[1. Call to Order.]
[00:00:05]
THE TIME IS 6:00 PM WELCOME TO THE MARCH 23RD, 2023, REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE CITY OF LEANDER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
[2. Roll Call.]
ORDER.LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT.
[3. Director’s report to the Planning & Zoning Commission on actions taken by the City Council at the March 16, 2023 meeting.]
AND NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT.I'M REPORTING ON ACTION TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL DURING THE, UH, MARCH 16TH MEETING.
UM, DURING THE MEETING, THEY REVIEWED A COUPLE OF CASES THAT WERE PRESENTED TO THEM THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY SEEN BY THE COMMISSION.
UM, THEY APPROVED THE BAR W RANCH EAST, UH, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING CASE.
THEY COMPLETED THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE LINE DRIVE, MINOR PLAN, PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND THEY DID APPROVE THE REQUEST.
UM, WE ALSO DID A WORKSHOP ON UPDATES TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE.
UM, SO WE'LL BE MOVING FORWARD WITH SOME CHANGES.
YOU'LL PROBABLY SEE IT IN THE NEXT COUPLE MONTHS.
UM, IT'S GONNA BE HELPFUL, I HOPE, AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE.
NEXT, WE'LL REVIEW THE MEETING PROTOCOL, WHICH WILL BE UP ON THE BOARD.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE, CITIZEN COMMENTS.
AT THIS TIME, IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA, THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO DO SO.
I HAVE NO ONE THAT HAS SUBMITTED A CARD TO DO SO, BUT IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SEEING NONE, WE'LL
[ CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION]
MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM SIX AND SEVEN.THERE WAS A MISTAKE ON THE, UM, PRINTED A OR THE, UH, POSTED AGENDA.
ITEM NUMBER SIX IS A PART OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, BUT BECAUSE OF WHERE IT'S PLACED, I HAVE TO READ IT OUT.
JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS, THAT IS APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION CASE PP DASH 21 DASH 0 0 0 7.
REGARDING HOGS LANDING NORTH PHASE ONE PRELIMINARY PLAT ON ONE PARCEL OF LAND, APPROXIMATELY 49.94 ACRES, PLUS OR MINUS IN SIZE, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY WILLIAMS COUNTY CENTRAL WILLIAMSON, CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT R 61, 64 92.
GENERALLY LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH BAGHDAD ROAD AND HALSEY DRIVE, LEANDER WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS.
THE CONSENT AGENDA IS AN ACTION ITEM.
UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO PULL ITEM SEVEN OFF THE CONSENT.
SO WE WILL PULL ITEM NUMBER SEVEN AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT SEPARATELY.
AND THEN, UM, ITEM NUMBER SIX IS A CONSENT AGENDA ITEM.
SECOND, WE HAVE A COMMOTION, A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER MAY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OLIVER.
[7. Approval of Minutes.]
UH, AND NOW WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE MINUTES.IT'S JUST REALLY A HOUSEKEEPING THING, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT ITEM SEVEN, EIGHT, AND NINE WHERE THEY TALK ABOUT, UH, WHO MADE THE MOTIONS, WHO SECONDED AND SO FORTH, THEY'RE STILL SHOWING, UM, MR. COSGROVE AS THE CHAIRPERSON AND YOU AS THE VICE CHAIR.
AND THEN THE SIGNATURE PAGE ON THE MINUTES SHOWS MR. COSGROVE.
SO THAT JUST NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP.
UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S, I NOTICED IT IN SEVEN, EIGHT, AND NINE.
I JUST HAPPENED TO, IT CAUGHT MY EYE.
HOUSEKEEPING, UH, CHECK ON THAT FOR US.
UM, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION AROUND THIS? SO WITH THE AMENDMENTS TO THE, UM, OR THE, UM, FIXES TO THE MINUTES.
MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CHANGES.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY VICE CHAIR LANDRO, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MOSS.
[8. Conduct a Public Hearing regarding Subdivision Case CP-22-0013 to adopt the LC Hero Way Concept Plan on two parcels of land approximately 21.86 acres ± in size, more particularly described by Williamson Central Appraisal District Parcels R031600 & R457677; generally located to the northwest of the intersection of Hero Way and Main Street, Leander, Williamson County, Texas. Discuss and consider action regarding Subdivision Case CP-22-0013 as described above. Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation Open Public Hearing Close Public Hearing Discussion Consider Action]
PASSES UNANIMOUSLY ONTO OUR PUBLIC HEARING.I AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING SUBDIVISION CASE CP 2213 TO ADOPT THE LC HERO WAY CONCEPT PLAN ON TWO PARCELS OF LAND, APPROXIMATELY 21.86 ACRES IN SIZE.
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY WILLIAMSON CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT PARCELS AS DESCRIBED IN THE POSTED AGENDA.
MICHAEL JANOWSKI, PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UM, SO THIS CONCEPT PLAN, UH, YOU MIGHT BE FAMILIAR WITH, IT WAS HERE LAST MONTH, UH, FEBRUARY, 2020 THIRD.
UM, SO A COUPLE REASONS WHY YOU'RE SEEING IT AGAIN.
UM, THE FIRST REASON, UH, ALTHOUGH WE HELD A PUBLIC HEARING AND, UH, SIGNS AND NOTICES WERE POSTED, UH, THERE WAS A TYPO IN THE AGENDA SUBJECT.
UH, IT DIDN'T STATE PUBLIC HEARING, SO WE'VE CORRECTED THAT.
UH, THE OTHER REASON IS THE APPLICANT IS ADDING A, UH, ANOTHER WARRANT TO ALLOW, UH, PRIVATE STREETS TO QUALIFY AS, UH, ROADWAYS TO CREATE BLOCKS.
UH, THIS WOULD ALLOW THE PRIVATE STREETS THROUGHOUT THE SITE, ASIDE FROM EAST STREET, UH, WHICH IS REQUIRED COLLECTOR PER THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN.
SO, UM, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS, ALL OF THESE DASHED LINES WOULD NOW BE, UH, PRIVATE STREETS.
UM, SO JUST TO REFRESH, UH, THE REST OF THIS CONCEPT PLAN, IT DOES INCLUDE 15 ACRES OF MULTI-FAMILY, UH, TWO ACRES OF MIXED
[00:05:01]
USE, UH, WHICH ARE SCHEDULED TO BE 90% COMMERCIAL AND THREE ACRES OF CIVIC SPACE.UM, THE OTHER WARRANTS THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED, UM, TWO DEAL WITH THE THOROUGHFARE ASSEMBLIES, UH, THE CS DASH 68 DASH 46 TO ALLOW WIDER SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC ON STREET DIAGONAL PARKING FOR COMMERCIAL USES.
UH, THIS WOULD ALSO INCLUDE, UH, AN ALTERATION TO THE FOUR BY FOUR TREE WELL REQUIREMENT TO BE MODIFIED TO ALLOW FOR A FOUR FOOT CONTINUOUS PLANTER, UH, THE RA DASH 32 DASH 32 TO ALLOW AN ALLEY TYPE THOROUGHFARE, WHICH INCLUDES EIGHT FOOT PARKING LANE ON ONE SIDE OF THE ALLEY TO ACT AS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE RAILROAD.
THAT'S THIS ROAD TYPE RIGHT HERE.
AND THEN, UH, THE LAST ONE WAS, UH, TO ALLOW, UH, STOOP COVERS TO, UH, ENCROACH SEVEN FOOT, UH, NO DEEPER THAN SEVEN FEET.
UH, IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR A VARIATION IN THE, UH, BUILDING DESIGN AT THE PEDESTRIAN LEVEL AND SAFETY FROM THE ELEMENTS, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT PLAN WITH THE REFERENCED WARRANTS, UH, CONCURRENT WITH THIS APPLICATION.
AND I'LL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE A APPLICANT PRESENTATION? YOU CAN JUST LEAVE THAT ONE UP THAT YOU HAD.
DREW RAFA, IAN WILLIAMS WITH, UH, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.
THEY DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF SUMMING UP, UH, SUMMING UP WHY WE'RE HERE.
UM, JUST TO REITERATE ON THE, UH, THE REASON THAT WE'RE HERE FOR THE, THE NOTICE AGAIN IS BECAUSE OF THE, I'M SORRY, LET ME JUST BACK UP.
UH, THERE WAS A, SINCE THERE WAS A NOTIFICATION ERROR AS WE WERE WORKING THROUGH THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS, UM, IT CAME UP AS A STAFF COMMENT THAT WE COULD NOT USE, UH, A PAVER AS A SURFACE IMPROVEMENT WITHIN, UH, THE PROJECT ON A PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE.
AND SO SINCE WE HAD TO COME BACK BEFORE YOU GUYS, BECAUSE OF OUR NOTICE ERROR, WE DECIDED TO INCLUDE, UM, A REQUEST TO MAKE THE THOROUGH AFFAIRS, UM, WITHIN THE PROJECT PRIVATE SO THAT WE COULD USE A PAVER APPLICATION.
UM, OTHERWISE NO OTHER ASPECT OF THIS HAS CHANGED, UM, SINCE THE LAST TIME THAT YOU SAW IT.
AND WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS HERE.
AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I DO NOT HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION.
COMMISSIONER KOSGROW, QUESTION FOR MR. CHINOS.
UM, IF THESE, UH, SHEETZ BECOME PRIVATE, WHAT OVERSIGHT DOES THE CITY HAVE TO WHAT, WHAT, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, DOES THE CITY HAVE ANY OVERSIGHT OVER, OVER WHAT GOES ON WITH THOSE STREETS? ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT HOW THEY'RE CONSTRUCTED OR THEY USED AFTER CONSTRUCTION OR, AND THEN USED AFTERWARDS? SO THEY, THEY WOULD COMPLY WITH OUR, UM, STREET STANDARDS, UH, WHEN THEY'RE BUILDING IT, AND THEN AFTERWARDS THEY WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO, UM, CLOSE 'EM FOR EVENTS.
UM, I THINK THEY DID HAVE A, A NOTE SAYING THEY WOULD NOT BE GATED TO MEET THE INTENT OF THE SMART CODE.
SO YOU STILL HAVE THE CONNECTIVITY, SO WE STILL HAVE THAT.
BUT IF THEY HAD LIKE A FESTIVAL OR SOMETHING, WHICH I DON'T IMAGINE THEM DOING, BUT THAT WOULD BE AN INSTANCE WHERE THEY COULD TEMPORARILY CLOSE THE STREET WITHOUT ANY, THEY WOULD'VE TO GET PERMITS TO PERMITS SLOT, GO THROUGH THE PERMIT PROCESS.
COMMISSIONER MOSS? NO COMMENTS.
COMMISSIONER OLIVER? UH, I DO HAVE A QUESTION.
YOU SAID, UH, PAVER ARE WE TALKING ABOUT, SO ACTUALLY ABOUT THE APPLICANT HERE, THE, THE PAVING METHOD, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT PAVING STONES OR LIKE COBBLESTONE ROADWAY OR WHAT KIND OF, WHAT KIND OF CONSTRUCTION OR SURFACE MATERIAL ARE YOU GONNA PLAN ON USING FOR THESE STREETS? A A MATERIAL HAS NOT BEEN, UM, SELECTED RIGHT NOW.
WHERE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS IS THAT WE NEED THIS WARRANT IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS DISCUSSION WITH STAFF.
STAFF, UM, STILL HAS TO APPROVE THE PAVER THAT WILL BE UTILIZED, BUT IT'LL BE A PERMEABLE PAVER, UM, SORT OF, UH, LIKE A A A BRICK PAVER OR SOMETHING LIKE YOU'VE SEEN BEFORE.
AND THEN I ASSUME THERE'LL BE, GIVEN THE TRAFFIC GOING THROUGH THE, THERE'LL BE OBVIOUSLY A PROPER ENGINEERING, UH, CORRECT IN PLACE AT UNDERSTANDS KIND OF HOW MUCH TRAFFIC CAN BE ON THOSE PAVERS OR HOW, HOW MUCH TRAFFIC CAN'T BE ON THOSE PAVERS JUST TO ENSURE THAT
[00:10:01]
THE, THE LIFESPAN OF THEM WILL NOT HAVE TO BE REPLACED WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME? THAT'S CORRECT.AND WE ARE STILL CONSTRUCTING TO THE CROSS-SECTION OF THE THOROUGHFARES WITHIN THE SMART CODE.
UM, WE'RE NOT SEEKING A, A WARRANT TO ANY, ANY SORT OF CROSS-SECTION CHANGE.
THIS WILL JUST BEFORE THAT, UM, MATERIAL TYPE ON THE, ON THOSE THOROUGHFARES AND, UM, BECAUSE THEY'LL BE PRIVATE, THEY WOULD ALSO BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AS WELL.
I'LL JUST SAY, JUST KEEP WORKING WITH THE CITY ON THAT CUZ IF, IF THERE ARE NO GATES, LIKE, LIKE WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT IF THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC THAT DECIDES TO CUT THROUGH THERE, ONCE NORTHLINE GOES UP AND THAT DENSITY AND THE TRAFFIC FLOATS THAT THERE STARTS TO INCREASE, THEY CAN START CUTTING THROUGH THERE MORE FREQUENTLY AND THAT COULD PUT MORE, YOU KNOW, MORE IMPACT ON THE STREETS AND THAT COULD CAUSE THEM TO DETERIORATE DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU DECIDE TO USE THERE.
SO JUST CONTINUE WORKING WITH THE CITY ON THAT TO FIND A SOLUTION THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, BE, BE, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT WOULD LAST LONG TERM.
MY QUESTION WAS JUST ANSWERED.
MINE IS SIMILAR TO THE ONE, UH, CAN I HAVE JUST A QUICK QUESTION? SO ON THEIR, THEIR PRIVATE STREETS AND, AND THEY HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF THE THING, BUT DO WE HAVE JURISDICTION TO GO IN THERE AND IF THEY HAVE ISSUES THAT WE CAN FORCE THEM TO ACTUALLY UP OR NOT UPGRADE THEM, BUT REPAIR THEM IF THERE'S PROBLEMS OR SOMETHING AND THEY, I MEAN, I, I DON'T KNOW, WHAT KIND OF CULT DO WE HAVE, SO TO SPEAK? SO I, I WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD ONLY ENFORCE SOMETHING IF IT WAS A HEALTH SAFETY, WELFARE ISSUE, RIGHT? IF IT'S JUST AESTHETICS, THAT WOULD BE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY.
BUT CAN WE, IF IT'S A HEALTH SAFETY, IF IT'S HEALTH SAFETY, YES.
THAT'S JUST, THAT'S MY ONLY QUESTION.
AND, UH, JUST, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE REFERENCE WARRANTS? CORRECT.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY VICE CHAIR LANTRIP SUB, UH, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER AL OLIVER.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
[9. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider action on Subdivision Case FP-22-0020 and Variance Case VA-22-0008 to approve the Freehill Addition Short Form Final Plat and Variance on one parcel of land approximately 16.85 acres ± in size, more particularly described by Williamson County Central Appraisal District Parcel R327784; approximately 1,000 feet to the west of the intersection of W Broade Street and Hero Way West on the south side of Hero Way West, Leander, Williamson County, Texas. Discuss and consider action on Subdivision Case FP-22-0020 and Variance Case VA-22-0008 as described above. Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation Open Public Hearing Close Public Hearing Discussion Consider Action]
ITEM NUMBER NINE, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ACTION ON SUBDIVISION CASE FP DASH 22 DASH ZERO 20 AND VARIANCE CASE VA DASH 22 DASH 0 0 0 8 TO APPROVE THE FREE HILL EDITION SHORT FORM, FINAL PLAT AND VARIANCE ON ONE PARCEL OF LAND, APPROXIMATELY 16.85 ACRES IN SIZE.MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY WILLIAMSON COUNTY CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT PARCELS AS DESCRIBED IN THE POSTED AGENDA.
STAFF PRESENTATION, GOOD EVENING COMMISSION.
JUSTIN HUNT WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS THE FINAL STEP OF THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS.
A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THIS, UH, SECTION 45 A UH, THREE OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT BLOCKS ALONG ARTERIAL STREETS AND BLOCKS CONTAINING OR PROPOSED TO CONTAIN PRIMARILY COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL USES, SHALL NOT EXCEED A PERIMETER LENGTH OF A PERIMETER BLOCK LENGTH OF 4,000 FEET.
THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT BLOCK LENGTH IN EXCESS OF 4,000 FEET, PLACE A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY TO DEFY THE BLOCK LENGTH TO MEET THE 4,000 FOOT REQUIREMENT.
A VARIANCE REQUEST TO SECTION 45 A THREE OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A VARIANCE REQUEST PROPOSING TO MEET THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE BY PROVIDING RECIPROCAL ACCESS THROUGH DRIVEWAY CONNECTIONS.
UH, STAFF, UM, RECOMMENDATION STAFF RECOMMENDS, UH, APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST SINCE THE ROADS AND CONNECTIVITY WILL COME THROUGH PRIVATE EASEMENTS WHILE STILL ALLOWING ACCESS, UM, TO THE RIGHT OF WAY.
UH, THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR THIS CASE.
UH, AND I'LL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT PRESENTATION? NO, WE DO NOT.
UH, AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I DO NOT HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK THOUGH.
I DO HAVE A CARD HERE THAT, UH, THE COMMENTS WOULD LIKE TO BE READ INTO THE RECORD.
UH, BUT BEFORE I DO THAT, IF THERE'S ANYONE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, THAT HASN'T SIGNED UP.
SEEING NONE, UM, MR. RICK BICKLEY, HE'S NOT FOR OR AGAINST, HE JUST HAD A QUESTION AND SO IT'S, HE SAID HE ASKED, IS THERE A PROPOSED SITE PLAN AVAILABLE AND COULD YOU EXPLAIN THE PROPOSED WASTEWATER DRAINAGE PLAN BEHIND THE PROPERTY? SO, WE'LL, I'M SURE WE'LL GET TO THAT WHEN WE HAVE THE DISCUSSION.
UM, AND AT THIS TIME, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY SPECIFIC OTHER THAN I, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THAT COMMENT ANSWERED AS WELL.
SO THEN, MR. HUNT, OR, I MEAN, THEY DON'T, IT'S A PLOT, SO WE'RE JUST CREATING A LOT RIGHT NOW.
SO THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A SITE PLAN, UM, OR UTILITY PLANS AT THIS TIME.
WHEN THEY COME UP WITH A SITE PLAN, THAT'S WHEN THEY'LL SHOW US HOW THEY'RE GONNA SERVE THE LOT.
[00:15:01]
COVER THE WASTEWATER DRAINAGE AND THAT'S CORRECT.SO THIS IS PRIMARILY COMMERCIAL.
UH, UM, CURRENTLY IT'S ZONED HEAVY COMMERCIAL, HEAVY COMMERCIAL.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER OLIVER? UH, NO QUESTION.
COMMISSIONER MOZ? NO QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER COSGROVE, I HAVE NOTHING AND I HAVE NONE AS WELL.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY VICE CHAIR LANTRIP AND, UH, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSGROVE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
[10. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider action on Subdivision Case FP-22-0033 and Variance Case VA-22-0009 to approve the Live Oak Ranch, Lot 19 Replat Short Form Final Plat and Variance on one parcel of land approximately 8.54 acres ± in size, more particularly described by Williamson County Central Appraisal District Parcel R023978; generally located at 1304 Spivey Road, Leander, Williamson County, Texas. Discuss and consider action on Subdivision Case FP-22-0033 and Variance CaseVA-22-0009 as described above. Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation Open Public Hearing Close Public Hearing Discussion Consider Action]
UH, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ACTION ON SUBDIVISION CASE FP DASH 22 DASH 33 AND VARIANCE CASE VA DASH 22 DASH 0 0 9 TO APPROVE THE LIVE OAK RANCH LOT 19 REPLAT SHORT FORM, FINAL PLAT AND VARIANCE ON ONE PARCEL OF LAND, APPROXIMATELY 8.54 ACRES IN SIZE, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY WILLIAMSON COUNTY CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT PARCEL AS DESCRIBED IN THE POSTED AGENDA.GOOD EVENING AGAIN, UH, THIS IS THE FINAL STEP OF THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS.
THIS IS, UM, REGARDING SECTION 45
UH, WATER WELLS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF TWO ACRES IN SIZE AND CONFORM TO THE COUNTY OR L C R A REGULATIONS BASED ON PRECO LOCATION, PERION, I'M SORRY, TESTS AND SOIL ANALYSIS.
THE COUNTY REGULATES ONSITE SEWAGE FACILITY PERMITS AND ALLOWS FOR LOTS ONE ACRE IN GREATER TO BE SERVED BY ONSITE SEWAGE FACILITIES.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO SECTION 45 B TWO II OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ALLOW PROPOSED PARCELS 19 B AND 19 C ONSITE SEWAGE FACILITIES AT REDUCED LOT SIZES.
UH, THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF IS, UH, FOR APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST SINCE WE HAVE RECEIVED CONFIRMATION FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY THAT THIS IS ACCEPTABLE.
THIS IS ALL I HAVE FOR THIS CASE, AND I'LL BE AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE A APPLICANT PRESENTATION? WE DO.
UM, APPRECIATE YOUR TIME FIRST AND FOREMOST, I'LL DIVE RIGHT INTO IT.
UM, SO WE DID START WITH THE COUNTY TO GET, SEEK THEIR APPROVAL FOR THE MINIMUM OF A ONE ACRE VERSUS THE TWO.
UM, THE REASON BEING BASED ON, UH, TEXAS COMMISSION ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 2 85 0.1 PROPERTIES FLATTED BEFORE SEPTEMBER 27TH, 1999, UH, CAN BE A MINIMUM PLOT SIZING SPECIFIC TO 30 TAC 2 85 0.4, WHICH WILL REFERENCE THAT, WHICH ACTUALLY SAYS THAT, UM, YOU CAN HAVE A MINIMUM OF AT LEAST ONE ACRE IN ORDER TO DO SO.
UM, THE NEXT, UH, SLIDE HERE SHOWS THAT THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNER MR. POST, ACTUALLY TOOK OVER THE PROPERTY IN 1991.
PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN SUBDIVIDED SINCE, THUS FALLING IN THAT 1991 PRIOR TO 1999.
UM, THE COUNTY HAS ALREADY APPROVED THE SEPTIC PLAN AND THE MINIMUM OF ONE ACRE.
AND THEN THE LAST SLIDE THAT I'LL SPEAK TO IS JUST OUR CORRESPONDENCE WITH MS UH, GRIFFIN.
UM, SPEAKING WITH PAUL WALTER WITH THE SEPTIC, UM, COUNTY SEPTIC.
THEY DID APPROVE THE, UH, MINIMUM ONE ACRE BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN RE PLATTED AND WAS ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO 1999.
SO OPEN FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATION, BUT THAT'S KIND OF THE BACKING OF, OF HOW WE GOT HERE.
SO AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO? SEEING NONE.
I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION.
COMMISSIONER KOSGROW? I'M GOOD.
SO YOUR NAME IS SAMMY POST? YES, I'M THE REPRESENTATIVE.
UH, WELL, YOU DIDN'T INTRODUCE YOURSELF WHEN YOU CAME UP, SO
COMMISSIONER OLIVER? UH, I'M GOOD VICE
[00:20:01]
CHAIR.UH, ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS THE, I NOTICED THE EASEMENT ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
I'M ASSUMING THAT'S FOR THE ROADWAY EASEMENT CONTINUATION FROM THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OF THERE.
THERE'S ACTUALLY NO ACCIDENT, SIR.
YOU'LL HAVE TO COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE.
SO THE EASEMENT YOU'RE SPEAKING TO ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, THANK YOU.
UM, SO THAT THE ROAD, THE RIGHT OF WAY IS RIGHT HERE.
UM, THIS IS CURRENTLY SOMEBODY ELSE'S PLOT OF LAND.
THERE IS ANOTHER PRIVATE ROAD JUST NORTH OF THIS.
UM, BUT THAT IS STAYING ON THE, THE PLAT ITSELF IN THE EVENT IT IS NEEDED IN THE FUTURE.
UM, BUT AS OF NOW, IT'S NOT OPEN TO PUBLIC.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER OLIVER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MOSS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
[11. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider action regarding Zoning Case Z-22-0001 to amend the current zoning of SFT-2-B (Single-Family Townhouses) to adopt the Hero Way Townhouses PUD (Planned Unit Development) with the base zoning district of SFT-2-A (Single-Family Townhouses) on two parcels of land approximately 5.58 acres ± in size, more particularly described by Williamson Central Appraisal District Parcels R031386 and R031387; and more commonly known as 11675 Hero Way West, Leander, Williamson County, Texas. Discuss and consider action regarding Zoning Case Z-22-001 as described above. Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation Open Public Hearing Close Public Hearing Discussion Consider Action]
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ACTION REGARDING ZONING CASE Z DASH 22 DASH 0 0 0 1.TO AMEND THE CURRENT ZONING OF SFT TWO B SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOUSE TO ADOPT THE HERO WAY TOWNHOUSES PUD PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITH THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT OF SFT TWO, A SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOUSES ON TWO PARCELS OF LAND, APPROXIMATELY 5.58 ACRES IN SIZE.
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY WILLIAM CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT PARCELS AS POSTED AS LISTED IN THE POSTED AGENDA.
MICHAEL JANOWSKI, PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UH, SO THIS REQUEST IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE ZONING PROCESS.
UH, THE ORIGINAL, UH, SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOUSE ZONING WAS APPROVED ON JUNE 17TH, 2021.
UH, THIS APPROVAL LIMIT THE, THIS APPROVAL LIMITED THE DENSITY TO NINE UNITS PER ACRE.
UH, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN UPDATE TO THE ZONING, UH, TO REDUCE THE SETBACKS AND ALLOW FOR PRIVATE STREETS.
SO THE PROPERTY WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THIS, UH, SOUTHERN PORTION.
UH, THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED AS SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOUSE, UH, AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A PUT ZONING IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY ON HOW THAT BASE ZONING IS ACHIEVED.
THE WATER RESOLUTION IS NOT APPLICABLE, UH, TO THIS PROJECT AS THE LAND USES AND DENSITY HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.
UH, THIS REQUEST WILL NOT ALTER THE BASIC INTENT OF THE EXISTING ALLOWABLE USES.
UM, SO THE SURROUNDING, UH, AREA, THIS PROPERTY'S LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HERE WAY.
IT'S SET BACK ROUGHLY 500 FEET FROM THE ROAD.
UH, THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST IS UNDEVELOPED LAND ZONED FOR HEAVY COMMERCIAL.
WE JUST SAW THE, UH, PLAT, UH, JUST A COUPLE MINUTES AGO.
UH, THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH, UH, IS ZONED AS COMMERCIAL, AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE, UH, WEST ARE ALSO COMMERCIAL.
UM, SO THE PREVIOUS ZONING CASE, UH, AS I MENTIONED, UH, IT WAS A ZONING CASE CHANGE FROM SFU DASH TWO DASH B TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOUSE.
SO THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL PORTION WAS THE PORTION FRONTING HERE AWAY.
UH, SO THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THIS MINOR PUT IS TO ALLOW FOR THE REDUCTION OF BUILDING SEPARATIONS BETWEEN STRUCTURES.
UH, THE COMPOSITE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT BUILDINGS ARE SPACED 20 FEET APART AND THIS PROPOSAL REDUCES THIS SETBACK TO 10 FEET.
THE PUD ALSO INCLUDES THE OPTION FOR ATTACHED AND DETACHED TOWNHOUSES.
ALL LOTS MAY TAKE ACCESS OFF PRIVATE STREETS, AND THE, THE MAXIMUM UNIT COUNT SHALL BE NINE UNITS PER ACRE.
UH, THE REQUEST ALSO INCLUDES THE TYPE A ARCHITECTURAL COMPONENT AS A HIGHER STANDARD FROM THE CURRENT ZONING AND NOT INCLUDED IN THE PUD.
BUT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING, UH, TO INCLUDE THAT SIDEWALKS BE PROVIDED ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET.
UH, SO THE SECOND STEP IN THE PROCESS AFTER THE ZONING PROCESS IS THE CONCEPT PLAN.
UM, THAT WAS APPROVED IN FEBRUARY OF 2022.
UH, THE THIRD STEP IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT.
UH, AT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT STAGE, UH, THE APPLICANT SHOWS THE STREET LAYOUT AND, UH, THE LOT LAYOUT.
IT WAS AT THIS STAGE THAT WE COULD SEE THE CURRENT ZONING, UH, WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE OR THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, UH, JUST BASED ON THE LOT SIZES AND THE ROAD WIDTH.
UM, AS FOR THIS REASON THAT, UM, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THESE CHANGES THROUGH THE PUD, UH, PUBLIC STREETS WOULD REQUIRE A 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY.
PRIVATE STREETS WOULD ALLOW FOR A REDUCTION OF RIGHT OF WAY TO 26 FOOT.
AS PART OF THIS PUD ZONING REQUEST.
UH, THE PERIMETER BLOCK LENGTH LIMITATIONS REQUIRED BY THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, UH, ARE ALSO ASKED TO BE WAIVED.
UH, DUE TO THE UNIQUE SHAPE AND LOCATION OF THIS PARCEL, THE PUD WILL OFFER FLEXIBILITY TO DEVELOP UNDER THE SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOUSE, UH, BASED ZONING WITHOUT SIGNIFICANTLY
[00:25:01]
ALTERING THE EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT.AND I'LL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE A APPLICANT PRESENTATION? GOOD, EVERYONE.
UM, SO LIKE WE, MICHAEL SAID, THE, THE BASE JOINING IS WE ARE NOT, UH, CHANGING ANYTHING.
THE DENSITY WISE ARE, UH, WE WANT TO SHOW LIKE MORE IN THE, THE LAYOUT.
SO WE STILL STICKING WITH THE NINE UNITS PER ACRE AND, UM, YOU KNOW, AS, AS WE TRYING TO SAVE THE BACK OF THAT PROPERTY AS MORE GREENER, LIKE YOU CAN SEE THAT.
SO IT GIVE US THE SETBACKS, A REDUCTION GIVES US THE FLEXIBILITY TO ACHIEVE THE SAME NUMBER OF UNITS.
SO THAT'S THE REQUEST WE ARE, UH, UH, ASKING.
SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS HAVE.
UH, WE MIGHT HAVE SOME AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I DO NOT HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
IS THERE SOME OF THEM THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? HI, I'LL GIVE THIS TO YOU SINCE YES, MA'AM.
IF YOU, MS. HOWELL, IF YOU JUST SPEAK YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS INTO THE MICROPHONE, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UM, I LIVE AT 11 13 27 HIRO WAY WEST, WHICH IS RIGHT DOWN THE STREET.
UM, THE, UH, THE ONLY COMMENT I HAVE IS, UM, WELL, ONE, WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THIS PROPERTY FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
IN, IN THE DENSITY IN 2021, IT WAS DECIDED TO GO TOWNHOUSES BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE LOWER DENSITY THAN, UM, IT WOULD BE THE LOWEST DENSITY THAT WE COULD GET FOR THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, WHICH IS GOOD.
UM, THIS PROPERTY IS NEXT TO BAGHDAD CEMETERY.
MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING NEXT TO CEMETERIES ALWAYS LEADS TO VANDALISM.
UH, THE CEMETERY ASSOCIATION I KNOW HAS MADE THIS REQUEST MULTIPLE TIMES THAT THERE BE AN EIGHT FOOT ROCK FENCE BETWEEN THIS DEVELOPMENT AND THE CEMETERY.
UM, IT, IT IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE PRESERVE OUR CEMETERY.
IT IS ONE OF THE OLDEST CEMETERIES IN THE STATE.
IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE PROTECT THOSE ASSETS THERE.
WE ALSO HAVE PEOPLE DOING, UH, DRUG DROPS THERE.
SO WE ALREADY HAVE A PROBLEM THERE.
WE ALREADY HAVE, UH, LEANDER PD HAVING TO PATROL IT MORE THAN THEY SHOULD BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION.
MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING IS THE KISS OF DEATH NEXT TO A CEMETERY.
UM, IT HAS HAPPENED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
UM, MY MOTHER STARTED TEX SAVE TEXAS, UM, CEMETERIES FOR THIS, THIS, AND MANY OTHER REASONS.
AND THAT PROGRAM TURNED INTO WHAT IS NOW WITH THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION BECAUSE IT IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR OUR CITIZENS.
UM, I I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE, THE BODY THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS THIS AT OR AT THE TIME WE NEED TO DISCUSS IT, BUT I WANT IT ON THE RECORD THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS AND WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THAT.
WE NEED TO GET A VERY FIRM BARRIER BETWEEN THIS DEVELOPMENT AND THE CEMETERY.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION.
COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, I GUESS THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, DOES TH THIS PARTICULAR, UH, WE'VE ALREADY PASSED THIS IN THE PAST, NOW THEY'RE ASK, ASKING TO MAKE A COUPLE OF CHANGES.
DOES IT MEET WITH THE NEW CITY ORDINANCE? UH, AS FAR AS DENSITY GOES, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE WATER RESOLUTION? THE WATER RESOLUTION.
SO, UM, IF THIS WAS A NEW CASE, WE WOULD NOT SUPPORT IT BASED ON THE WATER RESOLUTION, BUT THEY HAVE EXISTING ZONING THAT ALREADY ALLOWS THE DENSITY.
THE OTHER QUESTION WOULD BE, IS THERE AN INTEREST OR FROM THE DEVELOPER TO POTENTIALLY INCLUDE AN EIGHT FOOT WALL? SORRY, COULD YOU PLEASE REPEAT THE QUESTION? IS, IS THERE AN INTEREST TO INCLUDE A WALL ON YOUR WESTERN PERIMETER
[00:30:01]
OF THIS? YEAH.THE DEVELOPER IS HERE, YOU CAN SPEAK.
SO YES, MA'AM SAID LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE ARE PLANNING TO DO THAT, UH, EIGHT FEET WALL, UM, BETWEEN OUR PROPERTY AND THE CEMETERY.
THAT WAS THE ONLY COMMENTS I HAD.
I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT ONE SINCE YOU'RE, SINCE YOU'RE HERE BEFORE WE DISMISS IT.
IS THAT IN THE PUT NOTES? I DON'T THINK IT IS.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD DEFINITELY WANT THERE IF YOU'RE AMENABLE TO IT.
THAT WAY WE MAKE SURE THAT IT'S DONE.
IF IT'S NOT IN THE PUT NOTES, WE CAN, NOT THAT WE DON'T TRUST YOU, BUT WE CAN SAY WHAT WE WANT TO.
ONCE WE APPROVE SOMETHING, IT THEN YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT.
IF IT'S NOT IN THE NOTES, WE HAVE NO WAY TO HOLD YOU TO THAT.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD ADD TO THE PUT NOTES AS A PART OF THIS REQUEST.
I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S NOT HOLDING THE APPROVAL.
CAN I, CAN I ALSO JUST, UH, TAG ALONG ON THAT ONE? UH, JUST AS FAR AS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THAT WALL, MAKE SURE WE HAVE STIPULATIONS IN PLACE FOR WHAT MATERIAL IS USED.
I THINK THE, AND AND COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, YOU ASKED IF IT WAS TO BE AN EIGHT FOOT STONEWALL.
SO MY QUESTION WOULD BE FOR MS. GRIFFIN, DO WE HAVE TO, UM, DELAY DECISION ON THIS TILL WE GET A REVISED PUT OR CAN WE JUST AMEND THE, PUT IT, IT'S UP TO YOU.
SO YOU COULD MAKE A MOTION TO, UM, REQUEST THAT'S ADDED TO THE PUT AND THEN STAFF CAN ADD IT.
TYPICALLY Y'ALL DELAY IT IF, UM, IT'S SOMETHING WE WANT YOU TO SEE.
LIKE IF THERE'S SOME QUESTION ABOUT HOW IT'LL BE APPLIED, BUT THIS ONE'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
SO WE DON'T NEED TO DELAY THIS.
I DON'T, WE CAN THINK, GO AHEAD.
THAT'S ALL HAND COMMISSIONER OLIVER.
SO YEAH, APPRECIATE THE DESIRE TO PRESERVE THE, UH, GREEN SPACE IN THE BACK PART OF THE PROPERTY ALONG THE CREEK THERE.
UH, I DIDN'T NOTICE IN THE NOTES, IT WAS ALSO EVEN A 10 FOOT, UH, TRAIL THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED BASED ON CITY REQUIREMENTS.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NICE AS WELL.
I HAD A QUESTION FOR YOU GUYS.
AND THEN REGARDING THE, UM, UH, THAT THE 20 FOOT, YOU KNOW, UH, DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TOWNHOMES, IF, IF YOU, IF YOU WERE STILL REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN 20 FEET, HOW MANY UNITS WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO FIT ON THIS PROPERTY VERSUS, UH, GETTING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR, UH, 10 FEET? WHAT WAS, WE STILL CAN GET THE LOTS, BUT THE, THE PROBLEM IS, YOU KNOW, THE FLEXIBILITY GIVE THE, YOU KNOW, IF WE DIVIDE INTO FOUR UNITS FOR, UH, A BUILDING, IT GIVES THE RESIDENTS TO MORE FLEXIBILITY ON THAT, LIKE, LIKE A BETTER VENTILATION OR, YOU KNOW, WE CAN COMBINE SIX UNITS AND WE CAN GET THE SAME, SAME NUMBER OF UNITS.
SO, SO SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT WHETHER, WHETHER YOU HAVE A 10 FOOT, UM, BUFFER BETWEEN THE, THE HOMES ARE 20 FEET, YOU, YOU CAN STILL GET THE SAME AMOUNT OF UNITS ON THAT YEAH.
SO, SO THE, SO THEN WHY ARE YOU ASKING FOR ONCE AGAIN, 10 FEET VERSUS 20 FEET? RIGHT.
AGAIN, LIKE TO FIRST THING IS TO, TO PRESERVE THE GREEN SPACE.
AND WE CAN TWEAK THE STREETS AND WE CAN GET THAT.
AND AGAIN, THE, ALL THE UNITS IN THE BACK, YOU CAN SEE THAT WE WANT TO GIVE THEM THAT MORE GREEN SPACE AND GIVE THE, UH, LESS NUMBER OF, UH, UH, BLOCK IN THE, IN THE BLOCK.
LIKE IT CAN GO SIX UNITS, BUT IF WE GIVE THE FOUR UNITS, IT GIVES THEM THE MORE BACKYARD AND, UH, FLEXIBILITY IN.
SO BASICALLY YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE THAT GREEN SPACE AND BY, BY CUTTING DOWN THAT SPACE IN BETWEEN RIGHT, YOU CAN ACTUALLY PRESERVE MORE OF THAT SPACE AND GIVE THE HOMEOWNERS MORE YARD SPACE, MORE GREEN SPACE IN THEIR YARD.
I MEAN,
WE'RE OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE DEALING WITH WATER ISSUES IN OUR CITY.
I JUST, YOU KNOW, HAVE TO THROW THAT OUT THERE AT LEAST FOR THE RECORD TO STATE THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE, YOU KNOW, WITH THE TOWN HOME YOU DON'T NEED THAT MUCH BACKYARD SPACE.
I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT LIKE THE BIGGER TREES, WE, YOU KNOW, EVEN WE'RE NOT CUTTING DOWN ANY TREES LIKE HARDLY.
WE, WE SAVE MAJORITY OF THE TREES ON THE, OKAY.
SO THEY, THEY DO STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH OUR NEW LANDSCAPE ORDINANCES WHEN IT COMES TO THE, THE TOWNHOUSE LOTS WITH THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE AMOUNT OF TURF.
COMMISSIONER ROSS, UM, ALL THE QUESTIONS WERE, WERE ASKED ALREADY,
MR. CUSCO, JUST, JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE BEING ASKED TO, TO CHANGE THE SETBACK, CHANGE THE SIDEWALK AND CHANGE THE, THE WIDTH OF THE, THE PRIVATE ROAD FROM, FROM PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ROADWAY? THAT THAT'S WHAT THE PARTY IS.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M, I'M CLEAR ON WHAT I'M VOTING ON, RIGHT?
[00:35:01]
THAT THAT'S CORRECT.AND, AND MY, MY ONLY QUESTION IS THAT DURING THE SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT, THAT'S WHEN THEY'LL MAKE SURE THAT, THAT THE, THE ROADS, BECAUSE WE ARE CHANGING SOME DISTANCES AND SIZES ARE GONNA MEET WITH OUR, WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENTAL, HAVE REVIEW OVER THAT.
IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, YES, COMMISSIONER, WE GOING, UH, EXCUSE ME.
SO ARE WE GONNA ASK, UM, LAURA, WHAT WERE YOU SAYING ABOUT COMING BACK AND ASK, ADDING THAT TO THE PUN? WE, WE HAVE TO ADD IT TO THE PUT NOW IF WE ADOPT IT BECAUSE THE PUT RULES, YOU KNOW, ONCE IT'S ADOPTED.
SO ANY MOTION WOULD HAVE TO INCLUDE THAT.
I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION THAT, UH, WE GO AHEAD AND APPROVE, BUT WE WOULD ADD TO THE, UH, A PUT REQUIREMENT THAT THEY BUILD AN EIGHT FOOT MASONRY WALL BETWEEN THE, THEIR PROPERTY AND ANY OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S OWNED BY THE CEMETERY.
SO THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
THEY, THE APPLICANT HAD A REQUEST TO SAY THE SIDEWALK ONLY ON ONE SIDE.
ARE Y'ALL CONSIDERING THAT OR NO? EXCUSE ME.
WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? THE, THE APPLICANT HAD REQUESTED THAT A SIDEWALK'S ONLY REQUIRED ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREETS.
UM, I'M NOT SAYING YOU HAVE TO JUST, IT WAS SOMETHING ON HIS LIST.
SO THE, SO THE QUESTION THEN FOR YOU COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, ARE YOU INCLUDE, IS THAT INCLUDED WITHIN YOUR, UH, RECOMMENDED APPROVAL? I GUESS WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THAT.
SO I, YOU KNOW, UM, MY QUESTION, UH, DOES, CAN I GO BACK AND ASK ANOTHER QUESTION ON YOUR MOTION? UH, LET ME WITHDRAW THE MOTION FOR A SECOND.
I'D LIKE TO ASK THE OWNER ANOTHER QUESTION.
SO THE MOTION IS WITHDRAWN, WE'LL CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION.
WHY ARE WE REQUESTING ONLY ONE A SIDEWALK ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET? A AGAIN, THIS COMES TO, COMES TO THE, THE SAME THING LIKE IF YOU LOOK AT THE STREETS, LIKE THE BIGGER STREET ON THIS SIDE, LIKE, UH, I DUNNO, ON THE LONGER SIDE IT NEED TO HAVE A SIDEWALK ON OTHER SIDE.
LIKE IT GIVES MORE FLEXIBILITY TO LIKE CONNECTING THE TRAIL IN THE BACK.
ONE SIDE OF THE SI STREET IS, IS MAKE SENSE ON THIS DEVELOPMENT RATHER THAN TWO SIDES.
AND LIKE IF YOU LOOK AT THIS ONE, LIKE ON THE CEMETERY SIDE, RIGHT? WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A WALL AND SIDEWALK, IT'S GOING TO BE MORE CLUMSY THAN GIVE YOU THE FLEXIBILITY ON THE, ON THE STREET WIDTH.
AND SO, SO JUST TO BE CLEAR SIR MM-HMM.
SO THERE'LL BE NO SIDEWALK AROUND THIS CENTRAL PORTION HERE OR THROUGH HERE, RIGHT? LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE, LET'S SEE, LET'S LOOK AT THE, ON THIS SIDE OF THE STREET, IT'S GONNA BE ON THE LONGER SIDE.
CAN YOU GIVE HIM A POINTER? SORRY, MR. OH, OKAY.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THIS SECTION OF THE STREET, THE SIDEWALK GOING TO BE ON THIS SIDE.
AND UH, IF YOU LOOK AT ON THE TOP SECTION, IT'S GONNA BE ON THIS SIDE.
AND, UH, LIKE THIS, IT'S GONNA BE ON THIS SIDE.
SO FOR HERE IT'S JUST CONNECTING BETWEEN THE, YOU KNOW, JUST TWO STREETS LIKE THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IT MAKES SENSE TO YOU OR NOT.
THERE'LL BE A SIDEWALK ON ONE SIDE OF THE ROAD THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY IS BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? MICHAEL? WHY IS, WHY IS THE CITY OKAY WITH THE ONE SIDED SIDEWALKS IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE? UM, WE'VE ALLOWED IT FOR OTHER PRIVATE STREETS IN CONDO REGIMES.
SO IT, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON THAT, OKAY.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT, SOME ACTION.
I, I DO WANT TO MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT AND JUST BE REALLY, REALLY A HUNDRED PERCENT CLEAR.
WHEN WE, WHEN WE ASK IN THE POD FOR THE MASONRY WALL THAT WE'RE NOT, THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A A AT LEAST MATERIAL THAT'S NOT LIKE A CINDER BLOCK WALL.
WE WANT SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA OBVIOUSLY, I MEAN, IS THERE CERTAIN STIPULATIONS WE CAN PUT IN THERE? CUZ WE WANT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT GONNA BE NECESSARILY, YOU KNOW, I DON'T SAY UGLY, RIGHT? I MEAN, CINDERBLOCKS CONTENT TEND TO BE PRETTY UGLY AND, AND OBVIOUSLY OPEN TO VANDALISM AS WELL.
SO, SO YOU SHOULD PROBABLY CLARIFY IT.
UM, I WOULD SAY BRICKSTONE STUCCO AS YOUR DEFINITION.
[00:40:01]
TYPICAL OKAY.ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? AND THIS IS ACTUALLY, LET ME TRY AGAIN.
UH, I WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL, UH, WITH IT IS WITH THE STIPULATION THAT GETS ADDED TO THE PUD NOTES THAT THERE'S AN EIGHT INCH OR, OR AN EIGHT FOOT WALL.
THE EIGHT INCH, AN EIGHT FOOT WALL THAT'S, UH, CONSTRUCTED OF UM, MASONRY BRICKS, STUCCO, UH, STONE TYPE RANCH.
UH, THAT'S SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY STANDARDS.
IS THAT OKAY ROBIN? OR THAT WORKS WE'LL WORK WITH THAT.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, SECOND IT BY COMMISSIONER MAY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR ALL THOSE POST IT PASSES SIX TO ONE WITH COMMISSIONER COSGROVE BEING THE LOAN OPPOSITION.
SIR, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS YOU'D LIKE TO SURE.
I DON'T THINK IN, IN ISOLATION.
I REALLY AM OPPOSED ANY OF THOSE THINGS.
UM, I'M, I'M OPPOSED WHILE WE HAVE IN FACT, UM, APPROVED SIDEWALKS ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET, IT IT'S USUALLY AN EXCHANGE FOR SOMETHING.
I DON'T THINK WE, WE THERE WAS ANY EXCHANGE HERE.
KIDS LIVE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET.
FAMILIES LIVE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET.
UM, SO I I I AM OPPOSED TO, I I APPRECIATE THE, THE MASONARY WALL.
I JUST THINK, UH, WHEN YOU TAKE ALL THOSE THINGS IN TOTAL, I, I DON'T THINK IT MAKES FOR A BETTER PROJECT.
AND THE TIME IS 6 41 AND WE ARE ADJOURNED.