V) Consider and Possible Action

[3) Consider approval of a Conditional Use Permit regarding Building Elevations for a proposed Brakes Plus, in accordance with section 53-892 "Districts and boundaries", subsections (a)(5) "The FM-1626 conditional use overlay district", for property located at 4580 S. FM-1626. (CUP-25-0143)]

APPROVED. NEXT WE HAVE CONSIDER AND POSSIBLE ACTION. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REGARDING BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR PROPOSED BREAK PLUS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 50 3-892. DISTRICTS AND BOUNDARIES. SUBSECTIONS A FIVE. THE FM 1626 CONDITIONAL USE OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4580 SOUTH FM 1626. THIS IS CIP 250143. MR. LUTZ.

THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN. COMMISSIONERS. GOOD EVENING. SO AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO DEVELOP A NEW BRAKES PLUS AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOP. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS APPROXIMATELY 5000FT■!S. JUST S. THIS IS SITE IS 0.89 ACRES. IT IS IN THE ZONE PLUM CREEK ZONING DISTRICT. THIS IS THE PUD ZONING. IT IS WITHIN THE FM 1626 OVERLAY DISTRICT. THAT'S WHY WE'RE SEEING THIS TONIGHT. THE PRIMARY ACCESS FOR THIS SITE IS OFF OF WITTENBERG, AND THE SECONDARY ACCESS IS OFF RADCLIFFE. IN THIS IMAGE, RADCLIFFE WILL BE THE STREET PLAN WEST. HERE'S THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. SO THE SITE PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH CITY CODES. FOUND IT TO BE SATISFACTORY. SOME HIGHLIGHTS THERE. THE PARKING REQUIRES 18.

THE PROVIDING 24. THEY ARE ALLOWED 80% IMPERVIOUS COVER. THEY'RE SITTING AT ABOUT 75%.

THE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN SHOWED THE ZERO LIGHT TRESPASS THREE FEET PAST THE PROPERTY LINE. SO THIS IS AGAIN AN OVERLAY. THIS IS THE BUILDING MATERIALS THEY'RE LOOKING AT FOR STONE CONCRETE BLOCKS. HOWEVER, THERE ARE NO MASONRY MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS IN THIS OVERLAY. THE PLUM CREEK ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HAS APPROVED THESE ELEVATIONS. AND SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE

[00:05:04]

ADDITIONAL OVERLAY STANDARDS AGAIN THERE ARE NO PRESCRIBED STANDARDS IN THIS OVERLAY. THAT IS WHAT YOU WOULD FIND IN THE I35 OVERLAY. SO VERY DIFFERENT. YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DISCRETION, BUT THERE'S NO STANDARDS SET FOR THOSE APPLICANTS TO MEET. SO GOING THROUGH SOME OF THE ELEVATIONS THIS IS THE WEST ELEVATION. IT'S ABOUT 50% 20% STONE 20% BLOCK. AND THEN YOU'VE GOT THE STOREFRONT AND THE AWNINGS. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE EAST ELEVATION, VERY SIMILAR. YOUR STONE DOES GO DOWN A LITTLE BIT, BUT THEY DO HAVE THESE SEGMENTED GLASS DOORS. THAT'S A REQUIREMENT YOU SEE IN THE I-35 OVERLAY. THEY ARE APPLYING THAT HERE. THIS IS THE NORTH ELEVATION AGAIN ABOUT 32% 14% STONE 43 AT BLOCK STOREFRONT AWNING. AND THEN THIS IS THE SOUTH ELEVATION. WE LOOKED AT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. THEIR MINIMUM WAS 3800FT■!S. THEY'RE PROVIDING ABOUT 7600FT■!S. THEYE PROVIDING THE ACCURATE NUMBER OF TREES, AND THEN THEY'RE EXCEEDING ON THEIR SHRUBBERY FOR ENHANCED LANDSCAPING. THIS IS THE LANDSCAPING PLAN. AND SO AS ALWAYS, YOUR OPTIONS TONIGHT ARE TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY. THE PROPOSED CUP. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING OPTION ONE APPROVE AS PRESENTED TONIGHT. I'LL BE ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE AND THE APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE ALSO IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? QUESTION FOR STAFF. WE MAY HAVE A CHANCE TO DISCUSS THIS REGARDING THE FREEZING NICKELS DRAFT THAT IS SUBMITTED, BUT I JUST WANT TO BOOKMARK THIS ONE. IT'S IN 1626 OVERLAY AND THERE ARE NO STANDARDS FOR IT. SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE AT SOME POINT TONIGHT IS JUST TO GET MY HEAD AROUND EXACTLY WHAT THE PROCESS WOULD BE FOR GO FORTH 1626 VETERANS TO HAVE STANDARDS. SO JUST BOOKMARK THAT. YES, SIR. I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. SO THIS IS RIGHT NEXT TO THE RELIABLE AUTOMOTIVE. ONE OF THE THINGS I NOTICED AND I DRIVE PAST THAT ONE EVERY DAY, USUALLY IN THE EVENINGS AND ESPECIALLY ON THE WEEKENDS. THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT OVERFLOW OF CARS THAT'S USUALLY ALMOST ALWAYS EXCEEDS THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. THEY'RE STACKED UP ALONG THE, YOU KNOW, ALONG THE LANE THAT KIND OF DRIVES AROUND THE BUILDING, THINGS LIKE THAT. I KNOW THEY HAVE MORE PARKING SPACES THAN ARE REQUIRED, BUT IF IT'S ANYTHING LIKE THE AUTOMOTIVE BUSINESS, THAT'S EXACTLY LIKE THEM RIGHT NEXT DOOR, I'M KIND OF CONCERNED THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE EVEN MORE CARS STACK UP IN THAT AREA, AND IT'S GOING TO TURN INTO A PARKING LOT. HAS THAT BEEN DISCUSSED, OR IS THERE A IS THERE A PLAN IN PLACE TO HANDLE OVERFLOW LIKE THAT? NO.

GENERALLY OUR CODES KIND OF INTERESTING. WE HAVE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. WE ALSO DO HAVE SOME MAXIMUM REQUIREMENTS. SO IF IT'S A OVERFLOW ISSUE THEN THAT'S SOMETHING I NEED TO PROBABLY SIT AND DISCUSS WITH THE OWNERS, MAYBE POSSIBLY CODE ENFORCEMENT TO TALK ABOUT HOW TO HOW DO WE ALLEVIATE THAT PROBLEM. IT WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING WHERE WE WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PARKING. BUT IF IT IS A SAFETY ISSUE AND THAT'S CAUSING EGRESS EGRESS ISSUES, THEN THEN WE'LL HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT. BUT THAT WOULD THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A SEPARATE CONVERSATION OUTSIDE OF TONIGHT. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. SO ALONG THAT SAME LINE, IS THERE A MAXIMUM PARKING AT THIS ESTABLISHMENT? YES. I DON'T RECALL OFFHAND WHAT WHAT THE MAXIMUM, BUT WE'RE NOT CLOSE TO IT WITH THIS CURRENT PLAN. KAYLA, DO YOU.

THE MAXIMUM. IS ONLY AS I CAN MAXIMUMS GENERALLY 1.5 TIMES THE MINIMUM. SO IF YOU HAVE.

THAT. BUT TYPICALLY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE 100 SO YOU HAVE 100 MINIMUM PARKING SPACES, 150 MAXIMUM. YEAH THEY WOULD HAVE A 27 MAXIMUM ON HERE. THEY'RE AT ABOUT 24. THANK YOU. THANK YOU KAYLA. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. Y'ALL KNOW THE DRILL. WE NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND. MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM VICE CHAIR STEAGALL AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER COPELAND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? OKAY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I. I. ALL OPPOSED? SAY NAY. OKAY. THAT ONE'S

[4) Consider approval of a Conditional Use Permit regarding Building Elevations, in accordance with section 53-892 "Districts and boundaries", subsections (a)(1) "The I-35 conditional use overlay district", for property located at 18775 IH-35. (CUP-25-0133)]

APPROVED. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REGARDING BUILDING ELEVATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 50 3-892. DISTRICTS AND BOUNDARIES. SUBSECTION A1, THE I-35 CONDITIONAL USE OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18775 E 35 CP 250133, MR.

[00:10:10]

LUTZ. YES. WAIT FOR THE WIZARD IN THE BACK TO BRING UP THIS ITEM. SO THIS APPLICANT IS DEVELOPING A MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE CALLING THE WINDY HILL SUBDIVISION. THE PROJECT IS APPROXIMATELY 3500FT■!S. THERE S AN OUTDOOR SEATING AREA. IT'S APPROXIMATELY 2.6882.6 ACRES. ZONED RETAIL SERVICES. THE I-35 OVERLAY DOES APPLY THERE.

SECONDARY ACCESS IS GENERALLY GOING TO BE LIMITED TO RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT ON THE WINDY HILL SIDE, AS WE DO HAVE SOME ROAD BOND IMPROVEMENTS THERE THAT WE'RE PLANNING. YOU CAN SEE THE SITE LAYOUT. THIS IS THE APPROXIMATE LOT SHAPE ON THIS TRACT. THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN MINUS THE LANDSCAPING. APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. SO THE ASSOCIATED SITE PLAN HAS REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE. CITY STAFF DID APPROVE THAT. THE PARKING REQUIRED HERE IS 37.

THEY'RE PROVIDING 42. THE IMPERVIOUS COVERS ALLOWED IS 80%. THEY'RE SITTING AT ABOUT 56. AGAIN, PHOTOMETRIC PLAN WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY REGS. AND WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE BUILDING MATERIALS IT'S BRICK, LIMESTONE WOOD. LOOK THESE ARE ALUMINUM BATTENS BUT THEY ARE MODELED TO LOOK LIKE WOOD AND THEN METAL. SO WE DID DO THE CALCULATIONS. THEY'RE 90% MASONRY REQUIREMENTS ARE SATISFIED. SO THE ADDITIONAL OVERLAY STANDARDS THAT YOU FIND IN THE I-35 GENERALLY REQUIRES DISCUSS SIDEWALKS FROM FRONT DOOR TO BUILDING AND DIFFERENT PARKING AREAS AND THEN ADDITIONAL PLANNING. SO THOSE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED AS WELL. SO HERE ARE THE MATERIAL ELEVATIONS. SO THIS IS THE BREAKDOWN ON THE ENTIRE THING. THIS IS THE COLOR PALETTES. AND THEN KIND OF BREAKDOWN OF THE NORTHWEST ELEVATION VISUALLY AND THE EAST AND SOUTH. SO WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS HERE THERE'S 0.26 ACRES REQUIRED. THEY'RE PROVIDING 1.1. THE TREES REQUIRED ARE 38. THEY ARE PROVIDING 24. HOWEVER WE DO HAVE SOME ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE IN OUR CODE BUILT IN.

SO THEY'RE CHOOSING TO UTILIZE THAT. SO THEY ARE DECREASING THE NUMBER OF TREES THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO PLANT. BUT THEY ARE INCREASING THE SIZE OF THOSE TREES THAT HAVE TO BE PLANTED AT MATURITY. SO RIGHT NOW, GENERALLY ANY TREE THAT GETS PLANTED IS A TWO INCH CALIPER. THEY'RE LOOKING TO INCREASE THOSE TO FOUR AND A HALF. SO A LITTLE MORE ESTABLISHED TREE. AND SO THAT'S WHY THEY GET THE REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF TREES PER CODE.

SO THIS IS KIND OF THE BREAKDOWN. EVERY THREE FOUR AND A HALF TREES THEY WOULD GET CREDIT FOR FIVE THREE INCH TREES. AND THEN ON THE FOUR AND A HALF TREES WOULD BE 21 PLUS THE THREE. SO THAT'S HOW YOU GET THAT CALCULATION A LITTLE DIFFERENT. I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE HAD ANYBODY DO THAT SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE. I THINK THIS MAY BE THE FIRST ONE. AND THEN HERE'S THE LANDSCAPING PLAN SHOWING THOSE TREE LOCATIONS. AGAIN. THE THREE OPTIONS FOR YOU TONIGHT APPROVE IS PRESENTED APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY. AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING OPTION ONE. AT THIS TIME. I DO NOT KNOW IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE. YES APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THEM AND I'LL TRY TO ANSWER ANY I CAN AS WELL. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD. THIS PLAN HAS A RATHER LONG DRIVEWAY TO GET INTO THAT STRUCTURE AND THAT DRIVEWAY GOES ALONG CURRENT VEGETATION. IS THAT VEGETATION GOING TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF THE BUILD OUT, OR DOES ANY OF THAT GET TO REMAIN SORRY? LET ME GO BACK TO THE PLAN. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHICH. SURE. COULD YOU GO TO THE LANDSCAPING SLIDE? I BELIEVE IT WAS THE SECOND TO LAST ONE. I CAN'T GO BACKWARDS FOR SOME REASON. OH MAN, CAN I DO THAT. SO RIGHT HERE, THAT DRIVEWAY THAT LOOKS TO GO KIND OF PLAN NORTHEAST ISH THAT SNAKES AROUND THE GAS STATION TO CONNECT TO. IS IT WINDY HILL? YES. THAT DRIVEWAY CURRENTLY HAS SOME VEGETATION. IS THAT BEING REMOVED AS PART OF THIS BUILD OUT? YES, SOME OF SOME OF THAT WILL BE REMOVED. SOME OF THAT IS SOME DETENTION POND.

THERE MAY HAVE TO DO SOME WORK ON THAT BECAUSE OF THE ADDITIONAL RUNOFF. SO YES, THEY WILL DO THAT. THEY AREN'T SHOWING ANY ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS COMING BACK, BUT IT IS GOING TO BE LANDSCAPING. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE JUST CLEAR CUT. IT WILL BE GRASS, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A PAVEMENT OR ASPHALT THE WHOLE WAY THROUGH. IS THERE AN OPTION TO ADD TREES OR SHRUBBERY ALONG THAT, THAT WAY TO KIND OF INCREASE THE NUMBER OF TREES THAT COME INTO CLOSER COMPLIANCE, OR WITH THAT RIG, EVEN KNOWING THAT THE INCREASED SIZE HELPS TO OFFSET

[00:15:04]

THAT. THAT IS WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW. LANDSCAPING IS PART OF OF YOUR REVIEW. IF YOU FEEL THAT THAT'S WARRANTED, YOU CAN DEFINITELY MAKE THAT AS PART OF YOUR MOTION. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE APPLICANT WILL FEEL ABOUT THAT. I WILL LET YOU KNOW THERE IS NO SIDEWALK THAT WILL CONNECT TO THAT THAT SECTION. SO IT WOULD BE PURELY ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING. SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND TURN IT OVER. IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR ME, I CAN BRING THE APPLICANT UP ALONG THAT SAME LINE. ONE MORE QUICK ONE WITH THAT ROAD BOND CONSTRUCTION PLAN. ARE THERE ANY SIDEWALKS EXPECTED ALONG THAT MAIN ROAD THAT WE HAVE A DISCONNECT THEN BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND FUTURE BUILD OUT? I BELIEVE THERE ARE SIDEWALKS ON WINDY HILL THAT ARE BEING INSTALLED AS PART OF THE ROAD BOND. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING. I'M LESLIE FORD FROM OFFICE. MY ADDRESS IS 1008 MACON STREET, FORT WORTH, TEXAS.

AND I AM HERE IN REPRESENTING MCDONALD'S. SO, YOU KNOW, WELCOME. ANY QUESTIONS? IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD SITE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF KIND OF THAT FLAG LOT. AND SO ONE KIND OF TWO THINGS ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING. I HEARD YOUR QUESTION, SPENCER. MR. COPELAND, SO SORRY. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY READERS. I'M LIKE, YOU'RE FINE. I DON'T WANT TO CALL YOU SOMETHING WRONG. BUT NO, JUST TWO THINGS ABOUT THAT. SO FIRST OF ALL, WE FOUND THAT THE LARGER THE CALIPER, THE TREE, THE MORE LIKELY THEY ARE TO SURVIVE IN MASS IN TEXAS SUMMER.

AND SO THAT'S PART OF THE REASON FOR THE LARGER PLANTING. SECONDARILY, THE ONLY ISSUE I COULD POTENTIALLY FORESEE WITH HAVING TO PLANT ADDITIONAL TREES ALONG THAT LINE IS I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WITHOUT LOOKING AT IT WITH OUR ENGINEERING TEAM WHAT KIND OF WIDTH WE HAVE. I DON'T THINK WE'D BE OPPOSED TO IT, BUT JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE NOT ENCROACHING ON ANY OTHER PROPERTY LINES BECAUSE AS THE TREES GROW AND THE ROOTS GET LARGER, THEN IT BECOMES AN ISSUE IN A NUISANCE THING IN THE FUTURE. AND SO THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE RATIONALE BEHIND KIND OF AVOIDING ANYTHING THERE, JUST BECAUSE IT IS SUCH A SKINNY PIECE. I THINK IF WE I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN GO BACK, BUT MAYBE WE CAN, WE CANNOT.

BUT IF WE GO BACK TO THE THE OVERALL SITE PLAN, WE CAN KIND OF SEE LIKE THE FLAG LOT THAT WAS ENDED UP THERE. AND SO IT'S A REALLY SKINNY PIECE OF LAND. AND SO THAT'S THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS NOT OPPOSED TO IT. JUST IF IT DOES IN FACT WORK TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT ENCROACHING ON THE ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES AND CAUSING ADDITIONAL ISSUES. YEAH. SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THAT THERE'S SOME STUFF THERE. AND SO THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY THING I THINK IT MAY EVEN BE.

OH THERE WE GO. YEAH. SO YOU CAN REALLY SEE LIKE HOW IT'S FLAGGED OUT THERE. AND SO KNOWING THAT IN THE FUTURE THAT WINDY HILL ROAD WILL HAVE SIDEWALKS CONNECTING TO THAT.

IS THERE ANY CONCERN WITH ADDING IN SIDEWALKS TO THE DRIVEWAY? NO, CURRENTLY IT'S NOT PLANNED FOR THAT. BUT ADDING THAT IN POTENTIALLY ADDING IN VEGETATION, FULLY RESPECTING THAT REASONABLE PUSHBACK OF NOT MAKING IT TOO BIG TO THEN CAUSE ISSUES ON THE ROOT SYSTEMS, IS THAT AN OPTION OR WHAT AM I BLIND TO WITH THAT REQUEST? I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK IT'S NOT AN OPTION. I WOULD SAY WOULD WANT TO KNOW. I KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME CONSTRUCTION AND SOME ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR WINDY HILL. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS. AND SO THERE MAY BE A RIGHT OF WAY THAT WE MAY MAYBE ENGINEERING CAN ANSWER. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE HERE TODAY, BUT WHAT THE FUTURE LOOKS LIKE FOR THAT WE MAY BE NOT DOING IT, BECAUSE IT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT IS BEING TORN OUT IN THE FUTURE, AND THEN THEY'LL REDO IT. I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE, THOUGH. I CANNOT TELL YOU IF FOR WHATEVER REASON IT'S NOT SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S NOT A BIG DEAL FOR US. IT'S JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND US. NOT PUTTING IT IN THE CITY, HAVING TO COME RIGHT BEHIND US AND TEAR IT BACK OUT AGAIN AND THEN PUT IT BACK IN AGAIN. SO JUST UNDERSTANDING THAT. YEAH, I CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, COMMISSIONER, I THINK YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT ESSENTIALLY SIDEWALKS FROM WHAT WOULD BE WINDY HILL INTERNAL TO YOUR SITE. CORRECT? YOU'RE RIGHT. I THINK THE SIDEWALKS ALONG ALONG THE ROADWAY WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED AS AS PART OF THE CITY'S ROAD BOND PROJECTS, BUT KIND OF ESSENTIALLY, HOW WOULD YOU BRING THOSE PEDESTRIANS FROM WINDY HILL TO THE SITE, AND WOULD THERE BE ENOUGH ROOM ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY TO GO OUT ON THAT? I THINK, IS THE QUESTION CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. YOU ARE CORRECT WITH THE INTENTION OF. AND LATER IN THE AGENDA, WE HAVE OUR FREESE AND NICHOLS REPORT, AND THERE'S RECOMMENDATIONS OF INCREASED FOLIAGE AND SHADING OF SIDEWALKS. WANTED TO FIND A WAY TO ADVOCATE FOR INCREASED PEDESTRIAN INGRESS TO YOUR FACILITY IN A WAY THAT'S ALSO SHADED IN ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE A FUTURE DISCUSSION TOPIC. YEAH, AND I DON'T THINK WE'D BE OPPOSED. IT'S JUST MAKING SURE, AGAIN, WITH ENGINEERING, HOW MUCH ROOM DO WE HAVE TO HAVE ENOUGH CAR SPACE VERSUS TO MAKE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY? ESSENTIALLY, DO WE WANT PEOPLE LIKE IN A LANE WHERE THE CARS ARE RIGHT NEXT TO THEM? PROBABLY NOT. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH ROOM WE HAVE TO WORK WITH, SO IT'S KIND OF HARD TO SEE IT HERE. I'D HAVE TO REALLY. SO YES, NOT AN ISSUE, BUT WITH THE CAVEAT THAT IF FOR WHATEVER

[00:20:04]

REASON IT DOESN'T WORK, WE DON'T WANT TO GET INTO AN ISSUE WHERE WE SAY, LET'S ADD A SIDEWALK, BUT THEN WE'RE NOW NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE WIDTH OF THE LANES THAT WE NEED TO GET YOU GUYS IN AND OUT. BECAUSE I THINK THIS WILL EVENTUALLY, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, BECAUSE THERE IS THE LOT THAT IS, I BELIEVE, PLAN SOUTH FROM US. EVENTUALLY IT WILL CONNECT AND THAT WILL ALL BECOME THE ACCESS POINT FROM WINDY HILL. SO IT WILL COME DOWN. THERE IS WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. AND SO I YEAH, YOU'RE YOU'RE RIGHT. I DO THINK THAT'S TO BE SHARED INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM WINDY HILL TO KIND OF THREE COMMERCIAL SITES DIRECTLY SOUTH OF HERE. BETWEEN THAT BETWEEN THIS AND THE AND THE HOTEL. YEAH. AND THAT WOULD JUST BE UP TO YOUR ENGINEERING TEAM JUST TO MAKE SURE, YOU KNOW, WITH THE LOAD OF THE CARS THAT ARE COMING FOR THOSE THREE USES WITH THE WIDTH THAT WE HAVE, DOES THAT WORK. AND SO I DO NOT KNOW THAT AND I CANNOT TELL YOU THAT. I CANNOT SAY WITH CONFIDENCE, 100%, YES, WE CAN DO THAT JUST BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ENGINEERING RAMIFICATIONS OF IT ON SPEC RIGHT HERE. AND LET ME CONFIRM WHAT I JUST HEARD. THIS LITTLE STRIP IN THAT BLUE IS GOING TO EVENTUALLY SERVICE TWO OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS, IN THEORY, PENDING APPROVALS. OKAY. AND SO THEN THE QUESTION TO STAFF IS, IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN RECOMMEND THAT THIS ESTABLISHMENT LOOK INTO THOSE ITEMS WITHOUT PUTTING IN THAT REQUIREMENT? SO I WOULD HATE TO REQUIRE SOMETHING THAT IS IN TECHNICALLY ENGINEERING, NOT FEASIBLE. AND THEN THERE'S A COURSE CORRECTION DOWN THE ROAD. YES, WE'VE DONE SIMILAR SIMILAR MOTIONS. IT'S JUST WITH THE CAVEAT THAT, SAY YOU WERE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION THAT YOU ADD A SIDEWALK AND STREET TREES. THE MOTION WOULD JUST NEED TO IMPROVE THAT. SHOULD THOSE NOT BE PHYSICALLY VIABLE OPTIONS, THAT THAT THE PLAN WOULD BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED? THANK YOU. YEP. AND ON THAT SAME VEIN, WITH THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION COMING DOWN TO PLAN SOUTH THERE, ONE THING I WOULD ASK TO YOU IS I KNOW THAT BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO END UP BEING A MCDONALD'S OWNED PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WILL HAVE TO HAVE A SHARED ACCESS AGREEMENT TO GET DOWN TO THOSE ADDITIONAL PIECES OF PROPERTY. IT MAY ALSO BE A CONVERSATION OF PROPORTIONALITY, JUST, YOU KNOW, IF THERE IS EXPENSE WHEN IT PERTAINS TO THE STREET TREES AND ALSO THE ADDITION OF THE SIDEWALK, HOW MUCH OF THAT PROPORTION WOULD BE MCDONALD'S VERSUS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CARRYING THAT THROUGH SO THAT THERE'S SHARED THE SHARED ACCESS, THERE'S SHARED RESPONSIBILITY AND KIND OF SHARED FEELING OF THAT. BECAUSE I COULD SEE, ESPECIALLY WITH THIS BEING A FRANCHISE MODEL, THE FRANCHISEE MAY NOT BE THE MOST BIG FAN OF HAVING TO KEEP UP THE TREES BY HIMSELF WHENEVER OTHERS ARE KIND OF USING HIS LAND AS WELL. SO I THINK THAT MAY BE A CONVERSATION TOO. BUT AGAIN, WE'RE GETTING INTO A LOT OF THOSE SEMANTICS ABOUT WHAT'S ALLOWED, WHAT'S NOT ALLOWED. YEAH. AND AND A FOLLOW UP ON THAT FOR STAFF WISE, I WOULD SAY THERE IS A LOT OF SHARED INFRASTRUCTURE ON THIS SITE IN GENERAL. THE SHARED DRIVEWAY, THE SHARED DETENTION, THE SHARED ACCESS. SO I WOULD HOPE THAT THOSE CONVERSATIONS WOULD BE SOMETHING YOU AS THE LANDOWNER, WOULD HAVE WITH THE THE THREE TENANTS TOTAL FOR THAT. AND I WOULD I DON'T THINK STAFF'S GOING TO GET INVOLVED WITH THE PROPORTIONALITY OF THAT, BUT I DO THINK THAT'S A FAIR CONVERSATION FOR YOU TO HAVE WITH, WITH KIND OF THE LARGER SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AS A WHOLE. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU GUYS. OKAY. MOTION TIME WHO WANTS TO BRING A MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE REQUEST FOR INCREASED SIDEWALKS OR ESTABLISHMENT OF SIDEWALKS AND INCREASED VEGETATION ALONG THAT STREET OR THE ACCESS ROAD FROM WENDY HILL ROAD, PENDING APPROVAL FROM CITY ENGINEERING STAFF TO MAKE SURE IT'S TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE, IF IT'S DETERMINED BY STAFF NOT TO BE FEASIBLE, THEN IT'S APPROVED AS CURRENTLY PRESENTED.

THANK YOU. SECONDED. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER COPELAND AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HOUCK. DO WE ALL FEEL LIKE WE UNDERSTAND THE MOTION, OR DO YOU WANT ME TO REPACKAGE IT AND SAY IT AGAIN? IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE COULD HAVE A MOTION STRAIGHT UP FOR APPROVAL AND THEN WITH AN AMENDMENT, PERHAPS. OF ALL THE STIPULATIONS THAT WERE MADE. I MEAN, I THINK, AS YOU SAID, IT IS IS FINE TOO. SO I THINK BECAUSE THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. AND IF THE CONDITIONS CAN'T BE MET BASED ON STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PLAN WOULD BE APPROVED AS IS. OKAY, OKAY. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER COPELAND ABOUT THIS IDEA. I LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING SIDEWALKS AND STREET TREES. ACCESSIBILITY. IT IS A

[00:25:02]

VERY NARROW POINT OF ENTRY THERE. AND IF WE HAD IF WE WEREN'T ABLE TO GET BOTH SIDEWALKS AND TREES AND WE HAD TO GET ONE OR THE OTHER, WHAT DO YOU THINK? WHAT? I'D BE CURIOUS WHAT THE COMMISSION THINKS ABOUT WHAT WE PREFER. LIKE IF WE CAN'T HAVE EVERYTHING WE WANT, WHAT DO WE WANT? MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE WOULD BE SIDEWALKS. I THINK ABOUT SAFETY OF PEDESTRIANS GETTING IN. I'D LOVE TO BE COOL WHILE WALKING AS WELL, BUT I'D RATHER THAN BE SAFE OVER COMFORTABLE. YEAH, I KIND OF AGREE WITH HIM ON THAT. KEEPING THEM AWAY FROM I-35 AS BEST AS BEST WE CAN. IT'S GOING TO BE GOOD FOR EVERYBODY. I AGREE YOU GOT TO HAVE A PLACE FOR THE PEDESTRIANS FIRST OF ALL. SO SIDEWALK. YEAH. MY MINDSET, I'M LIKE I RARELY SEE PEDESTRIANS AND I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT MANY PEDESTRIANS WILL BE WALKING TO MCDONALD'S. SO I WOULD GO FOR TREES, BUT I'M OBVIOUSLY OUTNUMBERED. SO YOU TOOK THE WORDS OUT OF MY MOUTH. I'M GLAD YOU SAID IT, NOT ME, BUT THAT'S MY THOUGHT AS WELL. I THINK THE TREES TO ME WOULD BE THE BIGGER PRIORITY. I THINK WE GET MORE VALUE FROM IT, I THINK SO, ALL RIGHT. I ALSO RESPECT THAT. I WOULD HOPE THAT IN A FEW YEARS, WITH THE BUILD OUT OF THE ROAD BOND, THAT THIS AREA WILL BE MORE CONGESTED WITH PEOPLE, WITH BUILDINGS, WITH INFRASTRUCTURE AND THAT THAT I THINK YOU'RE CORRECT TODAY I WORRY ABOUT FIVE, TEN YEARS FROM NOW WHERE THAT BALANCE SHIFTS AND I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM BECAUSE THERE'S TWO BUSINESSES THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE IN THERE YET. AND SO I CAN SEE WHY HAVING SOME WALKABILITY IN THERE WOULD BE IMPORTANT. YEAH. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS MATTERS, BUT THERE THERE WILL BE SIDEWALKS, CONNECTIONS. I MEAN, THAT PERSON WILL HAVE TO HIT UP AND THEN GO DOWN THE FRONTAGE. SO IF IT MATTERS, I DON'T KNOW IF IT CHANGES YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS, BUT IT'S IF THIS SIDEWALK WERE TO NOT BE THERE AND WAS JUST STREET TREES, IT WOULD NOT PREVENT PEDESTRIANS FROM FINDING THEIR WAY TO THAT LOCATION. THERE'S ANOTHER ACCESS POINT. YES, THEY WOULD COME DOWN THE WINDY HILL TO THE I-35 ACCESS ROAD, AND THEY'RE DOING SIDEWALKS ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THEIR PROPERTY AS WELL. SO IF YOU SEE ON THIS PLAN, IT'S JUST THE SMALL LITTLE SECTION. BUT THEY ARE PUTTING THAT THAT ALONG THE THE ACCESS ROAD AS WELL. I THINK THAT BUILDING SOMETHING LIKE THAT THERE IS GOING TO ATTRACT PEOPLE WALKING DOWN IT, ESPECIALLY AS COPELAND SAID, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT BUILDS OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE, THERE'S GOING TO BE PEOPLE WALKING DOWN THAT WAY AND THEY'RE GOING TO WALK ALONG THAT ROAD REGARDLESS. HAVING A SIDEWALK, THERE IS FUTURE PROOF. BUT WILL PEOPLE USE THE SIDEWALK IF IT'S 500 DEGREES? THAT'S MORE OF A QUESTION FOR ENGINEERING, RIGHT? PUTTING UP THE SHADE. AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK I THINK STAFF, YOU KNOW, I AM OUT OUTNUMBERED HERE. SO WHEN Y'ALL ARE HAVING THESE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT, IF IF WE HAVE TO MAKE A COMPROMISE BETWEEN THOSE, I THINK WE DON'T HAVE TO LIKE PUT IT IN THE MOTION, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THE COMMISSION WOULD BE OKAY COMPROMISING FOR SIDEWALKS. OKAY. AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S HELPFUL TO JUST DO SIDEWALKS ON ONE SIDE IF THAT'S MORE FEASIBLE. JUST OPTIONS ON THE TABLE. YEAH, JUST LOOKING AT THE WIDTH. YOU MAY BE LIMITED AND MAY NOT BE BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET. I WOULD DEFINITELY THINK ONE SIDE ONLY ON ON THAT AS WELL. IT IS. IT IS MORE OF AN INTERNAL BIKE LANE. OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? OKAY.

THE MOTION IS TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. IF THEY ADD THE SIDEWALKS AND TREES. OTHERWISE IF THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO DO THAT, IT WOULD BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE AYE. ALL OPPOSED. SAY NAY. OKAY. THAT

[5) Consider approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed retail shell building located at 827 Veterans Drive in the Rebel Drive Overlay District. (CUP-25-1030)]

PASSES. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED RETAIL SHELL BUILDING LOCATED AT 827 VETERANS DRIVE AND THE REBEL DRIVE OVERLAY DISTRICT CUP 2501030 MISS SHARP.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, KAYLA SHARP, SENIOR PLANNER. PRESENTATION. BACK UP HERE IN JUST A SECOND. THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT, SO I HAVE ANOTHER CUP FOR YOU TONIGHT. THIS ONE IS IN THE REBEL DRIVE OVERLAY. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO DEVELOP THE FIRST OF FIVE BUILDINGS IN THE PARKTON SQUARE RETAIL CENTER. THIS BUILDING IN PARTICULAR WILL BE A LITTLE OVER 26,000FT■!S. AND THE PROPOD MATERIALS CONSIST OF STUCCO, BRICK, AND METAL CLADDING. OKAY, THIS IS THE EAST ELEVATION FACING VETERANS DRIVE. JUST AS A QUICK REMINDER, THE THE REBEL DRIVE OVERLAY IS ONE OF THOSE OVERLAY DISTRICTS THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC BUILDING

[00:30:01]

MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT THE CUP IS REQUIRED. SO THIS ONE, THE PRIMARY MATERIALS ARE THE BRICK AND METAL CLADDING AND STUCCO. HERE IS THE BACK SIDE OF THE BUILDING, FACING AWAY FROM VETERANS DRIVE OR FM 150. THERE IS ALSO A FENCE THAT WILL PROVIDE SCREENING FROM THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL. AND THEN HERE IS THE NORTH ELEVATION.

THIS ONE'S ABOUT 85% METAL CLADDING WITH SOME STUCCO AND WOOD DETAILING. AND THEN THE SOUTH ELEVATION. THIS ONE'S ABOUT 46% METAL CLADDING AND 54% WOOD. AND THEN THIS IS KIND OF THAT BIG, LONG BUILDING TO THE PLANNED SOUTH ON THIS SITE PLAN. SO IT'LL BE KIND OF BACK BEHIND. THERE'S TWO MORE RETAIL BUILDINGS UP FRONT IN FRONT OF THIS BUILDING, AND THEN THE TWO TO THE LEFT AS WELL. HERE IS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. THIS IS JUST SHOWING THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE TREES WITHIN 50FT OF EVERY PARKING SPACE, AS REQUIRED BY OUR CODE, AND ALSO SOME STREET TREES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND THEN A MORE DETAILED LANDSCAPE SHEET FOR YOU. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS REQUEST AND HAS FOUND THE PROPOSED THE PROPOSAL TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THE REBEL DRIVE OVERLAY, THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, ZONING AND OTHER APPLICABLE CITY CODES. AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS CUP AS PRESENTED. YOUR OPTIONS TONIGHT ARE TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED, APPROVE WITH MODIFICATIONS OR DENY THE REQUEST. ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. YEAH THAT BACKSIDE OF THAT. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE BACKSIDE OF THAT BUILDING AGAIN. YOU SAID THERE'S A FENCE BUT HOW HIGH UP IS IT GOING TO BE. BECAUSE I'M GONNA BE REAL WITH YOU. THAT BACKSIDE IS KIND OF UGLY. IT'S JUST A BLANK WHITE WALL. I BELIEVE THE FENCE HEIGHT IS ALLOWED UP TO EIGHT FEET FOR COMMERCIAL. FOR COMMERCIAL. SORRY. FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL. COMMISSIONER HAWK, I SEE YOUR POINT THERE. I WONDER IF THERE'S A WAY WE CAN ENCOURAGE ARTWORK OR OTHER ESTHETICALLY PLEASING ADDITIONS ON THAT. HOW DOES THAT INTERACT WITH THE OVERLAY AND WOULD THAT CAUSE CONFLICT? IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING YOU CAN ASK. IF WE GO BACK TO LET'S SEE, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE SOME OF THE THE LOT LINES FOR THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES BACK HERE, EVEN WITH THE FENCE, IF YOU WERE TO DO ARTWORK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEY WOULD ONLY SEE LIKE THE VERY TOP OF IT. SO IT WOULDN'T BE VERY VISIBLE FOR ANYBODY BUT THOSE IMMEDIATE RESIDENTS BACK THERE. SO THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN REALLY, IS LIKE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE BACKED UP RIGHT AGAINST THIS BUILDING. YOU KNOW, THAT BRIGHT WHITE WALL EVERY TIME THEY LOOK OUT THEIR WINDOW. YOU KNOW. YEAH, THERE IS THERE IS SOME LANDSCAPING BUFFER AND THEN THE FENCE. THERE'S ALSO PARKING AND DRIVE AISLE AS WELL BEHIND THAT BUILDING. FAIR ENOUGH. THANK YOU. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE BUILDING MATERIALS PLEASE? THANKS. FOR THE REAR FACADE. THAT ONE'S PERFECT RIGHT THERE.

OH, NO. FOR THE FRONT. SORRY, SORRY. YOU'RE GOOD. WHILE I'M LOOKING AT THIS, I HAD ONE QUICK QUESTION ABOUT. IN THE EVENT THAT VETERANS DRIVE EXPANDS, I'M ASSUMING THIS HAS ALL BEEN THOUGHT ABOUT BEFORE, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE BEFORE WE VOTE IS THE SETBACK FAR ENOUGH THAT IT WOULDN'T CAUSE ANY ISSUES IF WE WERE TO EXPAND THE ROAD. YEAH, THERE THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY ISSUE THERE. THEY ARE DOING SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO 150. IF YOU DRIVE THROUGH THERE NOW, YOU CAN SEE ALL THE CONSTRUCTION GOING ON. THEY'RE ADDING SOME TURN LANES AND THINGS LIKE THAT THROUGH THERE TO HELP IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW. SO FOR THE MOST PART THAT'S ALREADY BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR, YOU KNOW, SAY 30, 40 YEARS FROM NOW IF THEY DECIDE TO EXPAND, I DON'T KNOW, I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT IT. BUT YEAH, THAT'S MORE WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. OKAY. NOTE TO THE FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS ANOTHER PROJECT IN AN OVERLAY DISTRICT THAT HAS NO STANDARDS. HOPEFULLY WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT LATER. THAT'S WHY IT'S A BROWN METAL BUILDING. AND WITH THAT PLANNED EXPANSION OF VETERANS, IS IT ONLY VEHICLES? ARE THERE PLANS FOR BIKE LANES? FOR SIDEWALKS? WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE LONG TERM? DO WE KNOW LONG TERM? NOT REALLY. RIGHT NOW. LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET TO THE SITE PLAN

[00:35:06]

REAL QUICK. THERE ARE SIDEWALKS PLANNED ALONG VETERANS DRIVE, AND THERE IS GOING TO BE THAT THAT TURN LANE COMING IN HERE OFF OF, I BELIEVE IT'S ROMANS ROAD THAT'S KIND OF BISECTING THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES THERE. BUT AS AS FAR AS WE'RE AWARE AT THIS POINT, THOSE ARE THAT'S KIND OF THE EXTENT OF THE PLANS FOR FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON 150 AT THIS MOMENT AND THAT ROMANS ROAD THAT WILL CONNECT TO THAT RECENTLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION FOR RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES.

RIGHT? CORRECT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. I'VE GOT ONE QUESTION ALSO ON THE REAR ELEVATION, OFTENTIMES THE STRUCTURES THAT WE SEE ON THE BACK OF THE BUILDINGS, THERE'S ELECTRICAL PANELS OR DOORS FOR STAFF TO GO IN AND OUT, MAYBE TAKE OUT TRASH. THE WEST ELEVATION HERE DOESN'T SHOW ANY OF THAT. IS IT LITERALLY JUST A LONG BLANK WALL, OR WILL THERE BE SOME DOORS AND ELECTRICAL PANELS AND STUFF BACK THERE? YEAH, I'M SURE THERE WILL BE SOME DOORS AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT BACK THERE. IT'S JUST NOT SHOWN ON HERE. TYPICALLY WHEN WE HAVE LIKE THE I-35 OVERLAY AND THINGS, THAT REQUIRES MORE SCREENING. THAT'S TYPICALLY WHEN WE'RE A LITTLE BIT MORE STRICT ABOUT MAKING SURE THOSE THINGS ARE SHOWN.

BUT WHEN THERE'S NOT ANY SPECIFIC STANDARDS WITHIN THE OVERLAY TO REQUIRE SCREENING OF THOSE THINGS, YOU END UP SEEING SOMETHING LIKE THIS. BUT THERE WILL BE DOORS AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND THINGS LIKE THAT. OKAY. THAT'S CLEAR. THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU. ONE LAST QUESTION. JUST TO HELP MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT I'M SEEING, COULD WE GO TO THE SOUTH ELEVATION, PLEASE? OKAY. SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT TONES OF OF BRICK HERE, BUT I'M WONDERING IF THAT'S SHADING. IS ANYONE ABLE TO CLARIFY. IS THAT JUST THE WAY THE WALL IS SHAPED OR SO. THERE'S NO BRICK ON THIS SIDE. IT'S METAL CLADDING AND THEN WOOD. SO YOU'RE PROBABLY JUST SEEING THE THE TWO DIFFERENT MATERIALS OKAY. YEAH, SURE.

MICHAEL LENIHAN, MY FIRM'S ARCHITECT AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.

SO ON THIS SOUTH FACADE, THAT'S ACTUALLY A RECESSED PATIO SPACE. AND SO THAT ENTIRE FACADE IS ACTUALLY WOOD OR WOOD TONE MATERIAL. AND THEN THE ROOFING THAT YOU SEE BEHIND THAT IS THE METAL CLADDING. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE THAT. ALSO TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT THAT, THE BACK OF HOUSE WALL. YES, THERE WOULD BE DOORS. THOSE AREN'T SHOWN NOW BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PLANNED IN BECAUSE IT IS A SHELL BUILDING. SO THE TENANTS WILL DECIDE WHERE THOSE EVENTUALLY GO. OKAY. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. WE WOULD NEED A MOTION TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS ITEM. MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM COMMISSIONER HOUCK AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER COPELAND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? WELL, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I THINK THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE BETTER LOOKING BUILDINGS WE'VE SEEN. I APPRECIATE THE VARIATION AND WINDOWS FROM WHAT WE'VE TYPICALLY SEEN. I LIKE THAT THERE'S CHANGES IN TEXTURE OF THE OF THE WALL AND SOME SUBTLE VARIATION IN HEIGHT, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM IN-YOUR-FACE AND OSTENTATIOUS. I, I THINK THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY A PRETTY NICE LOOKING SPOT. AND YEAH, I'M PROUD TO PROUD TO VOTE. YEAH, FOR THAT ONE. BUT WELL DONE. ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY HI. HI. ALL OPPOSED? SAY NAY. OKAY. WE'VE GOT THAT ONE DONE. CONSIDER AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY

[6) Consider and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Sec. 53-899(d) of the City of Kyle Code of Ordinances, to allow the sale or lease of golf carts within the I-35 Overlay District on property located at 3080 Kyle Crossing, Unit 4, Kyle, TX 78640. Public Hearing ]

COUNCIL REGARDING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO SECTION 50 3-899D OF THE CITY OF KYLE.

CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ALLOW THE SALE OR LEASE OF GOLF CARTS WITHIN THE I-35 OVERLAY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3080 CAL CROSSING UNIT FOUR, KYLE, TEXAS 78640. WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM, SO I WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THAT NOW AT 710. OKAY. SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE IT AT 710, MISS SHARP. ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, KAYLA SHARP, SENIOR PLANNER. TONIGHT WE HAVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR YOU TO REVIEW. SO THIS ONE IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW GOLF CART SALES WITHIN THE I-35 OVERLAY. SO THIS IS A PROPERTY KIND OF NESTLED BETWEEN I-35 AND KYLE CROSSING. AND THE PROPERTY IS ZONED WAREHOUSE. SO

[00:40:05]

JUST A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ON THIS REQUEST. SO THE TENANT HAS BEEN OPERATING AT THIS LOCATION SINCE AROUND 2022 WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. THEY RECENTLY APPLIED FOR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, AT WHICH TIME THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THE USE WAS NOT PERMITTED PER THE I-35 OVERLAY, AND WE THEN RECOMMENDED THAT THEY APPLY FOR A CUP, GIVEN THAT ALL OF THEIR GOLF CARTS ARE STORED WITHIN AN ENCLOSED BUILDING, WHICH IS ONE OF THE ALLOWANCES FOR EXCEPTIONS TO THAT SECTION OF THE OVERLAY. SO JUST A QUICK REMINDER ON THAT OVERLAY. THIS IS ALL MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAILER SALES, DISPLAYS, RENTALS OR LEASING ARE PROHIBITED FROM OPERATING OUTDOORS IN THE I-35 OVERLAY, SO THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE GOLF CART SALES OR LEASING, AND THEN THE ALLOWANCE FOR EXCEPTIONS WOULD ALLOW THE SALE RENTAL LEASE OF SUCH VEHICLES WITHIN A FULLY ENCLOSED BUILDING. SO THE TENANT HAS PROVIDED CONFIRMATION THAT ALL GOLF CARTS ARE, OR WILL BE STORED WITHIN A FULLY ENCLOSED BUILDING, AND THERE WILL NOT BE ANY OUTDOOR STORAGE OR DISPLAY.

THE ZONING OTHERWISE WOULD ALLOW FOR THIS TYPE OF USE, AND BASED ON THAT INFORMATION, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CUP. SO YOUR OPTIONS TONIGHT ARE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS PRESENTED. RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH MODIFICATIONS OR RECOMMEND DENIAL. AND AS I MENTIONED, WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS. ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR JUST A CONTEXT QUESTION I MEAN WHAT TOOK SO LONG? NOT TO SOUND RUDE OR MEAN OR ANYTHING, BUT WHAT TOOK SO LONG? SO TYPICALLY, IF SOMETHING'S, YOU KNOW, NOT TURNED IN TO THE CITY, WHETHER IT'S LIKE A CODE COMPLAINT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, IT'S IT KIND OF THEY JUST CONTINUE TO OPERATE UNTIL SOMETHING LIKE THIS COMES UP, I SEE. GOOD.

DOES ANY OF THAT PROPERTY, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, CONFORM TO THE OVERLAY STANDARDS, OR DID IT PREDATE THE STANDARDS? IT PREDATES THE STANDARDS THAT THOSE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN THERE FOR. I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW LONG I CAN TELL FROM THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR. IT'S PROBABLY BEEN THERE A LONG TIME. RIGHT. OKAY. AND SO THEY APPLIED IN SEPTEMBER 2025 FOR A CERTIFICATE, A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. AND WHAT WAS THE INTENTION FOR THAT APPLICATION, OR IS IT JUST TO BECOME COMPLIANT OR WERE THERE OTHER FUTURE GOALS? MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THERE WERE THERE WAS SOME THEY NEEDED DOCUMENTATION FOR INSURANCE PURPOSES. AND SO THEY WERE SUBMITTING FOR AT THAT TIME, AT WHICH POINT STAFF SAID, HANG ON A SECOND, THIS DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE OVERLAY, SO WE CAN'T SIGN OFF ON A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IF IT DOESN'T. YOU KNOW, WHEN JASON AND I ARE LOOKING, WE'RE LOOKING AT PRIMARILY THE USE IF IT'S AN EXISTING STRUCTURE. AND SO WE BASICALLY SAID WE CAN'T SIGN OFF ON THIS IF IT DOESN'T COMPLY. AND SO THAT'S HOW WE GOT HERE. THANK YOU. QUESTION REGARDING THE USE OF THE PROPERTY. THE CARTS WILL BE STORED INDOORS OUTSIDE OF BUSINESS HOURS. IS THE BUSINESS TO RENT OR TO SELL GOLF CARTS? IT'S THE CELL TO CELL TO CELL OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. WE NEED A MOTION TO TAKE ACTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS PRESENTED. OKAY. SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FROM COMMISSIONER WEBB AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER COPELAND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? ONLY THAT I LEARNED SOMETHING NEW. I'VE ALWAYS WONDERED WHY THERE AREN'T GOLF CARTS LINED UP OUTSIDE LIKE THERE ARE AT EVERY OTHER DEALERSHIP. SO NOW I UNDERSTAND WHY. OKAY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE AYE. ALL

[7) Consider and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding proposed amendments to Exhibit C of the Kyle 57 Planned Unit Development, Ordinance No. 1133, which would eliminate the requirement for a fence along the western boundary of the Sage Hollow Subdivision to preserve the existing vegetative screening. Public Hearing ]

OPPOSED? SAY NAY. OKAY. THAT ONE'S APPROVED. LAST ITEM ON OUR LIST. CONSIDER AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EXHIBIT C OF THE KYLE 57 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NUMBER 1133, WHICH WOULD ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A FENCE ALONG THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE SAGE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING VEGETATIVE SCREENING. WE ALSO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM. SO AT THIS WEIGHT, I'VE GOT ONE. NO, YOU'VE GOT STUFF HERE I DO. DO YOU WANT TO READ THOSE FIRST I WILL OKAY. SO PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN AT 715. ALL RIGHT.

[00:45:02]

COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS I THINK KAYLA DID HAND THESE OUT. I THINK YOU HAVE COPIES OF THESE AT THE DYESS. BUT IF. OKAY, I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ THEM INTO THE RECORD. WE HAVE A TOTAL OF THREE. THE FIRST ONE IS FROM STEPHANIE WESTRIDGE AT 105 JULIA COVE. SHE IS NOT IN FAVOR BECAUSE THERE'S VERY LARGE TREES ON THE PROPERTY LINE. THAT IS THE ONLY SHADE MY BACKYARD GETS AS MY SEPTIC FIELD IS IN MY BACKYARD. PLUS, THE TREES GIVE ME MORE PRIVACY THAN THE FENCE. AS I SAID, THESE TREES ARE ON THE PROPERTY LINE. LETTER NUMBER TWO COMES FROM JOHN AND BELINDA JOHNSON AT 141 GLAUCON LANE. AND THEY ARE IN FAVOR BECAUSE WE WOULD LIKE THE NATURAL VEGETATION TO REMAIN AS A BARRIER. PLEASE AVOID DESTRUCTION OF THE VEGETATION WHEN POSSIBLE. WE SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE A FENCE, AND THE THIRD AND FINAL ONE THAT WE RECEIVED WAS FROM MR. GORMAN AT 180 TENNEY LANE. AND HE IS NOT IN FAVOR BECAUSE THE FENCE WILL BLOCK THE VIEW OF THE COMMERCIAL. THE FENCE WILL BLOCK THE VIEW OF THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. AND THAT COMPLETES THE LETTERS THAT WE RECEIVED. OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE ROOM WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN THE PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT? OKAY. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THAT AT 716 AND WE'LL MOVE TO THE PRESENTATION, MISS SHARP.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, KAYLA SHARP, SENIOR PLANNER. LAST ONE FOR ME FOR THE EVENING. SO THIS IS A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A FENCE ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY OF THE SAGE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION. SO JUST A LITTLE BACKGROUND. THE REQUEST IS, AS I SAID, TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT TO INSTALL THE FENCE. THIS WOULD BE. SO THIS SUBDIVISION IS EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE IN THE PINK. AND THAT WESTERN BOUNDARY IS KIND OF WHAT YOU SEE PLAN LIKE NORTHWEST ADJACENT TO THE QUAIL MEADOWS SUBDIVISION. SO AGAIN, A LITTLE MORE BACKGROUND. THE SAGE HOLLOW PUD WAS ADOPTED IN 2021. IT'S LOCATED OFF OF WEST FM 150, WEST OF NORTH OLD STAGECOACH ROAD AND FM 2770. IT'S PRIMARILY A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. THERE ARE ALSO TWO COMMERCIAL TRACKS ALONG FM 150, AND THE INTENT OF THE AMENDMENT IS TO KIND OF KEEP SOME OF THE EXISTING VEGETATIVE SCREENING, WHICH I'LL SHOW YOU IN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL HERE IN A SECOND. THIS KIND OF HIGHLIGHTS THE IMPACTED PROPERTY BOUNDARY. THIS IS WHAT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN RED IS THE ONLY AREA THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO REMOVE THE FENCING REQUIREMENT. AND THEN HERE'S KIND OF AN AERIAL VIEW. YOU CAN KIND OF GET AN IDEA OF HOW MUCH VEGETATION THERE IS AND HOW MUCH SCREENING IT KIND OF DOES PROVIDE FROM THAT ADJACENT SUBDIVISION. AND SOME PHOTOS OF THE EXISTING SCREENING, PRETTY MUCH IF A FENCE WERE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS REQUIRED BY THE PUD, ALMOST ALL OF THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED. SO SOME OF THESE TREES MAY NOT BE THE BEST IN TERMS OF THEY'RE NOT LIVE OAKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT THEY DO PROVIDE SOME PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL SCREENING. SO THE EXISTING LANGUAGE IN THE PUD REQUIRES A FENCE ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT TO ALL NEIGHBORING TRACKS, BUT IT WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED OF SOMETHING LIKE WROUGHT IRON HORIZONTAL WOOD FRAME WITH CATTLE PANEL OR SOMETHING COMPARABLE MORE DECORATIVE. IT WOULDN'T REALLY PROVIDE ANY PRIVACY OR SCREENING. AND THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE, WE'RE BASICALLY JUST REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY IN AN ATTEMPT TO SAVE SOME OF THAT VEGETATIVE SCREENING. SO ANALYSIS OF THE REQUEST, INSTALLING THE FENCE AS REQUIRED WOULD, WOULD RESULT IN REMOVAL OF SOME OR ALL OF THE EXISTING VEGETATION. THE NEIGHBORING TRACT IS ALSO OUTSIDE OF KYLE CITY LIMITS, AS YOU SAW ON THE ZONING MAP PROVIDED. AND THEN THE THE REQUIRED FENCE TYPE WOULD NOT PROVIDE ANY SCREENING OF ANY KIND, AND A MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTS IN THE ADJACENT SUBDIVISION INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD PREFER TO KEEP THE EXISTING SCREENING. THE HOMES WITHIN THE SAGE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION ADJACENT TO THIS BOUNDARY WILL ALSO STILL HAVE PRIVACY FENCING ON THE REAR OF THEIR PROPERTY LINE. AND THEN THERE'S A WATER LINE AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT THAT RUNS BETWEEN THOSE HOMES AND THE ADJACENT SUBDIVISION. SO YOUR OPTIONS HERE TONIGHT ARE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS PRESENTED, RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH MODIFICATIONS OR RECOMMEND DENIAL. AND THEN STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS PRESENTED. ANY QUESTIONS. GOT A QUESTION. IN TERMS OF THAT SPACE THERE'S RIGHT OF WAYS THROUGH THERE. EASEMENTS FOR UTILITIES I WOULD SUPPOSE. IT'S MOWED NOW OR CLEARED. MY ONE BIG CONCERN IS THAT EVERYBODY

[00:50:06]

STOPS PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS SPACE. AND I'VE SEEN HERE BETWEEN SUBDIVISIONS, THINGS DO NOT GET MOWED OR TAKEN CARE OF OR PEOPLE DISAGREE ABOUT IT. THE END POINT OR CONCERN I HAVE IS WILDFIRE SAFETY, AND THAT IF THAT IS NEGLECTED OR LET GO, JUST BECAUSE WE'VE GOTTEN THROUGH THIS WHOLE BUSINESS WITH THE FENCE, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT SAFETY, FIRE SAFETY. SO THAT WILL BE UP TO THE HOA'S, I SUPPOSE, IN THE CITY TO HAMMER THAT OUT, BUT I THINK IT'S A REAL CONCERN. YES. SO THERE'S IT SERVES AS A DRAINAGE EASEMENT. THERE'S ALSO A WATER LINE RUNNING THROUGH THERE. SO THERE WILL BE MAINTENANCE BETWEEN CITY FOR THE WATER LINE AND THEN ALSO HOA THERE. IT WILL BE MAINTAINED. THERE ARE OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. I READ THE WRITTEN COMMENTS A COUPLE DIFFERENT WAYS. SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, A VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL WOULD MEAN THAT THE TREES REMAIN. THEY WILL NOT BE A FENCE. A VOTE AGAINST THIS REMOVES THE TREES AND ADDS A FENCE. CORRECT. IN THAT FENCE LINE THAT WOULD BE PUT WOULD BE GENERALLY SEE THROUGH, RIGHT? IT WOULD JUST BE THE THAT BLACK IRON GATE WITH GAPS BETWEEN OKAY, WITH RELATIVELY CLEAR VISIBILITY ON BOTH SIDES OF THAT PROPERTY LINE. IF THAT FENCE WAS TO BE ESTABLISHED. CORRECT. IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD TO SEE IN THIS.

THE PHOTO TO THE LEFT, BECAUSE THERE IS SOME VEGETATION THERE, BUT YOU CAN SEE THE IMAGE TO THE VERY FAR LEFT. THERE IS KIND OF FENCING FOR THOSE HOMES THERE ALREADY. LET'S SEE. YOU CAN KIND OF SEE IN THIS IMAGE THERE ARE FENCES ALONG THE BACK PROPERTY LINES OF THE THE NEW HOMES IN THE SAGE HOLLOW SUBDIVISION. SO THOSE WILL HAVE YOUR TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL PRIVACY FENCING. AND THEN THERE'S THAT EASEMENT AND THEN THE ADJACENT SUBDIVISION THAT HAS THE SCREENING. AND SO WITH THIS IMAGE ON I'LL CALL IT PLAN SOUTH BELOW THAT RED LINE.

THAT'S THE NEW DEVELOPMENT. ABOVE IT IS THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ABOVE IS OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS. AND IT LOOKS LIKE FROM THIS IMAGE WITH THAT RED LINE IS AT MOST OF THOSE TREES ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CITY LINE. IS THAT CORRECT? OR IS THAT JUST WHERE THE LINE LOOKS HERE, WHERE IT'S NOT TRULY INACCURATE DEPICTION OF WHERE THAT BOUNDARY IS? YEAH, THIS ISN'T 100% ACCURATE BY ANY MEANS. A LOT OF THOSE TREES KIND OF FALL RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE. SO AS PART OF THE SUBDIVISION CONSTRUCTION, IF A FENCE WERE TO BE INSTALLED, PRETTY MUCH ANY OF THOSE THAT FALL LIKE RIGHT ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE OR INSIDE THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE SUBDIVISION WOULD END UP BEING REMOVED IN ORDER TO INSTALL THE FENCE. THANK YOU. AND THOSE FOLKS THAT PLAN NORTH, ARE THEY RELYING ON THE THE TREE LINE AS KIND OF LIKE A BACK FENCE, AS IT WERE. LIKE YOU GET RID OF THAT, THE DOG GETS OUT. RIGHT? YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? IS THAT KIND OF THE WAY IT IS? SOMEWHAT I BELIEVE SOME OF THEM DO HAVE FENCES. I'M NOT SURE WHETHER ALL OF THEM DO OR NOT, BUT THEY DO ALL HAVE THAT VEGETATIVE SCREENING AND KIND OF BUFFER BETWEEN THEM AND THIS NEW SUBDIVISION. I KNOW THE THE THE HOME BUILDER WORKED PRETTY CLOSELY WITH THEM TO TRY AND GET SOME SORT OF CONSENSUS ON WHETHER EVERYONE WANTED A FENCE OR NO FENCE, AND THIS IS KIND OF WHERE WE'VE LANDED, IS TO ATTEMPT TO LEAVE THE THE SCREENING ALONE AS IS. YEAH. APPRECIATE. HELP ME WITH THESE COMMENTS. I'VE GOT ONE HERE. JOHN GORMAN I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS. THE FENCE WILL BLOCK THE VIEW OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, WHICH MEANS HE'S AGAINST THE VEGETATION. THERE. THERE ARE SEVERAL WAYS THESE COMMENTS COULD BE INTERPRETED. YES. THE PROBLEM, I WONDERED. THE WORDING OF THE AGENDA ITEM, I GUESS MIGHT HAVE CONFUSED SOME FOLKS. YEAH, AND I DON'T. I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN ANYONE'S MOUTH, BUT I THINK THERE MIGHT BE SOME CONFUSION ON WHERE WE'RE PROPOSING TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE FENCE. THE ONLY TWO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ARE, YOU CAN SEE ONE OF THEM'S CONSTRUCTED AND IT'S A DAYCARE. AND THAT'S KIND OF CLOSER TO PLAN, RIGHT. BUT NOT ALL THE WAY OVER. AND THEN THERE'S A A PARCEL TO THE PLAN NORTH OF THAT RIGHT ALONG 150 AS WELL. THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES THAT KIND OF FALL WITHIN THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. GENERAL COMMENT I HAVE AS A CITIZEN FIRST ACTUALLY, AND THEN AS VICE CHAIR, IS THAT I'M CONCERNED, DISAPPOINTED THAT MORE PEOPLE FROM THE SUBDIVISION HAVEN'T WEIGHED IN ON THIS. THIS PUTS US IN A UNIQUE AND DIFFICULT POSITION OF APPROVING OR DENYING SOMETHING WITHOUT ANY IDEA OF WHAT THE BULK OF THEM REALLY WANT, EXCEPT TO SAY MANY OF THEM WANT IT. WE HAVE THREE

[00:55:03]

COMMENTS. THIS SEEMS TO BE THE KIND OF SITUATION I'M SAYING THIS FOR THE RECORD, FOR PEOPLE WHO MAY LISTEN TO THIS ON YOUTUBE. KYLE TEN THAT THESE ARE THE SITUATIONS THAT CITY BODIES ARE PUT IN DISCUSSING PUBLIC AFFAIRS. THERE'S NO INVOLVEMENT TO SPEAK OF, VERY LITTLE. AND WE'RE IN THE SITUATION OF MAKING A DECISION THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT A LOT OF PEOPLE, AND WE HAVE TO USE OUR BEST JUDGMENT. BUT OUR BEST JUDGMENT MAY FAIL AT TIMES WHEN THERE'S NOT MUCH INFORMATION, NOT MUCH INCOMING OPINION. SO IN MAKING THIS VOTE, IF SOMEBODY IS UPSET ABOUT THIS AND SAY, WELL, ONLY THREE PEOPLE MADE COMMENTS AND THEY'RE MAKING A DECISION ON THAT, I WOULD JUST SAY CALMLY AND KINDLY THAT YOU HAD THE CHANCE TO DO THIS. AND WE WOULD HAVE LOVED TO HAVE HEARD IT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. WE NEED A MOTION TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATION. MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED, WHICH, TO BE CLEAR, WOULD LEAVE THE TREES IN PLACE WITHIN THE FENCE LINE WOULD NOT BE A REQUIREMENT OF THE CURRENT AGREEMENT. SECOND, OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE OR RECOMMEND APPROVAL FROM COMMISSIONER COPELAND AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HOUCK. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT ONE? YES. SO A COUPLE OF THINGS STUCK OUT TO ME ABOUT THIS ONE. AND VICE CHAIR SEGAL, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOUR CONCERNS HERE. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO PROBABLY HAVE WEIGHED IN ON THIS AND OTHER FORUMS THAT ARE NOT THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD HERE. SO THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN REALLY HELPFUL TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT WE HAVE SEEN SOMETHING COME BACK TO CHANGE RIGHT AT THE END. IT'S DIFFERENT FROM THE WAY THAT IT WAS APPROVED AND PRESENTED AT KIND OF BEFOREHAND. OFTENTIMES THOSE THINGS RESULT IN LESS EXPENSE AT THE END OF A PROJECT.

SO I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THE MOTIVATIONS BEHIND THE THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST, BUT IT DOES SEEM TO BE A PATTERN OF THINGS THAT WE'VE SEEN OVER AND OVER AGAIN ON, ON THIS COMMITTEE.

THE ONE LESSON THAT WE DO HAVE TO LEARN FROM HERE IS PLUM CREEK, BECAUSE PLUM CREEK HAD THIS VERY EXACT ISSUE ABOUT TEN YEARS AGO, IS A SECTION OF PLUM CREEK SIX H. IT'S A GATED SECTION SURROUNDED BY BLACK WROUGHT IRON FENCING. THE DEVELOPER AT THE TIME SAID, THERE'S A NATURAL BARRIER HERE, SO I'M NOT GOING TO COMPLETE THE FENCE. THERE'S A I THINK IT'S A LITTLE OVER 100 FOOT SECTION OF FENCE THAT'S NOT COMPLETED. THE NATURAL BARRIER WAS SOME WEEDS AND BUSHY VEGETATION AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. AND ABOUT EVERY TWO YEARS THE GROUP IN SIX H GETS TOGETHER AND THEY'RE VERY, VERY UPSET THAT IT WASN'T COMPLETED.

AND THEY CALL ATTORNEYS AND THEY COME TO THE HOA. AND ALL OF IT CULMINATES IN IT'S TOO LATE. THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO NOW. SO. I, I HAVE A HARD TIME VOTING TO GET RID OF THE FENCE, UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SAME EXACT THING HAPPENED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I LIVE IN.

AND IT CAUSES PROBLEMS TO THIS DAY, AND IT'S A PROBLEM THAT WILL NEVER GO AWAY. THE WELL, IT'LL NEVER GO AWAY UNLESS THE RESIDENTS TAKE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TO GO BUILD A FENCE, WHICH WILL ALSO NEVER HAPPEN. THE OTHER LESSON THAT I'VE LEARNED FROM PLUM CREEK WITH WATER LINE EASEMENTS THAT BUTT UP TO OTHER PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY AND CITY PROPERTY AND THINGS LIKE THAT IS, IF THERE IS NOT A WELL-DEFINED BOUNDARY WITH WHO IS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN NOT JUST THE GRASS BUT THE TREES, IT WON'T HAPPEN AND IT WILL BE A LONG, DRAWN OUT FIGHT. I ROLLED OFF THE PLUM CREEK HOA BOARD ABOUT SIX MONTHS AGO, AND FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS OF MY TIME ON THE BOARD, IT WAS A FIGHT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND THE HOA ABOUT WHO WAS GOING TO MAINTAIN A WATER DRAINAGE EASEMENT. AND NOW THERE ARE BULLDOZERS THERE, SO SOMEBODY'S LOST. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHO THOSE ARE. MY CONCERNS WITH VOTING TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE FENCE. AS A MATTER OF PERSONAL PREFERENCE, I WOULD MUCH RATHER SEE THE VEGETATION AND THE TREES THERE THAN THE FENCE. BUT AS A MATTER OF PRACTICALITY AND BEING CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS APPROVED, I DON'T THINK I CAN VOTE FOR IT. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? BASED OFF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED, I WOULD WEIGH THAT THE PUBLIC HAS VOICED A PREPONDERANCE IN FAVOR OF

[01:00:07]

KEEPING VEGETATION, BUT FULLY RESPECT. WHAT I'VE HEARD TONIGHT OF THREE VOICES IS NOT EVERYBODY THAT WE CAN SEE ALONG THAT LINE, I GUESS. IS IT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW TO SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, WE'LL LEAVE THE VEGETATION AS LONG AS YOU KNOW, THE HOA IN THAT AREA AND THE CITY OR WHOEVER GETS GETS TOGETHER AND HAMMER OUT AN AGREEMENT OF WHO'S GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THIS PLACE. LIKE, I BELIEVE MAINTENANCE HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED, AND WE CAN ALWAYS GO BACK AND VERIFY. THAT WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL WOULD BE MAKING A DECISION ON TONIGHT, BUT WE CAN ABSOLUTELY DOUBLE CHECK THAT THOSE OBLIGATIONS ARE IN PLACE. I DEFINITELY HEAR WHAT WE'RE SAYING. YOU KNOW, LIKE THAT'S A PROBLEM FOR THE PLUM CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW? BUT IF THERE'S SOMETHING ALREADY HAMMERED OUT HERE, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY. YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD WORRY TOO MUCH ABOUT IT. I, I DO THINK MAINTENANCE IS ESTABLISHED, BUT BUT YOU'RE RIGHT. PEOPLE CHANGE AND THINGS EVOLVE AS A SUBDIVISION. I WILL SAY AS AS STAFF AND THE DEVELOPER, YOU KNOW, DID KIND OF TALK ABOUT MAYBE A THIS IS MY TERMINOLOGY, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A MIXED APPROACH OF KIND OF DOING THE FENCING. AND WE WERE LIKE, HEY, THAT'S GOING TO BE EVEN WORSE FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, TO HAVE SOME FENCES SOMEWHERE AT SOME LOCATIONS AND NOT IN OTHERS. SO YOU REALLY NEED TO KIND OF HAVE A HOLISTIC DESIGN. I DO THINK THAT THE APPLICANTS HERE, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR HIM, HE HAS KIND OF TRACKED DOWN THE MOST ADJACENT OUT OF CITY PROPERTY OWNERS TO KIND OF TALK ABOUT THAT, THAT FENCE LINE WITH THEM. BUT AS YOU SAW IN THE RESPONSES, WE DID NOTIFY EVERYBODY WITHIN THE BLUE AS WELL, KIND OF THE EXISTING SUBDIVISION AS WELL IN THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS AS WELL AS THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS ON THIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THIS IS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS ANNEXED BASED ON IT BEING PLANNED. UNIT DEVELOPMENT. I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS. THAT WAS THE DEAL. I'M SURE IT PROBABLY WAS ANNEXED WITH IT BEING RIGHT ON THE ON THE BORDER OF CITY LIMITS. BUT YES, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. I THINK I HEARD THE MAYOR SAY THAT ONE TIME, SO. JUST I MISSED THE MEETING. I'VE GOT A TALK. HERE'S ANOTHER NOTE. HERE'S ANOTHER NOTE. IS THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THAT LEFT BUSINESS UNFINISHED. THE FENCE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE. THEY LEFT IT UNFINISHED. WE WOULD WE WOULD NOT, SHOULD NOT EVEN HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THIS, ACTUALLY, EXCEPT FOR THE FAILURE OF A DEVELOPER. AND SO THIS IS A BURDEN ON US TO WORK FOR US. AND IT'S WORK AND STRESS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS. JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT NOTE TO. AND SO ALONG THAT LINE THEN FOR CLARIFICATION, IF THE AGREEMENT REMAINS IN PLACE AND THE FENCE HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED, WHO BEARS THE COST OF ESTABLISHING THAT FENCE LINE? SO THIS SUBDIVISION IS NOT YET COMPLETE. IT WOULD STILL BE THE DEVELOPER. THIS IS A REQUEST FROM THE DEVELOPER TO REMOVE THIS REQUIREMENT. SO THEY WOULD STILL BE RESPONSIBLE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADD ON JUST THE DISCUSSION OF, OF, OF THE FENCE ITSELF AND HOW WE GOT HERE. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT JUST CAME UP TODAY. THESE CONVERSATIONS ACTUALLY STARTED PROBABLY A YEAR AND A HALF OR SO MORE AGO. I KNOW THE APPLICANTS MET WITH THE ADJACENT LANDOWNERS SEVERAL TIMES. ALL THOSE EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERS ALONG THAT PROPERTY HAVE EXISTING FENCES. IT'S JUST A PATCHWORK OF WHAT THOSE ARE. SO YOU'LL SEE SOME WROUGHT IRON, YOU'LL SEE SOME BARBED WIRE. SOME OF THE BARBED WIRE IS, IS IS IN GOOD CONDITION. OTHER PROPERTIES. IT'S IT'S DETERIORATED. SO THERE ARE EXISTING FENCES. THOSE PEOPLE HAVE, HAVE, HAVE CHOSEN TO FENCE THEIR PROPERTY.

SO ACCESS ISSUES, THE NEED FOR A FENCE HAS BEEN ADDRESSED ON THEIR SIDE. THIS THIS CONVERSATION WAS REALLY JUST IF WE'RE GOING TO BUILD THIS, YOU KNOW, WE MAY HAVE TO REMOVE SOME TREES. AND SO THEY REACHED OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS TO SEE HOW THEY WOULD FEEL ABOUT THAT BEFORE THEY JUST STARTED CUTTING. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE. AND TO ADD ON TO THAT, THE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS COULD STILL CHOOSE TO REMOVE ANY OF THE VEGETATION ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL FENCING IF THEY SO CHOOSE, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE. THIS IS SPECIFICALLY JUST RIGHT ALONG THAT PROPERTY LINE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION WITH RESIDENTS IN THIS AREA AND A LOT OF INPUT, BUT THESE ARE THE ONLY ONES WE HAVE. ARE THERE IS THERE A SURVEY SENT OUT WHERE WE CAN LOOK AT THE RESULTS, EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS, NOTES FROM A MEETING, ANYTHING BESIDES THESE THREE? SOUNDS LIKE A YES. WAITING FOR KAYLA TO GIVE ME

[01:05:02]

THE Q HERE. SO STEVE, WALK UP. I'M WITH THE DEVELOPER AND YOU'VE GOT A PRETTY GOOD PIECE OF THE ENTIRE STORY. IT'S IT'S BEEN A PRETTY LONG AND DRAWN OUT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CALL IT A YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A PROBLEM. WE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS BOUNDARY, THERE IS AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF REALLY GOOD HARDWOOD TREES ALONG THIS BOUNDARY. WE COULD INSTALL THE FENCE AND DO WHAT THE PUD SAYS WE SHOULD DO. IF WE DO THAT, WE TAKE OUT EVERY TREE ON THE BOUNDARY AND IT COMPLETELY WIPES OUT THE VEGETATION. AND WE PUT IN A WROUGHT IRON FENCE. AND THAT DOESN'T REALLY PROVIDE IT. IT'S NOT GOOD FOR EITHER SIDE, IN MY OPINION. YES. THE, THE, THE, THE FOLKS ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, I MET WITH THEM SEVERAL TIMES. THE, THE RESPONSES THAT YOU'RE GETTING ON THESE PETITIONS IS PART OF THE PROBLEM THAT WE'VE HAD. IT'S BEEN DIFFICULT TO ARTICULATE EXACTLY WHAT THE WHAT OUR INTENTIONS ARE. SOME PEOPLE WANT A FENCE AND ALSO THEIR VEGETATION. SOME PEOPLE DON'T. AND SO WE COULD NEVER REALLY REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH THESE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO GET THEM EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT. AND, AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S BASICALLY WHERE WE ARE.

WE CAN DO EXACTLY WHAT THE PUD SAYS. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM DOING IT. I JUST FEEL LIKE THAT BY DOING THAT, WE DON'T REALLY ACCOMPLISH A GOOD OUTCOME FOR BOTH THE COMMUNITY AND THE ADJACENT COMMUNITY, WHICH IS NOT IN THE CITY LIMITS. SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND KIND OF GIVE YOU EVEN MORE BACKSTORY IF YOU DO NEED IT. NOT SURE IF THAT HELPED AT ALL, BUT I'M AVAILABLE. AND SO WHY WAS THERE A REQUIREMENT IN THE BEGINNING TO HAVE THAT WROUGHT IRON FENCE? WHAT'S THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT HERE THAT WE'RE MISSING? VERY GOOD QUESTION. SO THE PUD WAS WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT HAPHAZARDLY. AT THE END OF THE NEGOTIATION, IT WAS AGREED TO PUT IT TO PUT IN A BOUNDARY ALONG EACH SIDE. IT WAS EITHER A WROUGHT IRON FENCE, A WHAT WE CALLED A CATTLE FENCING, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN SORT OF A SORT OF THE WIRE MESH FENCING, I GUESS, TO KEEP CATTLE OUT, ALTHOUGH THERE'S NO, YOU KNOW, CATTLE ON EITHER SIDE. AND SO AND THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE ON THE, I GUESS THAT'S THE SOUTH SIDE. WE DID AGREE TO PUT IN A, A LARGER CONCRETE WALL ALONG THERE TO SATISFY A PARTICULAR OWNER ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. SO EACH ONE, EACH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, HAD WE INTENDED TO DO THAT, IT JUST IT JUST SO HAPPENS ON THIS SIDE, THERE'S A REALLY, REALLY DENSE BOUNDARY OF OF TREES WHICH WE DID NOT WANT TO REMOVE. SO. FOR THERE WE GO. AND SO IF I UNDERSTAND RIGHT AT THE ORIGINAL ONSET OF THIS AGREEMENT, THERE WAS DISCUSSION WITH THE RESIDENTS, WHOEVER WAS GOING TO BUY THESE PROPERTIES LONG TERM INTO TERMS IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY WANTED TO HAVE, THERE WAS A NEGOTIATION PROCESS. AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IT WAS BELIEVED THAT THE FENCE WOULD SATISFY MOST. TODAY, THAT BALANCE MAY HAVE SHIFTED. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? THE SOMEWHAT I THINK, THE IDEA OF PUTTING IN A WROUGHT IRON FENCE. AT THE TIME, IT WASN'T CONSIDERED THAT ON THIS, THIS SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WE WOULD HAVE TO COMPLETELY REMOVE ALL VEGETATION WHICH ELIMINATED ANY BENEFIT THAT A FENCE WOULD PROVIDE. AND SO IT WAS AT THE ONSET, IT PROBABLY WAS JUST A, JUST A, A HAPHAZARD ATTEMPT. TO, I DON'T KNOW, SATISFY A COMMENT OR WHAT. BUT PUTTING ADDING THAT WROUGHT IRON LANGUAGE IN THERE WAS PROBABLY JUST A MISTAKE. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANOTHER TYPE OF FENCE, OR IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANOTHER WAY TO ADDRESS THAT BOUNDARY. YEAH. I'LL JUST SAY GENERALLY WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT DOING PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS OR ORDINANCES, YOU KNOW, FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS SOMETIMES AND HAVING CONSISTENCY ON, ON PROPERTY LINES. AND THEN WHEN YOU HAVE ONE DEVELOPER COMING IN, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO MAYBE ADDRESS SOME OF THE BOUNDARY ISSUES ON FENCING. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS AT THAT TIME, COMMISSIONER COPELAND, I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE NEIGHBORS ON WHAT THEY WANTED WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED YEARS AGO, I THINK WHEN IT BECAME TO TRULY IMPLEMENT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE CODE IS WHEN WE, YOU KNOW, THE DEVELOPER STARTED SAYING

[01:10:03]

LIKE, OH, IF I'M PUTTING IN THIS FENCE OVER HERE, IT'S REALLY NOT GOING TO ACHIEVE THE DESIRED RESULTS OF WHAT THAT FENCE WAS. SO MAYBE LET'S LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, SOME OTHER OPTIONS. YEAH. THIS WAS ALSO NOT LIKE THE PUDS. YOU'LL SEE NOW WHERE THEY'RE VERY, VERY DETAILED AND ALMOST NOT NOT THAT THE PLUGS YOU'LL SEE NOW ARE FULLY ENGINEERED OUT. BUT THIS DIDN'T HAVE THE LEVEL OF DETAIL IN IT THAT SOME OF THE NEWER ONES THAT YOU SEE DO. SO IT PROBABLY JUST WASN'T TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. OR MORE THAN LIKELY WE'RE LOOKING AT OKAY, SURE. LET'S SECURE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SUBDIVISION AND CALL IT A DAY. AND THEN AS YOU GET INTO ENGINEERING AND FINISHING THINGS OUT, THAT'S WHEN THIS WAS KIND OF IDENTIFIED AS A POTENTIAL ISSUE. AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION FOR THE TIME, GIVE ME SOME CONTEXT HERE ON ONE OF THESE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WE HAVE OF THE FENCE WILL BLOCK THE VIEW OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. WHAT IS THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT'S CLOSEST TO YOU? CONTEXT THERE? I, I ACTUALLY THINK THAT'S JUST A MISTAKE. THERE'S A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IN THAT CORNER THAT'S GOING UP RIGHT NOW. THAT'S THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK THAT THEY WOULD, THAT THEY WOULD REFERENCE THE JOHNSONS. I'VE TALKED WITH THEM MULTIPLE TIMES ABOUT IT. THEY WOULD PREFER TO HAVE A VEGETATIVE SCREEN. STEPHANIE LIVES IN THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. I THINK SHE'S MISUNDERSTANDING. AGAIN, THE LANGUAGE OF THE AMENDMENT. SHE'S SAYING THAT THERE ARE VERY LARGE TREES ON THE PROPERTY LINE. AND I GUESS IN AN ATTEMPT TO SAY THAT SHE SHE WANTS TO KEEP HER VEGETATION. SO I THINK A LOT OF THE LANGUAGE, SHE'S JUST CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE WE'RE VOTING. SO FOR THE COMMERCIAL ONE, I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN ANYONE'S MOUTH, BUT I THINK IT IS TRULY A MISUNDERSTANDING. WE WERE LOOKING AT THE ADDRESS PROVIDED, AND IT DOES KIND OF FALL IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SUBDIVISION. SO, YOU KNOW, BEST GUESS. AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR ANYBODY THAT PROBABLY LOOKING AT THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES CLOSER TO 150 IS WHAT THEY'RE PROBABLY THINKING. OH, OKAY. AGAIN, DON'T KNOW THAT FOR A FACT. SURE. AND MADAM CHAIR, I'LL JUST NOTE THAT I SAW A HAND GO UP IN THE AUDIENCE OF WANTING TO SPEAK. I DON'T KNOW LOGISTICALLY HOW WE WOULD BRING ANY MORE COMMENTS IN, BUT WANTED JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU SAW THAT THERE WAS MAYBE ANOTHER REQUEST TO SPEAK. OKAY, THANKS FOR MENTIONING THAT. I DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THE PROTOCOL IS FOR THAT. MISS ALCORN READ AS THE CHAIR. MADAM CHAIR, YOU RUN THE MEETING. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PERMIT MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE TO SPEAK AGAIN, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO SO. OKAY. I WOULD PERMIT MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE TO SPEAK IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD. YEAH. IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. HELLO. I'M A LITTLE SHORT, SO IT'S LIZETTE IBARRA AND I LIVE AT 370 TREADWELL LANE. SO IN THE SAGE HOLLOW NEIGHBORHOOD, WE DIDN'T. THE REASON WE'RE HERE IS BECAUSE WE LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT WHEN WE RECEIVE THE REQUEST AND ALSO THE OPTION TO VOTE, WE WERE REALLY NOT SURE WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF WHICH LINE IT WAS. WE THOUGHT IT WAS THE LINE DIRECTLY BEHIND US, AND THAT'S WHERE THE SIX CREEKS DEVELOPMENT IS HAPPENING. THEY'RE CURRENTLY CUTTING DOWN A TON OF TREES BACK THERE, AND SO WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT GREAT. NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CUT EVEN MORE TREES RIGHT BEHIND OUR HOUSE. AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE THOUGHT THAT THIS LINE WAS.

SO WE CAME HERE IN AN ATTEMPT TO GET INFORMATION AND LIKE NOT MAKE ANY SPECULATION OR VOTE ON SOMETHING THAT WE WEREN'T 100% SURE OF. BUT NOW THAT WE'RE CLEAR ON WHAT IT IS, THAT LINE OF TREES, I MEAN, IT IS LARGE, BEAUTIFUL TREES THAT WOULD NOT EXIST. AND I FEEL LIKE WE'RE ALREADY LOSING A TON OF TREES, LIKE IN OUR BACKYARD. THAT IS KIND OF SAD TO SEE, YOU KNOW, AND NOW TO LOSE THAT TOO. I WOULDN'T WANT TO SEE THAT EITHER. AND THERE'S NO COMMERCIAL LINE TO SEE ANYTHING COMMERCIALLY OR ANYTHING. THE PERSON THAT COMMENTED, I THINK THAT WAS ON GLAUCON AND THEY, THEY DON'T LIVE, THEY LIVE LIKE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR SUBDIVISION. SO THAT WAS ALL I HAD TO SAY. AND I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN STILL TURN THIS IN NOW THAT I KNOW. THANK YOU. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO SPEAK. YEAH. THANK YOU.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION OUT RIGHT NOW FOR RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS, WHICH WOULD KEEP THE VEGETATION IN PLACE. MORE COMMENTS, MORE DISCUSSION. YES. TWO QUESTIONS ACTUALLY, THAT CAME UP AS A RESULT OF OF THAT COMMENT. THE FIRST, I THINK IN AN IMAGE WE SAW THAT SOME OF THESE EXISTING HOUSES ALREADY HAVE A FENCE. AND THEN THIS WOULD BE A LITTLE

[01:15:02]

BIT BEHIND THAT. WHO OWNS THAT STRIP OF PROPERTY BETWEEN THE EXISTING FENCE AND THE NEW FENCE? WAS DOES THE HOMEOWNERS LOT EXTEND ALL THE WAY TO THE PROPOSED FENCE OR IS THAT HOA OWNED? I BELIEVE IT'S HOA. YES. OKAY. AND THEN IF IF WE VOTE TO LEAVE THE VEGETATION THERE, UNDERSTANDING THAT PART OF IT'S ON HOA PROPERTY, PART OF IT'S ON A CITY EASEMENT, IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT IN THE FUTURE, EITHER THE CITY FOR MAINTENANCE REASONS OR THE HOA FOR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THEIR REASONS WOULD BE AT THE TIME, COULD COME IN AND CUT THAT DOWN. LIKE, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT IN FIVE YEARS THERE'S NO VEGETATION AND NO FENCE AS FAR AS WHAT'S ALONG THE ACTUAL PROPERTY LINE? IT'S KIND OF TWOFOLD. THE HOA SHOULDN'T BE REMOVING ANY TREES WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE CITY, BECAUSE WE HAVE A TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE. IF IT'S CITY FOR MAINTENANCE REASONS, THERE IS SOME POSSIBILITY, BUT GENERALLY WE TRY TO LEAVE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. THE NEIGHBORS COULD THE NEIGHBORS COULD TEAR DOWN WHAT'S ON THEIR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY AS WELL. IF THEY WANTED TO REDO THEIR OR CHANGE OUT THEIR EXISTING FENCE AS WELL. SO I DO WANT TO SAY THIS. THIS ISN'T PROTECTING THEM NECESSARILY FOREVER. THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR, YOU KNOW, THE REMOVAL OF TREES IN THE IN THE FUTURE. BUT THIS WOULD IF APPROVING THIS WOULD ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR MILESTONE TO BUILD A FENCE ON THAT PROPERTY LINE. YEAH. THANK YOU. I THINK MY CONCERN IS THAT WE WE TELL THEM YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUILD A FENCE THERE. AND THEN THE, YOU KNOW, FIVE YEARS FROM NOW SOME OF THOSE TREES ARE GONE ANYWAY. AND. SO I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT I GUESS THE IMAGE ISN'T ON THERE. SO THEY'RE I THINK IN ONE OF THE IMAGES KAYLA HAD, IT WAS KIND OF SHOWING THAT THAT VIEW DOWN, THAT EASEMENT, THAT EASEMENT IS THERE WAS CLEARED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A WATER LINE.

SO TO YOUR POINT IN THE FUTURE, IF THAT LINE EVER NEEDED TO BE UPSIZED TO SOMETHING SIGNIFICANTLY BIGGER, THAT COULD NEED TO BE WIDENED AND COULD CAUSE THE CITY TO TAKE OUT SOME ADDITIONAL TREES. AT THIS POINT, THERE'S NO PLANS FOR AN UPSIZING ON THAT THAT'S SERVING JUST A FEW HOMES, SO WE DON'T FORESEE THAT. BUT AGAIN, THAT'S NOT THE ALWAYS GOING TO BE THE CASE, BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE WIDENED ANY MORE. FROM THE CITY STANDPOINT, IT IS HOA OWNED. IT IS HOA MAINTAINED. JUST TO CLEAR UP SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS FROM EARLIER. AND IF THERE'S A FENCE LINE IN THAT WATER LINE HAS TO BE EXPANDED. THAT FENCE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE OR COULD BE REMOVED AS PART OF THAT EXPANSION PROJECT. IT COULD. SO THAT FENCE LINE IS MOST LIKELY, IF IT WERE TO BE INSTALLED, WOULD HAVE TO BE SIX INCHES IN ON THE PROPERTY LINE.

THERE ARE EXISTING FENCES. I VENTURE TO SAY SOME OF THOSE PROBABLY CROSS THAT PROPERTY LINE, JUST BECAUSE OLD CATTLE FENCES GENERALLY DON'T AREN'T THAT ACCURATE. SO A LOT CAN HAPPEN. I THINK ULTIMATELY THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS IS DO WE WANT THAT FENCE TO TO STAY AS PART OF THIS REQUIREMENT. AND IF SO WHY IS THAT. AND I THINK THE NEIGHBORS HAVE KIND OF SPOKEN TO THAT. SO THEN WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT WE COULD APPROVE FOR VEGETATION. WANT EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND, FIRST OF ALL, MYSELF, THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT VEGETATION WILL REMAIN. THERE ARE SEVERAL CLEAR INSTANCES WHERE IT COULD BE TAKEN DOWN, AND THAT'S NOT ON THE COMMISSION. OR LIKE THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING. IT'S JUST THAT THERE ARE OTHER AGREEMENTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES THAT RULE THE SITUATION. YES, SIR. SO I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE PROPOSED PUD LANGUAGE. SO THIS EXCEPTION THAT WE WOULD BE CARVING IN, IT SAYS WHERE THE EXISTING NATURAL VEGETATION SHALL BE PRESERVED IN LIEU OF A FENCE, SHOULD SOMETHING HAPPEN TO THAT NATURAL VEGETATION. WOULD THAT THEN REINSTATE THE FENCING REQUIREMENT. NO, IT WOULD NOT. OKAY. COULD IT? I SUPPOSE THERE'S A WAY TO WRITE IT TO WHERE THAT WOULD BE THE CASE, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A REALLY HARD TIME ENFORCING THAT, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S, YOU KNOW, KIND OF AN AREA THAT'S NOT HIGHLY VISIBLE OR TRAVELED AREA. I THINK THE BIGGER ISSUE IS, IS THE NOTICE WAS FOR THE LANGUAGE OF OF PROHIBITING THE FENCE. I THINK A CHANGE LIKE THAT MAY NOT BE COVERED UNDER THE WHAT WAS NOTICED. FOR I'LL, I'LL LEAN TO AMY TO ANSWER THAT.

BUT THAT'S, THAT'S PROBABLY SOME OF OUR CONCERN. IF IN CASE YOU'RE THINKING THAT ROUTE. I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT ROUTE. ONCE THE DEVELOPER IS OUT OF THE PICTURE, IS IT IS IT GOING TO BE AN HOA REQUIREMENT? ADD THE FENCE IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED. ADD THE FENCE. AND THAT IS ALL STUFF THAT WE CAN'T REALLY NEGOTIATE RIGHT NOW FROM THIS FLOOR. THANK YOU. IF HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF, IT WOULD BE ON THE HOA AND THE HOMEOWNERS BECAUSE I KNOW PLUM

[01:20:03]

CREEK TRIED TO GO BACK TO THE DEVELOPER MULTIPLE TIMES, BUT ONCE THE PROJECT'S DONE, THERE WASN'T ANY RECOURSE. I GUESS THAT'S ACTUALLY KIND OF A BENEFIT THEN, BECAUSE IF THIS HAPPENS TEN, 20 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, THE HOMEOWNERS AT THAT TIME WOULD GET TO HAVE A SAY IN WHAT HAPPENS ALONG THEIR PROPERTY LINES IN THE COMMUNITY. THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DISCUSS IT TOGETHER. THEN OUR TREES ARE GONE. WHAT DO WE DO NOW? LET'S DECIDE AND TAKE ACTION RATHER THAN HAVING SOME BOARD LIKE WE'RE DEALING WITH LANGUAGE FROM FOUR YEARS AGO. NONE OF US WERE HERE THEN, AND NOW WE'RE TRYING TO KIND OF CLEAN UP AN OVERSIGHT THAT HAPPENED THERE.

SO YEAH, LEAVING IT FOR THE FUTURE RESIDENTS TO TO DEAL WITH IF IT BECOMES NECESSARY MAKES SENSE TO ME. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? OKAY. LET'S VOTE. THE MOTION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS ORDINANCE. VERBIAGE CHANGE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I. I AYE ALL OPPOSED. SAY NAY. OKAY. THAT ONE PASSES. THANK YOU. OUR LONE AUDIENCE MEMBER CHANGED MY

[8) Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding the following: Update from Freese & Nichols, the city's consultant, regarding the status of the Unified Development Code rewrite and overview of the Zoning Code Diagnostic Report. Update from city staff regarding Project Sahara. ]