[00:00:01]
          >> ALL RIGHT, 6:30. 
          [1. Call to Order]
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND ADHERENCE TO STATE LAW. APPRECIATE THAT. 
          MY NAME IS DAN KUBIAK, CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HERE IN CITY OF SOUTHLAKE. 
          THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING IN CITY HALL. 
          THIS IS OUR JANUARY 8, 2026 MEETING. 
          WE'VE GOT A FAIRLY MODEST AGENDA, BUT WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO GET THROUGH IT EXPEDITIOUSLY HERE. 
          MAYBE I'LL JUST SKIP AHEAD, MAKE SOME OF MY COMMENTS REAL QUICK, AND THEN WE'LL GO TO ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS. 
          IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN TO ONE OF THESE MEETINGS BEFORE, GENERALLY, THE WAY IT WORKS IS WE'LL HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION ON A VARIOUS ITEM, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE AN APPLICANT COME UP, AND THEY'LL DO A PRESENTATION. 
          WE'LL BE ASKING QUESTIONS THROUGHOUT. 
          THEN AFTER THAT, WE'LL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING WHERE FOLKS CAN COME FORWARD AND JUST MAKE THEIR COMMENTS KNOWN TO US HERE ON THE DIAS ABOUT A PARTICULAR APPLICATION. 
          WE, TYPICALLY, GIVE YOU UP TO THREE MINUTES JUST TO BE COGNIZANT OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SPEAK AS WELL. 
          YOU'LL SEE THERE'S SOME LITTLE LIGHTS ON THE PODIUM STAND THERE THAT ARE GREEN FOR A COUPLE MINUTES, YELLOW FOR THE THIRD MINUTE, AND THEN START TO FLASH RED. 
          PLEASE ASK THAT YOU MIND THAT IF THAT'S OKAY. WE'LL HAVE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          COMMENT ON THAT, THEN WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN WE'LL DELIBERATE AND COME TO A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE'LL SEND ALONG TO CITY COUNCIL. 
          THAT'S THE LAY OF THE LAND IN TERMS OF HOW THINGS WORK. 
          [3. Administrative Comments.]
MAYBE WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD TO THE THIRD ITEM REAL QUICK, ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS. MR. DENNIS, I THINK WE HAVE SOMETHING THIS EVENING, RIGHT? 
          >> [INAUDIBLE] WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. 
          >> DOES HE GET THE THREE MINUTE AS WELL? 
          >> I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE MARY MCCASKILL FORD. 
          >> WE'LL SEE IF WE NEED THAT OR NOT. APPRECIATE IT. 
          >> GOOD EVENING. MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONERS. 
          HAPPY NEW YEAR. I WILL STICK TO UNDER THE THREE MINUTES. 
          I'LL BE RESPECTFUL OF YOUR TIME AND EVERYONE'S TIME HERE, BUT HAPPY NEW YEAR, AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY COUNCIL, WE WANTED TO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR SERVICE LAST YEAR IN 2025 AND ALL THE SERVICE YOU'RE GOING TO PROVIDE TO THE CITY THIS YEAR IN 2026. 
          AS YOU ALL KNOW, I'M IN ALUM OF P&Z WAY BACK WHEN, I WON'T SAY HOW MANY YEARS TO AGE MYSELF, BUT EVEN TO TODAY, 70% OF WHAT WE SEE AT CITY COUNCIL HAS COME THROUGH Y'ALL, WHETHER IT'S DEVELOPMENT CASES OR SIGNS. 
          I HAVE TO SAY, ALL HAVE PUT IN SO MUCH WORK BOTH LAST YEAR AND IN YEARS PAST, BUT ESPECIALLY LAST YEAR, THE CASES, THE WAY THEY WERE WORKED OVER, AND READY TO GO, WE SINCERELY APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR EFFORTS. 
          IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW YOU VOTE, BUT THE THOUGHTFULNESS, THE TIME, THE ISSUE SPOTTING, THE RED FLAGS, ALL THOSE THINGS WERE SO WELL DONE, AND IT'S SO APPRECIATED BY MYSELF AND EVERYONE ON CITY COUNCIL. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE SERVICE AND THE GREAT WORK YOU'VE DONE LAST YEAR, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO MORE OF THE SAME THIS YEAR. 
          I ALSO SAY IN 2025, THE CITY COUNCIL COMMISSIONED HAVING CHALLENGE COINS MADE TO HAND OUT TO PEOPLE IN OUR CITY, OUR FELLOW RESIDENTS WHO HAVE GIVEN BACK IN SO MANY DIFFERENT WAYS, WHETHER IT'S HERE IN THIS ROOM, ON A BORDER COMMISSION OR THROUGH OUR SCHOOLS OR COACHING OUR KIDS OR SERVING IN SOME SPECIAL WAY. 
          TO START OFF THIS NEW YEAR, NOW THERE'S THREE OF Y'ALL WHO HAVE BEEN SERVING ON P&Z FOR MORE THAN 10 YEARS. 
          I THINK COLLECTIVELY, CHAIRMAN KUBIAK AND VICE CHAIRMAN FORMAN AND DR. SPRINGER HAVE SERVED ALMOST 50 YEARS COMBINED, SO Y'ALL ARE IN GOOD HANDS TONIGHT WITH THESE GUYS. 
          BUT I WANTED TO THANK YOU GUYS, ESPECIALLY FOR YOUR SERVICE MORE THAN 10 YEARS EACH, AND COLLECTIVELY YOUR SERVICE. 
          I ENJOYED SERVING WITH Y'ALL, TWO OF YOU ON ZBA AND THEN ON P&Z TOGETHER WITH ALL THREE OF YOU, SO I HAVE CHALLENGE COINS FOR ALL THREE OF YOU AS A SMALL TOKEN OF OUR APPRECIATION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE FOR YOUR SERVICE. 
          I KNOW, GINA, YOU'RE GETTING PRETTY CLOSE, SO PROBABLY PRETTY SOON, WE'LL GET YOU TO THE 10-YEAR MARK, BUT THANK YOU GUYS FOR YOUR SERVICE. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE WAY YOU REPRESENT THE CITY THROUGH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, SO GOD SPEED, AND THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          IF YOU'D COME DOWN, I'LL HAND YOU THE CHALLENGE COINS, WE'LL TAKE A QUICK PICTURE. THREE GUYS. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. MAYOR, WE APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT OF CITY COUNCIL AND ALL THE COMMUNICATION WE HAVE. 
          THAT'S REALLY WHAT HELPS MAKE IT VERY EFFICIENT. 
          IT'S I THINK OUR PLEASURE TO SERVE BEHEST OF THE RESIDENTS AND THE CITY AND WATCH EVERYTHING DEVELOP OUT. 
          I KNOW A LOT OF US UP HERE. 
          HAVE LIVED HERE A LONG TIME, AND IT'S BEEN FUN WATCHING THINGS DEVELOP OUT IN A QUALITY MANNER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          >> MOST OF THE 50 YEARS. [BACKGROUND]. 
          [00:05:37]
          >> NOW, THANK YOU AGAIN, AND I MAYBE REMISS IN MENTIONING 
          [4. Chairman Comments. ]
EARLIER THAT FOR US TO HAVE QUALITY OUTPUT, CITY STAFF HAS BEEN A HUGE PART OF THAT. 
          I THINK, DENNIS, YOU PROBABLY HAVE 50 YEARS HERE ALONE. 
          IT SEEMS AT THIS POINT, YOU'VE BEEN HERE A LONG TIME, YOU AND THE STAFF REALLY HELP US IN TERMS OF BEING PREPARED AND GIVING QUALITY DELIBERATIONS HERE, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE ON EXPEDITIOUSLY TO ITEM NUMBER 5 ON OUR AGENDA, 
          [5. Consider: Approving the minutes for the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held on  November 20, 2025.]
WHICH IS CONSIDERATION APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES HELD FROM OUR MEETING ON NOVEMBER 20, ANY EDITS OR ADDITIONS TO THAT BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION. 
          >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION, AND WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 5 ON OUR AGENDA. 
          >> I HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> LET'S GO AND VOTE, PLEASE. 
          SOMETIMES, THIS CAN BE THE TOUGHEST PART. THERE WE GO. 
          PASSES WITH 5-0 WITH ONE PERSON ABSTAINING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. 
          NOW, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 6 ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING, 
          [6. Consider: ZA25-0066, Zoning Change and Development Plan for Jane’s Place, on  property described as Lot 1, Janes Creek Addition, and Tracts 3, 3C, 3C02, and 3D, J.  Childress Survey Abstract No. 253 and located at 1318, 1330, 1354, 1360, and 1364 N.  Peytonville Avenue.   Current Zoning: “AG” Agricultural District and “SF-1A” Single Family  Residential District.   Requested Zoning: “RPUD” Residential Planned Unit Development.   SPIN Neighborhood #5.   PUBLIC HEARING]
WHICH IS A ZONING CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR JANE'S PLACE. 
          >> GOOD EVENING. I'LL BE PRESENTING ITEM NUMBER 6, ZONING CHANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR JANE'S PLACE. 
          THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A ZONING CHANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR JANE'S PLACE LOCATED AT 1318 THROUGH 1364 NORTH OF PEYTONVILLE AVENUE. 
          HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTIES THAT THEY WILL BE DEVELOPING. 
          THE FUTURE LAND USE IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND IT HAS TWO CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATIONS, RIGHT HERE IN THE MIDDLE. 
          IT IS SF1A AND THE REST ARE AG FOR AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. 
          HERE IS A STREET VIEW FROM NORTH PEYTONVILLE AVENUE LOOKING WEST INTO THE PROPERTY. 
          ALSO FROM NORTH PEYTONVILLE AVENUE, LOOKING SOUTHWEST AND THEN LOOKING NORTHWEST. 
          HERE IS THEIR PROPOSED THE BELLMAN PLAN SHOWING 15 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME LOTS WITH TWO OPEN SPACE LOTS. 
          SOME OF THEIR SITE DATA SUMMARY AND PROPOSED RPA DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARE LOCATED ON THIS SLIDE. 
          AS YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THE RIGHT, THEY ARE MIRRORING SF-1A, FOR THE MOST PART, THEIR MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE, THEY ARE UPPING THAT TO 40% RATHER THAN THE 20% THAT IS NORMALIZED FOR SF-1A. 
          THEIR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOT COVERAGE WILL BE NO GREATER THAN 2,000 SQUARE FEET, AND THEIR MINIMUM HOUSE FLOOR AREA WILL BE 5,500 SQUARE FEET. 
          DOWN HERE AT THE BOTTOM, THEY ARE HAVING A DEVIATION FROM TYPICAL RPUD REGULATIONS WHERE THE RETENTION AND DETENTION POND AREA IS LOCATED WITHIN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT, OUR ZONING ORDINANCE CALLS FOR IT TO NOT EXCEED 25%. 
          THEIR CURRENT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAS IT AT 27.1%, BUT THEY ARE PROPOSING FOR IT TO BE A MAXIMUM OF 38% ON THAT REGULATION. 
          THEY ARE REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES AS WELL. 
          THE FIRST ONE, WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS, THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AT THE EXISTING DEAD END STREET LOCATED IN THE CROSS RIVER HILLS ADDITION, SPECIFICALLY, WOOD CREEK LANE WILL NOT BE CONNECTED TO THIS DEVELOPMENT. 
          THEN ALSO REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT INTERNAL SIDEWALKS AND A 5-8 FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK ALONG NORTH PEYTONVILLE AVENUE. 
          HERE IS THE PROPOSED FENCING AND WALL PLAN FOR THE AREA. 
          THEY ARE RETAINING A GOOD AMOUNT OF EXISTING IRON WOOD AND CHAIN LINK FENCES WITH ALSO ADDING IN SOME 6' IRON FENCES, 
          [00:10:02]
AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS THEME ENTRY FENCE MASONRY WALL LOCATED ON THE ENTRANCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. 
          HERE IS THEIR TREE CONSERVATION PLAN. 
          THE TOTAL SITE AREA IS JUST UNDER 971,000 SQUARE FEET OF TREE CANOPY COVERAGE. 
          THEY ARE PROPOSING TO PRESERVE JUST ABOUT 61% OF THAT, AND ABOUT 38% OF THAT WILL BE REMOVED. 
          HERE IS THEIR PRELIMINARY WATER UTILITY PLAN SHOWING THE EXISTING 6'' WATER LINE TOWARDS THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. 
          THEY'LL BE CONNECTING TO THAT WITH RUNNING AN 8'' WATER LINE THROUGHOUT THE STREET, AND THEN ALSO CONNECTING TO THE EXISTING 12'' WATER LINE THAT RUNS ON NORTH PEYTONVILLE AVENUE. 
          HERE'S THEIR PRELIMINARY SEWER UTILITY PLAN. 
          THE CONNECTION POINT IS UP HERE IN THE TOP LEFT, EXISTING 10'' SEWER LINE, AND THEY'LL BE PROPOSING TO RUN AN 8'' SEWER LINE THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT. 
          HERE'S THE PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAN. 
          MOST OF THE DRAINAGE WILL BE CAPTURED IN THE CURB INLETS ALONG THE STREETS AND FILTER DOWN TO THE DETENTION AREA THAT CONNECTS TO HIGGINS BRANCH CREEK, FURTHER WATER RETENTION AND DRAINAGE. 
          HERE'S THE RENDERING OF TYPE OF HOUSING THEY'LL BE BUILDING IN THE AREA. 
          THEN THIS ONE HERE SHOWS THE AESTHETIC OF THE DETENTION AREA AND THE POND THAT THEY WILL INTEGRATE INTO THE OPEN SPACE. 
          AS OF TODAY, WE HAVE HAD THREE RESPONSES FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS, ONE WITHIN 200, WHO IS OPPOSED, AND THEN A COUPLE OUTSIDE 300, ONE FOR AND ONE AGAINST. 
          HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          >> MAYBE A COUPLE ONE FOR ME, AND THEN WE CAN LET OTHERS JUMP IN. 
          IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LOW DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION? 
          >> CORRECT. ALL MINIMUM ONE ACRE LOTS. 
          >> THEN ON THE SIDEWALK VARIANCE REQUEST, EVEN IF I GUESS IT'S GRANTED AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO CONSTRUCT IT, WOULD THE CITY STILL BE ABLE TO GET THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR FUTURE DOWN THE ROAD, USE IF DESIRED? 
          >> RIGHT OF WAY WOULD BE REQUIRED BASED ON CROSS-SECTION REQUIRED FOR PEYTON BILL. 
          A SIDEWALK SHOULD FIT WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THAT. 
          THEY'RE PROPOSING PRIVATE STREET AT THIS POINT, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'RE ASKING OR PROPOSING SIDEWALKS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SO THAT'S ALSO UNDER YOUR CONSIDERATION, WHETHER THEY PROVIDE THAT OR NOT, BUT RIGHT OF WAY SHOULD BE IN PLACE FOR A SIDEWALK. 
          >> EVEN IF A VARIANCE IS GRANTED ON CONSTRUCTING IT TODAY, THE ABILITY TO DO THAT IN THE FUTURE WOULD STILL BE THERE? 
          >> YES. 
          >> ANYONE ELSE TO HOP IN QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? 
          >> I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY PLANS FOR WIDENING THE MAIN STREET OUT THERE, COMING UP IN THE FUTURE. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY PLANS FOR THAT SO THERE WOULD BE OTHER SIDEWALKS, OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN THAT SAME AREA OR UP AND DOWN THE ENTIRE STREET? 
          >> THE ULTIMATE WIDTH FOR PEYTON BILL IS, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I WAS CORRECT, 70', BUT WE DO NOT PLAN FOR IT BEING ANY WIDER THAN TWO LANES. 
          THERE'LL BE PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE THAT TAKES PLACE. 
          THAT 70' RIGHT OF WAY IF NEEDED. 
          IF TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WARRANT IS WIDE ENOUGH TO POTENTIALLY DO A TURN LANE WHERE ONE MIGHT BE NEEDED FOR LEFT TURN MOVEMENTS, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANY PARTICULAR AREAS THAT THAT'S AN ISSUE RIGHT NOW. 
          >> MAYBE RIFFING OFF THAT REAL QUICK. 
          ANYTHING ON PATHWAYS FOR THAT, OR IS THERE JUST NOTHING CONTEMPLATED AT THIS TIME? 
          >> JUST WHAT'S REQUIRED BY WAY OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, SO IT JUST DOES REQUIRE 5-8 FOOT MINIMUM WIDE SIDEWALK, THE MINIMUM BEING 5', BUT THE PATHWAY PLAN DESIGNATES IT AS A 8' OR LESS SIDEWALK AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE STIPULATES IT CANNOT BE LESS THAN FIVE, SO THAT'S THE MINIMUM THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED. 
          [00:15:05]
          >> I KNOW WE HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE SIDEWALK PLAN THAT'S BEEN WORKED ON FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS AND HAS SEVERAL MORE YEARS TO GO, WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE GOING BACK AND ADDING SIDEWALKS IN ALL OVER THE CITY. 
          WITH THAT THE PLAN, IT DOESN'T SEEM IT MAKES MUCH SENSE TO ME TO CONTINUE TO LEAVE BEHIND SPOTS WHERE WE DON'T BUILD SIDEWALKS WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO GET SIDEWALKS BUILT IN ALL THE REST OF THE CITY. 
          THE ISSUE OF NOT BUILDING AT ALL, I DON'T THINK IS SOMETHING I WOULD SUPPORT. 
          I DO THINK IT'S A BIT OF A HEADACHE TO ESCROW MONEY THAT THE CITY HAS TO KEEP TRACK OF AND THEN THE CITY BUILD THEM ONE OF THESE DAYS. 
          IN FACT, THE BUILDERS THAT BUILD THESE HOMES ARE GOING TO BE THE ONES THAT BUILD THE SIDEWALK ANYWAY. 
          SO IT'S NOT GOING TO REALLY CHANGE THE DEVELOPER'S COST. 
          IT'S GOING TO AFFECT THE BUILDING COSTS, BUT I DO KNOW THAT IF THE SIDEWALK IS BUILT, IT WILL BE THERE AND IT WILL BETTER IMPLEMENT OUR OVERALL SIDEWALK PLAN AS WE BUILD OUT THE REST OF THE CITY IN THE SIDEWALK SYSTEM. 
          >> WE'LL DELIBERATE ON THAT WHEN WE GET TO THAT PORTION, BUT APPRECIATE YOUR THOUGHTS. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENT QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? GOOD. THANK YOU. 
          WE'LL PLAY BACK UP, IF WE NEED SOME HELP. 
          APPRECIATE IT. 
          I'LL GO AHEAD AND HAVE THE APPLICANT COME UP, PLEASE. 
          PLEASE STATE NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. 
          >> JERRY STATHAM. MY ADDRESS IS 2905 PENINSULA DRIVE AND GRAPEVINE, TEXAS. 
          >> TORIN JOHNSON, I LIVE OFF THE PENINSULA ALSO IN GRAPEVINE. 
          >> FIRST, JUST AN OPENING YOUR REMARK, MR. KUBIAK, I THINK I SAW YOU OR MET YOU AT THE CORRIDOR MEETING, AND I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE STAFF, IT'S BEEN, I WOULDN'T SAY A LONG TIME ON THIS, BUT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF INTERACTION. 
          I'LL GET TO THAT IN THE MEETING, BUT I JUST APPRECIATE ALL THE PROFESSIONALISM AND TIMELY RESPONSES FOR US. 
          JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT US. 
          TORIN AND I, WE GRADUATED FROM GRAPEVINE, APOLOGIZE FOR THAT BACK IN THE DAY. 
          WE DID GRADUATE BETWEEN THE TWO OF US FOUR DRAGONS HERE SINCE 2020. 
          I RUN A BIGGER INVESTMENT GROUP THAT DOES A LOT OF NATIONAL STUFF OUTSIDE OF THIS AREA, BUT WHEN I DO DEVELOP IN TEXAS, IT'S HERE LOCALLY. 
          TORIN IS A RETIRED BEDFORD FIREFIGHTER FOR 25 YEARS AND HAS BEEN BUILDING AND HELPING ME DEVELOP FOR OVER 15 YEARS, PROBABLY. 
          >> JUST ABOUT US, PHILOSOPHY-WISE, WE BOTH LIVE UP ON PENINSULA DRIVE, WHICH IS AROUND THE BEND AND KIMBLE, WE BOTH LIVE ON LAKE GRAVINE, WE BACK UP TO THE CORE. 
          WE APPRECIATE WE WALK BACK THERE, KIDS GREW UP BACK THERE, OUR DOGS AND STUFF AND WILDLIFE. 
          WHEN WE GOT A CHANCE TO LOOK AT JANE'S PLACE JUST TO ACQUIRE IT, IT WAS A PRETTY SPECIAL PLACE. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN HAD A CHANCE TO BE THERE. 
          I COULDN'T BELIEVE IT EXISTED WHEN WE FIRST SAW IT 22 ACRES THAT HAD THAT MANY TREES AND THE NATURAL WILDLIFE. 
          AS A DEVELOPER AND A HOME BUILDER, IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU GET EVERY DAY, CERTAINLY IN SOUTH LAKE. 
          JUST TO GIVE YOU OUR PHILOSOPHY WAS JUST WE WANTED TO KEEP THE GREEN SPACE GREEN. 
          A LOT OF THE WILDLIFE THAT EXISTS IN THAT AREA USE THAT WATER SOURCE. 
          THEY PROBABLY ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE ALL THE DISRUPTION IF IT GETS DEVELOPED, BUT WE HIRED A TEAM, AND THAT WAS OUR GOAL. 
          TOM PRITCHETT, I THINK I MAY HAVE HIT WENT BY A SLIDE TOO FAST. 
          BUT HE HELPED DEVELOP THE LANDSCAPE. 
          I DID A SKIP BY HIM. 
          HE DID A LOT OF WORK IN VAQUERO AND A LOT OF OTHER STUFF. 
          I CHARGED TOM WHEN WE HIRED HIM SAVE EVERY TREE, EVERY TREE THAT WE CAN. 
          YOU'LL SEE THERE'S SOME UNIQUE THINGS THAT WE DID HERE, JUST BECAUSE THERE WAS A HUGE TREE IN THIS, AND LET'S TAKE THE ROAD HERE AND NOT DO JUST A STRAIGHT ROAD AND MOW DOWN SOME THINGS. 
          WE HAVE PUT AS MUCH CARE AS WE CAN INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT. 
          WE STARTED 22 ACRES. 
          I MENTIONED CORRIDOR. 
          I GOT SOME VERY DIRECT FEEDBACK. 
          NET ONE ACRE ARE BIGGER, SO DIDN'T BOTHER WITH ANYTHING ELSE BUT THAT. 
          MINIMAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING POND, WHY I SAY MINIMAL DON'T WANT TO DISRUPT AND CREATE A BIG CONCRETE POOL THERE WHEN THERE'S A NATURAL WATER SOURCE. 
          WE WANTED TO REPLACE THE EXISTING FENCING, OBVIOUSLY TO CLEAN THAT UP, BUT KEEP THAT LOOK. 
          I THINK WE LIKE THAT LOOK WHEN WE SAW IT, TOM, 
          [00:20:03]
APPRECIATED THAT LOOK, SO IT'LL BE I HAVE A PICTURE OF THAT A LITTLE LATER. 
          SPENT SOME TIME, ATTENDED CORRIDOR, HAD A LONG SPIN MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORS. 
          BUT IT WAS GOOD BECAUSE WE GOT A LOT OF FEEDBACK THAT WE LOOKED AT WHAT THE CITY WANTED TO DO WITH CONNECTING ROADS AND APPRECIATE ALL THAT. 
          BUT THERE WAS A VERY STRONG OPINION FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THAT PART OF IT, THESE ARE OUR NEIGHBORS, AND WE'RE NEIGHBORS HERE, TOO. 
          WE WANTED TO LISTEN AND DO THE BEST WE COULD AND TRY TO KEEP EVERYONE AS HAPPY AS WE CAN WHEN CHANGE. 
          NOBODY WANTS TO CHANGE. 
          THE FINAL THING, WHEN WE WENT THROUGH SPIN, IT WAS SO LONG, STAFF HAD REVIEWED THAT. 
          THERE'S A LOT YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO HEAR IT. 
          I'M SURE, BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT STORMWATER FROM PEYTONVILLE, THAT HAPPENS TO FLOW ACROSS THE PROPERTY. 
          STAFF SAID YOU GUYS, YOU NEED TO PASS THIS ALONG TO YOUR ENGINEERING TEAM, AND THEY ALERTED US TO SOME INFORMATION THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE AS DEVELOPERS, WHICH IS IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU INHERIT THINGS LIKE WATER THAT COME ACROSS YOUR PROPERTY, YOU DON'T CREATE THEM, AND YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT, IT'S HARD TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT. 
          WE DID GET A CHANCE TO REVIEW THAT IN SEPTEMBER. 
          WE STARTED HERE AND WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT, AND SO WE'RE PROPOSING NUMBER ONE TO JUST COME ACROSS PEYTONVILLE IN. 
          THERE WERE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE HAD TO GET APPROVED BY STAFF, FIRE, SAFETY, STUFF LIKE THAT, THE LENGTH OF THE ROAD. 
          BUT THE MAIN THING WE WANTED TO DO WHEN WE PROPOSE THIS WAS NOT INTERRUPT THE POND AREA. 
          WE DID A WETLAND STUDY IN THAT AREA TO DETERMINE IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE COULD DISTURB. 
          WE CAN, IN FACT IT'S NOT A WETLAND DESIGNATED. 
          YOU CAN SEE FROM HERE WHERE THE POND STARTS NOW IS WHERE WE WANT TO COME ACROSS THE BACK. 
          WE WANT TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF THE STRUCTURE. 
          OBVIOUSLY, CLEAN IT UP FOR EROSION CONTROL, WHERE WE CAN LEAVE BERMS IN, AND THEN ABANDON THE WOOD CREEK AND COME OVER. 
          I THINK THAT KEEPS MAINLY. 
          THERE ARE PROBABLY SOME NEIGHBORS THAT WILL BORDER LIKE THIS WHOLE PROPERTY THAT WON'T HAVE NICE FOREST VIEWS OR WHATEVER THEY HAVE TODAY, THAT WILL HAVE THINGS TO SAY, BUT MAINLY TO AVOID THE INTERRUPTION TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ON THEIR REQUEST. 
          THIS IS THE FENCING, THE EXAMPLE. 
          IT'S LIKE IT IS TODAY, BUT UPDATED MATERIALS. 
          AGAIN, WHERE THERE ARE STEEP AREAS AROUND THE POND, WE WANT TO PUT IN AND MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN MAINTAIN THOSE. 
          WE'RE DOING THAT FOR TWO REASONS, NUMBER 1, OUR INTENT WHEN WE'RE DONE IS TO HOLD CAPACITY FOR ALL OF OUR STORM WATER THAT WE GENERATE ON THE PROPERTY PLUS 20%. 
          THAT WE WANT TO ACHIEVE THAT. 
          WE'RE A LITTLE SHORT OF THAT TODAY BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME OTHER FACTORS I'M GOING TO GET INTO. 
          I THINK WE WILL BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THAT, BUT WE WILL NEED TO BE ABLE FOR THAT WATER TO EB AND FLOW UP AND DOWN, WHICH LEADS ME TO THE STORMWATER CONCEPT. 
          WHEN WE FOUND OUT AND WERE MADE PRIVY OF THE STUDY, WE IMMEDIATELY WENT TO WORK WITH WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM. 
          WE HAVE MET WITH STAFF. 
          A COUPLE OF TIMES, EITHER ON THE PHONE IN PERSON OR BROUGHT MY WHOLE TEAM IN. 
          THIS IS OFF OF A STUDY THAT THE CITY HIRED TO DO MORE OF A LARGER CITY STUDY. 
          THAT'S REALLY LOOKING AT A LOT OF BRANCHES ON THIS SIDE. 
          WE WERE JUST OR THE HIGGINS BRANCH WAS ONE PART OF THAT. 
          THE MAIN PROBLEM THAT CAUSED ALL THE STORM WATER THAT YOU MAY HEAR ABOUT THAT WE TALKED ABOUT COMES FROM THIS SIDE OF PEYTONVILLE, THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET, WAS DONE BY HALF ENGINEERING. 
          WE PICKED UP THAT STUDY AND SAID, HOW CAN WE SOLVE THIS PROBLEM? THERE WERE A COUPLE OTHER METHODS. 
          ONE WAS TAKING THIS THING ALL THE WAY DOWN OR NORTH ON PEYTONVILLE AND CUTTING THROUGH THE PROJECT, THAT WAS ONE OF THEIR SUGGESTIONS, GIVEN WHAT THEY HAD. 
          THE OTHER ONE WAS COMING DOWN OUR NORTH BOUNDARY AND CUTTING OVER TO POST WHERE YOU CAN SEE UP HERE. 
          IT'S REALLY COMING ALL THE WAY ACROSS HERE, THE BACK OF THESE HOUSES, AND THEN HERE AND THEN BACK INTO THE HIGGINS BRANCH. 
          THE TEAM OUR TEAM RECOGNIZE AN OPPORTUNITY THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING A ROAD IN HERE, AND COULD WE PUT INSTEAD OF A 10 OR 20 FOOT MOW DOWN OF ALL THESE TREES, WHICH WOULD OBVIOUSLY RUIN A LOT OF TREES, BUT ALSO RUIN A LOT OF PRIVACY ON BOTH SIDES, CERTAINLY THESE NEIGHBORS HERE. 
          MY GUYS SAID, WHY DON'T WE GO TALK TO THE CITY ABOUT PUTTING THIS UNDER OUR ROAD? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO WORK ON WITH THE CITY. 
          I THINK FROM A DISRUPTION OF TRAFFIC AND TREES AND NEIGHBORS AND STREETS, IT'S INFINITELY LESS EXPENSIVE TO DO THIS IN TERMS OF THAT, FROM A COST WISE, ALSO, IF WE'RE DIGGING A DITCH, AND WE'RE GOING TO PUT A ROAD ANYWAY, WHY DON'T WE JUST PUT THIS FLOW UNDER OUR ROAD? THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED. 
          I WOULD SAY FOR 50, 
          [00:25:02]
60, 75% THERE. 
          THERE'S A COUPLE OPTIONS THAT WE'RE STILL WORKING WITH STAFF ON, ENGINEERING WISE. 
          COULD WE PUT IT INTO THIS RETENTION POND? IT'S A LOT OF WATER. 
          IT'S SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 172 105 CFS IN THE EVENT OF A HUGE STORM. IT'S A LOT OF WATER. 
          THAT'S WHY WE SAID 38% ON THE POND. 
          WE'RE AT 27.1% NOW. 
          BUT WE THOUGHT IF WE DO WANT TO BRING IT INTO THE POND, THEN WE WOULD NEED TO EXPAND THE SIZE OF IT, AND WE WOULD COME SOUTH. 
          I DON'T LIKE THAT IDEA. 
          I DON'T THINK MY ENGINEERS LOVE THAT IDEA, AND I'M NOT SURE STAFF LOVES IT, BUT IT'S ON THE TABLE UNTIL WE ELIMINATE IT AS AN ALTERNATIVE. 
          THE OTHER ONE WOULD BE TO DO WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW, WHICH JUST TO CARRY IT DIRECTLY UNDER THE STREET, USING THIS ENGINEERED THE WAY THAT HALF AND THE ENGINEERS ARE PUTTING TOGETHER AND PUT IT RIGHT INTO THE HIGGINS BRANCH. 
          WE'RE STILL WORKING ON SOME ITEMS THERE, BUT YOU GUYS HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS. 
          THIS IS MY LAST SLIDE, BY THE WAY. 
          >> THE BLUE STORM LINE THAT'S GOING DOWN THE STREET. 
          IT'S PICKING UP PRIMARILY THE WATER THAT'S ON THE EAST SIDE OF PEYTONVILLE? 
          >> YES. PRIMARILY, IT'S ALL IT'S DOING. 
          >> IT'S NOT PICKING UP ANY OF THE CURVE INLENS OR ANYTHING THAT'S ALONG? 
          >> NO, THAT WOULD BE DETAINED IN THIS. 
          >> THE ACTUAL SURFACE DRAINAGE OFF OF THE STREETS IS GOING TO GO INTO THE POND, AND WHAT YOU'RE DOING WITH THIS STORM MAIN IS YOU'RE PICKING THE WATER UP THAT'S NOW RUNNING ACROSS THE SITE. 
          >> THAT'S RIGHT. 
          >> YOU'RE BASICALLY LOT 1. 
          >> IT'S HITTING LOT 1 AND 2. 
          WHAT WOULD REQUIRED, WE'RE SURVEYING THIS SIDE, THE NORTH SIDE OF PEYTONVILLE NOW, ABOUT 50 FEET. 
          WE HAVE THE ORDER IN TO CATCH MAILBOXES AND ALL THAT STUFF. 
          BUT REALLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE STUDY, THE WATER STARTS HERE. 
          IT STARTS ALL THE WAY HERE. 
          JUST THINK ABOUT THIS WHOLE AREA. 
          THEN ABOUT RIGHT HERE, YOU START TO LOSE TOPO, SO YOU'RE GOING UPHILL. 
          IT NATURALLY SLOPES ACROSS THIS AND THEN INTO THE BACK OF ALL OF THESE HOUSES ACROSS MOSTLY LOT ONE, BUT PART OF A LOT TWO. 
          >> YOUR ENGINEERS ARE TELLING YOU NOW THAT IT'S GOING TO PICK THIS WATER UP IN A PIPE, AND YOU'RE GOING TO GET IT DOWN THE STREET AND BACK TO THE THE NATURAL DRAINAGE AND GET IT OFF OF THE SURFACE THAT'S CURRENTLY GOING THROUGH THESE YARDS. 
          >> THAT'S RIGHT. CORRECT. WHAT IT WOULD REQUIRE WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE IS WE HAVE WE'RE JUST PUTTING A LARGE CATCH BASE IN HERE. 
          THAT IS THE LOW POINT, BUT THERE MAY BE ONE HERE, ONE HERE. 
          BUT THE IDEA WOULD BE TO CATCH ALL THE WATER BEFORE IT CROSSES PEYTONVILLE, SEND IT INTO A MASTER CATCH BASIN. 
          THIS IS NOT SMALL AMOUNT OF WATER. 
          I THINK IT'S TWO, THREE BY FOUR, AND THEN BRING THAT ALL UNDER PEYTONVILLE, AND THEN UNDERGROUND ALL THE WAY TO HERE. 
          OR WE COULD GO FURTHER. 
          THERE WOULD BE NO MORE SURFACE WATER. 
          THE IDEA WOULD BE TO CATCH IT BEFORE IT GETS TO PEYTONVILLE. 
          >> YOU'VE MENTIONED, I GUESS THAT SOME OF THIS IS STILL YOU'RE UNDER DILIGENCE ON. 
          I GUESS WHAT'S THE TIMELINE YOU FORESEE IN TERMS OF TRANSITION ULTIMATE SOLUTION. 
          >> I WOULD SAY WE'RE TWO OR 30 DAYS. 
          I SEE IT THE FINAL THE CITY BEING ABLE TO SAY, WE'RE WILLING TO DO THIS BECAUSE THERE IS A IMMEDIATE COST TO THE CITY BECAUSE THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SOLVE A PROBLEM. 
          THE OTHER SOLVE STAFF COMMENTS WE DEDICATE RIGHT AWAY RIGHT HERE, WHICH IS WHAT SOUTH LAKE CAN DO. 
          WE'RE JUST SAYING, LOOK, WE'RE WILLING TO DO THAT. 
          WE DON'T LIKE THAT IDEA BECAUSE THEN EVEN OUR LOTS ARE DEVALUED, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME IN AND FIX THIS PROBLEM SOONER OR LATER. 
          WE'RE SAYING IF YOU GUYS CAN HELP MATCH OUR PACE ON DEVELOPMENT WITH FUNDS, WE WILL DO THIS AT THE SAME TIME. 
          I THINK STAFF IS NOT PREPARED TO TAKE THAT UP THE CHAIN BECAUSE THAT'S NOT SOMETHING, IT'S DOLLARS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE BUDGETED. 
          WE'RE WORKING WITH THEM TO GET THE RIGHT NUMBER. 
          WE'VE SAID HERE'S THE BALLPARK NUMBER, AND A LITTLE LESS THAN BALLPARK. 
          THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC NUMBER, AND THEY'RE SAYING, WELL, LET'S TAKE THIS DOWN, LET'S FIND THE RIGHT METHOD. 
          WE'RE AT TWO NOW, WE'RE GOING TO QUICKLY PROBABLY ADOPT THIS METHOD WITHIN A WEEK AND THEN LESS PRICE THIS OUT. 
          >> THIS CAN BE SOMETHING THAT IF THIS MOVES FORWARD, COULD BEFORE YOU GO TO A CITY COUNCIL MEETING, YOU COULD HAVE SQUARED AWAY. 
          >> I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THAT. 
          [00:30:01]
          >> I'M ALMOST ASKING I THINK THAT WOULD ALMOST BE MAYBE A NEED SO AT THAT POINT IN THE PROCESS, IT'S NOT ESOTERIC. 
          I KNOW IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE DOWN THE ROAD, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A SOLUTION, BUT THERE'S SOMETHING MORE FIRM. 
          >> I THINK IF YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT I NEED TO DO IT, I WOULD TELL YOU THAT I CAN MAKE THAT STAFF HAS SAID THEY'RE AVAILABLE TO MAKE YOU TO DO IT. 
          >> YES. 
          >> I SAY, LET'S DO IT. 
          >> PORTION YOU'RE ASKING THE CITY TO WORK WITH YOU ON IN TERMS OF REIMBURSEMENT, IS THE LIGHT BLUE AND EVERYTHING THAT'S ON THE EAST SIDE? ARE YOU LOOKING FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR THIS ENTIRE RUN? 
          >> THIS ENTIRE RUN. BECAUSE WE'RE NOT CAUSING ANY OF THIS WATER WHAT WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING IS WE WILL DO THIS DURING OUR PROJECT. 
          ANY OF THE STUFF WE WOULD NORMALLY DO STAFF HAS BEEN PRETTY CLEAR ON WHAT THEY WILL OR WILL NOT PAY FOR OR SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT PAY FOR, BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER INSTANCES THAT HAVE SET THE PRECEDENTS. 
          FOR INSTANCE, IF WE'RE GOING TO BRING BULLDOZERS OUT, IF WE'RE GOING TO BRING ALL THIS STUFF AND SET IT UP, THE CITY'S NOT GOING TO DOUBLE PAY FOR THAT, WHICH WE WOULD. 
          THEY'RE BASICALLY SAYING, HEY, TAKE ALL THE STUFF THAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY DO IF THIS PROBLEM DIDN'T EXIST AND JUST GIVE ME THE NET DIFFERENCE. 
          THAT'S WHAT WE EXPECT TO. 
          >> ALL PROPERTY IS REQUIRED TO TAKE WATER FROM THEIR NEIGHBORS AT SOME PREDETERMINED FLOW RATE. 
          ARE YOU DETERMINING NOW THAT YOU OR YOUR STUDY IS DETERMINING THAT YOU'RE GETTING MORE WATER THAN THE REQUIRED FLOW RATE FOR UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY? 
          >> THAT I DON'T KNOW. 
          IT'S 240 OR 240 CFS. 
          >> I UNDERSTAND BUT WHEN YOU BUY PROPERTY, IT'S GOING TO HAVE SOME AMOUNT OF DRAINAGE IS GOING TO COME ACROSS THE SITE, AND YOU'RE REQUIRED AS A LAND OWNER DEVELOPER TO PICK THAT UP AND CARRY IT TO THE NEXT POINT DOWNHILL. 
          UNLESS THE WATER IS COMING ACROSS THE SITE AT A FAR GREATER RATE THAN REQUIRED OR THE IT'S ALLOWED, I SHOULD SAY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE CITY WOULD BE PAYING FOR THAT. 
          >> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. 
          THE OPTIONS WE HAVE WOULD JUST TO ALLOW THE CITY TO HAVE THAT FLOOD RIGHT AWAY. 
          WHAT'S HAPPENED WITH THIS PROPERTY IN 1999, THE PREVIOUS OWNER SOLD THE CITY FOR $150 A STRIP HERE TO FIX THIS PROBLEM AND IT WAS NEVER ADDRESSED. 
          IT'S ALL DOCUMENTED. 
          THE OWNER THAT SIGNED THAT ART JANE HAS PASSED AWAY, BUT THE DOCUMENTATION EXISTS. 
          I THINK THE OWNERS AND HE'S NOT HERE. 
          HE'S IN COLORADO, BUT HE'LL BE HERE. 
          HE CAN SPEAK TO ALL OF THAT. 
          I FEEL LIKE IN TALKING WITH HIM THAT THE OWNERSHIP OF THIS PROPERTY HAS MADE THAT ATTEMPT WITH THE CITY IN THE PAST TO REMEDY THIS SITUATION. 
          AS A DEVELOPER, I'M INHERITING THIS, AND I WOULD BASICALLY TELL THE OWNER THAT IF I NEED TO FIX THIS MASSIVE OF A PROBLEM THAT THE OWNER IS GOING TO PAY FOR MOST OF IT. 
          >> DENNIS, DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANY CONTEXT HERE IN TERMS OF HOW THE CITY'S VIEWING THIS IN TERMS OF BOTH REMEDY AND WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT. 
          >> IT'S AN IDENTIFIED DRAINAGE NEED. 
          >> THE CITY IS DISCUSSING WITH THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO SOLVE A DRAINAGE PROBLEM THAT'S OCCURRING IN THAT PEYTONVILLE AREA AS PART OF THIS PROJECT. 
          WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S DUE TO YOU'RE CORRECT THAT A DEVELOPMENT HAS TO HANDLE WHAT FLOWS ARE COMING ONTO THEIR PROPERTY AND THEN THEY HAVE TO MANAGE, WHATEVER ADDITIONAL DEVELOPED CONDITION RUNOFF THAT THEY'RE PUTTING IN PLACE, BUT THIS IS JUST AN EMPIRICALLY IDENTIFIED PROBLEM THAT THE CITY IS LOOKING AT AND IS THEY'RE WORKING WITH OUR STAFF ON A POTENTIAL SOLUTION. 
          WE'RE RIGHT AT THIS POINT, WORKING THROUGH, ESTIMATES ON WHAT THAT COST IS AND WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN ADDRESS THAT DURING THEIR PROJECT TIMELINE. 
          >> THERE MAY BE SOME POTENTIAL AMBIGUITY ON WHAT COMMITMENTS WERE MADE BY THE CITY IN THE PAST OR NOT. 
          IT COMES DOWN TO MAYBE A NEGOTIATION IN TERMS OF JUST BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPERS, AND ULTIMATELY CITY COUNCIL OR THE DEVELOPERS ON WHAT COST WILL OR WON'T BE BORN. 
          THE SETTING MAYBE THE COST ISSUE ASIDE, EITHER WAY, 
          [00:35:01]
IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A SOLUTION THAT WOULD BE AMENABLE TO SOLVING THE PROBLEM REGARDLESS OF WHO OR HOW IT'S PAID FOR, IT HAS TO BE A SOLUTION THAT WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM, RIGHT? 
          >> YES. CERTAIN. I THINK THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING THAT MAYBE SETTING SOME OF THAT ASIDE BECAUSE THAT'LL BE A CITY COUNCIL FOCUS IN TERMS OF WHO PAYS FOR WHAT AND STAFF. 
          AT LEAST FOR THIS BODY, I THINK MAYBE THE WORKING ASSUMPTION WOULD BE THAT BEFORE IT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL, THAT THERE IS A PLAN IN PLACE, THAT STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THAT WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM. 
          >> YES, WE WANT TO GET THERE. 
          JUST DOING THE RIGHT THING, BEING THE RIGHT THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. 
          >> FOR EVERYBODY INVOLVED IN TERMS OF THERE'S PROBABLY MULTIPLE WAYS, AND THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE MAYBE MORE VISUALLY PLEASING AND SOME THAT ARE LESS. 
          >> WELL, ON THIS ONE, ESPECIALLY, THE TREE CONSERVATION, WE'RE SAVING HUGE TREES NOT USING THAT EASEMENT. 
          WE'RE PUTTING IT UNDER THE ROAD, WHICH IS GOING TO BE DUG. IF I LIVED UP. 
          >> YOU DON'T MIND SPEAKING TO THE MICROPHONE. THAT'S HOW WE'LL GET ALL THIS. 
          >> YOU HEAR? ALL GOOD. 
          >> WE MADE A PROMISE TO THE CITY AND THE CITIZENS THAT SHOWED UP TO SPEND THAT WE WOULD ADDRESS ALL THE CONCERNS, THEIRS AND Y'ALL'S THE BEST THAT WE COULD. 
          TREE CANOPY IS A BIG ONE. 
          IF WE TAKE THAT EASEMENT DOWN ACROSS THAT BACK SIDE, THE PEOPLE LIVING ON POST RIGHT NOW ARE GOING TO LOSE TONS OF SCREENING. 
          LIKE JERRY SAID, WE'RE GOING TO DEVALUE OUR LOTS, AND WE'RE NOT STICKING TO THE THE TREE CANOPY ORDINANCE IS. 
          TO US, THIS KILLED TWO BIRDS WITH 1 STONE THREE BIRDS WITH 1 STONE, GET RITTEN RID OF THE WATER, KEEPING THE CITIZENS HAPPY AND TRYING TO SAVE THE SITTING MONEY. 
          >> MAYBE BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER THINGS TO TALK ABOUT. 
          ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON DRAINAGE. 
          >> I JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION. HAVE YOU TALKED TO THE ONE PROPERTY OWNER THAT THIS BLUE LINE IS CROSSING THAT'S OFF OF YOUR PROPERTY? 
          >> THAT'S THAT'S OUR IT IS. 
          THAT'S ACTUALLY PART OF THE CURRENT WAY THAT YES, IT'S PART OF THIS, BUT IT'S ALREADY APPLIED LOT. 
          WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PUT ANYTHING WITHIN THAT LOT IN TERMS OF CREATING AN EASEMENT? THAT WAS ANOTHER UNIQUE CARD THAT FELL IN OUR FAVOR. SURE. 
          >> ANYTHING ELSE ON MAYBE DRAINAGE BEFORE WE TOUCH ON A FEW OF THE OTHER ITEMS. I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU HAD A SLIDE OR IF IT WAS IN THE STAFF PRESENTATION, BE A BETTER ONE, BUT I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT IT WOULD VISUALLY LOOK LIKE ALONG PEYTONVILLE, BECAUSE THAT IS ONE OF OUR MORE SPECIAL AND HAVING IT HAVE MORE OF A RURAL, HAVING LOTS OF LANDSCAPING TREES AND NOT SOME. 
          WE HAVE I MEAN, THERE'S SOMETIMES WE GET CLEAR CUT AND WE GET A HUGE STONE WALL OR, YOU KNOW, MAKING IT MATCH WHAT'S THERE TODAY. 
          I KNOW STAFF WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO LOOK AT IT, BUT I GUESS STAFF HAD A PRESENTATION IN OUR SLIDE IN THE TIMER. 
          >> I SLIDE. THIS IS MORE OF WHAT THE FENCING WOULD LOOK LIKE. 
          WE WANT TO THIS IS CONCEPTUAL, BUT, I MEAN, WE WANT THESE RAILS LIKE IT IS TODAY RIGHT NOW, IT'S RAILROAD TIES. 
          WE'RE GOING TO PUT MORE OF A LASTING MATERIAL DOWN AND KEEP IT REALLY THE SAME POST LOOK THAT IT HAS TODAY. 
          THESE ARE A LITTLE WIDER, BUT WE WANT TO TRY TO KEEP IT OPEN LIKE IT IS TODAY. 
          THERE ARE PARTS OF PEYTONVILLE WHEN YOU DRIVE DOWN THERE, THAT ARE CLOSED. 
          THERE'S BIG I'M NOT GOING TO COMMENT ON THE AESTHETIC. 
          >> YES, THAT'S WE'D LIKE TO AVOID THAT. 
          I GUESS MAYBE FURTHER BUILD OUT THAT RENDERING, JUST TO MAKE SURE IT CAN REALLY CONVEY WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THERE. 
          THEN THE REST OF THE FENCING AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE GOING TO WORK WITH ADJACENT NEIGHBORS IN TERMS OF A PREFERENCE ON WHAT THEY MIGHT WANT AROUND THE REST OF THE BOUNDARIES. 
          >> I MADE A COMMITMENT TO THE NEIGHBORS THAT WE COULD EXTEND THIS FENCING. 
          WHEN WE WENT THROUGH SPIN, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S A GOOD SOLUTION WITH GIVING ALL THE BORDERS. 
          I'VE COMMITTED TO EACH ONE TO DO THE RIGHT THING. 
          SOME OF THE LOTS ARE DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF ONES THAT ARE CLOSER TO THE WATER. 
          WHEN WE GET INTO PLATTING AND STUFF LIKE THAT AND WE'VE ALREADY PLACED THE PADS, THEN WE DON'T WANT TO BE WE DON'T WANT TO FENCE THE PERIMETER BACKYARDS. 
          WE WANT TO CREATE A THREE FOOT OR FIVE FOOT BUFFER FOR NATURE, IF WE CAN AND THEN USE PERMEABLE FENCES. 
          I THINK IT'S A NEIGHBOR OF MY NEIGHBOR DISCUSSION. HONESTLY. 
          >> OTHER PEOPLE WANT TO JUMP IN QUESTIONS. 
          WELL, WE MAY HAVE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS. 
          WE'LL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FIRST, WE MAY CALL YOU BACK UP IF WE NEED HELP. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> AS I STATED BEFORE, I GUESS WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING HERE SHORTLY, I GUESS AS WE DO REMEMBER, PLEASE. 
          MAYBE I'LL JUST CALL EVERYBODY UP ONE AT A TIME. 
          PLEASE UP TO 3 MINUTES, 
          [00:40:02]
BE COGNIZANT OF EVERYONE ELSE WHO'S HERE. 
          THAT'S OKAY. WE GOT A FULL AGENDA. 
          WE ACTUALLY HAVE A SIGNBOARD MEETING AFTER THIS. 
          YOU WANT TO STICK AROUND FOR THAT ONE. 
          THAT ONE'S ALWAYS A FUN ONE IN TOWN. 
          UP TO 3 MINUTES, PLEASE ADDRESS ANY COMMENTS TO US AND WE'LL TAKE IT INTO ACCOUNT. 
          I GUESS I'LL GO AHEAD AND SEE WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK FIRST ON THIS ITEM NOW THAT WE HAVE THE HEARING OPEN, GO AHEAD. 
          WHEN YOU COME UP, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. 
          >> MY NAME IS PATRICK LANGSTON. 
          I LIVE, IF I COULD USE THIS MOUSE RIGHT HERE. 
          YES. PERFECT. THIS IMPACTS ME QUITE A BIT. 
          I THINK WE JUST DISCUSSED 15 MINUTES AGO OR FOR 15 MINUTES ABOUT TAKING A PROBLEM THAT EXISTS RIGHT HERE, AND BASICALLY TRANSPORTING IT TO MY FRONT YARD, WHICH I DON'T LOVE. 
          THERE ARE TWO SECTIONS OF THE HIGGINS BRANCH THAT I THINK NEED TO BE CONSIDERED THAT I DON'T THINK WE'RE THINKING ABOUT. 
          ONE IS RIGHT HERE. 
          FIVE OF THESE LOTS ARE BUILT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS DRAINAGE, WHICH IS A PARALLEL FINGER TO THE HIGGINS BRANCH THAT GOES LIKE THIS. 
          THEN THERE'S ANOTHER BRANCH THAT GOES LIKE THIS, BOTH ON EITHER SIDE OF MY HOME. 
          IF THESE HOMES ARE BUILT HERE, AND YOU HAVE WATER RUNOFF FROM THE ROOFS FROM THE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INTO THIS SYSTEM RIGHT HERE, THEN THAT COULD CREATE SOME FLOODING AND ISSUES FROM MY HOUSE. 
          WE BUILT A BRIDGE ACROSS THIS DRAINAGE THAT HAD TO GO THROUGH CITY APPROVAL, CORPS OF ENGINEER APPROVAL, EXCUSE ME. 
          WHEN IT DOES RAIN, THE WATER DOES GET PRETTY HIGH, STILL GOES UNDER THE BRIDGE BECAUSE WE DID ALL THE RIGHT MEASUREMENTS. 
          WHAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT IS IF THERE'S A LOT MORE WATER THAT GOES INTO THIS AREA BECAUSE I MEAN, THIS LOT RIGHT HERE, 65% OF IT'S IN THE DRAINAGE. 
          IF IT ADDS A LOT MORE WATER HERE, IT'S GOING TO WASH OUT MY BRIDGE, WHICH IS THE ONLY WAY I HAVE ACCESS TO MY HOUSE. 
          THEN YOU ADD THAT TO WE JUST TALKED ABOUT 205 CFS OF WATER THAT EXISTS RIGHT HERE THAT WE'RE GOING TO PIPE INTO THE OTHER SIDE OF MY HOUSE. 
          THAT CAUSES ME A LOT OF CONCERN. 
          ONE WAY TO FIX THAT MIGHT BE AT LEAST ON THIS SIDE. 
          I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU FIX IT WHEN AGAIN, THESE HOMES ARE BASICALLY BEING BUILT IN THE DRAINAGE. 
          ON THIS SIDE, ONE WAY TO FIX IT MIGHT BE TO EXTEND THAT PIPE FURTHER DOWN MY HOUSE. 
          THE ASKS HOUSE, WHICH IS RIGHT HERE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RIVER. 
          THEIR NEIGHBOR, WHO I BELIEVE WAS ALSO OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT, WHO'S JUST NORTH OF THE ASKS WHO I DON'T KNOW YET. 
          THERE MIGHT BE A WAY TO EXTEND THAT PIPE FURTHER, BUT THAT'S JUST MORE COST. 
          I THINK LETTING THE WATER OUT RIGHT HERE OBVIOUSLY, I'M ONE HOME OWNER. 
          I'M NOT A WHOLE SUBDIVISION UP THERE, BUT THAT WOULD CREATE SOME MAJOR FLOODING AND ISSUES FOR MY HOUSE. 
          I'VE BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE. 
          THE OTHER THING THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS, EVEN IF WE FIX SOME OF THE ISSUES HERE, WITH THESE FIVE LOTS BEING LOCATED SUBSTANTIALLY WITHIN THIS DRAINAGE, I'M WORRIED ABOUT CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS FLOWING DOWN THIS RIVER, THIS PART OF THE HIGGINS BRANCH, AND THEN ALSO FLOWING DOWN THIS WAY. 
          I'D LIKE SOME REPRESENTATION THAT THE BUILDERS WILL CLEAN THAT OUT. 
          TO BE FAIR, I'VE TALKED TO JERRY ABOUT IT. 
          I'VE SHARED MY CONCERNS. 
          I'M NOT TRYING TO TO GET A GOTCHA MOMENT HERE. 
          I MEAN, KIM AND I ARE IN COMMUNICATION. 
          IT IS AN ISSUE FOR ME. 
          I'M KNOW AMOUNT OF TIME, BUT THAT. 
          >> NO. THANK YOU. WE'LL TALK TO STAFF AFTER THIS JUST THOUGHTS ON. 
          ADDRESS YOU, WE'LL NOTE THAT ONE DOWN AND GET TO IT. 
          THANK YOU APPRECIATE. ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK NEXT ON THIS ITEM? PLEASE COME ON UP. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. THANK YOU. 
          >> HELLO, COUNSEL. MY NAME IS KRISTEN LILY, AND I LIVE EVEN FURTHER DOWNSTREAM FROM PATRICK, WHO I NEED TO MEET BECAUSE WE HAVE VERY SIMILAR CONCERNS. 
          FIRST OFF, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK JERRY AND THE DEVELOPER, FOR LISTENING TO WHAT WE SAID DURING THIS BEN COMMITTEE, MAKING THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLANS TO AVOID BOTH THE GRASS TO THE POST NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL AS TO THE WOOD CREEK, I GUESS. 
          I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY. 
          I DO LIKE THAT THEY'RE PAYING A WHOLE LOT OF ATTENTION TO THE WATER THAT IS COMING OVER THE ROAD BECAUSE THAT IS A PROBLEM. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THAT REDIRECTING ALL THAT WATER DOWN INTO HIGGINS BRANCH IS GOING TO IMPACT ALL THE HOMES DOWN HIGGINS BRANCH. 
          MORE WATER FASTER, IS GOING TO BUILD UP AT THE NEXT CHOKE POINT. 
          WHETHER THAT CHOKE POINT IS PATRICK'S HOUSE, OR IT'S FOUR HOUSES DOWN AND IT'S MY HOUSE WHERE, WE ARE PART OF THE FEDERALLY PROTECTED FLOOD WAY THAT IS PART OF HIGGINS BRANCH. 
          [00:45:01]
WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPACTS OF THAT WATER AND DEAL WITH IT. 
          BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST US, IT KEEPS GOING ALL THE WAY DOWN.IT CROSSES DOVE, OR THERE'S ALSO FLOODING PROBLEMS. IT GOES INTO THE NEXT NEIGHBORHOOD, OR THERE'S ALSO FLOODING PROBLEMS. WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE FULL IMPACT FROM THE TOP TO THE BOTTOM OF ALL THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE GOING INTO THIS AREA. 
          I BELIEVE THE CITY HAS MADE SOME STRIDES, BUT I BELIEVE THE CITY NEEDS TO WORK HARDER TO PROTECT ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT EXIST DOWN THAT BLOOD WAY. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. 
          ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK NEXT ON THIS ITEM. 
          FEEL FREE TO COME ON UP. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS IF YOU DON'T MIND, PLEASE. 
          >> YES. I'M PAUL BOMAN. 
          I LIVE AT 13:25 RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THAT ENTRANCE. 
          WHEN THEY POINTED OUT THE LET'S SEE HERE. 
          THAT'S MY DRIVE RIGHT THERE. 
          THE DRAINAGE, A COUPLE OF THINGS ON MY ADDRESS. 
          THE SEE'S BEEN OUT TO OUR PROPERTY A FEW TIMES. 
          WHEN YOU DEVELOPED SHADY OAKS, OVER A DECADE AGO, THERE'S NO RETENTION POND ON THAT. 
          YOU REMEMBER THE CLOPUS FARM IS UP ON THE HILL, AND ALL THOSE HOUSES ON THE HILL. 
          THEY PUT FIELD DIRT UP THERE. 
          ALL THAT WATER THEN CAME DOWN. 
          IT'S ON OUR PROPERTY, IT'S ON THE BURGESS PROPERTY, THE LONG'S PROPERTY. 
          ALL THAT WATER THAT YOU'RE RECEIVING IS COMING ORIGINALLY FROM SHADY OAKS. 
          I'VE BEEN THIS RESIDENCE FOR 30 YEARS IN SOUTH LAKE FOR 35. 
          MY CONCERN IS I DO APPRECIATE WHAT YOU TRY TO TRY TO DO WITH THE WATER. 
          IT IS A BIG ISSUE JUST GET IT OFF THE PROPERTIES FOR SURE, BUT OBVIOUSLY A CONCERN FOR THE NEIGHBORS, THEY'RE SPEAKING JUST NOW. 
          MY SELFISH CONCERN IS THAT THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT FOR MYSELF AND MY WIFE AND CHILDREN. 
          THE ENTRANCE TO THE DEVELOPMENT IS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM MY DRIVEWAY. 
          I'LL BE COMPETING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD NOW VERSUS JUST GOING OFF OF LEAVING MY HOUSE. 
          PEYTONVILLE BECAME MORE CONGESTED. 
          NOW WE'RE COMPETING WITH THE TRAFFIC ALONG WITH ENTRANCE AND EXIT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD ACROSS THE STREET. THAT'S OUR CONCERN. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. 
          WHILE WE HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN, SEE SOMEBODY ELSE HERE. IT THIS ONE AS A MINUTE. 
          >> I PROBABLY OUGHT TO PUT IT DOWN TO A MINUTE, I THINK, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
          APOLOGIES. THE FORMER COMMISSIONER WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH HIM. 
          >> I WAS GOING TO WEAR MY SUPREME ROBE IN PURPLE JUST FOR YOU GUYS. 
          BY THE WAY, CONGRATULATIONS ON THE AWARD. 
          Y'ALL FOR SURE, DESERVE IT. 
          I LIVE RIGHT, SOMEWHERE AROUND HERE. 
          LET ME JUST GIVE YOU MY PERSPECTIVE. 
          I'M FOR THE PROJECT. 
          I THINK IT'S A GOOD DEAL. THIS IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED. 
          IT'S AWESOME PROPERTY. I TRIED TO BUY IT, BUT I NEVER COULD GET IN CONTACT WITH THE DUDE. 
          >> I'M RIGHT THERE. PEYTONVILLE TRAFFIC. 
          NOT A PROBLEM. MY EXPERIENCE. 
          THERE IS A CREEK OR A DRY CREEK BED THAT I LIKE TO THROW QUITE A BIT OF MY TREES LIMBS INTO. 
          I THINK IT FLOWS THIS WAY. 
          I COULD BE WRONG, BUT I THINK IT FLOWS THIS WAY. 
          ANYWAYS, I'M LIKE, PRIVY TO WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE COMING OFF OF HERE, AND I HAVE SEEN IT ONCE IN TEN YEARS, EVEN GET CLOSER TO MY BACK YARD. 
          THAT'S A DATA POINT. I DON'T THINK WHEN IT COMES TO AT LEAST DOWN LINE OR THIS IS UP LINE, I RECALL IT GOING THIS WAY. 
          IT MIGHT GO THIS WAY, BUT I DO RECALL IT GOING THIS WAY. 
          IF THAT'S TRUE OR UNLESS IT REVERSES SOMETIMES, WHICH COULD BE TRUE AS WELL. 
          I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM, AT LEAST RIGHT HERE. 
          I DON'T KNOW ABOUT RIGHT HERE. 
          I DO KNOW ABOUT RIGHT HERE. ONE MY PERSPECTIVE. IMPORTANT. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ME. 
          WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK NEXT ON THIS ITEM? GOING ONCE. THERE YOU GO. GO AHEAD. 
          SAY ONCE I CLOSED IT, DENNIS TELLS ME I CANNOT REOPEN IT AGAIN FOR ANOTHER COUPLE OF WEEKS. 
          PLEASE GO AHEAD AND COME ON UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. 
          >> I'M CLAIRE ALFORD, AND I LIVE AT 12:13 WOOD CREEK LANE. 
          I AM IN THIS PROPERTY RIGHT HERE. 
          I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT THEY'VE HAD TO SAY ABOUT FENCING AND BUFFERING. 
          THIS CREEK THAT WAS JUST SPOKEN ABOUT DOES RUN STRAIGHT THERE. 
          IT IS ALL COMING THROUGH CROSS TIMBER HILLS, GOING STRAIGHT TO MR. JAMES' PROPERTY. 
          IT GOES INTO HIS RETENTION POND. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMING OUT. 
          ANYONE ELSE? YES, MA'AM. GO AHEAD. 
          [00:50:01]
          >> SORRY. I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 38 YEARS. 
          >> DULY NOTED FOR THE RECORD. WE GOT IT. 
          ANYONE ELSE WANT TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THIS ITEM BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE, SIR. 
          >> YES, I'M RYAN BUZZARD. 
          ADDRESS IS 1,500 POST OAK TRAIL. 
          I AM ALSO ONE OF THESE PEOPLE THAT BACKYARDS GO, I THINK FOUR HOUSES DOWN NORTH OF THE CREEK. 
          I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT, I'VE HAD TO SAVE THAT HOUSE THREE TIMES THIS SUMMER FROM FLOODING FROM PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT PLANS. 
          I CAN PRETTY MUCH GUARANTEE YOU IF THERE'S ANY MORE WATER BEING PUSHED THROUGH THERE, IT WILL BE FLOODED. 
          THIS HOUSE HAS BEEN HERE FOR 40 YEARS. 
          LIVED THERE FOR 30 YEARS. 
          THIS WILL WIPE THAT HOUSE OUT. 
          THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. 
          >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE GOING TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THIS ITEM BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? ONLY ONCE. HERE WE GO. WE GOT ANOTHER TAKER. 
          >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ANNE MARIE HOTKINSON. 
          I LIVE AT 1201 CYPRESS CREEK CIRCLE, WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE ENTRANCE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. 
          I JUST WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE WHAT MY NEIGHBORS HAVE SAID REGARDING THE DRAINAGE AND THE FLOODING ISSUES, THEY'RE REAL. 
          WE HAVE A NEW CONSTRUCTION HOME THAT WE SPENT HOURS AND HOURS MAKING SURE WE'D HAVE CORRECT DRAINAGE, AND THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ENDED UP WITH POST NEW CONSTRUCTION. 
          EVERYTHING TOOK TWICE AS LONG AND WAS TWICE AS EXPENSIVE, AND WE'RE STILL HAVE THE FLOODING ISSUES. 
          IF YOU COULD PLEASE CONSIDER THAT WHEN MAKING YOUR DECISIONS, THERE'S DEFINITELY A PROBLEM. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE TO COME FORWARD ON THIS ITEM? WE HAVE ANOTHER TAKER [NOISE] 
          >> EVENING. MY NAME IS BRUCE MCGEE. 
          I'M AT 1400 POST OAK TRAIL. 
          I AM THE SECOND HOUSE PAST WHERE THE WATER IS GOING IN. 
          I JUST WANT TO CORRECT SOMETHING THAT WAS SAID, JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL CLEAR. 
          THAT WATER FLOWS THAT DIRECTION ALL THE TIME. 
          I THINK ON THIS SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, IT MIGHT FLOW BACK THE OTHER WAY BECAUSE THERE'S A BIT OF A HILL THERE, BUT JUST THIS SUMMER AS RYAN BUZZY SPOKE, THE WATER FLOWS. 
          I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE WATER DOES FLOW THAT WAY AND IF THERE'S MORE AND MORE RAIN. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SOLUTION IS. 
          I THINK JERRY'S PROPOSAL IS A GOOD ONE, BUT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS JUST MOVING THE WATER AND PUTTING IT IN THE BACK OF OUR HOUSES. 
          IF THE PIPE WOULD TO BE EXTENDED, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A GREAT IDEA, BUT [NOISE] WE CAN ASK EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY WATER. 
          AGAIN, IT'S ALMOST AN INTRACTABLE PROBLEM, BUT IT DOES NEED TO BE RECOGNIZED AND MITIGATED. 
          BUT AGAIN, THE WATER DOES FLOW TO THE NORTH PRETTY MUCH EVERY SINGLE TIME. 
          I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE CLEAR ON THAT. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO COME FORWARD AND COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? GOING ONCE, TWICE. 
          WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          THANK YOU, EVERYBODY, FOR COMING OUT THIS EVENING. 
          IT'S ALWAYS HELPFUL FEEDBACK TO HEAR FROM THE RESIDENTS. 
          DENNIS NOT TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT [LAUGHTER] I GUESS JUST FOCUSING ON THE AREA THAT WHERE THE WATER, UNDER THE THEORETICAL PLAN WE TALKED ABOUT WOULD BE EXPELLED. 
          I GUESS THIS SEEMS LIKE IT'S AN ISSUE THAT'S OBVIOUSLY LARGER THAN THIS SITE. 
          THAT'S PRE EXISTING SOUNDS FROM THE PUBLIC COMMENT I GUESS. 
          IS THERE ANYTHING FROM A CITY OR STAFF LEVEL THAT MAYBE MORE MACRO IN TERMS OF, TO THE POINT OF NOT NECESSARILY JUST DUMPING IT RIGHT AT THE EDGE OF THE SITE, BUT CARRYING IT SOMEWHERE ELSE THAT THE CITY COULD ENVISION OR INVESTIGATE OR I KNOW YOU PROBABLY DON'T HAVE THE CERTAIN PRECISE ANSWER RIGHT NOW, BUT I'M SURE YOU'VE MAYBE THOUGHT ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT OR? 
          >> YEAH. I CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT OUR ENGINEERS CAN INVESTIGATE AND WHERE IT'S LIKELY THAT MOST OF THAT WATER IS GOING THAT DIRECTION AS IT IS RIGHT NOW. 
          THIS WOULD ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE PROBLEMS FROM THE PENTOVILLE AVENUE, AND AS FAR AS GETTING TO THAT DRAINAGE EASEMENT THERE. 
          BUT HOWEVER IT'S GOT TO BE DESIGNED SUCH THAT IT DOES NOT CREATE 
          [00:55:04]
AN ADDITIONAL ADVERSE CONDITION DOES NOT EXACERBATE THE PROBLEM ITSELF, IT SHOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM. 
          WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S OTHER SOLUTIONS AND ALL OF THOSE ARE HAVE BEEN LOOKED AT YET, THAT IS SOMETHING OUR STAFF CAN PURSUE. 
          >> [INAUDIBLE] 
          >> AS THIS ALTERNATIVES FORWARD. 
          >> MAYBE MAYBE AS PART OF THAT AND I'M CERTAINLY NOT A DRAINAGE PERSON, BUT AS PART OF THAT, ENSURING THAT THOSE DRAINAGE AREAS, DETENTION AREAS ON SITE ARE LARGE ENOUGH THAT THEY CAN HANDLE THE FLOW AND BASICALLY PACE IT OUT AT AN APPROPRIATE RATE. 
          I GUESS I SUPPOSE WE'D HAVE TO RELY ON ENGINEERS FOR THAT, BUT IS THAT PART OF THE SOLUTION HERE? PART OF IT THAT TRYING TO PUT THE WATER SOMEWHERE THAT CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS PART OF IT. 
          >> AS FAR AS WHAT THEY'RE COOPERATING WITH THE CITY TO HANDLE, THIS IS A DRAINAGE PROJECT THAT THE CITY HAS HAD IN THEIR PLAN, AND DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY PRESENTED AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROBABLY AT LEAST LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITY OF MOVING THAT UP AND GETTING IT TACKLED SOONER. 
          ALL THE ENGINEERING AND THE IMPACTS OF THIS DESIGN WOULD NEED TO BE LOOKED AT AS PART OF THAT PROJECT. 
          IF THERE'S BETTER SOLUTIONS THAN WHAT'S BEING DISCUSSED RIGHT NOW, THAT WOULD BE SOUGHT. 
          AS FAR AS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROJECT, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HANDLE THEIR DEVELOPED CONDITION, THE DETENTION STRUCTURE THEY'RE PUTTING IN PLACE AS PART OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT IS BEING ENGINEERED TO DO THAT. 
          >> I GUESS IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU RIGHT, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CITY IS ALREADY ALLOCATING IN FUTURE BUDGETS FUNDS TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE AND THIS APPLICATION COULD PULL THOSE FORWARD TO HELP ADDRESS IT SOONER THAN LATER. 
          >> THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, AND THE DEVELOPER IS WORKING WITH US ON THOSE COST ESTIMATES TO SEE IF THAT'S WHETHER THE TIMING OF OUR PROJECTS AND OUR FUNDING OF THAT CAN MEET AT THE SAME TIME. 
          >> MAYBE I'LL CALL THE APPLICANT BACK UP IF YOU DON'T MIND, I GUESS [NOISE] CAN YOU MAYBE JUST HIGH LEVEL AGAIN, TALK THROUGH THE MATH WAS SOMETHING. 
          WHAT WAS THE PERCENTAGES YOUR PLANS ARE APART RIGHT NOW? I GUESS YOU'VE GOT A PLAN THAT CAN HANDLE. 
          >> THE AREA 2671. 
          THAT'S HOLDING ALL OF OUR WATER THAT WE WOULD CREATE, SO BRINGING US TO ZERO PLUS AROUND 16%, WE WANT TO GET IT TO 20. 
          WE CAN DO THAT PRETTY EASILY. 
          THAT'S WITH OUR RETENTION POND BEING AT 27% OF THE OPEN SPACE. 
          WE ASKED FOR 38 AT THIS POINT FROM YOU GUYS, BECAUSE WE JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND, HOW? WHAT'S THE FINAL SOLVE FROM PENTOVILLE? IF PART OF THAT IS EXPANDING THE SIZE OF THE POND TO TAKE EVEN MORE THAN WE JUST WANTED TO HAVE IT. 
          I THINK I PUT IN MY APPLICATION NOT TO EXCEED 38%, BUT CURRENT STATE AS PROPOSES 27.1 FOR THE RETENTION POND ITSELF. 
          IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT BECAUSE I HAVEN'T, GO AHEAD. 
          >> I WANT TO CLARIFY WHEN YOU SAY 38%, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT GETTING THE DETENTION PONDS BIG ENOUGH TO TAKE UP TO 38% OF THE FLOW? 
          >> NO, SIR. I'M SAYING 38% OF THE OPEN SPACE, WHICH WAS THE REQUIREMENT ON POND. 
          RETENTION PONDS CANNOT EXCEED 25%. 
          I'M JUST SAYING IT WOULD GET TO 38% OF THE OPEN SPACE. 
          >> IF YOU DID THAT, WOULD THAT HANDLE THE FLOW? 
          >> THAT'S A LOADED QUESTION AT THIS POINT. 
          I CANNOT ANSWER WHEN YOU SAY FLOW. 
          ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PENTOVILLE ADDITIONAL FLOW? 
          >> I'M TALKING ABOUT THE WATER THAT YOU'VE GOT TO DEAL WITH HERE, THE FLOW OF WATER. 
          >> THE WATER THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH ON OUR PROPERTY, AS WRITTEN, IT'S ALREADY HANDLED IN THIS. 
          WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH IS THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF PENTOVILLE WATER. 
          THAT WOULD NOT BE HANDLED IN THE 27%. 
          I'M NOT SURE IT WOULD BE HANDLED EVEN IN 38%. 
          BUT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PIPE SOME OF IT OR BRING SOME OF IT AND RETAIN SOME OF IT. 
          THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WORKING WITH THE CITY ON. 
          WHAT'S THE MOST PRUDENT WAY [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> I'M TRYING TO THINK ON THE PATH FORWARD HERE. 
          I THINK I SAW THE VIC HERE SCRIBBLING. 
          I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT [NOISE] BEFORE IT'S PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL, I GUESS, OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT THAT PORTION OF THE PLAN IS WORKED OUT TO THE CITY [INAUDIBLE] 
          >> DO YOU HAVE ANY MAP NORTH OF HERE A LITTLE BIT? AGAIN, I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING, 
          [01:00:03]
WE TOOK THIS VERY SERIOUSLY. 
          I HOPE YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND THAT. WE PROBABLY WALKED [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> I KNOW YOU'RE TRYING [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> WE WALKED ALMOST A MILE. 
          I'M GOING TO ADMIT IT IN A RECORDED FORMAT. 
          I TRESPASSED [LAUGHTER] DOWN THE HIGGINS BRANCH JUST TO SEE BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORS WERE SO PASSIONATE. 
          UP HERE, I'VE GOT VIDEOS OF PEOPLE'S HOMES, THESE TWO, AND MAYBE THIS ONE, WITH LIVE FLOODWATER SINCE 2020 COMING THROUGH THEIR HOUSE. 
          THEY'RE FIRED UP, AND I WOULD BE TOO IF THAT WAS MY HOUSE. 
          WE DID WALK DOWN HERE JUST TO TRY TO GET OUR HEADS WRAPPED AROUND THE WHOLE SITUATION. 
          THERE'S LOTS OF STUFF. 
          IT'S ALL PRIVATE LAND. 
          I WAS EMBOLDENED AND I SAID, WELL, WHY DON'T WE JUST SOLVE THIS CAUSE THERE'S NOT ONE PROBLEM. 
          PART OF THE PROBLEM IS THE DRAINAGE. 
          IF YOU KINK A HOSE AND YOU PUT WATER IN IT, IT'S GOING TO SPIT BACK OUT. 
          THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING DOWN HIGGINS, ALL THE WAY TO DOVE AND PAST THAT. IT'S KINKED. 
          THERE'S LARGE LIMBS, THERE'S TREES. I COULD TAKE PICTURES. 
          I'M INCRIMINATING MY FELLOW CITIZEN, SO I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT. 
          BUT WHAT IS THE SOLVE? I WENT TO SANDY. 
          I WENT TO DENNIS, AND I'M LIKE, IS IT CITY CAN BRING WOOD SHIPPERS OUT HERE AND DO WHAT IT'S ALL PRIVATE LAND? THEY OWN THIS LAND. 
          THEY'RE OBLIGATED TO MAINTAIN IT. 
          IT'S NOT A CITY COST. 
          YOU JUST GET CAUGHT IN. 
          THEY'RE PROBABLY NEIGHBORS THAT DO MAINTAIN THE DRAINAGE AND THERE'S NEIGHBORS THAT DON'T. 
          THAT IS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR BECAUSE IF THE WATER HAS NOWHERE TO GO DOWNSTREAM, IT'S GOING TO BACK UP, AND THE PERCEPTION IS IT'S FLOODING FROM WHERE THE WATER IS COMING FROM. 
          THAT'S NOT IN FACT THE CASE. 
          IT'S FLOODING BECAUSE THE WATER HAS NO PLACE TO GO, OR A COMBINATION OF BOTH. 
          [NOISE] SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THIS TOPIC. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PERFECT ANSWER IS, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE. 
          >> WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO WORK SOMETHING THROUGH. 
          I GUESS, DAVID, YOU WANT TO [INAUDIBLE] 
          >> HAS THE CITY EVER DONE A COMPREHENSIVE DRAINAGE STUDY OF THIS WHOLE PART OF THE CITY TO DEAL WITH ALL OF THESE ISSUES OR AT LEAST AND KNOW WHAT ALL OF THESE ISSUES ARE? 
          >> THE CITY HAS WORKED ON A STUDY OF THAT MAGNITUDE. 
          >> I'M ASSUMING THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE UTILIZING TO TRY TO WORK THROUGH THIS. IS THAT? 
          >> THE STUDY THAT WE REVIEWED WITH MY ENGINEERING TEAM AND THE CITY PROVIDED THAT WAS PAID FOR BY THE CITY BY A THIRD PARTY WAS VERY COMPREHENSIVE? NOT JUST THIS AREA, BUT CONNECTING AREAS. VERY COMPREHENSIVE. 
          WE'RE TAKING THE DATA FROM THAT STUDY, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WORKING FROM. 
          >> I GUESS DENNIS IS AN EXAMPLE. 
          THIS IS THE TOPIC WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          I GUESS THAT THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE HOUSE THAT'S JUST THERE TO THE ON THE NORTHWESTERN SIDE OF THE SITE. 
          I GUESS THAT AS AN EXAMPLE, THAT'S WHERE ONE IDEA COULD BE EVALUATED IN TERMS OF FURTHER EXTENDING THE DRAINAGE PIPE PAST THAT, IS THAT [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> I DON'T KNOW IF I'M STEALING DENNIS' MOUSE, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GOING UP HERE. 
          BECAUSE ALL THE WATER GETS IN RIGHT DOWN THIS DRAIN HERE RIGHT NOW. 
          THE WATER THAT STARTS HERE COMES ACROSS, AND IT ENDS UP DOWN HERE. 
          I THINK I'M [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> AGAIN, TALK IN THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE. THAT'S OKAY. YES. 
          >> YOU'LL EVEN ADDED A PIPE GOING DOWN ACROSS POST, DRAINING INTO HIGGINS. THE CITY DID. 
          >> BUT BASICALLY, THAT WATER THAT IS CREATED HERE GOES INTO HIGGINS HERE. 
          I THINK WHAT I'M SPEAKING FOR THE NEIGHBORS, I DON'T WANT TO, BUT WHAT THEY'RE BASICALLY SAYING IS INSTEAD OF LEAVING IT OPEN FLOW HERE. 
          COULD WE TAKE IT CLOSER TO WHERE THAT'S ORIGINATING FROM? 
          >> LOOK, I KNOW WE'RE NOT ALL DRAINAGE EXPERTS UP HERE TONIGHT, SO WE'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO SOLVE IT, BUT I THINK THAT'S THE IDEAS. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE THE RESIDENTS AND DEVELOPER AND THE CITY I WANT TO BE THOUGHT THROUGH JUST TO SEE IF THERE'S A WAY TO MAKE IT BETTER ONCE A PAL. 
          IF YOU DON'T MIND, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE WE HAD ON THAT SHOWED THE SITE PLAN? I JUST WANTED TO FLUSH OUT ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT. 
          THERE YOU GO. THIS HERE. 
          THE FAR WESTERN SIDE OF THE SITE, I GUESS THAT WAS REFERENCED IN ONE OF THE RESIDENT COMMENTS, I GUESS, IS IT FAIR TO ASSUME, I GUESS YOU CAN SEE THAT CROOKED LINE ON THE BACK HALF OF THOSE WESTERN SITES, THAT AREA BE LEFT ALONE, SO [OVERLAPPING] TO SPEAK? 
          >> YES. WE HAVE [OVERLAPPING] THAT. 
          >> THERE CAN BE FLOW, THERE WON'T BE BUILDING PADS, THERE WON'T BE. 
          >> THIS IS A FLOW ADJUSTMENT, THIS DOTTED LINE. 
          THIS LINE HERE IS THE ESTIMATE OF THE 200 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN. 
          TYPICALLY DURING PLATTE RIGHT YOU GO OVER JUST WHERE WE'RE GOING TO PUT THE PADS. 
          IT'S OUR INTENTION, AND I TALKED TO RYAN ABOUT THIS. 
          WE JUST HAVEN'T MR. LANGFORD, THE GENTLEMAN THAT LIVES HERE. 
          WE HAVEN'T HAD IT'S NOT PART. 
          [01:05:01]
WE HAVE HAD PLENTY TO DO UP UNTIL THIS POINT, BUT OUR INTENTION WAS TO TAKE ALL OF THE DIRT THAT WE'RE TAKEN ON THE FRONT AND LIFT THESE PADS UP. 
          WE'VE GOT TO DO CALCULATIONS TO SEE HOW MUCH OF THE HOMES THEMSELVES CAN DRAIN FORWARD AND INTO THE RETENTION POND, WHICH WE HAVE CAPACITY FOR. 
          BUT WE DON'T SEE THESE GENERATING A TON OF FLOW BACK. 
          >> WELL THAT MAYBE ANOTHER HOMEWORK ITEM FOR YOU. 
          I GUESS I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO GET WITH THAT RESIDENT JUST TO THE NORTH THERE AND SHOW THEM WHAT THAT, [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> WE HAVE PLANS TO DO THAT. 
          >> THAT AREA WILL LOOK LIKE THAT THERE WON'T BE ANYTHING THAT WILL BE ADVERSELY AFFECTING IT FROM THE WAY IT IS TODAY, WHICH SOUNDS LIKE THE CONCERN. 
          >> IT'S IT'S A BIGGEST CONCERN TO US AS IT IS TO HIM. 
          I KNOW IT'S ONE PERSON, BUT WE HAVE HIS NAME EMAIL, AND WE'RE GOING TO ZOOM WITH HIM WITH OUR ENGINEERS. 
          >> WHEN WE GET TO CALC WE'LL. 
          >> ADD THAT TO YOUR HOMEWORK LIST. 
          THEN MAYBE LASTLY, JUST REALLY QUICKLY, THE ENTRANCE, OBVIOUSLY, THE PROPERTY NEEDS TO BE AFFORDED AN ENTRANCE. 
          I GUESS STAFF, I'M ASSUMING THE PREFERRED ENTRANCE FOR THE SITE IS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE DRIVEWAY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF PENTON BILL, JUST TO LINE UP ACCESS POINT, SO THERE'S NO LA FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT. 
          IS THAT THE THOUGHT. 
          >> CERTAINLY, WHERE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ADJOINING PROPERTY ALIGNS WITH ANOTHER HOME SITE OR DRIVEWAY OR PREFERENCES TO TRY TO LOCATE THOSE INTERSECTIONS WHERE THEY DON'T NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE EXISTING HOMESITE OR TRAFFIC CONFLICT WITH THE DRIVEWAY. 
          IF THEY MANAGED TO [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> [INAUDIBLE] WHICH WAY EVERYBODY'S TURNING. 
          >> IF THEY'VE MANAGED TO DO THAT RATHER CLOSELY AS FAR AS ALIGNMENT OF THOSE CENTER LINES, THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE THE DESIRED FOR CONFIGURATION. 
          >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WE NEED YOU AGAIN, WE'LL LET YOU KNOW. 
          WE GO AHEAD AND DELIBERATE A LITTLE BIT. 
          I'M TRYING TO THINK THROUGH THE MOST EFFECTIVELY TO CODIFY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL MEETING, HAVING IT THE DRAINAGE SITUATION VETTED OUT BY STAFF TO A LEVEL OF SATISFACTION THAT THEY'RE CONTENT WITH, I GUESS, RELATIVE TO THE DETENTION AREA, THE COST. 
          >> [INAUDIBLE] 
          >> I WANT YOU TO GET YOUR MIC. 
          >> THIS IS TOO BIG OF AN ISSUE TO TAKE TO COUNCIL AND HAVE THEM TRY TO DEAL WITH IT. 
          I THINK THIS NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH THE ENGINEERS AND STAFF TO COME UP WITH. 
          >> PRIOR TO COUNCIL. 
          >> PRIOR TO US APPROVING IT. 
          IT NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH BY THE ENGINEERS BY THE DEVELOPER AND BY THE CITY SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS TO FIX THIS. 
          THEN IT CAN COME TO US AND ONCE IT COMES TO US, THEN WE COULD BLESS IT AND IT GOES TO THE CITY AND THE CITY COUNCIL CAN DEAL WITH IT VERY EFFICIENTLY AT THAT POINT IN TIME. 
          THIS IS A VERY COMPLEX ISSUE. 
          >> OTHER THOUGHTS? 
          >> I HAD A QUESTION. I DON'T HAVE QUITE THE TENURE AS YOU GENTLEMEN, BUT ONE OF THE RESIDENTS MENTIONED THAT THIS IS A FEDERALLY PROTECTED FLOODWAY AND I WAS CURIOUS HOW THAT AFFECTS THIS FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO AS A CITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT. 
          >> DENNIS IS A FEDERAL DESIGNATION. 
          DOES THAT INHIBIT US FROM BEING ABLE TO ADDRESS ANY OF THIS? 
          >> TO CONDUCT ANY WORK IN THOSE PROTECTED STREAMS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE PROPER FEDERAL PERMITS. 
          FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, IF THERE'S CONSTRUCTION OR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN A FLOODPLAIN, WE REQUIRE THAT A FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BE SUBMITTED, WHICH THAT DOES GO THROUGH ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND THROUGH OUR STAFF AS WELL. 
          NOT AWARE OF ANY PARTICULAR ISSUE RAISED AS A PROJECT. 
          >> WITH THAT RES BRIDGE IF YOU GET THERE I GUESS. 
          >> YES. THAT WOULD ALL HAVE TO BE DEVELOPED OR DEALT WITH DURING THE DEVELOPMENTS CONSTRUCTION PLAN REVIEW AND SUBMITTAL, AND PERMITS WOULDN'T BE RELEASED UNTIL ALL OF THOSE THINGS HAD BEEN APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED. 
          >> ANY OTHER THOUGHTS. 
          >> WELL, I MEAN, I AGREE WITH DAVID ON THAT PART THAT I MEAN, JUST THIS DRAINAGE ISSUE BY ITSELF IN HERE, TAKES MORE TIME THAT WE COULD HAVE ALL NIGHT LONG IF WE SIT HERE AND TALKED ABOUT IT AND WITHOUT ANY REAL NUMBERS. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION ABOUT IT, WE CERTAINLY CAN'T JUST DUMP THE WATER DOWN ON THE NEIGHBORS 
          [01:10:02]
DOWN THE STREET JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT RUNNING THROUGH THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY ANYMORE, YOU JUST SHIFTED IT. 
          I LIVE RIGHT OFF THIS CREEK AS WELL. 
          I'M FAMILIAR WITH HOW WATER FLOWS THROUGH HERE AND HOW THE FLOODING SITUATION IS. 
          IT GETS PRETTY SEVERE FROM TIME TO TIME. 
          AND DOWN BY DOVE ROAD, EVEN IF HIGGINS CREEK IS NOT RESTRICTED ANYWAY, THERE'S BEEN MANY TIMES WHEN EVERYTHING DOWN BY DOVE ROAD IS PRACTICALLY UNDERWATER, AND YOU'RE JUST FEEDING MORE WATER DIRECTLY INTO IT QUICKER. 
          I CAN SEE THIS PRESUMABLY COULD BE, YOU'RE CLOSING DOVE DOWN BY FLOODING IT. I DON'T KNOW. 
          I THINK I AGREE THAT THIS NEEDS A LOT MORE ENGINEERING STUDY. 
          BUT IT WOULD BE A VERY BAD THING TO JUST PUT, JUST GO AHEAD, LIKE WE SAID, JUST SCALP THE BACK SIDE OF THESE LOTS AND GIVE AN EASEMENT THROUGH THERE BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO DESTROY THE PROPERTY VALUES AND IT'S ULTIMATELY NOT GOING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. 
          THERE'S NO GOOD ANSWER RIGHT NOW. 
          >> WELL, I GUESS MY OPINION ON THIS, I GUESS MY CONCERN I AGREE WITH YOU ALL. 
          BUT MY CONCERN IS IF THE PROPERTY OWNER, THE DEVELOPER, OR THE APPLICANT IS RETAINING OR FIGURING OUT HOW TO DISPOSE OF THE WATER THAT THEY HAVE ON THEIR PROPERTY AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO DO. 
          CAN WE DELAY THEIR DEVELOPMENT? WHILE WE FIX A PROBLEM THAT EXISTS OUTSIDE OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. 
          THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN. 
          I AGREE IN A PERFECT WORLD, WE WOULD SOLVE THIS WHOLE THING. 
          IF THEY'VE MET THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED AS A DEVELOPER ON THEIR PROPERTY WITH THE WATER THAT IS BEING DISPLACED BY THEIR DEVELOPMENT, CAN WE HOLD THEM UP TO FIX A DIFFERENT PROBLEM? 
          >> WELL, I THINK THE COMMENT WAS MADE EARLIER. 
          YOU GUYS ARE PROBABLY 30 DAYS AWAY FROM REALLY KNOWING IF YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU'VE PRESENTED TONIGHT ANYWAY. 
          I WILL SAY THIS IS UNUSUAL IN THAT. 
          99% OF THE COMMENTS TONIGHT HAVE BEEN ABOUT ONE ISSUE AS OPPOSED TO THE LOTS AREN'T BIG ENOUGH. 
          THE ENTRANCE LOOKS TERRIBLE. 
          YOU GUYS ARE TRYING TO RUN SOUTH. 
          I MEAN, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? THIS IS A VERY DIFFERENT CONVERSATION THAN WE NORMALLY HAVE, WHICH IS NICE. 
          I TEND TO AGREE. I DON'T THINK WE'RE THERE YET. 
          I MEAN, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF I MAKE A MOTION, WHAT AM I GOING TO SAY, HEY, GO DO SOME MORE STUDIES AND FIGURE SOMETHING OUT BEFORE YOU GO TO COUNSEL. 
          I MEAN, I THINK WE NEED TO KNOW WHERE YOU'RE AT ON THAT 30 DAY THING, WHAT YOU'VE COME UP WITH, WHAT THE IMPACTS ARE GOING TO BE, WHAT THE POND IS GOING TO HOLD VERSUS WHAT IT'S NOT GOING TO HOLD, IF THE 38 IS THE RIGHT NUMBER. 
          I MEAN, I THINK YOU'RE HEADED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. 
          BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE SENDING TO COUNSEL, I GUESS IS WHAT I'M GETTING AT. 
          >> MAYBE WHAT I WOULD SAY IS I GUESS IT'S ENCOURAGING, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE, I GUESS IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'LL HAVE A BETTER SOLUTION. 
          BACKED UP IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY, WHICH IS ALSO VIEWING THIS IN A MORE COMPREHENSIVE MANNER OUTSIDE OF THIS SITE AND HAS SOME FUNDS ALLOCATED TOWARDS TRYING TO DEAL WITH THIS. 
          KING AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S PROGRESS BEING MADE TOWARDS BEING ABLE TO MORE DEFINITIVELY STATE WHAT THE OUTCOME WILL LOOK LIKE, THAT WOULD GIVE US A BETTER IDEA ON WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON TO PASS ALONG OR NOT. 
          SO I THINK SOME MORE TIME. 
          WOULD BE HELPFUL, BUT I GUESS I PERSONALLY MIGHT AGREE AT BIT WITH COMMISSIONER PAILIN, THAT I THINK WE JUST NEED TO BE CAREFUL TO BAR, WE HOLD THIS SITE TOO GIVEN IT'S ALREADY AN ISSUE TODAY. 
          I MEAN, WE DEFINITELY NEED TO HOPEFULLY LEAVE THE SITUATION IN A BETTER POSITION, NOT A WORSE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN LEAVE IT IN A PERFECT POSITION AND ROB THEM OF THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP THEIR SITE. 
          I THINK THERE'S A BETTER SOLUTION OUT THERE. 
          I JUST WANT TO GIVE IT A LITTLE MORE TIME AND THEN LET'S JUST EVALUATE IT AND SEE WHERE STAFF LANDS UP. 
          DENNIS, I GUESS, DOES THAT SOUND REASONABLE FROM A STAFF STANDPOINT? 
          >> I MEAN, THERE IS BECAUSE OF SEPARATION FROM PEN Z'S RECOMMENDATION. 
          THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING THIS WOULD GO TO, THERE IS TIME TO FURTHER ADDRESS THEIR ABILITY TO INCORPORATE THE CITY'S PROJECT, WHICH I THINK WAS MENTIONED IS DIFFERENT FROM ANYTHING INVOLVING THEIR DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY. 
          I MEAN, THE CONDITIONS WITH REGARD TO THE DRAINAGE ISSUE WE'RE DISCUSSING, THE OPTIONS WERE FOR THEM TO PROVIDE AN EASEMENT, A DRAINAGE EASEMENT LARGE ENOUGH TO COVER THE RUNOFF THAT'S COMING OFF PATONVILL THROUGH THEIR LOTS ONE THROUGH FIVE TO GET INTO THE HIGGINS BRANCH. 
          [01:15:06]
THE ALTERNATIVE TO THAT WAS TO WORK WITH THE CITY ON ENLARGING THE CULRIT THAT CROSSES PATONVILL AND PUTTING THAT INTO A STORM SYSTEM WITHIN THEIR PROJECT TO FREE UP THE IMPACT OF THAT DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACROSS THOSE LOTS. 
          THAT'S THE DIRECTION THE APPLICANTS TAKING IS THEY'RE DOING THEIR DUE DILIGENCE IN WORKING WITH US TO SEE IF THAT'S A POSSIBILITY. 
          THE ALTERNATE IS AT LEAST PROVIDE THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT NECESSARY THROUGH THOSE IMPACTED LOTS TO CARRY THAT FLOW. 
          >> WELL, I GUESS IT SOUNDS LIKE I'M HEARING YOU RIGHT. 
          THERE'S SOMEWHAT HESITANCY UP HERE TONIGHT TO SUPPORT IT AS IS AS PRESENTED. 
          PREFERENCE TO GIVE IT MORE TIME BEFORE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION. 
          WE CAN TALK TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT THAT IN A SECOND. 
          BUT ASSUMING THAT ENDS UP BEING THE CASE, I THINK THE HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS ARE FOR THE APPLICANT TO WORK ON THE DETENTION SIZE ON SITE, WITH IT COMING CLOSER TO 38 VERSUS 21% I'M HEARING ALL THAT AND UNDERSTANDING IT, RIGHT, AND THE CITY TO LOOK AT IT MORE COMPREHENSIVELY AND SEE, ARE THERE OPTIONS TO THE NORTH IN TERMS OF WHERE TO LET THIS WATER OUT OR NOT. 
          I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS AND REALLY QUICKLY BECAUSE I JUST DON'T WANT TO TAKE IT FOR GRANTED. 
          I GUESS SETTING DRAINAGE ASIDE, WERE THERE ANY OTHER CONCERNS THAT THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO WORK ON? I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT FENCING AND THEY SEEM TO GIVE THE RIGHT ANSWER IN THE FRONT DOOR AND OTHER THINGS. 
          I MEAN, ANYTHING ELSE. 
          MAYBE THE APPLICANT DOESN'T MIND COMING BACK UP HERE REAL QUICK. 
          YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          I GUESS ONLY THE APPLICANT CAN REQUEST TO TABLE SOMETHING. 
          I MEAN, IF YOU WANT US TO TAKE A VOTE ON IT THIS EVENING, WE CAN. 
          I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'LL BE FAVORABLE, BUT WE CAN TAKE A VOTE, OR YOU CAN REQUEST TO TABLE IT AND TRY TO WORK A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPREHENSIVELY ON A SOLUTION. 
          FROM MY OUR PERSPECTIVE, WE HAD COMMENTS FROM STAFF AND WE COULD HAVE JUST DONE THAT. 
          HEY, WE'LL GIVE YOU THE 30 FEET AND THE PROBLEM EXISTS. 
          I FEEL LIKE TIME WISE, I'M BEING PENALIZED FOR DOING THE RIGHT THING IN TERMS OF COUNCIL VERY EQUIPPED. 
          THERE'S TWO COUNCIL MEETINGS. 
          STAFF IS WORKING WITH US AS DILIGENTLY AS WE CAN. 
          WHAT I WOULD ASK THE P&Z TO CONSIDER IS REALLY, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY OTHER ISSUES. 
          WE'VE SPENT TIME DOING THIS, AND THERE BEYOND WHAT YOUR OWN STAFF AND THE ENGINEERING TEAM COMES UP WITH. 
          THERE ARE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVES. THERE'S TWO. 
          WHICH IS TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL, WHICH IS GIVE YOU GUYS THE EASEMENT OR LESS SOLVE THE PROBLEM. 
          THERE IS GOING TO BE STUFF LIKE, COULD WE TAKE THE DRAIN FURTHER DOWN, JUST LIKE THE THREE NEIGHBORS GOT UP AND TALK TO. 
          BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT SHOULD COST US EIGHT WEEKS IN THIS PROCESS TO GO BACK THROUGH P AND Z. I'M JUST CANDIDLY BECAUSE WE'VE WORKED A LOT OF TIME AND WE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY TO GET WHERE WE ARE. 
          I DON'T THINK WE'RE SKIPPING ANYTHING BECAUSE COUNSEL IS GOING TO BE THOUGH AND YOUR STAFF IS GOING TO BE THOUGH AND WHATEVER THE SOLUTION IS. 
          I LISTENED TO THE CITIZENS AND DID WANT TO ROLL OVER, AND I WANTED TO DO THE RIGHT THING. 
          I THINK THE RIGHT THING IS CLOSE, BUT HONESTLY, I DON'T SEE THE POINT IN STOPPING BACK THROUGH P& Z WHEN COUNSEL AND STAFF ARE GOING TO BE AS DRILLED AND ZONED IN ON THIS STUFF AS POSSIBLE. 
          IT'S NO KNOCK ON YOU GUYS. 
          IT'S JUST THE TIME AND IT TAKES. 
          >> I DON'T WANT TO RE LITIGATE IT IF THAT'S OKAY. 
          WE ON THAT FOR AN HOUR AND A HALF. 
          I UNDERSTAND BASICALLY THE QUICK QUESTION IS, IF YOU'D LIKE FOR US TO TAKE A VOTE THIS EVENING, WE CAN. 
          HOWEVER THE BOAT GOES, IT'LL PASS ALONG TO COUNCIL AND IT'LL EITHER BE FAVORABLE UNFAVORABLE, THERE'LL BE REASONS WHY CALL. 
          I WOULD PREFER TO ASK FOR A VOTE OR WE CAN ASK FOR A T. 
          >> I WOULD PREFER TO YOU VOTE. 
          AND I RESPECTFULLY DO THAT AND THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. 
          >> THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I MEAN, I GUESS WE CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION THAT EITHER IS SUPPORTIVE WITH CAVEATS OR A DENIAL, AND WE CAN JUST VOTE ACCORDINGLY. 
          I'LL STARE AT THE VICE CHAIR FOR WELL, I CAN TAP THE ANSWER BY YOU A LITTLE TIME IF YOU WANT, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY GOOD JOKES. 
          SHOW EVERYBODY FANCY COINS HERE. 
          >> WHY DON'T WE JUST PRESENT IT AS FOR OR AGAINST AS IT'S PRESENTED. 
          [01:20:05]
I MEAN, THERE'S NO REASON TO GO [INAUDIBLE]. 
          >> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING IF YOU WANT TO DO A MOTION TO DENY, WE CAN DO A MOTION TO DENY TO. 
          >> SEE YOU TO APPROVE? IT DOESN'T MATTER EITHER WAY. 
          I MEAN, I DON'T HOW TO VOTE BOTH WAY. 
          >> EITHER WAY AND WE CAN DO IT BOTH WAYS AND WHAT I MEAN, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME TO MAKE A LONG WHAT I'M SAYING. 
          I JUST SAYING WE NEED A MOTION. 
          >> WELL, EVEN IF IT'S DENIED, IT'S GOING FORWARD, RIGHT? 
          >> YES. 
          >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER 6 ZA 25-0066, THAT WE DENY THE MOTION AS PRESENTED AND NOTE FOR COUNSEL AND STAFF, THAT THE ONLY REAL CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE ARE WITH RESPECT TO THE DRAINAGE AS PRESENTED AND THAT MORE INFORMATION IS NEEDED. 
          WITH REGARD TO THE ACTUAL NUMBERS ON RETENTION, DETENTION, AND THE FLOW OF THE WATER. 
          NOTE SPECIFICALLY THAT THERE WERE NO COMMENTS ON LOT SIZE OR THE DEVELOPMENT OTHER THAN THE ENTRANCE AND ABSENT DRAINAGE, THERE WAS GOOD FEEDBACK. 
          >> MAYBE JUST TAGGING ON TO THAT, THE EVENTUAL LET OUT SIDE OF THE PIPING OF THE WATER, WE WANT TO SAY THAT? 
          >> SURE. 
          >> YOU GET THAT, RIGHT? 
          >> YEAH. NOTING THAT THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT THE EVENTUAL OUTLET AND THE LENGTH OF THE PIPING AS WELL AS THE DRAINAGE ON THE WESTERNMOST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. 
          >> WITH THOSE NOTES, WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY YES. 
          EVERYBODY GO AHEAD AND VOTE NOW. 
          SORRY, WE NEED A SECOND. SOMEBODY SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND. 
          THANK YOU. VOTE YES IS TO DENY, VOTE NO. 
          EVERYBODY GO AHEAD AND VOTE, PLEASE. 
          IF WE CAN. THE DENIAL PASSES 42. 
          JUST TO EXPLAIN TO EVERYONE IN THE ROOM WHAT THAT MEANS IS IT WILL PROCEED TO CITY COUNCIL AND DENNIS WILL MAKE SURE I GET THIS RIGHT BECAUSE THERE'S A NEW METHODOLOGY HERE. 
          LIKELY, DENNIS, I THINK THE FEBRUARY 3 MEETING, I GUESS, I WOULD NO SOONER THAN THAT. 
          FEBRUARY 3 MEETING, IT WOULD GO TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A DENIAL BASED ON THE CONTEXT PROVIDED BY THE VIE CHAIR IN THE INTERIM. 
          THE APPLICANT WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON THOSE ITEMS THAT WE TOUCHED ON AND CONTINUE TO STAY IN TOUCH WITH THE RESIDENTS AND JUST KNOW THAT CITY COUNCIL CAN HAVE THE ABILITY TO TABLE SOMETHING OR NOT. 
          STAY TUNED ON. IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'LL KEEP DOING THEIR HOMEWORK, AND WE'LL JUST SEE IF THE HOMEWORK GETS DONE FOR CITY COUNCIL AND OR IF THAT'S UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL STANDARDS. 
          HOPEFULLY THAT'S CLEAR FOR EVERYBODY IN TERMS OF HOW THINGS MOVE FORWARD. 
          THANK YOU, EVERYBODY FOR COMING OUT THIS EVENING. 
          WHO WANTED TO TALK ABOUT ITEM NUMBER SIX. 
          NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE REST OF OUR ITEMS FOR WHOEVER WANTS TO STICK AROUND FOR THAT FUN. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING OUT. 
          NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 7 ON OUR AGENDA, 
          [7. Consider: ZA25-0075, Zoning Change and Concept/Site Plan for White Chapel  Methodist Church, on property described as Lot 1R, Block 1, White Chapel Methodist Church  Addition, and located at 185 S. White Chapel Blvd. Current Zoning: “CS” Community Service  District.   Requested Zoning: “S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District.   SPIN Neighborhood #9.    PUBLIC HEARING]
ZONING CHANGE AND CONCEPT SITE PLAN FOR WHITE CHAPEL, METHODIST CHURCH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WE'RE READY. THANK YOU. 
          >> GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSION. 
          I'LL BE PRESENTING ITEM SEVEN, A ZONING CHANGE AND CONCEPT SITE PLAN FOR WHITES CHAPEL METHODIST. 
          >> SPEAKING A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE. 
          >> SORRY, I'M NOT USED TO THIS NEW. 
          >> SORRY. I MY OLD HEARING. THANK YOU. 
          >> AGAIN, THIS REQUEST IS FOR AN APPROVAL OF A ZONING CHANGE AND CONCEPT SLASH SITE PLAN FOR WHITE CHAPEL METHODIST CHURCH LOCATED AT 185 SOUTH CHAPEL BOULEVARD. 
          THE REQUESTED THE CURRENT ZONING IS COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT, AND THEY'RE REQUESTING FOR SP2 GENERALIZED SITE PLAN DISTRICT WITH CS USES. 
          THE REASON FOR THIS ZONING FOR THEIR PROJECT PHASES AND A PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE BUILDING. 
          THIS IS AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED OFF SOUTH WHITE CHAPEL AND SOUTH LAKE BOULEVARD. 
          FUTURE LAND USE IS PUBLIC, SEMI PUBLIC. 
          CURRENT ZONING IS COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT. 
          THIS IS A STREET VIEW FROM SOUTH WYE CHAPEL BOULEVARD, A STREET VIEW FROM EAST SOUTH LAKE BOULEVARD. 
          [01:25:01]
A DRONE VIEW SHOWING THE PARKING LOT TOWARDS THE EDUCATION BUILDING, WHICH IS ONE OF THE ADDITIONS. 
          A DRONE VIEW SHOWING THE PARKING LOT TOWARDS A FOUNDRY BUILDING, ANOTHER ONE OF THEIR ADDITIONS, AND THE STREET VIEW FROM THE YOUTH ACTIVITY BUILDING THAT THEY'RE BUILDING A NEW SECTION OF. 
          I STREET VIEW, SORRY. THIS IS THE EXISTING SITE PLAN. 
          THEY ORIGINALLY HAD COME FOR A NEW RESOURCE BUILDING FOR ZA 25 0069, AND THIS IS SHOWING THE PROPOSED ADDITION AREA. 
          THIS IS THEIR PROPOSED SITE PLAN. 
          NOTING THAT IT'LL BE BROKEN UP INTO TWO PHASES. 
          IN PHASE II, THEY'RE DOING A PROPOSED ADDITION OF A NEW YOUTH ACTIVITY CENTER, WHICH ALREADY EXISTS, BUT THEY'RE ADDING TO IT AND THE EDUCATION BUILDING, AS WELL AS A PARKING LOT FOR THE FIRST PHASE. 
          THEN FOR PHASE II, THEY'RE DOING THE ADDITION OF THE FOUNDRY BUILDING. 
          THIS IS JUST SHOWING THE PARKING LOT EXPANSION. 
          >> THIS IS THE SITE DATA SUMMARY, SOME THINGS TO NOTE FROM IT. 
          FOR THE NEW ACTIVITY CENTER, THEY'RE ADDING ABOUT APPROXIMATELY 17,000 SQUARE FEET. 
          FOR THE EDUCATION BUILDING, THEY'RE ADDING APPROXIMATELY 10,000 SQUARE FEET, AND FOR THE FOUNDRY BUILDING, THEY'RE ADDING OR THE NEW FLOOR AREA, FOR ALL THESE. 
          THE NEW FLOOR AREA FOR THIS IS 29,000 SQUARE FEET. 
          NOTING THAT THE REQUIRED PARKING COUNT IS BASED ON THEIR SANCTUARY, WHICH IS A RATIO OF ONE PARKING SPACE PER THREE SEATS, AND THAT'S HOW THEY GOT THE 667 PARKING SPACES. 
          THIS IS THEIR EXISTING TREE PLAN SHOWING THE DEMOLITION OF THOSE TREES. 
          THIS IS THEIR UTILITY PLAN. 
          NOTING THE EXISTING 12 INCH WATER LINE MAIN OFF OF SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD AND THE EXISTING 15 FOOT STORMWATER EASEMENT THAT RUNS THROUGH THE PROPERTY, THEY'LL BE RELOCATING THE EIGHT INCH WATER LINE FOR PHASE 2. 
          THE GRADING PLAN. DRAINAGE PLAN GOING TOWARDS THE SOUTH. 
          NOTHING CHANGES HERE. 
          PHASE 1 LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE YOUTH ACTIVITY BUILDING AND THE EDUCATION AREA AND PHASE 2 OF THE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE RENDERING BUILDING. 
          THIS IS A RENDERING FOR THE YOUTH ACTIVITY CENTER AND EDUCATION BUILDING. 
          NOTING THAT FOR THE YOUTH ACTIVITY CENTER, THEY'RE ADDING, I THINK, I BELIEVE THREE FEET TO IT. 
          THEY'RE MATCHING THAT SECOND STORY NEXT TO THE EDUCATION BUILDING, AND THEN EDUCATION BUILDING. 
          THEY HAVE AN EXISTING THIRD FLOOR AND THEY'RE JUST ADJUSTING THAT WITH THE ADDITION. 
          THE HEIGHT FOR THE YOUTH ACTIVITY CENTER IS 42 FEET AT CENTERS. 
          THESE ARE ELEVATIONS FROM THE EAST, SOUTH, NORTH AND EDUCATION ELEVATIONS ON THE WEST AND EAST. 
          PHASE 2 IS THE FOUNDRY BUILDING SHOWING THE RENDERING AND EXISTING ELEVATION, THE HEIGHT BEING A MAXIMUM OF 37 FEET. 
          ELEVATIONS TO THE NORTH, ELEVATIONS TO THE SOUTH. 
          AS OF NOW, THERE'S NO RESPONSES FOR THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS, AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE. 
          >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE? ALL GOOD. 
          THANK YOU I APPRECIATE IT. CALL THE APPLICANT UP FOR THIS ONE. IF YOU DON'T MIND. 
          NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. 
          PROBABLY ABBREVIATED PRESENTATION AS JUST. 
          >> YES. MY NAME IS BRENT KLEIN, 1921, STATE HIGHWAY 121, LEWISVILLE. 
          WE'RE OBVIOUSLY TRYING TO CLUSTER THE NEW ADDITIONS UP AGAINST THE EXISTING BUILDING FOR CIRCULATION PURPOSES AND FALLING IN WITH THE VERNACULAR OF THE REST OF THE COMPLEX. 
          THE PHASE 1 IS THE YOUTH ACTIVITY CENTER. 
          WE'RE BASICALLY BUILDING A NEW BUILDING TO THE NORTH OF THE EXISTING EDUCATION BUILDING, AND THEN WE'RE ADDING A THIRD FLOOR, WHICH IS WHY WE NEED THE EXTRA HEIGHT TO THAT EXISTING BUILDING. 
          IT WAS STRUCTURED TO HANDLE THIRD FLOOR. 
          THEN THE NEW FOUNDRY BUILDING IS TAKEN OFF PART OF THE CHOIR REHEARSAL SPACE. 
          IN BUILDING A NEW TWO STORY BUILDING RIGHT THERE. 
          THAT'S MORE OF A CONTEMPORARY WORSHIP SPACE, TIERED SEATING. 
          IT DOES FIT IN WITH THE 2.5 STORIES, BUT THE HEIGHT OF THE ROOF AND THAT LOCATION TO FIT IN THE MONOCULAR AND WORK OUT FOR A WORSHIP CENTER IS A LITTLE TALLER THAN THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT. 
          ANYWAY, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE DETAIL YOU NEED ON THIS. 
          I THINK IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE. 
          [01:30:02]
          >> WE'LL SEE ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS, THEY ARE OK? NOT RIGHT NOW. WE'RE GOOD IF WE NEED TO WE'LL CALL YOU BACK UP. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM NUMBER 7 ON OUR AGENDA DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING. 
          I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. 
          MUCH LESS TRAFFIC THIS TIME. 
          GOING ONCE, TWICE. 
          WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          YOU LOOK LIKE YOU'RE READY TO JUMP AT IT THERE. 
          >> WHAT IS THE HEIGHT SEEMS TO BE, A MAJOR CONCERN HERE? HOW DOES THIS CORRESPOND TO THE EXISTING BUILDING NOW AS FAR AS HEIGHT TWICE GOES? BECAUSE ISN'T THE MAIN CHAPEL TALLER THAN 35 FEET? 
          >> THE MAIN CHAPEL BY WAY OF BUILDING HEIGHT ITSELF IS WITHIN THE 35 FEET. 
          HOWEVER, THE CHURCH FIRE AND STEEPLE. 
          IS MUCH TALLER THAN THAT AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE UNDER THE STANDARDS COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT AND SOME OF THE OTHER DISTRICTS THAT THE CITY HAS THAT PERMITS BUILDINGS UP TO 35 FEET, ETC HAS GRANTS CITY COUNCIL THE ABILITY TO GRANT A HEIGHT WAIVER FOR THOSE TYPE OF ELEMENTS. 
          FOR WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING WITH THIS NEW PHASE. 
          THEY HAD BUILT ONE OF THE STRUCTURES STRUCTURALLY TO WHERE IT COULD HANDLE A THIRD FLOOR BEING ADDED. 
          THEN ONE OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS THEY'RE ADDING ARE GOING ABOVE THE HEIGHT FROM WHAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERMITS COUNCIL TO GRANT VARIANCES TO. 
          THEY'RE REZONING THE PROPERTY INTO THE SP2 ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW AND REQUEST A REGULATION TO GO TO THE THIRD FLOOR AND TO THE HEIGHTS THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING ON THE NEW STRUCTURES. 
          >> THANKS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? 
          >> THE TOP OF THE PEAK ROOF OF THE EXISTING AND THE TOP OF THE FLAT NEW HIGHER ROOF, IS THAT THE DIMENSION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          >> CORRECT. THE HEIGHT OF THE NEW STRUCTURES TECHNICALLY. 
          THEY HAVE GONE ON AND ADDRESSED IN THEIR REGULATIONS, I THINK, MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO COVER THE STEEPLE AND EVERYTHING FOR THE EXISTING CHURCH, JUST UNDER THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS THEY'VE GOT FOR THE SP2 DISTRICT. 
          BUT THE DRIVER OF THIS IS THE NEW BUILDING, THE THIRD FLOOR, AND I BELIEVE ONE OF THE HEIGHTS OF THE OTHER BUILDING. 
          >> IT'S THAT THIRD FLOOR THAT PUSHES THAT BUILDING 2 FOOT 6 ROUGHLY HIGHER THAN THE PEAK OF THE BUILDING IT'S ATTACHING TO, IS THAT RIGHT? 
          >> I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT AND THEN THE THIRD FLOOR BEING ADDED BECAUSE THE DISTRICT ONLY ALLOWS UP TO 2.5 STORIES. 
          >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ANY OTHER DELIBERATIONS? 
          >> THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE A PROBLEM FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, IS IT AS FAR AS BUILDING HEIGHT GOES? 
          >> THEY DO HAVE A COMMENT IN THEIR REVIEW BASED ON FIRE CODE, THEY'LL NEED TO WIDEN THE FIRE LANE BY TWO FEET AS IT APPROACHES THOSE BUILDING HEIGHTS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEIR LADDER TRUCKS TO FULLY EXTEND THEIR GEAR AND BALANCE WHAT MAY BE NEEDED AS FAR AS THE EXTENSION OF THAT LADDER. 
          BUT I BELIEVE THEY'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CHURCH ON HOW THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> ANY OTHER DELIBERATIONS, THOUGHTS BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN THE MOTION? 
          >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 7 ON OUR AGENDA, ZA25-0075, SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED JANUARY 2, 2026, AND ALSO SUBJECT TO OUR SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER 2, DATED JANUARY 2, 2026? 
          >> MOTION TO BE SECOND. 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> PLEASE AND MOTION PASSES 6-0 SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD LUCK. 
          [01:35:01]
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> CITY COUNCIL MEETING, TWO MEETINGS FROM NOW. I'M LEARNING TO SAY THAT. 
          NEXT ITEM, ITEM NUMBER 8, 
          [8. Consider: ZA25-0076, Preliminary Plat for Trademark Southlake, on property described  as Tracts 1A and 1A03, James J. West Survey Abstract No. 1620, City of Southlake, Tarrant  County, Texas and located at 1800 and 1900 N. White Chapel Blvd. Current Zoning: “ECZ”  Employment Center Zoning District.   SPIN Neighborhood #3. PUBLIC HEARING]
CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TRADEMARK SOUTHLAKE. 
          >> GOOD EVENING AGAIN. I'M HERE TO PRESENT THE ITEM NUMBER 8 FLAP OF TRADEMARK. 
          AGAIN, THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1,800 AND 1900 NORTH WHITE CHAPEL BOULEVARD. 
          HERE'S AN AREA VIEW OF THE PROPERTY. 
          THE FUTURE LAND USE IS MIXED THAT'S CURRENTLY ZONED ECC EMPLOYMENT CENTER ZONING. 
          STREET VIEW FROM NORTHWAY CHAPEL BOULEVARD, LOOKING WEST. 
          HERE IS WEST KIRKWOOD BOULEVARD STREET VIEW LOOKING SOUTH. 
          STREET VIEW FROM THE FRONTAGE ROAD OFF STATE HIGHWAY 114, LOOKING EAST AND THEN HERE IS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT THEY ARE GOING FOR IN THE TREE INVENTORY PLAN, AS WELL AS A TREE CONSERVATION PLAN, WHICH LINES UP WITH WHAT WAS APPROVED WHEN IT CAME THROUGH ZONING. 
          THEN THEIR PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN AS WELL AS THEIR STORMWATER PLAN. QUESTIONS? 
          >> JUST CONFIRMING THAT THIS IS COMPLETELY IN AGREEMENT WITH ALL PREVIOUS APPROVALS, CORRECT? 
          >> YES. 
          >> DENNIS, YOU'LL CONFIRM AGAIN, THIS IS VERY MINISTERIAL IN NATURE. 
          WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY LATITUDE, THANKS TO THE STATE ON THESE ITEMS. 
          >> THAT IS CORRECT, CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE AN APPLICANT PRESENT THIS EVENING? WELL HERE. HOLD A HOLD TIGHT. 
          DOES ANYONE HAVE A NEED TO SPEAK WITH THE APPLICANT ON THIS ONE? I THINK WE'RE IN GOOD SHAPE. 
          BUT THANK YOU FOR SHOWING UP BECAUSE YOU DO NEED TO SHOW UP TO PLAY TO WIN, BY THE WAY. 
          BUT SOMETIMES YOU DON'T NEED TO SPEAK. 
          I THINK WE'RE GOOD IF YOU'RE GOOD. 
          I THINK YOU'RE GOOD. ITEM NUMBER 8 DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARINGS. 
          I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING TO ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND COMMENT ON THIS ITEM AND SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          I'LL JUST NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT SINCE THIS IS MINISTERIAL IN NATURE WITH NO LATITUDE WHATSOEVER, EVEN THOUGH I RECUSED MYSELF DURING THE FIRST TIME THIS CAME THROUGH, THIS BEING A PRELIMINARY PLAT. 
          I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON IT WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY DISCRETION ANYWAY SO I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT FOR THE RECORD. YOU BACK. 
          >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 8 ON THE AGENDA, ZA25-0076, SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED JANUARY 2, 2026, AND ALSO SUBJECT TO THE PLAT REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER 1 DATED JANUARY 2, 2026. 
          >> MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND. 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> PLEASE. ROLL NOW. 
          PASSES 6-0. 
          GOOD LUCK AT THE NEXT LEVEL. APPRECIATE IT. 
          NOW, WE MOVE ON TO THE LAST ITEM ON OUR PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA MEETING, 
          [9. Consider: ZA25-0077, Preliminary Plat for Dove Ridge Addition (formerly known as  Cardinal Court Addition), being a revision of Lot 9 and Lot 57R, F. Throop No. 1511 Addition,  City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas and located at 2080 and 2117 E. Dove Rd.   Current  Zoning: “SF-1A” Single Family Residential District.   SPIN Neighborhood #4.   PUBLIC  HEARING]
ITEM NUMBER 9, PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DOVE RIDGE ADDITION. 
          >> GOOD EVENING AGAIN. THIS IS ITEM 9 PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DOVE RIDGE ADDITION. 
          IT WAS FORMERLY KNOWN AS A CARDINAL COURT ADDITION WHEN IT FIRST CAME THROUGH, AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO SEEK APPROVAL FOR SEVEN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND APPROXIMATELY 10.28 ACRES LOCATED AT 28 IN 2021, 17 EAST OF ROAD. 
          THIS IS THE AERIAL VIEW OFF OF EAST AND KIMBLE. 
          THE FUTURE LAND USE IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. 
          THE CURRENT ZONING IS S OF 1A, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. 
          A STREET VIEW FROM EAST OF ROAD FACING SOUTH. 
          THIS IS THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAT, ZA25-0003. 
          NOTING THAT THIS ONE HAD FIVE LOTS AND TWO OPEN SPACE LOTS. 
          FOR THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT, THEY'RE ADDING ON TO THAT OTHER PROPERTY AND TAKING OUT ONE OF THE OPEN SPACE LOTS AND ADDING 26 SO THAT THEY'LL MAKE THE ONE ACRE FOR ALL OF THEM AND NO CHANGES TO LOTS ONE THROUGH FIVE. 
          THIS IS THEIR EXISTING DRAINAGE PLAN, THEIR PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN. 
          PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN, NOTING THE PROPOSED WATER AND SEWER LINES. 
          [01:40:02]
TREE CONSERVATION PLAN, AND NOTING THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE FOLLOWING VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE PROPOSED STREET TO BE A PRIVATE GATED STREET AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          >> GOING BACK REAL QUICK. 
          >> [INAUDIBLE] TO GATED. 
          >> MAYBE ASK THE APPLICANT ABOUT THAT. 
          DENNIS, IS THIS CONSISTENT WITH ALL PREVIOUS APPROVALS? 
          >> THIS PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY ZONED, SF1 WITHOUT A CONCEPT PLAN. 
          THEY DID HAVE A PLAT SHOWING, I BELIEVE, APPROVED FOR BOTH OF THE CURRENTLY PLATTED LOTS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT. 
          IT IS NOT REALLY GOVERNED BY A CONCEPT PLAN SO IT'S REQUIRED TO MEET THE SF1 A REGULATIONS AND THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. 
          FROM THAT STANDPOINT, IT APPEARS TO DO THAT WITH A FEW WITH CORRECTIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF REVIEW SUMMARY, WHICH I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS OR HAS ADDRESSED. 
          THE EXCEPTION TO THIS WOULD BE REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE PRIVATE STREET. 
          WHICH THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIRES RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS BE DEVELOPED AND CONSTRUCTED WITH PUBLIC STREETS AND AT SOME AT WHICH POINT, AT LEAST 75% OF THE LOTS ARE HOMEOWNER CONTROLLED OR OCCUPIED OUT OF THE DEVELOPER OR BUILDER'S HANDS. 
          THE 100% OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MUST PETITION THE CITY TO CONVERT THAT TO PRIVATE. 
          THE CITY COUNCIL HAS AUTHORITY OVER MODIFICATION TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. 
          IN THE CASE WHERE WE HAVE I BELIEVE IN ALMOST ALL CASES THAT WE HAVE APPROVED PRIVATE STREETS, IT'S BEEN DONE BY WAY OF A VARIANCE OR AS PART OF THE ZONING OF A PUD OR CONCEPT PLAN AND VARIANCE. 
          >> WHAT IS THIS SITUATION, I DIDN'T RECALL THIS DATE. 
          WAS THIS PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL? 
          >> THE APPLICANT OR THE PROPERTY OWNER DEVELOPER DID NOT FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE ORIGINAL PRELIMINARY PLAT THAT WAS APPROVED. 
          THIS IS A NEW OR REVISED PULMONARY PLAT COMING FORWARD, WHICH THEY ARE NOT BOUND NECESSARILY BY THAT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT. 
          THE ORDINANCE DOES ALLOW THEM TO SUBMIT A NEW PLAT FOR CONSIDERATION. 
          >> [NOISE] THAT INCLUDES THE COMMUNITY IS THE REQUEST. 
          >> THAT INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A PRIVATE STREET. 
          >> PRIVATE STREET WITH THE GATE. 
          >> YES AND THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE REQUESTED. 
          >> YES. THANK YOU. 
          WAS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR THIS ONE? DO YOU MIND COMING FORWARD TO THE PODIUM NAME AND ADDRESS? 
          >> MY NAME IS JOHN SHARKEY. 
          I AM THE APPLICANT. 
          I'VE GOT THE CONSULTANTS HERE. 
          I 1012 ELGROVE CURT, KELLER, TEXAS IS WHERE I LIVE. 
          I'M GOING TO HAND IT OVER TO CURTIS AND HE CAN TAKE MIC. 
          >> DAN, THE QUESTIONS YOU'RE ASKING, THIS DIDN'T GO THROUGH A ZONING PROCESS. 
          IT WAS MADE PRETTY CLEAR ON AN ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THIS THAT THE CITY DIDN'T WANT TO CHANGE THIS ZONING FROM SF ONE A. 
          WE HAVEN'T ATTEMPTED TO REZONE THIS SOMETHING DIFFERENT. 
          WHAT'S DIFFERENT HERE FROM THE ORIGINAL PRELIMINARY PLAT IS THAT WE WERE ABLE TO ACQUIRE A LITTLE BIT OF PROPERTY FROM THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST, WHO OWNS WHAT WILL NOW BE CALLED BOUT 7. 
          ACQUIRING THAT PROPERTY ALLOWED US TO YIELD NO LOT IN HERE. 
          BASICALLY, IT'S GOING FROM FIVE LOTS TO SIX LOTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT END. 
          THE REQUEST FOR THE PLAT, THE ORIGINAL PLAT WAS DONE WITH SOMEONE ELSE, YOU RECALL, THE EX MAYOR WAS UP HERE ASKING FOR THAT. 
          HE DID NOT END UP GETTING INVOLVED IN THIS. 
          THERE'S A NEW APPLICANT, AND THEIR PLANS FOR THE PROPERTY ARE VERY, 
          [01:45:03]
VERY HIGH LEVEL AND CONSISTENT WITH MOSS FARMS JUST TO THE WEST OF THIS. 
          I KNOW HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT GATED PROPERTIES,. 
          >> THIS IS A NEW REQUEST, CORRECT? 
          >> THIS IS A NEW REQUEST, YES, WITH THE PLATTING. 
          WHAT'S DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU WERE EXPECTING IS A LOT OF TIMES THAT'S DONE DURING ZONING. 
          SINCE THIS WAS NOT REZONED, IT'S DONE DURING PLATEAU. 
          >> WHERE IS THE REQUESTED GATE TO BE PUT? YOU KNOW HOW TO USE THE MOUSE. 
          YES. YOU'VE BEEN UP HERE ONCE OR TWICE. I OUGHT CORRECT. 
          >> DO YOU KNOW, THERE'LL BE A MEDIAN HERE, AND THAT'S WHY IT GETS WIDER HERE. 
          IT'LL BE RIGHT OFF. 
          NOW, THERE'S A GATE HERE, OF COURSE, FOR THIS THING. 
          THERE'S ALREADY A GATE HERE FOR THE EXISTING PROPERTY. 
          OF COURSE, ACROSS THE STREET HERE IS THE STORAGE YARD AND VERY FAMILIAR. 
          THE COMMERCIAL ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? 
          >> I HAVE A QUESTION, NOT FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT ARE WE APPROVING THE PRIVATE ROAD IN THE GATE TODAY? 
          >> I WAS GOING TO WAIT TILL WE'RE DO THE APPLICANT. 
          MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE LAND. 
          >> IS THERE ALREADY A HOUSE AT SIX? 
          >> WELL, THE ON LOT 3, THERE IS A BIG HOUSE HERE, YES. 
          THAT LOT HAS BEEN FASHIONED TO RETAIN THAT HOUSE. 
          THERE IS ALREADY A HOUSE ON LOT 7, THAT'S NOT PART OF OUR PROJECT, BUT IT HAS TO BE PART OF THE PLATE SINCE THEIR LOT WILL BE CHANGING. 
          >> WHY CAN'T YOU DO THE DRIVEWAY GOING INTO THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY THAT SERVES ONE THROUGH FIVE, SIX, AND NOT HAVE THAT FLAG LOT GOING OUT THERE ONTO THE STREET WITH ANOTHER SEP. 
          >> THAT'S ALREADY AN EXISTING LOT. THAT'S OUR NEIGHBOR. 
          LOT 7 IS THE NEIGHBORING LOT. 
          THERE'S ALREADY A BIG HOUSE ON IT. 
          THEY ALREADY HAVE WHAT YOU DESCRIBED AS A FLAG LOT THERE. 
          THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WE'RE MAKING WITH THEIR LOT IS WE'RE ACQUIRING THIS BLUE HATCHED AREA HERE. 
          TO MAKE THIS WHOLE ENTRY A LITTLE BIT CLEANER. 
          >> WELL, WHY WOULDN'T YOU PUT THE DRIVEWAY WHERE THE BLUE HATCHED AREA IS IN THE AREA THROUGH THERE? I'M MISSING THE WHOLE POINT ABOUT WHY WE NEED TWO DRIVEWAYS. 
          >> BECAUSE THIS IS AN EXISTING LOT. 
          HE'S GOT HIS OWN DRIVEWAY. 
          HE DOESN'T WANT TO BE PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT. 
          WE'RE JUST ACQUIRING A LITTLE BIT OF PROPERTY FROM HIM IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS DEVELOPMENT. 
          THIS WILL BE LOTS 1 THROUGH SIX. 
          WE'LL BE PART OF THE DOV RIDGE DEVELOPMENT. 
          >> I GOT IT. THANKS. 
          >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          >> I HAVE ONE THING TO ADD, IF YOU DON'T MIND. 
          I DID CIRCULATE A MEMO THAT I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYBODY GOT IT, BUT IT WAS STATING OUR PARTICULAR REQUEST FOR A PRIVATE GATE AND A PRIVATE ROAD. 
          DID EVERYBODY RECEIVE THAT? I GUESS IF YOU HAVEN'T, I ONLY HAVE ONE COPY HERE, BUT I COULD CERTAINLY GIVE IT TO YOU. 
          I'LL WALK SHORTLY THROUGH SOME OF THE REASONS WHY WE THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, FIRST AND FOREMOST, I THINK JUST FROM A LEVEL OF COMPETITION, HAVING THE GATE IS WHAT BUYERS EXPECT AND HOPE FOR. 
          SECONDARILY LIKE CURTIS HAD MENTIONED ACROSS THE STREET, IS THAT SELF STORAGE AND THE GAS STATION, AND SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT SITE CONTEXT DEFINITELY MATTERS, AND I THINK THIS WOULD ALLOW THIS PORTION OF EAST OF ROAD TO BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE GATE, VERY SIMILAR TO MOSS FARMS. FOURTH, I PUT HERE THAT IT'S ALREADY GATED. 
          IT ALREADY HAS A GATE FOR ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT'S ON LOT 3. 
          IT DOES NOT HAVE THAT'S OBVIOUSLY A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY. 
          NOW WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR A PRIVATE ROAD, SO IT DOESN'T REALLY INCREASE ANY INFRASTRUCTURE BUDGET OR INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS FOR THE CITY. 
          ANOTHER JUST BENEFIT TO THE CITY IS GATED COMMUNITIES TYPICALLY HAVE HIGHER PROPERTY VALUES, SO THAT'LL INCREASE THE TAX BASIS. 
          REALLY, THIS IS A DESIGN CHOICE THAT I THINK IS APPROPRIATE. 
          WE WOULD ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS THAT YOU DID HAVE FROM PREVIOUS CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE WITH GATED COMMUNITIES RIGHT UP FRONT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. 
          >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS HAVE? THANK YOU MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. 
          DENNIS, I GUESS, CAN YOU JUST MAYBE CLARIFY TO COMMISSIONER FILANS QUESTION AND I GUESS PROBABLY MY QUESTION, I GUESS WHAT LATITUDE IS GRANTED HERE IN TERMS OF CAN THERE BE SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION IN GENERAL, 
          [01:50:03]
SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION, REMOVING THE GATE? CAN THERE JUST BE A DENIAL, OR WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS JUST TO MAKE SURE COMMISSIONERS UNDERSTANDS? IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED, YOU DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO RECOMMEND DENIAL ON THAT BASIS. 
          YOU MAY ALSO APPROVE IT, BUT DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE GATED ACCESS OR IN PRIVATE STREET, OR YOU CAN YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE AND RECOMMEND THE PRIVATE GATED STREET. 
          >> PERFECT. THERE'S LATITUDE HERE. 
          >> THE STREET DIMENSIONS, BACK OF CURB, SIZE OF CUL DESAC, ALL OF THOSE THINGS, ARE THEY THE SAME AS WOULD BE FOR A CITY STREET? 
          >> YES. THEY ARE REQUIRED TO BUILD A CONFORMING CITY STREET AND COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO A PRIVATE STREET. 
          >> WHETHER IT'S A CITY STREET OR A PRIVATE STREET, THE DIMENSIONS HAVE SHOWN THIS PLAN, THE PLAT, THE LOTS, AND ALL THAT WOULD BE AS THE SAME? 
          >> YES. THAT'S CORRECT. 
          >> I GUESS ALONG THIS I THINK YOU'RE ANSWERING THIS, BUT IF IT WAS A CITY MAINTAINED STREET, WOULD THERE BE THE REQUIREMENT OF SIDEWALKS? 
          >> THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR SIDEWALKS, ABSENT OF THEM ASKING TO NOT PROVIDE THEM. 
          THEY HAVE NOT INDICATED OTHERWISE THAT THEY WOULD NOT. 
          >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE DELIBERATE. 
          WELL, I THINK YOU GUYS KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT THIS. 
          I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS OUR PAST CITY LEADERSHIP DID IN GREAT WISDOM AS I REMEMBER, MANGAN HAS GOT A LOT OF REQUESTS EARLY ON FOR GATED GATE. 
          THE WHOLE TOWN COULD BE GATED UNDER THIS LOGIC. 
          THANKFULLY, THEY HELD OFF, AND I THINK THAT'S PART OF WHAT REALLY PRESERVES WHAT OUR CITY IS TODAY, WHICH DOESN'T FEEL LIKE A BUNCH OF WALLS AND GATES. 
          PARTICULARLY ON THE NORTH SIDE, PARTICULARLY ALONG ROAD. 
          I REMEMBER VOTING AGAINST MOSS FARM JOY. 
          UNFORTUNATELY, CITY COUNCIL DID THE FIELD THE SAME WAY, AND IT STICKS OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB ALONG THERE. 
          MY 2 CENTS, SUPPORTIVE OF THE APPLICATION. 
          >> CHAIRMAN, I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING. 
          WE DID GET AN UPDATED EXHIBIT THAT WASN'T IN OUR PRESENTATION THAT SHOWS THE STREET CONFIGURATION AND THE GATE. 
          THEY ALSO ADDRESSED IN THIS DESIGN EXHIBIT THEY PROVIDED THE COMMENT THAT WE HAD PERTAINING TO THE INTERSECTION ANGLE OF THE STREET WITH DOVE ROAD. 
          BUT THIS IS WHERE THEIR GATES WOULD BE CONFIGURED AND SHOWS THEIR ENTRY PLAN IF THAT HELPS WITH THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION. 
          >> WE'LL NOTE THAT FOR THE RECORD. 
          COMMENTS TO STAND. 
          I'LL SEE WHAT OTHER FOLKS THINK ABOUT IT. 
          >> CAN I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE EXISTING HOME? IS PART OF THE REASON THE GATES REMAINING BECAUSE THE PEOPLE ARE STAYING IN THAT LOT 3 AND THE GATES ALREADY THERE OR IS THAT NOT? 
          >> I BELIEVE IT'S ALL. 
          >> HOME. 
          >> [INAUDIBLE] 
          >> WELL, I ALWAYS LOVE TO GO ALONG WITH WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE, DAN. 
          IT'S LIKE, I DO AIR CONDITIONING WORK, AND I'M HERE TO TELL YOU THAT EVERY LANDSCAPER IN SOUTH LAKE WILL HAVE THE GATE CODE HERE. 
          THE SENSE OF SECURITY THAT THESE GATES. 
          >> GATES TO MAKE MONEY. 
          >> ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY. I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY GATE CODES THAT I HAVE TWO PRIVATE RESIDENCES ALL OVER THE CITY. 
          ANYWAY, IF YOU'RE TRYING TO SELL SECURITY, I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. 
          >> I WANT TO JUNK UP THE ENVIRONMENT SO THEY CAN MAKE A LITTLE MORE MONEY. THAT'S THE QUESTION. 
          >> I GUESS I HAVE THE OPPOSITE EXPERIENCE. 
          I TOOK A WALK AROUND MY NEIGHBORHOOD TO SADDLEBACK RIDGE AND GOT THE LANDSCAPER CLOSE THE GATE AND I GOT STUCK AND I HAD TO LIKE SHIMMY UNDER THE GATE AND PROBABLY HAD TO GET STITCHES ON MY FACE. 
          I DON'T LOVE GATES EITHER. I JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO WALK AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOT GET LOCKED IN. 
          I AM AGAINST IT AS WELL. 
          >>MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER 9 ON OUR AGENDA 2. 
          >> I'M SORRY. WE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          DIDN'T WE? DID WE NOT OPEN IT? I OF CAUTION. 
          [01:55:01]
I CAN'T REMEMBER. WE WILL REOPEN OR OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          APOLOGIES BEEN A LONG NIGHT. WE GET A LITTLE PUNCH. 
          PLEASE IF YOU WANT TO COME FORWARD, PLEASE COME FORWARD, NAME AND ADDRESS. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> FIRE AWAY. ONE THING ELSE. 
          THANK YOU. B. 
          >> MY NAME IS MILTON MILLMAN. 
          I LIVE AT 15:05 MOSS LANE, WHICH IS JUST BEHIND THIS DEVELOPMENT. 
          I'M WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE, SO I GOT A LITTLE CARD TO COME HERE. 
          I'VE WATCHED THE TRANSFORMATION OF THIS SOUTH SIDE OF DOVE, WHICH IS JUST WEST OF KIMBLE FOR THE PAST, FIVE YEARS OR SO. 
          THERE ARE TWO HOUSES, NOT IN THIS PLATE THAT ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION CURRENTLY RIGHT THERE ALONG THAT STRETCH. 
          IF YOU DRIVE BY THERE, YOU'LL SEE THAT. 
          TRAFFIC HAS INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY. 
          MY PRIMARY CONCERN HERE IS NOT ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT, NO PROBLEM. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IT REALLY IS THE WIDTH OF DOVE ROAD IN THIS SECTION. 
          IS REALLY NARROW. 
          IT'S PRETTY DANGEROUS. 
          I HAVE SEEN A NUMBER OF REALLY CLOSE CALLS WITH HEAD ON COLLISIONS. 
          THE TRAFFIC AREA, I'M WONDERING IF THE CITY HAS SOMETHING TO DO TO ADDRESS THAT WIDTH OF DOVE ROAD. 
          I REALLY THINK IT SHOULD BE LOOKED AT IF YOU'RE GOING TO PUT SEVEN NEW HOMES IN THERE, WHICH IS NOW GOING TO BE NINE NEW HOMES IN THERE BECAUSE OF THE OTHER TWO THAT I SAY ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW. 
          THERE'S A SYNAGOGUE RIGHT DOWN THERE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW THAT. 
          THERE'S PUT TRAFFIC THAT GOES UP THE STREET. 
          THERE'S NO SIDEWALKS THERE. 
          THEY GO TO YATES CORNER STORE, ETC. 
          I'M JUST CONCERNED FROM A SAFETY PERSPECTIVE. 
          OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF. 
          ALTHOUGH THE GATE THING IS NEW TO ME. 
          MOSS DOES HAVE A GATE, AS YOU NOTED. 
          YOU JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT GATE IF YOU'RE GOING TO APPROVE THAT IS FAR ENOUGH BACK BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU'RE GOING TO GET BACKED UP TRAFFIC ON THE STREET. 
          THAT'S A BAD SECTION OF DOVE. 
          ANYWAY, THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. THAT'S HELPFUL. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, APOLOGIES, THAT I ALMOST DIDN'T GIVE YOU THAT OPPORTUNITY. 
          YOU WERE VERY PATIENT TO WAIT HERE. 
          THANK YOU FOR CHARGING IN THERE. APPRECIATE THAT. 
          THE PUBLIC HEARING REMAINS OPEN. 
          FOR ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. 
          SEEING NO, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT WE STUCK IN. 
          THANK GOODNESS. WITH THAT I GUESS GOOD POINTS NOTED THERE. 
          MAYBE DENNIS IS THIS MARCHES FORWARD, IF THERE'S ANY TRAFFIC INFORMATION THAT STAFF CAN JUST BE AWARE OF THERE ANY FUTURE PLANS OF WIDENING OR ANYTHING, MAYBE THE RESIDENT CAN GET WITH STAFF AND JUST CONFIRM. 
          IS THERE ANYTHING I GUESS TOP OF MIND? I KNOW AS WE TALKED ABOUT. 
          >> I DON'T I DON'T KNOW OF ANYTHING THAT'S ACTUALLY SCHEDULED. 
          I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK INTO OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND SEE WHAT'S THERE AND WHERE IT'S PLACED RIGHT NOW? 
          >> THE RESIDENT CAN GET WITH STAFF AND THEY CAN CONFIRM WHERE SOME OF THAT MAY BE DOWN THE ROAD AND OUR PLANS. 
          IT IS THE LAST AREA OF TOWN. 
          IT DOESN'T HAVE A SIDEWALK YET, WHICH WE ALL KNOW, IT IS A LITTLE COMPLICATED THERE, BUT MAYBE ONE DAY. 
          HOPEFULLY YOU CAN GET WITH STAFF TO HELP YOU WITH SOME OF THAT, BUT THANK YOU FOR SHARING YOUR THOUGHTS. 
          ANY OTHER DEERATIONS BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION? 
          >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 9 ON OUR AGENDA ZA 25-0077, SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED JANUARY 8TH, 2026. 
          ALSO, SUBJECT TO OUR REVISED PLAT REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER 1, DATED JANUARY 8TH, 2026, AND SPECIFICALLY DENYING THE VARIANCE REQUEST. 
          >> WE HAVE A MOTION. WE HAVE SECOND. 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> LET'S GO TO VOTE, PLEASE. 
          THERE WE GO. TRY IT AGAIN. 
          IT LOOKS LIKE THE MOTION PASSES WITH DENIAL OF THAT VARIANCE REQUEST. 
          GOOD LUCK AT THE NEXT LEVEL. 
          APPRECIATE YOU GUYS COMING OUT TONIGHT. 
          NOW WE WILL GABLE OUT AT 8:29 P.M. OUR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.