[0:01] >> all right, 6:30. Thank you for your patience and adherence to state law. Appreciate that.
[0:09] my name is dan kubiak, chairman of the planning and zoning commission here in city of southlake.
[0:13] thank you for joining us this evening in city hall. This is our january 8, 2026 meeting.
[0:19] we've got a fairly modest agenda,
[0:24] but we'll do our best to get through it expeditiously here. Maybe I'll just skip ahead,
[0:29] make some of my comments real quick, and then we'll go to administrative comments. If you haven't been to one of these meetings before, generally,
[0:35] the way it works is we'll have a staff presentation on a various item,
[0:40] and then we'll have an applicant come up, and they'll do a presentation. We'll be asking questions throughout.
[0:46] then after that, we'll have a public hearing where folks can come forward and just make
[0:51] their comments known to us here on the dias about a particular application.
[0:56] we, typically, give you up to three minutes just to be cognizant of other people who want to speak as well.
[1:02] you'll see there's some little lights on the podium stand there that are green for a couple minutes,
[1:06] yellow for the third minute, and then start to flash red. Please ask that you mind that if that's okay. We'll have public hearing.
[1:14] comment on that, then we'll close the public hearing and then we'll deliberate and come to a recommendation that we'll send along to city council.
[1:22] that's the lay of the land in terms of how things work. Maybe with that, we'll go ahead to the third item real quick, administrative items.
[1:31] mr. Dennis, I think we have something this evening, right?
[1:37] >> [inaudible] would like to address the commission. >> does he get the three minute as well?
[1:42] >> I would like to invite mary mccaskill ford. >> we'll see if we need that or not. Appreciate it.
[1:52] >> good evening. Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Happy new year. I will stick to under the three minutes.
[1:59] I'll be respectful of your time and everyone's time here, but happy new year, and on behalf of the city council,
[2:04] we wanted to thank all of you for all of your service last year in 2025 and all the service you're going to provide to the city this year in 2026.
[2:14] as you all know, I'm in alum of p&z way back when, I won't say how many years to age myself,
[2:20] but even to today, 70% of what we see at city council has come through y'all,
[2:26] whether it's development cases or signs. I have to say, all have put in so much work both last year and in years past,
[2:35] but especially last year, the cases, the way they were worked over, and ready to go, we sincerely appreciate all of your efforts.
[2:43] it doesn't matter how you vote, but the thoughtfulness, the time,
[2:47] the issue spotting, the red flags, all those things were so well done, and it's so appreciated by myself and everyone on city council.
[2:55] thank you so much for the service and the great work you've done last year,
[2:59] and we look forward to more of the same this year. I also say in 2025,
[3:04] the city council commissioned having challenge coins made to hand out to people in our city,
[3:10] our fellow residents who have given back in so many different ways, whether it's here in this room,
[3:14] on a border commission or through our schools or coaching our kids or serving in some special way.
[3:21] to start off this new year, now there's three of y'all who have been serving on p&z for more than 10 years.
[3:29] I think collectively, chairman kubiak and vice chairman forman and dr. Springer have served almost 50 years combined,
[3:36] so y'all are in good hands tonight with these guys. But I wanted to thank you guys,
[3:41] especially for your service more than 10 years each, and collectively your service.
[3:46] I enjoyed serving with y'all, two of you on zba and then on p&z together with all three of you,
[3:51] so I have challenge coins for all three of you as a small token of our appreciation from the city council
[3:56] on behalf of the city of southlake for your service. I know, gina, you're getting pretty close,
[4:00] so probably pretty soon, we'll get you to the 10-year mark, but thank you guys for your service.
[4:05] thank you for the way you represent the city through the planning and zoning commission and keep up the good work,
[4:10] so god speed, and thank you so much. If you'd come down, I'll hand you the challenge coins, we'll take a quick picture. Three guys.
[4:16] >> thank you very much, mr. Mayor, we appreciate the support of city council and all the communication we have.
[4:21] that's really what helps make it very efficient. It's I think our pleasure to serve
[4:27] behest of the residents and the city and watch everything develop out. I know a lot of us up here.
[4:32] have lived here a long time, and it's been fun watching things develop out in a quality manner. Thank you very much.
[4:59] >> most of the 50 years. [background].
[5:37] >> now, thank you again, and I maybe remiss in mentioning earlier that for us to have quality output,
[5:45] city staff has been a huge part of that. I think, dennis, you probably have 50 years here alone.
[5:50] it seems at this point, you've been here a long time, you and the staff really help us in terms of being
[5:57] prepared and giving quality deliberations here, so thank you for that.
[6:03] with that, we will move on expeditiously to item number 5 on our agenda,
[6:07] which is consideration approval of the minutes held from our meeting on november 20,
[6:12] any edits or additions to that before we entertain a motion. >> mr. Chairman, I make a motion,
[6:20] and we approve item number 5 on our agenda. >> I have a motion. Do we have a second?
[6:24] >> second. >> let's go and vote, please.
[6:36] sometimes, this can be the toughest part. There we go.
[6:47] passes with 5-0 with one person abstaining. Thank you very much for that.
[6:52] now, we will go ahead and move on to item number 6 on our agenda this evening,
[6:58] which is a zoning change and development plan for jane's place.
[7:21] >> good evening. I'll be presenting item number 6,
[7:27] zoning change development plan for jane's place. The applicant is requesting a zoning change development plan for jane's place
[7:34] located at 1318 through 1364 north of peytonville avenue.
[7:39] here's an aerial view of the properties that they will be developing.
[7:44] the future land use is low density residential, and it has two current zoning designations, right here in the middle.
[7:52] it is sf1a and the rest are ag for agricultural district.
[7:56] here is a street view from north peytonville avenue looking west into the property.
[8:02] also from north peytonville avenue, looking southwest and then looking northwest.
[8:10] here is their proposed the bellman plan showing 15 single-family residential home lots with two open space lots.
[8:21] some of their site data summary and proposed rpa development regulations are located on this slide.
[8:29] as you can see here on the right, they are mirroring sf-1a, for the most part,
[8:34] their maximum lot coverage, they are upping that to 40% rather than the 20% that is normalized for sf-1a.
[8:43] their accessory structure lot coverage will be no greater than 2,000 square feet,
[8:48] and their minimum house floor area will be 5,500 square feet.
[8:52] down here at the bottom, they are having a deviation from
[8:57] typical rpud regulations where the retention and detention pond area is located within the drainage easement,
[9:05] our zoning ordinance calls for it to not exceed 25%. Their current proposed development plan has it at 27.1%,
[9:14] but they are proposing for it to be a maximum of 38% on that regulation.
[9:21] they are requesting two variances as well. The first one, waiving the requirements,
[9:28] the subdivision ordinance at the existing dead end street located in the cross river hills addition,
[9:33] specifically, wood creek lane will not be connected to this development.
[9:37] then also requesting a variance to construct
[9:41] internal sidewalks and a 5-8 foot wide sidewalk along north peytonville avenue.
[9:48] here is the proposed fencing and wall plan for the area.
[9:52] they are retaining a good amount of existing iron wood and chain link
[9:56] fences with also adding in some 6' iron fences,
[10:02] and they're going to have this theme entry fence masonry wall located on the entrance of the development.
[10:11] here is their tree conservation plan. The total site area is just under 971,000 square feet of tree canopy coverage.
[10:20] they are proposing to preserve just about 61% of that,
[10:24] and about 38% of that will be removed.
[10:29] here is their preliminary water utility plan showing the existing 6'' water line towards the southern portion of the property.
[10:38] they'll be connecting to that with running an 8'' water line throughout the street,
[10:45] and then also connecting to the existing 12'' water line that runs on north peytonville avenue.
[10:52] here's their preliminary sewer utility plan. The connection point is up here in the top left,
[10:58] existing 10'' sewer line, and they'll be proposing to run an 8'' sewer line throughout the development.
[11:05] here's the proposed drainage and grading plan. Most of the drainage will be captured in the curb inlets along the streets and
[11:15] filter down to the detention area that connects to higgins branch creek,
[11:22] further water retention and drainage.
[11:27] here's the rendering of type of housing they'll be building in the area.
[11:35] then this one here shows the aesthetic of the detention area and the pond that they will integrate into the open space.
[11:44] as of today, we have had three responses from surrounding property owners,
[11:50] one within 200, who is opposed, and then a couple outside 300,
[11:55] one for and one against. Happy to answer any questions.
[12:00] >> maybe a couple one for me, and then we can let others jump in.
[12:04] it is consistent with the low density land use designation?
[12:08] >> correct. All minimum one acre lots. >> then on the sidewalk variance request,
[12:13] even if I guess it's granted and they don't have to construct it, would the city still be able to get the right of way
[12:20] for future down the road, use if desired?
[12:27] >> right of way would be required based on cross-section required for peyton bill.
[12:33] a sidewalk should fit within the boundary of that. They're proposing private street at this point,
[12:41] and I don't believe they're asking or proposing sidewalks within the neighborhood,
[12:47] so that's also under your consideration, whether they provide that or not,
[12:52] but right of way should be in place for a sidewalk.
[12:56] >> even if a variance is granted on constructing it today, the ability to do that in the future would still be there?
[13:03] >> yes. >> anyone else to hop in questions for staff?
[13:07] >> I was just wondering if there's any plans for widening the main street out there, coming up in the future.
[13:15] do we have any plans for that so there would be other sidewalks, or other improvements in that same area or up and down the entire street?
[13:24] >> the ultimate width for peyton bill is,
[13:41] I just want to make sure I was correct, 70', but we do not plan for it being any wider than two lanes.
[13:50] there'll be pavement maintenance that takes place.
[13:56] that 70' right of way if needed.
[14:00] if traffic conditions warrant is wide enough to potentially do a turn lane
[14:07] where one might be needed for left turn movements,
[14:13] but I don't know that there's any particular areas that that's an issue right now.
[14:19] >> maybe riffing off that real quick. Anything on pathways for that,
[14:24] or is there just nothing contemplated at this time?
[14:29] >> just what's required by way of the subdivision ordinance,
[14:33] so it just does
[14:42] require 5-8 foot minimum wide sidewalk,
[14:48] the minimum being 5', but the pathway plan designates it as a 8' or
[14:54] less sidewalk and subdivision ordinance stipulates it cannot be less than five,
[15:00] so that's the minimum that would be required.
[15:05] >> I know we have a comprehensive sidewalk plan that's
[15:10] been worked on for a couple of years and has several more years to go, where we're going to be going back and adding sidewalks in all over the city.
[15:19] with that the plan, it doesn't seem it makes much sense to me to continue to leave behind spots where we
[15:27] don't build sidewalks when we're trying to get sidewalks built in all the rest of the city.
[15:33] the issue of not building at all, I don't think is something I would support.
[15:39] I do think it's a bit of a headache to
[15:43] escrow money that the city has to keep track of and then the city build them one of these days.
[15:47] in fact, the builders that build these homes are going to be the ones that build the sidewalk anyway.
[15:52] so it's not going to really change the developer's cost. It's going to affect the building costs,
[15:57] but I do know that if the sidewalk is built, it will be there and it will better implement
[16:04] our overall sidewalk plan as we build out the rest of the city in the sidewalk system.
[16:12] >> we'll deliberate on that when we get to that portion,
[16:16] but appreciate your thoughts. Any other comment questions for staff?
[16:22] good. Thank you. We'll play back up, if we need some help.
[16:27] appreciate it. I'll go ahead and have the applicant come up, please.
[16:35] please state name and address for the record.
[16:39] >> jerry statham. My address is 2905 peninsula drive and grapevine, texas.
[16:46] >> torin johnson, I live off the peninsula also in grapevine.
[16:52] >> first, just an opening your remark, mr. Kubiak, I think I saw you or met you at the corridor meeting,
[16:59] and I would like to also acknowledge staff, it's been, I wouldn't say a long time on this,
[17:05] but there's been a lot of interaction. I'll get to that in the meeting,
[17:10] but I just appreciate all the professionalism and timely responses for us.
[17:16] just a little bit about us. Torin and I, we graduated from grapevine,
[17:22] apologize for that back in the day. We did graduate between the two of us four dragons here since 2020.
[17:31] I run a bigger investment group that does a lot of national stuff outside of this area,
[17:39] but when I do develop in texas, it's here locally. Torin is a retired bedford firefighter for 25 years and has
[17:47] been building and helping me develop for over 15 years, probably.
[17:56] >> just about us, philosophy-wise, we both live up on peninsula drive,
[18:02] which is around the bend and kimble, we both live on lake gravine,
[18:06] we back up to the core. We appreciate we walk back there,
[18:11] kids grew up back there, our dogs and stuff and wildlife. When we got a chance to look at jane's place just to acquire it,
[18:18] it was a pretty special place. I don't know how many of you have been had a chance to be there.
[18:22] I couldn't believe it existed when we first saw it 22 acres that had that many trees and the natural wildlife.
[18:29] as a developer and a home builder, it's not something you get every day,
[18:34] certainly in south lake. Just to give you our philosophy was just we wanted to keep the green space green.
[18:42] a lot of the wildlife that exists in that area use that water source.
[18:47] they probably are not going to like all the disruption if it gets developed,
[18:51] but we hired a team, and that was our goal.
[18:56] tom pritchett, I think I may have hit went by a slide too fast.
[19:01] but he helped develop the landscape. I did a skip by him.
[19:06] he did a lot of work in vaquero and a lot of other stuff.
[19:10] I charged tom when we hired him save every tree, every tree that we can.
[19:16] you'll see there's some unique things that we did here, just because there was a huge tree in this,
[19:21] and let's take the road here and not do just a straight road and mow down some things.
[19:27] we have put as much care as we can into this development.
[19:32] we started 22 acres. I mentioned corridor. I got some very direct feedback.
[19:39] net one acre are bigger, so didn't bother with anything else but that.
[19:44] minimal improvements to the existing pond, why I say minimal don't want to disrupt and create
[19:49] a big concrete pool there when there's a natural water source.
[19:54] we wanted to replace the existing fencing, obviously to clean that up,
[19:58] but keep that look. I think we like that look when we saw it, tom,
[20:03] appreciated that look, so it'll be I have a picture of that a little later. Spent some time, attended corridor,
[20:09] had a long spin meeting with the neighbors. But it was good because we got a lot of feedback that we looked
[20:16] at what the city wanted to do with connecting roads and appreciate all that. But there was a very strong opinion from the neighborhood,
[20:22] and that part of it, these are our neighbors, and we're neighbors here, too. We wanted to listen and do the best we could and try to keep
[20:28] everyone as happy as we can when change.
[20:33] nobody wants to change. The final thing, when we went through spin, it was so long, staff had reviewed that.
[20:39] there's a lot you guys are going to hear it. I'm sure, but there was a lot of discussion about stormwater from peytonville,
[20:44] that happens to flow across the property. Staff said you guys,
[20:49] you need to pass this along to your engineering team, and they alerted us to some information that we didn't have as developers,
[20:55] which is important, especially when you inherit things like water that come across your property,
[21:01] you don't create them, and you don't know about that, it's hard to account for that.
[21:05] we did get a chance to review that in september. We started here and we talked a little bit about that,
[21:14] and so we're proposing number one to just come across peytonville in.
[21:22] there were a couple of things that we had to get approved by staff, fire, safety, stuff like that, the length of the road.
[21:27] but the main thing we wanted to do when we propose this was not interrupt the pond area.
[21:33] we did a wetland study in that area to determine if there's anything we could disturb.
[21:37] we can, in fact it's not a wetland designated. You can see from here where the pond starts now is where we want to come across the back.
[21:49] we want to minimize the impact of the structure. Obviously, clean it up for erosion control,
[21:53] where we can leave berms in, and then abandon the wood creek and come over.
[21:59] I think that keeps mainly. There are probably some neighbors that will border like this whole property that won't
[22:06] have nice forest views or whatever they have today,
[22:10] that will have things to say, but mainly to avoid the interruption to that neighborhood on their request.
[22:19] this is the fencing, the example. It's like it is today, but updated materials.
[22:26] again, where there are steep areas around the pond, we want to put in and make sure that we can maintain those.
[22:33] we're doing that for two reasons, number 1, our intent when we're done is to hold capacity
[22:39] for all of our storm water that we generate on the property plus 20%.
[22:44] that we want to achieve that. We're a little short of that today because there are some other factors I'm going to get into.
[22:50] I think we will be able to achieve that, but we will need to be able for that water to eb and flow up and down,
[22:58] which leads me to the stormwater concept. When we found out and were made privy of the study,
[23:06] we immediately went to work with what was the problem. We have met with staff.
[23:12] a couple of times, either on the phone in person or brought my whole team in.
[23:17] this is off of a study that the city hired to do more of a larger city study.
[23:23] that's really looking at a lot of branches on this side. We were just or the higgins branch was one part of that.
[23:30] the main problem that caused all the storm water that you may hear about that we talked about comes from this side of peytonville,
[23:37] the other side of the street, was done by half engineering. We picked up that study and said,
[23:43] how can we solve this problem? There were a couple other methods.
[23:47] one was taking this thing all the way down or north on peytonville and cutting through the project,
[23:54] that was one of their suggestions, given what they had. The other one was coming down our north boundary and cutting over to
[24:01] post where you can see up here. It's really coming all the way across here,
[24:07] the back of these houses, and then here and then back into the higgins branch.
[24:12] the team our team recognize an opportunity that we're going to be putting a road in here,
[24:16] and could we put instead of a 10 or 20 foot mow down of all these trees,
[24:22] which would obviously ruin a lot of trees, but also ruin a lot of privacy on both sides,
[24:26] certainly these neighbors here. My guys said, why don't we go talk to the city about putting this under our road?
[24:34] that's what we're going to work on with the city. I think from a disruption of traffic and trees and neighbors and streets,
[24:45] it's infinitely less expensive to do this in terms of that,
[24:49] from a cost wise, also, if we're digging a ditch, and we're going to put a road anyway,
[24:54] why don't we just put this flow under our road? That's what we have proposed.
[24:59] I would say for 50, 60, 75% there.
[25:05] there's a couple options that we're still working with staff on, engineering wise.
[25:09] could we put it into this retention pond? It's a lot of water.
[25:14] it's somewhere between 172 105 cfs in the event of a huge storm. It's a lot of water.
[25:23] that's why we said 38% on the pond. We're at 27.1% now.
[25:29] but we thought if we do want to bring it into the pond,
[25:34] then we would need to expand the size of it, and we would come south.
[25:38] I don't like that idea. I don't think my engineers love that idea, and I'm not sure staff loves it,
[25:43] but it's on the table until we eliminate it as an alternative. The other one would be to do what we're doing now,
[25:48] which just to carry it directly under the street, using this engineered the way that
[25:54] half and the engineers are putting together and put it right into the higgins branch.
[25:59] we're still working on some items there, but you guys have questions on this.
[26:04] this is my last slide, by the way. >> the blue storm line that's going down the street.
[26:13] it's picking up primarily the water that's on the east side of peytonville? >> yes. Primarily, it's all it's doing.
[26:20] >> it's not picking up any of the curve inlens or anything that's along?
[26:24] >> no, that would be detained in this. >> the actual surface drainage off of the streets is going to go into the pond,
[26:32] and what you're doing with this storm main is you're picking the water up that's now running across the site.
[26:37] >> that's right. >> you're basically lot 1. >> it's hitting lot 1 and 2.
[26:42] what would required, we're surveying this side,
[26:47] the north side of peytonville now, about 50 feet. We have the order in to catch mailboxes and all that stuff.
[26:54] but really when you look at the study, the water starts here.
[26:59] it starts all the way here. Just think about this whole area.
[27:03] then about right here, you start to lose topo,
[27:08] so you're going uphill. It naturally slopes across this and then into
[27:14] the back of all of these houses across mostly lot one, but part of a lot two.
[27:20] >> your engineers are telling you now that it's going to pick this water up in a pipe,
[27:26] and you're going to get it down the street and back to the the natural drainage and get it
[27:31] off of the surface that's currently going through these yards. >> that's right. Correct. What it would require when it's all
[27:38] said and done is we have we're just putting a large catch base in here. That is the low point,
[27:43] but there may be one here, one here. But the idea would be to catch all the water before it crosses peytonville,
[27:51] send it into a master catch basin.
[27:56] this is not small amount of water. I think it's two, three by four,
[28:01] and then bring that all under peytonville, and then underground all the way to here.
[28:10] or we could go further. There would be no more surface water.
[28:16] the idea would be to catch it before it gets to peytonville.
[28:23] >> you've mentioned, I guess that some of this is still you're under diligence on.
[28:29] I guess what's the timeline you foresee in terms of transition ultimate solution.
[28:36] >> I would say we're two or 30 days.
[28:40] I see it the final the city being able to say, we're willing to do this because there is a immediate cost to
[28:47] the city because this is an opportunity to solve a problem.
[28:52] the other solve staff comments we dedicate right away right here,
[28:57] which is what south lake can do. We're just saying, look,
[29:01] we're willing to do that. We don't like that idea because then even our lots are devalued,
[29:06] but you're going to have to come in and fix this problem sooner or later.
[29:10] we're saying if you guys can help match our pace on development with funds,
[29:16] we will do this at the same time. I think staff is not prepared to take that up the chain because that's not something,
[29:25] it's dollars that may or may not be budgeted. We're working with them to get the right number.
[29:29] we've said here's the ballpark number, and a little less than ballpark.
[29:34] this is a scientific number, and they're saying, well, let's take this down, let's find the right method.
[29:41] we're at two now, we're going to quickly probably adopt this method within
[29:46] a week and then less price this out. >> this can be something that if this moves forward,
[29:54] could before you go to a city council meeting, you could have squared away.
[29:59] >> I would love to have that. >> I'm almost asking I think that would almost be maybe a need
[30:05] so at that point in the process, it's not esoteric.
[30:11] I know it sounds like you're down the road, trying to figure out a solution, but there's something more firm.
[30:16] >> I think if you're telling me that I need to do it, I would tell you that I can make that staff has
[30:21] said they're available to make you to do it. >> yes. >> I say, let's do it.
[30:27] >> portion you're asking the city to work with you on in terms of reimbursement,
[30:31] is the light blue and everything that's on the east side? Are you looking for reimbursement for this entire run?
[30:37] >> this entire run. Because we're not causing any of
[30:43] this water what we're basically saying is we will do this during our project.
[30:51] any of the stuff we would normally do staff has been pretty clear on what they will or will not pay for or should or should not pay for,
[30:58] because there's other instances that have set the precedents. For instance, if we're going to bring bulldozers out,
[31:04] if we're going to bring all this stuff and set it up, the city's not going to double pay for that, which we would.
[31:09] they're basically saying, hey, take all the stuff that you would normally do if this problem didn't exist and just give me the net difference.
[31:16] that's what we expect to. >> all property is required to take
[31:22] water from their neighbors at some predetermined flow rate.
[31:28] are you determining now that you or your study is determining that you're getting
[31:34] more water than the required flow rate for undeveloped property?
[31:40] >> that I don't know. It's 240 or 240 cfs.
[31:49] >> I understand but when you buy property, it's going to have some amount of drainage is going to come across the site,
[31:59] and you're required as a land owner developer to pick that up and carry it to the next point downhill.
[32:07] unless the water is coming across the site at
[32:12] a far greater rate than required or the it's allowed,
[32:16] I should say, I don't understand why the city would be paying for that.
[32:22] >> I don't know the answer to that. The options we have would just to allow the city to have that flood right away.
[32:32] what's happened with this property in 1999,
[32:37] the previous owner sold the city for $150 a strip here to fix this problem and it was never addressed.
[32:46] it's all documented. The owner that signed that art jane has passed away,
[32:53] but the documentation exists. I think the owners and he's not here.
[32:57] he's in colorado, but he'll be here. He can speak to all of that. I feel like in talking with him that the ownership of
[33:06] this property has made that attempt with the city in the past to remedy this situation.
[33:11] as a developer, I'm inheriting this, and I would basically tell the owner that if I need to fix
[33:17] this massive of a problem that the owner is going to pay for most of it.
[33:23] >> dennis, do you want to add any context here in terms of how the city's
[33:29] viewing this in terms of both remedy and who's responsible for what.
[33:35] >> it's an identified drainage need. >> the city is discussing with them the opportunity to
[33:45] solve a drainage problem that's occurring in that peytonville area as part of this project.
[33:53] whether or not that's due to you're correct that
[33:59] a development has to handle what flows are coming onto their property and then they have to manage,
[34:04] whatever additional developed condition runoff that they're putting in place,
[34:09] but this is just an empirically identified problem that the city is
[34:16] looking at and is they're working with our staff on a potential solution.
[34:24] we're right at this point, working through,
[34:28] estimates on what that cost is and whether or not we can address that during their project timeline.
[34:36] >> there may be some potential ambiguity on what commitments were made by the city in the past or not.
[34:43] it comes down to maybe a negotiation in terms of just between the city and the developers,
[34:50] and ultimately city council or the developers on what cost will or won't be born.
[34:57] the setting maybe the cost issue aside, either way,
[35:01] it would have to be a solution that would be amenable to solving the problem regardless of who or how it's paid for,
[35:08] it has to be a solution that will solve the problem, right? >> yes. Certain. I think that's where I was going that maybe setting some of that
[35:17] aside because that'll be a city council focus in terms of who pays for what and staff.
[35:23] at least for this body, I think maybe the working assumption would be that before it goes to city council,
[35:30] that there is a plan in place, that staff is supportive of that will solve the problem.
[35:36] >> yes, we want to get there. Just doing the right thing,
[35:41] being the right this is the right way to solve this problem. >> for everybody involved in terms of there's probably multiple ways,
[35:48] and there are some that are maybe more visually pleasing and some that are less.
[35:53] >> well, on this one, especially, the tree conservation, we're saving huge trees not using that easement.
[35:59] we're putting it under the road, which is going to be dug. If I lived up.
[36:04] >> you don't mind speaking to the microphone. That's how we'll get all this. >> you hear? All good.
[36:09] >> we made a promise to the city and the citizens that showed up to spend that we would address all the concerns,
[36:16] theirs and y'all's the best that we could. Tree canopy is a big one.
[36:21] if we take that easement down across that back side, the people living on post right now are going to lose tons of screening.
[36:30] like jerry said, we're going to devalue our lots, and we're not sticking to the the tree canopy ordinance is.
[36:38] to us, this killed two birds with 1 stone three birds with 1 stone, get ritten rid of the water,
[36:43] keeping the citizens happy and trying to save the sitting money.
[36:48] >> maybe because there's other things to talk about. Are there any other questions on drainage.
[36:53] >> I just had a quick question. Have you talked to the one property owner that this blue line is crossing that's off of your property?
[37:00] >> that's that's our it is. That's actually part of the current way that yes,
[37:05] it's part of this, but it's already applied lot. We have the ability to put anything within that lot in terms of creating an easement?
[37:14] that was another unique card that fell in our favor. Sure.
[37:18] >> anything else on maybe drainage before we touch on a few of the other items.
[37:23] I didn't know if you had a slide or if it was in the staff presentation, be a better one,
[37:28] but I had a question about what it would visually look like along peytonville,
[37:32] because that is one of our more special and having it have more of a rural,
[37:39] having lots of landscaping trees and not some. We have I mean, there's sometimes we get clear cut and we get a huge stone wall or,
[37:47] you know, making it match what's there today. I know staff we don't necessarily have to look at it,
[37:53] but I guess staff had a presentation in our slide in the timer. >> I slide. This is more of what the fencing would look like.
[38:00] we want to this is conceptual, but, I mean, we want these rails like it is today right now, it's railroad ties.
[38:08] we're going to put more of a lasting material down and keep it really the same post look that it has today.
[38:14] these are a little wider, but we want to try to keep it open like it is today.
[38:18] there are parts of peytonville when you drive down there, that are closed. There's big I'm not going to comment on the aesthetic.
[38:24] >> yes, that's we'd like to avoid that. I guess maybe further build out that rendering,
[38:31] just to make sure it can really convey what you're trying to accomplish there.
[38:37] then the rest of the fencing around the perimeter of the site I'm assuming you're going to work with adjacent neighbors in
[38:43] terms of a preference on what they might want around the rest of the boundaries.
[38:48] >> I made a commitment to the neighbors that we could extend this fencing. When we went through spin,
[38:53] I don't know that that's a good solution with giving all the borders.
[38:57] I've committed to each one to do the right thing.
[39:02] some of the lots are different in terms of ones that are closer to the water.
[39:06] when we get into platting and stuff like that and we've already placed the pads,
[39:11] then we don't want to be we don't want to fence the perimeter backyards.
[39:18] we want to create a three foot or five foot buffer for nature,
[39:23] if we can and then use permeable fences. I think it's a neighbor of my neighbor discussion. Honestly.
[39:31] >> other people want to jump in questions.
[39:37] well, we may have some other questions, comments. We'll have a public hearing first,
[39:43] we may call you back up if we need help. >> thank you.
[39:48] >> as I stated before, I guess we'll go ahead and open the public hearing here shortly,
[39:54] I guess as we do remember, please. Maybe I'll just call everybody up one at a time.
[40:00] please up to 3 minutes, be cognizant of everyone else who's here. That's okay. We got a full agenda.
[40:06] we actually have a signboard meeting after this. You want to stick around for that one. That one's always a fun one in town.
[40:11] up to 3 minutes, please address any comments to us and we'll take it into account.
[40:17] I guess I'll go ahead and see whoever would like to come forward and speak first on this item now that we have the hearing open, go ahead.
[40:24] when you come up, please state your name and address for the record.
[40:29] >> my name is patrick langston. I live, if I could use this mouse right here.
[40:36] yes. Perfect. This impacts me quite a bit.
[40:40] I think we just discussed 15 minutes ago or for 15 minutes about taking a problem that exists right here,
[40:47] and basically transporting it to my front yard, which I don't love.
[40:52] there are two sections of the higgins branch that I think need to be considered that I don't think we're thinking about.
[41:00] one is right here. Five of these lots are built right in the middle of this drainage,
[41:07] which is a parallel finger to the higgins branch that goes like this.
[41:11] then there's another branch that goes like this, both on either side of my home.
[41:17] if these homes are built here, and you have water runoff from
[41:23] the roofs from the sprinkler systems into this system right here,
[41:28] then that could create some flooding and issues from my house.
[41:32] we built a bridge across this drainage that had to go through city approval,
[41:41] corps of engineer approval, excuse me. When it does rain, the water does get pretty high,
[41:48] still goes under the bridge because we did all the right measurements. What I'm worried about is if
[41:53] there's a lot more water that goes into this area because I mean, this lot right here, 65% of it's in the drainage.
[42:00] if it adds a lot more water here, it's going to wash out my bridge, which is the only way I have access to my house.
[42:06] then you add that to we just talked about 205 cfs of water that
[42:12] exists right here that we're going to pipe into the other side of my house. That causes me a lot of concern.
[42:19] one way to fix that might be at least on this side.
[42:23] I'm not sure how you fix it when again, these homes are basically being built in the drainage.
[42:27] on this side, one way to fix it might be to extend that pipe further down my house.
[42:33] the asks house, which is right here on the other side of the river. Their neighbor, who I believe was also opposed to the development,
[42:40] who's just north of the asks who I don't know yet. There might be a way to extend that pipe further,
[42:46] but that's just more cost. I think letting the water out right here obviously,
[42:51] I'm one home owner. I'm not a whole subdivision up there, but that would create some major flooding and issues for my house.
[42:59] I've been there for a while. The other thing that I'm concerned about is,
[43:05] even if we fix some of the issues here, with these five lots being located substantially within this drainage,
[43:12] I'm worried about construction debris flowing down this river,
[43:17] this part of the higgins branch, and then also flowing down this way.
[43:21] I'd like some representation that the builders will clean that out.
[43:25] to be fair, I've talked to jerry about it. I've shared my concerns. I'm not trying to to get a gotcha moment here.
[43:32] I mean, kim and I are in communication. It is an issue for me. I'm know amount of time, but that.
[43:38] >> no. Thank you. We'll talk to staff after this just thoughts on.
[43:42] address you, we'll note that one down and get to it.
[43:47] thank you appreciate. Anyone like to speak next on this item?
[43:51] please come on up. State your name and address. Thank you. >> hello, counsel. My name is kristen lily,
[43:57] and I live even further downstream from patrick,
[44:03] who I need to meet because we have very similar concerns. First off, I would like to thank jerry and the developer,
[44:10] for listening to what we said during this ben committee, making the modifications to the plans to avoid both the grass
[44:18] to the post neighborhood as well as to the wood creek, I guess.
[44:24] I don't remember exactly. I do like that they're paying a whole lot of attention to
[44:30] the water that is coming over the road because that is a problem. I would like to reiterate that redirecting all that water down into
[44:39] higgins branch is going to impact all the homes down higgins branch.
[44:44] more water faster, is going to build up at the next choke point.
[44:49] whether that choke point is patrick's house, or it's four houses down and it's my house where,
[44:55] we are part of the federally protected flood way that is part of higgins branch.
[45:01] we need to understand the impacts of that water and deal with it.
[45:05] because it's not just us, it keeps going all the way down.it crosses dove,
[45:10] or there's also flooding problems. It goes into the next neighborhood, or there's also flooding problems.
[45:15] we need to understand the full impact from the top to the bottom of all the developments that are going into this area.
[45:23] I believe the city has made some strides, but I believe the city needs to work harder to protect all of
[45:29] the neighbors that exist down that blood way. Thank you.
[45:34] >> thank you. Appreciate it. Anyone would like to come up and speak next on this item.
[45:40] feel free to come on up. State your name and address if you don't mind, please.
[45:45] >> yes. I'm paul boman. I live at 13:25 right across the street from that entrance.
[45:52] when they pointed out the let's see here.
[45:57] that's my drive right there. The drainage, a couple of things on my address.
[46:04] the see's been out to our property a few times. When you developed shady oaks,
[46:09] over a decade ago, there's no retention pond on that. You remember the clopus farm is up on the hill,
[46:14] and all those houses on the hill. They put field dirt up there. All that water then came down.
[46:18] it's on our property, it's on the burgess property, the long's property. All that water that you're receiving is coming originally from shady oaks.
[46:26] I've been this residence for 30 years in south lake for 35.
[46:30] my concern is I do appreciate what you try to try to do with the water.
[46:35] it is a big issue just get it off the properties for sure, but obviously a concern for the neighbors,
[46:40] they're speaking just now. My selfish concern is that the entrance and exit for myself and my wife and children.
[46:47] the entrance to the development is directly across from my driveway.
[46:52] I'll be competing with the neighborhood now versus just going off of leaving my house.
[46:58] peytonville became more congested. Now we're competing with the traffic along with entrance and
[47:04] exit of a neighborhood across the street. That's our concern.
[47:09] >> thank you very much. Anyone else like to come up and speak on this item.
[47:13] while we have the public hearing open, see somebody else here. It this one as a minute.
[47:19] >> I probably ought to put it down to a minute, I think, mr. Chairman. Apologies. The former commissioner we're familiar with him.
[47:26] >> I was going to wear my supreme robe in purple just for you guys.
[47:31] by the way, congratulations on the award. Y'all for sure, deserve it.
[47:36] I live right, somewhere around here. Let me just give you my perspective.
[47:42] I'm for the project. I think it's a good deal. This is going to be developed. It's awesome property. I tried to buy it,
[47:48] but I never could get in contact with the dude. >> I'm right there. Peytonville traffic.
[47:54] not a problem. My experience. There is a creek or
[47:59] a dry creek bed that I like to throw quite a bit of my trees limbs into.
[48:06] I think it flows this way. I could be wrong, but I think it flows this way.
[48:11] anyways, I'm like, privy to what it looks like coming off of here,
[48:17] and I have seen it once in ten years,
[48:25] even get closer to my back yard.
[48:31] that's a data point. I don't think when it comes
[48:35] to at least down line or this is up line,
[48:41] I recall it going this way. It might go this way, but I do recall it going this way.
[48:46] if that's true or unless it reverses sometimes, which could be true as well.
[48:51] I don't see a problem, at least right here. I don't know about right here.
[48:57] I do know about right here. One my perspective. Important.
[49:03] >> thank you very much for me. Who would like to come forward and speak next on this item?
[49:12] going once. There you go. Go ahead. Say once I closed it,
[49:19] dennis tells me I cannot reopen it again for another couple of weeks. Please go ahead and come on up and state your name and address.
[49:27] >> I'm claire alford, and I live at 12:13 wood creek lane.
[49:32] I am in this property right here.
[49:36] I appreciate everything that they've had to say about fencing and buffering.
[49:41] this creek that was just spoken about does run straight there.
[49:47] it is all coming through cross timber hills, going straight to mr. James' property.
[49:53] it goes into his retention pond. Thank you. >> thank you very much. Coming out.
[49:59] anyone else? Yes, ma'am. Go ahead. >> sorry. I've lived there for 38 years.
[50:04] >> duly noted for the record. We got it. Anyone else want to come forward and speak on this item
[50:10] before we close the public hearing? Name and address, please, sir.
[50:18] >> yes, I'm ryan buzzard. Address is 1,500 post oak trail.
[50:24] I am also one of these people that backyards go,
[50:29] I think four houses down north of the creek.
[50:34] I just wanted to say that, I've had to save that house three times this summer from
[50:40] flooding from previous development plans. I can pretty much guarantee you if there's
[50:46] any more water being pushed through there, it will be flooded.
[50:50] this house has been here for 40 years. Lived there for 30 years.
[50:55] this will wipe that house out. That's all. Thank you.
[51:00] >>thank you very much. Anyone else going to come forward and speak on this item before we close the public hearing?
[51:07] only once. Here we go. We got another taker.
[51:18] >> good evening. My name is anne marie hotkinson. I live at 1201 cypress creek circle,
[51:24] which is immediately adjacent to the entrance of the proposed development.
[51:29] I just would like to reiterate what my neighbors have said regarding the drainage and the flooding issues, they're real.
[51:36] we have a new construction home that we spent hours and hours making sure we'd have correct drainage,
[51:44] and that is not what we ended up with post new construction.
[51:48] everything took twice as long and was twice as expensive,
[51:52] and we're still have the flooding issues. If you could please consider that when making your decisions,
[51:58] there's definitely a problem. >> thank you very much. Anyone else to come forward on this item?
[52:05] we have another taker [noise]
[52:14] >> evening. My name is bruce mcgee. I'm at 1400 post oak trail.
[52:18] I am the second house past where the water is going in.
[52:24] I just want to correct something that was said, just to make sure we're all clear.
[52:28] that water flows that direction all the time. I think on this side of the property,
[52:34] it might flow back the other way because there's a bit of a hill there, but just this summer as ryan buzzy spoke, the water flows.
[52:44] I just want to make sure that we understand the water does flow that way and if there's more and more rain.
[52:49] I don't know what the solution is. I think jerry's proposal is a good one,
[52:53] but what we're doing is just moving the water and putting it in the back of our houses.
[52:59] if the pipe would to be extended, I think that might be a great idea, but [noise] we can ask everybody in
[53:04] this room how many people have been affected by water. Again, it's almost an intractable problem,
[53:09] but it does need to be recognized and mitigated. But again, the water does flow to the north pretty much every single time.
[53:18] I just wanted to make sure that we were clear on that. >> thank you very much. Anyone else want to come forward and comment on this item?
[53:25] going once, twice.
[53:30] we're going to close the public hearing. Thank you, everybody, for coming out this evening.
[53:34] it's always helpful feedback to hear from the residents. Dennis not to put you on the spot [laughter]
[53:44] I guess just focusing on the area that where the water,
[53:49] under the theoretical plan we talked about would be expelled.
[53:54] I guess this seems like it's an issue that's obviously larger than this site.
[54:00] that's pre existing sounds from the public comment I guess.
[54:07] is there anything from a city or staff level that maybe more macro in terms of,
[54:13] to the point of not necessarily just dumping it right at the edge of the site,
[54:17] but carrying it somewhere else that the city could envision or investigate
[54:22] or I know you probably don't have the certain precise answer right now,
[54:28] but I'm sure you've maybe thought about it a little bit or? >> yeah. I certainly something that our engineers can investigate and
[54:37] where it's likely that most of that water is going that direction as it is right now.
[54:45] this would alleviate some of the problems from the pentoville avenue,
[54:52] and as far as getting to that drainage easement there.
[54:58] but however it's got to be designed such that it does not create
[55:04] an additional adverse condition does not exacerbate the problem itself,
[55:12] it should solve the problem. Whether or not there's other solutions and all of those are have been looked at yet,
[55:20] that is something our staff can pursue.
[55:25] >> [inaudible] >> as this alternatives forward. >> maybe maybe as part of that and I'm certainly not a drainage person,
[55:31] but as part of that, ensuring that those drainage areas,
[55:36] detention areas on site are large enough that they can handle
[55:40] the flow and basically pace it out at an appropriate rate.
[55:46] I guess I suppose we'd have to rely on engineers for that, but is that part of the solution here?
[55:52] part of it that trying to put the water somewhere that cause more problems part of it.
[55:56] >> as far as what they're cooperating with the city to handle,
[56:00] this is a drainage project that the city has had in their plan,
[56:05] and development of this property presented an opportunity to
[56:11] probably at least look at the possibility of moving that up and getting it tackled sooner.
[56:20] all the engineering and the impacts of this design would need to be looked at as part of that project.
[56:28] if there's better solutions than what's being discussed right now,
[56:33] that would be sought. As far as the development of this project,
[56:40] they're required to handle their developed condition, the detention structure they're putting in place as part of
[56:48] their development is being engineered to do that.
[56:56] >> I guess if I'm understanding you right, it sounds like the city is already allocating in future budgets funds to deal with
[57:04] this issue and this application could pull those forward to help address it sooner than later.
[57:12] >> that that's what we're looking at, and the developer is working with us on those cost estimates to see if
[57:19] that's whether the timing of our projects and our funding of that can meet at the same time.
[57:28] >> maybe I'll call the applicant back up if you don't mind, I guess [noise] can you maybe just high level again,
[57:36] talk through the math was something. What was the percentages your plans are apart right now?
[57:41] I guess you've got a plan that can handle. >> the area 2671.
[57:46] that's holding all of our water that we would create,
[57:51] so bringing us to zero plus around 16%, we want to get it to 20.
[57:56] we can do that pretty easily. That's with our retention pond being at 27% of the open space.
[58:02] we asked for 38 at this point from you guys, because we just need to understand, how?
[58:08] what's the final solve from pentoville? If part of that is expanding the size of the pond
[58:14] to take even more than we just wanted to have it. I think I put in my application not to exceed 38%,
[58:21] but current state as proposes 27.1 for the retention pond itself.
[58:27] is there any questions on that because I haven't, go ahead. >> I want to clarify when you say 38%,
[58:33] you're talking about getting the detention ponds big enough to take up to 38% of the flow?
[58:40] >> no, sir. I'm saying 38% of the open space, which was the requirement on pond.
[58:46] retention ponds cannot exceed 25%. I'm just saying it would get to 38% of the open space.
[58:53] >> if you did that, would that handle the flow?
[58:57] >> that's a loaded question at this point. I cannot answer when you say flow.
[59:02] are you talking about the pentoville additional flow? >> I'm talking about the water that you've got to deal with here, the flow of water.
[59:08] >> the water that we have to deal with on our property, as written, it's already handled in this.
[59:14] what we're dealing with is the opposite side of pentoville water.
[59:19] that would not be handled in the 27%. I'm not sure it would be handled even in 38%.
[59:25] but we have the ability to pipe some of it or bring some of it and retain some of it.
[59:31] that's what we're working with the city on. What's the most prudent way [overlapping]
[59:39] >> I'm trying to think on the path forward here. I think I saw the vic here scribbling.
[59:44] I think it's something that [noise] before it's presented to city council, I guess,
[59:48] our recommendation would be that that portion of the plan is worked out to the city [inaudible]
[59:56] >> do you have any map north of here a little bit? Again, I guess what I'm saying,
[1:00:03] we took this very seriously. I hope you guys understand that. We probably walked [overlapping]
[1:00:08] >> I know you're trying [overlapping] >> we walked almost a mile.
[1:00:13] I'm going to admit it in a recorded format. I trespassed [laughter] down
[1:00:18] the higgins branch just to see because the neighbors were so passionate.
[1:00:23] up here, I've got videos of people's homes,
[1:00:28] these two, and maybe this one, with live floodwater since 2020 coming through their house.
[1:00:34] they're fired up, and I would be too if that was my house.
[1:00:38] we did walk down here just to try to get our heads wrapped around the whole situation.
[1:00:44] there's lots of stuff. It's all private land. I was emboldened and I said, well,
[1:00:49] why don't we just solve this cause there's not one problem.
[1:00:53] part of the problem is the drainage. If you kink a hose and you put water in it,
[1:00:57] it's going to spit back out. That's what's happening down higgins, all the way to dove and past that. It's kinked.
[1:01:03] there's large limbs, there's trees. I could take pictures.
[1:01:07] I'm incriminating my fellow citizen, so I'm not going to do that. But what is the solve? I went to sandy.
[1:01:13] I went to dennis, and I'm like, is it city can bring wood shippers out here and do what it's all private land?
[1:01:18] they own this land. They're obligated to maintain it. It's not a city cost.
[1:01:23] you just get caught in. They're probably neighbors that do
[1:01:27] maintain the drainage and there's neighbors that don't. That is a contributing factor because if the water has nowhere to go downstream,
[1:01:34] it's going to back up, and the perception is it's flooding from where the water is coming from.
[1:01:38] that's not in fact the case. It's flooding because the water has no place to go, or a combination of both.
[1:01:44] [noise] spent a lot of time on this topic.
[1:01:49] I don't know what the perfect answer is, but it's going to be. >> we'll do our best to work something through.
[1:01:55] I guess, david, you want to [inaudible] >> has the city ever done a comprehensive drainage study of
[1:02:03] this whole part of the city to deal with all of these issues or at least and know what all of these issues are?
[1:02:10] >> the city has worked on a study of that magnitude.
[1:02:17] >> I'm assuming that's what you're utilizing to try to work through this. Is that?
[1:02:22] >> the study that we reviewed with my engineering team and the city provided that was paid for by the city by a third party was very comprehensive?
[1:02:30] not just this area, but connecting areas. Very comprehensive.
[1:02:35] we're taking the data from that study, and that's what we're working from.
[1:02:40] >> I guess dennis is an example. This is the topic we're talking about. I guess that this slide shows
[1:02:47] the house that's just there to the on the northwestern side of the site. I guess that as an example,
[1:02:52] that's where one idea could be evaluated in terms of further extending
[1:02:57] the drainage pipe past that, is that [overlapping]
[1:03:03] >> I don't know if I'm stealing dennis' mouse, but we're talking about going up here.
[1:03:08] because all the water gets in right down this drain here right now.
[1:03:13] the water that starts here comes across, and it ends up down here.
[1:03:17] I think I'm [overlapping] >> again, talk in the microphone,
[1:03:21] please. That's okay. Yes. >> you'll even added a pipe going down across post,
[1:03:26] draining into higgins. The city did.
[1:03:30] >> but basically, that water that is created here goes into higgins here.
[1:03:37] I think what I'm speaking for the neighbors, I don't want to, but what they're basically saying is instead of leaving it open flow here.
[1:03:45] could we take it closer to where that's originating from? >> look, I know we're not all drainage experts up here tonight,
[1:03:51] so we're probably not going to solve it, but I think that's the ideas. It sounds like the residents and developer and the city I want to
[1:03:59] be thought through just to see if there's a way to make it better once a pal.
[1:04:04] if you don't mind, can you go back to the previous slide we had on that showed the site plan?
[1:04:09] I just wanted to flush out one of the questions that.
[1:04:16] there you go. This here. The far western side of the site,
[1:04:21] I guess that was referenced in one of the resident comments, I guess, is it fair to assume,
[1:04:26] I guess you can see that crooked line on the back half of those western sites, that area be left alone, so [overlapping] to speak?
[1:04:32] >> yes. We have [overlapping] that. >> there can be flow, there won't be building pads, there won't be.
[1:04:36] >> this is a flow adjustment, this dotted line. This line here is the estimate of the 200 year flood plain.
[1:04:45] typically during platte right you go over just where we're going to put the pads.
[1:04:52] it's our intention, and I talked to ryan about this. We just haven't mr. Langford,
[1:04:57] the gentleman that lives here. We haven't had it's not part.
[1:05:01] we have had plenty to do up until this point, but our intention was to take all of the dirt that
[1:05:07] we're taken on the front and lift these pads up. We've got to do calculations to see how much of
[1:05:13] the homes themselves can drain forward and into the retention pond, which we have capacity for.
[1:05:19] but we don't see these generating a ton of flow back. >> well that maybe another homework item for you.
[1:05:25] I guess I'd like for you to get with that resident just to the north there and show them what that, [overlapping]
[1:05:31] >> we have plans to do that. >> that area will look like that there won't be anything that will be adversely affecting it from the way it is today,
[1:05:37] which sounds like the concern. >> it's it's a biggest concern to us as it is to him.
[1:05:41] I know it's one person, but we have his name email, and we're going to zoom with him with our engineers.
[1:05:47] >> when we get to calc we'll. >> add that to your homework list.
[1:05:51] then maybe lastly, just really quickly, the entrance, obviously,
[1:05:55] the property needs to be afforded an entrance. I guess staff, I'm assuming
[1:06:00] the preferred entrance for the site is directly across from the driveway on the other side of penton bill,
[1:06:06] just to line up access point, so there's no la from a safety standpoint.
[1:06:11] is that the thought. >> certainly, where development of
[1:06:19] an adjoining property aligns with another home site or driveway or preferences to try to
[1:06:25] locate those intersections where they don't negatively impact
[1:06:29] the existing homesite or traffic conflict with the driveway.
[1:06:35] if they managed to [overlapping] >> [inaudible] which way everybody's turning. >> if they've managed to do that rather
[1:06:41] closely as far as alignment of those center lines, that would certainly be the desired for configuration.
[1:06:49] >> any other questions? We need you again, we'll let you know.
[1:06:56] we go ahead and deliberate a little bit. I'm trying to think through the most effectively
[1:07:03] to codify what we're talking about in terms of prior to city council meeting,
[1:07:07] having it the drainage situation vetted out by
[1:07:13] staff to a level of satisfaction that they're content with,
[1:07:19] I guess, relative to the detention area, the cost.
[1:07:27] >> [inaudible] >> I want you to get your mic. >> this is too big of an issue to take to council and have them try to deal with it.
[1:07:36] I think this needs to be dealt with the engineers and staff to come up with.
[1:07:41] >> prior to council. >> prior to us approving it.
[1:07:45] it needs to be dealt with by the engineers by the developer and by
[1:07:50] the city so that we know what a comprehensive plan is to fix this.
[1:07:56] then it can come to us and once it comes to us, then we could bless it and it goes to the city and
[1:08:01] the city council can deal with it very efficiently at that point in time.
[1:08:07] this is a very complex issue. >> other thoughts?
[1:08:11] >> I had a question. I don't have quite the tenure as you gentlemen, but one of the residents mentioned that this is
[1:08:17] a federally protected floodway and I was curious how that affects this from an engineering perspective and what we need to do as a city
[1:08:24] to make sure that we're in compliance with that. >> dennis is a federal designation.
[1:08:30] does that inhibit us from being able to address any of this?
[1:08:36] >> to conduct any work in those protected streams,
[1:08:43] they would have to have proper federal permits. From our perspective, if there's construction or development within a floodplain,
[1:08:56] we require that a floodplain development permit be submitted, which that does go through army corps of engineers and through our staff as well.
[1:09:08] not aware of any particular issue raised as a project.
[1:09:15] >> with that res bridge if you get there I guess. >> yes. That would all have to be developed or dealt with
[1:09:22] during the developments construction plan review and submittal,
[1:09:28] and permits wouldn't be released until all of those things had been appropriately addressed.
[1:09:37] >> any other thoughts. >> well, I mean, I agree with david on that part that I mean,
[1:09:45] just this drainage issue by itself in here, takes more time that we could have all night long if we
[1:09:51] sit here and talked about it and without any real numbers. I don't know how we can make an informed decision about it,
[1:09:58] we certainly can't just dump the water down on the neighbors
[1:10:02] down the street just because it's not running through this piece of property anymore, you just shifted it.
[1:10:08] I live right off this creek as well.
[1:10:12] I'm familiar with how water flows through here and how the flooding situation is.
[1:10:18] it gets pretty severe from time to time. And down by dove road, even if higgins creek is not restricted anyway,
[1:10:26] there's been many times when everything down by dove road is practically underwater,
[1:10:31] and you're just feeding more water directly into it quicker.
[1:10:36] I can see this presumably could be, you're closing dove down by flooding it. I don't know.
[1:10:44] I think I agree that this needs a lot more engineering study.
[1:10:51] but it would be a very bad thing to just put, just go ahead, like we said,
[1:10:59] just scalp the back side of these lots and give an easement through there because that's going to destroy
[1:11:04] the property values and it's ultimately not going to solve the problem.
[1:11:09] there's no good answer right now. >> well, I guess my opinion on this,
[1:11:14] I guess my concern I agree with you all. But my concern is if the property owner, the developer,
[1:11:19] or the applicant is retaining or figuring out how to dispose of the water that they have on their property and that's what they're required to do.
[1:11:25] can we delay their development? While we fix a problem that exists outside of their responsibility.
[1:11:34] that's my only concern. I agree in a perfect world, we would solve this whole thing.
[1:11:39] if they've met the requirements that they're required as a developer on their property with the water that is being displaced by their development,
[1:11:48] can we hold them up to fix a different problem?
[1:11:54] >> well, I think the comment was made earlier. You guys are probably 30 days away
[1:11:59] from really knowing if you can do what you've presented tonight anyway.
[1:12:04] I will say this is unusual in that. 99% of the comments tonight have been
[1:12:11] about one issue as opposed to the lots aren't big enough.
[1:12:16] the entrance looks terrible. You guys are trying to run south.
[1:12:21] I mean, you know what I'm saying? This is a very different conversation than we normally have, which is nice.
[1:12:26] I tend to agree. I don't think we're there yet. I mean, I don't even know if I make a motion,
[1:12:33] what am I going to say, hey, go do some more studies and figure something out before you go to counsel.
[1:12:39] I mean, I think we need to know where you're at on that 30 day thing,
[1:12:43] what you've come up with, what the impacts are going to be, what the pond is going to hold versus what it's not going to hold,
[1:12:50] if the 38 is the right number. I mean, I think you're headed in the right direction.
[1:12:56] but I don't know what we're sending to counsel, I guess is what I'm getting at.
[1:13:01] >> maybe what I would say is I guess it's encouraging,
[1:13:05] and it sounds like, I guess in the next few weeks, it sounds like you'll have a better solution.
[1:13:11] backed up in conjunction with the city, which is also viewing this in a more comprehensive manner outside of
[1:13:19] this site and has some funds allocated towards trying to deal with this.
[1:13:26] king and it sounds like there's progress being made towards being
[1:13:30] able to more definitively state what the outcome will look like, that would give us a better idea on what we're voting on to pass along or not.
[1:13:39] so I think some more time. Would be helpful, but I guess I personally might agree at bit with commissioner pailin,
[1:13:45] that I think we just need to be careful to bar, we hold this site too given it's already an issue today.
[1:13:51] I mean, we definitely need to hopefully leave the situation in a better position,
[1:13:55] not a worse, but I don't know if we can leave it in a perfect position and rob them of the ability to develop their site.
[1:14:02] I think there's a better solution out there. I just want to give it a little more time and then let's just
[1:14:08] evaluate it and see where staff lands up. Dennis, I guess, does that sound reasonable from a staff standpoint?
[1:14:19] >> I mean, there is because of separation from pen z's recommendation.
[1:14:27] the next council meeting this would go to, there is time to further address their ability to incorporate the city's project,
[1:14:37] which I think was mentioned is different from anything involving their development of this property.
[1:14:45] I mean, the conditions with regard to the drainage issue we're discussing,
[1:14:51] the options were for them to provide an easement, a drainage easement large enough to cover the runoff that's coming off patonvill
[1:14:59] through their lots one through five to get into the higgins branch.
[1:15:06] the alternative to that was to work with the city on enlarging the culrit that crosses
[1:15:15] patonvill and putting that into a storm system
[1:15:21] within their project to free up the impact of that drainage easement across those lots.
[1:15:28] that's the direction the applicants taking is they're
[1:15:33] doing their due diligence in working with us to see if that's a possibility.
[1:15:40] the alternate is at least provide the drainage easement necessary through those impacted lots to carry that flow.
[1:15:50] >> well, I guess it sounds like I'm hearing you right. There's somewhat hesitancy up here tonight to support it as is as presented.
[1:15:58] preference to give it more time before making a recommendation.
[1:16:05] we can talk to the applicant about that in a second. But assuming that ends up being the case,
[1:16:11] I think the homework assignments are for the applicant to work on the detention size on site,
[1:16:17] with it coming closer to 38 versus 21% I'm hearing all that and understanding it, right,
[1:16:24] and the city to look at it more comprehensively and see, are there options to the north in terms of where to let this water out or not.
[1:16:34] I think that would be the homework assignments and really quickly because I just don't want to take it for granted.
[1:16:39] I guess setting drainage aside, were there any other concerns that the applicant needs to work on?
[1:16:44] I think we talked about fencing and they seem to give the right answer in the front door and other things.
[1:16:50] I mean, anything else. Maybe the applicant doesn't mind coming back up here real quick.
[1:16:58] you're right. I guess only the applicant can request to table something.
[1:17:04] I mean, if you want us to take a vote on it this evening, we can. I don't know that it'll be favorable,
[1:17:08] but we can take a vote, or you can request to table it and try to
[1:17:14] work a little bit more comprehensively on a solution.
[1:17:21] from my our perspective,
[1:17:25] we had comments from staff and we could have just done that. Hey, we'll give you the 30 feet and the problem exists.
[1:17:32] I feel like time wise, I'm being penalized for doing the right thing in terms of council very equipped.
[1:17:41] there's two council meetings. Staff is working with us as diligently as we can.
[1:17:48] what I would ask the p&z to consider is really,
[1:17:53] I don't think there's any other issues. We've spent time doing this,
[1:17:58] and there beyond what your own staff and the engineering team comes up with.
[1:18:05] there are no other alternatives. There's two. Which is to go back to the original,
[1:18:09] which is give you guys the easement or less solve the problem. There is going to be stuff like,
[1:18:15] could we take the drain further down, just like the three neighbors got up and talk to.
[1:18:20] but I don't know that that should cost us eight weeks in this process to go back through p and
[1:18:25] z. I'm just candidly because we've worked a lot of time and we spent a lot of money to get where we are.
[1:18:31] I don't think we're skipping anything because counsel is going to be though and your staff is going to be though and whatever the solution is.
[1:18:39] I listened to the citizens and did want to roll over, and I wanted to do the right thing.
[1:18:45] I think the right thing is close, but honestly,
[1:18:50] I don't see the point in stopping back through p& z when counsel and
[1:18:54] staff are going to be as drilled and zoned in on this stuff as possible.
[1:18:59] it's no knock on you guys. It's just the time and it takes. >> I don't want to re litigate it if that's okay.
[1:19:05] we on that for an hour and a half. I understand basically the quick question is,
[1:19:10] if you'd like for us to take a vote this evening, we can. However the boat goes, it'll pass along to
[1:19:15] council and it'll either be favorable unfavorable, there'll be reasons why call.
[1:19:20] I would prefer to ask for a vote or we can ask for a t. >> I would prefer to you vote.
[1:19:25] and I respectfully do that and thanks for your time. >> thank you. With that, I mean,
[1:19:33] I guess we can entertain a motion that either is supportive with caveats or a denial,
[1:19:40] and we can just vote accordingly. I'll stare at the vice chair for well,
[1:19:51] I can tap the answer by you a little time if you want, but I don't have any good jokes.
[1:19:56] show everybody fancy coins here. >> why don't we just present it as for or against as it's presented.
[1:20:05] I mean, there's no reason to go [inaudible].
[1:20:09] >> that's what I'm saying if you want to do a motion to deny, we can do a motion to deny to.
[1:20:14] >> see you to approve? It doesn't matter either way. I mean, I don't how to vote both way.
[1:20:19] >> either way and we can do it both ways and what I mean, it just doesn't make sense to me to make a long what I'm saying.
[1:20:26] I just saying we need a motion. >> well, even if it's denied,
[1:20:30] it's going forward, right? >> yes.
[1:20:38] >> mr. Chairman, I make a motion on item number 6 za 25-0066,
[1:20:45] that we deny the motion as presented and note for counsel and staff,
[1:20:53] that the only real concerns that we have are with respect to the drainage as presented and that more information is needed.
[1:21:02] with regard to the actual numbers on retention,
[1:21:07] detention, and the flow of the water. Note specifically that there were no comments on lot size
[1:21:14] or the development other than the entrance and absent drainage,
[1:21:19] there was good feedback. >> maybe just tagging on to that, the eventual let out side of the piping of the water, we want to say that?
[1:21:29] >> sure. >> you get that, right? >> yeah. Noting that there was concern about the eventual outlet and the length of
[1:21:36] the piping as well as the drainage on the westernmost portion of the property.
[1:21:40] >> with those notes, we have a motion to deny yes.
[1:21:48] everybody go ahead and vote now. Sorry, we need a second. Somebody second. We have a second.
[1:21:55] thank you. Vote yes is to deny, vote no. Everybody go ahead and vote, please.
[1:22:05] if we can. The denial passes 42.
[1:22:11] just to explain to everyone in the room what that means is it will proceed to
[1:22:16] city council and dennis will make sure I get this right because there's a new methodology here.
[1:22:23] likely, dennis, I think the february 3 meeting, I guess, I would no sooner than that.
[1:22:30] february 3 meeting, it would go to city council with a denial
[1:22:34] based on the context provided by the vie chair in the interim.
[1:22:38] the applicant will continue to work on those items that we touched on
[1:22:43] and continue to stay in touch with the residents and just know that city council can have the ability to table something or not.
[1:22:50] stay tuned on. It sounds like they'll keep doing their homework, and we'll just see if the homework gets done for
[1:22:56] city council and or if that's up to the city council standards.
[1:23:00] hopefully that's clear for everybody in terms of how things move forward. Thank you, everybody for coming out this evening.
[1:23:06] who wanted to talk about item number six. Now we're going to go through the rest of our items
[1:23:10] for whoever wants to stick around for that fun. Thank you very much for coming out.
[1:23:16] now we'll move on to item number 7 on our agenda, zoning change and concept site plan for white chapel, methodist church.
[1:23:24] thank you.
[1:23:45] we're ready. Thank you. >> good evening, chairman and commission.
[1:23:50] I'll be presenting item seven, a zoning change and concept site plan for whites chapel methodist.
[1:23:57] >> speaking a little closer to the microphone. >> sorry, I'm not used to this new. >> sorry. I my old hearing. Thank you.
[1:24:06] >> again, this request is for an approval of a zoning change and concept
[1:24:12] slash site plan for white chapel methodist church located at 185 south chapel boulevard.
[1:24:20] the requested the current zoning is community service district,
[1:24:25] and they're requesting for sp2 generalized site plan district with cs uses.
[1:24:31] the reason for this zoning for their project phases and a proposed modification to the building.
[1:24:39] this is aerial view of the property located off south white chapel and south lake boulevard.
[1:24:46] future land use is public, semi public.
[1:24:50] current zoning is community service district. This is a street view from south wye chapel boulevard,
[1:24:57] a street view from east south lake boulevard. A drone view showing the parking lot towards the education building,
[1:25:05] which is one of the additions. A drone view showing the parking lot towards a foundry building,
[1:25:11] another one of their additions, and the street view from the youth activity
[1:25:15] building that they're building a new section of. I street view, sorry. This is the existing site plan.
[1:25:24] they originally had come for a new resource building for za 25 0069,
[1:25:30] and this is showing the proposed addition area. This is their proposed site plan.
[1:25:35] noting that it'll be broken up into two phases. In phase ii, they're doing a proposed addition of a new youth activity center,
[1:25:43] which already exists, but they're adding to it and the education building,
[1:25:47] as well as a parking lot for the first phase. Then for phase ii, they're doing the addition of the foundry building.
[1:25:55] this is just showing the parking lot expansion.
[1:25:59] >> this is the site data summary, some things to note from it.
[1:26:03] for the new activity center, they're adding about approximately 17,000 square feet.
[1:26:09] for the education building, they're adding approximately 10,000 square feet,
[1:26:14] and for the foundry building, they're adding or the new floor area, for all these.
[1:26:20] the new floor area for this is 29,000 square feet.
[1:26:26] noting that the required parking count is based on their sanctuary, which is a ratio of one parking space per three seats,
[1:26:33] and that's how they got the 667 parking spaces. This is their existing tree plan showing the demolition of those trees.
[1:26:43] this is their utility plan. Noting the existing 12 inch water line main off of
[1:26:49] southlake boulevard and the existing 15 foot stormwater easement
[1:26:53] that runs through the property, they'll be relocating the eight inch water line for phase 2.
[1:26:59] the grading plan. Drainage plan going towards the south.
[1:27:05] nothing changes here. Phase 1 landscape plan for the youth activity building and
[1:27:11] the education area and phase 2 of the landscape plan for the rendering building.
[1:27:17] this is a rendering for the youth activity center and education building.
[1:27:22] noting that for the youth activity center, they're adding, I think,
[1:27:27] I believe three feet to it. They're matching that second story next to the education building,
[1:27:32] and then education building. They have an existing third floor and they're just adjusting that with the addition.
[1:27:40] the height for the youth activity center is 42 feet at centers.
[1:27:50] these are elevations from the east, south, north and education elevations on the west and east.
[1:27:58] phase 2 is the foundry building showing the rendering and existing elevation,
[1:28:08] the height being a maximum of 37 feet.
[1:28:13] elevations to the north, elevations to the south.
[1:28:19] as of now, there's no responses for the surrounding property owners,
[1:28:25] and happy to answer any questions. If there's anything else.
[1:28:30] >> any questions for staff on this one? All good.
[1:28:37] thank you I appreciate it. Call the applicant up for this one. If you don't mind.
[1:28:41] name and address for the record, please. Probably abbreviated presentation as just.
[1:28:47] >> yes. My name is brent klein, 1921, state highway 121, lewisville.
[1:28:53] we're obviously trying to cluster the new additions up against the existing building
[1:28:58] for circulation purposes and falling in with the vernacular of the rest of the complex.
[1:29:04] the phase 1 is the youth activity center.
[1:29:09] we're basically building a new building to the north of the existing education building,
[1:29:14] and then we're adding a third floor, which is why we need the extra height to that existing building.
[1:29:22] it was structured to handle third floor. Then the new foundry building is taken off part of the choir rehearsal space.
[1:29:31] in building a new two story building right there. That's more of a contemporary worship space, tiered seating.
[1:29:39] it does fit in with the 2.5 stories,
[1:29:44] but the height of the roof and that location to fit in the monocular and work out
[1:29:49] for a worship center is a little taller than the allowable height.
[1:29:56] anyway, I don't know how much more detail you need on this.
[1:30:00] I think it's pretty simple. >> we'll see anyone have questions, they are ok?
[1:30:07] not right now. We're good if we need to we'll call you back up.
[1:30:14] >> thank you. >> thank you very much. Item number 7 on our agenda does require a public hearing.
[1:30:20] I'd like to go ahead and open that public hearing for anyone would like to come forward and comment on this item.
[1:30:26] much less traffic this time.
[1:30:30] going once, twice. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing.
[1:30:37] you look like you're ready to jump at it there. >> what is the height seems to be,
[1:30:44] a major concern here? How does this correspond to the existing building now as far as height twice goes?
[1:30:52] because isn't the main chapel taller than 35 feet?
[1:31:00] >> the main chapel by way of building height itself is within the 35 feet.
[1:31:07] however, the church fire and steeple. Is much taller than that and the zoning ordinance under the standards
[1:31:16] community service district and some of the other districts that the city
[1:31:20] has that permits buildings up to 35 feet,
[1:31:25] etc has grants city council the ability to
[1:31:30] grant a height waiver for those type of elements.
[1:31:36] for what they're proposing with this new phase. They had built one of the structures structurally to
[1:31:42] where it could handle a third floor being added. Then one of the other buildings they're adding are going above the height from
[1:31:50] what the zoning ordinance permits council to grant variances to.
[1:31:56] they're rezoning the property into the sp2 zoning district to allow and request
[1:32:04] a regulation to go to the third floor and to
[1:32:08] the heights that they're proposing on the new structures.
[1:32:14] >> thanks. Any other questions for staff on this item?
[1:32:19] >> the top of the peak roof of the existing and the top of the flat new higher roof,
[1:32:27] is that the dimension we're talking about. >> correct. The height of the new structures technically.
[1:32:39] they have gone on and addressed in their regulations, I think, maximum height to cover the steeple and everything for the existing church,
[1:32:48] just under the proposed regulations they've got for the sp2 district.
[1:32:54] but the driver of this is the new building,
[1:33:00] the third floor, and I believe one of the heights of the other building.
[1:33:04] >> it's that third floor that pushes that building 2 foot 6 roughly higher than the peak of the building it's attaching to, is that right?
[1:33:13] >> I believe that is correct and then the third floor being added
[1:33:17] because the district only allows up to 2.5 stories.
[1:33:25] >> any other questions for staff? Any other deliberations?
[1:33:34] >> this is not going to be a problem for the fire department, is it as far as building height goes?
[1:33:40] >> they do have a comment in their review based on fire code,
[1:33:45] they'll need to widen the fire lane by two feet as
[1:33:50] it approaches those building heights in order to allow
[1:33:55] their ladder trucks to fully extend their gear and
[1:34:01] balance what may be needed as far as the extension of that ladder.
[1:34:08] but I believe they've been working with the church on how that can be addressed.
[1:34:15] >> thank you. >> any other deliberations,
[1:34:21] thoughts before we entertain the motion?
[1:34:25] >> mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we approve item number 7 on our agenda, za25-0075,
[1:34:33] subject to our staff report dated january 2, 2026, and also subject to our site plan review summary number 2,
[1:34:40] dated january 2, 2026? >> motion to be second. >> second.
[1:34:51] >> please and motion passes 6-0 so thank you very much. Good luck.
[1:35:01] >> thank you. >> city council meeting, two meetings from now. I'm learning to say that.
[1:35:07] next item, item number 8, consideration of a preliminary plat for trademark southlake.
[1:35:25] >> good evening again. I'm here to present the item number 8 flap of trademark.
[1:35:30] again, this property is located at 1,800 and 1900 north white chapel boulevard.
[1:35:36] here's an area view of the property. The future land use is mixed that's currently zoned ecc employment center zoning.
[1:35:46] street view from northway chapel boulevard, looking west.
[1:35:50] here is west kirkwood boulevard street view looking south.
[1:35:55] street view from the frontage road off state highway 114, looking east and then here is the preliminary plat
[1:36:03] that they are going for in the tree inventory plan,
[1:36:08] as well as a tree conservation plan, which lines up with what was approved when it came through zoning.
[1:36:14] then their preliminary grading plan as well as their stormwater plan. Questions?
[1:36:23] >> just confirming that this is completely in agreement with all previous approvals, correct?
[1:36:29] >> yes. >> dennis, you'll confirm again, this is very ministerial in nature.
[1:36:33] we don't really have any latitude, thanks to the state on these items. >> that is correct, chairman. Thank you.
[1:36:39] >> thank you. Any questions for staff? Thank you very much. Is there an applicant present this evening?
[1:36:47] well here. Hold a hold tight. Does anyone have a need to speak with the applicant on this one?
[1:36:55] I think we're in good shape. But thank you for showing up because you do need to show up to play to win, by the way.
[1:37:01] but sometimes you don't need to speak. I think we're good if you're good.
[1:37:05] I think you're good. Item number 8 does require public hearings.
[1:37:12] I'll go ahead and open that public hearing to anyone who would like to come forward and comment on this item and seeing no one,
[1:37:17] I will close the public hearing. I'll just note for the record that since this is
[1:37:23] ministerial in nature with no latitude whatsoever, even though I recused myself during the first time this came through,
[1:37:29] this being a preliminary plat. I'm going to go ahead and vote on it we don't really have
[1:37:35] any discretion anyway so I just want to note that for the record. You back.
[1:37:40] >> mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve item number 8 on the agenda, za25-0076,
[1:37:47] subject to our staff report dated january 2, 2026, and also subject to the plat review summary number 1 dated january 2, 2026.
[1:37:56] >> motion, do we have a second. >> second. >> please. Roll now.
[1:38:07] passes 6-0. Good luck at the next level. Appreciate it.
[1:38:12] now, we move on to the last item on our planning and zoning agenda meeting,
[1:38:17] item number 9, preliminary plat for dove ridge addition.
[1:38:36] >> good evening again. This is item 9 preliminary plat for dove ridge addition.
[1:38:43] it was formerly known as a cardinal court addition when it first came through,
[1:38:47] and the purpose of this request is to seek approval for seven single family residential lots and
[1:38:53] approximately 10.28 acres located at 28 in 2021,
[1:39:00] 17 east of road. This is the aerial view off of east and kimble.
[1:39:07] the future land use is low density residential.
[1:39:11] the current zoning is s of 1a, single family residential.
[1:39:16] a street view from east of road facing south.
[1:39:20] this is the previously approved plat, za25-0003.
[1:39:25] noting that this one had five lots and two open space lots.
[1:39:30] for this preliminary plat, they're adding on to that other property and taking out one of
[1:39:40] the open space lots and adding 26 so that they'll make the one acre for all of them and no changes to lots one through five.
[1:39:48] this is their existing drainage plan, their preliminary grading and drainage plan.
[1:39:55] preliminary utility plan, noting the proposed water and sewer lines.
[1:40:02] tree conservation plan, and noting that the applicant is requesting the following variance to
[1:40:11] allow the proposed street to be a private gated street and happy to answer any questions.
[1:40:20] >> going back real quick. >> [inaudible] to gated.
[1:40:32] >> maybe ask the applicant about that.
[1:40:37] dennis, is this consistent with all previous approvals?
[1:40:42] >> this property was originally zoned,
[1:40:47] sf1 without a concept plan.
[1:40:52] they did have a plat showing, I believe,
[1:40:57] approved for both of the currently platted lots that are involved in this preliminary plat.
[1:41:06] it is not really governed by a concept plan so it's required to
[1:41:11] meet the sf1 a regulations and the subdivision regulations.
[1:41:18] from that standpoint, it appears to do that with a
[1:41:23] few with corrections identified in the staff review summary,
[1:41:29] which I believe the applicant is or has addressed.
[1:41:33] the exception to this would be request for approval of the private street.
[1:41:40] which the subdivision ordinance requires residential subdivisions be
[1:41:45] developed and constructed with public streets and at some at which point,
[1:41:51] at least 75% of the lots are homeowner controlled or occupied out of the developer or builder's hands.
[1:42:00] the 100% of the neighborhood must petition the city to convert that to private.
[1:42:09] the city council has authority over modification to the subdivision ordinance.
[1:42:17] in the case where we have I believe in almost all cases that we have approved private streets,
[1:42:23] it's been done by way of a variance or as part of the zoning of a pud or concept plan and variance.
[1:42:32] >> what is this situation, I didn't recall this date.
[1:42:37] was this part of the original approval?
[1:42:42] >> the applicant or the property owner developer did not follow through with the original preliminary plat that was approved.
[1:42:50] this is a new or revised pulmonary plat coming forward,
[1:42:54] which they are not bound necessarily by that previously approved preliminary plat.
[1:43:01] the ordinance does allow them to submit a new plat for consideration. >> [noise] that includes the community is the request.
[1:43:10] >> that includes a request for a private street. >> private street with the gate.
[1:43:15] >> yes and that is what they have requested.
[1:43:20] >> yes. Thank you.
[1:43:24] was the applicant here for this one? Do you mind coming forward to the podium name and address?
[1:43:38] >> my name is john sharkey. I am the applicant.
[1:43:42] I've got the consultants here. I 1012 elgrove curt,
[1:43:47] keller, texas is where I live. I'm going to hand it over to curtis and he can take mic.
[1:43:55] >> dan, the questions you're asking, this didn't go through a zoning process.
[1:44:02] it was made pretty clear on an adjacent property to this
[1:44:06] that the city didn't want to change this zoning from sf one a. We haven't attempted to rezone this something different.
[1:44:13] what's different here from the original preliminary plat is that
[1:44:19] we were able to acquire a little bit of property from the adjacent neighbor to the east,
[1:44:24] who owns what will now be called bout 7. Acquiring that property allowed us to yield no lot in here.
[1:44:33] basically, it's going from five lots to six lots on the development end.
[1:44:42] the request for the plat,
[1:44:46] the original plat was done with someone else, you recall, the ex mayor was up here asking for that.
[1:44:52] he did not end up getting involved in this. There's a new applicant,
[1:44:59] and their plans for the property are very,
[1:45:03] very high level and consistent with moss farms just to the west of this.
[1:45:10] I know how you feel about gated properties,.
[1:45:15] >> this is a new request, correct? >> this is a new request, yes, with the platting.
[1:45:21] what's different from what you were expecting is a lot of times that's done during zoning.
[1:45:25] since this was not rezoned, it's done during plateau.
[1:45:30] >> where is the requested gate to be put?
[1:45:35] you know how to use the mouse. Yes. You've been up here once or twice. I ought correct.
[1:45:39] >> do you know, there'll be a median here, and that's why it gets wider here.
[1:45:44] it'll be right off.
[1:45:49] now, there's a gate here, of course, for this thing. There's already a gate here for the existing property.
[1:45:58] of course, across the street here is the storage yard and very familiar.
[1:46:05] the commercial any questions for the applicant? >> I have a question, not for the applicant,
[1:46:10] but are we approving the private road in the gate today? >> I was going to wait till we're do the applicant.
[1:46:18] make sure we have the land. >> is there already a house at six?
[1:46:25] >> well, the on lot 3, there is a big house here, yes.
[1:46:30] that lot has been fashioned to retain that house. There is already a house on lot 7,
[1:46:36] that's not part of our project, but it has to be part of the plate since their lot will be changing.
[1:46:41] >> why can't you do the driveway going into the existing driveway that serves one through five,
[1:46:47] six, and not have that flag lot going out there onto the street with another sep.
[1:46:54] >> that's already an existing lot. That's our neighbor. Lot 7 is the neighboring lot.
[1:47:02] there's already a big house on it. They already have what you described as a flag lot there.
[1:47:08] the only difference we're making with their lot is we're acquiring this blue hatched area here.
[1:47:16] to make this whole entry a little bit cleaner.
[1:47:21] >> well, why wouldn't you put the driveway where the blue hatched area is in the area through there?
[1:47:26] I'm missing the whole point about why we need two driveways.
[1:47:32] >> because this is an existing lot. He's got his own driveway.
[1:47:37] he doesn't want to be part of the development. We're just acquiring a little bit of property from him in order to make this development.
[1:47:45] this will be lots 1 through six. We'll be part of the dov ridge development.
[1:47:49] >> I got it. Thanks. >> any other questions for the applicant.
[1:47:55] >> I have one thing to add, if you don't mind. I did circulate a memo that I don't know if everybody got it,
[1:48:01] but it was stating our particular request for a private gate and a private road.
[1:48:10] did everybody receive that? I guess if you haven't, I only have one copy here,
[1:48:15] but I could certainly give it to you. I'll walk shortly through some of the reasons why we think it would be appropriate,
[1:48:23] first and foremost, I think just from a level of competition, having the gate is what buyers expect and hope for.
[1:48:30] secondarily like curtis had mentioned across the street,
[1:48:34] is that self storage and the gas station, and so when you look at site context definitely matters,
[1:48:42] and I think this would allow this portion of east of road to be more consistent with the gate,
[1:48:48] very similar to moss farms.
[1:48:53] fourth, I put here that it's already gated.
[1:48:58] it already has a gate for one single family home that's on lot 3.
[1:49:02] it does not have that's obviously a private driveway.
[1:49:07] now we're just asking for a private road, so it doesn't really increase any infrastructure budget or infrastructure needs for the city.
[1:49:15] another just benefit to the city is gated communities typically have higher property values,
[1:49:22] so that'll increase the tax basis. Really, this is a design choice that I think is appropriate.
[1:49:32] we would address any concerns that you did have from previous concerns that you have with
[1:49:37] gated communities right up front. That's all I have to say.
[1:49:41] >> any other questions have? Thank you much. Appreciate it.
[1:49:48] dennis, I guess, can you just maybe clarify to commissioner filans question and I guess probably my question,
[1:49:54] I guess what latitude is granted here in terms of can there be support of the application in general,
[1:50:03] support of the application, removing the gate? Can there just be a denial,
[1:50:09] or what are the options just to make sure commissioners understands?
[1:50:14] if you disagree with the variance being requested,
[1:50:20] you do have the ability to recommend denial on that basis.
[1:50:27] you may also approve it, but deny the variance request for the gated access or in private street,
[1:50:39] or you can you have the authority to approve and recommend the private gated street.
[1:50:47] >> perfect. There's latitude here.
[1:50:52] >> the street dimensions, back of curb, size of cul desac,
[1:50:57] all of those things, are they the same as would be for a city street?
[1:51:02] >> yes. They are required to build a conforming city street
[1:51:07] and comply with the provisions within the subdivision ordinance pertaining to a private street.
[1:51:15] >> whether it's a city street or a private street, the dimensions have shown this plan,
[1:51:19] the plat, the lots, and all that would be as the same? >> yes. That's correct.
[1:51:24] >> I guess along this I think you're answering this, but if it was a city maintained street,
[1:51:31] would there be the requirement of sidewalks? >> there is a requirement for sidewalks,
[1:51:38] absent of them asking to not provide them.
[1:51:45] they have not indicated otherwise that they would not.
[1:51:51] >> any other questions before we deliberate.
[1:51:56] well, I think you guys know how I feel about this. I think one of the things our past city leadership did in great wisdom as I remember,
[1:52:04] mangan has got a lot of requests early on for gated gate. The whole town could be gated under this logic.
[1:52:10] thankfully, they held off, and I think that's part of what really preserves what our city is today,
[1:52:16] which doesn't feel like a bunch of walls and gates. Particularly on the north side, particularly along road.
[1:52:21] I remember voting against moss farm joy. Unfortunately, city council did the field the same way,
[1:52:27] and it sticks out like a sore thumb along there. My 2 cents, supportive of the application.
[1:52:33] >> chairman, I apologize for interrupting. We did get an updated exhibit that wasn't in
[1:52:41] our presentation that shows the street configuration and the gate.
[1:52:47] they also addressed in this design exhibit they provided
[1:52:53] the comment that we had
[1:52:57] pertaining to the intersection angle of the street with dove road.
[1:53:03] but this is where their gates would be configured
[1:53:08] and shows their entry plan if that helps with the commission's consideration.
[1:53:13] >> we'll note that for the record. Comments to stand.
[1:53:18] I'll see what other folks think about it. >> can I ask a question about the existing home?
[1:53:25] is part of the reason the gates remaining because the people are staying in that lot 3 and the gates already there or is that not?
[1:53:32] >> I believe it's all.
[1:53:39] >> home.
[1:53:44] >> [inaudible] >> well, I always love to go along with what your thoughts are, dan.
[1:53:49] it's like, I do air conditioning work, and I'm here to tell you that every landscaper
[1:53:54] in south lake will have the gate code here. The sense of security that these gates.
[1:54:02] >> gates to make money. >> absolutely. Absolutely. I can't tell you
[1:54:07] how many gate codes that I have two private residences all over the city.
[1:54:12] anyway, if you're trying to sell security, I don't think it's a good idea.
[1:54:18] >> I want to junk up the environment so they can make a little more money. That's the question.
[1:54:23] >> I guess I have the opposite experience. I took a walk around my neighborhood to saddleback ridge and got the landscaper close
[1:54:29] the gate and I got stuck and I had to like shimmy under the gate and probably had to get stitches on my face.
[1:54:35] I don't love gates either. I just want to be able to walk around the neighborhood around my neighborhood and not get locked in.
[1:54:41] I am against it as well.
[1:54:46] >>mr. Chairman, I make a motion on item number 9 on our agenda 2.
[1:54:52] >> I'm sorry. We closed the public hearing. Didn't we?
[1:54:59] did we not open it? I of caution. I can't remember. We will reopen or open the public hearing.
[1:55:05] apologies been a long night. We get a little punch. Please if you want to come forward,
[1:55:11] please come forward, name and address. >> thank you.
[1:55:15] >> fire away. One thing else. Thank you. B.
[1:55:19] >> my name is milton millman. I live at 15:05 moss lane, which is just behind this development.
[1:55:26] I'm within 300 feet of the, so I got a little card to come here.
[1:55:32] I've watched the transformation of this south side of dove,
[1:55:36] which is just west of kimble for the past, five years or so.
[1:55:41] there are two houses, not in this plate that are under construction currently right there along that stretch.
[1:55:47] if you drive by there, you'll see that. Traffic has increased significantly.
[1:55:51] my primary concern here is not about the development, no problem.
[1:55:56] I understand that, but it really is the width of dove road in this section.
[1:56:00] is really narrow. It's pretty dangerous. I have seen a number of really close calls with head on collisions.
[1:56:07] the traffic area, I'm wondering if the city has something to do to address that width of dove road.
[1:56:15] I really think it should be looked at if you're going to put seven new homes in there, which is now going to be nine new homes in there
[1:56:20] because of the other two that I say are under construction right now. There's a synagogue right down there. I don't know if you know that.
[1:56:26] there's put traffic that goes up the street. There's no sidewalks there.
[1:56:30] they go to yates corner store, etc. I'm just concerned from a safety perspective.
[1:56:35] other than that, I don't have a concern about the development itself. Although the gate thing is new to me.
[1:56:41] moss does have a gate, as you noted. You just need to make sure that gate if you're going to approve that is far enough
[1:56:46] back because otherwise you're going to get backed up traffic on the street. That's a bad section of dove.
[1:56:52] anyway, those are my comments. That's helpful. >> thank you very much, apologies,
[1:56:57] that I almost didn't give you that opportunity. You were very patient to wait here. Thank you for charging in there. Appreciate that.
[1:57:04] the public hearing remains open. For anyone else who'd like to come forward and comment on this item.
[1:57:11] seeing no, we will close the public hearing that we stuck in.
[1:57:15] thank goodness. With that I guess good points noted there.
[1:57:21] maybe dennis is this marches forward, if there's any traffic information that
[1:57:28] staff can just be aware of there any future plans of widening or anything,
[1:57:33] maybe the resident can get with staff and just confirm.
[1:57:37] is there anything I guess top of mind? I know as we talked about. >> I don't I don't know of anything that's actually scheduled.
[1:57:47] I would have to look into our capital improvements plan and
[1:57:51] see what's there and where it's placed right now?
[1:57:58] >> the resident can get with staff and they can confirm where some of that may be down the road and our plans.
[1:58:05] it is the last area of town. It doesn't have a sidewalk yet, which we all know, it is a little complicated there,
[1:58:11] but maybe one day. Hopefully you can get with staff to help you with some of that,
[1:58:16] but thank you for sharing your thoughts. Any other deerations before we entertain a motion?
[1:58:22] >> mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve item number 9 on our agenda za 25-0077,
[1:58:30] subject to our staff report dated january 8th, 2026.
[1:58:34] also, subject to our revised plat review summary number 1, dated january 8th,
[1:58:39] 2026, and specifically denying the variance request.
[1:58:44] >> we have a motion. We have second. >> second. >> let's go to vote, please.
[1:58:52] there we go. Try it again. It looks like the motion passes with denial of that variance request.
[1:59:05] good luck at the next level. Appreciate you guys coming out tonight. Now we will gable out at 8:29 p.m. Our planning and zoning commission meeting.