Nov 21, 2023 P&Z Meeting

[00:00:02]

OKAY. LET'S. 5:30.

[CALL TO ORDER]

[1. Receive a report, hold a discussion and call for a public hearing regarding the creation of an electric vehicle (EV) charging station definition and use-specific standards, and take any necessary action.]

OKAY, SO OUR FIRST AGENDA ITEM UNDER THE WORKSHOP IS BACK TO EV CHARGING STATIONS.

WE'VE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED THIS TWICE WITH THIS GROUP AT THE AUGUST 1ST WORKSHOP AND THEN AGAIN AT OCTOBER 2017 PRIOR TO THAT REGULAR JOINT MEETING.

UM, THAT MEETING WE WENT OVER ELECTRICAL VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS AND THEIR SUPPLY EQUIPMENT DEFINITIONS THAT WERE BEING PROPOSED.

WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE NON RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE THEY WERE BEING PROPOSED TO BE PERMITTED WITH APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE.

LEAVING THAT MEETING, WE WALKED AWAY WITH SEVERAL SUGGESTIONS, ONE OF WHICH WAS TO AMEND THE DEFINITION TO INCLUDE VOLTAGE FOR LEVEL THREE OR RAPID CHARGE STATION WITHIN THE VEHICLE SUPPLY EQUIPMENT DEFINITION, WHICH WE'VE ADDED AND THEN ALSO TO INCLUDE.

E-V CHARGING STATIONS AS PERMISSIBLE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL IN THE RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH WAS ALSO DONE.

ADDITIONALLY, WITHIN THE USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS, WHICH IS UNDER SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS SECTION 42, WE'VE ADDED LANGUAGE THAT CLEARLY STATES A PERMIT IS REQUIRED, WHETHER IT'S ON A NON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OR FOR A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT.

YOU ALSO INCLUDED THAT THE STATIONS CANNOT BE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY.

FOR CLARIFICATION, AND THEN STATED THAT ANY POWER SHUT OFF REQUIREMENTS AND PARKING STRUCTURE PROHIBITIONS OR LOCATION PROHIBITIONS SHOULD BE REGULATED BY THE BUILDING AND FIRE CODES ADOPTED BY THE CITY.

AND I BELIEVE THAT THE BUILDING CODE IS ON THIS EVENING'S AGENDA.

THE 2021 I CODES EVERYTHING FROM BUILDING ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, MECHANICAL ON DOWN IS FOR CONSIDERATION.

THIS EVENING, MR. LARRY GRAY, WHO IS OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL, DID QUITE LENGTHY PRESENTATION AT THE EARLIER MEETING THIS NOVEMBER.

I BELIEVE IT WAS NOVEMBER 3RD.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ADDITIONS OR INSERTIONS THAT WE MADE SO FAR? I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND.

NUMBER THREE EACH CHARGING SPACE WILL BE POSTED THE SIGNAGE INDICATING THAT THE SPACE IS AVAILABLE FOR GENERAL, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PARKING, AND NOT ONLY FOR EV CHARGING PURPOSES.

IF THEY'VE GOT ENOUGH PARKING, WHY CAN'T THEY SET ASIDE THOSE SPACES? I BELIEVE ONE OF THE FEEDBACK ITEMS WE RECEIVED WHEN WE INITIALLY DID THE WORKSHOP WAS THAT WE WANTED TO ALLOW IT TO BE FOR GENERAL PARKING AND NOT JUST CHARGING STATIONS, EVEN IF THEY HAVE ENOUGH PARKING, EVEN IF THEY HAVE ENOUGH PARKING.

NOW, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU FEEL IS NOT NEEDED, PLEASE LET US KNOW AND WE CAN MAKE CHANGES.

I HAVE THE SAME QUESTION.

WHY? WHY DID WE COME UP WITH THAT OPTION? I DON'T COME BACK TO ANSWER.

OKAY. WELL, I YOU KNOW, I KNOW SOME OF THEM HAVE IT THAT WAY IN SOME CITIES, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT WASN'T INCLUDED AS PART OF THEIR PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT.

BUT IF THEY GOT REQUIRED PARKING AND THIS IS ADDITIONAL PARKING BECAUSE IF YOU'RE ANTI EV PERSON, I'LL JUST PARK THERE TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM BEING ABLE TO CHARGE.

AND I DON'T SEE THAT THAT THAT'S A POSITIVE THING FOR ANYBODY AT THAT POINT BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY SAYING RIGHT ABOVE IT MUST BE IN ADDITION TO REQUIRED PARKING SPACES.

I THINK THAT SUGGESTION CAME UP BECAUSE, FOR INSTANCE, OUT OF THE MALL, THE EV CHARGING STATIONS ARE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE ENTRY WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED, RATHER THAN BEING OUT AWAY DISTANCE.

MORE SO, EV IS CLOSER TO THE ENTRY DOOR AND PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE TO PARK SO FAR.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT GENERATED THE CONVERSATION.

NOT SAYING THAT I DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING OTHERWISE.

I'M JUST TRYING TO RECALL SAY THAT AGAIN ABOUT THE REASON FOR THAT.

THE PEOPLE WHO ARE I THINK THE REASON THIS WAS PUT IN THERE.

BUT WOULDN'T THAT EVEN BE MORE APT TO MAKE PEOPLE WANT TO PARK IN AN EV PARKING SPOT, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT GOING TO USE THE CHARGER? I WOULD THINK SO. SO? SO THAT'S TINSELTOWN.

THAT'S THE BEST PARKING SPACES.

EVEN BETTER THAN PARKING SPACES IF THEY'VE GOT PLENTY OF PARKING.

SO THAT'S JUST TINSELTOWN'S.

I THINK THAT WAS BEFORE THE PARAGRAPH WAS PUT IN HERE, BUT IT HAS TO BE SIGNED THAT OTHER PEOPLE CAN PARK THERE TOO.

SO THIS WAS AN THERE WAS AN EVOLUTION HERE AFTER THAT DISCUSSION THAT WOULD ADDRESS WHAT YOU ALL WERE TALKING ABOUT, I THINK.

WELL, I JUST I JUST DIDN'T SEEM IT SEEMED LIKE IT COULD CAUSE US MORE ISSUE TO ME THAN IT COULD BE BECAUSE IT WASN'T ENFORCEMENT, BUT.

WELL, THERE IS NO ENFORCEMENT, IN ESSENCE, BECAUSE ANYBODY CAN PARK THERE.

RIGHT. AND THAT DOESN'T SEEM ANYWAY, I DON'T KNOW.

I THINK AS LONG AS THEY I THINK THEY HAVE ENOUGH PARKING, I'M THINKING, WAIT, SHOULD I, CAN I PARK, SHOULD I PARK SIGN SAYS I CAN'T COMPETE IF I DID, BUT

[00:05:07]

IF YOU HAVE A SIGN FOR EV CHARGING, ONLY SOMEBODY PARKS ARE NOT CHARGING, YOU CAN ENFORCE IT.

THE MANAGEMENT CAN ENFORCE IT, THE POLICE CAN ENFORCE IT.

AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY WAY TO ENFORCE THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN.

NOW, LARRY'S GOT THIS POINT.

IF YOU'RE JUST ANTI EV, YOU JUST WELL MAKE IT A HABIT TO PARK THERE.

YEAH. THAT CAN MAKE YOU WANT TO DO THAT.

SO WE CAN REMOVE NUMBER THREE AS DRAFTED.

AND REMEMBER IT SOUNDS LIKE COUNCIL IS GOING TO HAVE TO APPROVE THIS, BUT I DON'T SEE THE REASON FOR THAT.

I DON'T KNOW HOW. IT'S COUNTERINTUITIVE TO ME.

MARK, DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT? I MEAN, THAT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING TO ME, TOO.

IT'S JUST. YEAH, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE REASON.

I THINK, FIRST OF ALL, WHO'S WHO'S REGULATING IT.

OVERALL, I MEAN, IS IT.

WELL, NOBODY NEEDS TO IF ANYBODY CAN PARK THEIR RIGHT.

NO. ANYBODY HAVE AN OBJECTION TO SAYING WE TAKE THAT OUT? I COULD BRING UP SOMETHING SINCE WE LAST MET.

I READ AN ARTICLE.

BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I STOPPED FIRE SAFETY WITH EVS.

THE SECOND LEADING CAUSE OF FIRE IN NEW YORK CITY IS ED SCOOTERS AND CARS AND SUCH.

AND I ALSO SAW TWO WEEKS AGO AN EV BURNING IN A GARAGE IN PLANO.

AND THE FIREMEN JUST PUT WATER ON IT.

THEY WERE ABLE TO KEEP THE HOUSE.

LIMITED SMOKE DAMAGE ON IT.

WOULD WE NOT BE REMISS IF WE DIDN'T HAVE SOME KIND OF.

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOU KNOW AND HAVE AVAILABLE TO YOU THE MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FIGHTING THE FIRE.

I MEAN, THE WAY YOU WANT TO DO THAT, WOULD IT BE GOOD TO BE IN THERE? WERE YOU AT THE WORKSHOP WE HAD WHAT IF IN AUGUST 1ST? NO, THE FIRE MARSHAL WAS THAT THE FIRE MARSHAL BASICALLY SAID THEY DON'T PUT OUT FIRES.

THEY CAN'T. YEAH, THEY CAN'T.

AND IF THEY WOULD POUR SO MUCH WATER ON IT, THEN THE WATER IS CONTAMINATED.

IT CONTAMINATES. IT MAKES A BIGGER CLEANUP FROM HAZMAT.

WE HAD A FIRE. THE FIRE OFFICIAL HERE SAID THE SAME THING HERE.

YEAH, YEAH. I JUST THINK WE'D BE REMISS OF NOT HAVING SOMETHING IN THERE.

MR. BOYLE MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT, BUT SOMETHING IT IS RECOMMENDED.

YOU UNDERSTAND AND KNOW HOW A FIRE COULD HAVE OR NEEDS TO BE NEEDS TO BE EXTINGUISHED.

OR IS THAT WHAT SAID WHEN THEY APPLY FOR THE PERMIT? IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE GOT EVERY RESTAURANT IN TOWN'S, GOT A FIRE EXTINGUISHER OVER THE GRILL AND THE GRILL AND THE FRYER.

WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.

RESTAURANTS BURNING DOWN.

WE OUGHT TO HAVE SOMETHING ABOUT FIRE IF IT'S A FIRE DANGER.

PART OF THE CODE AMENDMENTS THAT VERY GRAY IS PRESENTING FOR APPROVAL TONIGHT INCLUDE ENHANCEMENTS AS TO THE TREATMENT AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS, INCLUDING THEIR DISCONNECT POINTS, AND THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO BE REMOTELY TERMINATED.

THOSE ARE TWO OF THE POINTS THAT I CAN RECALL FROM TWO WEEKS AGO.

YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S RIGHT.

YEAH. WE'VE GOT A LOT OF RESIDENCES.

NO NOT RESIDENTIAL.

NO. BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY CAN TURN THE POWER OFF TO A RESIDENCE.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THEM SWITCH.

BUT YOU STILL GOT A FIRE. I MEAN, JUST LIKE YOU HAD A WRITTEN STATEMENT THAT SAID, DID IT RECOMMEND YOU UNDERSTAND HOW TO TREAT THIS TIME? THE THE RESIDENT ISN'T GOING TO BE THE ONE FIGHTING THE FIRE AND FIRE OFFICIALS ALREADY SAID THEY DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE GOING TO FIGHT IT.

WELL, THEY SAID THEY'RE GOING TO LET IT BURN.

RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT.

THE THING WOULD BE, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT BELONGS IN THE ORDINANCES.

YEAH. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S AN ORDINANCE ISSUE.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE NUMBER THREE CAN BE REMOVED, I THINK.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE OUR PREFERENCE.

OKAY. ON THE NUMBER 11 OVER HERE, THE WORDING IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IT WAS LAST TIME WHEN I TALKED ABOUT THE EMERGENCY POWER SHUT OFF.

AND ALL THIS STUFF IS GOING TO BE PART OF THE BUILDING.

FIRE CODES IS FINE, BUT IT SAYS AND WORDS OF POWER SHUT OFF IN PARKING STRUCTURE, LOCATION OR PROHIBITION WHEREIN THE ONE WE ORIGINALLY TALKED ABOUT, IT TALKED ABOUT WE WERE GOING TO PROHIBIT THEM IN PARKING STRUCTURES.

SO WHY WHY DID THE WORDING CHANGE.

AND WE WEREN'T EXACTLY CLEAR WHAT THE THE ACTUAL CODES REQUIRED AS FAR AS THE PROHIBITION OR LOCATION, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THEY'RE ACTUALLY PERMITTED IN SOME INSTANCES ON THE TOP LEVEL, BUT MAYBE NOT ON THE GROUND LEVEL OR IN BETWEEN THE TOP LEVEL. THE LAST SENTENCE ABOUT WITH THE CONFLICT AND RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENT THAT CAME FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.

I KNOW THEY SAID BEFORE THEY ALLOWED THEM IN SOME PLACES ON THE TOP FLOOR WHERE THEY COULD JUST BURN.

BUT EVEN THEN THEY TALKED ABOUT THAT THEY HAD SOME STRUCTURAL DAMAGE ON SOME OF THEM, BECAUSE THE HEAT WAS STILL SO SIGNIFICANT THAT IT BEGAN TO WEAKEN THE STRUCTURE UNDER THE

[00:10:08]

LOOKS LIKE IT'S ON TOP OF THE STRUCTURE.

THE WIND'S BLOWING.

IT'S NOT A GOOD THING TO LET A FIRE BURN.

DO WE WANT TO ALLOW THE NEW STRUCTURE EVEN ON THE TOP FLOOR? WELL, THAT'S THAT'S A QUESTION FOR YOU GUYS.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD. PARTIALLY.

WELL, DO YOU THINK THAT AS TIME GOES ON AND THERE ARE FIRES AND EVERYTHING THAT THE BUILDING AND FIRE CODES WILL EVOLVE TO PROHIBIT? DO WE JUST LET THAT TAKE CARE OF THEY.

WILL THEY DO I MEAN, THE THEY DO NEW CODES EVERY YEAR.

AND WE'RE ON A STATE REQUIREMENT FOR CODE CYCLE UPDATES, SUPPOSED TO BE EVERY THREE YEARS.

AND THEN THE WAY THEY MANAGE IT BY FIRES EVOLVES AS THE TECHNOLOGY IMPROVES AS WELL.

SO THERE WILL BE CONSTANT UPDATES.

WE JUST NEED TO IF WE DO A FLAT OUT PROHIBITION, WE HAVE TO BE PREPARED TO KNOW.

PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK AND UPDATE IT AT SOME POINT IF THINGS DO BECOME SAFER.

WE CAN MAKE IT MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN WHAT THE BUILDING CODES.

YES. IF WE ALLOWED THEM, THERE'S MORE STRUCTURES ARE BUILT.

THERE WILL BE MORE IN PLACE BY THE TIME THE NEW UPDATE COMES ABOUT IN THREE YEARS.

SO THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU WANT TO ALLOW IT? WELL, YEAH, THAT AND TWO IS WHAT'S IN WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO PROPOSE TONIGHT.

WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT THAT.

DOES IT SAY IT'S ONLY ALLOWED ON THE TOP FLOOR.

OR DOES IT SAY I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT.

WE DIDN'T GET THE DETAIL OF THE TEXTUAL UPDATES.

YEAH, WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT SAYS.

SO IT MAY BE FINE BASED ON WHAT'S IN THERE, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN THERE.

MR. BOYLE. IT'S TRUE.

EVERYTHING THAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE IS KIND OF GRANDFATHERED IN.

THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT.

THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT FOR THESE PARKING STRUCTURES THAT HAVE THEM ON THE INSIDE.

I MEAN, THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT THE SHUT OFF IS ANYWHERE AWAY FROM WHERE THE CHARGING STATION IS OR ANYTHING.

SO THOSE USES THAT PREDATE ANY ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE WOULD BE LEGAL, NONCONFORMING.

YOUR LIFE HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENTS, SUCH AS THE BUILDING CODE COULD BE APPLIED BOTH PROSPECTIVELY AND REGRESSIVELY AS TO THOSE THAT WERE IN PLACE.

IF THAT WAS THE DIRECTION.

YOU COULD FORCE THEM TO HAVE TO UPGRADE IT AND OR TERMINATE.

DO WE KNOW HOW MANY STRUCTURES WE HAVE IN THE CITY THAT ARE LIKE THAT CURRENTLY? WE KNOW 925 HAS SOME, PECKHAM HAS SOME, PECKHAM HAS SOME.

ON THE INTERIOR OF THE PARKING GARAGE.

ON THE INTERIOR. FIRST FLOOR.

I SAID THAT WAS WHERE THE DANGER WAS ABOUT THE STRUCTURE.

BEING WEAKENED IF THERE WAS A MAJOR FIRE.

DO I HAVE IT ON THE TOP FLOOR OR NOT AT ALL, OR NOT? NO, NOT AT ALL. IF YOU'RE ON THE TOP FLOOR, WOULDN'T YOU HAVE THE POLLUTION FROM THE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF WATER THEY'RE PUTTING ON GOING? WELL, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PUT IT ON.

THERE'S NO WATER. LET IT BURN.

YOU'RE GOING TO LET IT BURN. IT'S GOT TO BURN.

JUST THE AIR PRESSURE FROM THE SMOKE.

WELL, THAT'S THAT WAS THE POINT THEY WERE MAKING.

I'D RATHER HAVE THE STRUCTURE ON TOP THAN THE BOTTOM.

WELL, YEAH. TYSON HAS OTHER LOCATIONS WHERE THEY COULD HAVE PUT THEM OUTSIDE OF THE GARAGE.

THEY DO HAVE SOME PARKING, SO THEY HAVE OTHER OPTIONS.

NOW 25 HAS OTHER OPTIONS TOO.

AND SO AS NEW CONSTRUCTION COMES ABOUT, IF THEY ARE AWARE THAT THEY CAN'T PUT IT IN A GARAGE OR PARKING STRUCTURE, THEY'D HAVE TO PUT IT OUTSIDE AND THEY'D HAVE TO MAKE PROVISIONS FOR IT FROM THE GET GO.

RIGHT. AND THEY COULD DO SO.

AND THAT WOULD SOLVE Y'ALL'S CONCERN AND IT WOULD SOLVE THEIR THEIR NEED, PERCEIVED NEED.

AND THAT COULD BE THE WIN WIN RIGHT THERE.

MR. GRAY SAID THAT WITH THIS CODE ADOPTION, THEY WILL BE PROHIBITED.

PERIOD. THE AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT THEM IN OR ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE GARAGES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. SO THE CODE ADOPTED TONIGHT, IF IT GETS ADOPTED TONIGHT, WILL COMPLETELY PROHIBIT THEM.

THEN I SAY CHANGE IT BACK TO THE SAME COMMENT THAT.

LARGE SHUT OFF IN PARKING STRUCTURE PROHIBITION REQUIREMENTS FROM YOUR REGULAR.

[00:15:03]

ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANT TO ASK? NOW THIS IS GOING TO BE DISCUSSED AT THE WORKSHOP.

THIS IS NOT ON THE WORKSHOP FOR THE 27TH.

BUT IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS, WE COULD PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 19TH AND ASK THAT THE COUNCIL CALL A PUBLIC HEARING.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE.

I'VE SEEN YOUR RECENT PLAY.

ANYBODY HAVE AN OBJECTION TO HAVING IT ON OUR AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION TO SEND TO THE COUNCIL RECOMMENDING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 19TH? OKAY.

THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM FOR MOVING INTO OUR SPECIAL MEETING IS FOR UPDATES TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BYLAWS.

[2. Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 82-73 AM23-03 (Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws Amendments) – Receive a report, hold a discussion and provide staff direction regarding possible amendments to Chapter 19, Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Grapevine Code of Ordinances, also known as the Planning and Zoning Commission Bylaws, and take any necessary action.]

ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND THEY HAVE MET ON THREE TIMES ON AUGUST 30TH, OCTOBER 18TH, AND THEN MOST RECENTLY ON NOVEMBER 8TH, AND MAKING PROPOSED CHANGES TO WHAT ARE KNOWN AS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BYLAWS, BUT ARE REALLY THE WHOLE OF CHAPTER 19 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THAT THE CITY IS GRAPEVINE CITY OF GRAPEVINE CODE OF ORDINANCES.

SO THESE ARE OUTSIDE OF APPENDIX D, WHICH IS THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

JUST SO THAT YOU GUYS ARE AWARE OF THE BYLAWS WERE LAST UPDATED BY ORDINANCE.

1999, AND INITIALLY WHAT WAS THE DISCUSSION WAS ROTATING THE UNIT ONE AND TWO POSITIONS AND SOME OTHER CLEANUP ITEMS. HOWEVER, THERE'S BEEN QUITE A BIT OF REORGANIZATION AFTER THE SUBCOMMITTEE HAS MET AND FELT THAT IT WOULD JUST BE BETTER MODERNIZATION OF SOME LANGUAGE, REMOVING DUPLICATIVE SECTIONS AND SUBSECTIONS, AS WELL AS CLARIFYING THE FIRST AND SECOND ALTERNATE POSITIONS AND WHEN AND HOW THEY SERVE.

THEY'VE ALSO INCLUDED SOME UPDATES TO PROCESSES BASED ON HISTORICAL PRACTICE OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, MORE SO THAN WHAT WAS ALREADY IN THE BYLAWS, AND THEN A LOT OF SPELLING OUTWARDS AND USING CAPITALIZATION AND SPELLING CONSISTENTLY THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT.

SO THAT'S A OVERALL SUMMARY AND BIG PICTURE VIEW.

MR. OLIVER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD SOME COLOR TO THAT OUTLINE? WELL, I KNOW THAT WE STARTED OUT JUST TRYING TO MAKE CORRECTIONS AND THINGS, AND A LOT OF THESE CORRECTIONS ARE JUST TRYING TO GET UNIFORMITY IN TERMS OF CAPITALIZATION AND HOW THINGS ARE NAMED AND WHAT THEY'RE CALLED.

AND BUT THEN WE ALSO DECIDED THAT THERE WERE TO TRY TO ADD SOME CONTINUITY TO IT, TO MAYBE BETTER REALIGN SOME OF THOSE SECTIONS.

WE DID THAT AS WELL FOR YOUR TO LOOK AT HERE THIS EVENING AND SEE WHAT ELSE WE MIGHT NEED TO DO, BUT I'M HOPING THAT THOSE MEMBERS WHO WEREN'T ON THE COMMITTEE AT LEAST HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO LOOK AT THIS.

AND IF YOU'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS, I THINK WE OUGHT TO CONSIDER THOSE FIRST TO SEE IF YOU'VE GOT ANYTHING.

YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT.

AS FAR AS THE CHANGES.

THE CONCERNS ON MY PART.

WELL, ON MY PART. AND NOW I APPRECIATE THAT YOU'RE ROTATING THE THE ALTERNATES.

OKAY. YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD I THINK THAT'S A GOOD MOVE ACTUALLY WAS INTENDED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

AND AND IT GOT WORDED IN THERE THAT IT WASN'T THAT WAY.

AND THEN IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE CHANGED AND WASN'T.

AND SO WE'RE JUST NOW GETTING IT'S GOOD TO KEEP EVERYBODY ENGAGED.

YEAH. I HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT ONE SECTION.

THAT'S THE TOP OF FOUR.

CAN YOU TELL US THE PAGE NUMBER.

TOP OF PAGE FOUR.

PAGE FOUR. YEAH. THE CHANGE LANGUAGE.

THE THIRD LINE WHERE IT SAYS TO CREATE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN PREPARING BOTH ALTERNATES.

HOW ABOUT TO CREATE AN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE BOTH ALTERNATES FOR SOMEONE TO SAY, WELL, OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS I'VE JUST HAD FOUR CHANCES AND HE'S HAD FIVE.

THE IDEA IS TO SWITCH OFF, BUT I WOULD HATE FOR US TO BE BOUND BY THE WORDS.

NOW EQUAL IMPLIES DIFFERENT THAN ALTERNATING.

BECAUSE IF ONE OF THEM IS ABSENT, THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING, RIGHT? YEAH. SO.

CREATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE OUT EQUAL TO STRIKE EQUAL CATCH.

[00:20:05]

THIRD LINE. THIRD LINE.

CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE BOTH ALTERNATES ON THE SAME PAGE SIX AND 1924.

IF IT TALKS ABOUT HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE RULES, REGULATION BYLAWS FOR ITS OWN GOVERNANCE GOVERNMENT, SHOULDN'T IT BE GOVERNANCE GOVERNMENT WHICH SHALL CONFORM THEIR THEORY AS POSSIBLE WITH THOSE GOVERNING DECISIONS, BUT GOVERNANCE RATHER THAN GOVERNMENT MAKE MORE SENSE.

THAT MAKES SENSE. YEAH.

AND ALSO ON PAGE TEN HE TALKED ABOUT A COIN.

CAN YOU GO DOWN? THE THIRD LINE OF THOSE PRESENT SHALL BE NECESSARY TO RECOMMEND A CASE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR.

SHOULDN'T IT BE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T GO TO THE RANKING MEMBER? AND WHAT WHAT PAGE IS THAT NUMBER TEN HERE.

TEN. NO.

PARAGRAPH EIGHT HE SAYS IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR, THE MOST SENIOR RANKING CITIZEN, THE CHAIR AND RANKING MEMBER. YES.

COME ON.

PAGE TEN OF THE TOP IN THE SECOND LINE.

THE REQUEST OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WILL DETERMINE THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE SPECIAL MEETING.

YEAH. THE REQUEST WILL DETERMINE PROBABLY JUST THE CITY COUNCIL TAKING BACK THE REQUEST.

WELL, THE SPECIAL MEETING DOESN'T HAVE TO INCLUDE THE COUNCIL.

IT COULD JUST BE THE PNC.

SO I THINK THEY WERE JUST TRYING TO SAY WHOEVER CALLED, WHOEVER CALLED THE MEETING WOULD BE THE ONE RESPONSIBLE.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT WHAT YOU ALL INTENDED.

BUT I DON'T READ IT THAT WAY.

THE REQUEST WILL DETERMINE, IT SEEMS AWKWARDLY WORDED.

THE VERBIAGE SEEMS TO BE AWKWARDLY WORDED.

IF THAT'S THE INTENT. MAYBE THE WORDING SHOULD BE REVIEWED AGAIN.

THE CALLING ENTITY SHALL DETERMINE THE TIME AND PLACE IS REALLY WHAT YOU WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, RIGHT? YEAH, BECAUSE WE DELETED THE WORD.

BUT THAT'S REALLY.

THAT I DIDN'T SCALE BACK.

WELL, WE COULD PROBABLY JUST TAG THAT ON TO THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE.

AND NUMBER TWO. SO.

SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES, AND SHE'LL DETERMINE THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE MEETING.

OKAY. JUST ADD THAT TO THE.

BUT.

OKAY.

THE CITY COUNCIL. DO THE JOB OR NO.

SAY. SAY THAT. WHAT DID YOU SAY? WELL. NUMBER TWO SAYS, UPON THE REQUEST OF THE MAJORITY OF MEMBERS IN THE PREVIOUS MEETING AND CONSULTATION WITH THE STAFF, THE FIRST ONE SAID UPON THE CALL OF THE CHAIR, IN CONSULTATION WITH CITY STAFF ON EITHER ONE OF THOSE, JUST SAY, AND THEY SHALL DETERMINE THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE MEETING.

IN OTHER WORDS, WHOEVER CALLS IN CONSULTATION WITH CITY STAFF.

THE TIME AND PLACE IS DETERMINED.

I THOUGHT YOU COULD ELIMINATE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. FREEZE THE CALL IF THE CITY COUNCIL CALLS THE MAYOR.

WHOEVER CALLS IT IS THE TIME AND PLACE.

EVEN NUMBER TWO, THOUGH.

YES OR NO. THE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS, NOT THE CHAIR, DECIDES.

AND DOES THE MAJORITY GET TO DECIDE WHEN THE MEETING NEVER TAKES? AS LONG AS DETERMINES THE TIME? AS LONG AS IT'S IN CONSULTATION WITH THE PLANNING SERVICES STAFF.

RIGHT? YEAH. SO AS LONG AS THEY HAVE TO.

WORKS. SO YOU WANT TO ADD THIS TO ONE AND TWO.

AND THEN WITH THE COUNCIL JUST BE THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING THE MEETING.

THAT NUMBER THREE JUST SEEMED TO ME TO BE A BIT AWKWARDLY WORDED, THAT ONE SENTENCE, BUT IT MAY BE ADEQUATE FOR YOU.

WHAT I'M THINKING IS WHOEVER HAS WHOEVER CALLS THE MEETING, THEY'RE THE DETERMINING PARTY FOR THE TIME AND PLACE.

OKAY, THE THREE IS THE COUNCIL SO OR PNC? YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT.

YEAH. SO.

AND YOU MAY FIND THAT IT'S OKAY THE WAY IT IS.

[00:25:03]

YEAH. NEEDS TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT WHOEVER IS CALLING.

THE MEETING NEEDS TO BE THE ONE TO SET THE TIME AND PLACE IN CONJUNCTION WITH STAFF.

SO WE CAN AMEND THAT LAST SENTENCE.

CAN. CALLS THE MEETING ITS TIME.

AND SINCE THE TIME AND PLACE.

SINCE TIME AND PLACE.

CONSULTATIONS.

SERVICES. OKAY.

NO COMMENTS ON THIS ONE.

YOU HAD A COUPLE OF.

ON PAGE 13.

YEAH. ON PAGE 13, LET ME SEE DOWN TOWARDS THE BOTTOM OF THAT ONE.

THE PETITION SHALL INCLUDE THE NAMES LEGIBLY WRITTEN.

THE IMPRESSIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

BUT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN.

YES, THAT'S ALREADY BEEN UPDATED.

WE JUST HAVE SOME APPLICATIONS THAT CAME IN THE SUMMER BEFORE WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO UP THE APPLICATION SO LITTLE FOR.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE SOMETHING ELSE? HOWEVER.

LET'S JUST TALK. GO BACK TO PAGE NINE.

MR.. NUMBER OF CASES.

THERE THAT IS COUNTED.

I MEAN, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING WE DID TO DISCUSS THAT NUMBER OF CASES.

SO I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF THIS.

THERE'S NO MORE THAN EIGHT CASES UNLESS BY THE CHAIR AND CONSULTATION WITH PLANNING SERVICE DEPARTMENT.

WELL, ACTUALLY THE CASES.

THAT'S NOT NEW.

NO, IT USED TO BE SIX SPACES, BUT I'M JUST SAYING I WASN'T AWARE WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THIS MANY CASES UNTIL WE GOT THESE CASES.

SO WHERE WAS THE CONSULTATION? THERE WASN'T ANY.

THESE WERE SCHEDULED BECAUSE THEY WERE LINGERING OR READY TO GO OR.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S A GOOD REASON NOT TO LET US KNOW ABOUT.

OKAY. I MEAN, I MEAN, THESE ARE THE RULES.

THEY ARE THE RULES. WE OUGHT TO AT LEAST HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TO DISCUSS THAT.

AT WHAT POINT? BECAUSE WE'RE JUST SO THAT YOU GUYS KNOW OUR INTERNAL PROCESSES WHEN WE TAKE IN APPLICATIONS, THEY'RE GIVEN A TENTATIVE PUBLIC HEARING DATE, WHICH IS THE THIRD TUESDAY OF THE FOLLOWING MONTH.

AND THEY'RE KIND OF ON SCHEDULE UNLESS THEY ARE WORKING ON SOMETHING AND THEIR CONSULTANT TEAM IS UNABLE TO GET US INFORMATION OR THEY'RE HOLDING OFF FOR WHATEVER REASON, THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT REASONS THAT THEY MIGHT NOT MOVE FORWARD ON THAT TENTATIVE SCHEDULE.

SO IN THE INSTANCE WHERE WE'RE TENTATIVELY GOING TO HAVE EIGHT CASES OR SO, THAT CONSULTATION IS GOING TO HAVE TO HAPPEN ABOUT A MONTH BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DO THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, WE HAVE TO DO THE POSTING AND THE NEWSPAPERS AND ALL CIRCULATION 15 DAYS IN ADVANCE, WHICH REALLY MEANS IT HAS TO BE THERE 20 DAYS IN ADVANCE.

SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO PUT INTO HERE, THAT IT'S FAR ENOUGH IN ADVANCE TO CONFORM TO THIS OR TAKE IT OUT? OKAY. I MEAN, IF THERE'S SOMETHING ON WHATEVER GIVES THEM THE INITIAL SCHEDULE, THEY CAN JUST BE WRITTEN ON THE TOP OF EACH ONE.

[00:30:06]

I JUST KNOW IN THE PAST I'VE USUALLY KNOWN ABOUT IT.

OKAY. AND IF THERE'S GOING TO BE, HEY, THIS IS GOING ON AND THERE'S NOT BEEN A SINGLE TIME, THERE'S BEEN NOT BEEN THERE'S BEEN NO DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT THAT. WE HAVE IT.

BUT I MIGHT HAVE HAD SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT THIS MAN, ESPECIALLY BASED ON THE THE NUMBER THAT WERE TO WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH SOMEBODY ABOUT IT ANYWAY.

BECAUSE THIS IS A LOT AND I IF THERE'S SOMETHING JUST ABOUT EVERY SCHEDULE THAT IT COULD SLIDE SOME, SOME LANGUAGE, WE DO HAVE A BALL OR THAT YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH.

WELL THEY HAVE TO HAVE EVERYTHING IN BY A CERTAIN DEADLINE TO MAKE IT ANYWAY BECAUSE YOU CAN'T CORRECT YOU CAN'T YOU CAN'T ADVERTISE IF YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION IN ALL THE TIME. THEY GET TO LET THE DATE SLIDE BY WHEN THEY SUBMIT THINGS, THEN WE DON'T GET TO LIVE WITH THE DATES, RIGHT? IF WE GO TO. I JUST REMEMBER ONE TIME DOING A SHERIFF'S SALE IN DALLAS COUNTY AND WE WERE ALL TEED UP FOR IT, AND THEN IT WASN'T ON THE SCHEDULE.

AND MR. HARRISON SAID, WE HAVE TOO MANY.

THEY DIDN'T EVEN TELL US HOW MANY THEY HAD.

THEY JUST LIKE TOO MANY.

WELL, IF WE HAD EVEN JUST A COUPLE MORE LIKE THIS FIRST ONE TONIGHT, LET ALONE A TOTAL OF EIGHT, IT WOULD HAVE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REALLY.

IT'S GOING TO BE TOUGH. THIS IS GOING TO BE A BAD NIGHT.

AND PART AND PART OF THE PROBLEM IS, IS WE HAVE KIND OF DONE THINGS DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE THE PUBLIC HEARING THERE MAY BE THREE DIFFERENT THINGS ON A SINGLE CASE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT IT BECOMES THREE AGENDA ITEMS BECAUSE IT'S GOT A PD AND IT'S GOT A CONDITIONAL USE.

AND YOU KNOW, AND SO IT'S GOT MULTIPLE THINGS ON IT.

AND I CERTAINLY DON'T DISAGREE THAT THAT'S SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ONE ITEM BECAUSE THAT'S ALL I UNDERSTAND THAT WE SHOULDN'T GET THAT PICKY ABOUT IT.

BUT I DO THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE THIS ONE JUST BRINGS THAT OUT.

BUT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BYLAWS AND THE PROCEDURES WE EITHER NEED.

I'M SORRY. I'VE BEEN A STICKLER FOR THIS.

MY SCHOOL LIFE AND CITY LIFE.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE RULES. WE OUGHT TO KEEP THEM.

BUT IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO KEEP THEM, THEN THROW THEM OUT.

SO. WELL, I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE NEWBIE HERE, I COULD HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB ON EIGHT CASES AND ALL OF THEM HERE.

IT WAS QUITE OVERWHELMING.

IT IS QUITE OVERWHELMING.

YOU'LL GET YOU'LL GET BONUS PAY FOR THAT.

YEAH, I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT.

PICK IT UP RIGHT THERE.

ANYWAY, I JUST THINK AT LEAST BE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT IT TO KNOW THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AND TO KNOW WHAT THOSE CASES ARE AND WHAT IT INVOLVES.

BECAUSE LIKE I SAID BEFORE, BRUNO AND I HAVE DISCUSSED A COUPLE OF TIMES AND I DON'T THERE'S NOT BEEN A SINGLE TIME WE HAVEN'T SAID, THAT'S RIGHT, NO PROBLEM LIKE THAT.

BUT BUT THIS ONE'S ONE.

I MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONED SOME.

BACK TO MY PREVIOUS COMMENT.

IF WE HAD HAD EIGHT. LIKE THIS FIRST ONE TONIGHT.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TO ME.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TO ME TO WOULD HAVE BEEN TO MANY.

SO I WOULD THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A CAVEAT.

IN ADDITION TO THE SCHEDULE MAY SLIDE.

IT'S GOING TO BE FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE DEPENDING ON THE COMPLEXITY OF THE CASES.

AND SO IT REALLY COULD SLIDE A MONTH OR TWO.

AND MAYBE IT'S AT THE TOP OF THE APPLICATION IN ADDITION TO YOUR CURRENT WORDING.

PERHAPS THAT WOULD HELP HELP YOU ALL, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE APPLICANTS, AND THEY WANT TO KNOW WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO.

YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON A LOT OF THINGS, AND THE STAFF'S GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION WHEN EACH.

TO SEE COLLECTIVELY WHAT YOU ALL HAVE IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.

AND I TRUST YOU TO DO THAT.

SO WHATEVER LANGUAGE YOU NEED, AND I THINK IT WOULD HELP YOU COME UP WITH THAT.

IF YOU NEED TO PUT THIS IN SOME OF THE IN THE BYLAWS.

NOW THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING.

I'M OKAY WITH THAT TOO.

I JUST THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IT IN HERE, WE OUGHT TO DO WHAT IS IN HERE.

OKAY, UNDERSTOOD. WE ALSO DO GET PUSHES TO GET STUFF DONE AT THE END BY THE END OF THE YEAR.

SO THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE EXPERIENCING.

AND LAST MONTH WITH JUST THE TWO CASES WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A ODDBALL.

ANYTHING ELSE? YOU'VE BEEN TURNING OUT A LOT OF WORK.

WE HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB.

OH. THANK YOU. I WONDER IF TABLING SOME BIG AGENDA ITEM FROM LAST WEEK OR LAST MONTH.

WE SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO IT LAST MONTH.

WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY.

WELL, YES WE DID.

I KNOW WE WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM.

WE DID. GRACE. RIGHT.

SO. BUT THE APPLICANT HAD THAT REQUEST.

NOT US. I KNOW, BUT WE DID ELIMINATE THAT ISSUE IN THE IT'S GONE IN HERE NOW SO IT'S NOT THERE ANYMORE.

[00:35:01]

NICE WORK. ARE YOU READY TO MOVE ON? WE'LL MAKE THOSE UPDATES AND WE'LL HAVE THEM AVAILABLE AT THE WORKSHOP ON THE 27TH, BECAUSE THAT IS ONE OF THE ITEMS. COUNCIL.

I'M SORRY. ON MY POWERPOINT.

ALL RIGHT. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE IS TO DISCUSS SUBSECTION OF SECTION FOUR, LAND USE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN, WHICH IS A

[3. Comprehensive Master Plan Amendments – MP23-01 Receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide staff direction regarding possible amendments to Subsection E., Future Land Use, of Section IV., Land Use of the Comprehensive Master Plan (table), and take any necessary action.]

A MASTER PLAN AND IF YOU TURN TO IT HAS PAGE ONE IN YOUR PACKET MATERIALS, BUT IT'S REALLY PAGE THREE OF THE AGENDA MEMO.

THIS WAS ANOTHER SUBCOMMITTEE THAT WAS FORMED AND MET SEVERAL TIMES TO LOOK AT CHANGES TO THIS TABLE, WHICH HAS BEEN IN PLACE IN SOME FORM OR FASHION SINCE 1993, AND WAS MOST RECENTLY AMENDED IN 2017.

THE COMMUNITY MIXED USE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY OR DESIGNATION, I'M GOING TO REFER TO THEM AS DESIGNATIONS WAS CREATED IN.

FIVE OF THOSE LOCATIONS WERE DESIGNATED THROUGHOUT THE CITY AT THAT TIME.

THE SUBCOMMITTEE MET SEVERAL TIMES AND IS RECOMMENDING SOME CHANGES, AND I PLAN TO GO THROUGH THOSE SECTION BY SECTION, UNLESS YOU WANT TO INTERJECT OR COMMENT.

YEAH, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD DO.

I JUST WANT TO SAY, AS WE LOOKED AT THIS, I THINK OUR FOCUS CHANGED.

WE FELT LIKE IT NEEDED TO BE STREAMLINED SOME BECAUSE WE FELT THAT THERE WERE SOME INCONGRUITIES THERE IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS IN SOME CATEGORIES VERSUS OTHER CATEGORIES.

AND AS WE HAD THE DISCUSSION BACK 25 YEARS AGO ON THE MASTER PLAN MAP, THEY ACTUALLY PLUGGED IN THE ZONING.

IN OTHER WORDS, THEY MIGHT SAY THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SAID THIS SHOULD BE OUR 75.

IT SHOULD BE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL.

IT DIDN'T SAY IT DIDN'T GIVE A GROUP HEADING, OR THERE WERE MULTIPLE DIFFERENT ZONING CATEGORIES THAT FIT IN IT.

SO ONCE THAT HAPPENS, IT DOES MAKE A CHANGE.

AND SO IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE.

A GOOD EYE TO LOOK AT THAT, BECAUSE THE THINGS THAT ARE WITHIN A SINGLE CATEGORY MAY NOT BE GOOD MIXES WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.

PERHAPS EVEN THOUGH THE MASTER PLAN CALLS FOR THAT GROUP OF POSSIBILITIES, YOU MAY DETERMINE THAT SOME OF THAT GROUP IS MUCH MORE COMPATIBLE TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

AND AS FAR AS ZONING CATEGORIES AND OR PLANNING FOR THE CITY THAN WHAT OTHERS MIGHT BE.

SO IT DOESN'T TAKE THAT AWAY.

BUT THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO TRY TO GET THE CATEGORIES LINED OUT WHERE THEY WHERE WE FELT THEY MADE A LITTLE MORE SENSE.

AND SO THERE WERE ALSO A LOT OF THINGS IN HERE THAT WE'VE HAD FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS THAT WE'VE NEVER USED, AND IT DOESN'T MAKE A GREAT DEAL OF SENSE TO HAVE THOSE OUT THERE IF WE'VE NEVER USED IT.

WE DON'T SEE ANYTHING ON THE MASTER PLAN THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A GOOD FIT FOR THAT.

WHY DON'T WE KEEP IT? BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER AVENUES TO TAKE USING THE THE CATEGORIES THAT WOULD BE LEFT TO DO THAT.

SO I WANTED YOU TO KIND OF UNDERSTAND HOW WE BEGIN TO APPROACH THIS.

SO IN ESSENCE WE'VE KIND OF CONDENSED THIS IN SOME RESPECTS.

AND WE'VE ALSO PULLED OUT SOME PARCELS AND MOVED SOME FROM ONE CATEGORY TO ANOTHER BASED ON WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON HISTORICALLY WITH THOSE DIFFERENT THINGS.

AND I'LL USE THE VINTAGE DISTRICT AS AN EXAMPLE.

IT WAS IN A LOW INTENSITY TYPE COMMERCIAL ZONING CATEGORY, AND THAT LOW INTENSITY OF COMMERCIAL WAS A BUFFER FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES TO.

WELL, WE FOUND FROM EXPERIENCE THAT IN MANY CASES, A VINTAGE ZONING DISTRICT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH RESIDENTS.

THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

IT DOESN'T BELONG IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA BECAUSE THEY WANT TO HAVE EVENTS OUTSIDE EVENTS, SPEAKERS AND NOISE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO IT REALLY ISN'T AS COMPATIBLE.

SO WE MOVED THAT ONE OUT OF THAT LOWER INTENSITY COMMERCIAL CATEGORY IN HERE.

SO THAT'S KIND OF THE APPROACH WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE.

AND AS WE SAID BEFORE, THE FLOODPLAIN IS NOT REALLY A ZONING, BUT THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH HAVING THAT FLOODPLAIN DELINEATED ON THE MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP WHERE EVERYBODY CAN SEE WHERE THAT IS.

THAT'S A GOOD THING TO HAVE OUT THERE, BUT IT'S NOT A ZONING CATEGORY, NOR WOULD YOU USE IT AS A FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY AND SO FORTH.

[00:40:08]

AND WE HAD A LOT OF MIXED USE THINGS THAT WERE THERE.

AND PART OF THAT WAS BECAUSE OF THESE LARGER TRACTS THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO WITH BACK SEVERAL YEARS AGO, AND WAS TRYING TO GIVE A LOT MORE OPTIONS AVAILABLE. BUT AS WE BUILT OUT AND THOSE HAVE KIND OF PLANNED OUT, IT'S BECOMING MORE IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT WE ZONE CERTAIN AREAS BECAUSE WE'RE PRETTY WELL BUILT OUT.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE MORE CRITICAL TO KEEP A GOOD EYE ON WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED FOR CHANGE.

AND WHEN WE TRIED TO SUBMIT THIS TO THE COUNCIL BACK SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, IT WAS LIKE WE GAVE THEM THE WHOLE ELEPHANT.

WE CAN'T DO THAT.

SO WE ALSO WANTED TO TAKE THE APPROACH THAT WE WANT TO DO THIS A LITTLE AT A TIME.

AND GETTING THESE CATEGORIES AGREED TO DOES A COUPLE OF THINGS.

IF WE CAN GET THEM TO ACCEPT THE CATEGORIES WE SUBMIT OR IF THEY WANT TO CHANGE SOMETHING, THAT'S FINE.

BUT ONCE WE CAN SOLIDIFY THIS CATEGORY, WE CAN THEN START APPROACHING THE MAP AND START LOOKING AT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP WITHOUT GETTING CAUGHT UP IN DETAILS, BECAUSE IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHAT THOSE AREAS ARE.

BUT IF WE CHANGE THIS WITH WHAT WE'VE RECOMMENDED, OR IF THERE'S OTHER ALTERATIONS, IT IS GOING TO REQUIRE SOME CHANGES IN THE ORDINANCES.

BUT THAT COULD COME LATER IF WE CAN GET AN AGREEMENT ON THE CATEGORIES.

SO I WANT YOU TO KIND OF UNDERSTAND WHAT THE APPROACH IS TO TRY TO MOVE FORWARD.

WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO MOVE ON THIS FOR A LONG TIME, AND OUR FIRST APPROACH WAS NOT VERY GOOD.

SO WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO TAKE THIS A LITTLE BIT AT A TIME AND SEE IF WE CAN'T SPOON FEED THIS TO A POINT THAT WE CAN MOVE IT, BUT MAYBE MORE SLOWLY.

BUT THIS WOULD ALLOW US TO GO AHEAD AND START LOOKING AT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR THOSE CATEGORIES.

OKAY. NOW I'M SORRY.

NO, NO, THAT WAS GREAT.

IT WAS NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR WHEN WE FIRST TRIED TO EAT THE ELEPHANT IN ONE BIG BITE.

SO I'M JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH THE TABLE FROM TOP TO BOTTOM.

THE FIRST THING THAT WE DID AS FAR AS CHANGES WAS TO ADD THE DENSITY, THE MAXIMUM DENSITY FROM THE ZONING FOR EACH ZONING DISTRICT UNDER EACH FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION, SO THAT IT'S CLEAR.

SO FOR RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY, THERE'S NO CHANGES AS FAR AS WHICH.

ZONING DISTRICTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THAT RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY.

FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION.

BUT WE DID ADD THAT THE MAXIMUM DENSITY FOR THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS SO THAT IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE INTUITIVE.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND REFER TO THAT WITHIN EACH INDIVIDUAL SECTION, WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION.

WE AGAIN ADDED THE DENSITIES, THE MAXIMUM DENSITIES.

WE ARE RENAMING WHAT IS SHOWN AS MOBILE HOME TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH THE ACTUAL DISTRICT NAME OF MANUFACTURED HOME THAT IT IS CALLED WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

SO THAT'S REALLY A CLEANUP ITEM.

AND THEN AS MR. OLIVER MENTIONED, PR SIX PLANNED RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY SIX AND RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY 12 ARE PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL.

THOSE ARE TWO EXISTING DISTRICTS THAT ARE OPTIONS WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT DO NOT EXIST ON OUR ZONING MAP.

THEY ARE AN OPTION THAT HAS NEVER BEEN UTILIZED.

SO IT SEEMED TO MAKE SENSE TO REMOVE THEM AT THIS TIME SINCE THEY HADN'T BEEN, THEY'RE STILL ABLE TO COME IN AND MIX THE USES THAT THEY WANT TO DO SOMETHING, BUT IT'LL JUST BE THEY'LL HAVE TO DELINEATE THE TRACKS THAT ARE FIRST ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, BUT THEY CAN STILL DO THE SAME KIND OF THING, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO JUST BREAK IT DOWN WITHIN THE SITE IN TERMS THAT THEY WANT TO HAVE SOME MIXED USE OF DENSITIES AND SO FORTH.

SO THAT'S STILL AN OPTION TO THEM.

IT JUST DOESN'T HAVE A CATEGORY BY ITSELF.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE? AND WE DID LIKE ERICA SAID, WE PUT OUT THERE THE NUMBER OF UNITS PER ACRE.

AND TOWNHOUSE I THINK NOW IS TEN.

I BELIEVE. AND SO WE TAKE THE ZONING ORDINANCE REAL QUICK.

SO CURRENTLY, YES, I THINK IT'S TEN.

IT'S AN ACRE, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO DEVELOP IT.

SO IT'S A LITTLE, YOU KNOW, HAS A LITTLE MORE SPACE.

BECAUSE PART OF THE PROBLEMS WE'VE BEGUN WITH TOWNHOUSES IS PARKING AND SO FORTH.

SO IF YOU CAN LIMIT THE NUMBER OF UNITS, IT DOES PROVIDE MORE OTHER SPACE FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING AND GREEN SPACE FOR THOSE DEVELOPMENTS TO.

AND DWELLING UNITS. NINE.

OKAY. I KNEW IT WAS DIFFERENT THAN THAT.

[00:45:04]

BUT IT KIND OF FITS. AND WHAT YOU CAN SEE IS THAT IN THE RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY, NOTHING EXCEEDS FOUR UNITS PER ACRE.

AND IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY NOW NOTHING WOULD EXCEED EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE OTHER THAN THE MODULAR HOME AND THE MANUFACTURED HOME, WHICH DOES HAVE A DIFFERENT LIMIT TO IT.

YEAH, THOSE THOSE DISTRICTS DON'T HAVE A CLEAR LIMIT.

IT MANUFACTURED HOME TALKS ABOUT A TEN ACRE MINIMUM FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.

AND THEN MODULAR HOME TALKS ABOUT FOLLOWING THE SEVEN AND ONE HALF SINGLE FAMILY REGULATIONS, WHICH HAS A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF FOUR DWELLING UNITS AN ACRE.

SO THAT WAS A LITTLE CONFUSING.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE CHANGES OR CLARIFICATION ON THOSE? UNDER RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY.

WE'RE PROPOSING TO REMOVE THE RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY ONE AND TWO, AS THOSE DISTRICTS WERE ACTUALLY AMENDED AND CONSOLIDATED INTO JUST THE RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT THAT EXISTS TODAY.

AND THAT WAS DONE BACK IN 2017.

WE HAVE SEVERAL NEWER RMF DEVELOPMENTS.

HOWEVER, THERE ARE MULTIPLE RMF ONE AND RMF TWO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ZONED ON THE ZONING MAP.

SO THOSE WOULD REMAIN ON THE ZONING MAP, BUT NOT AS A CATEGORY OR DISTRICT UNDER THE CATEGORY.

IT WOULD BE ANY FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION.

AND THEN UNDER GOVERNMENTAL USE, IT'S PROPOSED TO REMOVE THE RECREATION AMUSEMENT ZONING DISTRICT, MAKING THAT NO LONGER CONSISTENT WITH GOVERNMENTAL USE.

AT ONE POINT, THERE WAS AN ORDINANCE THAT CREATED THE RECREATION AMUSEMENT FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION, WITH THE MOST RECENT AMENDMENT IN 2017.

IT WAS REMOVED FROM THE TABLE.

IT REMAINS ON THE MAP ON THE MAP TWO LAND USE MAP OR FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

SO THAT IS PROPOSED TO TO COME BACK.

AS A AS A SEPARATE CATEGORY? YES. SO IT WILL BE ITS OWN CATEGORY? YES. ARE THERE ANY ANY MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS SECTION OF THE TOP SECTION OF THE TABLE? AND WE'LL CORRECT THE TOWNHOUSE DENSITY AND ADD NINE DWELLING UNITS.

NO WE DON'T.

WE WANT TO. WE WANT IT TO BE.

YOU WANT IT TO BE OKAY.

I JUST SAY WE'LL HAVE TO MAKE A CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE.

IF THEY ACCEPT THIS, WE'LL HAVE TO.

FOR CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.

THERE'S NO PROPOSED CHANGES.

FLOODPLAIN. WE'RE ADDING AN ASTERISKS.

CAN'T PRONOUNCE THAT WORD. THAT'S TRUE.

ASTERISK. IN ORDER TO JUST DENOTE VIA A FOOTNOTE THAT IT'S A GEOGRAPHICAL FEATURE THAT'S AFFECTING OUR PROPERTY DESIGNATION OR CATEGORY.

SO THAT'S JUST A CLARIFICATION ON.

WITHIN THE LOW INTENSITY COMMERCIAL LIMITED BUSINESS, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, IS A ZONING DISTRICT.

THERE ARE NO PROPERTIES IN THE CITY ZONED LIMITED BUSINESS, SO THAT IS PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL.

AND WE HAD FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE ABOUT COMBINING THAT WITH.

HORRIFIC COMMERCIAL AT A FUTURE DATE.

COMBINING THOSE USES AND THOSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND THEN ALSO REMOVING GRAPEVINE VINTAGE, AS MR. OLIVER SUMMARIZED FOR US EARLIER FROM LOW INTENSITY COMMERCIAL AND MOVING THAT UNDER THE COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION.

AND THEN WE HAVE ALSO TAKEN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, AND WE'VE DIFFERENTIATED BETWEEN THOSE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE LESS THAN TWO ACRES AND LEAVING THAT UNDER LOW INTENSITY COMMERCIAL.

AND THEN FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE TWO ACRES OR GREATER, THOSE WOULD NOW BE UNDER THE COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION.

AND UNLIKE THE RESIDENTIAL, WE'VE ONLY GOT TO TWO DIFFERENT ZONINGS ON THE COMMERCIAL, WE'VE GOT THE LOW INTENSITY COMMERCIAL AND THEN JUST THE COMMERCIAL. SO WE'VE REALLY GOT JUST ONE TWO ACRES FOR FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE WOULD FALL INTO THE COMMERCIAL.

AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS TALKING ABOUT ONCE YOU IF YOU ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATE AN AREA OF COMMERCIAL YOU YOU WANT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT IS ALLOWED BASED A LOT ON WHAT IS CONTIGUOUS TO THAT AREA TOO, BECAUSE SOME THINGS WON'T FIT AS WELL WITH OTHERS.

[00:50:01]

WE'RE JUST ADDING BACK IN THAT RECREATION AMUSEMENT DESIGNATION.

THAT, AGAIN, IS ON THE CURRENT.

FUTURE LAND USE MAP, BUT FOR WHATEVER REASON IN THE TABLE WAS REMOVED FROM THE 2017 VERSION AND SHOWING THE RECREATION AMUSEMENT ZONING DISTRICT IS CONSISTENT WITH ITS FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY.

WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATION, IT'S PROPOSED TO REMOVE BP OR BUSINESS PARK AND INSTEAD LEAVING JUST LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.

BUSINESS PARK WOULD CONTINUE TO BE CONSISTENT WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL.

FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION THAT WE'VE GONE OVER PREVIOUSLY.

AND THEN THE INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION.

THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS AT THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT WAS REALLY, I BELIEVE, INTENDED TO BE KIND OF A HOLDING PLACE FOR CERTAIN KEY CORRIDORS WITHIN THE CITY AT ONE POINT, PRIOR TO THEM DEVELOPING OR REALLY DEVELOPING OUT.

AND NOW ALL OF THOSE AREAS HAVE DEVELOPED.

SO I BELIEVE THERE'S REALLY NOT A REASON TO HAVE THIS KIND OF COMBINATION OF ALL COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN ONE CATEGORY, COMBO CATEGORY.

AND AGAIN, THEY CAN STILL COME IN AND DO A COMPOSITE, BUT THEY JUST NEED TO DO IT BASED ON THE TRACKS AND WHICH ONES THEY WANTED.

ZONE OR WHATEVER DOESN'T REALLY TAKE AWAY THAT CAPABILITY.

THE MIXED USE FUTURE LAND USE WHICH WAS SHOWN ON THE 27 ITERATION OF THE TABLE.

THERE'S NO PROPERTY SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED MIXED USE OR MU ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL, WHICH HAD A GROUPING OF VARIOUS HIGHER DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY AND ATTACHED PRODUCT, AND THEN A GROUPING OF.

ONCE AGAIN, YOU CAN STILL DO THAT.

YES, IF YOU WANT TO BRING IT IN AND SHOW IT IN DIFFERENT BY DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE.

AND LASTLY, THAT COMMERCIAL MIXED USE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY IS ALSO PROPOSED FOR DELETION FROM THE TABLE.

I'M GOING TO BE IN A WORKSHOP ON.

SO THAT'S A LOT OF CHANGE IN SOME RESPECT, BUT IT REALLY DOESN'T CHANGE THE CAPABILITIES TO DO WHAT WE DID BEFORE.

BUT IT SIMPLIFIES THINGS IN TERMS OF LAND USE MAP IN A LOT OF WAYS, AND MAKES THAT PROCESS A LITTLE SIMPLER AND EASIER TO DEAL WITH, I BELIEVE.

BUT. WE'RE CERTAINLY OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS ABOUT THAT.

FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE NOT ON THE COMMITTEE, NOW'S THE TIME FOR US TO TALK ABOUT IT.

YOU GOT ANYTHING? IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

CLEARING UP A LOT OF STUFF.

SOMEONE WALKED IN AND WANTED TO DO A DEVELOPMENT.

THEY SAW ONE CATEGORY.

HOW WOULD THEY KNOW THEIR SUB CATEGORY THAT THEY CAN USE IN THAT IN THAT PARTICULAR SITE? WELL, WHEN SOMEBODY COMES IN, TELL ME IF I'M WRONG.

THEY USUALLY TELL YOU WHAT THEY WANT TO DO BEFORE THEY THEY DO.

THEY SAY, I WANT TO DO THIS.

WHAT DO I NEED TO DO? BUT YOU CAN'T TELL THAT FROM THE MAP.

WELL, NO. NO, BUT BUT BUT WHEN THEY LOOK AT THE MAP, THEY'LL KNOW WHAT FALLS WITHIN THOSE CATEGORIES.

THAT'S IN THE MASTER PLAN.

IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT CAN'T CHANGE BECAUSE WE CHANGED UP ZONING ALL THE TIME.

AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE GOT TO KEEP UP WITH BETTER IS WHEN WE DO CHANGE SOMETHING.

THAT MASTER PLAN SAYS THIS AND THEY COME IN AND CHANGE IT TO ANOTHER ZONING.

WE NEED TO GET THAT MASTER PLAN CHANGED WHERE WE HAVE PEOPLE KNOW WHAT'S THERE TOO.

BUT I THINK I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE FOR MOST ANYBODY THAT COMES IN SAYING THEY WANT TO DO A MIXED USE OF SOME SORT ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY, THEY CAN GUIDE THEM IN THAT REGARD ABOUT HOW TO DIVIDE UP THE TRACT AND REQUEST CERTAIN ZONING IN THOSE CATEGORIES.

THEY NEED TO HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.

IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP IN THIS COMMUNITY WITHOUT HAVING SOME EXPERIENCE OR IDEA OF OF HOW TO DO DEVELOPMENT.

FIRST PLACE. JUST LIKE SOMEONE SAID LOOKING AT THE MAP ON THE INTERNET OR SOMETHING.

THEY KNOW THAT THEY CAN SUBDIVIDE IT FOR DIFFERENT.

WELL, IT STILL DOESN'T CHANGE WHAT THE MASTER PLAN SAYS.

THE PREFERRED USE IS.

SO THEY'RE GOING TO KNOW IF THEY WANT TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SAYS.

[00:55:03]

SO I GOT A ZONING CHANGE.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME IN AND LOOK THE ZONING REQUEST.

THEY'RE GOING TO REALIZE THAT PART OF WHAT THEY WANT TO DO MAY NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN.

DOESN'T MEAN IT WOULDN'T BE APPROVED, BUT THEY KNOW THAT MAY BE A PART OF THE BATTLE THAT.

ANYTHING ELSE, PLEASE.

THIS IS A THIS IS REALLY TO ME, THIS IS REALLY HELPFUL BECAUSE YOU IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST, THERE WERE A LOT OF POTENTIAL CONFUSION IN THAT.

SO JUST CLEANING UP OUR ACT, SO TO SPEAK, THAT'S A BIG STEP FORWARD.

WELL IN THIS CASE AND OTHERS TOO.

IT'S DIFFICULT WITH.

NINE OF US SOMETIMES TO GO THROUGH THE MINUTIA OF THINGS.

AND SO I HOPE THOSE THAT WEREN'T ON THE COMMITTEE WEREN'T OFFENDED BY NOT BEING THERE AND SPENDING TIME DOING THIS.

BUT I THINK SOME CASES AND CERTAINLY WE CAN SHARE RESPONSIBILITIES THERE, BUT SOMETIMES THIS MAY BE THE BEST WAY TO GET TO SOMETHING TO LOOK AT FOR EVERYBODY AND TRY TO MAKE SOME HEADWAY.

SO I HOPE NO ONE WAS OFFENDED BY NOT GETTING TO MEET 3 OR 4 TIMES EXTRA TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THIS, BUT I APPRECIATE THOSE WHO DID BECAUSE IT WAS.

A LOT MORE WORK THAN THEY PROBABLY WANTED TO.

I APPRECIATE THESE TABLES TOO.

THEY REALLY ILLUSTRATE A LOT OF WHAT REALLY GOES ON IN THE CITY.

WE THOUGHT A LITTLE BIT OF ANALYSIS OF WHAT'S ON THE MAPS FROM A ZONING STANDPOINT, AND YOUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP WOULD HELP ILLUSTRATE WHERE CLEANUPS NEEDED. OR THERE'S THESE FOUR ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ARE NOWHERE NEAR ON THE MAP, AND THEN SEVERAL LINGERING ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE. SO WE WANTED TO PROVIDE THAT DATA TO YOU.

AND THIS IS LIKE I SAY, THIS IS ONE IF WE CAN GET THE COUNCIL TO BUY OFF ON THIS, OR IF THEY WANT TO MAKE SOME CHANGES, AT LEAST GET SOMETHING SOLIDIFIED FOR THIS. AT LEAST IT LETS US THEN BEGIN TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AS A.

OH COMMITTEE WAS TO START GOING THROUGH THAT, EVEN THOUGH WE STARTED BEFORE.

WE NEED TO. THIS WILL GIVE US A LOT BETTER GUIDANCE IN WHAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE REALLY NEED TO GET ACCOMPLISHED SOON.

SO AS SOON AS WE CAN GET SOME HELP ON THIS, I HOPE WE CAN GET THAT STARTED RELATIVELY QUICK.

OKAY. NOBODY ELSE.

NOTHING ELSE HERE. YES, I KNOW AN ORDINANCE.

I WAS INTERESTED IN YOUR WORK IN.

NOISE ORDINANCE AS IT RELATES TO SPEAKERS.

YEAH. SO THAT THERE IS A WAY TO REGULATE THEM AND ELIMINATE THEM WHEN THEY HAD SO MANY OFFENSES.

PROBABLY THREE STRIKES AND YOU'RE OUT AND THEY HAVE TO BE REMOVED.

AND I PULL THAT NUMBER OUT OF THE AIR.

BUT WORLD SERIES JUST SO BUT IT IS INTERESTING THAT THAT ORDINANCE BEING BROUGHT FORTH.

SO. WELL, I THINK IT GIVES US WE'RE DISCUSSING THAT ON THE 27TH.

THAT'S YEAH. THAT'S ON I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA ON THAT.

I'M SORRY. OH, I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST TO TALK ABOUT SHORT TERM RENTALS.

AND I SEE WE'VE GOT AT LEAST THREE.

THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS THERE. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. YEAH. SO I BETTER BRING MY BEDROLL AGAIN.

JUST LEAVE IT THERE. I'LL LEAVE IT HERE.

YEAH, SURE. NO, WE'LL HAVE SHORT TERM RENTALS FOR SPEAKERS.

THIS COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN DISCUSSION HERE WITH THE TABLE AND THE DATA AND THEN THE BYLAWS AS WELL FOR THINGS.

YES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

AND DINNER WILL BE PROVIDED.

I THINK. YEAH, THAT'S A WORKSHOP.

YEAH. OKAY.

ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO NOT RELATED TO THIS? NO. OKAY.

ANYBODY ELSE? LAST SHOT.

ALL DONE. THANK YOU.

YEAH, RIGHT.

[REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER]

CONSIDER THE BRIEFING AGENDA.

OUR FIRST JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.

[6. Zoning Change Application Z23-03 (Grapevine Springs), Planned Development Overlay PD23-02, and Final Plat for Lots 1-32, 33X, Block 1, Grapevine Springs and Lot 1R, Block 1R, Grapevine Office Park – City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission to conduct a public hearing relative to an application submitted by H Creek Development requesting to rezone 11.248 acres from “PO”, Professional Office District and “CC”, Community Commercial District to “R-7.5”, Single-Family District and “R-5.0”, Zero-Lot-Line District with a planned development overlay to develop 32 single-family detached lots and one open space/common area lot. The planned development overlay is to allow for private streets in a single-family/zero-lot-line residential development and for a reduction in minimum lot area, minimum lot depth, and front-yard building setbacks for the “R-5.0”, Zero-Lot Line lots. The applicant is also requesting a replat of Lot 1, Block 1, Grapevine Office Park. The subject property is located at 1600 West Northwest Highway. The public hearing for this item was opened and tabled at the October 17, 2023 meeting.]

THIS IS BOTH A REZONING REQUEST IN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY REQUEST.

THE REZONING REQUEST IS TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 11.2 ACRES FROM THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE IN THE COMMUNITY.

RURAL DISTRICTS TO BOTH THE SEVEN AND ONE HALF SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AND OUR 5.00 LOT LINE DISTRICT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING

[01:00:06]

THE DENSITY OF THIS PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS 2.84 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND.

SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS ARE SHOWN IN YELLOW AND THE ZERO LOT LINE DISTRICTS SHOWN IN RED ON THE ZONING EXHIBIT.

THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY IS SPECIFICALLY TO ALLOW FOR A PRIVATE STREET WITHIN A SINGLE FAMILY ZERO LOT LINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY IS ALSO A REQUEST TO REDUCE MINIMUM LOT AREA, MINIMUM LOT DEPTH IN THE FRONT YARD.

SETBACKS FOR THE 8R5 .00 LOT LINE LOTS HERE.

SO THE MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR THE ZERO LOT LINE LOTS IS 5000FT².

THEY ARE PROPOSING TO REDUCE THAT TO 4500FT².

THEY'RE ALSO PROPOSING TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 25FT TO NINE AND ONE HALF FEET TO THE NEAREST POINT OF THE BUILDING, AND WITH A GARAGE SETBACK OF 19.5FT, AND THEN ALSO TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT DEPTH FROM 100FT TO 90FT.

THIS IS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND TREE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE OTHER ZONE CHANGE AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DOCUMENTS THAT SHOWS THE COMMON AREA LOT THAT IS A LITTLE OVER SIX ACRES IN SIZE.

AND ALL OF THE TREES ARE THE LITTLE DOTS SHOWN HERE ON THIS EXHIBIT.

ALL OF THE OTHER BLOCK DIMENSION AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT ARE 5.0 WILL BE MET.

WITH THE BASE DISTRICT STANDARDS, SO THERE ARE NO DEVIATIONS FOR THOSE OTHER LOTS THAT ARE PROPOSED.

ALL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ARE DESIGNED WITH FRONT ENTRY GARAGES AND WILL TYPICALLY BE TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT.

THEY'RE ALSO PROPOSING 29 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES FOR FUTURE RESIDENTS.

GUESTS. WE DO RECEIVE QUITE A BIT OF RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION.

YOU WERE PROVIDED WITH A PACKET AT YOUR PLACE AT THE TABLE THAT INCLUDED ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTICES THAT WERE RECEIVED AFTER THE OCTOBER 17TH PUBLIC HEARING.

UP UNTIL YESTERDAY AT 5 P.M..

AT THIS TIME, WE'VE RECEIVED 26 RESPONSES TO OFFICIAL NOTIFICATION OR LETTERS, AND WE HAVE 43.7% OF THE LAND AREA WITHIN 200FT IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WILL YOU GIVE US THE 92ND EXPLANATION OF PRIVATE STREETS, WHY THEY'RE REQUESTED AND HOW COMMON THEY ARE IN GRAPEVINE? SO IT WAS AT THE REQUEST OF THE DEVELOPER.

THEY WOULD NEED TO ANSWER AS TO THE WHY.

THAT IS JUST HOW THEY PROPOSED IT.

BUT AS FAR AS THE EXISTENCE OF THEM, WE HAVE THEM THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

WE HAVE SEVERAL STREETS UP IN THE KIND OF AROUND THE LAKE AREA THAT ARE QUITE OLD, THAT ARE PRIVATE STREETS.

THEY'RE NOT PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY.

PROBABLY THE MOST RECENT BESIDES TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENTS THAT FEATURE PRIVATE STREETS.

SO TILLERY COMMONS TO THE EAST FEATURES THAT LAKESIDE AT GRAPEVINE, WHICH IS UP THERE NEAR THE GRAPEVINE HILLS MALL.

THAT'S A TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT WITH PRIVATE STREETS, BUT THERE'S A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GRAPEVINE STONEBRIDGE OAKS, WHICH IS ALL PRIVATE STREETS.

BOTH THE TOWNHOME SECTION AND THE ZERO LOT LINE SECTION.

AND IN THOSE INSTANCES, IT'S A PRIVATE STREET LOT IN OF ITSELF.

IT'S NOT WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL ZERO LOT LINE LOTS OR THE TOWNHOME LOTS.

AND IS THE ACTUAL STREET LIKE THE COMPOSITION OF THE STREET STILL BUILT TO CITY STANDARDS BASED ON WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.

AND YES, IT WILL BE BUILT AT THE SAME AS A RESIDENTIAL ROAD, WHICH IS THE SAME AS A FIRE LANE WHICH IS REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT.

THE CURRENT ROLLING ROAD BUILT TO CITY STANDARDS.

I'M SORRY, CURRENT RAWLINGS ROAD, WHICH IS BEHIND THE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS THAT IS BUILT AS A FIRE LINE AS WELL.

YES. SO THE STREETS, THEY'RE PROPOSING TO THOSE RIGHT OF WAYS, THEY'RE ONLY 31FT WIDE.

SO BASICALLY IT'S FROM CURB TO CURB.

THERE'S NO PARKWAY AT ALL.

NO THAT OKAY.

SO ON THE 40 500 SQUARE FOOT LOTS WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A NINE FOOT SETBACK TO THEIR TO THE DWELLING, AND I'M ASSUMING FOUR FOOT SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO THE BACK OF CURB.

OKAY. SO THEN YOU'D HAVE A FIVE FOOT STRIP OF GRASS BETWEEN THAT AND THE HOUSE JUST ON THE PLAT, THERE'S A TEN FOOT, THERE'S A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

[01:05:09]

OKAY, SO THAT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING YOU SAID.

I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW. SO THEN THAT MEANS THAT THE DWELLING HAVE TO BE TEN FOOT OFF THE CURB.

THAT'S. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACCESS.

IT'S THE SAME FOR THE ACCESS EASEMENT.

YOU CAN'T HAVE THE DWELLING INSIDE THE ACCESS EASEMENT, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.

SO THEN YOU'D NEED A TEN FOOT SETBACK, ESSENTIALLY.

YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THE DISTRICT? IS THAT CORRECT? BETWEEN THE PLANT AND THE RECYCLING.

WELL, THIS WAS ORIGINALLY, AS SOME MAY RECALL, THE PLOTS WENT TO THE CENTER OF THE STREET.

25 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE CENTER OF THE STREET.

HALF THE STREET IS 15.5FT.

THAT'S HOW IT ENDED UP BEING 9.5FT.

THE TEN FOOT UTILITIES WHEN I JUST CAME OUT OF YOUR.

SO I GUESS WE WEREN'T COORDINATED THERE, BUT WE'RE HAPPY WITH MOVING THAT SETBACK TO TEN FEET.

WELL, LET'S LET'S TALK ABOUT THE CURRENT ZONING.

EVIDENTLY, A LOT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WERE TOLD OR UNDERSTOOD THAT AS AN OFFICE, THE OFFICES WOULD HAVE TO BE ONE STORY.

PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, I BELIEVE, LIMITS IT TO ONE STORY 25FT IN HEIGHT.

YES. IS THAT IS THAT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY? THAT'S A BASE DISTRICT STANDARD.

SO BEING ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL.

SINGLE STORY IS THE FACTOR THERE? YES, SIR. JUST NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL.

I THINK THAT IS.

I'D LIKE TO GO BACK TO THE STREETS FOR A SECOND.

IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR A SUBDIVISION TO HAVE PRIVATE STREETS, BUT DO YOU HAVE PLACES WHERE A SUBDIVISION ACCESS BY A PRIVATE STREET.

SO THIS THIS IS UNIQUE.

THIS IS UNIQUE. UNIQUE TO GRAPEVINE.

YES. YOU SAY YOU DO HAVE SUBDIVISIONS THAT ARE ACCESSED BY A PRIVATE STREET.

YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PRIVATE STREET TO GET INTO THE SUBDIVISION.

THE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT.

YOU'VE GOT AN ACCESS EASEMENT ON ROLLINS.

ROLLINS ROAD, BECAUSE THAT EXISTS.

BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A PRIVATE STREET SUBDIVISION GOING THROUGH AN ALREADY DEVELOPED OFFICE PARK AND UTILIZING.

AND CONTINUING ON AS A PRIVATE STREET FROM THEIR FIRE LANES AND PUBLIC ACCESS.

ANOTHER QUESTION. ONE QUESTION ABOUT STREETLIGHTS.

IT ONLY HAS FIVE STREETLIGHTS.

IS THAT WITHIN CITY STANDARDS? BECAUSE IT'S A PRIVATE STREET.

THE STANDARDS FOR STREET STANDARDS DON'T APPLY.

ONE LAST QUESTION. GRADING AND DRAINAGE, A DRAINAGE PLAN.

I CAN'T TELL FROM THAT.

OR MAYBE YOU CAN ANSWER ME.

CANNOT. THERE'S A LOT OF ABANDONED INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE DRAINAGE CHANNEL, AND IT HOLDS BACK WATER AND SUCH.

IT'S PLANNED, I GUESS, AT ONE TIME, TO HAVE A RETAIN AND MAKE IT LIKE A LAKE.

SMALL LAKES IN THERE. SOMEBODY HAD A PLAN, BUT NOW IT JUST KIND OF STAGNATES.

WATER. DOES THE GRADING PLAN TAKE OFF THOSE IMPEDIMENTS OUT OF THE DRAINAGE CHANNEL, OR DO YOU NOT? AND AS PART OF THE FINAL CIVIL CONSTRUCTION PLANS, I'LL HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT WITHIN THE CHANNEL TO CLEAN IT OUT, TO FIX IT AND MAKE IT FUNCTION AS IT SHOULD.

THANK YOU. AND THEN TO TO MAKE THAT, LIKE WHEN I WENT OUT THERE, I WAS MAKING A LEFT TURN FROM NORTHWEST HIGHWAY AND SAT THERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

SO WHAT'S THE PROCEDURE LIKE IF THIS IS BUILT AND THERE ARE ACCIDENTS? IS THAT WHEN SOMEONE SAYS THERE NEEDS TO BE A STOPLIGHT THERE? HOW DOES HOW DOES THERE THERE'S AN EXISTING THERE'S AN EXISTING STOP LIKE RIGHT HERE.

THERE'S A THERE'S A LIGHT HERE.

GRAPEVINE SPRINGS, GRAPEVINE AND NORTHWEST HIGHWAY.

OKAY. YOU CAN ACCESS BOTH WAYS OUT OF HERE.

OKAY. AND HERE OBVIOUSLY.

BUT HERE'S WHERE THE LIGHT IS.

WHERE THE LIGHT IS. OKAY.

SO IF YOU GO FURTHER DOWN, THEN THAT'S WHERE YOU AREN'T GOING TO HAVE THE LIGHT.

OKAY. SO PEOPLE WOULD JUST KNOW THAT ENTER THAT WAY.

OKAY I DON'T KNOW HOW PEOPLE WOULD KNOW.

WELL I MEAN IF YOU LIVE THERE AND CAN'T GET IN IF YOU LIVE THERE, THAT'S HOW YOU'D KNOW.

RIGHT? RIGHT. OKAY.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE DIMENSIONAL CONTROL SITE PLAN, COME IN ON GRAPEVINE SPRINGS AND THERE'S A FOUR WAY ALREADY CONSTRUCTED.

[01:10:04]

WHAT CAN I SEE HERE? IT NEVER WAS INTENDED TO ACCESS THE ACREAGE UNDER DISCUSSION TONIGHT THROUGH THE PARKING LOT.

EXCEPT, I GUESS, IF IT HAD BEEN DEVELOPED AS AN OFFICE PARK.

AND I GUESS THAT WOULD BE THE ACCESS FOUR WAY INFRASTRUCTURE ALREADY BUILT TO TAKE TRAFFIC BACK TO THE SITE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I DON'T THINK IT WAS EVER INTENDED TO GET BACK TO THAT SITE THROUGH THESE PARKING LOTS.

WORKS IN THE PARKING LOT ARE PROBLEMATIC.

WHEN YOU TRY TO PARK WITH A BIG TRUCK COMING BACK, YOU KNOW YOU'RE TRYING TO GET HOME.

SO AS I LOOK AT THIS MAP TO GET ACCESS TO SCOTTY DRIVE, YOU GO THROUGH PARKING LOTS ON ROLLINS ROAD.

YES. IF NOT ROLLINS ROAD, YOU STILL GO THROUGH PARKING LOTS THROUGH THE EASTERN ENTRANCE PASS.

EITHER WAY, THE WAY YOU GOT TO GO THROUGH A HIDDEN PARKING, WHICH IS PROBLEMATIC.

OTHER QUESTIONS. OKAY.

THE PLANTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

I DON'T THINK HAVE TO GO INTO MUCH DETAIL ON WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

32 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, ONE OPEN SPACE ALLOTMENT, AND THEN THERE WILL BE THE POA, AS YOU SEE IT, KIND OF IN THE L SHAPE THERE.

ONCE AGAIN, THIS ACCOMPANIES THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES AND THE PD BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING.

SO THOSE ARE DENIED. PLEASE REJECT THE PLAT.

IT DOES HAVE A CREEK FLOWING THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF IT AS PART OF THE DRAINAGE.

THERE IS RESTRICTED AREA FOR DEVELOPMENT AND THERE, AS WELL AS THE RIGHT TO DRAIN EASEMENT, WHICH IS TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE, IN THIS CASE, THE HOA OR THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THAT AREA. NOTICED THAT THERE'S SOME REDIRECTING SOME SEWER LINES BACK THERE TOO.

IS THAT CORRECT OR NOT? THE SERMON IS STAYING AT THE SAME LOCATION IS.

HOWEVER, THEY DO HAVE TO PUT ADDITIONAL LATERAL MEANS ON IT TO SERVE THIS.

ARE THEY SERVING SOME OF THOSE LOTS FROM BEHIND? THEY ARE NOT. NO. THERE'S A THERE'S A SEWER OUT IN THE STREET FOR THOSE IF YOU'RE TALKING TO THE NORTH, THEIR SEWER IN THE STREET THERE.

OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR JIM.

OUR NEXT JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ITEM IS A CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR MMA LOCATED AT TWO.

[7. Conditional Use Permit CU23-21 (Mohler MMA) – City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission to conduct a public hearing relative to an application submitted by Shawna Mohler requesting a conditional use permit to allow for a 2,056 square foot training area expansion along the southern elevation to the existing fitness studio specializing in mixed martial arts. The subject property is located at 201 North Starnes Street and is currently zoned “HC”, Highway Commercial District. This is the first reading. The second reading will be held on December 19, 2023. ]

SEEING HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.

THIS IS AN EXISTING FREESTANDING COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON APPROXIMATELY 1.19 ACRE.

THIS IS ALSO AN EXISTING.

MIXED MARTIAL ARTS FITNESS STUDIO SPECIALIZING IN BRAZILIAN JIU JITSU, AND IT'S ABOUT 10,600FT².

THEY ARE PROPOSING A 2056 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION ALONG THE SOUTHERN ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL TRAINING SPACE. THEY HAVE A TOTAL PARKING REQUIREMENT OF 50 SPACES, 64 ARE ALREADY PROVIDED.

IF THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED THIS EVENING, THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE.

THIS CASE DOES NEED TO GO BEFORE THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT FOR CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS IT RELATES TO MINIMUM.

KEEPING REQUIREMENTS OF THE SITE IS PAVED OVER AND THEN IF APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, IT WOULD COME BACK FOR CONSIDERATION AT YOUR DECEMBER 19TH. SECOND READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

SO THAT SIDE.

SLOPES DOWN FOR A GRADE LEVEL OR FOR A RAISED DOCK.

SO ARE THEY GOING TO FILL THAT IN, OR DO YOU KNOW HOW THE LOGISTICALLY THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD OVER THAT? YES, THEY ARE WORKING WITH PUBLIC WORKS AND THEY'VE HAD MEETINGS TO FIX THE GRADING SO THAT THEY CAN BUILD THEIR ADDITION THERE.

SO THEY HAVE TO REALLY FILL THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIX IT.

THEY HAVE TO MEET ALL THE BUILDING CODES DURING THE SITE.

YES, SIR. THEY'LL HAVE TO FIX IT.

PONDING WATER RIGHT NOW.

YES. YEAH. AND ONE OF THE LETTERS TALKED ABOUT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PARKING AS IT IS WITH.

THERE IS ARE SOME OF THE PARKING SPACES LIKE UNATTRACTIVE.

AND THAT'S WHY I'M NOT SURE.

OR I ACTUALLY TOOK IN THE ONE RESPONSE THAT WE RECEIVED FOR THIS.

IT WAS A NEIGHBOR WHO FELT THAT PEOPLE WERE PARKING ON THE STREET WHEN THEY SHOULD BE PARKING IN THE PARKING LOT OR ON AN ADJACENT COMMERCIAL, SO THEY JUST AREN'T PARKING.

WE COULD NOT CONFIRM OR DENY.

[01:15:01]

GOOD QUESTIONS. WHAT'S THE NEXT REQUEST IS BOTH A CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST AND AN HISTORICALLY MARKED

[8. Conditional Use Permit CU23-30 and Historic Landmark Sub-District HL23-02 (House of Shine) – City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission to conduct a public hearing relative to an application submitted by Josh Archer, Exurb Studio requesting a conditional use permit for an artisan studio featuring exhibits and outdoor space and a Historic Landmark sub-district. The subject property is located at 317 Church Street and is currently zoned “CBD”, Central Business District. ]

THIS IS FOR 317 SOUTH CHURCH STREET.

THE EXISTING ZONING. YOUR CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND THIS IS TO ALLOW BOTH FOR THE DEMOLITION.

THE INCLUDES THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE UP FRONT, AND IN ITS PLACE, THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A 3600 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, WHICH WILL HAVE BOTH OFFICE SPACE AND AN EXHIBIT HALL.

THERE'S ALSO A WHAT'S REFERRED TO AS A RED BARN UP HERE IN THIS AREA.

YOU CAN SEE IN THE AERIAL, THIS IS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE MOVED BACK TOWARDS THEIR EASTERN REAR PROPERTY LINE. AND OVERALL THE SITE IS PROPOSED FOR IMPROVEMENT, INCLUDING REPAVING OF THE VEHICLE MANEUVERING AND PARKING AREA AND PROVIDING SIX PARKING SPACES. 16 TOTAL ARE REQUIRED.

SIX WILL BE PROVIDED ON SITE.

THEY'VE ALSO INCLUDED A PARKING PLAN THAT SHOWS VARIOUS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PARKING LOTS WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, ADJACENT TO MAIN STREET.

THEY HAVE NOT PROVIDED US WITH A SOLE AGREEMENT WITH ANY OF THOSE PRIVATE OR PUBLIC LOT OWNER OPERATORS.

AND OVERALL, THEY'RE ALSO FIGHTING A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.

OUTDOOR KIND OF PROGRAMED OPEN SPACE, AND I BELIEVE THEIR OVERALL VISION IS TO CONNECT IT THROUGH A THIRD LOT THAT THEY OWN THAT IS PLATTED SEPARATELY AS LOT TWO, BLOCK ONE OF THE HOUSE OF COLORS ADDITION, WHICH CONNECTS TO THEIR EXISTING PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, AND EXPERIENTIAL MUSEUM THAT'S ADDRESSED OFF OF SOUTH MARTIN STREET.

AND YOU SAID THE NEW STRUCTURE WOULD HAVE 16 PARKING PLACES.

IT'S REQUIRED TO HAVE 16 PARKING SPACES THAT ARE PROVIDING SIX ON SITE.

AND THEN TEN WOULD BE BASED ON THEIR PARKING PLAN FROM PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PARKING LOTS.

IN THE AREA. I GUESS MY FIRST CONFUSION WAS THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A HISTORIC LANDMARK, BUT THEY'RE TEARING DOWN THE HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT IN 1917.

YES. AND? THAT STRUCTURE THAT WAS INITIALLY CONSTRUCTED AS A HOME.

SEVERAL ALTERATIONS IN THE 1990S, INCLUDING SOME EXPANSIONS AND CHANGES TO THE ROOF.

ELEVATION AND MATERIALS ON THE SIDING THAT IT'S REALLY LOST ITS I DON'T WANT TO SAY IT'S LOST ITS HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE.

AND OUR HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, DAVID KLINKEN, IS HERE AS WELL.

THAT CAN SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT.

BUT THE RED BARN, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY A DETACHED GARAGE FROM THE 1940S, IS PROPOSED FOR PRESERVATION.

THAT'S ALL BEEN SIGNED OFF AND SIGNED OFF.

OKAY. THAT WAS THE FRUIT.

YES. THEY WENT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AT THEIR MEETING ON OCTOBER 25TH.

IT WAS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO BUILD THIS PROPERTY TO HISTORICAL SOME KIND OF HISTORICAL STANDARDS.

CORRECT. DAVID, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? HISTORIC OVERLAY IS A REQUIREMENT IF YOU WANT TO DEMOLISH A STRUCTURE AND AN EXISTING HISTORIC TOWNSHIP.

SO THAT WAS A CONDITION OF THEIR WANTING TO MOVE FORWARD IN THAT WAY, TO BUILD A WHOLE A NEW BUILDING.

AND THIS WAS MENTIONED BEFORE, THE INTEGRITY OF THE ORIGINAL BUILDING WAS HIGHLY COMPROMISED.

THERE REALLY WASN'T ANYTHING MUCH AT ALL LEFT.

IT HAD BEEN GONE OVER NUMEROUS TIMES.

BUT WE TELL THE HISTORY OF IT, YOU KNOW, STARTING IN 1917 WITH THAT STRUCTURE.

THAT'S WHY THAT'S THERE.

YES. THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION WILL HAVE.

PURVIEW OVER WHAT THEY BUILD ON THE LANDMARK PORTION OF THE SITE AT THE MEETING, WHAT WAS REVIEWED WAS JUST THE HOUSE AND THE GARAGE RELOCATION.

EXCUSE ME, THE HOUSE, NEW REPLACEMENT BUILDING AND WHICH WAS APPROVED.

AND RELOCATION OF THE EXISTING GARAGE.

THAT'S ALL THAT WAS APPROVED AT THAT MEETING.

THANK YOU. THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS?

[01:20:01]

I GUESS I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WE'LL GET TO HEAR ABOUT IT.

WE DID RECEIVE ONE ONE LETTER WITH JUST COMMENTS THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKET AT YOUR PLACE, AT THE TABLE AS WELL.

AN OPPOSITION OR SUPPORT.

JUST. THE NEXT CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST IS FOR BIG DADDY'S SHIP STORE.

[9. Conditional Use Permit CU23-31 (Big Daddy’s Ship Store) – City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission to conduct a public hearing relative to an application submitted by Nicholas Kaufman requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the possession, storage, retail sale on and off premise consumption of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine, and mixed beverage) in conjunction with a restaurant with outdoor speakers, outdoor dining, and a convenience store. The subject property is located at 2500 Oak Grove Loop South, Suite 200 and is currently zoned “GU”, Governmental Use District. ]

ON THE LAKE AT 2500 OAK ROAD LOOP ITSELF.

THIS PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED WITH A MULTI-TENANT FLOATING DOCK ON THE LAKE.

IT'S PART OF A LARGER 105 ACRE PROPERTY.

IT'S ASSOCIATED WITH AN EXISTING RETAIL STORE AND RESTAURANT LOCATED AT SCOTT'S LANDING MARINA AT LAKE GRAPEVINE.

THE CURRENT RESTAURANT IS APPROXIMATELY 1500FT², AND PROPOSES TO OFFER ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES FOR ITS CUSTOMERS.

THEY CURRENTLY OFFER A.

YOUR OWN BOTTLE SERVICE.

SO THIS REQUEST IS FOR THE ON AND OFF PREMISE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, THE BEER, WINE AND MIXED BEVERAGES, OUTSIDE DINING AND OUTDOOR SPEAKERS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE RESTAURANT AND THE EXISTING CONVENIENCE STORE.

THE CURRENT SEATING FLOOR PLAN INCLUDES BOTH INDOOR DINING AND A TWO LEVEL DECK, WHICH IS PARTIALLY COVERED.

IT ALSO FEATURES SEVEN EXISTING OUTDOOR SPEAKERS WHICH ARE SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IN RED.

AND THE BUSINESS OWNER.

WE'D JUST LIKE TO OFFER A FULLER RANGE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WITH THIS REQUEST.

WE DID RECEIVE TWO PROTEST LETTERS AT THE TIME THAT THE PACKET WENT OUT, WHICH IS 1.6% OF THE LAND AREA WITHIN THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION BOUNDARY IN OPPOSITION.

WE DID RECEIVE TODAY AT ABOUT 3:40 P.M.

FROM THE APPLICANT, 155 LETTERS OF SUPPORT.

OUR DEADLINE IS THE MONDAY BEFORE AT 5 P.M..

IT'S IN THE BYLAWS IN ORDER FOR US TO CALCULATE THEM AND PROVIDE THEM TO YOU.

SO WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL COPIES THAT YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO THUMB THROUGH.

THEY DON'T APPEAR TO BE ANYBODY WITHIN 200FT.

BUT AGAIN, WE HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO.

SAY. TELL ME ONCE AGAIN ABOUT THE CURRENT.

ALCOHOL SITUATION.

THEY'RE DOING A BRING YOUR OWN BOTTLE.

THEY HAVE NO ALCOHOLIC SALES.

OKAY. HAVE THERE BEEN ALCOHOL SALES IN THAT PROPERTY BEFORE? NOT THAT WE HAVE RECORD OF.

OKAY. SO THERE'S ALREADY OUTDOOR SPEAKERS, BUT THEY'RE ASKING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

ALLOW THEM. DOES THAT MEAN THEY AREN'T ALLOWED AT THIS POINT? IT'S TO MEMORIALIZE IT.

YES. THERE'S QUITE A BIT OUT THERE THAT WE DO.

IT'S HAPPENED OVER TIME AND WE DON'T HAVE FORMAL RECORD OF IT.

YOU GUYS HAVEN'T ACTED ON IT.

OKAY. AS A COMMISSION, THEY DID REQUEST IT.

THEY DID ASK FOR. OTHER QUESTIONS.

THIS NEXT REQUEST IS A PLAN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR A PARTIALLY COMPLETED TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION OFF OF STATE HIGHWAY

[10. Planned Development Overlay PD23-04 (The Reserve at Bear Creek) and a Final Plat of Lots 5-R, 6X-R, 6-R-1, 6-R-2 and 7-R, The Reserve at Bear Creek – City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission to conduct a public hearing relative to an application submitted by Bear Creek Grapevine Townhomes, LLC requesting a planned development overlay to deviate from, but not be limited to, minimum lot size, side yard setback, front yard setback, lot width, lot depth, maximum building height, and to allow front entry garages for lots less than 40-feet in width in conjunction with a townhouse development, and a replat of Lots 5, 6X and 7, The Reserve at Bear Creek. This request amends the previously approved Planned Development Overlay PD22-03 (Ordinance No. 2022-026), specifically to increase the number of lots from 69 to 71. The subject property is located at 4201 State Highway 360 and is currently zoned “R-TH”, Townhouse District. ]

THEY PREVIOUSLY HAD THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR SEVERAL DEVIATIONS FROM THE TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS.

THE MOST RECENT ONE WITH PD 2203 LAST YEAR, HAS LAPSED.

THEY DIDN'T COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF THEIR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SUBMIT FOR ANY BUILDING PERMITS, SO THEY HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU.

THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT TEAM OR PROPERTY OWNERS ARE ALSO ASKING TO ADD TWO LOTS.

PREVIOUSLY IT HAD BEEN APPROVED FOR 69 LOTS.

THEY'RE ASKING FOR 71 LOTS.

THIS IS IN AN AREA SHOWN ON THE SCREEN THAT WAS INITIALLY RESERVED AS AN OPEN SPACE LOT THAT WOULD FEATURE AN AMENITY CENTER AND OR SOME TYPE OF PLAY STRUCTURE FOR FUTURE RESIDENTS CHILDREN.

THIS THIS OWNERSHIP GROUP WOULD LIKE TO INCREASE THAT LOT TOTAL IN THAT AREA.

EVERYTHING ELSE IS THE SAME AS EVERY LAST YEAR.

ALL PREVIOUS PD OVERLAY DEVIATIONS ARE PROPOSED TO REMAIN THE SAME.

THOSE TWO LOTS ARE THE SAME SIZE AS THE BALANCE AS THE REST OF THEM.

IN THIS COMPLEX, THEY MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.

YES, SIR. THANK YOU.

SO, IS THIS PLOTTED? WAS THIS BEEN FILED ALREADY? IT'S BEEN FILED ALREADY.

IT HAS. AND THERE'S A CASE DEALING WITH THIS AS WELL.

SO THEY'RE JUST REVISING THIS.

THEY'RE CHANGING THREE LOTS TO FIVE LOTS.

CORRECT. AND SO THEY'RE REALLY OTHER THAN THE GREEN SPACE BEHIND.

AND I ASSUME IT'LL CONNECT WITH THE TRAIL SYSTEM.

THERE'S NO AMENITIES WITH THE CORRECT.

[01:25:04]

THEY WANT MORE LOT. THAT'S WHAT YOU HEAR FROM THE OWNER.

OCCUPIED THE IDEA.

THAT IS THE IDEA, YES.

ANYONE ELSE. OKAY.

WE ARE ONCE AGAIN.

IF THE PLANS DISAPPROVED, IT IS DENIED THE PLAN MINUS ONE.

OKAY. THE NEXT REQUEST IS A TRANSIT DISTRICT OVERLAY REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 19 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED TOWNHOMES AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT ON APPROXIMATELY

[11. Transit District Overlay TDO23-01 (Nash and Berry Townhomes) and Final Plat of Lots 1-19, 20X, Block 2-R, Nash and Berry Addition – City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission to conduct a public hearing relative to an application submitted by Richard Giberson, Berry, Jean & Nash, LLC, requesting a transit district overlay to allow for the development of nineteen single-family attached townhomes on 1.015 acres, and a replat of Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 2, Hilltop Addition. The subject property is located at 931, 937, and 943 Jean Street and 930 and 936 Berry Street and is currently zoned “LI”, Light Industrial District. ]

IT'S PRESENTLY DEVELOPED WITH FOUR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED STRUCTURES AND ONE UNDEVELOPED LOT OR VACANT LOT.

ALL OF THIS PROPERTY IS PRESENTLY ZONED FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

WITH THIS REQUEST, THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO DEMOLISH THE FOUR EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND TO CONSTRUCT THE 19 TOWNHOMES AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN.

THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IS 21.5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

TOWNHOMES AS A USE ARE IDENTIFIED AS AN APPROPRIATE USE WITHIN THE HIGH INTENSITY SUBDISTRICT FOUND IN SECTION 41 B AND FIG.

THREE. PREFERRED USE MATRIX OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE THATCHER TRANSIT DISTRICT OVERLAY REQUIREMENTS.

THESE 19 UNITS WILL BE LOCATED WITHIN FOUR STRUCTURES.

THEY'LL BE FRONTING EAST NASH STREET, BERRY STREET, AND JEAN STREET, AND ONE OF THE BUILDINGS WILL ALSO BE FRONTING THE ADJACENT MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH, ALL CENTERED AROUND A COMMON AREA LOT AND ACCESS EASEMENTS.

EACH UNIT IS PROPOSED TO BE FOUR STORIES IN HEIGHT, AND RANGING FROM 3100FT² TO 5100FT² OF LIVING SPACE, INCLUDING A GARAGE ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND A FOURTH FLOOR ADDICT.

THERE'S AN INTERNAL COURTYARD THAT'S PROPOSED TO BE ACCESSED FROM JEAN STREET TO ACCOMMODATE AND ENHANCE PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT.

THIS INTERNAL SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT ALLOWS FOR VEHICULAR CIRCULATION, INCLUDING INDIVIDUAL INDIVIDUAL SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING PICKUP.

THERE'S QUITE A FEW UNIQUE FEATURES THAT HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED THROUGH THE DESIGN OF THIS PROJECT, AND THERE'S ALSO AN ATTACHED EXHIBIT TO YOUR AGENDA MEMO IN YOUR PACKET AS AN AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE SIGNED BY THE PROJECT ARCHITECT ARCHITECT, STATING THAT THE PROJECT FOLLOWS THE TRANSIT DISTRICT OVERLYING DESIGN.

WE HAVE RECEIVED TWO LETTERS IN SUPPORT WITH THIS REQUEST.

THEY ARE NOT WITHIN THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION BOUNDARY.

SO THIS IS THEY'RE REALLY ASKING FOR A TOWNHOUSE ZONING, BUT THEY'RE ASKING BECAUSE IT'S IN THE RAIL DISTRICT OVERLAY. THE TRANSIT DISTRICT OVERLAY THAT THEY CAN REQUEST GREATER THAN WHAT'S ALLOWED.

BUT. SO THEY'RE REALLY ASKING FOR MORE THAN DOUBLE WHAT'S ALLOWED.

THE FAR IS THE NUMBER OF UNITS.

THERE ARE SEVERAL REFERENCES TO A STAIRCASE.

A MONUMENTAL STAIRCASE IN THE PACKET IS THAT THE JANE STREET ENTRANCE.

DO YOU WANT TO STICK TO? THIS IS THE PROJECT ARCHITECT ON THE ARCHITECTURAL PROJECT.

YOU SEE THE THE HATCH ON THE PLAN THAT POINTS DOWN BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDING BLOCKS.

THERE'S ABOUT 3 TO 4 STEPS FROM THE SIDEWALK DOWN INTO THE COURTYARD.

SO THEY'RE MONUMENTAL IN THAT THEY'RE JUST WIDE.

THEY TAKE UP THAT FULL WIDTH TO ENCOURAGE PEDESTRIAN INVITATION FROM THE PUBLIC INTO THE COURTYARD.

SO. IF YOU WERE AT THE REC, YOU WOULD SEE THAT.

IS THAT ORIENTED CORRECTLY? ON THE SITE PLAN.

SHOW A JUST NOTE FOR THAT GRAPEVINE BROWNSTONE PHASE ONE APPROVED.

THESE ARE NOT ONLY THESE ARE NOT THE SAME DEVELOPER.

NO THEY'RE NOT. THINK THE APARTMENT COMPLEX NORTH OF THIS SITE ARE THOSE FOUR STOREY BUILDINGS.

FOUR STORY BUILDINGS. I DON'T KNOW FOR CERTAIN IF THEY'RE FOUR STORY.

I THINK THEY ARE. COUNCILWOMAN HAVE A BIG TABLE AT THE BOTTOM.

SO. YEAH. ANYTHING

[01:30:06]

FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED HOMES AND THE ONE HOA LOT.

ONCE AGAIN, IF YOU DON'T GET REJECTED BY.

[12. Transit District Overlay TDO23-02 (Grapevine Brownstones, Phase II) and Final Plat of Lot 2, Block 1, Hasten Addition – City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission to conduct a public hearing relative to an application submitted by Greg Gifford, NCP Grapevine Brownstones II, requesting a transit district overlay to allow for a 20-unit condominium development on 1.24 acres and a replat of a portion of Lot 4, Block 53, Original Town of Grapevine. The subject property is located at 235 East Nash Street and is currently zoned “LI”, Light Industrial District.]

DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT TEAM.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 235 EAST NASH STREET AND IT'S THE JOHNSON EXCAVATION SITE.

IT'S ALSO PRESENTLY ZONED ALIVE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND LOCATED WITHIN THE TRANSIT DISTRICT OVERLAY BOUNDARY, AND HAS EXISTING ACCESS FROM BOTH NASH STREET AND EAST DALLAS ROAD.

THEY ARE PROPOSING A 20 UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT ON 1.24 ACRES.

ON THIS SLIDE YOU CAN SEE THE PROPOSED TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT, SORRY CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT IN RELATION TO.

EXISTING PHASE ONE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION WITH.

TEN UNITS. THIS SHOWS ITS RELATION TO PHASE ONE, WHICH IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION SEVERAL BUILDINGS.

FOR THESE THREE UNITS.

FACING EAST DALLAS ROAD ARE THREE UNITS.

COMMON. FINALLY, PUBLIC ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT RUNNING ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE.

THIS IS ALSO PROPOSED TO BE FOUR STORIES AND ALLOW FOR SOME SPACE ABOVE THE ON THE ROOF.

MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS REQUEST.

WHAT'S THE DENSITY ON PHASE ONE? DO WE KNOW? PHASE ONE WAS TEN.

TEN UNITS. ALBERT, DO YOU RECALL? SO, KRISTIN, DO YOU RECALL THE ACREAGE ON THE SHY BUSINESS PARK EDITION ONE POINT? THANK YOU. YEAH.

JUST FIGURE IT OUT. YEAH.

GO FIND IT. WE NEED TO MOVE.

YEAH, THERE'S A LOT OF LAND THERE.

SO, ANYTHING ELSE ON THE.

NO COMMENTS ON THE LAST.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS?

[13. Amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 82-73 AM23-01 (Accessory Dwelling Units) – City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission to conduct a public hearing relative to proposed amendments and changes to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, No. 82-73, same being Appendix D of the Code of Ordinances as follows: to create and amend definitions in Section 12, Definitions; amend uses and use-specific standards in Section 13, “R-20”, SingleFamily District; and create use-specific standards in Section 42, Supplementary District Regulations; and various amendments throughout the Zoning Ordinance relative to accessory dwelling units. ]

SORRY. THERE'S JUST ONE MORE FINAL PLAT.

[14. Final Plat of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Comparin and Gay Addition – City Council and Planning Zoning Commission to conduct a public hearing relative to an application submitted by Neal Cooper requesting to replat Lot 4, lock 37, Original town of Grapevine. The subject property is located at 404 and 408 East Texas Street and is current zoned “R-7.5”, Single Family Residential District. ]

THERE'S TWO LOTS.

THERE'S LAST PLAYED WITH THE ORIGINAL TOWN OF GRAPEVINE BY SUBDIVIDED BY DEED.

THIS IS JUST A FLAT. BRING IT UP IN COMPLIANCE.

I'LL GO INTO MORE DETAIL LATER.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. LET'S ADJOURN THE BUSINESS.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL CALL THE 730 MEETING TO ORDER AND ASK YOU TO RISE FOR THE INVOCATION AND THE PLEDGE.

PLEASE BLESS US, O LORD.

WE THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME TOGETHER THIS EVENING AND THAT WE ASK THAT YOU BE WITH US TONIGHT, SO OUR THOUGHTS AND WORDS WILL BEST SERVE THE CITIZENS OF GRAPEVINE.

WE ASK THAT YOU BE WITH THE FIRST RESPONDERS IN THE MILITARY, BOTH HERE AND ABROAD.

PLEASE WATCH OVER EVERYONE DURING THANKSGIVING AS THEY ENJOY THEIR TIME WITH FRIENDS AND FAMILY.

IN YOUR NAME WE PRAY.

AMEN. AMEN. PLEASE JOIN ME TO PLEDGE.

PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH.

IS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

I'D LIKE TO WELCOME YOU ALL TO OUR MEETING TONIGHT.

WE HAVE TEN JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS BETWEEN THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL, WHICH IS AN UNUSUALLY HEAVY DOCKET FOR US. AND BEFORE WE DO, I INDICATED I WAS GOING TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS ABOUT ZONING.

IF YOU LIVE IN THE COUNTRY, YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT TO WITH YOUR PROPERTY AND DON'T WORRY ABOUT YOUR NEIGHBORS.

BUT WHEN YOU LIVE IN A CITY, FOR EVERYBODY TO COEXIST AND FOR THERE BE SOME CONTINUITY, THERE HAS TO BE A PLAN FOR LAND USE AND ZONING ORDINANCES AND SOME REGULATION OF IT.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DON'T IS CHAOS.

WE HAD AN ORDINANCE BACK WHEN THE AIRPORT OPENED THAT ALLOWED MULTIFAMILY BE BUILT IN ANY SINGLE FAMILY ZONING CASE.

IF YOU GO IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, YOU SEE ALL THESE SMALL APARTMENT HOUSES THAT GOT BUILT AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, WHICH.

STAND OUT AS.

POOR ZONING. I THINK EVERYBODY CAN SEE THOSE WERE MISTAKES.

[01:35:01]

AND WHEN WE REALIZE WHAT WAS WAS HAPPENING WITH THE NEW ZONING ORDINANCE, WE GOT THAT CHANGED.

BUT BEFORE IT HAPPENED, THERE WAS DAMAGE THAT'S TAKEN 50 YEARS.

HOPEFULLY THE VALUES OF THOSE LANDS.

WE'RE STARTING TO SEE SOME OF THOSE OWNERS WANTING TO TEAR THOSE DOWN AND BUILD SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

SO IT'S ONE OF MY HOPES THAT WE OUTGROW THAT SOMEDAY.

BUT THERE'S A PURPOSE FOR ZONING.

ZONING. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO PLAN OUT WHAT THE USE OF PROPERTY THROUGHOUT THE CITY IS, AND WE'VE HAD ONE FOR A LONG, LONG TIME.

THAT MAP SOMETIMES CHANGES BECAUSE TRADITIONS AND CHANGES AND TRENDS CHANGE OVER THE COURSE OF TIME THAT DICTATE CHANGES.

BUT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO REVIEW IT AND CHANGE THE MAP AND NOT JUST CHANGE IT.

ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

A ZONING ORDINANCE IS DESIGNED TO CONTROL DENSITY AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WITHIN LAND USE, SO THAT A PERSON'S DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT UNREASONABLY AFFECT OR NEGATIVELY AFFECT THEIR NEIGHBOR.

AS PROPERTY VALUES HAVE INCREASED, WE HAVE MORE AND MORE PEOPLE THAT TRY TO BRING DEVELOPMENTS THAT EXCEED THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR ZONING ORDINANCE OR DON'T ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, TRYING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A PROFIT OUT OF THE PROFIT.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHY ZONING WORKS.

LAND PRICE DOES NOT DICTATE LAND USE.

THE THE LAND USE PROGRAMS WE'VE HAD IN THE ZONING THAT HAS BEEN CONDUCTED OVER THE LAST 50 YEARS.

IT GIVES YOU THE COMMUNITY THAT WE HAVE TODAY THAT PEOPLE SEEM TO ADMIRE AND APPRECIATE LIVING HERE.

AND TO CONTINUE THAT, WE HAVE TO HAVE A PLAN AND WE HAVE TO HAVE A ZONING ORDINANCE THAT PEOPLE ABIDE BY.

WE CAN'T LET PROPERTY OWNERS DICTATE WHAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE WILL BE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

SO ZONING IS NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST.

IT'S NOT A GOOD OLD BOY CONTEST.

IT'S A PART OF A PREDETERMINED PLAN.

AND IT'S DESIGNED TO HAVE CONTINUITY WHERE LAND USE ALL FITS TOGETHER AND DOESN'T AFFECT UNREASONABLY OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY.

THAT'S THE PRICE WE PAY LIVING IN A CITY.

SO AS WE GO THROUGH THE ZONING TONIGHT, WE'RE THE PROCEDURE WILL BE WE WILL DECLARE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON EACH ZONING CASE. WE'LL ASK THE STAFF TO INTRODUCE THE REQUEST THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS MADE.

WE'LL GIVE THE APPLICANT A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A PRESENTATION.

AND THEN ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THAT CASE WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

YOU HAVE TO SIGN A FORM WITH THE CITY SECRETARY.

SO WE HAVE A RECORD OF YOUR PARTICIPATION.

THIS IS A PROCEEDING.

IT'S NOT A AND WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN ORDER.

SO I DON'T WANT ANY DEMONSTRATION.

I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO MAKE COMMENTS OR TO CLAP BECAUSE WE CAN'T GET THAT ON THE RECORD.

WHAT WE HAVE TO HAVE IS ORAL TESTIMONY.

IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK, WE'LL RECOGNIZE YOU.

AND THEN WE CAN CARD THAT AND EVALUATE IT AND MAKE IT USE IT AS PART OF OUR EVALUATION.

WE HAVE 30 PEOPLE WHO HAVE SIGNED UP ALREADY TO SPEAK.

YOU'LL EACH HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK, AND WE ASK YOU TO TO TRY TO STAY WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD.

WE DON'T HAVE A TIMER.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO EMBARRASS YOU.

WE JUST ASK YOU TO CONTROL IT YOURSELF AND TO NOT SPEND A LOT OF TIME DUPLICATING WHAT OTHER PEOPLE MAY BE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE SAID, SO WE CAN GET THROUGH IN A REASONABLE HOUR AND NOT UNREASONABLY, AFFECT THOSE THAT ARE DOWN THE LINE THAT ARE GOING TO GET TO SPEAK LATER.

SO WE WANT YOU TO BE A PART OF YOUR GOVERNMENT TONIGHT.

WE WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE PROCEDURE WORKS, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SOME GOOD DECISIONS.

AND IF YOU WORK WITH ME AND AND WE CAN MAINTAIN ORDER AND HAVE A PROPER PROCEDURE IN EACH OF THESE CASES TONIGHT, THEN THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN.

SO I INVITE YOU TO BE A PART OF YOUR GOVERNMENT TONIGHT, AND WE'LL BEGIN BY OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH I THINK IS ALREADY OPENED ON ZONING APPLICATIONS.

Z 20 3-3, WHICH WAS OPENED AT A PREVIOUS MEETING AND CONTINUED.

THAT IS CORRECT. CORRECT.

SO THAT PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN AND ON OVERLAY PD 20 3-2 AND FINAL PLATS.

SO LOT ONE THROUGH 3233.

BLOCK ONE OF THE GRAPEVINE SPRINGS.

LOT ONE OR BLOCK ONE OR GRAPEVINE OFFICE PARK.

THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS TABLED ON OCTOBER 17TH.

SO. ERIC MARONIC, WOULD YOU INTRODUCE THE REQUEST THAT'S BEING MADE?

[01:40:02]

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A ZONE CHANGE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 11.24 ACRES FROM A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DISTRICT AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO THE R SEVEN AND A HALF SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AND R 5.00 LOT LINE DISTRICT FOR THE INTENT PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING 32 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS AT TWO DIFFERENT DISTRICT STANDARDS.

THE DENSITY FOR THIS PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS 2.84 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY IS TO ALLOW FOR PRIVATE STREETS IN A SINGLE FAMILY ZERO LOT LINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR A REDUCTION IN MINIMUM LOT AREA, A REDUCTION IN MINIMUM LOT DEPTH AND A REDUCTION IN FRONT YARD SETBACKS FOR THE 8R5 .00 LOT LINE LOTS, WHICH IS SHOWN ON YOUR SCREEN ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

ACCESS TO THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS THROUGH THE EXISTING PROFESSIONAL AND MEDICAL OFFICE TO THE SOUTH THROUGH EXISTING DRIVEWAYS WITH PUBLIC ACCESS ALONG WEST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY. THE LOTS IN THIS PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WILL BE ON A PRIVATE STREET, WHICH WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AS 31FT WIDE BACK OF CURB TO BACK OF CURB FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY.

THE FRONT YARD SETBACKS ARE REQUESTED TO BE REDUCED FROM 25FT, WHICH IS THE MINIMUM IN THE R 5.0 DISTRICT TO 9.5FT TO THE NEAREST POINT OF THE BUILDING, AND THEN A 19.5FT SETBACK TO THE GARAGE.

THE DECREASE IN MINIMUM LOT AREA IS FROM 5000FT² TO 4500FT², AND THE DECREASE IN THE MINIMUM LOT DEPTH IS FROM 100FT TO 90FT. ALL OTHER BLOCK DIMENSIONAL AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE BASE DISTRICT STANDARDS.

ALL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ARE PROPOSED TO BE DESIGNED WITH FRONT ENTRY GARAGES AND WILL TYPICALLY BE TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT.

THE DEVELOPER IS ALSO PROPOSING 29 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES SHOWN THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE PRIVATE STREET.

THE SUBJECT TRACT IS NOT LOCATED WITH ANY OF WITHIN ANY OF THE NOISE ZONES AS DEFINED IN THE AIRCRAFT SOUND EXPOSURE MAP AND MAP TO LAND USE PLAN, WHICH IS OUR CITY'S FUTURE LAND USE MAP, DESIGNATES THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS COMMERCIAL LOW INTENSITY FUTURE LAND USE.

CITY STAFF HAS RECEIVED 26 OFFICIAL RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AS OF YESTERDAY AT 5 P.M.

THIS ACCOUNTS FOR 43.77% OF THE LAND AREA WITHIN THE 200 FOOT NOTIFICATION BOUNDARY IN OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST, SO A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE WILL BE REQUIRED.

THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION.

THE DEVELOPER IS PRESENT TO PRESENT TO THE COMMISSION AND COUNCIL AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE RELATIVE TO THE REQUEST.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

GOOD EVENING, P AND Z CHAIRMAN OLIVER.

MY NAME IS ETHAN MARCUS, 604 EAST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY GRAPEVINE, TEXAS.

TONIGHT I'M PRESENTING GRAPEVINE SPRINGS.

GRAPEVINE SPRINGS IS 11.28 ACRES.

WE HAVE NORTHWEST HIGHWAY TO OUR SOUTH.

DOVE ROAD, LOCAL STREET TO OUR EAST.

THIS IS INGRESS EGRESS AND FITS WITH THE PLAN THAT YOU'LL SEE HERE COMING UP.

CURRENTLY WE ARE ZONED PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ON THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ON THE SOUTHERN PART.

I THINK THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS, BUT PRIMARILY, AS YOU'LL SEE IN ONE OF THE UPCOMING SLIDES, THIS PROPERTY IS ONE OF A KIND AND PROBABLY THE MOST BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY IN TOWN.

THE REASON THAT WE FELL IN LOVE WITH IT IS BECAUSE THE TREES AND THE CREEK, JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

WITH THE CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATIONS, THERE IS AN ALLOWABLE 80% OF TREE COVERAGE THAT CAN BE REMOVED.

AND AS I'VE READ THROUGH EVERY LETTER OF OPPOSITION AND EVERY COMMENT, IT FOCUSES ON HIGH DENSITY AND TREES.

SO OUR NUMBER ONE THING, AND I'VE LEFT IT UP HERE, IS TO SHOW WHAT 80% OF TREE REMOVAL LOOKS LIKE ON THIS GEM OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY.

WITH RESIDENTIAL, WE CAN ONLY BE ALLOWED TO REMOVE 50% AND WE PLAN ON DOING LESS THAN THAT.

SO I'M SURE I'LL HEAR A LOT OF COMMENTS ABOUT TREES, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE AND POINT THAT OUT THAT THAT HAS BEEN OUR FOCUS FROM DAY ONE.

[01:45:08]

THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT LOT TYPES.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS SINCE 2021.

THE PHOTO THAT'S IN THIS SLIDE IS FROM 2021.

THIS PLAN HAS HAD MANY, MANY RENDITIONS.

AND I WANT TO JUST SAY GRAPEVINE STAFF HAS BEEN INCREDIBLE.

FERRIS BRANCH CREEK IS PRETTY CHANNELIZED.

THE DARKER GREEN IS WHAT'S CONSIDERED FLOODPLAIN.

BEEN ASKED. WELL, ALL YOUR COMMON AREAS FLOOD PLAIN.

THAT'S INCORRECT. WE HAVE 4.4 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE, WHICH AGAIN IN A COMMERCIAL APPLICATION INFRASTRUCTURE COULD BE PLACED TO COVER UP SOME OF THAT CREEK.

AND THAT IS NOT OUR INTENTION NOW OR IN THE FUTURE.

THE FLOODPLAIN IS ONLY 1.14 ACRES OF THAT 4.4.

THIS IS A PICTURE TAKEN IN THE FALL OF 2021, TWO YEARS AGO, OVER TWO YEARS AGO.

THIS IS WHEN R&D IS AND THE CONCEPT OF GRAPEVINE SPRINGS STARTED.

TO OUR WEST, WE HAVE OUR 70 FOOT LOTS.

ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE OF THE CREEK, WE HAVE AGAIN, THESE ARE 65, BUT THESE DO FIT WITHIN THE ARE 7.5 ORDNANCE TO OUR SOUTH.

IN BETWEEN PARKING STRUCTURES AND OVERHANGS WE ARE APPROXIMATELY THREE FEET BELOW THAT PARKING LOT.

AND THESE ARE OUR FIVE HOMES.

THESE OUR TYPICAL LOT.

DETAILS. THIS IS OUR LANDSCAPE PLAN.

THERE'S ALSO BEEN SOME COMMENTS THAT I'VE SEEN ABOUT TREES BEING MARKED FOR REMOVAL, AND THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

EVERY SINGLE TREE ON THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN MARKED.

I'VE PERSONALLY COUNTED THEM AT LEAST TWO TIMES, AND I'M JUST GOING TO TELL YOU IT'S AT LEAST 350 TREES CONSERVATIVELY SAVED.

AN EXAMPLE ON THE TOP LEFT IS A CONCEPT OF A HOME THAT WOULD BE IN BETWEEN A PARKING LOT AND A STREET ON A 50 FOOT LOT.

THESE ARE THE TRADITIONAL GRAPEVINE VERNACULARS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO GO WITH.

AN EXAMPLE OF A 65 FOOT LOT.

NOT SAYING THAT THIS EXACT HOME WILL BE BUILT.

IT'S A HOME THAT WE'VE BUILT IN ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS ZONED R 75, AND THE TWO BOTTOM HOUSES, WHICH ARE BRAND NEW DESIGNS, WOULD FIT ON THAT WESTERN SIDE WITH SOME MODIFICATIONS COULD FIT WITHIN THERE.

THESE ARE CONCEPTS. THESE DON'T MEAN THESE ARE THE HOUSES THAT ARE EXACTLY PLANNED, BUT WE'VE HEARD LOUD, LOUD AND CLEAR WHAT TYPE OF ARCHITECTURE TO GO WITH AND WHAT TYPE OF ARCHITECTURE NOT TO GO WITH.

THESE ARE ALL THREE OF THOSE HOUSES SIDE BY SIDE.

THIS IS ACCURATE AND TO SCALE WITH THE TREES PER THE TREE SURVEY OF AN AERIAL VIEW FROM THE WEST.

LOOKING BACK TO THE NORTH, ONE OF THE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION SAID THAT PATIENTS WILL BE STRESSED OUT BECAUSE THEY WILL LOSE THEIR TREE COVERAGE.

AND I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THERE'S 380FT FROM THAT BUILDING TO THE BACKYARDS OF THESE HOMES THAT WILL BE LEFT UNDISTURBED AND UNTOUCHED.

THIS IS ALSO A WORST CASE SCENARIO IN EVERY SINGLE LOT.

BOXED UP TWO STORIES.

ABSOLUTE WORST CASE.

MAXED OUT. SAME THING TO SCALE.

EVERY SINGLE HOUSE IS DRAWN IN A TWO STORY CONFIGURATION TO SHOW WORST CASE SCENARIO, THE RETAINING WALL TO THE NORTH IS ACCURATE.

THIS IS DONE FOR GRADING PLAN.

THIS IS FROM THE SOUTH AND NORTH NORTHWEST HIGHWAY LOOKING TO THE NORTH AGAIN.

TREES ARE ACCURATE.

STREETSCAPE. ON THE SOUTH SIDE YOU HAVE THE ARE FIVE LOTS ON THE LEFT AND YOU HAVE THE 65 FOOT LOTS ON THE RIGHT.

THIS IS, I'M GOING TO POINT OUT A MISTAKE HERE THAT WE'RE MISSING THE SIDEWALK.

BUT THIS IS TO SCALE.

THE SIDEWALK WOULD GO THERE, BUT THESE ARE THE LOTS THAT WILL BE FACING TO THE NORTH, AND THE MAJORITY OF THE WINDOWS AND FENESTRATION ON THESE HOUSES WILL BE FACING THE CREEK, WHICH IS THE GEM OF THIS AREA, NOT TO THE NORTH.

ANOTHER VIEW ZOOMED IN, JUST SHOWING THE TREE COVERAGE THAT DOES AND WILL REMAIN.

AND THIS IS AN OVERVIEW OF OUR PROJECT.

AND I'LL STAND BY. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

[01:50:05]

YES, SIR. IF YOU WOULD.

LET'S TALK ABOUT THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS AND HOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET IN AND OUT OF THE PROPERTY.

SO WE DO HAVE A PROTECTED LIGHT AT GRAPEVINE SPRINGS, AND I'LL SURE, THIS WILL BE A LOT OF THE COMMENTS, REGARDLESS OF COMMERCIAL, WHETHER THIS IS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, COMMUNITY, COMMERCIAL, THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS WOULD REMAIN THE SAME.

THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION PRIOR ABOUT THE ROUNDABOUT WHERE THE GREAT GRAPEVINE SPRINGS LIGHT COMES DEAD END.

MY BELIEF IS THE FACT THAT THEY'VE LEFT THEMSELVES OPTIONS.

SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE TWO WAYS WE WOULD COME IN, LET ME GO ALL THE WAY BACK.

I'M SORRY. INSTEAD OF EXPLAINING THIS, LET ME JUST SHOW YOU.

SO AT THAT KIND OF THREE WAY ROUNDABOUT RIGHT THERE, COMMISSIONER LUERS, THE THE NORTH SIDE OF THAT ROUNDABOUT WILL BE REDONE.

SO THE MAJORITY OF THAT TRAFFIC WILL COME IN AT THE PROTECTED LIGHT OR LEAVE AT THE PROTECTED LIGHT AT GRAPEVINE SPRINGS, WHICH IS A UNIQUE SITUATION THAT THERE IS COMMERCIAL THERE. ABSOLUTELY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE BRIDGE AND RETAINING WALL STRUCTURE ON THE SOUTHWEST THAT EXISTS WAS FOR, YOU KNOW, THE FUTURE, WHICH WOULD BE A LOOP STREET AS WELL, WHETHER IT'S COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL.

THE OTHER TRAFFIC ON SCOTTIE DRIVE COMING OUT TO THE SOUTH ON THE EAST SIDE, THERE IS ALSO A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT OR WILL BE PLATTED AS A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT THAT WAY AS WELL.

SO TRAFFIC PRIMARILY WOULD COME TO GRAPEVINE SPRINGS.

THERE'S NO PARKING LOTS THERE.

AND THEN THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED WAS, OR MAYBE IT WAS A CONCERN WAS GOING EAST OR WEST THROUGH A PARKING LOT.

WHAT I THINK IS THERE WAS THREE OPTIONS SET UP FOR THE FUTURE, THE FUTURE OF THIS PROPERTY.

AND WE CHOSE TO KEEP IT AS A LOOP.

AND WE ALSO CHOSE THE THING THAT WOULD KEEP AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE, QUITE FRANKLY.

AND THAT WAS A REALLY LONG ANSWER.

BUT OUR TRAFFIC PATTERNS WILL BASICALLY BE A BIG LOOP AROUND THE COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

ON THE ON THE HOUSE RENDERINGS.

AND I KNOW YOU SAID IT WOULDN'T BE THOSE EXACT HOUSE HOUSES THAT WOULD BE BUILT, BUT IT LOOKED FROM THE PICTURES THAT THERE WAS VERY LITTLE MASONRY.

IS THAT ACCURATE OR A DESIGN CHOICE OR I.

I WANTED MORE MASONRY.

THESE RENDERINGS TAKE A LOT OF TIME TO PRODUCE.

I WOULD COMMIT THAT ANY PERCENTAGE OF MASONRY THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED WOULD BE OPEN TO THAT.

THAT IS A COMMENT THAT I'VE WANTED CLIENTS WANT.

IT'S NOT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE LEAVING OFF FOR MONEY SAVING PURPOSES, EVEN THOUGH IT DOES.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME MORE MASONRY ON THOSE TWO.

I WOULD SAY OUTSIDE OF THE 50 FOOT LOT.

WELL, ALL OF THOSE TECHNICALLY, EVEN WITH THE CEMENT SIDING, IS 100% MASONRY.

OUR SOFFITS, OUR CORNICE, EVERYTHING IS HEARTY, BUT FROM A STONE AND BRICK EXPOSURE ON ELEVATIONS.

I AM TOTALLY UNDERSTANDING THAT MAYBE IT'S LACKING A LITTLE BIT THERE, BUT TO REDO THOSE RENDERINGS WOULD PROBABLY.

I THINK THERE ARE ABOUT EIGHT HOURS APIECE.

I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, BUT WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO LIMIT THE HEIGHT THE HOUSES? YES, MA'AM. I THINK WE'RE ALLOWED TO GO UP TO 35 RIGHT NOW.

WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE OVER 32, BUT ABSOLUTELY IN THE RIGHT LOT.

RIGHT. ADJACENCY.

ABSOLUTELY. OKAY.

THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

YOUR YOUR LANDSCAPE PLAN.

YES, SIR. WHAT'S SHOWN HERE ON YOUR PICTURE ARE THOSE NEW TREES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO PLANT.

YES. THE ONES THAT ARE COLORED IN.

YES, SIR. THOSE ARE NEW TREES IN ADDITION TO THE THE DOTS THAT ARE SMALL.

AND THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT I'VE COUNTED.

WHAT? IT DOESN'T SHOW ON THAT LANDSCAPE PLAN.

I'M JUST GOING TO POINT THIS OUT, AS MANY OF THE TREES ON THE WESTERN SIDE AREN'T SHOWN THERE.

SO I ACTUALLY DIDN'T EVEN COUNT THOSE IN THOSE CALCULATIONS OF THAT 350.

BUT THE TREES THAT YOU SEE ON THE ON THE STREETSCAPE.

YES, SIR. THOSE ARE NEW TREES.

MY QUESTION IS REGARDING THE ROADWAY DESIGN THAT YOU'VE GOT SHOWN ON THE RENDERING.

IT DOESN'T SHOW ANY CURB AND GUTTER.

ARE YOU PLANNING TO PUT CURB AND GUTTER? NO SIR. NO NO NO THE OKAY.

SO HOW ARE YOU GOING TO WORK WITH THE DRAINAGE AND DRAINAGE, WHICH MY ENGINEER IS HERE TO WITH?

[01:55:03]

WE DID NOT GO THE FULL RIGHT OF WAY.

WE WERE GIVEN ACCESS THROUGH PRIVATE STREETS.

THAT WAS DETERMINED, I GUESS, 25 YEARS AGO.

TOTALLY WILLING TO WORK AROUND THAT.

AND HONESTLY, A FULL STREET SECTION TO ME, I DON'T THINK WAS IT GAINS ANYTHING AND I'LL HAVE RICH SPEAK ON THE DRAINAGE.

I'LL EXPLAIN WHY I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE WHEN IT COMES TO DRAINAGE, ESPECIALLY IN A TIGHT SITUATION LIKE THIS, TYPICALLY WHEN YOU HAVE A FULL 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY THAT ACCOMMODATES FOR SPECIFIC TYPE OF DRAINAGE PLAN, AND IN THIS CASE, WHEN YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE CURB AND GUTTER, WHERE'S THAT WATER GOING TO GO? AND WHEN YOU'RE ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE ADJACENT TO A CREEK LIKE THAT, YOU'RE GOING TO CAUSE PROBLEMS. SURE. RICH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE DRAINAGE, OR DO I NEED TO DRAG YOU UP HERE OR.

I'M RICH. DIET 112 KEYSTONE IN SOUTH LAKE.

AND I'M THE ENGINEER ON THIS.

MR. SOD.

THE DRAINAGE IS NOT THAT MUCH GOING TO THAT ROAD.

AND WHAT WE'RE DOING THERE IS SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS DONE IN OTHER PROJECTS TO DO AN INVERTED MIDDLE OF THE STREET.

SO THE WATER IS GOING TO COLLECT THERE, BUT IT'S NOT THAT DEEP BECAUSE THERE'S JUST NOT THAT MUCH DRAINAGE AREA GOING TO IT, INCLUDING THE OFF SITE.

YEAH, WE'VE GOT THE OFF SITE GETTING COLLECTED A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS WITH INLETS, AND THAT'S IN ENGINEERING RIGHT NOW.

BUT WE'RE WE'RE PLANNING ON SOME INLETS GOING ALONG THE BACK OF THE LOTS TO COLLECT THOSE.

ALONG THE NORTH SIDE THERE IS A RETAINING WALL.

AND SO A TWO STORY HOUSE AT THAT RETAINING WALL IS ONLY GOING TO BE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AS HIGH BECAUSE THAT IS DOWN FROM THE LEVEL OF THOSE BACKYARDS. THOSE BACKYARDS DRAIN ONTO US.

AND THAT DRAINAGE WILL BE COLLECTED AND TAKEN DOWN TO THE CREEK.

OKAY. OKAY.

THANKS, RICH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIRMAN? THAT WAS A QUESTION.

ALL RIGHT. MR.. YES, SIR.

YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE LAW PROVIDES WHEN 20% OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS SIGN A PETITION, THEY HAVE A SAY IN THE CASE THAT REQUIRES A SUPERMAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL TO APPROVE IT.

YES, SIR. SIX VOTES.

IN 50 YEARS.

I'VE SEEN THAT HAPPEN.

ONLY ONE TIME THAT I CAN REMEMBER.

SO I'M NOT FOR SURE I UNDERSTAND THE FEELING OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMPLETELY, BECAUSE TO ME, SINGLE FAMILY WOULD BE A BETTER NEIGHBOR THAN COMMERCIAL.

COMMERCIAL COULD TAKE MORE OF THE TREES.

LIGHTING BECOMES AN ISSUE.

A LOT OF OTHER ISSUES THAT WE'VE SEEN OVER A COURSE OF TIME.

BUT GETTING PAST THAT, YOU KNOW, MOST OF OUR SUBDIVISIONS EVER HOUSE IN THAT SUBDIVISION IS DIFFERENT.

YOU'VE GOT FOUR ELEVATIONS.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY A MODERN DEVELOPER WANTS TO PUT IN FOUR ELEVATIONS WHERE THE HOUSES LOOK ALIKE, MAKE THEM LOOK MORE LIKE AN APARTMENT.

WHY A MODERN DEVELOPER CAN'T COME IN AND HAVE MORE DIVERSITY OF ELEVATIONS OF HOUSE STYLE HOUSE HOUSES IN A SUBDIVISION? THAT'S ONE PROBLEM I HAVE, AND I'M GOING TO.

AS THE PRIVATE STREETS.

WE HAVE SOME AREAS OFF A DOVE THAT WERE BUILT BEFORE THEY WERE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, AND THEY WERE PRIVATE STREETS.

YOU GO ON TIPPERARY, JUST OFF OF DOVE.

THOSE STREETS IN THAT SUBDIVISION ARE GRAVEL TODAY.

THE PEOPLE CANNOT AFFORD TO TO PAVE THEM OR TO SPEND THE MONEY TO BRING THEM UP TO GRADE.

AND IF THEY WERE PAVED, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PAY THE MONEY TO MAINTAIN THOSE STREETS.

WE SPEND A LOT OF MONEY EVERY YEAR MAINTAINING OUR STREETS.

IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE.

PRIVATE PEOPLE CANNOT AFFORD TO MAINTAIN STREETS.

I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A PRIVATE STREET IN A SUBDIVISION.

SO YOU NEED TO KNOW THOSE TWO ISSUES I HAVE WITH YOUR SUBDIVISION.

OUTSIDE THE FACT THAT THERE'S A 20, 44, 43% DEAL, YOU KNOW, YOU TABLED IT, YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO OVERCOME SOME OF THOSE ISSUES AND MAKE IT A MORE VIABLE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.

YOU FAILED TO DO IT.

DO YOU WANT ME TO REPLY, MAYOR? CAN I REPLY? SURE.

ON ON THE PRIVATE STREETS.

WE WOULD HAVE DONE PRIVATE STREETS, EVEN IF THAT WASN'T A SITUATION THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH FORCED UPON US WITH THE CURRENT SITUATION.

THE REASON THAT WE DECIDED TO DO PRIVATE STREETS AND NOT A FULL RIGHT OF WAY, 100%, 100%, IS FOR THE SALVATION OF THE TREES

[02:00:01]

THERE'S NO OTHER REASON.

I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A PRIVATE STREET, IS THERE? OR HAS THERE EVER BEEN A MECHANISM WITH IT IS NOT PRACTICAL.

YOU KNOW, TREES GET CUT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF SINGLE FAMILY OR REDDISH COMMERCIAL.

WE'RE GOING TO LOSE SOME TREES.

PROBABLY THAT AREA SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE PARK SHOULD HAVE PROBABLY NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED.

IT'S A VERY SPECIAL AREA WITH THE TREES AND THE CREEK, AND I'M NOT FOR SURE HOW MUCH OF THE CREEK IS BUILDABLE, BUT I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR A PRIVATE STREET BECAUSE WE'VE HAD AN EXPERIENCE.

IF PEOPLE CANNOT AFFORD TO MAINTAIN IT, IT'S A MISTAKE.

PERIOD, AND YOU'RE NOT OLD ENOUGH AND DON'T HAVE THE EXPERIENCE TO REALIZE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

BUT I'M NEVER GOING TO VOTE FOR A PRIVATE STREET, WHETHER IT'S YOURS OR ANYBODY ELSE.

IT'S A MISTAKE.

OUR CODE REQUIRES STREETS TO BE DEDICATED AND BROUGHT UP TO CITY STANDARDS, JUST LIKE THEY ARE THROUGHOUT TOWN.

I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT, THE MANAGEMENT, AND CREATING THE CAPITAL FUND ON TWO PRIVATE NEIGHBORHOODS IN COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS AND LEGACY NORTH AND LEGACY SOUTH.

OFF LAVACA, WHERE WE HAVE A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FUND THAT COVERS ALL PRIVATE STREET MAINTENANCE FOR 40 HOMES ON ONE AND 25 ON THE OTHER.

NEVER HAD A PROBLEM.

I UNDERSTAND THE COST OF LAND IS HAS GONE UP UNREASONABLY, AND IT MAKES IT HARD FOR A DEVELOPER TO BE ABLE TO JUSTIFY, YOU KNOW, THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT AND PUT IT TOGETHER AND YOU'RE STRUGGLING WITH THAT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE IT WORK.

I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THAT CAN'T JUST UPROOT, YOU KNOW, YEARS OF PLANNING IN THIS CITY AND GOOD JUDGMENT.

IT CAN'T. AND I THINK YOU'VE WORKED VERY HARD TO PUT TOGETHER SOMETHING THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

BUT AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THAT'S THE MISTAKE.

THAT IS A MISTAKE AND IT WILL JUST THOSE PEOPLE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THOSE STREETS.

SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE POTHOLES.

THEY'RE JUST GOING TO IT'S GOING TO BE A DISASTER.

AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

AND WHILE YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IT, BUT IT'S IT'S NOT.

NOT RIGHT. NOT NOT GOOD JUDGMENT.

NOT GOOD PLANNING.

I HAVE SOME SUPPORT.

I HAVE A QUESTION.

OBVIOUSLY. YOU TABLED THIS IN OCTOBER.

YES, MA'AM. WOULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THE CHANGES YOU MADE? SURE. SO, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM THAT DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE CHANGES WERE, AND I KNOW I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT ALL THE CHANGES ARE THAT YOU MADE. SO WOULD YOU PLEASE GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF THOSE? SURE. IT'S A COMPLEX SITE.

THE MOST RECENT CHANGE WHILE WE TABLED IT.

WHEN WE MAKE EVEN A SMALL CHANGE, WHICH WHAT I'LL SAY IS WE TOOK THE PROPERTY LINES OUT OF THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET AND PUSHED THEM TO THE BACK OF THE CURB.

THE REASON THAT THE PROPERTY LINES WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET.

TREES, TREES, TREES.

I CANNOT I CANNOT SAY IT ANYMORE.

IT'S TREES. SO WE TOOK THAT OUT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT PEOPLE TO THINK WE'RE TRYING TO GET ONE OVER ON THEM BY PUTTING THE PROPERTY LINE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET, AND THEN OUR SETBACKS BEING TIGHTER, I WAS FULLY PREPARED.

I RESPECT THE MAYOR TREMENDOUSLY.

I WAS FULLY PREPARED TO PROBABLY TALK ABOUT THE R5'S AND, AND, AND HAD SOME COMMENTS AND SOME THINGS THERE.

THAT THAT WAS.

COUNCIL COUNCILWOMAN FREE THAT THAT WAS IT WAS TAKING THE PROPERTY LINES OUT OF THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET.

YOU CHANGED SOME STUFF ON R5 THOUGH.

BEFORE R5 WASN'T LESS THAN 5000 FOOT LOTS, WAS IT? I IT WASN'T, BUT THAT WAS BECAUSE OF THE PROPERTY LINES WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET.

SO ONCE WE DID THAT AND TOOK IT BACK, IT PUT THEM UNDER.

IT STILL WAS UNDER 5000, I BELIEVE.

I THINK IT WAS IN THE 47 OR 4800 RANGE.

BUT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE REMEMBER THE PD OVERLAY FOR THAT.

BUT MAYBE THERE WAS FOR LESS LESS LOT SIZES.

BUT I THOUGHT ALL THOSE WERE R5.

AND THE ONLY OTHER THING I WANT TO SAY IS I APPRECIATE THAT YOU WANT TO SAVE THE TREES, BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT LIVE AROUND THAT THAT DON'T WANT THIS DEVELOPMENT.

SO THEY MATTERED A LOT TOO.

AND I KNOW YOU KNOW THAT THEY DO.

SO I UNDERSTOOD GOING TO LISTEN TO WHAT THEY HAD TO SAY AS WELL.

UNDERSTOOD. AND YOU ALL HAVE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN THAT WILL TAKE A DEEP DIVE IN.

AND THESE ORDINANCES THAT WE HAVE STUDIED.

AND YOU KNOW, WHAT I CAME HERE TONIGHT TO DO WAS EXPLAIN THE BENEFITS.

I CANNOT FIND ONE THING THAT WILL PROBABLY BE SAID TONIGHT FROM A CONCERNED CITIZEN STANDPOINT, THAT A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T IMPROVE FROM A COMMERCIAL STANDPOINT.

I'M NOT BEING ARROGANT.

I'M TELLING YOU FROM MY HEART THAT THERE'S NOT ONE ADVANTAGE.

TO DO THIS PROPERTY JUSTICE.

THAT COMMERCIAL PROVIDES A RESIDENTIAL, BUT.

[02:05:03]

AND THAT'S NOT ANY DISRESPECT, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WANT TO LIVE IN THIS CITY, AND THERE'S A LOT OF VACANT OFFICES.

A COUPLE OF THINGS.

COULD YOU GO BACK TO YOUR OPENING SLIDE, PLEASE? YES, MA'AM. THERE IS A BROWN LINE THAT GOES PRETTY MUCH ALL AROUND IT AND THROUGH THE MIDDLE.

CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THAT BROWN LINE REPRESENTS? COUNCILWOMAN ROGERS, GIVE ME ONE SECOND.

TELL ME WHEN TO STOP.

JUST PAST YOU. JUST PAST IT.

I THINK IT'S A TWO BACK.

GO BACK. NOT A TRAIL.

KEEP GOING. YES.

TRAIL SYSTEM. THE TRAIL SYSTEM? YES, MA'AM. OKAY, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE BROWN LINE THAT GOES AROUND THE EXTRA PARKING SPOTS.

SO YOU HAVE A TRAIL SYSTEM, AND THEN IT GOES ALONGSIDE SIDEWALKS.

SIDEWALKS? OKAY.

THANK YOU. SORRY.

IT'S KIND OF FAINT.

AND I ALSO WANT TO TALK ABOUT YOUR PROPOSED DRAINAGE PLAN.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE STAFF CAN CAN LOAD THAT.

SO I CAN ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THIS IS TELLING ME.

I CAN READ PLANS PRETTY WELL, BUT THIS ONE IS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING.

I KNOW YOU'RE TRYING TO SHOW US WHICH WAY THE WATER DRAINS, BUT THE END RESULT IS WHAT I'M A LITTLE CURIOUS ABOUT.

YEAH. THANK YOU.

I THINK YOU ALL CAN ZOOM IN ON IT.

OVER THERE. THERE YOU GO.

THERE YOU GO. THERE YOU GO.

EASIER TO MOVE THE PAPER THAN THE CAMERA.

TECHNOLOGY HELPS WHEN IT WORKS.

THIS IS GREAT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

JOHN. ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE ON IT? YES, SIR. THERE ARE DOTTED LINES ON HERE.

AND THAT INDICATES TO ME THE WAY THE DRAINAGE IS FLOWING INTO THIS PROJECT, AS WELL AS WITHIN THE PROJECT, I THINK.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, THAT'S CORRECT.

SO THE HORIZONTAL LINES AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS, AT THIS GRAPHIC SEEM TO AND IF YOU MOVE YOUR FINGER DOWN A LITTLE BIT, THEY SEEM TO BISECT AND TRISECT ALL OF THE LOTS RIGHT IN THERE.

SO IT GOES THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE LOTS.

TWO OF THEM DO. AND OVER TO THE LEFT IT GOES, THEY GO.

THE VERTICAL ONE GOES PRETTY WELL THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THOSE LOTS.

WHAT DOES THAT DEPICT IN TERMS OF THE DRAINAGE? THE MAJORITY OF IT IS.

IT SHOWS FLOW COMING ONTO THE SITE.

THE ONES THAT ARE LISTED A ONE, A TWO, A THREE, A FOUR THAT INCLUDES DRAINAGE THAT'S COME FROM OFF SITE, THAT WILL FLOW INTO THE LOTS AND PROCEED DOWN THROUGH THE LOTS, INTO THE STREET AND THEN INTO THE CREEK.

OKAY, THE AREA C-1 TO THE NORTH IS ADJACENT TO THE THAT THAT'S A SUBDIVISION RIGHT THERE.

AND THEIR BACKYARDS DO DRAIN OVER THE RETAINING WALL INTO THE STREET AND THEN DOWN TO THE CREEK AS WELL.

THEY BROKE IT UP INTO MULTIPLE SUB BASINS.

IT MAY NOT NEED TO BE BROKEN UP THAT FINELY, BUT IN ESSENCE, IT'S JUST TO TRY TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH WATER IS GOING WHERE.

SO IT DOESN'T INDICATE THAT THERE'S SOME SORT OF A RISE IN THE LOTS.

NO, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WITH GRADING.

OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. SURE.

ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE? YOU HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE RETAINING WALL ALONG THE NORTH SIDE, BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO LOOK AT IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE TO THE NORTH.

SO RIGHT NOW THEY HAVE TREES, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REMOVING SOME OF THOSE TO PUT IN THE STREET AND THE RETAINING WALL.

SO IS THAT RETAINING, CAN YOU TELL ME, I GUESS ON THE RETAINING WALL, HOW FAR IS THAT FROM THE BACK PROPERTY LINE AND HOW TALL IS THAT RETAINING WALL OR WHAT.

I'M SURE IT VARIES, BUT IT'S A GREAT QUESTION, COUNCILMAN MCCOY.

THE RETAINING WALL VARIES FROM FEATHERING OUT TO THE FAR WEST SIDE TO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ON LOT NUMBER SIX, IT GRADUALLY TAPERS UP AND KIND OF PEAKS AT A CLOSE TO TEN FEET TALL ON THE RETAINING WALL, WITH ABOUT FIVE FOOT OF SPACE FOR THE FOOTER OF THAT WALL.

AND THEN IT TAPERS DOWN TO ABOUT SIX FEET AS YOU GO TO THE EAST.

ON TOP OF THAT WALL WOULD BE THE EXISTING EIGHT FOOT FENCE, WHICH WE WOULD IMPROVE, WOULD HAVE BEEN WILLING OR WOULD BE WILLING TO REPLACE. SO LET'S JUST SAY ON AVERAGE, THAT THAT RETAINING WALL ACROSS THAT NORTHERN BOUNDARY IS SIX FEET TALL WITH AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE.

SO WE HAVE 14FT.

I WAS GOING TO SAVE THIS FOR LATER, BUT I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SHOW YOU BECAUSE I KNOW PRIVACY IS GOING TO GET BROUGHT UP.

AND WHAT'S THE DISTANCE FROM THAT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WHERE THE SIX FOOT FENCE WOULD BE TO THE RETAINING WALL ITSELF? 61.5FT? NO.

[02:10:02]

BEFORE YOU GET TO THE STREET, IF YOU'RE GOING TRAVELING SOUTH FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, YOU HAVE THE EIGHT.

YOU HAVE THE SIX FOOT FENCE ADJOINING THE EXISTING PROPERTIES, THE EXISTING HOUSES.

RIGHT. AND THEN YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DISTANCE TO THE RETAINING WALL.

YES. AND WHAT'S THAT DISTANCE? THE TOP OF THE WALL WILL BE A FOOT IN FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

OKAY. SO IT'S PRETTY MUCH AT THE PROPERTY LINE.

SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT DOING EXCAVATION TO CREATE THE SPOT FOR THE RETAINING WALL.

YES, SIR. OKAY. YES, SIR.

OKAY. I WANT TO SHOW YOU THIS, WHICH WILL ALSO HELP TREMENDOUSLY WITH THE VISUAL.

AND. BUT THIS IS OUR LINE OF SIGHT EXHIBIT.

THIS IS JUST TO SHOW HOW MUCH PRIVACY, AGAIN, RESIDENTIAL WOULD PROVIDE TO THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH.

THESE ARE ALL SIX FOOT BODIES TO SCALE WITH A TWO STORY HOUSE.

AT THE VERY TOP YOU CAN SEE OUR CLOSEST AND WORST CASE SCENARIO FROM THE BACK OF THE NORTHERN HOUSES TO THE FACADE, AND THE ELEVATION OF OUR HOUSES IS 96FT ONE INCH IN WORST CASE SCENARIO.

WE PROBABLY I SAID ONE FOOT COUNCILMAN COLI ON THIS.

IT'S ALL TWO DIMENSIONAL LINES.

WE TRIED TO PUT IT ON AN ANGLE, BUT I'M JUST GOING TO TELL YOU THAT WALL WILL BE TAPERED WITH THE HEIGHT.

SO IT WILL BE TAPERED FROM THE BASE UP SO THAT SPACE WOULD REMAIN THE SAME.

BUT WHEN YOU GET TO THE BASE OF THE EXISTING FENCE TO THE TOP OF THE RETAINING WALL THAT WE WOULD BUILD, THAT SPACE WOULD NATURALLY JUST GET TIGHTER, BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO BUILD A STRAIGHT UP WALL JUST FOR THE HYDRAULICS OF ANYTHING THAT COULD PUSH ON IT.

SO BUT YEAH, I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET ROUGH ORDER.

YES, SIR. YEAH. FAIR ENOUGH.

I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.

SO WE'RE NOT REALLY A QUESTION JUST TO LET YOU KNOW.

SO FIRST OF ALL, AS YOU KNOW, I, I THINK THE COUNCIL, WE HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY.

YOUR FAMILY IN THIS COMMUNITY MEANS A LOT.

YOU GUYS DO A LOT.

AND WE APPRECIATE YOU.

AND WE ALL KNEW YOUR FATHER, AND WE HAD NOTHING GREAT THINGS TO SAY ABOUT YOUR FAMILY AND WHAT YOU PRESENTING.

AND YOU'VE YOU'VE BUILT OUT HERE AND YOU'VE PROVIDED HOMES TO A LOT OF PEOPLE AND YOU DO A GREAT JOB.

KEEP IN MIND THAT ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE ALLOWED TABLE THINGS OR PUSH THINGS BACK IS BECAUSE WE HAVE COMMUNITY PEOPLE THAT COME TO US OR SHOW UP.

A FEW MONTHS BACK WE HAD A SIMILAR SITUATION WITH A DEVELOPMENT OF THREE 60.

I THINK IT WAS CALLED OAK HILL.

SAME THING WE HAD. WE HAD A HOUSE FULL OF PEOPLE.

WE GOT LOTS OF LETTERS AND A LOT OF PEOPLE UPSET.

THEY WENT LOWER RIGHT HAND PICTURE HERE WHERE YOU'VE GOT A LITTLE LEAGUE TEAM OVER THERE.

WE'VE DONE A GREAT JOB WITH THE CITY AND DEVELOPING A FANTASTIC BALLPARK.

SOCCER FIELDS, LITTLE LEAGUE FIELDS OVER THERE.

IT'S REALLY TURNED TO A VERY FAMILY FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD.

MANY, MANY PEOPLE THAT I SPEAK WITH.

I WORK IN DOWNTOWN DALLAS.

A LOT OF FOLKS THAT I WORK WITH ARE JEALOUS THAT I LIVE IN GRAPEVINE, AND I'M GLAD THEY'RE JEALOUS BECAUSE I'M GLAD OF THE HOMETOWN FEEL THAT WE HAVE.

WE'D LIKE TO KEEP THAT.

AND MY CONCERN IS WITH ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION.

THEY'RE ADJACENT TO THE BALL FIELDS, ALLOWING THOSE DRIVERS THERE ON THE ON THE ROADS ADJACENT TO THE BALL FIELDS WITH KIDS PLAYING, PRACTICING, WARMING UP FOR THE FOR THE GAMES. JUST HAVE A CONCERN WITH THAT.

I UNDERSTAND THE TENANTS INTENT TO TO MANAGE THAT, MANAGE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION, BUT I DON'T SEE HOW SELLING ALCOHOL IS GOING TO MITIGATE THE CURRENT CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL.

I THINK IT'S ONLY GOING TO ENCOURAGE IT.

I WOULD JUST ASK YOU ALL TO TAKE ALL OF THOSE CONCERNS INTO INTO CONSIDERATION AS YOU MAKE YOUR VOTE.

I DID WANT TO STAND BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING.

SAY HI TO A BUNCH OF YOU, ALL THAT I HADN'T SEEN IN A WHILE, AND JUST ASK YOU TO VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S.

I'VE SEEN ENOUGH OF THESE CASES COME BEFORE US.

THERE'S USUALLY THREE SIDES TO VOTE ON.

EITHER YOU VOTE FOR IT, YOU VOTE AGAINST IT, OR YOU DON'T REALLY CARE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A RESPONSIBLE VOTE THAT WOULD BE FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND THIS PARTICULAR CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

YOU ALL HAVE A GOOD EVENING AND A HAPPY THANKSGIVING.

THANK YOU. NEXT.

ANDREW SANDERSON 3506 BLUEBERRY LANE.

HEY, GOOD AFTERNOON MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THANK YOU GUYS FOR HEARING US.

I WANT TO FIRST THANK THE KAUFMANS FOR DOING AN EXCELLENT JOB IN PRESENTING THIS AND BRINGING WHAT IS TRULY A TREASURE TO THE 2000.

FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, I AM A NEW MEMBER OF GRAPEVINE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

I HAVE TWO YOUNG DAUGHTERS.

WE LOVE GOING OUT THERE.

QUITE HONESTLY, I'VE EXPERIENCED THE LOUD NOISE THAT PREDOMINANTLY COMES FROM THE MASSIVE BOATS FULL OF DRUNK PEOPLE BLARING THEIR MUSIC GOING ACROSS THE LAKE.

[02:15:02]

I HAVE WITNESSED, UNFORTUNATELY, WITH MY KIDS, DRUNK PEOPLE GETTING OFF THE BOAT, DRAGGING BIG COOLERS AND CONTINUING TO DRINK.

THAT'S NOT HEALTHY. IT'S NOT NOT SOMETHING I WANT TO RUN MY KIDS.

I WOULD MUCH RATHER BE ABLE TO HAVE A MARGARITA IN MY GLASS OF WINE AND ENJOY MY DINNER WITHOUT WORRYING ABOUT A BOAT FULL OF INTOXICATED PEOPLE DIVING OFF AND DRAGGING MORE ALCOHOL ONTO THAT SCENE.

SO I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF WHAT WOULD BE INCREASED TAXES AND INCREASED OVERSIGHT INTO WHAT IS A RESTAURANT ENVIRONMENT.

I THINK IT'S HARD TO LOOK AT ANY ENVIRONMENT NOW AND NOT OFFER THEM THE ABILITY TO INCREASE THEIR PROFITS AND CONTINUE TO GROW AND INVEST IN WHAT IS A GREAT PIECE OF REAL ESTATE AND A GREAT LITTLE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY TO CONTINUE TO IMPROVE.

SO I'M GOING TO SAY I'M IN FAVOR AND LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING THAT FIRST MARGARITA.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

VON THOMPSON 820 EAST LOOP ROAD.

I'M VON 820 DEVLOOP ROAD.

SO, UM, MAYOR COUNCIL, I WANT TO EXPRESS MY WHOLE HEARTED ENDORSEMENT OF AND SUPPORT FOR THE KAUFMAN'S PROPOSAL FOR A LIQUOR LICENSE FOR BIG DADDY'S.

I LIVED IN THE OAK GROVE COMMUNITY ON HUMMINGBIRD, JUST A COUPLE HOUSES DOWN FROM THE BALLPARKS, AND THE NOISE LEVEL FROM THE BOATING AREA HAS NEVER BEEN A PROBLEM.

ACTUALLY, THE LOVELY SOUND THAT I ENJOYED TREMENDOUSLY, WHICH WAS LOUDER THAN ANYTHING I'D HEAR FROM THE BOATING COMMUNITY WHERE THE KIDS PLAYING BASEBALL ON SATURDAY MORNINGS, AND I LOVE WAKING UP TO FAMILIES THAT ARE PARTICIPATING IN THE RECREATION OF OUR OF OAK GROVE.

I'VE LIVED THERE FOR I LIVED THERE FOR MANY YEARS, AND I'VE ENJOYED THE LIVE MUSIC AND BOATING COMMUNITY AT THE MARINA, AND I WOULD LITERALLY WALK FROM MY HOME ON HUMMINGBIRD TO BIG DADDY'S, AND ADDING A LIQUOR LICENSE TO BIG DADDY'S JUST ADDS TREMENDOUS VALUE, ENJOYMENT, AND THE EXPERIENCE THAT WE'VE COME TO APPRECIATE AT BIG DADDY'S.

SO OTHER MARINA RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSES HAVE ADDED VALUE TO THOSE ESTABLISHMENTS, AND THIS ADDITION WILL INCREASE THE DESIRABILITY AND ENJOYMENT OF ONE OF GRAPEVINE'S MOST DESIRABLE RECREATIONAL AREAS.

SO THE KAUFMAN'S, OF COURSE, HAVE RICHLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE CULTURE AND HOSPITALITY THAT GRAPEVINE HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR THROUGH THEIR EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT WINE FUSION.

AND I BELIEVE THAT THEIR PROVEN LEADERSHIP IN HOSPITALITY ON MAIN STREET IS GOING TO GIVE THE COUNCIL CONFIDENCE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DELIVER AN EXCEPTIONAL HOSPITALITY EXPERIENCE FOR CUSTOMERS THAT GO OUT TO BIG DADDY'S.

SO HAVING A LIQUOR LICENSE WOULD BE A GREAT THING FOR CUSTOMERS ENJOYING LIVE MUSIC, SOME FOOD AND A DRINK.

AND THEN I REALLY APPRECIATE THE EFFORT TO CONTROL THE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION, WHICH, HAVING LIVED IN THAT OAK GROVE COMMUNITY, I WATCHED FIRSTHAND AND ACTUALLY PARTICIPATED IN THE TIP JAR AND AND THAT WHOLE BYOB THING.

AND I FEEL LIKE THEY'VE PUT A VERY RESPONSIBLE PROPOSAL IN PLACE.

AND I URGE YOU GUYS TO SUPPORT THAT.

SO AS A CUSTOMER, I THINK THE CURRENT BYOB SITUATION IS BOTH UNNECESSARY AND A FRUSTRATING HASSLE.

AND SO I JUST ENCOURAGE YOU GUYS TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE REQUESTED PERMIT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

NEXT. AARON MAXWELL 820 EAST LOOP ROAD NUMBER 1926.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS AARON MAXWELL AND I LIVE AT 820 EAST DOVE LOOP ROAD.

I'M HERE IN FAVOR OF BIG DADDY'S TO OBTAIN A LIQUOR LICENSE.

WHEN I'VE BEEN OUT OF BIG DADDY'S, YOU KNOW, I GO OUT AND LISTEN TO THE LIVE MUSIC.

AND SOMETIMES I'D HAVE TO TAKE A COOLER IF I WANTED TO HAVE A DRINK.

AND IT CAN BE A HASSLE HAVING TO BRING THAT OUT, YOU KNOW, THE ICE STARTS TO MELT, AND THEN IT COOLER GETS ALL WET.

AND, YOU KNOW, AFTER A WHILE IT JUST GETS GETS TO BE A HASSLE.

AND IT WOULD BE SO MUCH EASIER TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A MIXED DRINK THERE INSTEAD OF BEING HAVING TO BRING IT FROM HOME.

I ALSO KNOW THAT ROCKING EXPRESS SELLS ALCOHOL, SO I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN ISSUE WITH APPROVING BIG DADDY'S REQUEST.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THAT. THAT'S IT.

CHAIRMAN. READY.

THE COMMISSION CLOSED THE MOTION FROM THE COUNCIL, WHICH CLOSED.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED. PUBLIC HEARINGS CLOSED.

WE MIGHT WANT TO DO THAT, TOO.

I HAVEN'T VOTED YET.

MOTION MOVED. SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? WE'RE NOT USED TO 1030 AT NIGHT IN OUR MEETINGS.

[02:20:02]

OH, I THOUGHT YOU WERE CLOSED, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'M SORRY.

ALL RIGHT. PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION IS CLOSED.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN ON PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

OVERLAY 23 DASH FOR THE RESERVE AT BEAR CREEK.

AND A FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 5 OR 6, EIGHT R, 6 OR 1, 6 OR 2 AND SEVEN R RESERVE AT BEAR CREEK.

MONITOR. I MEAN, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO DEVIATE FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, FRONT YARD SETBACK, LOT WIDTH, MINIMUM LOT DEPTH, MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT AND TO ALLOW FRONT ENTRY GARAGES FOR LESS FOR LOTS LESS THAN 40FT IN WIDTH IN CONJUNCTION WITH A TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT.

THIS SUBDIVISION WAS REZONED IN 2018, INITIALLY TO THE RTA TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT, AND AT THAT TIME COUNCIL ALSO APPROVED A PLAN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY, APPROVED AS PART OF PD 1802 FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED DEVIATIONS.

CONSTRUCTION BEGAN ON PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, BUT THEY WERE NOT COMPLETED SINCE THAT TIME THAT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FROM 2018 HAS EXPIRED.

ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REQUESTS HAVE NOT CHANGED IN 2022.

THEY SOUGHT A NEW PLAN DEVELOPMENT REQUEST THAT WAS APPROVED AND AS PART OF THE DEVIATION PACKAGE.

THEY ALSO INCLUDED A REQUEST TO EXTEND MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT TO THREE STORIES 45FT.

AND AGAIN, THAT PLAN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY IN 2022 WAS APPROVED, WITH THE NEW ELEVATIONS INCREASING MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT TO THREE STORIES 38FT.

HOWEVER, THEY DIDN'T MOVE FORWARD, AND NOW THAT PLAN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY HAS ALSO EXPIRED AS PART OF THIS CURRENT OWNERSHIP GROUP.

THEY ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGES TO ANY OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY REQUESTS, BUT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO INCREASE THE TOTAL LOT COUNT FROM 69 LOTS TO 71 LOTS.

AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN THERE, TURNING WHAT WAS A COMMON AREA LOT THAT WOULD HAVE FEATURED IN PREVIOUS PLANS BEFORE YOU.

AN AMENITY CENTER AND POTENTIALLY A PLAY STRUCTURE FOR CHILDREN IS NOW PROPOSED TO BE TWO ADDITIONAL TOWNHOUSE LOTS.

OTHER THAN THAT, THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION.

THE OWNERSHIP GROUP'S ARCHITECT, MR. BENFORD, IS HERE THIS EVENING TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND PRESENT TO THE COMMISSION AND COUNCIL.

THANK YOU. NEVER CEASE TO BE AMAZED.

YEAH, HE'S IN THERE.

ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL.

SO, AS BRIEFLY STATED, THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED AND LOST THEIR APPROVAL BACK IN APRIL.

AND IN THAT TIME, THE OWNERS MADE STRIDES IN ACCOMPLISHING ALL THE CITY COMMENTS TO GET ALL THE TRAILS AND OTHER ITEMS THAT WERE PENDING TAKEN CARE OF.

THAT WAY WE CAN HOPEFULLY GET THIS APPROVAL AND ACTUALLY GET ON WITH CONSTRUCTION.

WITH THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL, WE APPLIED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT BECAUSE WE BELIEVED ALL OF THE ITEMS WOULD BE ADDRESSED AND ACTUALLY WORKED WITH THE CITY AND RECEIVED OUR BUILDING PERMIT PENDING PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS, WHICH THE MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC WORK ITEMS WAS ENCORES, STREETLIGHTS. THERE WAS A BACKLOG ON THAT AND A TRAIL ON THE NORTH EAST, SORRY, NORTHWEST CORNER THAT DID NOT MEET TEXDOT REQUIREMENTS.

THOSE ANY OTHER ITEMS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED OR CLOSE TO BEING CLEANED UP.

MR. CHAIRMAN. QUESTIONS.

ASSUMING APPROVAL. WHEN DO YOU PLAN TO START BUILDING? WE ARE STILL PENDING THE ENCORE ITEMS. THE TRAILS ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY AS OF OCTOBER 10TH, SO WE ARE PENDING APPROVAL ON THAT TO GET THAT UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

THE BUILDINGS HAVE NOT CHANGED, SO ONCE WE GET THE PUBLIC ITEMS IN PROCESS, WE'LL BE ABLE TO SUBMIT FOR BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW AGAIN.

THANK YOU. SINCE 2018, HOW MANY DIFFERENT OWNERSHIP GROUPS HAVE BEEN INVOLVED? I BELIEVE TWO.

WE WERE NOT INVOLVED WITH THE FIRST OWNERS.

WHEN THE SECOND OWNERS CAME ON BOARD, THEY BROUGHT US ON BOARD TO REWORK THE BUILDING.

THAT'S WHEN WE CAME UP WITH THE NEW ELEVATIONS AND REWORKED THE FLOOR PLANS.

AND THAT'S WHAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE PREVIOUS PNC MEETING.

I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO ASK.

THIS IS, IS THERE INTEREST IN ACTUALLY PURCHASING THESE TOWNHOMES?

[02:25:05]

OKAY. THANK YOU SIR.

ANY PLAN TO REPLACE THE AMENITY CENTER WITH THE ADDITION OF THE CITY OWNED AMENITY CENTER WITHIN A FEW MILES, THEY FELT THAT WHAT WAS BEING PROVIDED WAS SUBPAR, AND THAT THE RESIDENTS WOULD PREFER TO USE WHAT THE CITY HAS.

BECAUSE IT WAS A SMALL POOL AND A GAZEBO.

IT WASN'T ANYTHING ELABORATE.

IT WAS THE SIZE OF A LOT.

THERE WASN'T MUCH THERE TO BEGIN WITH.

THERE'S STILL THE 4.4 ACRES OF WALKING TRAILS THAT'S BEING DEDICATED TO THE CITY TO THE NORTH EAST OF IT, AND THAT PORTION HAS BEEN HAS FINISHED CONSTRUCTION.

WEREN'T YOU REQUIRED, THOUGH, TO PROVIDE SOME PARK LAND AS A PART OF THE ORIGINAL PROJECT? SORRY. SAY THAT AGAIN.

REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THAT PARKLAND AS A PART OF THE ORIGINAL PARKLAND PROJECT? YEAH, THEY'RE DOING IT. THE TWO LOTS OR THE FOUR POINT.

YOU MAKE IT BETTER. IF IT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH, YOU CAN EXPAND IT AND MAKE IT BETTER FOR THE OTHER.

TO ME, THAT'S JUST A QUESTION OF GREED THAT YOU WANT TO BUILD TWO MORE TOWNHOMES AND MAKE PROFIT OFF OF IT, TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO LIVE THERE.

DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME.

YOU MENTIONED AN AMENITY CENTER OWNED BY THE CITY.

WHERE IS WHERE IS THAT? WHAT'S THE NAME OF THAT? THE CITY REC CENTER.

OKAY. THE WRECKS.

THE REC. REC. YEAH.

I'M LOOKING AT YOUR LIST OF EIGHT VARIANCES THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING A DECREASE IN LOT SIZE, SIDE YARD BETWEEN BUILDINGS ADJACENT TO THE STREET FOR THE FRONT FACING GARAGE.

MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, MINIMUM LOT DEPTH, MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, FRONT ENTRY GARAGES.

AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT REMOVING AN AMENITY CENTER, A POOL AND A CABANA IS NOT A GOOD THING TO DO TO GAIN TWO LOTS. I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE WANTING TO GAIN THE TWO LOTS, BUT THE AMENITIES WERE PART OF THIS ORIGINAL APPROVED PROJECT AND YOU'VE HAD VARIANCES THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE RUN OF THE VARIOUS OWNERS.

I THINK IT'S NOT A GOOD THING TO DO.

I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT BECAUSE I THINK IT IS JUST WRONG.

I THINK IT NEEDS TO STAY THERE LIKE IT WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED, BECAUSE THAT WAS PART OF THE APPROVAL.

ANYBODY ELSE. OR DO WE HAVE ANY CORRESPONDENCE? NO, SIR. YES, SIR.

WE DO. I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS FOR THIS CASE, BUT FOR CLARENCE MULLIS.

THREE SIX. ONE TWO.

OH THERE IS. I'LL COME BACK TO YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. YOU ALL HAVE SOME MORE QUESTIONS.

CLARENCE. YEAH. SORRY, I DON'T KNOW.

ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO SPEAK? GOOD EVENING. WE'LL MAKE THIS REALLY FAST.

MY NAME IS CLARENCE MUELLER.

THREE 3612 LAKE RIDGE.

AND THE CREATIVE ASPECT OF.

THERE'S A LETTER DATED IN THE PACKET FROM JANUARY OF 2018 STATING THAT THE DEVELOPERS WERE GOING TO GIVE 200,000 TO THE CITY FROM ONE OF THE OWNERS AND 50,000 TO THE OTHER TO BUILD THE EXTENSION OF BEAR CREEK TRAIL, WHICH WE WOULD FULLY SUPPORT IF THEY'RE DOING IT.

BUT I COULDN'T EXACTLY TELL IF THAT'S STILL CONTINUED AS PART OF THIS.

BUT IF IT IS, I THINK IT'S A CREATIVE USE.

I CONFIRM WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY TODAY THAT IT IS OKAY, AND HE'S GOT THE RIGHT, AND HE CAN TELL HE CAN SHARE THAT, BUT HE'S HE'S GOT THAT TAKEN CARE OF.

BEAUTIFUL. THAT WAS MY CONCERN.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU HAD ANYTHING? NO. THREE.

Y'ALL DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? NO, SIR. ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE COUNCIL? MR. CHAIRMAN, I NEED A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. COUNCIL.

MOVE TO CLOSE. SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED.

MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM SEVEN. PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN ON TR.

MAYBE WE SHOULD. CAN WE TAKE, LIKE, FIVE MINUTES? MAYOR? I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE, LIKE, 5 OR 10 MINUTES JUST REAL QUICK.

ALL RIGHT, MR. CHAIRMAN, BECAUSE THIS THESE CASES ARE GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE WHILE AHEAD OF US.

IS THAT ALL RIGHT? ALL RIGHTY.

EVERYBODY'S PROBABLY GOT TO GO TO THE BATHROOM.

I GOT TO MAKE. HOW TO GET TO SEE US.

[02:30:01]

ALL RIGHT. GET OUT BY MIDNIGHT.

THE NIGHT IS YOUNG. ALL RIGHT. MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK WE'RE AT ITEM SEVEN.

IS THAT THE WAY YOU READ IT? ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT, EVERYBODY, COME TO ORDER AGAIN.

WE DECLARE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON TRANSIT DISTRICT OVERLAY OH 20 301, THE NASH AND BERRY TOWNHOMES.

AND THE FINAL PLAT OF LOTS ONE THROUGH 1920, X BLOCK TWO FOR NASH AND BERRY ADDITION.

ERICA MARONEY. YES, SIR.

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A TRANSIT DISTRICT OVERLAY TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 19 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED TOWNHOMES AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT ON AN APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF JEAN STREET, WEST SIDE OF BERRY STREET, NORTH OF EAST NASH STREET.

THE SITE IS PRESENTLY ZONED LOW LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE TRANSIT DISTRICT OVERLAY.

THERE ARE CURRENTLY FIVE NON-CONFORMING SEPARATE RESIDENTIAL LOTS, FOUR OF WHICH HAVE STRUCTURES, ONE OF WHICH IS VACANT WITH THIS.

THE REQUEST. WITH THIS REQUEST, THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO DEMOLISH THE FOUR STRUCTURES ALONG GENE, EAST NASH AND BERRY STREET TO THE SOUTH OF THE EXISTING MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. WITH THE 19 PROPOSED TOWNHOMES, THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IS PROPOSED AT 21.5 DWELLING UNITS IN ACRE.

THE TOWNHOMES ARE IDENTIFIED AS AN APPROPRIATE USE WITHIN THE HIGH INTENSITY SUB DISTRICT OF SECTION 41 BE FOUND WITHIN FIGURE THREE.

PREFERRED USE MATRIX OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

THESE 19 UNITS WILL BE LOCATED IN FOUR STRUCTURES FACING EAST NASH STREET, BERRY STREET, AND JEAN STREET, AND ONE BUILDING FACING NORTH TOWARDS THE EXISTING MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. ALL UNITS WILL BE ON FEE SIMPLE LOTS APART FROM THE OPEN SPACE LOT, WHICH WILL BE MANAGED BY A TO BE FORMED HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.

EACH UNIT WILL BE FOUR STORIES IN HEIGHT AND RANGE IN SIZE FROM 3100FT² TO 5100FT² OF LIVING SPACE, WHICH WILL INCLUDE INCLUDE GROUND FLOOR GARAGE AND FOURTH FLOOR ATTIC SPACE.

THE TOWNHOMES WILL FEATURE UP TO FIVE BEDROOMS AND FOUR AND A HALF BATHS, AND EACH UNIT WILL HAVE ITS OWN PRIVATE TWO CAR GARAGE, AND SOME OF THEM WILL BE IN A TANDEM PARKING CONFIGURATION FOR 11 OF THE 19 UNITS.

AS MENTIONED, THERE'S AN INTERNAL COURTYARD THAT'S PROPOSED TO BE ACCESSED FROM JEAN STREET TO NURTURE, ACCOMMODATE AND ENHANCE PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT.

AND ALSO SHARED ACCESS EASEMENTS ALLOWED FOR VEHICULAR CIRCULATION, INCLUDING INDIVIDUAL SOLID AND RECYCLING WASTE PICKUP.

THERE ARE SEVERAL UNIQUE FEATURES THAT ARE USED TO ACHIEVE THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE THAT ARE OUTLINED IN YOUR BACKUP MATERIALS AS PART OF YOUR AGENDA MEMO.

ALSO ATTACHED AS AN EXHIBIT TO THIS AGENDA MEMORANDUM IS AN AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE SIGNED BY THE PROJECT ARCHITECT, STATING THE PROJECT FOLLOWS THE TRANSIT DISTRICT OVERLAY DESIGN STANDARDS.

THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.

THE APPLICANT AND DEVELOPER, MR. RICHARD GIBSON OF JEAN AND NASH LLC, IS HERE THIS EVENING TO PRESENT HIS REQUEST AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS EITHER THE COMMISSION OR COUNCIL MAY HAVE.

MAYOR TATE, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

CHAIRMAN OLIVER AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

I COMMEND YOU ON THE MARATHON OF TONIGHT AND HOPE YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE IN YOU.

MY NAME IS RICHARD GIBERSON.

I LIVE AT 3828 KELSEY COURT HERE IN GRAPEVINE, AND I REPRESENT THE OWNER AND DEVELOPER TEAM, WHICH IS TWO LOCAL FAMILIES, RHONDA AND WARD HEYWORTH AND RICHARD AND LINDA GIBERSON.

BOTH THE HAYWORTH'S AND THE GIBSONS HAVE LIVED IN GRAPEVINE FOR OVER 21 YEARS.

WE LOVE GRAPEVINE.

WE'RE HAPPY TO BE INVESTED IN GRAPEVINE.

WE'RE PLEASED TO PRESENT TONIGHT THE.

THE NATIONAL BERRY TOWNHOME PROJECT FOR YOUR APPROVAL.

I'LL GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AND DESCRIBE OUR VISION FOR THE SITE.

AND THEN I'LL SHARE A BUILDING ELEVATION AS WELL AS A SAMPLE FLOOR PLAN.

WE HOPE YOU'LL BE AS EXCITED ABOUT THE NATIONAL BERRY TOWNHOMES PROJECT AS WE ARE.

THE LOCATION, AS WAS NOTED, IS JUST NORTH OF THE REC SOCCER FIELD AND SOUTH OF THE EMILY GRAPEVINE APARTMENTS.

BORDERED BY DEAN AND NASH AND BERRY STREETS, IT HAS READY ACCESS TO THE WALK AND BIKE TRAILS, AND IT'S JUST A FIVE MINUTE WALK TO GRAPEVINE MAIN.

THE SITE OCCUPIES AN INTERESTING EDGE OF THE TRANSIT DISTRICT, SO WE'RE IN THE HIGH INTENSITY SUB DISTRICT, VERY CLOSE TO THE DOWNTOWN AMENITIES AND THE TRAIN STATION.

BUT WE'RE ALSO ON AN OUTER EDGE WHERE THERE'S UNDEVELOPED SPACE OR OPEN SPACE TO OUR SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST.

[02:35:02]

OUR VISION IS TO CREATE A VIBRANT CITY BLOCK OF HIGH QUALITY TOWNHOMES ON WHAT WE BELIEVE IS THE BEST RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT SITE IN OUR WALKABLE DOWNTOWN.

THE TOWNHOMES FACE OUT TO ACTIVELY ENGAGE WITH THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.

SIDEWALKS WITH STREET TREES AND BENCHES CREATE A COMFORTABLE AND INTERESTING WALK TO CONNECT THE REC WITH THE DALLAS DALLAS ROAD AND THE DEVELOPMENTS ON DALLAS ROAD.

THE ARCHITECTURE AND THE THOUGHTFUL DESIGN ARE SQUARELY ALIGNED WITH THE PREMISES AND THE IDEALS OF THE TRANSIT DISTRICT OVERLAY.

THE HOMES WILL PROVIDE A NEW, HIGH QUALITY, FOR SALE HOUSING ALTERNATIVE IN OUR HIGH DEMAND, WALKABLE GRAPEVINE.

THAT'S OUR VISION FOR THE PROJECT.

OUR ASPIRATION IS TO SET A NEW BENCHMARK FOR QUALITY FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN DOWNTOWN GRAPEVINE.

HERE'S A SITE PLAN.

WE HAVE 19 TOWNHOMES IN FOUR BLOCKS THAT ARE ARRANGED IN A PINWHEEL PATTERN AROUND THAT COMMON COURTYARD.

THE INTERIOR COURTYARD GIVES VEHICLE ACCESS TO GARAGES AND DRIVES, BUT ALSO, MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT'S ANOTHER OUTDOOR LANDSCAPE SPACE FOR NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS TO MEET AND GATHER. WE REALLY THINK THAT INTERIOR COURTYARD IS IMPORTANT FOR CREATING THAT VIBRANT CITY BLOCK.

AS PART OF OUR GOAL.

FOR OUR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN.

WE FIRST STUDIED THE CLASSIC URBAN TOWNHOMES, MOST OF WHICH WERE BUILT IN THE LATE 1800S OR EARLY 1900S.

WE WANTED TO CAPTURE SOME OF THE KEY ELEMENTS FROM THOSE CLASSIC HISTORICAL HOMES, BUT WE DIDN'T FEEL CONSTRAINED IN ANY PARTICULAR OR SPECIFIC STYLE.

INSTEAD, WE WANTED TO DESIGN SOMETHING THAT FIT WITH GRAPEVINE AND FELT TRUE TO GRAPEVINE AND FIT WITH THE SITE.

WE TOOK INSPIRATION FROM GRAPEVINE MAINE AND THE HOTEL VIGNE, FRANKLY, ESPECIALLY THE CRAFTSMANSHIP IN THE DETAILED BRICKWORK AND TILE WORK THAT YOU SEE THERE.

WE WANTED TO CAPTURE SOME OF THAT SAME CHARACTER.

THE TRANSIT DISTRICT IS HAS AN EMERGING CHARACTER IN DESIGN.

WE THINK THAT'S LED BY THE HOTEL VAN, AND IT'S COMPLEMENTARY TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

BUT IT DOESN'T TRY TO IMITATE THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

AND WE WANTED TO CAPTURE THAT SAME FEEL WITH OUR BUILDINGS.

WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN IS A RENDERING OF OUR FRONT ELEVATION FOR OUR BLOCK D, WHICH FACES ONTO JEAN STREET.

THERE'S THREE OF THE SMALLER TOWNHOMES ON THE LEFT, TWO OF THE LARGER ONES ON THE RIGHT.

I'LL JUST POINT OUT A COUPLE OF FEATURES.

THE GROUND FLOOR HAS A DISCREET DOOR, SMALLER WINDOWS, YOU SEE.

IT'S MOSTLY COVERED BY THE LANDSCAPING IN THIS PARTICULAR RENDERING, BUT IT CREATES A FRIENDLY CONNECTION TO THE SIDEWALK, BUT STILL PROVIDING SOME PRIVACY.

MEANWHILE, YOU HAVE THIS STEPS GOING UP TO THE MAIN FLOOR AND THE FRONT ENTRY ON THE FIRST FLOOR ABOVE THAT.

THE. THE DISTINCTIVE BAY WINDOWS PROVIDE A NICE VANTAGE POINT TO VIEW THE SIDEWALK AND STREET BELOW.

THE LARGE WINDOWS YOU SEE LET IN AMPLE LIGHT, WHILE THE HEIGHT ABOVE THE STREET LEVELS HELPS TO PROVIDE PRIVACY.

UP ON TOP IS THE HALF FLOOR OR THE INHABITED ATTIC, AS WE LIKE TO CALL IT.

IT HAS SLOPING METAL ROOFS THAT ARE SET BACK FROM THE PARAPET WALLS.

SO FROM THE SIDEWALK RIGHT BELOW, YOU DON'T EVEN SEE THAT.

IT LOOKS LIKE JUST A THREE STORY.

THAT HALF STORY ON TOP IS SET BACK A LITTLE BIT.

THE UP THERE ALSO ARE SOME MODEST ROOFTOP TERRACES.

ENOUGH ROOM FOR POTTED PLANTS AND A COUPLE OF CHAIRS TO ENJOY THE VIEWS AND THE FRESH AIR.

BLOCK C, WHICH FACES ONTO ONTO NASH STREET, LOOKS VERY SIMILAR TO BLOCK D.

BLOCK A AND BLOCK B LOOK A LITTLE DIFFERENT.

THEY HAVE DIFFERENT FACING DIRECTIONS AND DIFFERENT SIZES OF HOMES, BUT HAVE THE SAME GENERAL FEEL AND CHARACTER.

THERE'S A VARIETY OF HOME SIZES AND LAYOUTS, BUT THERE'S A COHESIVE FEEL AND UNITY TO THE SITE, SO WE INCORPORATE CLASSICAL TOWNHOME ATTRIBUTES IN A WAY THAT FITS GRAPEVINE HISTORICAL CHARACTER AND ITS FORWARD VISION FOR THE TRANSIT DISTRICT.

WE CREATE HOMES THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, USABLE, FUNCTIONAL, NEW, BUT REALLY FEEL FAMILIAR AND COMFORTABLE.

JUST TO WRAP UP, TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT A LITTLE BIT ABOUT PRACTICALITIES.

HERE'S A SAMPLE FLOOR PLAN FROM ONE OF THE LARGER HOMES.

THE GROUND FLOOR HAS A GARAGE, A MUDROOM AND KITCHENETTE, A BEDROOM, BATHROOM, LAUNDRY ROOM, AND AN ELEVATOR.

THIS GROUND FLOOR BEDROOM SUITE COULD BE PERFECT FOR AN ADULT CHILD OR AN AGING PARENT THAT'S LIVING WITH THE FAMILY.

JUST ABOVE THAT IS THE MAIN LIVING FLOOR WITH ENTRY, DINING KITCHEN LIVING AREAS INCLUDING A SCREENED BACK PORCH.

THE NEXT FLOOR UP HAS ANOTHER LIVING AREA AND THE PRIMARY BEDROOM SUITE, AND THEN THE TOP HALF FLOOR IN THIS HOME HAS TWO

[02:40:02]

IN ALL, THIS 3200 SQUARE FOOT HOME HAS FOUR BEDROOMS, THREE AND A HALF BATHS AND AMPLE LIVING SPACE, BOTH INDOOR AND OUT.

OTHER HOMES ON THE SITE RANGE FROM 2300 TO 3400FT².

THOSE ARE MY PREPARED COMMENTS.

THANKS FOR ALL THE TEAM I'VE NOTED NAMES OF.

OF THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH US ON THIS PROJECT.

SOME OF THEM ARE HERE.

SOME OF THEM MAY BE HAD TO RETIRE EARLIER IN THE EVENING AND ARE NOT HERE.

IT'S BEEN AN HONOR TO PRESENT TO YOU THIS EVENING THE NATIONAL BARRY TOWNHOMES PROJECT FOR YOUR APPROVAL.

WE ARE GLAD TO BE PART OF THE THOUGHTFUL REDEVELOPMENT OF THE TRANSIT DISTRICT AND LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR SUPPORT.

THANK YOU. QUESTION QUESTIONS.

IT LOOKS FROM THE RENDERING THAT THE BRICK IS GOING TO BE GRAY LIKE THE COLOR OF THE STONE.

SO WE HAVEN'T DECIDED ON THE FINAL BRICK.

WHAT'S REALLY INTENDED, OR WHAT WE MOSTLY HAVE TALKED ABOUT, IS MORE OF A BUFF OR SANDY COLOR, OR MAYBE EVEN A LIGHT ROSE.

WE WILL NOT USE A DARK RED, BECAUSE WE WANT TO CLEARLY DISTINGUISH OURSELVES FROM THE APARTMENT COMPLEX TO OUR NORTH.

THAT'S MOSTLY A DARK RED BRICK.

SO WE'VE LOOKED AT MORE OF THE SAND OR OR A LIGHT ROSE COLOR, AND THEN IS IT ALL GOING TO BE ONE UNIFORM BRICK OR SO BY TOWNHOME OR BY BUILDING.

SO WE'LL CONTROL THE BRICK COLOR.

SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING WHERE THE BUYER CAN SAY WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

WE'LL CONTROL ALL THE EXTERNAL PERSPECTIVE.

SO AT LEAST EACH INDIVIDUAL BLOCK WILL BE A UNIFORM BRICK COLOR.

WE MAY USE THE SAME UNIFORM BRICK COLOR FOR ALL FOUR BLOCKS.

OR THERE MAY BE SOME VARIATION FROM BLOCK TO BLOCK, BUT A GIVEN BLOCK WILL BE A SINGLE BRICK COLOR.

THANK YOU. ONE OF THE THINGS I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT ON THIS ONE IS THE DENSITY ON THIS.

19 UNITS FOR THE ACRE.

DO Y'ALL CONSIDER ANYTHING LESS THAN THAT? WELL, WE LOOKED AT A LOT OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS IN THE EARLY GOING.

AND. CERTAINLY IF YOU IF YOU CONSIDER THE TYPICAL SUBURBAN RULES FOR, FOR DEVELOPMENT OR DENSITIES, THIS DOESN'T FIT THOSE REGULAR RULES, RIGHT.

THIS IS DONE UNDER THE TRANSIT DISTRICT WHICH HAS A DIFFERENT OBJECTIVE.

RIGHT? RATHER THAN SPREAD THINGS OUT, WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE A COMPACT, WALKABLE PORTION OF OUR CITY.

AND SO WE REALLY WANT TO CREATE AND FOLLOW THAT OBJECTIVE OF THE TRANSIT DISTRICT.

AND SO THAT ALIGNED WELL WITH WITH OUR OBJECTIVES IN ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE WERE ABLE TO FIT AS MUCH AS WE CAN ON THE SITE IS BECAUSE WE HAVE A UNIQUE ROADS ON THREE SIDES, RIGHT? THE STREETS ARE ON THREE SIDES.

AND THAT OPENS UP OPPORTUNITIES THAT IF WE ONLY HAD STREET FRONTAGE ON 1 OR 2 SIDES, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO IT.

I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY I APPRECIATE A THOROUGH AND PROFESSIONAL MAN.

CAN YOU SPEAK IN THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE? WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU FOR A THOROUGH AND PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATION.

THANKS, BEN. WHAT QUESTION? THE DENSITY IS A LITTLE.

MATTER OF FACT, IT'S HIGHER THAN WHAT WE ALLOW IN OUR MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT.

BY ONE AND A HALF UNITS PER ACRE, SO IT IS PRETTY DENSE COMPARED TO ANYTHING ELSE WE HAVE FOR THAT MATTER, IN SPITE OF THAT.

BUT I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT VEHICULAR PARKING AND IF THEY HAVE VISITORS AND SO FORTH LIKE THAT, IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME THEY'RE ALL GOING TO HAVE TO PARK ON THE STREET NOW.

SO FIRST, WITH REGARD TO DENSITY, THE THE APARTMENT COMPLEX JUST NORTH OF US HAS ABOUT 40, I THINK, ABOUT 49 UNITS, AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.

I AGREE. RIGHT. SO OBVIOUSLY WE'RE NOTHING CLOSE TO THAT OR NOTHING CLOSE TO 49.

I THINK THE OTHER THE OTHER PROJECT THAT WAS APPROVED LAST YEAR, I THINK IT WORKS OUT TO BE ABOUT ABOUT 14 PER ACRE RELATIVE TO OUR 19 PER ACRE. SO THAT GIVES A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT.

I THINK IN TERMS OF THE PARKING, I DO HAVE AN EXHIBIT THAT MIGHT HELP WITH THIS.

ALL RIGHT. SO UNDER THE CITY REQUIREMENTS WE NEED TO PROVIDE TWO OFF STREET PARKING FOR EACH HOME.

SO THAT'S THE 38 REQUIREMENT OF THE CITY.

SO WE'RE PROVIDING 55 OFFICIAL PARKING SPOTS.

SO THEY'RE NOTED HERE ON THE EXHIBIT.

THE BLUE ONES THE BLUE BOXES REPRESENT GARAGE PARKING SPOTS.

SO EVERY HOME HAS AT LEAST A TWO CAR GARAGE.

SOME HAVE THREE.

THERE'S ONE THAT HAS FOUR.

SO THOSE ARE THE COVERED PARKING SPOTS.

[02:45:02]

AND THEN WE HAVE 13 OTHER OUTDOOR SPACES THAT ARE THAT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AS A PARKING SPOT.

SO MOST OF THOSE ARE THOSE ARE ALL NOTED IN KIND OF THE ORANGE HERE.

THAT'S ASSUMING THAT THE OTHER TENANTS ARE PULLING INSIDE THEIR GARAGE.

WELL, TRUE TO USE TO USE YOUR DRIVEWAY, YOU WOULD NEED TO PARK YOUR CAR IN THE GARAGE.

I WILL POINT OUT THAT OUR RESIDENTS DON'T NEED TO KEEP ALL THEIR LAWN EQUIPMENT WHEN THEY DOWNSIZE TO THE TOWNHOME, BECAUSE THAT WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF FOR THEM.

THERE'S AMPLE ROOM IN THE IN THE GARAGES, NOT JUST FOR THE CARS.

THERE'S TYPICALLY MUCH MORE ROOM FOR STORAGE.

SO WE WOULD CERTAINLY EXPECT TENANTS IN GENERAL OR LANDOWNERS IN GENERAL, HOMEOWNERS TO PARK IN THEIR GARAGES.

THERE ARE TWO OF THESE SPOTS THAT ARE DESIGNATED AS SPECIFICALLY FOR VISITORS THAT ARE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH SOMEBODY'S DRIVEWAY, THAT ARE NEAR THE COURTYARD, AND THESE IN BLOCK B, SORRY.

GO AHEAD. NO, I'LL WAIT, I'LL WAIT.

I'LL LET P Z FINISH. I'M SORRY.

NOW. AND THESE ARE JUST THE ONES THAT MEET THE OFFICIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

I MEAN, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, SOME OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE A DRIVEWAY THAT'S JUST NOT QUITE ABLE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT FOR TO BE COUNTED AS A PARKING.

SO THOSE ARE NOT COUNTED HERE.

BUT IF YOU WANTED TO TALK ABOUT, WELL, DROP OFF AND PICK UP OR A VERY TEMPORARY USE, THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER SPACES.

I MEAN, THERE'S THE HERE'S THE MAP THAT SHOWS THAT, RIGHT.

SO THERE'S ANOTHER 15 SPOTS THAT COULD BE USED ON A TEMPORARY PICK UP DROP OFF PERSPECTIVE.

YOU KNOW THE QUESTIONS HERE.

ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL.

I HAVE A CONCERN WITH THE DENSITY AS WELL.

I THINK YOU'RE PACKING A LOT IN HERE, AND ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT IT'S ON THE PERIPHERY OF THE DISTRICT.

YOU KNOW, LIKE YOU SAID, YOU'VE GOT OPEN SPACE TO THE SOUTH SOUTHEAST, AND I THINK YOU'VE GOT JUST WAY TOO MUCH PACKED ON HERE.

AND ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE CARS WOULD PARK, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT JUST EXACERBATES OR HIGHLIGHTS HOW, HOW PACKED THIS IS.

IT BECOMES A CONCRETE JUNGLE THERE.

AND I THINK ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE RELYING ON UTILIZING TANDEM TYPE PARKING STYLES IN THE GARAGES, I JUST DON'T THINK I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO NECESSARILY DO THAT, BECAUSE THAT CREATES AN INCONVENIENCE FOR THEM HAVING TO COORDINATE COMING AND GOING IF THERE'S TWO CARS, THAT KIND OF STUFF.

SO I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE RELYING ON OTHER PARKING ALTERNATIVES.

AND THAT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, IT'S WHAT YOU'VE MADE.

IT'S KIND OF WHAT YOU'VE FORCED INTO THIS WITH DOING THIS MANY UNITS.

WHEREAS IF YOU DID A SMALLER NUMBER OF UNITS, YOU'D HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY AND SOME SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE PARKING AND, AND HAVE THE, THE COMING AND GOING WITHOUT HAVING SO MUCH CONCRETE HERE AND PEOPLE KIND OF ALMOST RELYING ON OTHER PEOPLE'S DRIVEWAYS TO FIT THEIR CARS.

SO AGAIN, WE FEEL THAT THIS IS THIS, THESE ARE BUILDINGS AND HOMES THAT WILL ATTRACT PEOPLE THAT WANT TO LIVE IN DOWNTOWN GRAPEVINE. AND WHY DO THEY WANT TO LIVE IN DOWNTOWN GRAPEVINE? SO THEY CAN WALK TO THE RESTAURANTS SO THEY CAN WALK TO STEHLINI SO THEY CAN WALK TO HOFFENSTEIN.

AND WE DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT.

WE'RE NOT DISAGREEING WITH THAT.

IT'S JUST THE AMOUNT OF UNITS YOU'RE PUTTING ON HERE.

THE PROBLEM IS, IF I LIVED IN LOT THREE, 4 OR 5, NOBODY COULD COME SEE ME.

NOT THAT I HAVE FRIENDS TO BEGIN WITH, BUT THERE'S THERE'S NO PLACE FOR THEM TO PARK.

ALL RIGHT. AGAIN, THERE'S NUMBER ONE.

THERE'S THERE ARE VISITOR PARKING SPOTS THAT ARE DESIGNATED SPECIFICALLY FOR VISITORS.

RIGHT. WHERE DO YOU.

THAT'S NOT REAL. AND WHERE DO YOU PUT THE TRASH CANS? HOW DOES THE TRASH GET PICKED UP? IT'S ONLY 20 FOOT WIDE STREET THAT YOU'RE PUTTING IN.

THEY'RE PUTTING IN A PRIVATE 20 FOOT YARD.

20 FOOT STREET.

AND YOU'VE GOT MULTIPLE UNITS THAT OPEN ON BARRIER GENES.

SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE THE TRASH CANS WOULD HAVE TO GO OUT IN FRONT OF THEIR PROPERTY.

RIGHT. SO HERE HERE'S I PUT UP ON THE SCREEN.

HOPEFULLY YOU CAN SEE THIS IS THE GARBAGE PLAN THAT WAS WORKED UP WITH WITH REPUBLIC.

RIGHT. SO THE GARBAGE NEEDS TO BE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE TRUCK FOR RECYCLING TODAY.

AND THEY'RE ANTICIPATING IN THE FUTURE THAT THEIR GARBAGE PICKUP MAY ALSO BE ONLY ON THE RIGHT SIDE WITH AUTOMATED EQUIPMENT.

SO ALL OF THE GARBAGE PICKUP NEEDS TO BE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE TRUCK.

SO FOR BLOCK A, YOU SEE THERE'S JUST ON THE TOP OF BLOCK D, THERE'S A SET OF THAT ORANGE BAR THAT'S THE SPACE FOR THEIR GARBAGE AND RECYCLING BINS TO GO ON PICKUP DAYS FOR BLOCK A, THE TRUCK ENTERS FROM GENE.

THE TRUE PATH HERE IS A ONE WAY PATH.

SO VEHICLES ENTER FROM GENE.

THEY WILL EXIT ONTO BERRY.

SO THE TRUCK IS GOING IN THERE.

IT'LL PICK UP FOR BLOCK A AND THAT FIRST BANK NORTH OF BLOCK D.

THEN IT TURNS AND COMES DOWN AND PICKS UP BEHIND THE DRIVEWAYS ON BLOCK D.

IT BACKS UP AND THEN IT CONTINUES OUT TO PICK UP ON BLOCK C.

[02:50:04]

AND THOSE WOULD BE PICKED UP AS NORMAL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS ARE.

SO WE DID REVIEW THIS WITH REPUBLIC AND AND PUBLIC WORKS STAFF HAD US DO MODELS TO SHOW THAT THE TRUCK WOULD GET THROUGH THERE.

AND SO WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THAT EXERCISE WITH WITH PUBLIC WORKS.

I DO WANT TO SAY THAT FIRST PLACE, YOU DO A REALLY GOOD JOB AT PRESENTATION.

SO I APPRECIATE THAT AND I LIKE THE LOOK OF THEM.

I REALLY LIKE THE APPEARANCE OF WHAT YOU PRESENTED.

I JUST THINK THERE'S TOO MANY UNITS.

THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.

I JUST THINK YOU'RE FILLING TOO MUCH IN THAT ON THAT SPOT.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

DO YOU HAVE YOU DONE ANOTHER PROJECT ANYWHERE ALREADY SO WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THE WORK YOU'VE DONE? OR SO WE ARE ROOKIE DEVELOPERS, BUT WE HIRED A LOT OF PROFESSIONALS TO HELP US.

RIGHT. BUT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER ANY OTHER POINT YOU TO ANOTHER PROJECT THAT WE DID.

AND THE OTHER QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE BREAKDOWN.

THESE ARE DIFFERENT SIZES.

SO WHAT'S THE BREAKDOWN.

WHAT'S THE SMALLEST TO THE LARGEST.

HOW MANY. SO THERE ARE SIX OF THE HOMES ARE THE SMALLER ONES WHICH WOULD START AROUND ABOUT 2300FT² OKAY.

RIGHT. SO THOSE THREE THREE OF THOSE ARE IN BLOCK D.

THREE OF THOSE ARE IN BLOCK C.

AND THEN IT GOES UP FROM THERE.

MOST OF THEM ARE ARE CLOSER TO THAT 2800 TO 3000FT² TO 3200.

THE LARGEST ONES ARE THE THE FOUR ON BLOCK B THAT ARE CLOSER TO 33, 3400FT².

AND THOSE ARE FOUR BEDROOMS. RIGHT. SOME OF THOSE ARE THOSE ARE FIVE BEDROOMS. SO THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE THREE BEDROOM HOMES AND THEN UP TO FIVE BEDROOMS. OKAY. SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

SO I MEAN THAT SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY GOOD SIZE PLACE TO LIVE, RIGHT? I MEAN, COMPARED TO WHAT WE HAVE IN THE COMMUNITY NOW, IS THERE A PATIO ON THE TOP FLOOR AND EVEN HAVE THAT.

SO LET ME SO THE OUR ARCHITECT WANTED TO BRING HIS MODEL.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IF HOW VISIBLE THAT IS OR IF WE WANT TO IF WE CAN PUT THE SCREEN DOWN IF THAT HELPS.

ALL OF THE ALL OF THE HOMES HAVE SOME OUTDOOR TERRACE SPACE OR PATIO SPACE, TYPICALLY IN THE REAR FACING ONTO THE COURTYARD.

THEY ALSO HAVE A SMALL ROOFTOP SPACES, RIGHT.

SO UNLIKE SOME OTHER.

SOME OTHER TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENTS WILL DO LIKE A LARGE ROOFTOP DECK SPACE.

AND OUR ANALYSIS SUGGESTED THAT WHEN THE WHEN THAT OUTDOOR SPACE IS FAR REMOVED FROM WHERE YOU LIVE DAY TO DAY, IT TENDS TO GET NOT USED VERY OFTEN. WE WANTED TO PUT MORE OF OUR OUTDOOR SPACE RIGHT NEXT TO OUR LIVING SPACES, WHERE PEOPLE WERE ALREADY SPENDING TIME, RIGHT? SO. SO ALL OF THEM HAVE SOME OUTDOOR TERRACE SPACE, SOME OF THE CORNER ONES, SOME OF THESE LARGER CORNER ONES HAVE MULTIPLE LAYERS OR MULTIPLE LEVELS WHERE THEY HAVE A TERRACE OR A COVERED PATIO OR SCREENED PATIO.

YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THE DENSITY PART, BUT WITH THESE, THESE ARE PRETTY GOOD SIZE.

I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT LIKE, I KNOW IT SEEMS THAT THEY'RE CRAMMED IN, BUT THEY'RE PRETTY GOOD SIZED UNITS, RIGHT? YES. THESE ARE NOT SMALL HOMES.

WHAT WHAT IS THE PRICE RANGE? WELL, WE HAVEN'T SET FORMAL PRICING, BUT AND I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE OF THE OVERALL ESCALATION IN COSTS OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, BUT EVEN THE SMALLER ONES ARE LIKELY RIGHT AROUND $1 MILLION.

RIGHT. AND GOES UP FROM THERE.

I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT THE DENSITY, BUT I DON'T.

I THINK THESE THINGS WOULD NOT LAST VERY LONG ON THE MARKET.

MOST OF THE RAILROAD DISTRICTS DESIGNED FOR HIGH DENSITY FAMILIES RIDING THE TRAIN TO WORK.

THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE GRAPEVINE.

PEOPLE ARE NOT RIDING THE TRAIN TO WORK.

WE CREATED THE RAILROAD DISTRICT PRIMARILY FOR RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL, GENERATE SALES TAX TO SUPPORT OUR COMMUNITY, BECAUSE ABOUT 65% OF IT'S NOT ON THE TAX ROLL.

AND THAT'S THE ONLY WAY WE CAN PROVIDE CITY SERVICES.

I DON'T WANT TO SET A PRECEDENT OF THIS TYPE OF DENSITY.

AND. EVERYBODY WANTS TO BUILD MULTIFAMILY IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, I MEAN, IN THE RAILROAD DISTRICT.

AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT.

IT'S, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, YOU JUST.

IT'S JUST. IT'S TOO FAR OFF THE RAILROAD AND IT JUST SETS THE PRECEDENCE.

TOO DENSE, DOESN'T PROVIDE ENOUGH PARKING.

IT'S JUST ANOTHER SITUATION WHERE THE PRICE OF THE LAND IS DICTATED, THE DENSITY.

AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE DO.

THE WHAT WE DO, WE DON'T LET THAT HAPPEN.

WE STAY WITH OUR RULES.

WE'RE FOLLOWING WITHIN THE RULES OF THE TRANSIT DISTRICT.

[02:55:01]

AND I TOTALLY AGREE THAT WE NEED MORE BUSINESSES AND SERVICES IN OUR DOWNTOWN AREA.

AND FRANKLY, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO COME UNTIL THE PEOPLE ARE THERE.

AND THIS IS NOT MULTIFAMILY, THIS IS INDIVIDUAL LOTS, SINGLE, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

IT'S AN APARTMENT JUST RUN BY PEOPLE.

THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.

YOU'RE CALLING IT A TOWNHOME BECAUSE YOU'RE SELLING THEM.

IT'S AN APARTMENT.

WELL, YOU OWN THE LAND JUST LIKE YOU DO ANY OTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

THEIR FIREWALLS. I KNOW THAT USED TO BE THERE.

YEAH. THERE ARE SPECIAL RULES AROUND THE.

YES, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE DON'T WANT IN THE RAILROAD DISTRICT, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK? YES, SIR, I HAVE ONE.

CLARENCE MUELLER, 3612 LAKE RIDGE.

HELLO AGAIN. THIS IS CLARENCE MUELLER AT 3612 LAKE RIDGE.

AND AS WE LOOK AT THESE TRANSIT DISTRICT CASES, WE CONTINUE TO COME ACROSS THE SAME THING.

AND THEY TALK ABOUT WALKABILITY AND THAT KIND OF THING.

AND THEN THE FIRST REQUEST THEY WANT TO DO IS NARROW THE SIDEWALKS, WHICH THEY'VE ASKED FOR HERE, AND SAYING THAT'S IN SPIRIT OF THE TRANSIT DISTRICT.

IN FACT, IT'S ANTITHETICAL TO THE OVERLAY.

AND SO FOR THAT, WE OPPOSE IT.

AND I DO REALLY APPRECIATE THE COUNCIL AND STAFF PUTTING OUT A THOUGHTFUL OVERLAY AND PROTECTING IT.

BY THE WAY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE DITTO ON THE NEXT CASE BECAUSE WE'VE DONE IT AGAIN.

BUT I HATE TO SEE EVERY TIME WE PUT OUT SOMETHING WHERE WE SAY WE'RE GOING TO PUT IN THINGS THAT ARE WALKABLE, THEN THE FIRST THING WE DO TO SQUEEZE IN ONE MORE UNIT IS SQUEEZE DOWN THE THE WALKING PATHS.

SO THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY CORRESPONDENCE? THERE IS ONE LETTER.

I'M SORRY, TWO LETTERS OF SUPPORT.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. WE NEED A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CLOSE SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED THE MOTION FROM THE COUNCIL.

MOVE TO CLOSE SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED.

PUBLIC HEARINGS CLOSED.

PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN ON TRANSIT DISTRICT OVERLAY TO THE 0 TO 3 ZERO TO GRAPEVINE BROWNSTONES.

PHASE TWO. IN THE FINAL PLAT OF LAW TO BLOCK ONE OF THE HASTINGS EDITION.

ERICA MARONEY. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A TRANSIT DISTRICT OVERLAY TO ALLOW FOR A CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT OF 20 UNITS ON A 1.24 ACRE LOT.

THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST ALICE ROAD AND NORTH OF EAST NASH STREET.

THE PROPERTY IS PRESENTLY ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE TRANSIT DISTRICT OVERLAY.

THIS IS THE PROPOSED SECOND PHASE OF THE GRAPEVINE BROWNSTONES PHASE ONE DEVELOPMENT TO THE IMMEDIATE WEST, WHICH WAS APPROVED LAST YEAR IN 2022 FOR TEN UNITS AT 14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

WITH THIS REQUEST, THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING 3000 SQUARE FOOT CONSTRUCTION OFFICE BUILDING, WHICH IS KNOWN AS JOHNSON EXCAVATION, AND THE REMAINING SITE IS TO DEVELOP AS 20 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WILL ESTHETICALLY APPEAR AS FOUR STORY BROWNSTONES AT 16.12 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THE CONDOMINIUMS ARE IDENTIFIED AS AN APPROPRIATE USE WITHIN THE HIGH INTENSITY SUB DISTRICT PER SECTION 41 B PREFERRED USE MATRIX OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. WITH THIS REQUEST, THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO DEMOLISH.

EXCUSE ME. ALL UNITS WILL APPEAR AS BROWNSTONES, BUT THEY WILL NOT BE ON FEE.

SIMPLE LOTS. THIS WILL BE ON ONE LOT CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP.

EACH UNIT WILL BE FOUR STORIES IN HEIGHT, APPROXIMATELY 51FT, WITH THREE STORIES UNDER AIR.

WITH A FOURTH STORY IS A ROOFTOP TERRACE CONSISTENT WITH PHASE ONE TO THE IMMEDIATE WEST, AND WILL FEATURE AT LEAST THREE BEDROOMS. EACH UNIT WILL HAVE ITS OWN PRIVATE TWO CAR GARAGE.

THE SITE WILL HAVE TWO ACCESS POINTS, ONE DIRECTLY FROM EAST DALLAS ROAD AND ONE FROM EAST NASH STREET, AND AN INTERNAL ACCESS POINT TO THE NORTH FROM PHASE ONE.

ATTACHED TO THIS EXHIBIT IS AN AGENDA MEMO, WHICH IS AN AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE SIGNED BY THE PROJECT ARCHITECT, STATING THE PROJECT FOLLOWS BOTH A DESIGN MANUAL FOR MULTIFAMILY AND VERTICAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, AS WELL AS THE DESIGN STANDARDS.

THE APPLICANT, MR. GREG GIFFORD WITH NEW CITY CAPITAL, IS HERE THIS EVENING TO PRESENT AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

[03:00:06]

MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS GREG GIFFORD.

I LIVE AT 1701 DUNN STREET HERE IN GRAPEVINE.

WE'RE HERE PRESENTING PHASE TWO OF THE GRAPEVINE BROWNSTONE DEVELOPMENT.

BOTH PHASES WERE ORIGINALLY INTENDED AT THE SAME TIME.

YOU'LL SEE SOME ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS THAT TIE IT TOGETHER AS WE GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATION.

LET'S SEE HERE THIS.

SO IN THIS IN THIS RENDERING, YOU'LL SEE A BAY WINDOW ON THE BOOKENDS OF PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO.

IT'S AN OCTAGON BAY.

THIS IS A 25 FOOT WIDE HOME, 47 FOOT DEEP.

THESE ARE SOME OF THE LARGER ONES ON THE STREET FACING SIDE.

WE HAVE STREET FACING AND GARAGE FACING.

WE CALL THEM ROW HOUSES.

THE DALLAS ROAD HOMES HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY SOUGHT AFTER.

OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT SURPRISING THAT IS THE INTENT AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.

SO THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW LOOKING NORTH TOWARDS LAKE GRAPEVINE DOWN MAIN STREET HOTEL VAN HARVEST HALL. THERE'S OUR TWO LOTS, PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO.

THIS IS A AERIAL VIEW FROM THE TOP OF THE VAN LOOKING SOUTH.

YOU'LL SEE PHASE ONE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION, AND PHASE TWO ON THE ADJOINING LOT TO ITS LEFT.

YOU JUST SAW THIS MAP? IT IS THE TRANSIT DISTRICT OVERLAY.

YOU SEE THE YELLOW REPRESENTATION OF WHERE PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO ARE.

OBVIOUSLY, FOR MY PERSPECTIVE, IT'S AN IDEAL LOCATION.

THE TABLE TO THE RIGHT IS THE PREFERRED MATRIX OF PREFER USE MATRIX WITHIN THE.

YOU'LL SEE CONDOMINIUMS, TOWNHOMES, AND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES LISTED.

THIS IS THE ARCHITECTURE LETTER OF APPROVAL, SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAD IN PHASE ONE.

THE KEY POINTS TO THIS ARE THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN.

WE KIND OF USE THE FEDERALIST STYLE DESIGN COMING TO MIMICS WHAT GRAPEVINE IS FAMILIAR WITH.

A LOT OF CAST STONE GOT A LOT OF ENTABLATURES, HAVE A LOT OF COLUMNS, OF COURSE, BANDS, APRONS AROUND THE BOTTOM OF THE BUILDING.

WE TRY TO SAY THAT THE CAST STONE TIES IT TOGETHER, BUT THE BRICK MAKES THEM DIFFERENT.

WE HAVE FIVE DIFFERENT BRICK COLORS IN THE ENTIRE COMPLEX, BUT NO TWO NEXT DOOR TO EACH OTHER ARE ALIKE.

THE PARAPETS USE BALUSTRADES AND IRON RAILS, SO YOU'LL SEE NO TWO NEXT TO EACH OTHER LIKE.

THE OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL WAS THE STREETSCAPE ALONG DALLAS AVENUE.

WE BELIEVE WE CONTRIBUTE TO WHAT THE CITY WANTED THERE IN A BIG WAY, WITH EIGHT HOMES COMING ACROSS DALLAS ROAD.

NASH STREET SAME WAY.

WE HAVE THREE HOMES ON NASH STREET.

AGAIN, THE HOMES OF THE BOOKEND THE THE END CAPS OF THE BUILDINGS ARE ALL THE THE OCTAGON BAY WINDOWS AND THEY'RE PRETTY POPULAR HOMES.

THIS IS THE SITE PLAN.

SO YOU'LL SEE PHASE ONE, THE SQUARE AT THE TOP AND YOU'LL SEE IT ADJOINING PHASE TWO, WHICH IS THE RECTANGLE AT THE BOTTOM.

IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY, YOU'LL SEE THE OCTAGON BAY WINDOWS ON THE ON THE BOOKEND, ON THE ON THE END CAPS ALONG DALLAS ROAD, YOU'LL SEE THOSE TWO THAT BOOKEND EACH OTHER AS YOU COME IN TO THE TO THE FIRE LANE, WHICH IS A MOTOR COURT.

YOU'LL SEE THE OTHER THOSE ARE 25 FOOT HOMES WITH THOSE LARGE BAY WINDOWS.

THAT KIND OF MAKES UP THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT OF THE COMBINED COMMUNITY.

SO THIS IS THE ROW HOUSES, AS YOU CAN SEE, COMING DOWN THE FIRE LANE.

FIRE LANE IS ACCESSED BY BOTH NASH STREET AND DALLAS ROAD.

THOSE ARE 27 FOOT WIDE HOMES WITH THE KEYSTONE ENTRIES.

THEY ALL HAVE BALCONIES ON THESE ROW HOUSES.

SO IT'S A 20, 20, 22 FOOT WIDE GARAGE AND A FIVE FOOT WIDE ENTRY ON ME.

THESE ARE THE LARGER OF THE HOMES AND THEY'RE 3100FT².

THE SMALLER ONES ARE 27.

THE SAME HOMES THAT WERE IN PHASE ONE ARE REPEATED IN PHASE TWO.

WE BELIEVE THAT WAS A WINNER, SO WE'RE STICKING WITH IT.

AND THAT'S THAT'S IT.

SO APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

WELL, LET'S. PARKING WAS AN ISSUE BEFORE.

YES, SIR. TELL US ABOUT YOUR PARKING SITUATION ON PHASE TWO.

I DON'T SEE SO PHASE TWO, WE MIMIC THE SAME APPROVAL PROCESS THAT HAPPENED ON PHASE ONE.

ALL HOMES HAVE TWO CAR GARAGE TUCKED UNDER OR IN FRONT, AND THE ROW HOUSES HAVE TWO CAR GUEST PARKING IN FRONT OF THOSE.

[03:05:06]

SO WE SATISFY THAT WITH SIX PARALLEL PARKING ALONG THE FIRE LANE THAT YOU'LL SEE ON THE LOWER END OF THIS. LET ME GET TO THE.

ON THE EAST SIDE RIGHT HERE.

SO YOU'LL SEE THE SIX PARALLEL PARKING ON THE FIRE LANE.

AND THOSE SATISFY CODE FOR BUILDING ONE.

BUILDING TWO BUILDING.

FOUR AND FIVE.

AND BUILDING THREE SATISFIES ITS OWN PARKING IN FRONT OF IT.

IT IS A DENSITY SITUATION.

OBVIOUSLY PARKING IS ALWAYS AN ISSUE, BUT WE WE BELIEVE THAT MIMICKING WHAT WAS SUCCESSFUL IN PHASE ONE AND APPLYING IT TO PHASE TWO WAS A GOOD THING TO DO.

I DO WANT TO MAKE COMMENT ABOUT SOME OF THE ELEMENTS ON THIS.

ON THIS CHART HERE YOU'LL SEE THE RADIUSES FOR THE ENTRIES AND THE EXIT ON DALLAS ROAD, AND AGAIN ON NASH STREET.

AND THOSE WERE WORKING WITH PUBLIC WORKS AND AND PLANNING SERVICES.

A LOT OF DETAIL WENT INTO THIS APPLICATION, THIS TIME WITH PUBLIC WORKS TO ADDRESS FOR ALL THE UNIQUE ELEMENTS.

IF I DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE PAGE 12 OF 12 IN YOUR IN YOUR CIVIL SCHEDULES, YOU WILL SEE SOMETHING AS DETAILED AS WHERE EACH OF THE WATER METERS ARE SET TO GO AT EACH HOME.

WE APPRECIATE THAT LEVEL OF WORK THIS TIME.

WE WE'RE STANDING HERE TONIGHT AFTER FIVE SUBMISSIONS.

THAT'S OKAY. WE'D RATHER DO IT ON THE FRONT END THAN DURING CONSTRUCTION.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE'RE PLEASED WITH IT.

A LOT OF DEMAND FOR THE COMMUNITY.

IT SHOWS YOU THE DEMAND FOR LIVING IN THE TRANSIT DISTRICT.

AND WE THANK YOU GUYS FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP AND HARVEST HALL THEN.

AND THAT'S WHAT DRIVES VALUE, NOT JUST VALUE BUT INTEREST.

RIGHT. SO, YOU KNOW, WE BELIEVE WE SELL EXPERIENCES.

AND EVEN THOUGH THIS IS PLATTED AS ONE LOT, BOTH PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO ARE INDIVIDUALLY DIFFERENT LOTS.

THE HOMES ARE CONDOMINIUMS. SO THE BUYERS RECEIVE A CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION.

WE SHARED THAT WITH WITH ERICA AND STAFF ON PHASE ONE.

WE'LL DO THE SAME THING ON PHASE TWO.

QUESTION. YEAH, THE SAME EXHIBIT THAT YOU WERE POINTING OUT THE THE PARALLEL PARKING.

YES, MA'AM. ABOVE THAT, WHERE IT SAYS EXISTING PARKING.

I'M NOT ORIENTED.

WHOSE IS THAT? YOU'VE GOT THE TEN FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT AND THEN.

I'M OVER HERE. YEAH.

THAT'S NOT. THAT'S THE. YEAH.

THAT'S SO THAT'S TOTALLY SOMEBODY ELSE'S PARKING, RIGHT? YEAH. YOU'VE GOT THE BLUE BOX AND THEN BELOW THAT WHERE IT SAYS EXISTING ON THE EASEMENT.

SO THAT'S TOTALLY SOMEONE ELSE'S PARKING.

IS THAT RIGHT? YES.

OKAY. THANK YOU GENTLEMEN.

QUESTIONS. QUESTIONS.

YEAH. I'M WANT TO GET CLARIFICATION ON PHASE ONE.

PHASE TWO DENSITIES.

SO ERICA, DID YOU SAY PHASE ONE DENSITY WAS 14 ACRES OR 14 UNITS PER ACRE? YES. AND THIS ONE IS 16 UNITS PER ACRE.

SO WE'RE INCREASING DENSITY.

YES. YEAH. OKAY.

IT'S A LARGER SITE AS WELL.

AND. AND WE'RE BACK TO FILING THIS UNDER ERICA.

THIS IS BACK FILED UNDER THE TOWNHOME ORDINANCE.

IS THAT CORRECT? NO, WE'RE REFERRING TO THIS AS CONDOMINIUM.

I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE.

WE HAVE A DEFINITION OF CONDOMINIUM IN THE USE LISTED IN 41.

B IS WHAT WE'RE USING.

WHAT'S THE UNITS PER ACRE FOR IT? FOR CONDOMINIUMS WOULD JUST FALL TO MULTIFAMILY.

WHICH WOULD BE A MAXIMUM OF 20 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

OKAY. OTHERS, MAN.

THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL? I JUST HAD A COUPLE, SO I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND.

I THINK YOU COVERED IT. WHERE THE LEGAL STRUCTURE OF ONE LOT CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO DIFFERENT PHASES IS THE SAME STRUCTURE, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY.

AND THEN THE DISTANCE WHERE YOU HAVE BETWEEN IN PHASE ONE BUILDING ONE OVER TO SAY UNIT 13.

[03:10:02]

WHAT KIND OF GAP IS THERE BETWEEN THE THREE FOOT WIDE WALK PATH DESIRED BY THE CITY TO MOVE PEDESTRIANS THROUGH THE COMMUNITY, DOWN THE THE PEDESTRIAN WALK PATH, THEN ACROSS COMING TOWARDS THE REC CENTER? OKAY. I GUESS WE ACCOMMODATED THAT WITH THAT THREE FOOT WIDE WALK PATH.

AND HOW FAR IS IT BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS? TEN FOOT BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

YOU SAID THERE WAS A LOT OF INTEREST IN THE FIRST PHASE.

HAVE YOU ALREADY SOLD SOME OF THE UNITS? YES, MA'AM. OKAY.

THANK YOU. THEY'RE ALL RESERVED.

THANK YOU. PHASE ONE IS ALL SOLD.

SO. I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT REGARDING THE PARKING THAT PROJECTS THAT THIS DENSITY, THAT PARKING IS ALWAYS AN ISSUE, YOU COULD SOLVE THAT IF YOU BROUGHT IT DOWN TO THE SAME DENSITY THAT YOU OFFERED IN THE FIRST PHASE.

HAVE YOU CONSIDERED DOING THAT, OR WHY HAVEN'T YOU CONSIDERED DOING THAT? WELL, OTHER THAN MONEY? BECAUSE IT'S IT'S UNIFORM.

WE HAVE EIGHT ROW HOUSES ON DALLAS ROAD.

WE HAVE EIGHT ROW HOUSES INTERNALLY ON THE FIRE LANE ON PHASE TWO.

WHEN YOU WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ELEVATIONS, THEY'RE SELECTED TO KIND OF.

YOU KNOW, KIND OF HAVE A CORRESPONDING CHARACTERISTIC TO THEM.

EVEN THE CUTTERS, EVEN THE CUTTER CUTTER LEGEND KIND OF HAS A LOT OF THOUGHT HAS BEEN PUT INTO THAT.

SO YOU HAVE THREE BUILDINGS ON THREE UNITS IN BUILDING ONE, THREE BUILDINGS IN UNIT TWO, EIGHT BUILDINGS IN UNIT THREE, THREE AND THEN THREE.

SO WE BELIEVE THAT MAKES IT A NICE UNIFORM COMMUNITY.

AND IT ALLOWS OUR ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS TO TO BE MARRIED AND REFLECTED A BUILDING THAT HAS EIGHT IN IT.

YOU COULD CUT IT DOWN TO SIX AND SOLVE YOUR PROBLEM AND IT WOULD STILL BE UNIFORM.

THREE AND THREE SIX.

GOOD. WE CHOSE TO SATISFY THE DEMAND.

THERE'S A LOT OF DEMAND, A LOT OF INTEREST.

AND WE BELIEVE THAT DENSITY IS CONSISTENT WITH BROWNSTONES THAT YOU SEE IN THE NORTHEAST.

I KNOW WE'RE NOT IN MANHATTAN, BUT WE'RE GRAPEVINE.

THANK YOU. YOU BET.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? APPARENTLY NOT. DO WE HAVE ANY WISH? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU BET. THANK YOU.

ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK? YES, SIR. CHRIS LEYDEN, 1902 SADDLE RIDGE DRIVE.

GOOD EVENING. MAYOR.

AND CITY COUNCIL.

BECAUSE OF THE TIME, I'M GOING TO MAKE THIS NICE AND SWEET.

I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT.

I FEEL THAT PHASE ONE HAS BEEN PRETTY SUCCESSFUL.

SO PHASE TWO, I THINK WILL FOLLOW THAT.

AND IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T HURT TO HAVE SOME HIGHER WEALTH INDIVIDUALS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF THE VIN AND HARVEST HALL AND, AND ALL THE SHOPS AND RESTAURANTS ON MAIN STREET. SO I STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT YOU APPROVE THIS PROJECT.

THANK YOU. CORRESPONDENCE.

OH, YOU GOT I HAVE ONE MORE.

I'M SORRY. CLARENCE MUELLER, 3612 LAKEWOOD ROAD.

ARE WE GOING TO TALK SIDEWALKS? WE ARE. THAT'S WHERE YOU WERE HEADED? WELL, WE WANT TO TALK SIDEWALKS.

BUT ALSO, WE HAD THIS THEME ALL NIGHT TONIGHT AS WE'VE GONE OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT WE WE KEEP PUSHING THE DENSITY BY ONE HOUSE EVERY TIME TO TAKE AWAY FOR THINGS.

AND WHEN WE DO THIS AND WE HAVE GROWTH OF NOT TO GET INTO ALL THIS, BUT MICROMOBILITY WALKING, BIKING, SCOOTERS, ELECTRIFICATION OF THOSE THINGS.

YOU SEE THEM BUZZING UP AND DOWN MAIN STREET AND WE KEEP GIVING AWAY THAT SPACE TO SQUEEZE IN ONE MORE TOWNHOME OR CONDOMINIUM.

AND WE'RE GOING TO LIVE WITH THOSE PROBLEMS FOR 30, 40, 50 YEARS SO THAT SOMEBODY CAN MAKE ONE MORE DOLLAR ON A DEVELOPMENT.

AND I THINK WE NEED TO CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, OUR LEGACY ON THOSE THINGS AND BUILD FOR THE FUTURE.

SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANY CORRESPONDENCE? NO, YOUR HONOR.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I NEED A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CLOSE SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? CLOSED THE MOTION FROM THE COUNCIL.

SO MOVED SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED.

THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN ON THE AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE.

82 DASH 70 3 A.M.

20 3-01 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ERICA MURANO.

THIS TEXT AMENDMENT IS IN RESPONSE TO RECENT FAILED LEGISLATION AT THE STATE LEVEL THAT WOULD HAVE RESTRICTED A CITY FROM ADOPTING OR ENFORCING REGULATIONS THAT WOULD PROHIBIT AN OWNER FROM BUILDING, SELLING OR RENTING AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, OR REQUIRE OWNER OCCUPANCY OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HAS HELD TWO WORKSHOPS, ONE ON AUGUST 1ST, THE OTHER ON SEPTEMBER 19TH, TO FULLY ADDRESS ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN THE CITY, COUNCIL APPROVED A REQUEST TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING AT THEIR MEETING ON OCTOBER 17TH.

[03:15:05]

THEY ARE NOT PROPOSED TO BE ALLOWED IN ANY OTHER RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS WITH THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

THE REGULATIONS PROPOSED ACCOUNT FOR THE LOCATION, DESIGN AND LIMITATIONS OF ADUS AND ARE PROPOSED TO BE PLACED IN SECTION 42 SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS, WHERE ALL USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS ARE FOUND IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR BOTH PRIMARY AND ACCESSORY USES.

MINOR REVISIONS ARE FOUND THROUGHOUT THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS PART OF THIS TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WERE DESIRED BY THE COMMISSION TO REVISE THE WORD ACCESSORY AS IT APPLIES TO BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES, AND CHANGES IT IN FAVOR OF THE TERM SECONDARY.

SO ON THIS SLIDE, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE'S A COMPARISON TABLE AS FAR AS THE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS UNDER THE CURRENT USE AND DEFINITION OF SERVANT'S QUARTERS, VERSUS WHAT IS PROPOSED FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF YOUR SCREEN.

AS A SUMMARY, IT'S PROPOSED ONLY IN THE R 20 DISTRICT TO ALLOW ONE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PER LOT LIMITED TO A ONE BEDROOM DWELLING MAXIMUM 750FT² IN SIZE, LIMITED TO ONE STORY BUILDING A MAXIMUM OF 16FT IN HEIGHT.

MUST BE LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD, A MINIMUM OF 25FT FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, AND 15FT FROM SIDE PROPERTY LINES AND TEN FEET BETWEEN BUILDINGS.

THE COMMISSION ALSO WORKED ON ESTABLISHING SOME ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS THAT ARE LAID OUT IN YOUR BACKUP MATERIALS, AND SPECIFY THAT IT MUST BE SECURED TO A PERMANENT FOUNDATION ON THE GROUND THAT WAS TO PROHIBIT ANY TYPE OF OFFSITE MODULAR CONFIGURATION OR CONSTRUCTION THAT WOULD BE HAULED ON SITE.

ADDITIONALLY, THEY IDENTIFIED THAT AN ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE WOULD BE REQUIRED IF AN ADU WERE CONSTRUCTED IN ADDITION TO THE TWO PER THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT, THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, BUT THAT NO ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAYS WOULD BE ALLOWED.

AND THEY ALSO CLARIFIED AT YOUR MEETING ON THE 17TH, THE COUNCIL DID SO.

THANK YOU FOR PROHIBITING RENTING OR SUBLETTING OF THE ADU SEPARATE FROM THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT ON THE LOT.

THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION.

WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE.

ANY QUESTIONS, MR. CHAIRMAN? ALL RIGHT. QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL.

NO, SIR. DO WE HAVE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK? YES, SIR, I HAVE TWO.

KIM JOHNSON, 3416 ROLLING HILLS.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR TATE COUNCIL AND PNC.

MY NAME IS KYM JOHNSON.

NEXT YEAR I'LL HAVE LIVED IN GRAPEVINE FOR 40 YEARS AND THIS IS MY FIRST TIME HERE.

THE REASON WHY I'M HERE IS REALLY TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I'M REALLY EXCITED ABOUT CHANGING SOME OF THE TERMS THAT IS IN SOME OF THIS LANGUAGE, INCLUDING SERVANT QUARTERS.

BUT MOSTLY I'M HERE TO GIVE SOME CONCERNS WITH REGARDS TO OR FIRST OF ALL, LET ME SUPPORT YOUR AMENDED USES AND USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS, BUT I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THOSE USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS.

WE HAD TALKED ON OUR STREET ABOUT WHAT THIS MIGHT MEAN.

AND BASICALLY I THINK THERE'S ONLY TWO OF US ON OUR STREET THAT IS HERE BECAUSE IT WAS BASICALLY SUGGESTED THAT IT WAS JUST ABOUT MAYBE REMOVING THE TERMS OF SERVANT QUARTERS AND, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE IN THE FUTURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE A BED AND BREAKFAST IN SOMEBODY'S BACKYARD.

BUT REALLY, WHY I AM HERE IS BECAUSE JUST WITHIN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, WE HAVE ACTUALLY HAD OUR NEIGHBORS COME AND GO, HOUSES REMOVED AND NEW HOUSES PUT IN THEIR PLACES.

WHEN WE MOVED IN AND BACK IN THE 80S, WE ACTUALLY HAD BARNS ON OUR STREET.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH ROLLING HILLS LANE, BUT WE'RE ABOUT THE LAST STREET IN SOUTHWEST GRAPEVINE WE CAN SMELL THE CORN FROM THE CORN FIELD.

SO THE WE DID HAVE BARNS THAT WERE USED FOR THEIR APPROPRIATE USES AT THE TIME.

SOME OF THEM HAVE SINCE BEEN CONVERTED.

WE HAVE ADDITIONAL GARAGES FOR THOSE WHO HAVE HOBBIES, SUCH AS COLLECTING CARS.

WE HAVE RECENTLY HAD A RESIDENT BUILD ADDITIONAL DWELLINGS ON THEIR PROPERTY THAT I WILL SAY, DO NOT CURRENTLY MEET THE STANDARDS THAT YOU

[03:20:01]

SO WHEN YOU GO TO AMEND AND PROVIDE CHANGES AND MEN USES AND USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS, LET'S MAKE SURE AS WE'RE ALLOWING AND APPROVING SOME OF THESE BUILDINGS, THAT ON OUR LARGER LOTS ARE 20, THAT THEY ARE INDEED STILL REMINDED THAT THIS IS A ARE 20 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, AND THAT THE PURPOSE OF THESE ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS WILL FOLLOW THE CITY'S ORDINANCES.

LATELY, THE LAST TWO YEARS, WE HAVE BEEN HAVING SOME ISSUES IN OUR QUIET LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD CALLED THE ROLLING HILLS ESTATES.

WE ARE BETWEEN MARSH BARBERRY AND BLUEBERRY.

I BELIEVE SOME ARE HERE FOR THAT REASON.

WE HAVE HAD HOUSES TORN DOWN, LARGER, MORE LOVELY PROPERTIES BUILT.

WE HAVE ALSO HAD PEOPLE CONVERT SOME OF THEIR BARNS.

WE STILL HAVE HORSES ON THE CORNER, BY THE WAY, AND PIGS AND CHICKENS NEXT DOOR, AND WE HAVE MILLION DOLLAR HOUSES ON OUR STREET NOW.

DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THAT.

THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS WHEN P AND Z AND THE INSPECTING FORCES COME IN AND APPROVE CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S GOING TO BE USED, POSSIBLY THIS BUILDING FOR A HOBBY.

HOW ARE WE GOING TO ENFORCE THIS? BECAUSE MAYBE THEY STARTED USING THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING AS A HOBBY LOCATION.

BUT THE NEXT THING WE KNOW, WE HAVE TRACTOR TRAILERS DRIVING UP OUR LANE.

BY THE WAY, IT'S CALLED ROLLING HILLS LANE.

I DO BELIEVE OUR STREET IS SIMPLY A ONE FOOT LARGER THAN MY DRIVEWAY.

IT'S A LANE, IT'S NOT A STREET AND IT'S NOT A ROAD.

AND THE REASON WHY I'M HERE TO TALK TONIGHT IS ABOUT THE APPROVAL OF A PARTICULAR DWELLING ON ALREADY CROWDED LOT IN OUR 20. THAT MEANS YOU HAVE TO HAVE A LOT GOING ON ON YOUR LOT.

IF YOU'RE ALREADY PRETTY CROWDED AND HAVE EXISTING DWELLINGS.

AND THEN THE NEW DWELLING COMES IN.

ALL THE HOUSES AROUND ARE SINGLE STORY.

THE NEW DWELLING IS NOW TWO STORY.

I'VE RENAMED THAT DWELLING THAT THE CITY APPROVED THE WALMART DISTRIBUTION CENTER BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

IT'S A TWO STOREY METAL CLAD BUILDING.

ALL THE HOUSES AROUND IT ARE SINGLE STOREY.

IT MAY HAVE BEEN A SHOP AT ONE TIME, BUT NOW WE HAVE TRACTOR TRAILERS COMING UP AND UNLOADING PALLETS.

OF MATERIAL.

TO BE ASSEMBLED, FABRICATED, AND THEN SHIPPED BACK OUT DOWN OUR LITTLE ROLLING HILLS LANE.

SO I ASK YOU WHEN YOU GO TO LOOK AT THIS CHANGES, AMEND USES AND USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS. HOW ARE WE GOING TO ENFORCE THIS.

WHAT IS YOUR PLAN P AND Z.

TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE DWELLINGS THAT ARE NOW BEING PERMITTED IN SOME OF OUR LARGER AREAS ON OUR STREET, THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE USED AS A SINGLE, A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WHERE WE CAN HAVE MAYBE A HOBBY IN THESE, BUT THEN THAT GETS DISPLACED OR A NEW PARTY MOVES IN AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE HAVE A NEIGHBOR FROM ARLINGTON, TEXAS, WHO'S USED TO RUNNING A BUSINESS FROM ARLINGTON.

YES, SIR. THAT IS NOW RUNNING, YOU KNOW, A LANDSCAPING COMPANY OUT OF A DWELLING.

SO MY POINT IS, AS A RESIDENT OF 40 YEARS, I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO ENFORCE THIS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

SIR. A LOT OF CHOICES SOMETIMES WITH YOUR STATE GOVERNOR, AND THE LEGISLATURE WANTS TO TAKE ALL THE RIGHTS AWAY FROM CITIES. SO THEY'RE DICTATING TO SOME EXTENT WHAT WE CAN DO AND WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.

IT'S NOT ALL OUR CHOICE ANYMORE.

HE'D LIKE TO TAKE ALL THE CITY'S RIGHTS AWAY.

AND HE'S DOING A GOOD JOB OF DOING IT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

ALL RIGHTY. WE HAVE ANOTHER.

WE HAVE ONE MORE, ONE MORE.

ERIC BINDER 342 ROLLING HILLS LANE.

STAY IN YOUR THREE MINUTES.

RIGHT. THANK YOU EVERYONE. GOOD EVENING.

I'M ERIC BOOKBINDER. I LIVE AT 3412 ROLLING HILLS LANE IN GRAPEVINE.

AND TO PREFACE THIS A LITTLE BIT, I LIVED IN COLLIERVILLE AND A HOUSE THAT BACKED UP AGAINST HODGES AUTOMOTIVE.

SO, LIKE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THE TERM IS.

[03:25:02]

LANE IS A GEM.

I KNOW IT'S SUPER HIGH DEMAND POPULAR.

YOU GET NEIGHBORS ASKING IF ANYONE'S INTERESTED IN SELLING, AND WE DID THAT TO GET AWAY FROM THAT INDUSTRIAL FEELING.

AND WE DO SUPPORT THE THE NEW RULES.

BUT AGAIN, LIKE WHAT KIM MENTIONED, WE'RE HOPING FOR BETTER ENFORCEMENT OF THAT.

THE NEIGHBOR WHO MOVED IN THAT RUNS A LANDSCAPING BUSINESS OUT OF HIS BACK YARD LIVES NEXT TO US.

HE HAS 4 OR 5 TRAILERS, 4 OR 5 TRUCKS THAT HE KEPT BACK THERE AT THE TIME.

IT WAS JUST A CHAIN LINK FENCE, AND SO HIS EMPLOYEES WERE HANGING OUT RIGHT AGAINST THAT FENCE, STARING IN OUR YARD.

I HAVE A TWO YOUNG KIDS, A FIVE YEAR OLD AND A SEVEN YEAR OLD AND MADE US VERY UNCOMFORTABLE.

THEY BUILT THE FENCE.

THEY CLAIM THAT THEY MOVED ON TO A DIFFERENT AREA OR STORING SOME OF IT, BUT I STILL I WORK FROM HOME.

I'M STARING OUT THE FRONT YARD ALL DAY.

I STILL SEE THEIR TRACTORS AND TRAILERS GOING THERE, YOU KNOW, 2 OR 3 TIMES A DAY.

I CALLED CODE ENFORCEMENT.

I GOT I'M REALLY NOT SURE WHETHER OR NOT WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS LEGAL, BECAUSE I HAD TO FOLLOW UP 4 OR 5 DIFFERENT TIMES, DIDN'T GET ANY GOOD RESPONSES.

AND I KNOW GRAPEVINE IS REALLY GOOD ABOUT ENFORCING CODES.

I'M GETTING A POOL BUILT IN.

EVERY LITTLE THING THEY'RE DOING WRONG.

THEY'RE GETTING CAUGHT, WHICH IS GREAT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WHY IS THAT ALLOWED? YOU KNOW, WHY ARE WE ALLOWING THAT SORT OF THING TO HAPPEN? HAVING PEOPLE RUNNING BUSINESSES DOING FABRICATION IN THEIR BACKYARD WHEN IT'S CLEARLY A RESIDENTIAL AREA.

SO AGAIN, I APPROVE THIS.

I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE IT HAPPEN, BUT AGAIN, WOULD LIKE FURTHER ENFORCEMENT.

SO THAT WAY WE'RE NOT AGAINST THE PROPOSALS FOR I'VE ALREADY SAID THAT I'M FOR IT.

I'M JUST SAYING I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE ENFORCEMENT STEP UP.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT LIMITATIONS THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT CAN DO, BUT AGAIN, IT'S NOT A COMFORTABLE FEELING TO HAVE NEIGHBORS RUNNING BUSINESSES IN YOUR BACK YARD WHEN YOU'RE NOT NEAR ANYWHERE ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANKS.

ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE OKAY? OH. I'M SORRY. YES, SIR.

THERE'S ONE. THERE'S ONE MORE.

JUST BRIEFLY, I HAD WRITTEN DOWN THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION, PLEASE, BEFORE THEY WALK OUT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. MAYOR TATE AND COUNCIL, I JUST WANT TO SPEAK IN SLIGHT OPPOSITION TO THIS.

ONLY BECAUSE I PURCHASED MY HOUSE WITH ALL WITH AN EXISTING R 20 ZONING.

AND I APPRECIATE THAT THE NEED FOR FOR CHANGE.

BUT MUCH LIKE WHAT YOU'VE SAID TONIGHT, IF WHAT IS WORKING HAS WORKED AND 90% OF THE HOUSES IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THIS ZONING ALREADY HAVE ADUS BUILT ABOVE THEIR GARAGES IN SOME FORM OR CAPACITY THAT AREN'T BEING AREN'T BEING LOOKED AT.

I JUST DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR AN ADDITIONAL SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE WITH REGARD TO WHAT I CAN AND CAN'T DO WITH WITH WITH MY LARGE LOT THAT I PURCHASED.

I'VE HEARD SEVERAL COMMENTS COMMENTS TONIGHT ABOUT FITTING 20 HOUSES ON THE SIDE OF ON THE SIZE OF THE LAND THAT I PURCHASED FOR MY ONE HOUSE.

SO I HAVE AGING MOTHER IN LAW.

I HAVE AN AGING MOTHER IN LAW, AN AGING PARENTS.

I INTEND TO HAVE THEM LIVE WITH ME IN SOME CAPACITY, BUT NOT IN MY HOUSE.

AND I DON'T WANT IT CONNECTED TO MY HOUSE.

AND I REALLY DON'T WANT IT AS CLOSE AS TO THE FAR FENCE AS I CAN GET IT.

BUT I BOUGHT MY HOUSE AND THE LAND SO THAT I CAN INTEND TO USE IT AS NEEDED WITH THE EXISTING ZONING REGULATIONS IN HAND.

SO I'M ALL FOR HAVING THE CLARIFICATION, BUT I DO NOT FEEL WE NEED ADDITIONAL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OR ANY ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE AROUND WHAT YOU WOULD PROHIBIT ME TO DO WITH THAT.

ONCE MY MOTHER IN LAW MAY OR MAY NOT CONTINUE TO LIVE THERE.

SO I APPRECIATE THE TIME, BUT I AM IN OPPOSITION TO THIS.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I NEED A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MOVE TO CLOSE SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED.

MISSION CLOSED A MOTION FROM THE MOVE TO CLOSE SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR. ALL OPPOSED.

MOTION CARRIES. PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

PUBLIC HEARINGS OPEN ON THE FINAL PLATS.

A LOT ONE AND TWO. BLOCK ONE OF THE CHEVRON AND GAY EDITION.

MR. JOHN ROBERTSON.

GOOD EVENING, HONORABLE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

THE PROPERTY IS ADDRESSED AS 404 AND 408 EAST TEXAS STREET.

IT'S CENTRALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TEXAS STREET BETWEEN SMITH AND DOOLEY STREETS.

SHOULD HAVE AN EXHIBIT POP UP SOON.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PLAT TWO LOTS FROM AN ORIGINAL LOT THAT EXISTS IN THE ORIGINAL TOWN OF GRAPEVINE THAT WAS PLATTED IN 1930.

SORRY, 1913.

EACH LOT IS JUST A LITTLE OVER 12,000FT².

THERE ARE EXISTING HOMES THAT SIT ON BOTH PROPOSED LOT.

THE PURPOSES OF THIS APPLICATION IS A PLAT.

TWO LOTS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY SUBDIVIDED BY DEED.

THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R7 FIVE.

THESE TWO LOTS REQUESTED VARIANCE FROM THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS TO ALLOW THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES TO REMAIN AS DEVELOPED.

WITH A LOT WIDTH OF 62.5FT INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 65FT.

THESE TWO CASES WERE APPROVED BY THE BCA ON NOVEMBER 7TH AS ITEMS BCA 2316 AND 2317, WITH THESE VARIANCES ALLOWED MEETS ZONING REQUIREMENTS. WITH THAT, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

[03:30:03]

QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL.

APPARENTLY NOT. THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK? NO, YOUR HONOR. ALL RIGHT, MR. CHAIRMAN, NEED A MOTION TO CLOSE THE HEARING.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? POSITION CLOSED. A MOTION FROM THE COUNCIL.

MOVE TO CLOSE. SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED.

THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

THAT COMPLETES THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS GOING TO RECONVENE IN THE MEETING ROOM TO THE RIGHT.

THE COUNCIL WILL REMAIN IN SESSION HERE, AND WE'LL CONSIDER ITS AGENDA.

YEAH. AND THEN.

ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD AND BRING THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING TO ORDER.

CONSIDER OUR AGENDA.

WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.

OKAY. FIRST ITEM IS TO CONSIDER ZONING APPLICATIONS.

[16. Zoning Change Application Z23-03 (Grapevine Springs) – Consider the application and make a recommendation to City Council.]

WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE THIS GROUP RECEIVED A LOT OF GOOD ADVICE AND.

HOPEFULLY I'LL BE ABLE TO GET SOMETHING WORKED OUT.

JUST A QUICK COMMENT FROM AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, THIS THIS PROPERTY BACK AFTER IT CAME, ACTUALLY IT WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, WAS ZONED COMMERCIAL EARLY ON, AND WHEN OTHER PROPERTIES TO THE WEST WERE ANNEXED IN 1965, THERE WAS THAT WAS ONE OF THE FIRST 20 DEVELOPMENTS THAT ADJOINS THIS TO THE TO THE WEST.

AND THE GENTLEMAN WHO OWNED THIS PROPERTY, ALL OF IT, ALL THE WAY, ALL THE WAY BACK OVER TO WHERE THE CREEK IS, OVER THERE TO THE EAST, WAS AN ATTORNEY FROM DALLAS WHO HAD VISIONS OF AN ADOLPHUS HOTEL BEING BUILT ON THAT SITE.

AND WHEN THE CITY REZONED THE WHOLE CITY IN THE 1982.

SINCE IT WAS OWNED.

YOU KNOW, WE PAID VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS WANTED TO DO WITH IT.

I THINK EVERYONE WOULD HAVE LIKED FOR IT TO BE IN RESIDENTIAL AT THAT TIME.

BUT WITH NORTHWEST HIGHWAY NOT YET DEVELOPED, KNOWING IT WAS GOING TO PROBABLY BE WIDENED AND THAT THAT WOULD BE A PRIME COMMERCIAL STRIP ALONG THAT GOING INTO THE CITY, THE COMMERCIAL ZONING WAS LEFT, BUT WHEN WE REZONE THE CITY, IT WAS ALL ZONED FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE TO PROVIDE FOR A BUFFER TO THE R 20 ZONING TO THE WEST.

TO TRY TO PROTECT THAT IT ACTUALLY WHEN THE DENTIST OFFICE WAS BUILT THERE BY MR. HUBBLE. THAT SUB DIVISION OPPOSED THAT BAR OR THAT PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONING, AND HOPES IT WOULD STILL GO TO BE RESIDENTIAL.

AND THAT ZONING WAS APPROVED BECAUSE SINCE I LIVED NEXT DOOR, I COULDN'T EVEN TALK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO. BUT ANYWAY, THE POINT IS, IS THAT WAS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THOUGHT OF AS PRIME RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.

AND I CONTEND TODAY IT STILL IS.

OTHER THAN WHAT'S FRONTING NORTHWEST HIGHWAY, I UNDERSTAND THE THE CONCERNS OF THE RESIDENTS TO THE NORTH.

AND I UNDERSTAND, ESPECIALLY IN REGARD TO THE ELEVATION DIFFERENCES AND THE RETAINING WALL AND SOME OF THE THINGS THERE.

BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT AT SOME POINT IN TIME THAT PROPERTY CAN BE UTILIZED AS RESIDENTIAL, BECAUSE IT MAKES THE MOST SENSE, AND IT REALLY PROVIDES A MUCH BETTER BUFFER IN SPITE OF WHAT THEY MAY THINK.

IF THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IT LOWERING THE PROPERTY VALUES, LET ME ASSURE YOU IT WILL RAISE THOSE PROPERTY VALUES BECAUSE OF THE VALUES OF THE HOUSES TO BE BUILT IN THERE.

IT'S NOT GOING TO HURT THEIR VALUES.

THEY MAY NOT LIKE THE NEW TAX RATE THAT THEY'LL HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT PROPERTY, BUT IT'S GOING TO ENHANCE THAT WHEN THEY START DOING COMPARISONS AND COMPS FOR HOUSES THAT ARE PURCHASED AND BOUGHT IN THOSE AREAS.

SO I KNOW THAT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO GET US SUFFICIENT VOTES FROM THE COUNCIL, BUT IN AN EFFORT TO TRY TO HAVE SOME WAY TO WORK TOGETHER TO COME UP WITH SOME PLAN THAT'S VIABLE, I DON'T THINK I DON'T KNOW HOW EVERYBODY WOULD VOTE. I DON'T THINK WE WOULD APPROVE IT HERE.

AND I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR ANYBODY BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD VOTE.

[03:35:01]

SO I'VE SAID MY LITTLE SPIEL, BUT I THINK THAT'S A GREAT I AGREE, I AGREE WITH YOU.

YEAH, I'M PREJUDICE, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO PASS OUT THERE.

I JUST THINK IT'S IT'S FOOLISH FOR US TO, EVEN IF WE LIKED IT, TO APPROVE IT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO GO.

BUT I DO THINK THERE'S THERE'S NO REASON TO SUSPECT WE CAN'T WORK SOMETHING OUT TO MAKE IT AMENABLE TO MOST PARTIES INVOLVED IN THAT.

I WOULD HOPE SO.

ANYWAY, I AGREE WITH THAT.

I'VE SAID IT ALL I WANT TO SAY, BUT IT'S YOUR TURN NOW.

OR YOUR MOTION TO MAKE.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION REGARDING THE 2303 THAT WE DENY WITH OUT PREJUDICE. SECOND.

THE MOTION. SECOND TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.

OPPOSED. NONE OPPOSED.

THAT MOTION IS APPROVED SIX ZERO.

ALL RIGHT. THE PLANNED OVERLAY, THE PD.

[17. Planned Development Overlay PD23-02 (Grapevine Springs) – Consider the application and make a recommendation to City Council. ]

IT'S NOT KNOWING WHAT WE'VE GOT.

SO WE NEED A MOTION TO DENY THAT.

WELL, I MOVE THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION, APPROVE A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND A FINAL PLAT.

LOTS ONE.

NO, NO, NO DEVELOPMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS OKAY.

NUMBER 1717.

PD. THE PD? YEAH. SOMEBODY OVER THERE? OKAY. I MOVED TO TO DENY PD 20 3-02.

MOTIONS ARE. SECOND.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION IS APPROVED TO DENY IT.

SO NOW THE FINAL PLAT.

[18. Final Plat for Lots 1-32, 33X, Block 1, Grapevine Springs and Lot 1R, Block 1R, Grapevine Office Park – Consider the application and make a recommendation to City Council.]

SO. I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED OR DENY HIS STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FINAL PLAN OF LOTS ONE THROUGH 3233 X BLOCK ONE GRAPEVINE SPRINGS AND LOT ONE R BLOCK ONE R GRAPEVINE OFFICE PARK.

SECOND. MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? SO.

[19. Conditional Use Permit CU23-21 (Mohler MMA) – Consider the application and make a recommendation to City Council. ]

THIS IS THE LOWER MMA FACILITY.

I THINK WE HAVE ANY CHOICE BUT TO DENY IT.

IT DOESN'T MEET THE PARKING REGULATIONS.

NOW, THIS ONE HE DOES MEET THE PARKING LOTS.

HAS PLENTY OF PARKING. HE'S GOT OVER PARKED.

PUBLIC PARK? NO, NO, NO.

THAT'S OUTSIDE.

A FEW HOURS AGO. YEAH.

I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

I'VE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND, SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? TO PROVE SO.

SO. CONSIDER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SEEING 2330.

[20. Conditional Use Permit CU23-30 2 (House of Shine) – Consider the application and make a recommendation to City Council. ]

UH, LET ME JUST SAY SOMETHING HERE AGAIN, TOO.

THIS IS A TOUGH ONE, TOO, BECAUSE IN SPITE OF THE ZONING IS CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.

WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE ZONING.

BUT AS WE'VE SAID BEFORE, THE INTENT WAS WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE MASTER PLAN THAT WE PROBABLY NEEDED TO LOOK AT, AT LEAST ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR THE PROPERTY THAT FRONTED ON CHURCH STREET, TO CONSIDER THAT THE OLD BACK TOWARD RESIDENTIAL.

IF SOMEBODY CAME IN FOR IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH I STILL BELIEVE MAKES SENSE TOO.

BUT THAT DOESN'T CHANGE WHAT IT'S ZONED TODAY.

BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT PART OF THE REASON WE NEED TO DO THAT IS TO TAKE SOME OF THE REQUIRED PARKING NEEDS AWAY ON CHURCH STREET FOR MORE COMMERCIAL ON CHURCH STREET, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A PARKING ISSUE FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.

BUT AT THIS POINT, I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THE MAYOR HERE.

WE WE CAN'T CONTINUE TO ALLOW NEW BUSINESSES THAT REQUIRE PARKING AND JUST UTILIZE THE PARKING THAT DOESN'T

[03:40:08]

AND WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE ZONING.

WE NEED TO QUESTION CHANGE THE ZONING, LOOKING AT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

SO I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR TO.

WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE HERE? I GUESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT.

THAT'S MY PROBLEM WITH WHAT'S GOING ON OVER THERE.

BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY DON'T HAVE WELL, THEY DON'T HAVE PARKING.

PROBLEM WITH THE EMPLOYEES THAT COME TO WORK EVERY DAY PARKING IN SIX SPOTS.

BUT THEN WHAT DOES EVERYBODY ELSE DO? DO KIDS GET DROPPED OFF? THEY GET BUSED IN.

THAT'S I COULDN'T FIGURE OUT.

THEY USE IT FOR THE MOST PART.

THE PARKING DURING THE DAYTIME.

RIGHT. THEY GET THERE EARLY.

WILL THEY'LL THEY'LL USE THAT WHERE THEY PARK A LOT.

BUT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY PARKING FOR THAT.

RIGHT. SO THE STATE THAT'S MADE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A PARKING ISSUE, IT'S BECAUSE IT'S EVERYBODY ELSE'S ISSUE.

RIGHT? RIGHT. RIGHT.

BUT ANYWAY, YOU JUST HAVE TO DECIDE THAT.

BUT BUT WE CAN CAN'T CONTINUE TO ALLOW BUSINESSES THAT NEED PARKING TO RELY ON.

EVERYBODY'S USING THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING ALL THE TIME.

TRY THIS. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE OPERATING IN THE OLD HOUSE.

NO, NO. THEY ARE OPERATING IN THE BUILDING OFF OF THE OTHER BUILDING.

OKAY, OKAY.

SO WHAT'S GOING ON AT THE HOUSE NOW? NOTHING. OKAY, SIR.

THAT'S OUR OVERFLOW PARKING.

CURRENTLY. OKAY, WELL YOU SLEEP. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE.

Q 23 DASH 30.

HISTORIC LANDMARK SUBDISTRICT HL 22 SEPARATES.

SO YOU HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE CV 2330.

GOT A SECOND? FINE.

OKAY. MAKE A MOTION, WE DENY A CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION.

323 32ND.

ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED.

APPLICATION DENIED FIVE ONE.

BUT NOW A HISTORIC LANDMARK.

[21. Historic Landmark District HL23-02 (House of Shine) – Consider the application and make a recommendation to City Council. ]

OKAY, THEN I MOVE THAT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DENY HISTORIC LANDMARK SUBDISTRICT HL 20 3-02.

HOUSE OF SHINE. SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED.

WHICH I FOUND GOING.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Q 2331 BIG DADDY.

[22. Conditional Use Permit CU23-31 (Big Daddy’s Ship Store) – Consider the application and make a recommendation to City Council. ]

SECOND. MOTION.

SECOND. APPROVAL. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED TO SIX ZERO.

THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY PD 2304 SINCE THE RESERVE OF BEAR CREEK.

[23. Planned Development Overlay PD23-04 (The Reserve at Bear Creek) – Consider the application and make a recommendation to City Council.]

LET'S ASK THE QUESTION.

I GUESS IF WE WANT TO LEAVE IT LIKE IT IS.

SO WHAT DO WE DO? YOU DENY. WE DENY THE DENY THIS REQUEST.

SO? SO THEN WHAT'S THE EXISTENCE FOR THE 23 OR THE 22 DEAL OR WHATEVER THAT ONE STILL.

CAN WE SAY WE CAN'T SAY WE WANT TO PROVE THE THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF ITS LAPS.

SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO WRITE UP THEIR PD BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T COMPLETED THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND PULLED A BUILDING PERMIT TO VEST THEM IN THE ZONING.

OKAY, SO WE HAVE TO JUST DENY THIS AND THEY'D BE REQUIRED TO COME BACK WITH A NEW PLAN.

BUT THAT'S THEY DON'T HAVE TO WAIT A YEAR FOR THAT, DO THEY? DO THEY? THEY WOULD. UNLESS YOU DID IT WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

[03:45:03]

YEAH. ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE THAT MOTION? I MOVED TO DENY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

OVERLAY PD 20 3-04, THE RESERVE AT BEAR CREEK WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED. DENIAL OF 6 TO 0.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. CONSIDER THE FINAL PLAT OF.

[24. Final Plat of Lots 5-R, 6X-R, 6-R-1, 6-R-2 and 7-R, The Reserve at Bear Creek – Consider the application and make a recommendation to City Council. ]

SO I GUESS WE'LL NEED TO DENY THAT.

A POINT. I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DENY THE STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND THE FINAL PLAT OF LOTS FIVE R, SIX SR, SIX, R, DASH ONE SIX, DASH R-2 AND 7-R BLOCK TO THE RESERVE AT BEAR CREEK.

SECOND. BY.

TONIGHT 6.60.

[25. Transit District Overlay TDO23-01 (Nash and Berry Townhomes) – Consider the application and make a recommendation to City Council.]

THIS IS THE ASHBURY TOWN.

TO ME, THIS IS A TOUGH ONE.

I REALLY LIKE HOW THEY LOOK, BUT I DON'T LIKE THE DENSITY.

AND TO ME, THAT'S JUST.

FORGOT TO SAY. JOHNSON.

EXCAVATION. MOVE OUT AS WELL.

THAT'S BEEN A CONTINUING THEME OF TRYING TO MAXIMIZE YIELD.

AND YOU SEE THAT ALL THE TIME.

AND THIS IS DEFINITELY HAPPENING HERE.

WELL, JUST ANYWAY, THE FACT IT'S IN THE OVERLAY DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY GIVE YOU A REASON TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP IT TWICE THE NUMBER OF LOTS PER ACRE.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY GET THAT.

IT'D BE A GREAT POSITION TO LOOK GOOD.

THERE WOULD WITH LESS.

LESS UNIT. YEAH, I THINK I JUST TRYING TO CRAM A LITTLE TOO MUCH IN THERE.

ALL RIGHT. I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS ONE.

I MOVE. I MOVE THAT WE DENY THE TRANSIT DISTRICT OVERLAY APPLICATION TD 20 3-101- AND PERRY TOWNHOMES.

SECOND. SECOND.

GOOD MOTION. SECOND FOR DENIAL.

ALL IN FAVOR? DENIED FIVE ONE.

[26. Final Plat of Lots 1-19, 20X, Block 2-R, Nash and Berry]

NOW. I'M A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, DENIED A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS OF THE FINAL PLAT OF LOTS ONE DASH 1920 X BLOCK TWO ARE NASH AND BERRY ADDITION.

SECOND, WE HAVE MOTION SECOND FOR DENIAL.

ALL IN FAVOR? POST 960.

CONSIDER A TRANSIT DISTRICT OVERLAY.

[27. Transit District Overlay TDO23-02 (Grapevine Brownstones, Phase II) – Consider the application and make a recommendation to City Council. ]

THIS IS THE GRAPEVINE BROWNSTONE THEY USED TO.

IT'S THE ONE THAT HAD THE HARDEST PROBLEM WITH.

THEY DIDN'T INCREASE THE DENSITY.

YEAH. WHAT THEY HAVE OVER ON PHASE ONE IS THEY'VE GOT THEIR PARK OVER THERE, THE LITTLE BROWNSTONE PARK.

I GET IT. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THEY COULD HAVE JUST AS EASILY PUT ANOTHER PARK OVER HERE.

PUT SOMETHING ON THAT SIDE, ADD SOME PARKING.

THEY COULD LOSE ONE POINT.

I GET I GET THE HE'S TRYING TO MAKE IT, YOU KNOW, EQUALIZED HERE ON PARKING.

YEAH. IN SPITE OF ALL THIS TALK ABOUT THESE TOWNHOUSES, YOU CAN'T WE CAN'T KEEP COUNTING VISITOR PARKING BEHIND THE GARAGES BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ALL GOING TO PULL IN THERE ALL THE TIME.

YEAH, HE'S GOING TO GET TO THAT.

AND I KNOW, BUT THAT'S WHY THE SIX EXTRA PARKING PLACES WHEN YOU'VE GOT THAT MANY UNITS IS NOT REALLY SUFFICIENT ADDITIONAL PARKING.

AND THERE'S NO STREET TO PARK ON HERE BECAUSE IT'S JUST I MEAN, THERE'S A PARKING PARKING GARAGE ACROSS THE STREET.

PARTY. TOUGH TO PARK IN THE REC.

IS THAT WHAT? NO, NO, NO, RIGHT HERE ACROSS THE STREET, THERE'S A PARKING GARAGE.

YEAH. BUT THIS ONE'S DIFFICULT.

[03:50:02]

WHAT? DO YOU FEEL CERTAIN THEY WOULD COME BACK IF YOU DENIED IT? WELL, I THINK IF WE WANT THEM TO COME BACK, WE WANT TO COME BACK WITHOUT WE DO WITHOUT PREJUDICE WHERE THEY CAN COME BACK AND TRY TO REDUCE THE DENSITY A LITTLE BIT AND COME UP WITH SOME MORE PARKING AND SOME GREEN SPACE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

YEAH. BECAUSE THIS PHASE REALLY DOESN'T HAVE GREEN SPACE.

NO, IT DOESN'T HAVE MUCH GOING FOR IT.

YOU READ FOR EMOTION? YEAH, YEAH.

I'M FINE. OKAY, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

OVERLAY APPLICATION TO 2302.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? FINAL PLAT OF THE HASTINGS.

[28. Final Plat of Lot 2, Block 1, Hasten Addition – Consider the application and make a recommendation to City Council. ]

I JUST WANT TO DENY THAT AS WELL TO MAKE SURE I'M READING THE RIGHT ONE.

MOVE THAT. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED THE STATEMENT OF.

SORRY. START AGAIN.

MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DENY THE STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND THE FINAL PLAT OF PLOT 211 HAS AN OBJECTION.

SECOND, THIS IS READ AFTER.

THE EASTON EDITION IS THE.

IS THE. THAT'S EXCELLENT.

THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH.

THAT'S SO.

I'M SORRY. WE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? SIX HOURS.

[29. Amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 82-73 AM23-01 (Accessory Dwelling Units) – Consider the application and make a recommendation to City Council. ]

2301 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ON THE LIST YOU HAD SHOWN UP THERE.

ONE OF THE THINGS I THOUGHT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT, THAT THE UTILITY BUILDING HAD TO BE TO THE SINGLE BUILDING.

IT DOES, BUT IT'S IN THE ORDINANCE STILL.

IT'S IT'S IN THE ORDINANCE.

YES. THAT'S ALL. THAT'S ALL MY QUESTION.

OKAY. I WAS TRYING TO SUMMARIZE VERY QUICKLY.

OKAY. MOTION.

I MOVE. WE APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE NUMBER 8273, SECTIONS 12, 13 AND 42.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK THAT'S STILL UNCLEAR TO PEOPLE OUT THERE IS THAT YOU CAN BUILD A MOTHER IN LAW AREA OR ANYTHING YOU WANT.

YOU CAN ADD IT ON TO THE RESIDENCE.

THIS IS NOT FOR ANY ADDITION TO THE R 20.

IT'S JUST FOR A SACRED.

SIR. AND IT DOESN'T INCLUDE OTHER OUTBUILDINGS.

IT ONLY IS FOR BUILDINGS THAT ARE INHABITABLE.

YES, IT'S NOT FOR A SHOP OR THINGS LIKE THAT THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THOSE KIND OF REQUESTS.

THAT'S CORRECT. PEOPLE WOULD START RENTING OUT THEIR SHOP TO ANOTHER FAMILY.

THAT'S CODE ENFORCEMENT AND VIOLATING THE ORDINANCES.

WELL, JUST LIKE THE BUSINESS OPERATING, RIGHT? RIGHT. WE NEED TO CONSIDER THE FINAL PLAT.

[30. Final Plat of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Comparin and Gay Addition – Consider the application and make a recommendation to City Council.]

BLOCK ONE OF COMPARING THE ADDITION.

REMOVE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE STATEMENT OF FINDINGS.

AND THE FINAL PLAT OF LOT ONE AND TWO, BLOCK ONE.

COMPARING AND GREAT ADDITIONS PER SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? WE HAD A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

[31. Consider the 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting calendar. ]

WE GOT TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS.

YES. YEAH.

MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE 2024 CITY OF GRAPEVINE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA.

SCHEDULE. SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? SIX ZERO. HERE ARE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17TH.

[32. Consider the minutes of the October 17, 2023 Regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. ]

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR?

[03:55:01]

I PROMISE IT WON'T GO THIS LONG.

YOU WROTE DOWN ALL OF THESE.

YOU? YES, I GOT THERE AND KICK ME IF I SAY SOMETHING WRONG.

WE'RE GETTING STEAKS FROM DINO RIGHT AFTER.

I MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING, MAN.

MR. CHAIRMAN, TELL WHAT HAPPENED.

CONSIDERING YOU HAVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION.

YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT.

ITEM 34, Z 2303 WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SIX ZERO.

I'LL DENY WITH PREJUDICE.

WITH A MOTION TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE.

OUT PREJUDICE MEANS THEY CAN COME BACK.

I DON'T THINK THEY CAN COME BACK UNDER THIS CURRENT CASE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GRAPEVINE SPRINGS.

THEY CAN COME BACK WITH A DIFFERENT PROPOSAL.

THEY CAN COME BACK WITH A DIFFERENT PROPOSAL THOUGH, RIGHT? UNDER R7 FIVE, AGAIN, YOU GUYS DO WHAT YOU WANT.

THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION.

YOU GUYS DO WHAT YOU WANT. COME BACK UNDER OUR 20.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS MORE OF A QUESTION UNDER OUR 12 FIVE.

OR I'LL SECOND DARLENE'S MOTION, WHICH IS WHAT TO DENY WITH PREJUDICE A REGULAR DENIAL.

ALL RIGHT. SO THAT MEANS THEY CAN'T COME BACK FOR FOR A YEAR.

FOR A YEAR UNDER THIS PARTICULAR ZONING, THIS PARTICULAR ZONING, THEY CAN CHANGE IT AND THEY CAN WORK AND MODIFY IT AND COME BACK, BUT THEY CAN'T COME BACK UNDER THIS ZONING WITH THE R5 AND THE R7 FIVE, I THINK IT'S BEST FOR THEM TO KNOW.

I THINK AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT OUR INTENT IS TO WE JUST WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO COME BACK IN LESS THAN A YEAR IF HE CHANGES THE PROPOSAL.

YEAH, BUT HE CAN'T CHANGE IT OUT OF R7 FIVE AND R5.

I UNDERSTAND. SO I'M GOING TO THAT'S MY MOTION.

I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU SAY, BUT MY MOTION IS TO IRREGULAR DENIAL.

ALL RIGHT I DON'T WANT THE NEIGHBORS TO FEEL LIKE I JUST THINK IT'S THE RIGHT DECISION.

YEAH. AND CHRIS SECONDED.

SO YOU CAN VOTE FOR IT, BUT HE CAN COME BACK IF IT'S IF WE HAVE A WE HAVE A SECOND.

YES, SIR. DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION.

YEAH I THINK THAT DUFF'S JUST ASKING FOR I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY IF IT'S CHANGED.

HE CAN COME BACK IN LESS THAN A YEAR.

YES. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY.

YEAH. MATTHEW CAN CLARIFY IF YOU'D LIKE HIM TO.

YES HE CAN. THAT'S FINE. ALL RIGHT.

SO I'M NOT TRYING TO KILL IT.

I'M JUST TRYING TO AN ALL IN FAVOR.

ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM 35.

THAT WAS DENIED SIX ZERO.

YEAH, THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S GOT TO BE JUST LIKE DARLENE SAID FOR THE LAST ONE.

THAT'S THE OVERLAY. I'LL MOVE FOR DENIAL.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED.

ITEM 36.

THE FINAL PLAT WAS DENIED SIX ZERO.

I'LL MOVE FOR DENIAL.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED? ITEM 37.

SEE YOU 23.

21 WAS APPROVED.

SIX ZERO. I'LL MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED? ITEM 38.

SEE YOU. 2330 WAS DENIED.

FIVE ONE.

I'LL MOVE TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDATION.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES.

ADAM 39 HL 2302 WAS DENIED FIVE ONE.

WAIT A MINUTE. WE'RE DENYING THE HISTORICAL HISTORIC LANDMARK BECAUSE.

BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE.

THIS IS JUST LANDMARKING THE THE STRUCTURE THERE, ISN'T IT? THE APPROVAL WAS THE STRUCTURE TO.

WELL, OKAY.

THAT'S. THAT'S WHAT IF IT'S NOT, THEN YOU'RE OKAY.

ALL RIGHT, I'LL GET IT NOW.

OKAY. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

NO, SIR. NOT YET.

I'M CONFUSED ON THIS.

SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO ME.

WELL, WE DENIED THE ZONING AND WE DENIED THE HISTORICAL OVERLAY BECAUSE OUR UNDERSTANDING WAS IT INCLUDED THE STRUCTURE WHICH WAS PLANNED.

WELL, IF THEY COME BACK WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT, IT COULD BE A DIFFERENT STRUCTURE.

WE HAVEN'T APPROVED THE STRUCTURE.

THEY HAVE TO. WHAT? THERE'S NO REASON TO LANDMARK IT RIGHT NOW.

WELL, THAT'S WHAT. YEAH.

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE OPPOSED TO THE LANDMARK.

IT'S JUST FOR WHAT'S PROPOSED.

SHOULD WE ASK DAVID TO COME UP HERE? CLINTON. HE'S RAISING HIS HAND.

DON'T TALK TOO LONG, DAVID.

OKAY. THE HL IS JUST BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE.

IT'S A CONDITION IN THE HISTORIC TOWNSHIP THAT YOU WILL NEED TO PREPARE A LANDMARK DESIGNATION FOR THAT IF YOU WANT TO TEAR IT DOWN.

WE HAVE A SEPARATE CASE.

A SEPARATE CASE FOR APPROVAL OF THAT STRUCTURE.

[04:00:04]

AND HPC APPROVED THAT.

BUT BACK TO THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION.

WE ALWAYS LIKE TO HAVE THE PROPERTY'S LANDMARK.

IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T TIE IT TO THE STRUCTURE.

SO YOU'RE SAYING YOU'D LIKE US TO LANDMARK IT? YES. OKAY. DOES IT, DOES IT DOES IT MEET THE STRUCTURE IS A SEPARATE CAR THAT WE WE APPROVED A SEPARATE CAR FOR THE STRUCTURE.

THEY CAN TEAR DOWN THAT PRECIOUS LITTLE RED HOUSE.

AND Y'ALL ARE ALL RIGHT WITH THAT? NO, NO, NO, THE MAIN THE MAIN HOUSE, NOT THE RED BARN.

AND SO THE BUILDING THAT COULD BE BUILT, THAT CAN BE BUILT ALL THE WAY UP TO CHURCH, OR IS THAT THE WHOLE TRACK THAT NOT NOT.

NO, JUST THE HOUSE.

JUST THE HOUSE. RIGHT.

AND IF IF YOU'RE NOT APPROVING THEM TO DO THE PROJECT, THEY CAN'T EVER GET A PERMIT TO BUILD THAT BUILDING THAT WAS APPROVED ON THE CAR.

BUT YOU WANT THE LANDMARK? YES, MA'AM. THEY'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO COME BEFORE HPC FOR THE NEXT.

OKAY. GO FOR IT.

UNDERSTOOD. BECAUSE THAT'S BECAUSE P AND Z DENIED IT.

THEN WHY WOULD DENY IT? BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT.

THE CLARITY WASN'T THERE.

THAT IT'S TWO SEPARATE CASES FOR THE THE BUILDING IS SEPARATE FROM GOING TO COME BACK WITH CLARIFICATION.

OKAY. LET'S TALK TO MR. CHAIRMAN ABOUT THIS. YES.

I GUESS THE OTHER QUESTION IS DOES THE APPLICANT WANT A LANDMARK IF THEY'RE NOT GETTING THE ZONING? I DON'T KNOW THAT ANSWER.

I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE EVEN CONSIDERED THE STRUCTURE IF THAT WASN'T PART OF THE CASE.

I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT BECAUSE BECAUSE OF THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION, THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION IS SOMETHING THAT IS REQUIRED FOR THEM TO PURSUE.

RIGHT, RIGHT I UNDERSTAND.

I MOVE THAT HL 2302 BE APPROVED.

WELL, IS THE APPLICANT STILL WANTING IT? ALL HE'S GOT THE HELL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NEW BUILDING OR TEARING IT DOWN.

NO, BUT IT HAS TO DO. BUT THE APPLICANT HAS TO WANT THE HL.

YES, AND THEY WANTED THE HL THINKING THEY WERE GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH THE TEAR DOWN THE OLD BUILDING.

YEAH. CORRECT. BUT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS IS IT APPROPRIATE US TO FOLLOW THE SUPPORT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON THIS.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? I MY UNDERSTANDING IS, I THINK THAT THE HELL WE ALWAYS LIKE TO HAVE THAT.

AND THEY HAVE OFFERED IT.

YEAH, BUT I THINK THEY OFFERED IT AS A CONDITION OF BEING ABLE TO.

YEAH, THEY OFFERED IT. SO I'M TELLING THE FACTS.

YES. I WITHDRAW MY MOTION.

YEAH. I SUPPORT THE Z'S DECISION TO DENY THIS.

LET'S LET THE APPLICANT DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, I AGREE.

I'LL. SO DO YOU HAVE A IS THERE A MOTION TO.

DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A NEW MOTION.

NO I DON'T I'LL MOVE TO ACCEPT Z'S RECOMMENDATION TO DENY.

OH, SECOND. WELL, IT'S GOING TO TAKE A SUPERMAJORITY, RIGHT? NO AGREEING WITH THEM.

WE'RE AGREEING WITH A CONCURRENCE.

NO. WE DO. NO, SIR.

MAYOR, THAT'S A CONCURRENCE TO SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL.

WE'RE SUPPORTING THE PNC.

WE'RE SUPPORTING THE PNC.

WITH THEM. SO IT'S OKAY.

PNC WANTED TO.

THE MOTION IS TO SUPPORT THE.

YES, SIR. YES. YES, SIR.

AND IN DOING SO, DENIED.

OKAY. YES, SIR. NO.

THAT'S OKAY. MOTION TO APPROVE.

IT'S BEEN A LONG NIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. ITEM FILE 40 C U 2331.

TARA NEEDS SOMETHING. I'M SORRY.

MATTHEW. GO, MATTHEW.

THERE WAS NO VOTE TAKEN.

YEAH. WE NEED TO VOTE.

WE DID VOTE. WE DID VOTE.

WE DID, WE DID. IT WAS JUST A LITTLE SLOPPY.

ALL RIGHT, YOU WANT TO. YOU WANT US TO VOTE AGAIN? NOPE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? ALL OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. ITEM 43.

2331 WAS APPROVED.

SIX ZERO. I'LL MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT ALL. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM 41.

WELL, LET'S SEE HERE.

PLAN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY PD 2304 RESERVE AT BEAR CREEK WAS DENIED SIX ZERO WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

OKAY. WHY? WE WANT THEM TO LEAVE IT LIKE IT WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED, BUT THAT'S EXPIRED, SO THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO COME BACK.

SO WE WANTED TO, NOT WITHOUT PREJUDICE SO THEY COULD COME BACK.

YEAH, I THINK THAT'S FAIR.

I'LL MOVE TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES.

ADAM 42, FINAL PLAT RESERVE AT BEAR CREEK WAS DENIED SIX ZERO.

I'LL MOVE TO DENY SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM 43 TD 2301 NASH BERRY TOWNHOMES WAS DENIED FIVE ONE.

CASE BE DENIED SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR.

ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES 44.

[04:05:01]

FINAL PLAT.

NASH BERRY WAS DENIED SIX ZERO.

I'LL MOVE FOR DENIAL.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED.

ITEM 45.

TRANSIT DISTRICT OVERLAY 2302.

THIS IS THE GRAPEVINE. BROWNSTONE WAS DENIED SIX ZERO WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

OKAY. WHAT ARE YOU EXPECTING? WE WANT HIM TO COME BACK WITH SOME MORE GREEN SPACE AND SOME BETTER PARKING.

AND MAYBE SOME MORE SIDEWALKS.

ALL RIGHT. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S REASONABLE.

I MEAN, THEY WANT TO WORK. THEY WANT TO WORK WITH US, AND WE WANT TO WORK WITH THEM.

SO I'LL.

I'M GLAD YOU CAME BACK WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BECAUSE THAT WAY HE CAN MAKE SOME MODIFICATIONS.

STILL COME UNDER THE SAME ZONING.

OKAY, I'LL RECOMMEND APPROVAL ON P AND Z.

I'LL RECOMMEND DENIAL BASED WITHOUT PREJUDICE BASED ON P AND Z'S RECOMMENDATION.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION.

IS THERE A SECOND? ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED.

46 THE FINAL PLAT WAS DENIED SIX ZERO.

SOMEONE ELSE MAKE A MOTION TO BE DENIED.

MOVE TO THE FLAT. BE DENIED.

I'M TIRED. 46.

WE HAVE A MOTION. SAY THAT AGAIN.

DENIED. THE PLAT WAS DENIED SINCE WE DIDN'T APPROVE THE ZONE.

ALL IN FAVOR? OH, SORRY.

WE HAVE A MOTION. I'M SORRY.

ITEM 47.

WE HAVE A MOTION. THE AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A M 2301 WAS APPROVED SIX ZERO.

ALL RIGHT. AMENDMENT BE APPROVED.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM 48 FINAL PLAT COMPARING GAY EDITION WAS APPROVED SIX ZERO.

MOVE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND THE FINAL PLAT OF LOTS ONE AND TWO.

BLOCK ONE COMPARING AND GAY EDITION.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED.

MOTION CARRIES. THAT COMPLETES THE AGENDA.

LET'S GOT TO MOTION TO ADJOURN IS IN ORDER.

SO MOVED. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED. COUNCIL STANDS ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.