBE JUST PONTIFICATING.
[00:50:02]
I KNOW WHEN RESIDENCES GET BUILT AND IT'S THE, YOU KNOW, TWO TREES PER FRONT YARD SORT OF THING.I DON'T KNOW IF THERE COULD BE A REQUIREMENT TWO TREES PER BACKYARD OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.
AND I'D ENCOURAGE YOU TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE ADJACENT THERE TO THE SOUTH TO THE EXTENT THAT I MEAN, I KNOW THERE'S BEEN FORMAL COMMUNICATION FROM THE CITY ABOUT NOTICE, BUT, YOU KNOW, REACH OUT TO THEM.
I'D INCLUDE SOME OF THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL CONTEXT, I GUESS.
ANY OTHER ANYONE ELSE WANT TO WEIGH IN ON? I WAS GOING TO SAY, I MEAN, THERE'S REALLY ONLY ONE LOT THAT BACKS UP TO THE HOUSES TO THE SOUTH. YOU'VE GOT A DETENTION POND WITH A VERY BIG SETBACK.
SO I, I CAN'T SEE THAT THAT THE TREE THING IS THE PROBLEM.
YEAH. YEAH. WELL I THINK MORE INFORMATION WOULD BE HELPFUL AT A MINIMUM.
SO I THINK HOPEFULLY THE APPLICANT CAN CAN DO THAT.
MAYBE THAT. I MEAN, I I'D BE FINE LEAVING IT OPEN, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE.
SO OKAY, I'LL LET YOU CRAFT IT AND GO FROM THERE.
OKAY. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT ON OUR AGENDA ZA 25 -0018, SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED APRIL 17TH, 2025.
AND ALSO SUBJECT TO OUR DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER THREE DATED APRIL 17TH, 2025. WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO TO OUR VOTE, PLEASE. PASSES SIX ZERO.
CONGRATULATIONS. AND ASSUMING THIS GOES FORWARD TO THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING, JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING AS MUCH WORD OUT THERE AS POSSIBLE THAT WOULD BE ON TUESDAY, MAY 6TH. FOR A FIRST READING, I'M ASSUMING.
SO THAT'S FOR ANYONE WATCHING AT HOME OR THE RECORDING.
AND OUR STAFF CAN CAN HELP GIVE OUT INFORMATION ON THIS APPLICATION TO WHOEVER NEEDS IT.
SO WITH THAT, I GUESS I'LL GO AHEAD AND GAVEL US OUT.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.