Planning & Zoning Commission Agendas & Meeting Information - Regular Meeting

That's your response. [Music] So you can That's why [Music]

We have everyone here except for our um our alternate evening and um so but we do have forum which is good news. Uh tonight we do have quite a bit of things on the agenda. So before we officially get started, um is there any notice or any um announcements we need to make that's not related to the agenda item?

Um again, one thing I mentioned last time, so I'm sure some of you were here last time, there's also new faces in the room. Just want to go over a little bit of the the meeting, what you guys are going to see this evening. So um there is an opportunity for public comment on each of our posted agenda items this evening, but you do have to sign up ahead of time. So, there is a signup sheet at the front door. Make sure you add your name to it. We're going to be collecting it after our first agenda item is um has passed through. So, you got to sign up for that point. Unfortunately, we're not going to be able to allow that public comment. Um for public comment, there is a few things to keep in mind. Um I a few other things. So um whenever we have to wait until public comment to open in order for the speaking to um start and you also will have a threem minute time limit when speaking this evening. Um as much as we would love to discourse and have conversation with you during your public comment. Unfortunately you can only speak to matters of facts and we're very very limited in what we can say. So more than likely you just care say thank you. Please know it's nothing against you personally. It's just state law uh requires that. Um, and then after everyone has spoken, I will then close public comment and we will discourse and then vote at that time. When voting, the commission has three options. We can vote for approval, vote for, sorry, vote to recommend approval, vote to recommend city council, or we can vote to table or postpone. So, one of the agenda items tonight was on agenda last month. We've decided to postpone it in order to get some more information that for for this meeting. And then at the very very end of the meeting, if there's anything that you would like to speak to the city or the commission about that's not related to the agenda item, there is also another opportunity at that time as well. So let's go ahead and get started today. So let's go with regular agenda item 2.1. Consider approval of the

planning and zoning commission meeting minutes from August 5th, 2025. I only saw one correction. Yes, I saw one. It was for Brad's last name and he was voted co-chair. Yeah, that's the only one I saw. Anyone else see anything else? I wasn't here without make a motion. Okay, I make a motion to approve the planning and planning commission meetings from August the 5th. I'll second motion and a second. All in favor? I

motion passes. Everyone We'll move on to 22. Consider a request by Javier Querta with Orworks on behalf of the property owner Jason Field for variance section 3.08102B4 of the city of Albertes at 20419 state highway 46 Texas 78163.

Yes, good evening. Uh this variance request is regarding the multi-pened development off Highway 46. The applicant is requesting a variance to the number of monument signs which allows one monument sign for street frontage with a minimum distance of 500 ft from another monument sign. Um site plan A represents a code component arrangement showing the existing TRB limit sign facing highway 46 and the proposed monument sign facing crossing. These sh signs are shown at 500 feet apart. Um site plan B represents the applicant sign branch showing the existing TRB monument sign that is facing highway 46 and the proposed multi-tenant sign facing crossing. Um these two signs are proposed at 306 ft apart. See B also proposes an additional monument sign facing highway 46 being 367 ft from the existing sign. Both of these signs have been reviewed um and meet the maximum area and dark sky requirement. Please let me know if you have any questions. I believe that the authorized agent um for the applicant is here. Question from the signage.

Yes, absolutely. Questions. Uh, so the signage that is TRB, so that would be the only on 46 that would be the only sign. They wouldn't have that, you know, TRB at the top and then have the other ones at the bottom with just the TRB logo with the existing sign permit. And it says monument signed by others, just another company, I'm assuming. It's a TRB. I'm not sure the same.

You guys, the faces are all new. This project has been eight years and they and we're about to guys can see it's about to wrap up but it's it's really Texas Regional Bank was the one who actually got us got kind of the investor group involved and developed the whole site and they were the brought the ones that about eight years ago brought this up up to us and it's taking this long because of meeting requirements and tree all this other stuff but TRB the idea is TRB will have a corner sign by itself right by the bank and we just want to have a monument sign at the entrance to the property itself. Um we do understand that originally and I I'll back up and this why I say it's about eight years originally our goal was to actually subdivide here the out of the project and then develop the project. So been two projects. It was just the platting, everything that there was a lot of stuff that we couldn't do that. So now it's going to be kind of a condo regime, but now we're stuck with TRV just wanting that monument sign just to kind of have it spread and the rest in the plaza where I think the signs meet the requirements, the everything that's that's required. It's just we want to see if we can add those those those monument signs in addition to what we what's been approved already. I'm just saying it's just one additional monument. addition.

Okay.

Okay.

I thought there was one that showed you guys stayed within compant and that was only the first one. 500 ft from the zone. Number page two is 500 ft. So number two is to number three because it's too close and they want an additional one. That's what I thought. One additional distance. Yeah.

Any questions for the applicant? And just both signs are at the entrances of the project. The only one that's at the corner is a TRB sign which is not it's just a smaller sign TRB and there are things that are both of these right both of them. I mean State Highway 48 uh has the same kind of sign. It's not a not a very tall sign. I think there's a in the back there's kind of a you can see on the 404 there's two people standing next to the sign. It's it's not a very tall sign. Um it's compliance with all the other 12t. Yeah. 12 feet tall.

The monument signs are 12 feet tall by their by their graph. Uh it's it's uh yeah I mean it's the u I guess you call those boxes back. What's that? Yeah.

How how many total leasable spaces are there within that building? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Uh, we have uh 16 plus the bank is they're not use these people, but that's 17 for the whole site. And then we have a pad on the right hand side. So there's 18. Still going to put the salad or they're still going to put the salad in to go.

So that's still confidential. But yeah, the idea is we're still working. We actually actually the project unfortunately I can't I wish I could divulge but the first floor is almost leased out. Uh they're they're in the process of signing all the all the LOI but I think once we opened it up uh there was big demand for for it. Now we're working on the second floor trying to get that leased up. So if you're booked out you got 16 spaces but on your sign you've only got seven available slots. Yeah. Not everybody will get not everybody gets Yeah. Now, somebody's not gonna be happy once they

Well, the the thing is that's why some of them could be on Highway 48. Some of them could be on uh crossing. Okay. Any public comment related to this matter? I don't think I have any. I signed myself up. I didn't realize. Hey, it's all good. Have cover all the all the boxes. All right. No public comment. So, we're closing that 6 to 12.

You know, we're trying to cut down on a number of variances, but I don't really see a problem with this, be honest with you. I mean, if you're you're covering a large space from different angles and you're going to have multiple tenants, uh, you know, as as a norm, I would say that's probably I don't know if anybody's even going to notice that sign. I drive down for 46, you know, usually watch looking at quarter burger. Um, but I have no problem with it. I don't know what any of y'all are thinking.

So, I looked around at all other signs in the area, you know, for all where is all that. They only have one. It's only on 46. There's not one cross. You look at Home Depot, their mon's actually on their property. over by the pediatrician's office over their big signs. Okay. So I I feel like personally I'm fine leaving the 500 second one on 46. Okay. Or on crossing. They could have either one, right? So I'm fine with saying you have because they're allow one side but find

okay. Stay within a couple right it's just saying like hey they don't have 500 feet on necessarily to put it away from the other side. So I'd be okay waving the 500 ft. They put they want they want crossing out 46. I'm okay with that. I'm okay with that. Well, keep in mind though that that first page, the 204 that is over 500 ft. So that would still be put on crossing. No, for sure. I I guess I'm saying is I'm willing to let them put it on 46. They wouldn't be able to put on 46 without Correct. So, um I would say I just want to point out the signing be right. It's already

at 500 feet away. 500 property. No, it's one [Music] three signs anyway. Okay. So, why would the one on the corner of the TRB be considered 46 and not crossing? Uh it's facing. Got it. Okay. So, it's like

well and I feel that the one that would be on 46 the with the multiple when I drive by and I look at you know pipe eyes and schllotskies and burger I don't even I don't even know if I've ever seen a sign except for when I'm turning onto guess now it's old Birdie road when it cuts across. So for me, for them to have a sign on 46, I don't Yeah. I don't think anybody kids in the elementary school can see it, right? The other concern I have is visibility when you're exiting to turn right out of that parking lot to 46 sign. It's be hard to see. That's my concern, too.

And I'm assuming that each of the tenants of this building will also have signage on the facade of the building. As long as it's within Yeah. As long as it's with the size. Right. Now, is there tenants that are only facing 46 and only tenants that are facing the parking lot or did the spa like do the leasable spaces go all the way front to back of the building? Right now, the leasable spaces go front to back. Uh but because of the way the parking arrange and and so forth, our parking's in the back. So that's why we have a little breezeway and we do have signs in the back to Yeah.

So I guess I'm just trying to say it should really I I think it should just two instead of three. Yeah. Okay. Right. Yeah. Which means they'll just put it away. So So why are we here? Well, they want two. Yeah. They want two. So, they need the 500 foot. But if we just say, "Hey, stick with what you have." Then they can't they can't put it in front. They only put it back, right? Yeah. That's I think that's really And that's my 500 ft apart and nothing in front.

Yeah. Well, I prefer to be the code of compant relationship. So that would just be a straight. Yes. All right. I'll entertain a motion. Anybody else? Okay. I make a motion that we deny the request by Javier Wora on behalf of property owner Jason Lal for variance to section 3.08.

Can I before we can I just just add one last comment? is the issue of three signs that that we're that that we can put because I would rather say we're not going to put the one on the crossing and just put the one on highway. That that one's the more important one for us. The one on Highway 46. Yeah. But

but we can I mean if we needed to write something and put it in paper I mean we we um yeah because the one up front is the one that's that's more important to I think the whole project the one in the back I mean everybody wants that presence or the name of the plaza out there because that's what That's where the name of the plaza is going to be. There is there any

and the number and the number because the right now the one that's been approved and that's where TRB uh because we were doing that project first they signed off on that one and kind of uh took it for the whole project but the building itself won't have a number. I mean it won't have a place where we can put the number and that's why we wanted off Highway 46 to have that monument sign. Is there an opportunity to talk to TRB again and to replace that corner with the design for the entire complex? Well, they're already I mean I think that was approved I'm not saying that was approved a while ago, was it?

Right. At the time we warned that if they chose to take their one sign and use it just started by right and so they made that decision. The whole thing's own similar ownership TRB. There's ownership interest in TRB and the other property both. Yeah, they're all develop.

You can also fix the address to the building itself. Um yeah, I mean I guess we should look at that, but I guess just one last if it's about having three signs um uh I would rather uh say or maybe we can even move Well, let me ask you this. If we move the TRB sign further into the crossing instead of the corner, does that make it part of uh the crossing and not 46? Then we could just add the 46. So city correct me. So you have to change the orientation of that sign.

Tear that sign and after all that was done come back in the other one. It's not something that we would do the commission. But it's an opportunity for you after this vote as a as a avenue to take and and um uh I still I don't still you're still right because it's is it linear distance or from each monument from each way

I guess I guess what I understand I'm not sure if I'm reading the code. It's as long as I move it five feet or whatever. That's that's part of the where the crossing the it's not it's no longer on

Oh, it's side to side. Yeah. relocate. You wouldn't just have to change orient the proposed which would probably be about where yeah just doing some quick

you could do that well again um uh because again and I don't mean to uh kind of keep going on on this, but um you know, our original idea was it was going to be two different properties. each one like I said we didn't we didn't plat it uh and and separate it just because it was going to take additional time and we wanted to be I mean this project took eight years to to be where we are uh for for many different things and we worked and and like I said I don't think I recognize I've been here I've been I was here eight years ago and then a few more times but um if there's any way again if it's not that I mean just the sign meets all the requirements uh and yeah I mean

if it if it's going to be 500 feet away just it doesn't make sense for the the pylons to the banks to be where it is uh but if you're going to reject the variance uh I mean if there's any way that we can do just two signs and I don't know I mean I know you're saying that we there's nothing but we would we would sign any paper we would do anything to to amend that just to put two signs. So, we just put the corner signs and the sign at the entrance. I believe the concern of the commission is the two signs on 46 and would prefer only have one

instead of the two. Now, you have one that's what sounds to be already existing saying you have to tear it down. Um, for to have the one sign on 46 that would be for the entire complex TR TRB included. And then you could move another one off onto Bulberty Crossing 500t away, but that's just for TRB or another point in time.

What's the maximum height permitted on these signs? the our signs are within the the guidelines of I'm just thinking if they can all and and TRB sign when you look at it's not a tall sign because it's even smaller than ours. It's not sign.

Yeah, it's it's It's a single It's a single tenant. So, it's not it's not what I would call a monument. It's just just a single tenant. So, we have one motion, but we should probably state it again. I make a motion that you deny the request on behalf of property own for variance to section 3.08.1024 1024 for the city of Bveri code of ordinances at 20419 state highway 46 Bvard Texas 78163 I'll second a motion and a second all in favor I

I all oppose all right thank you

three consider a request by Wayne Flores on behalf of the property owner David Mueller for variance section Section 4.04E related to disturbance within steep slopes and section 4.05 related to cut and fill of the east code of ordinances on 128 acres located south and east of the Bell Oaks Ranch subdivision north of the Monola subdivision and west of this bridge subdivision. Yes. So this is a variance request regarding a new ball development. It's also known as Burbald. The applicant is requesting a variance to chapter 10A disturbance within steep slopes. The city categor categorizes steep slopes areas into three sections. Um this variance is pertaining to the slope areas greater than 25%. There is uh no construction activities allowed within this zone unless they meet the exemption requirements. The work within the slope area will be encroaching on several lots in order to build road and drainage infrastructure um which are not considered exemptions within those lots. Um, additionally, the applicant is requesting a varian chapter 10 A cut and fill section. The state does not allow for a cut or fill greater than four feet unless they meet the exemption requirements. Um, the proposed cut and fills greater than four feet will encroach on the individual lots not meeting these exemptions. The applicant is proposing a proposed total cut at 14.54 feet require requiring a variance the additional 10.54 ft. The applicant is also proposing a fail of 10.63 feet requiring a variance for this additional 6.63 ft. Um, please let me know if you have any questions. I believe that the applicant is also present. You have questions on the development. Any questions specific?

Yes. Uh, is it basically there's three places that they would need to have uh that the variance applies to. looking at the purple and the teal. Um the same can back down slide please. Yes. So these are going to be the three um surf slope areas that encroach onto the lot. One is for drainage which is detail se but um and then the other are for the road infrastructure.

Do you have questions for Okay. I'm Wayne Flores engineers representing Mr. Müller. Um we do have three areas or two within the road construction that just barely get into the 25 ft uh or I'm sorry 25% existing slope. The other one is an existing pond that's on the site and it's actually the existing BM is the reason it's steeper there. And what we're trying to do with all of these, we've gone to tremendous efforts trying to save trees out here. I mean, we've adjusted the alignment of the streets so many times because we'll go look see what trees are there and shift it over a little bit here or there. And that's what's happening is we're we're getting into an area in order to save a tree. It's forcing us to cut a little bit there. the the one that's on the existing pond. What we're doing there, we got to do detention per code. If we can utilize this existing pond, that's that's less area we have to insert. That's less trees we have to take out. But we've got to design an outall structure. And so it's strictly our outpost structure, which would be a concrete we for that detention pond. And it's that small area where that will be is where we're disturbing 25% on that. As far as the cut and fill areas, um it's most all of those are to do with our detention basin. Uh we're we're having to obviously put it up to the low point of the site and cut back into the site to create volume for detention. Um, we're doing this we're we're trying to cut back more because our only other option to abide by the no greater than four feet of cut is to do multiple ponds there stepped up. And if we do that, that's a lot more footprint of area that we're widing out trees. And if you look,

the site is covered with trees. And so we if we cut back more, it reduces the the overall footprint for those ponds. And so that's the whole reason we're doing it. Save trees.

So this really isn't at roads that you're doing that cut and fill. It's at the detention ponds. Most of it is the the detention ponds. There's a couple of areas for the cut fill greater than four feet to do with the roads. We we tried to lay this out where all of our roads were going, you know, with slopes uh so that there is very little cut and fill, but obviously you got to connect the roads somewhere where you do you're going to have some that you're paralleling slope and that's where you can't get around it. There there's some areas you gota you got to work with with what you're dealt there.

Um it's it's got a lot of slope. Yeah. And the the mechanism that you were talking about that for the drainage about how how large of an area are you cut? Um tell them the slope map I realized. Yeah. [Music] So it's hard to see with all the red. I apologize, but uh of course you can't see if I'm pointing to something.

The far left you see kind of a rectangular area. That's the ement for the detention. And the other one is the far southeast corner. See some the easement over there as well. and and you see the steeper slopes to the southeast that that kind of cyan color that makes like a loop. That's the existing pond. Okay. And so the is that mechanism going all around the spawn just in the outflow section of the right.

Are you guys are you guys cutting into you said it was a they burned it up previously. So what you're cutting into is that mostly fil material, not natural. It's been there so long.

We do kind of self-replace and things where if you built a detention pond 20 years ago, it was put in and you want to go knock it down, you're tech man, you know. Yeah. I mean just curious if what part is mandated, what part is not. The only thing that we would be disturbing on the existing BM itself is probably going to be the size like the size of this podium. Um and that's just to design the outfall structure. It's a third of our existing

and that's down here in the circle. So that'll bottom right. Okay. So otherwise that's all. So we're utilizing no you say have done any kind of tree survey. I'm trying to say

goodness. Um, not this evening. I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. We have a tree survey. We we've done a tree survey of the rights away and the easements where we're looking to do detention and drainage and again trying to locate everything where we can minimize the the amount of trees taken out.

Um just a procedural question are they just restricted to these areas specifically or is this granting exemption for the entire site to be cut fills like this? It's just these sites uh and generally the roadways and a lot of those drainage would be except that uh in several spots they're just looking outside of the roadway on private and then they're standing Yeah, looks like we're I hate to say it, but it looks like we're picking little nits because I mean if it adjusted with a little adjustment like you said an engineer's letter

that was offered the design this route. Yeah. And is an elevated roadway an option for these two spaces that where they're going onto the lot instead of it, you know, cutting in. Um, what's what's happening is in these few areas, it's like we're going along the side of a hill and so you're cutting on the uphill side, you're filling on the downhill side and and you've got to slope that back lot. It's either do that or build a ginormous wall there.

They're setting it up instead of there's some oak trees that we want to keep. So three foot walls and pulling in probably 30 40 feet of width slope that we don't want to cut in that. So we're already building some wall still have to cut. There's a lot of people in this process, right? That's to to what uh you're saying. There are some areas that we aren't building walls because we don't want to get back where the trees are. There's some other areas where we've taken a look like, okay, there's really no trees here that are worth saving. So, let's explode that area back. So, and so Danny, just again to be clear, any homeowner that wanted to put a driveway down this take out trees on his

everything is just for us. I just I want to make sure right and that's why I wanted to make sure I don't have any public comment related to this matter. So we'll go ahead and close that at 6:36 mission. I'm fine with it as long like I said I just want to make sure to where they are going. Yeah. I mean I think they've done a good job trying to avoid stuff I looked at earlier. I mean, they're saying all the right things, so he's telling me something different. I think we're all right with it. Y

All right. Well, I will make a motion that we recommend approval of item 23, a request by Wayne Flores on behalf of property owner David Mueller for section 4.04E related to disturbance within steep slopes and section 4.05 05 related to cut and fill of the cable code ordinances on 120 acres located south and east of the Bell Oak Ranch subdivision north of the Monto subdivision and west of the Centennial R subdivision. Have a motion and in a second. All in favor?

Motion passes. Two four. Hold a public hearing and consider a request by Jose and Mora Chavez for the approval of a special use permit to allow a guest house located at 30563 Deerfield Terrace, Bulberty, Texas 78163.

Uh yes, Madam Chair. This request is for the use of a guest house in the Bulberty Hills neighborhood which is an R2 zoning district. Um guest houses are not allowed by right in this uh neighborhood or zoning district. Uh so a special use permit is required for the authorized use. Uh the proposed guest house um is allowed a maximum residential floor area of 998.25 square feet uh which is based off of the the area of the main residence. The applicant's proposal contains a floor area of 547 square ft uh which is compliant with the allowed maximum area. The guest house will utilize the same access as the main residence and the utility meters will be connected to the main residence. Any questions for the city? Is applicant here?

I'm just like to hear from from you. Why guest house? Just tell us a little bit about what we're trying to do. Well, the guest house will be used for our relatives. I'm lucky my father-in-law passed away and February she was taking care of him. I still have my mom 92 years old his mom. So I guess house is going to be used for that or or other relatives. So that's one of the reasons we're going to build. And you're not planning on doing any short-term rentals or anything like that? No.

Oh. So when you build the earth and burm in the back, so are you going to be taking out trees when you do that? No, all trees are on the back of the property property. There were four trees which we are going to save. Okay. So the um the um guest house is going to be exactly in the middle of those four trees. So we are not going to cut any more trees. Okay. So BM is done already. It's been built. So all the trees that are are existing on the property, we can stay at the mall. Yeah. So is the pool in yet? No. Okay.

We don't have the uh the money to build pool. So we decided to be the guest house might be in the future. Any other questions? I have no public comment for this matter. So, it's 6:40. [Music] Any motion? Yes.

All right. I make a motion to recommend approval of a request by Jose and Laura Chados for the approval of special use permit to allow a guest house located at 3563 Deerfield Terrace, Wver, Texas 78163. I'll second. Do a motion and a second. All in favor?

All right. 25 ad hearing and consider request by Samir Shahed with one stock LLP on behalf of Dash interest LLC for the establishment of a PDD plan development district with the base donate of R2 residential districts approximately 229 acres located at the intersection of highway 281 and 186. Yes, this request is for the establishment of that PDD with the base zoning of R2 residential zoning district on 329 acres of the 388 McCarti Ranch property on US Highway 281. The applicant is proposing approximately 230 single family residences on a minimum of 1 acre lots. The applicant is proposing a list of modifications to the city's code of ordinances. The modifications to residential lots are related to reducing the minimum front and side setback of those residential lots, increasing the lot aspect ratio of those residential lots, altering the method of calculation of the lot width of those residential lots and altering the method of calculation of lots fronting culde-sacs. The modifications to parkland dedication are related to modifying the dimensional access location and orientation requirements of the require required parkland and allowing riparian buffers to count towards the minimum calculation requirement. The modifications to the cuts, fills and disturbance within steep slope requirements would be contained within an approximately 110 acre disturbance zone uh that is shown in exhibit G. The modifications to street geometry are related to reducing the minimum right of weight width, pavement width, design speed, centerline radius, culde-sac rightway, and eliminating the 4ft shoulder requirement. The modifications to trees are related to reducing the

tree survey uh to the area depicted in exhibit 01, allowing the removal of protected specimen and majestic trees within the steep slope disturbance zone uh depicted in exhibit O2, modifying the tree mitigation requirements to limit the total fee and L amount to 300,000 and altering the requirements for replacement trees. Lastly, there are modifications to the riparian buffers uh that are stated in the staff report. Um the applicant has prepared a presentation for this project. Um but if you have any questions before that

was all very clear. Thank you so much for the the summary. Yes. This sounded really bad. Like, oh my god. So, uh, I wanted to put this whole thing in context. Okay. Uh, I think it's only fair. It sounds like a lot of modification. It sounds like we're coming in asking for a whole bunch of stuff, whole bunch of concessions. So, uh, I would like to invite you to look at this a little bit differently and, uh, work with us on, uh, where we're coming from and why we did what we did. So first of all we did not want to create a tradition where we're coming back later during platting and asking for this variance and that variance and this variance. We thought uh you know plan twice, three times, four times and cut once. Uh the reason behind this is if you were to look at a project like this globally and say doesn't matter what you change, it's going to affect something else. If you uh if you widen the road a little bit, you're going to be cutting more trees. If you are if you don't account for those lots that are in the corners to make make sure that the variances or at least the lot requirements are accommodating with with a topo like this when sloping could be down like this on the lot could be sideways on the lot. So how do we make sure that in advance we spend all the time energy and effort and money make

sure that we're covering all bases. So by doing that we're coming for forward here saying we need all these modifications. At the end of the day we we've been we've been developers for the past 20 years. Uh we've been through many many projects. I tell you with assurance uh it is clear why we have a code why every city has a code and the code is about a set of technical terms to be able to enforce a certain behavior or a certain goal uh be it community goal be it preserving the hill country be it uh making sure that we're mitigating flooding be it making sure that we are preserving ing the trees. So all of these code uh uh code uh regulations that exist have to do basically with a servant purpose. But I invite you uh to look at this. It's more in a global view and uh if I was to just maybe navigate through this

am I should I be pointing somewhere else? I'm assuming Right. If not, I can navigate for you. I'm sorry.

Okay. So, we've divided this up. Uh so, we wanted to come back. First of all, we want to thank you for allowing us chance to come back. I know the first cut of this was well too much to ask and we thought okay well we fair enough. Mia basically you know we we want to come back explain it all in more detail. So because of the global view of this because of all the extra work we did to look at our application it's not your typical PDD application where it has to do only with zoning we have exceeded went above and beyond every single requirement and we came back with a draage analysis which was not required came back with a wildlife study which is not required a tree study which is not required steep slopes uh study which was not required technically. Right? So we could have come and come come forward here and said this is only one but it's unfair to do this without having all this information. So you can consider all this at once. So we fall into three categories here. If you look at everything we're considering there's the technical aspect as there's the environmental aspect and there's the economical aspect. So on the technical aspect we're strictly looking at the code modifications and you know that list that uh came up with is very extensive but I'm going to go over uh maybe this a bit differently and say really we are asking for three modifications for the first one has to do with lot dimensions and the reason why we're asking for those lot dimensions is not to bypass process uh or bypass the technical requirement, but it's mainly to address

those challenges we have with this particular property. This property was zoned for R3 and R2 is zoned for R3 and R2. We could put technically we could we could have we have one plan that we presented that could have clustered the lots.5 acre lots and we could have been able to save a lot more grading a lot more trees all of that could have happened but that would have required a a uh s treatment plant and we could we had feedback don't do that the smells and all that. So we stuck with one acre loss with one acre loss. Believe it or not, we have to grade more. There will be more of a grading. We're getting more uh challenging in in the way we need to keep above the one acre. So what does that mean? It means a whole bunch of technical uh challenges and that is why we've been spending money and effort into addressing every single one of those aspects independently with each each with their own study. So in terms of the the three requirements we have lot dimensions environmental uh radian has got to do so everything we're asking for cut and fill uh steep slope disturbance which is pretty much the same as well as uh riperian buffers protect protection enforcement all of those fall ultimately into drainage and flood mitigation Right. So if we have to clump all of that to one bucket, a lot of dimensions I explained that the third bucket has to do with the trees and that is an environmental issue and honestly trees and so if you look at the content quite

extensive u I hope you give us some credit for the extra effort we've been putting into this application uh because we wanted guys to great giving us feedback. We were at the vision five back and forth which we very much appreciate. Part of that though puts a lot of pressure on our time to deliver few things during this presentation. So there are some mistakes in the presentation uh and we apologize for that. There are some typos there are some repetitions and there are slides that are not necessarily reflected. I will go over them. uh there's a conflict between those slides, our summaries, and what we're actually asking for and it was an honest mistake. I'm not trying to show anybody. All right. So, um Oh, thank you. That's great. All right. So, I addressed a little bit of this. So, so the baseing Keith mentioned that we we initially we came with the base zoning that said we'll keep R2R3. We're going to follow the line because one of the biggest issues of keeping the existing zoning with the PDD was that the lines currently drawn for the for the uh zones as they stand across certain lots. So we didn't want that. So we said you know what we come back and cut it clean. So and we kept the ratio of R2 and R3 intact. But then we heard that there's preference potentially to go with an R2 base here. We said, "Okay, well, we would like to do that, but there's an issue with us giving up density in a sense that we're currently zoned for R2, R3, and if for any reason, God knows, God forbid, the economy changes or anything happens, we wanted to protect the existing zoning because we could be another 10 years before we can do anything with this property and the market could have changed. So even with this request we want to

protect our base zoning our current base zoning until such a time that we actually get that approval for this property. That is why if you read our application uh we have a clear statement that we will go with R2 the moment we have a plan otherwise we would like to stay with our current existing zone and redoing that boundary or

we could do honestly we're we would do it any way you would want us as long as we are able to protect our current our existing zoning uh ation just in case there's something in the market that happens and we're not able to develop this. That's it. That's the only reason why you're seeing this contingency on base zoning. And honestly, we've we've never had issue with base zoning needing to change. One can always request existing zoning as a base. It's in the code and all you have to do is just put the modifications in place for that zoning in order for us to be able to put the PDD together. The intent is to be able to develop a project that everybody's happy. That's the flexibility with the PDD. That's what it provides. So, uh environmental All right. So in terms of of everything else we want to address the environmental aspect of education, community impactation and economic impact. The community impact is key in this conversation because we initially when we put this property under contract and the way the owners decided on pricing this property it's priced based on the current zone and that's the way they see it and it's priced based on certain density. I know this is not anyone's issue. Uh I'm not saying this is anyone's issue here but for us we came with the idea of high density. The first thing we've done is we talked to we went through multiple rounds of talking to the community and what we heard back was

simple density density density. We wanted it to be low density larger lots but fine went back it is possible we're able to do it because we're small developers. We don't have the overhead that everybody else has. We said okay so our plan is driven by the nobody told us we don't want this property develop honestly if you guys told us we don't want this property just walk uh everybody was saying well larger lots we want to preserve uh the uh the hill country field we want to make sure that there's no food traffic for neighbors want to make sure that uh basically creating buffers uh to to maintain the uh current field which said great we'll do all of that but now we're coming down to technicality of how to do it. Uh we're maintaining and honoring the spirit of what we have been asked. The technical aspect of it right now is are we truly intruding on the court in such a way that compromises the intent of the court and the city's wish for this property. That's what it comes down to. So I'm going to specifically question I I just wanted to frame this whole conversation. I may need your help. Thank you. All right. So uh can we move forward please? Do you have a mouse? No, I decided earlier button

just a second ago might just be too far. Just technology wise. Okay. So, uh yeah, it's going to be okay

challenging for you. Uh all right. So, basically the lot dimensions. I want to I want to be clear on something. Doesn't matter which one we cut lot. for keeping it at one acre. That's very important for you to understand. We want to put lots out there that people can buy. We don't want to cut the tree. We don't want to be making the law in such an odd shape or compromising someone's privacy with setbacks like especially side setbacks where your neighbors right now. It's not going to sell. uh we're more incentive to maintain the privacy, maintain uh you know the lifestyle than honestly the code is uh because that is what's going to sell. If you look doesn't matter what the law dimensions that we're asking for we are keeping every single law above 180. That's something for you to keep in mind. So let's just park the log dimensions for a second. Next slide please. All right. So, would you mind going back two slides? I think we could jump one. Okay. This one here is very important. So, this is where we made a mistake. If you look at the minimum width under R2 because that's the current standard that we are measuring. Yes, it says sorry says 80 ft. That's not right. It's actually 110 ft.

That's 110 ft. And when we said unchange will line uh it's actually 80 feet at 20 foot set back should be like so what's on the left should be on the right. I apologize for that. I actually have a revised one but I didn't want to say I'm going to hand anything because it's not I was thinking about it but we're not going to do that. So uh but we're happy to send but basically put it this way this property has R2 and R3. R3 is 23 of the property. R2 is oneird of the property. We are comparing to standard here that is R2. Yeah 23 of the property is R3. So in R2 says 110 for the minimum width and R3 says 85. But we're saying our typical lot size is 135. It's not 110. It's 25 ft wider than that. The depth we're going to approximately 375 ft depth. That's our typical lot size. Now the reason why we have these modifications is to be able to address the funny shaped lots. Be it in culdeacs, be it in we're happy to provide you that. That's why we have this the slide afterwards that shows you how everything is kept over one acre. This is very key because it sounds like we're asking for a lot of stuff, but really we're we're not. We just want to maintain the one acre and make sure that, you know, we're sticking with uh being able to develop this property in a financially viable way. All right. Uh next, please. Thank you, Captain Phil. I'm gonna have Allan, our engineer, address it. Alan was here last

time. Alan is a known entity when it comes to drainage. Uh he's actually helped the city here, part of the team that helped put the code together for the city. So, uh I would invite him here to talk about drainage. Uh but I'm not going to address this for now. Uh next one here, tree survey area. Uh and since there's a section on that I want them to be able to come up and talk about it. Uh so the trees basically we want to protect as many trees as possible. One of the reasons for the right away being a little bit shrunk was actually because as we were looking initially we've done initially we've done a little bit of a tree study on the property and some of the curves hit a lot of trees uh especially actually 24 in trees. So I'll be showing you the three study that we've done and we can talk a little bit about some of the reasons also when we're shrinking the street a little bit. We're also shrinking the grading area which means we shrinking the cut and fill is exactly what folks behind us before us here were talking about. So we are not asking for cut and fill anywhere where they're not asking. They're exactly the same requirements just so we know like we we're sticking with heaven and fill only in the areas of gra. So in terms of uh the Iberian buffer encroachment I'll have also talk about it because that falls with ultimately uh the mitigation of flooding. uh that's what that conversation is all about and uh the parkland dedication I think there was a misunderstanding because the parkland dedication requirement

right now is 3.8 acres 3.85 85 to be exact. That's the code. We're offering six acres in parkland dedication. Uh and basically we're exceeding the requirement. So we're not asking for any modification on that. Next slide. So this is where I talk about the drainage and again when we're looking at drainage hopefully you'll see in our mitigation strategy that we are actually uh going above and beyond any requirement for PCQ or the city's requirements for dage

good evening uh commission um I just want to give a background just uh just give you a little bit of my history. I haven't worked with all of you but uh I've been around for a while. I live just south of Birdie, 281 of Bverie. Uh I started working uh with the city of Bulverie back when EA Hoppy was the city manager and John Noak was the engineer. Uh first thing I did was uh there was a question about is rainfall changing in Bertie and uh they had old rainfall data and it was before the new Atlas 14 Noah study. I was the one who did the rainfall analysis that was my master's thesis in college worked in the Himalaya engaged in the Himalayas. The next thing I worked on in Bulbertie was the Lewis Creek Lewis Creek 2 drainage study. I was the one advocating for uh regional detention upstream of Oak Village North. That didn't end up happening. Uh there was that was uh whenever there was the bridge that was crossing Lewis Creek. Uh that was one of the alternatives that I was recommending at the time. Uh Lewis Creek tributary 10. I was the one doing inspections on that uh on that detention pond. We identified that the pond wasn't at the right elevation and that got improved. that was uh back in maybe 2016 or so. Uh so I've been around uh I'm interested in the the public safety and welfare of people. My firm does complex hydrarology hydraulics uh primarily for public entities. Uh but this is a you know a project I've been working on for a while and uh I feel that the project is safe and uh it's good for the community. So with that uh if you look at the exhibit there that blue line represents the reparian buffers and we are holding to the code here. So so when we talked about or when there's the

variance uh about the riparian buffers here uh the only crossings that the only places where we're encroaching on the buffers is for detention and for uh a roadway crossing. And then uh that if you see that at the top uh portion there where we talked about having a natural channel in the middle of the uh uh in the middle of that that street there. Those are the areas where we're encroaching on the right parents. So whenever we came up with this plan, we made sure that at the start we are going to limit that as best as possible and I think we meet the intent of the code and that we are limiting our riparian encroachment. Uh that's what the site was built upon. There's uh three crossings that we are encroaching on the riparian buffers. Um I don't know that's in the next slide. If we go to the next slide we go a little bit more maybe keep it going. I'm sorry. Keep it going. Keep it going.

Okay. I don't think we have it. I don't think we have it.

Yeah. This one.

It's okay. I'm sorry. This will This will work. So, there's a couple areas. Okay. Yeah. There's a couple couple lots as well. Okay. So, there's also a couple lots where uh it's it's around the crossings. You see there's there's some pink lots on there where it's just it's really the back of the lot and there the lots encroach onto the riparian buffer, but all of the grading is going to be done adjacent to the roadways. So, if you look in that that southwest corner uh where you see a couple lots where there's just a little bit of pink touching the blue, those aren't going to be touched. the areas where it's going to be touched is generally by those the two crossings. So where you see this V like you know the the tilted V there's two crossings and uh at those crossings there's going to be slight um grading in the right parent bumpers. Um you know as for let's let's go back there's a lot of slides here but I'm going to be kind of short with this. We could we could go to the TCQ. Go up two slides. Oh, the other way. I'm sorry. There we go. Perfect. So, as for TCQ TCQ compliance, we have about 440 acres or so that we are going to be draining uh to that's already draining um down to the southeast corner towards 281. And all of that drainage and and that includes some drainage from Alberta Hills neighborhood. All of that drainage is going to go into a batch detention facility which is a retention facility that's required by TCQ as for the contri it's it's it's a contributing zone plan as part of the contributing zone plan that is meant to protect the aquifer. So right now there is no water quality protections. This is going to add a water quality protection that's not only going to treat the impervious cover of this development but it's going to treat the impervious cover of hills. And

that's a fact. This is going to be reviewed by TCQ. This is going to be reviewed by the city of Bvery and their independent consultant. Uh so this this is u that will happen at the time of construction plans. But the first we did the calculations the first 1.3 in are going to be captured and retained. So meaning there's not going to be an outfall for that first 1.3 inches of rainfall. All of that is going to be stir stored. So, anytime you have a one-inch storm, you're not going to have drainage coming out of this facility. What are the most erosive storms uh for for downstream properties? It's those frequent events because they happen more frequently. It's going to cause more erosion that is going to stop downstream. So, that's one enhancement that this project is going to produce. Um, we can go to the next slide please. As for the no adverse impact analysis, uh you see uh we looked at all of the drainage pre- project and all of the drainage post project. We looked at all the offsite drainage that's coming to uh this property and we designed a a detention footprint on that southeast corner and on the north north corner. that detention footprint was designed at the beginning of this planning phase and we designed it for uh I think it was 34% impervious cover um and we designed that footprint and then the plan went to the 20% u imperous cover the one acre plan we didn't change the footprint and so what you're going to have is less impervious cover than what the design the intent of the design So you there was no additional lots that were created. Um I mean they were reduced the number of lots were reduced from the plan that initially had that potential facility uh

size for 34% purpose. So it's going to improve um not only the water quality, it's going to improve flood mitigation downstream. Uh so let's go ahead and go to the next slide. That's just some snips from some of the modeling that we did. So what what that what that if you can show go back to that screen you can kind of see it that bottom graph the top key was your pre-ro flow the bottom hydrograph is your post project flow uh so you see the dash blue and the the solid blue what you see is that solid blue it's going to run off longer but the peak is going to be less and so you'll have a more prolonged blow but it'll be a prolonged uh it'll be a decreased peak. We can go to the next slide. Slope disturbance. The typical the reasons for the slope disturbances is we it's a very steep site. When we design the plan, we try to stay as much as we can out of the very steep areas for one for the requirement and two it gets really expensive whenever you're cutting into you can't develop on it. So all of our grading is designed so that we can have septic system and uh gradable lots um and also so that we can um make sure that uh we can maintain the longitudinal slope requirements on the roadways. So the seable birdie Texas has requirements on the slope of your roads and to meet that those slopes we had to grade out on the lots and uh you see that the gray areas are typical I don't know if this is the exhibit but basically um the grading is going to be contained adjacent to the rideway and

the back of the lots are going to be left alone as is. You can go to the next slide. We can continue here. Going. Keep going. So, this is just an idea that we have for a natural channel at that uh that that area on the north section where we're going to be encroaching on the riparian buffer. So where we're encroaching on the right current buffers outside of the Colbert crossings, our intent is to implement low impact development type uh native grasses, native a native channel design. So you can go to the next slide. I'm going to pass it back to Samir. Um that's all I have for you. Thank you. So Alan was talking about uh how we kept the footprint uh for the detention basically substantially oversized. We did it because we knew there's going to be some cutting and filling. We knew there's going to be uh although we initially sized it for 34% that's when we had 60 foot and 80 foot lots that's what we originally thought we were going to do. So when we when we ended up with one acre loss we have 20% at best in previous we could have shrunk that and claimed another pipel we thought you know what our contribution to the community would be to make sure that we're not just mitigating our own extras but also to mitigate from two

angles. One is the flood mitigation the other one is the water quality. what's going in the aquifer currently. What you have is not good. This project with the extended facility, we're going to have better quality of water going into the aquifer. Guaranteed. We're going to have less like risk of flooding downstream from what you currently have. I would reclaim it. We stand behind it. Please let your engineers decide if we're right or not. It's that simple. Now in terms of uh water this has been a big issue and water conservation has been has been something that uh obviously is on everyone's mind but we thought we could potentially raise the standard of uh water conservation not only by uh concept and by saying you know what we'd like to go with zero scaping that's our standard and we're going to let the HOA or we're going to go with rainwater production as a stand, but the HOA will take care of it. We decided, no, we're going to make this an enforcable requirement by the code. It's by law. You cannot go with anything else but zero skin period. It's in the code attached to this PD. The other thing is rainwater collection and the code attached to the PD. the developer also. We've been looking at ways to say, can we use because we're going to have a big farm, can we use some of that for irrigation? So, it'll be like this massive rainwater collection uh facility instead of just a small rainwater collection facility for each one. Now, this actually came from the town hall meeting. There was a gentleman who took me to the side and said, "Have you guys thought about

this?" Dang. No, we didn't. So, oh, what about we examine that now? How because of this roing, uh, we just need to assess how feasible that is, but it's definitely not at least for portion of the property that we're able to use some of that water back into into irrigation. Why not, right? So uh the other thing is for the water nobody asked us to put a water tank anywhere. We decided there's water pressure issues around us. Could we rely on water provider to deal with this issue or can we be proactive and invest ourselves into potentially solving this problem? Now we came forward saying we have two potential locations initially. one on the church property, one property. The church property is 10 feet higher. Made sense, but there was opposition uh in two ways. One, the neighbors didn't like it uh on the northern end. And two, it's actually difficult to PDD something that's not going to land. So, even though we thought we could potentially reach an agreement quickly with the church that they wanted, but we thought, you know what, why the headache just we have one one uh proposal. It's on our land. top of the hill and we will stick with that just one. So we eliminated the other option no more. Uh so basically on the water side I believe we have a very very good plan. Uh next slide please. Now there was concerns on wildlife. So we thought we're not smart enough to deal with this. We wanted to give proper answers. So we hired Dave Blossom to go ahead and do a wildlife study. So what came back was very interesting.

Uh you all you all read this but this property actually limits the movement of uh of uh wildlife because of the the fence that's around it. So if anything at least even if we were to I understand the need for the fence say by the Bver area hills but we can potentially knock down the fence on the other sides and make sure that there's a flow of uh of wildlife which is the way it's supposed to. So I just wanted to bring this to your attention. uh the property as it stands right now is not will be substantially improved through the development be it from a wildlife perspective or be it from a drainage perspective. Now let's talk about the twist. Please move forward. Move forward more. More more. Okay, there you go. So we wanted to do a good job at this. We initially had a preliminary assessment. We sent the arborist and team in to say we want a better job at assessing exactly what we're dealing with from a team perspective because we came in initially saying 200,000 sounded like we're selling potatoes and we're negotiating and honestly my partners and I were like we need to know what we're dealing with. What are we asking the city? Go in and say 200,000 because that's all we can afford based on our financials. City doesn't care. I wouldn't care from the city. So, why not just come up with a good estimate to spend the money on on a tree study? We sent the people in, but we needed to we didn't survey or do a tree study on 329 acres. We're just going it was going to cost us $200,000.

So, we thought, why don't we do a uh would you mind moving forward with this? So, we looked at aerial images. We worked with the arborist on this. We wanted to make it as scientific as possible. If you look at this property back in 2005, so any any native trees that have been around, anything of size would have been around before 2005 or trees for sure would have been around before them. So, we looked at this property in 2005 and said, "Okay, well, this is really what we're dealing with in terms of native trees that will have any real value ultimately to the neighbors, to the city, and then we know we're going to be planting 460 native trees as part of this project. So why don't we look greatly at those areas that are of most interest where we have a con a big concentration and go after those. So would you mind? All right. So then we segmented the whole thing after that. Then we uh we really looked at the grading areas also and we thought okay well this is where we're going to be taking out as many trees as possible. So we're going to need to assess all this together into one more slide here which shows how we picked the three uh sections each section 10 acres right this is actually so so the the wildlife study that we did with Dawson they also looked at the tree composition and tree species and I was very happy to see that the two were driving and and you all would have access to all of this. So basically we might moving forward.

Okay. Section one and two are the most representative of the dense areas uh all around that top say uh the top right. So norththeast corner. The one that is not representative of that area is section three. The section three has the most density of uh native trees and big trees. So we're talking 24 in plus. So if you look at 20 acres section one and two, we have in total 11 trees that are over 24 in in size. Uh one that is a majestic tree, 36 in. I will show you exactly where it's at now. So that's a total of 11 trees on 20 acres. You please move forward. So what you see here is the assessment that came back is that 15% of the trees on this property are actually native noninvasive. Yes, noninvasive. So the 85 are invasive trees. 85%. And that is something that honestly I was surprised because we we drove the property and we've seen a lot of cedars and all of that, but we didn't expect that kind of ratio. So, uh I will leave you with this because so 2% is over 24 inch diameter. There's one majestic tree out of 575 trees that count. So now that what I just mentioned, it's representative of sections one and two. But if you look at section three,

section three has 21 trees over 24 in. But that is the highest concentration on the whole property. uh the wildlife study came back saying that the majority of this property was actually used for grazing u at a certain point in time. So to give you an idea where we're at. So each one of those that you see has exact GPS coordinates for each one of those things. There's any doubt you're welcome to pick it up and go measure that. We didn't want to have anybody have any doubt about that. So can you please before this? All right. So this here is a representation of those trees. If you look there's a yellow one. That is where the majestic tree is. The others are this is where grading is going to be very tricky. And honestly we're going to try try and save. We have about five or six trees that are at risk of being removed. one for sure will get removed. But if you look at this, we're doing everything in advance. So we're not coming back for more variances at clouting. We just want to make sure that as you're approving, you know exactly what you're approving. It's that simple. So we know we're going way above and beyond, but that's the respect we'd like to pay to you and the property and move forward. So why are we requesting a tree survey detailed tree survey on the grading area? Because we believe honestly we believe we already have enough sampling. But if you would like us to do a full on survey, we will and we will determine exactly what we're going to be taking out and then we can determine how much

we'll be paying. And also at this point in time, if we were to say we have we're we're planting 460 trees that are 3 in each, we have about 1,400 inches that are that come in as uh credit when it comes to paying the uh the cash. That's the way it works, right? You have would you say that's mutual? Um, that's one of the Yeah, so they wouldn't be

they would not be okay. Okay. Okay. So I mean we four and six gets super expensive for probably the size but this is something we can we can talk about ultimately uh regardless we believe based on what we have right now in terms of information uh that we don't believe we will be exceeding the 300,000 but maybe this is a chance we'll take maybe we will not count it and just take it from there. Take that first. All right. Please move on. Uh yeah, let's keep on moving. Uh okay. Yeah. So, would you mind moving one more? So, we've done enough of the sloping and we thought we'd make it clear to you as to what you could potentially expect. So, we we did a cross-section of this property where we believe slopes are the most severe. And this is what it looks like. It does not look nearly as bad the way we went about the design and the way went about making sure that we're smoothing the SL the sloping and where we design the lots. We believe we'll be minimizing the cut and kill suspension. But can we tell you today exactly how much we're going to be moving? No. That's why we're asking for launch only where we're grading forwards. That's it. That's it. That's um so in terms of in terms of concessions I wanted to just revisit what is it that the city is giving versus and it's a partnership we look at it as a partnership what is it really as a city

giving and what is it that we have been trying to do to balance that equation so we went with lower density because you told us we needed You wanted us to go to lower. We went down to one lot. We What does that mean? It means less lots. That's sales revenues. Now also what does it mean in terms of cost? Cost doesn't change much. If you have 500 lots or if you have 230 lots, the only thing that changes is the pipes going in. That's all we have to pay extra for. Grading is the same. you know, tree removal, uh, you know, everything is pretty much the same. Putting the pipes in, everything is the same. It's only the branching out of the main lines that will have more. So, in terms of development cost, we will have substantially higher development cost per lot with less sales revenues. We were able to balance that equation because we're a small group. We can do it. The big guys will not touch it. guarantee they would wait for other regulations, state law come in to do their own thing. Uh for us it's simple like honestly we're coming in saying look we are working in good faith. We have gone and given you what you asked us for which is one acre lot. We did not fight for that and we come back and now we're getting nailed on technicalities. You wanted one acre loss, we gave you one acre loss. We're making less money. Yes. It's not your problem. We're happy to do that. That's the partnership we come forward with. We are we are helping with drainage. Hopefully, we will we will help the flooding the flooding issue uh the water quality that's going into the aquifer. We are dedicating more parkland than was

supposed to be and we're dedicating a water facility that could potentially help the neighbors. So technicalities on one side, practicality on the other side. I invite you to just think about this and honestly that's that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you.

So um because there is so much to discuss and a lot of many questions, what I'd like to do instead of just kind of going randomly is actually go in order of how these are positioned. is like first we can talk about lot requirements and then to satisfy those questions then we'll go on to parkland and so on and so forth. You guys are okay with that this evening? Great.

Perfect. And then after that discussion those comments is then when we'll open up for a public comment and that can be as general as would like that to be. will close and then I think also as we discuss this I know it's one large vote but if there's a way D we can kind of break this up just so we can so you can hear how we feel on every item if it's possible to vote on every item and modifications requested in this PD I mean what's you mean internally you're going to have one recommendation so I guess if there's a way that it's like an approval of conditions like the conditions are based off of we don't have to list the

okay so it was discussion at that point and I think this comes back went to when we had our joint meeting between city council and the planning and zoning the other day

when we passed this along to the city council Brad wasn't here but but we we did say maybe one of our representatives maybe some of the representatives off the TNZ need to go to the city council meeting so when discussion comes forth. I see members of the city council out here, but you know, they'll know exactly what we're discussing and why we're discussing that. So, we because there going to be questions. I mean, there's obviously going to be questions when it gets kicked to city council and they're going to go, "Why did they think that or what did they consider this?" So, you know, for his benefit, for our benefit, city's benefit, you know, we're probably going to have to make a commitment to have some people show up at city council meet when this goes forward. I'm planning on being there. Uh hopefully.

So let's let's first start with the the zoning. So I I heard you say um in the very beginning of the presentation, you know, now you were asking for R2, but you had a little bit of clarification there where um you didn't want it to be completely R2 until a certain part of the process. Could you clarify that?

Yes. You know, we have a very creative team, right? Uh and I apologize for this. We should have just kept designing exactly the way it was before which is you know just R2 R3 existing as it is you know we just change the line and that's it. uh it was just suggested that maybe we should consider going with an R2 base because then there's only one part of the code to to ask for modifications to because otherwise on this side here you're asking for those kind of modifications on the side here and I get it and I'm honestly like it's not fair to ask for that but there's that on one side on the other side we want to make sure that if the economy goes sideways and we're not able to build this and the prices go down and one acre lots will not sell. But at least we have something to fall back on which is the existing zoning. That is the logic behind it. We're not getting too cute with this. We're just being 100% honest and transparent why we're asking. Now what's the proper mechanism for it? We can

is that is that I mean that how we write that says if it doesn't develop the way they said over the whole thing then they lose all variance they lose everything and they go back to their base with no variances at all. So there's a way to do that. So my Okay.

Yeah. So that that brings up my if that brings up my issue though that that I'm glad you said that I I was looking up that clause. That's something that's not very that's done in Dallas. It's not done in you know I mean it's done in Austin. It's not done in B. The question I have is just from what I'm reading. You tell me if I'm wrong. If they get halfway through this, and this is what I fear, they get halfway through this and there's no water, then we have a a piece of property that's sitting on our main highway that's along what we used to call our our, you know, beautifification area that's scraped loose and halfway built and they don't have water. TWWC can't get them water. They can't get water. And it's sitting there for five years and 10 years I'm driving down the roads. What are they going to do with that? If I'm not wrong, we would we could have the power of domain and go back and take that property if it's not properly if it's way there for five years and not even further developed. So

it wouldn't be in domain. Um what would it load? Um but if they got to the stage where they were building something that means they would have plat second that a platility

okay that's what that's my question that was my my idea once we go through the plat yeah we have to go through probably drop in and just do one corner and build through it. So the first plan would be the one that you can't go back because I mean it's a brilliant plan and there smart people doing it, smart people presenting it. But the problem I'm I'm seeing is I fear there I fear for them just for the availability of water and I'm like what does that mean for our community? If I if they get stuck then then they're smart enough to figure it out. They'll figure something out. But but what will we do? Um that's a problem under any zoning machine. Yeah.

If they come in and try to put something in the R2 zone that the R3 is not available there. Yeah. So as a bonding mechanism also we don't bonding by bonding others. We typically want to see all the infrastructure put in before the plat is uh

and Danny is the application currently written to be a reverter clause because reading it sounded like of something along those lines but it won't be fleshed out until after the commission. But basically if that concept survives this recommends regarding lot requirements or sorry the zoning

any zoning questions. So again, just to be clear, this picture we're looking at right here, y'all are saying you're going to take all 300 whatever acres and make all of it R3. It would be technically a PD. It wouldn't be R2 or R3. Correct. Right. Right. It would be with R2, but it would see.

So it's any it's all R2 except for these revisions. Honestly, we had the option obviously to buy all of it uh including the M family, including the commercial and we decided we will not actually you know we'll do what's right. We believe, you know, we're simple people. We're small. We we want to do it right. And hopefully you see that we're giving you the right communication for it. We're very transparent. So,

well, don't make any mistake about it. I don't I think the multif family is is something that's needed in this area, but right now we just don't have the mechanism to to have it happen. We don't have right the right place, the right time, the right rules in place. Um, and I don't know that we want multif family uh here, but um that person is not in consideration.

Let's move on to lot requirements. Um, so this is the restructuring of the sizing and things of that nature. Any questions regarding lot requirements? Yeah. So just a base level you said you had a plan for what R2 R3 how many houses or lots were close to 400. You're going from 400. How many? 380. 380. So you're going from 380 to 230 with this. I just want to make sure that was on the record.

Um Then she'll be asking for R3 lot requirements other than aspect ratio. Most of it's R3. Well, not

and I know I know what you're doing. That's that's an interesting way to look at it. Intellectually, I see where you're going with but but practically we have we have a typical lot size. Okay. If you look at any of these exhibits, you'll see on the top right is a typical lot size. at the full lot size is 135 ft wide and 375 ft deep. Okay, that makes for one acre. That is a typical lot. So this is not representative on our three lots. Would you say I hear you?

Okay. So So why are we asking for the minimal on each one of those? Because we have lots that are shorter, fatter.

Okay. And some of it is sloping like this and sloping like this on this side. So in order for us to be able to build something we need to have some flexibility on side setbacks mostly honestly right that's it. If you look at the front setback if we have a short block like you know look at your top left and that called the sack. Okay. You see the one kind of in the middle pointing towards the neighbors. that guy is a big lot but it's all shaped and it's also you put the tobo on top of that and it gets very tricky. So the reason why we are asking for some accommodations, we're taking the worst case scenario. But again, the dimensions are there. We're not moving ahead with anything beside what you're seeing. And each one of those lines has an actual dimension. It's like it's available. I mean, we tried to put it just too cumbersome to just put it all on one plan. But as part of the law plan, uh if you were to go back, you have we have one exhibit. I believe it was uh back all the way up. Oh uh oh no sorry this way. So this gives you an idea about what we're talking about. We we believe we will not go below 80 even in like in the front even on the sacks but when you go to engineering planning like final construction plans and things need to change we don't want to be back in front of you again and again. We thought you know what give us some flexibility. you know what it looks like. Just allow a little bit of a change as we're doing the construction planning or detailed construction planning for planning so that we're not showing up here all the oh we need this this oh we need that.

would like to look at this more from a global perspective and say, "Look, we're all adults here. Let's not play games with each other. It's one acre lot. That's it. You can hold us to that. Why do you need any more?" Like, are we going to build anything that's going to be unsellable? No. Right. It's really our risk if we were to go with something that doesn't sell. So, that's that's a business conversation also a technical conversation. If you know there are constraints, the constraint is one acre. Samaria stick within one acre one acre and above. We're giving you that.

How many lots are you know how many are going to deviate from that? Honestly, we construction it would be less than the current code of one. It's mostly going to be on those funky like call the sacks and also 80 I believe 80 that's what it look like I believe 80 I believe 80 also would be our minimum okay uh that's why we're saying 80 right no that's what I'm saying I'm just trying to

and how do you how do you calculate the width on something like this right there's like formulas intricate formulas we thought we'd like to simplify because we're simple people said you know what at 40 feet set back from the front we would like to see 80 feet width and then we keep again we can we can push back a little bit however you need to remember that we're also creating 100 foot buffer with Bver Hills

right so in a respect for the neighbors because that's what we heard we wanted to make sure now by doing that we're also shrinking that thing even Right. So, we got to have lots where we're very tight in the way we're going to position structures. And that is why honestly we just don't want to come back to you guys and say, you know, you have the plan, you have the dimensions. We're not hiding anything. We're not saying, "Oh, we want it to launch. This is what it's going to look like." You know, like it's going to be 80. We can go to 80 anytime we want. That's that's not the case.

Any other questions regarding lot requirements? Let's move on to parkland dedication. Any questions? There is no variance on that actually the way it is. I know excluding riparian buffer. There's a road right in the middle. Do you have the continuous uninterrupted? Yeah. and and and we believe that one side is actually 3.8 or close to four but uh you know what I will make sure that's okay if we have to move the ro tiny bit for you guys we'll do that

well we need to be sure because they're going to approve that oh 3.85 just put it minimum 3.85 So basically

everything was going so fast. We should have just taken it out. All right. Next one. Cut fill and disturbance within steep slope areas limited to grading. That's it. Only the grading part. So that means along the roads you're going to be cutting back. 135 ft on that gray area.

No, we're going to be cutting. So, it's the rightway and because of the sloping, we need to be able to make sure that you know we're meeting the grading requirements, the angles. It's almost like catch 22. If you you need to meet the grading requirements, you can't have a road like this, right? But to have a road that is meeting great requirements, you need to be cutting and filling, right? So, we're limiting. Remember, cutting and filling is extremely expensive. Not only do you guys want to minimize it, we want to minimize it as much as possible. Like honestly, we want to optimize as much. Like we started optimizing cut and fill from the first day we held the plan to start. Okay, let's follow the contours because cost is very very very important in this particular case because of the low density we're working with. We cannot afford to mess around with going up in our in our cost and cut and fill is cost guaranteed. The more you cut, the more you fill, the more you're paying. We cannot afford that. We really can't. We have got to minimize cut and fill. But the we're asking for car launch. Car launch will then, you know, make sure just so that we're not back here. Just like those guys were saying, oh well, we need a little bit more here, little bit less here. But you can count on us being as diligent as possible in that area because every time we're not, it's costing us money. You guys will not be paying anything in that space.

I know you said you didn't have the information at the time, but you had a rough estimate of the amount of time built from that graph that you did. Are we looking at the 20s? Are we looking the 30s? Are we looking in the tens of feet? Um, clarify question. What's the biggest What's the biggest cut in the biggest fil? Um, I don't have that. If we go to the exhibits, um, the one with the trees all the way at the end. No,

it's a crosssection. Crossction. Yeah. Go up here. It's feet going all the way to the the right. Oh yeah. Um yeah. So I think the I'm just going to estimate I'm going to estimate high that fill may be up to 12 feet maybe 14. And that's an estimation. Uh and and it's if we go back left um the idea is it's contained within I don't know this proper exit but contained within the you know the that buffer that you see there and so you can see uh and that was kind of the idea of that cross-section is everything outside of that buffer the idea is to leave that alone and conserve that area and so uh I don't know if that exhibit does a great job to the go to the right a little more. Yeah, that does a great job. But there's areas where you see um you know the basically the sets of walls and staggering just kind of like the the uh conversation earlier where they're they're they're creating walls rather than just cutting through everything. That's the idea is we're going to stagger and create walls um to limit the fill and limit the approach.

So let me so let me quote you. You're gonna say no more than 14 feet. Um, okay. I don't know answer on that. If you need an answer, we can just say on the high side, it would be 12 feet, maybe 14. So, I was going to say, okay, we're going to stay we're going to stay on the high side with you. So, no more than 16 feet or no more than 20 feet. You don't like

come back. What about we can can leave this as maybe a uh as part of your recommendation something we will look at more closely when we go to council. Uh if you'd like us to because generally this kind of thing happens at that time right like the construction plans. So yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. So like so we're like we're happy to like we we've done a lot of work to estimate as much as possible but do we want to say well you know what no more than 16 but we get to a point where we're going to have to cut a whole bunch of trees to keep to keep to that right like so it's a balance and our hope is that you give us some flexibility so that we are able to say hey you know what we're going to save so many trees we're not going to grade here we have to cut a little bit more here. So uh if you want to limit us to I don't know what what would be I think 14p is fair and you know I think to do this you need a detailed grading construction plans

you know we're not going to know the exact answer this is a huge 330 acre site to do a mass grading plan is thousand tens of thousands of dollars so uh I don't know that answer we did we did a few cross-sections and I quoted it last time what the number is on the max walls last time we were here a month ago and I think it was 14 ft. So that's why I'm coming up with that answer. But yeah, the idea is there's a there is a uh you know double-edged sword. It's it's either um you know more fill and higher walls or less trees. And so we're trying to optimize that.

I think if you were to give us enough heat, I don't know, give us the 20. We don't want to do that. It cost us a lot of money to do 20 feet. I'll tell you that. I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. But if if we are we have to do it for any reason, at least we will have that option knowing that this is not what we want. And what is the opposition to coming back when you do have the information to ask for the exact variation? I think that's you need a detailed grading plan for the entire side which is later down the road. Exactly. But why not come back at that time? Why is there opposition to getting it now rather than later?

Well, we we prefer to be clear on uh what we're working with in terms of risk. Right. So, we go through all this effort and we get to a point where we come to you and say we say no, we don't like that. No, what do we do? Right. So if we need to mitigate our risk the same time as we're go doing all this stuff to get financing honestly we need to go to the bank and say what's your risk risk is we go through this whole process we get the point of planning and they decide they don't like our bills okay then so that's why we're asking for the leeway because we must you can imagine how much money is being paid here it's big big project we cannot afford to increase our already we already have the rest to deal terms of like the economy, in terms of the market, in terms of cost of construction in ter in terms of the ASP, where is it going to land here in two years, three years, four years. So to add one more uncertainty when we can nip it right now would be extremely helpful to just say you know what you give us up to 16 and then you guys work with it. Now if we need something more at that point in time, we come and we fight just for that. Yeah. So that that was also somewhat my question stuff is giving cart blanch to developers is generally not and I'm not saying that you're going to do something bad right at all. It's just

right we'd rather say okay we can get comfortable with X and if you do need to come back then come back right but hopefully that then becomes a 5% problem not a 100% problem because we're not saying no to all. I think a figure to 16 uh would be very comfortable with that. I think we can we just I think personally I can't give you car block but I could probably come up with a number that I think we can both live with that might be agreeable and then again yeah you might have to come back for 5% of it at platting time and you know if all this comes you know this all looks good then I think that's going to be an easier converation

I mean it's yeah I mean it's just common sense I mean if you were going to give your kid a budget go buy a car you know you wouldn't just cart blanch to go buy a car. So, so you're going to have to have limits for both of you just to have a generalized understanding. And it's not that by no mean by no means that there anything here except we have to justify ourselves. You know, we if something goes wrong and some citizen knocks on my door and says, "You were the idiot that let the guy build the 50 foot, you know, bluff where my kid fell off and that, you know, broke his head open." No. Uh, so yeah, we don't want to give you park launch, but but you know, at the same time, you don't want to overshoot your budget either. Uh, we need something we can both work on. And, you know, that's why I was asking specifics. 12 feet, 14 ft, you know, 16 feet. I mean, we just need a number.

That's fair. That's fair to ask. And I think I hope you also feel it's fair if the also come to the conser. Well, no, I mean, we understand that. Any other questions regarding Pentville? All right, let's get into street geometry requirements. Questions on this one.

Okay, before I get to step up because I've got a problem right here that I've identified on this. I've had a couple of situations in my life where we've had to drive. I worked part of my way through school as as an EMT, a paramedic. had a couple of situations in my life where we'd had fire trucks in the middle of the street and couldn't get the ambulance around fire truck to get to the situation where we needed to be on the other side. And when you start saying, "Okay, let's eliminate the shoulder." Okay, this then let's reduce the the minimum width on the pavement. Okay, well, you know, we're in a rural environment. They pull the fire truck up. They're going to pull the fire truck up in the middle of the highway. you know, run the hoses or run the ladder or wherever. And there's nowhere for an ambulance or a citizen to get around a sheriff's department. The guy over on the other side shooting people at, you know, this house is on fire and the sheriff can't get there. So, I really have a problem with when we start talking about reducing our pavement width and doing away with our shoulder requirements. I also believe that anybody thinks that anybody's going to do 30 miles an hour is crazy. So, you know, so I think that's just a joke to say we're going to reduce it from 30 to 25. Um, I mean, I do understand that there's costs involved all the way around. But when Mitchell Ranch came here, presented their program, they wanted to put a nice little winding street through their small subdivision, and we told them, "No, you got to have a straight line, straight shot so the emergency vehicles can get in and out." So, as far as I'm concerned, I would just take all this street geometry and say out of hand, no. That's just me.

Agreed.

You brought you brought fire department if anyone from those departments in here and ask them what you just said. They're going to Is the 60 foot really barbage that we want 60 foot rightways? Why do we want 60 foot rides in rural counters? Correct. Mostly right to be able to serable.

So one thing foretting these are private, right? So the city's never um we've always held the private roads to our standards um because there's always a possibility that I've seen neighborhoods petitioning city to take them over in other cities before um and we don't want part of our citiz I'll I'll go one more on that. Okay, we'll give this to you. These are private roads. I want an agreement that says that nobody in this subdivision ever gets a fire truck out of the city of Bhari or a police department out of the city of Bori

because somebody would be comfortable that I'm comfortable with our president standards 60. Yeah. Yeah. I mean they're there for a reason. They're there for public safety and I don't see any reason to modify that. I would they're not I wouldn't consider them overengineered. you know, they're they're at the minimums where they've crashed data and everything has has presented itself at this time and I feel as though the ask is asking for the very bare minimum to squeak by and understand there's other considerations like you were talking about earlier where you change one thing and impact something now as well. Okay. How about this? Uh let me tell you the reason behind it. Okay.

Uh it's the size of the lots, right? We needed to maintain the one acre lot. No, I understand it's a real path and and honestly like we were like just so that's where we ended up with I mean we want our boats too. at least like shoulder lots or water. So if you allow us for instance to go maybe like 5% below the uh you know the acreage say you know what instead of one acre

it would be like oh but the issue well the issue with that the issue with that also just so you know and we would not increase you can cap the number of lots say you know what 230 is all you're getting right we're good with that. Okay. So, but also the the biggest issue though is the uh the OSSF. They're not going to pay for anything less. So, this is this is where the dilemma is. And you look you look at that now maybe we can claim some kind of a ement on the front of these lots where you have

the roads are partially built on private property. No, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

Yeah, that would not be but he's here to maximize profit and which is good. He's good job. That's good. is we able to afford to do this at $230 right for all the costs that come for a lot I mean this is where I mean if we were to go down to 200 we cannot do this so much so okay I'm gonna just ask generally what you have a problem you guys have a problem right yeah the width the width of the road right the center line radius of the road yes yes you have a problem why is there a problem So the rideway is 60 ft and the road is 22 feet wide.

Okay. So he's got to have So that's what he's saying, right? That's what I'm taking, right? I agree. He wants to reduce it by agree like you should probably keep that. Reason I asked the question most of the time you're trying drainage. That's why you leg most of the time. Yeah. Right. And so I mean that training less deeper, right? Deeper or have to put close to do which Yeah. I mean, right. Yeah.

But I'm just saying. So, I mean, those are the two options you probably have is you either put some storm sewer in to get away with it or and we we reduce the rightway with, right? But they still have to maintain the roadway standard or just say, "Hey, no, you're going to do barishes." I think that that's what I'm trying to say. I think there's a way to reduce the rightway width, but there's also a way to still keep the road standard and still

would you allow us just 50 and we can increase the the uh if we were to go to 50 ft and increase the pavement width uh so that we would have say go up to like I don't know pavement be like 25t right we leave 12 on each side 12 and a half on each side we should get four foot shoulders these are asking for no shoulders Yeah, he's asking.

Yeah, he's asking. So, you're getting like Ashley said, we're the city has drawn up a a group of requirements, regulations, minimum set of requirements, and and that's what they are, the minimum set of requirements. I mean if he came in and wanted to say that gee he didn't want a 60 foot rideway he wanted 80 foot right away we wouldn't have any problem getting into that because it exceeds a minimum but we we don't want to go below our minimum we have a reason for having our minimum the public safety issues

so so the urban urban the next classification is 50 right away the urban Well, it's 404 per collector. Yeah. So, what I'm saying is, okay, do you want 60 16 22 or do you want 15?

That's not my It's not going to be good. I know. So, I'm just saying is there a way to work within this or is it just, you know, hey, this is just I mean, yeah. Which I'm not. So, I guess my point is you're willing to do a wider road. He's still got he's not he's not willing to do a wider road. He's asking to do less than what we want. No, he just said he do 25 ft. Oh, we'll do 25 ft. 25 foot road. And if he's got a storm sur and drainage is a huge

No, I know it is for sure. I will just say I know that at the time of whenever construction plans go out there will be a detailed

that's request but as for the drainage that will be I think the uh for me the I want to go back to the comment before that you'd made of saying a maximum number of plots but being flexible on the acreage we can't because

DC requirements for correct yes county has an issue with the.5 that BCAQ has set as a minimum and command county is actually they're the ones who correct right so yeah so we don't we don't want to mess with that so that's why so you have to have one yeah we have to have that that's where the constraint is and if we have and if we were to start shrinking

I know I know we can fit likely we can shave off a little bit and still be good uh on the majority of the lots. We're going to have we're going to be losing some lots to uh like we have the 60 foot by the way. We're going to lose some quite a few. I think for the for the safety of the members in that neighborhood probably should but any other questions regarding tree geometry. Same issues. Okay. Uh next one. Tree survey removal.

No. [Applause] I want to say one more thing. If we do go down to the 50 foot right away and we do the drainage analysis which is it has to be done and there is areas where there's excessive drainage bigger drainage areas where we need a little bit more barage rather than a storm drain. Storm drain might have to be the answer in some locations, but in some uh locations adjoining the existing rightway have drainage uh drainage ements for the the larger part that will be required. So that's a potential option as well.

I think we're setting ourselves up to be right back here too expensive most likely. You think we're think you think by giving a variance right now we're saying I mean no he's saying we modify it from what okay okay

no I understand that I understand what you're saying all right tree survey removal and mitigation discussion any questions I do not think that the tree should be removed in the slope per area and I think that's our ordinance and I don't like just an open-ended um taking the trees out and ash junipers are not invasive species. They're native to Texas. I just don't like them. They folks supposedly are not. That's what I do. That's why they call them. They're actually the

just by land owners and ranchers and they're invincible, but it's the only tree that the golden chief will grow. actually going to be something I was going to bring up as well because in your presentation you would say there is no um critical habitat for any critically endangered you know species but the there wasn't the very conclusion that I had my first question that they're not talking about golden warbler because they know they need a mature ash j un junipers to to live in it so I was surprised it wasn't mentioned until the very end in the conclusion and all it said was it has the the attribute use or something of that nature for it to be a habitat. But then it's not identified as a

potential time of year.

Yeah. Well, there's a designated area. So, like seal, you can't take trees down between I don't remember the dates like that. You can't take them down like just because it is a protected area. I don't know that we do have I think the main though is that it's the mature we have no protection for

you can still take them down as long as it's not testing time and you have to be in a designated area in order to have like in order to be but basically so what happens over on 35 they do these big subs as soon as that date goes they go cut the trees um they wait till they're kind of like right between certain time sadly. Yeah, but again those trees as Danny mentioned they're not protected by the code. You still have to take

a big source of content. So you mentioned during your presentation that you would be okay with not capping the 300,000.

You know what ideally would like to contain our risk, right? And if believe uh you know 300,000 would be honestly u probably the most we would be able to pay on this project and we thought you know we can be just forthcoming with you based on all the other expenses and we have a lot of uh variable expenses that we need to be accounting for. We just wanted to contain that risk and we believe I mean we're doing everything we can to keep trees again trees sell. Okay. People like trees.

I I think that I think that you're being very fair. I'm gonna say that, but I'm going to give you something else. I'm gonna ask you a question. What year did you purchase this property? We have We have it under contract. Oh, you have it under contract. Okay. Okay. So, what year did you you get the option on it? What year did you put it under contract? Uh, last year. Last year. Okay. All right. So, and we have Sorry. Under contract with hard money, right? Exactly. Okay. It's important. No, no, no. That's fair because we're serious about it and we've been spending a lot of money.

No, I I just didn't want to I didn't want to hear you complain about the cost. You bought it in 2012 when all our houses worth $100,000. So, you know, but you did you bought it to high the value and so you do have money invested in it and I appreciate that

for this for this property. I think the the sellers are not selling it as an art tool. No. Um, okay. And the tree removal request is kind of in that where we see around the roads, that rightway area, right? It's not extending past that area. Correct. And how many acres would you estimate that is because I know you said in the application you have 54 acres of preserved open space. So would it be like 275 or is it be less than that in terms of Sorry, sorry. in terms of like how many acres is the actual like tree removal area? Oh, so if you follow

Yeah, it should not honestly it should not be more than 70 or 80. But don't quote me. I'm an engineer, but I'm not that smart. I was just doing some math earlier trying to see if probably more see. I don't know. We'll have to cut that. Did you want to just But but this is when you limit again, you know, when when you're limiting the grading area

then it's well defined, right? Anything else we'll have to come back to you and say, you know what, we need a variance on that. And you're asking, so your ask right now is grading areas, driveways, and building areas. Um, but when you were here before, you mentioned the only build out, not up. So, are you going to be leaving the trees that are on the lot in order for the person buying the property to come forward? So, we don't know the building areas at this time. We do not know that. Okay. So, and some people may want may want, may want two floors. So, uh, so it's it's that's why we need some flexibility. Okay. So I think that because the asking application is grading area, driveways and building area. Correct.

Correct. But we don't know driveways building area. So zone wasn't it within the 130 ft of the rideway or eight 170. Right. So it's not just specific areas. It's the whole zone that whole disturbance zone is. Right. Right. But then it was no tree protection in that area and no survey exchange 300,000. No, we will survey that. That's the area we would actually be cutting, but they want to cap it at 300.

Are they going to do the survey anyway? Are they going to We already I mean it's almost a dead set that it's going to be more than that. So you're almost wasting the money on I was actually going to ask you,

will you pay the 300 plus the survey? You know what actually honestly we wanted to we wanted to come back we thought you know already our request was like wow you know the qualifications come in and say no three survey would have been that's the ideal situation honestly where we we know we know I'm sure we know what it is well we know what it is right we all know but if this is how you guys feel that's exactly how we feel that it's it's absolutely there's no reason for serving In this case,

the only reason it's for a survey is because you have up to 300,000. If you just said 300,000, it wouldn't it wouldn't matter. I mean, I don't see the point. I mean, $2 million for mediation, but he's already authorized the cap 300,000 then nothing, right? Yeah. Yeah. So, why don't you do this then? Why don't you just sit set it at 300 and cost of your array? Uh, honestly, we don't know yet. We we got some I mean depending if you guys approve

Well, you said that 300 acres would be roughly 200,000. I'm gonna assume if it's 70 acres, it's got to be at least 80 to 80. There's a copies of scale there. I'm sure. But I don't know. Well, and I just don't agree with them wholesale scalping all along the roads. Well, he well he's not wrong when he says that cutting into the earth is very expensive. So they're gonna they're gonna try and limit that as much as possible because earthwork is will eat you alive. They can take all the trees out. So that's that's my thing is I don't know.

And I'll also point out we don't know that $300,000 is it could be several orders of magnitude more than that. I agree. And that that is why we wanted to just do the survey honestly and say you know what it's a cap but uh I mean we've already done some preliminary you have an idea what what the property looks like you have an idea we don't it was a grazing area back in 2005 majority of it was open there was no trees so you know I mean it's not like we're coming in and was an absolute you know pie in the sky this what we're asking for I think you would have decent map on your risk so you at least have an idea of the risk. Yeah.

I think I think it's not just the mask. We wanted to put ourselves in your shoes and say is this a fair ask and also we believe it's a fair. That's why we up from 200 to 300. Going in blind replacements though too in um which I'm okay with. I mean the smaller diameters have more like Well, you know, if you're going to say, "Hey, you want 12 inches for a lot of trees." Well, smaller trees going to require less water. So, it's going to be

so I think I think my big problem with this is correct me if I'm reading this wrong. Not that you would, but you could take out every tree in this area the way this is. And now why would I want to I hear you. I said that. Well, let's go back to the car. Let's go back to the car launch thing. You know, I need to have But do you think I would be able to sell lots that don't have keys on them? Yes,

absolutely. [Music] No, but if they option it out, the PD still stays with the property. Not that I don't believe

like they keep the current R3 R2 until the first plat this plan's file and the next one but it couldn't they can sell it to someone else who could come in those rights and then do I'm not saying we have we had several issues with this where somebody comes in you think they are acting in good faith but stays with the property not with you. So if you believe that somebody else, right, you option it out and they do sell it to, you know, and they do something else and they try to do this, they can come in and just quit. I don't agree with you. But I think that's where my big hang up is is so what's the worst case scenario in your opinion? All the trees are gone. All the trees within within that

within that space that within that 175 is what you're saying or more. But yes, it does the loud and it does. So that's why we're a little obviously jaded by that. So how can we how can I reassure you guys? I think I think not having the cap and I understand that but it it then prevents if someone else comes in later to them to hopefully if they do go clear it's going to be $5 million clearcut in

how about this? Why don't we can we just like uh put this as some kind of a condition around it? Allow us chance to just do some more calculations for the council meeting and maybe this is something we'll make our recommendation council doesn't have to followation. So yeah, I mean we we'll probably recommend whatever recommended if you can present stuff to them to sway them off what we recommended. think that's yeah I'm inspecting the board's going to make recommendation tonight and then we'll be I think I think you want to get this to council like you said you're hearing our concerns if you bring that to them they can evaluate it well and I think but I think we we're doing the right thing and hashing through this because I think council made clear to us the other night they didn't want to have to redo everything we do

so so Alan has an idea maybe we can We can look at making sure that we're preserving a certain percentage within the grading area of the trees of 24 inch plus. Does that make you more comfortable with that setup? So that we're not you don't have launcher clearing everything. It makes you more comfortable, but I think I would rather increase the cap to then make you have the choice when you come across that branch tree to decide to put it down on. Okay. So, if we were to increase the cap with no survey, would that be acceptable to Yeah. But I guarantee you're

Yeah. No matter what we raise it to unless it's well over a million dollars or more. You think that's what it is? I think it's that it's prove it, but I suspect. So when I was when I did the math on it, um this is before I saw pictures of the satellite imaging to where there was only like pockets of trees. So I took your assumptions of the the 20 acres that were surveyed and you know applied it across the whole acreage which that is a vast overestimization looking at the actual satellite imagery estimate was over a million dollars. Well, I want to point out from what I saw, they started counting at night and we start counting at 16.

So, the I think the So, and what I did as well, so I don't they didn't have anything within their packet that I saw that was under the 24 in. We only saw over 24 inches in the number of trees. There's a go down. Oh, okay. and that so I estimated them like over trying to keep it even but again that was at over a million dollars and that's a veryation yeah if you if you look if you look at that estimate and you now that you have the image

and if you put yourself in our shoes where we've given so much already that we have you know if you look at you know going from 380 lots to 30 I mean how much was that to us and and this is something that you guys may want to balance too. We cannot come in and be squeezed here and being squeezed there when we've already given like such a huge massive part. We're just asking for your consideration and allowing us to just make this project work. Uh we're not greedy, we're small and you know even much smaller percentage than the other guys will still make good money. Uh but you want the kind of kind of developers that we are. But it's we got to be able to make some money because of the risk. Just reserve that. That's why we're saying, you know what, we'll give you give you maybe 350 with no survey. Good to go. That's the cap. No survey, we move on. We'll make sure that we don't have more than we can cap 10%. Make sure that we're not we're keeping 10% of the trees. Well, that's why I think if if if the limits were higher for both the inches of being replanted and also the cap, it then gives you the freedom to make the choice of do I want to cut down the 20 branch tree or not. Whereas now, if you lower it, you have the ability to say, okay, I'm just go ahead cut it or whatever comes later. I'm just going to go ahead and cut it so I don't have to pay for it. But if we have a higher cap or no cap, then you have to make that choice per tree. And that's what we're what we would prefer. That make sense?

So are we saying then okay no cap no survey? We don't know yet. We're going to discuss later question. We're not deciding anything right here at this moment. Fair enough discussion. I think it's a million dollars 25%. I think that's possible. my add start counting at 6 in trees, right? And and you can see even from the 2005, there's a ton of trees out there that are big enough now. I just want to make sure you weren't saying it was a million dollars total.

No. Yeah, it's expensive.

I mean, this kind of this kind of densely property, it's going to have a high um and this is where we need consideration. I think we can't we can't develop this without count like honestly we can't we can't I mean we come back million bucks we just like you know we we have we have to have certainty around our numbers the bank will not finance us without certainty guaranteed they will not and there will be no project the more the more we believe we're giving up a lot I hope you guys work with us to help us tighten up our numbers So the bankers can say, "Yep, you know what? We're good." If we have loose ends, a whole bunch of them, it's not going to work.

Any other questions regarding this time, right? The last one, and then we'll get public comment more, is uh the repairing buffer. Yes.

Any questions on the repair buffer? think that we should be able to build into the riperian buck this I think that that's a restriction that's in place for safety for the people in the neighborhood the people downstream and for erosion of the property that's below and also again I know that in my house I can't do anything with my work here anymore I don't know why we should let a develop

the only places where we're encroaching on the riparian buffer or at roadway crossings. Well, can I ask clarification on that because the map you have on there shows at least one lot substantially by riparian. Uh so maybe I'm looking at it wrong. Uh keep going until we find this lot right here in there. These two lots are well okay so this one so the one that's on the bottom of that

that's at the cross so it's at the crossing but I mean that would be that would be unbable if we didn't if there wasn't construction inside uh with the setbacks and everything else there's nowhere to put out on site u and that one I don't know that the others are that challenging but um that one I These will be outside of the uh all the other ones were outside of the uh that grading limit that's on the other. You're not expecting any building after

I mean we can we can just have a blanket statement that we cannot build within. I mean it's going to kill that it looks to me it's going to kill that lot.

Yeah. And we may be able to just move the lines. You're right. I'm just looking at it and I actually did see it. It was very late at night and I forgot to ask about it. So, but uh I I believe those lots right there. Uh there's the one lot next to it that is pretty fat. I think we could potentially narrow it a little bit, squeeze a little bit, and we'll be able to stay within the entrance to the goreshoe or something. Are allowed to transgress buffer? That's not a barrier.

So, so all we're asking for is you want to be able to build. Well, it's going to encroach. Remember, riping bumpers have to be included in their own lot uh separate from the private lots. But if they do that, several of these lots going to drop off one acre. No, I get that. Why they're asking for that portion of it? Um although I'm assuming we'd have a right and there question, but it's got to sink at least one of them. That's fine. Yeah. So the and then and then the second ask is to build the storm water. the storm water and also part of the well again part of the parkland originally showed in in a riparian buffer but I think you were going to get rid of that

maybe no I think it's still there okay we usually don't allow you to dedicate riparian buffer I think he was saying that that some I think that northern portion of that road that is not in thearian buffer and is on its own above the road it meets the requirement if it does but still you still can't dedicate it as uh green space or u park land is people aren't going to be down there messing around. Yeah. So that lower Yeah. Yeah. So what so what so what we're saying is we will we do not need a variance on parkland. So we do not have to

modify there'll be a modification but that's gone. Okay. So and in terms of direct buffers if you guys want to be clear that there will be no building no structures within any law that is encroached we are 100% cool with that and if that solves the problem then that's it. It was just the roadways thing, right? But you said that we could just say that we can say the final statement. Um and then for the 23 lot standing just say that will include an ement for the riperian buffer on said lot

and we have language in the code about that any way that I'm think

I'm trying Any other questions regarding the buffer? I have a couple just like general project questions. Um, rainwater collection they use the purpose of supplementing irrigation. So rain barrels, not full, you know, actual, you know, 60,000 tank rainwater collections for the whole house. Um, and how would that be enforced? You said within the HOA. No, we want we want this and the PD. Okay. And how do you write that?

I'd have to I'd have to see if the city has got the authority. So, we're not utility provider. We're not the water provider. So, some required as part of hooking up to their water system. Uh, from just a pure regulatory standpoint, don't know if we can do that. I have to check.

See, we would like we would like to explore that honestly because I believe if we set that standard now where we're actually make it enforceable by by you know for the bylaws I think to force a whole bunch of people essentially follow that standard uh just just you know I I believe it's worth to take it to explore taking it out of the HOA's hand and into the city's hand and it's enforceable people

you're going to have to take it out of HA's hand because the state has made along the other rulings 108 or 801 one different laws that went into effect yesterday. They took a lot of things out of HOA's hands like you know you can't restrict somebody from putting up a security gate in front of their house. You can't make enforce them to do gutters on their house. You can't enforce them to do rainwater collection as I understand it. There's just a lot of different things that they took out of away from HOAs in the last general session of the legislation. So yeah, you might want to look at that. It might we only get one legal on this and that's after PNC makes recommendation we draft the ordinance that's when we get

okay we'll look at it any other questions or discussion before public comment um yeah um you said that you're going to try and make the development reuse use rainwater for the detention farms. He lives and explor

is anything you reserve for water is nonable because then it's full and available for use if it were rain. Right. One thing we talk about this basically be a three-stage system. You have a wet pond, the retention area on top of that. So you have a normal pool wet retention volume and then that's the that's the system but you're using batch detention. Yes. Right. Yeah. Okay. You're using EOS. It look like E. Oh, we're not sure. Yeah.

Okay. And then you said you're beating 34% impervious cover on you're building the detention ps. So that was the uh the initial uh conceptual design was basically did the RV 48Q volume assuming the quarter or the 80 foot 60 lots that was the initial design and it would still have the to the design any of the detention Okay. So that's all staying in the same. So that that's that's to us

which is a lot% that's why that's why we give lipid here. Our hope is that you guys will consider all of this. I in general ask that because this this is one of the larger concerns of the community generally is the drainage and the detention aspect. So the fact that you're providing more is good. I just don't there's nothing really to hold you to that right at the end of the day. Um you said that it was a 1.3 inch storm event on Atlas 14. What is that? I don't even know. It's like a one It's a one year.

Is that about Yeah. Okay. And then what's the net volume? Do you know what the net volume increase is from the subdivision? I get I get we're going back to pre-existing flow. What's net volume increase percentage roughly? I don't know the answer. I know that you're on limestone soils. Yeah. So he has a lot of already. Yeah. So I don't know that answer your book.

I mean when you did your pond calculation I mean you did a good job showing that. So I was just generally curious because right that's one of the other things we looked at right yes you are releasing over a longer period of time and get all that but it's a net volume increase that you've got to then get out downstream. I I have some fundamental things about detention and or wershed that I won't talk. So anyway, all right. I think those are my general drainage questions. Any other questions?

Okay. So before we open up public comment, just want to remind everyone again we have a three minute time limit. Um and again we cannot um discuss that with you. I will say before getting started today, city staff um reminded me of just some rules I'm just gonna share with everyone as well. So um you will have you will be allowed to give your time if you are not wanting to speak to someone else who speak. However, it is limited to that six minutes. So if anyone here is planning on giving your time, just know it can only be on, you know, only one person can share time, not multiple people. Um, so if there's anyone who's already signed up who's planning to do that, might be useful to I can go ahead and mark that down. So when the other speaker starts, we can go ahead and start at six minutes rather than three. Is someone planning that already? Okay, perfect. So just whenever before you start speaking, let us know who else on this list is going to be voiding their time for you. Um, and then in terms of like exhibits and things of that nature that you might have with you today, um, we unfortunately are not going to take them or see them because they were not part of the entire agenda packet. So, it didn't go to the entire public. So, just to kind of keep things square and easy for the city that is also going to be our our statement for this evening. Okay. Okay. So, I'm going to go to open public comment at 8:38. Mr. Lyndon Cisman, Councilwoman Chapman has generously donated her three minutes to me, so I should have a six-minute limit. Good evening, commissioners. I previously spoke of my concerns about the flooding potential of runoff from this development into the Johnson Ranch between the school and the fire station and then down across 1863 into what is already designated as a 100-year flood plane. Several of you current commissioners were serving with me in

September of 2023 when a developer representing the Bill Miller organization presented a proposal for development of seven acres near the northeast corner of the intersection of highways 46 and 281 containing a restaurant, hotel, and retail space. The proposal requested variances to the tree preservation ordinance, the cut and fill ordinance, and the steep slope disturbance ordinances. That proposal was tabled by a vote of 61 in September, largely about skepticism from the plans to mitigate drainage issues caused by the imperous cover into an area with already known flooding problems, returned in October and mercifully died a welldeserved death. Those lots were never developed. Similar issues with respect to drainage, you all may recall ended a recent proposal from the church to develop property along the highway 46 west of Bovery. Among while I was serving on the term, we also terminated proposals to build a storage building behind the tractor supply building and the expansion of Noah's Arc to the property to the north. again largely because of drainage issues. The lesson from the evaluation of these proposals is that not every piece of real estate that can be developed within the city limits of Wbertie should be developed. I note that the current proposal document nowhere uses the term variance using instead the terms modification, alteration or adjustment which appears to be a subtiverge subturfuge to conceal the fact that they are in fact requests for variances. The city has procedures for considering variances from established ordinances to which this document does not conform. The first two stated purposes of the

subdivision ordinance of the city of Birdie are these. To ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Bulbertie and its extr territorial jurisdiction. Ensure that new development is compatible with the natural resources and topography of the city and ETJ and does not present environmental habitat. Of the proposed 229 lots, 171 have slopes steeper than 15%. 137 of them have slopes steeper than 20% and 92 have slopes steeper than 25%. The submission proposes no limitations on dealing with those disturbances with the front 150 ft of those plots. In addition, you already have dealt with the tree survey, which allows clear cutting those lots within certain limits and only place two trees with minimum diameters of 3 in. In page after page, the document proposes to modify or simply ignore many of the city's carefully considered development ordinances. If you look at exhibit E.2, two. It's 12 pages of redlinined text. Perhaps someday there will be a proposal to develop this property with due attention to the city's wellestablished standards. This proposal is not it. The PDD ordinance says that city council may require a drainage analysis and a traffic analysis prior to considering a PDD proposal. I strongly suggest that the recommendation of this body should be that both should be done before the city council addresses this proposal. Thank you. I'd be glad to address any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Hold it, Lindsay. Wait before you leave. Go back. Oh, we can't ask questions on this. Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Okay. Oh goodness.

I'm gonna butcher it. Rangelo. How do you How do you pronounce your name? Lorraine.

Lorraine. And I live at 3777 Lariat Drive in Pulberty. And based on the developer town meeting, he indicated this development would be containing million-dollar homes. And we'd really be supportive of that because that would really enhance the character of learning. But my question is, how is the city going to ensure that the developer will make good on these representations since the city doesn't have an inspection department to ensure that the developer builds in accordance to whatever plans the city approves? How is the city going to ensure that the developer doesn't sell out to LAR to build Cracker Box houses? He's not provided a street level conceptual elevation view of what the development would look like from Highway 281. Such an elevation view would give you and the residents an idea what the development will look like when completed. Again, I'd support a million-dollar development, but the city needs to ensure the developer will stick to his word. He plans 230 single family homes. Surely, he can dedicate more acreage to useful parkland than than they were talking about. With respect to trees, exhibit exhibit D2, tree canopy site plan. It's very concerning as it appears that most of the property will be clearcut. which we has all been talked about. Other developers can build around large trees. And why can't this developer? The developer claims he's a small development developer, yet he's never defined that characterization. McCarti Branch is a beautiful property on 281. It'd be a shame to see its hillside scalped as it appears they could be. Given the multitude of variances requested, maybe this project should be left to a larger developer who

has the capacity to build million-dollar homes without the need for a volume of variances. Finally, there's nothing in the ordinances or state law that requires you to approve this development. Rather, the commission should have full knowledge of the risks of both the development and the surrounding properties before recommending approval. Thank you, David Ronquilo.

Commissioners, thank you very much. My name is David Ronquilo and I live at 3777 Larry Drive in Bvery. The developer has submitted a PDD application of more than 100 pages. The developer expects you to grant him approval of the multitude of variance requests within a matter of minutes depending on the amount of your discussion here tonight. This is not a request for a food truck or a sound stage where the results of your decision would most likely be negligible. Rather, his request relies on you trusting him to do what he says he will do. My question, do you trust him? He wants certainty. What certainty do you have that he will do what he says he will do? Part of the PDD ordinance in item A states applicants are encouraged to create a development that incorporates quality development standards. Where has the developer incorporated quality development standards in his plan? If anything, the voluminous number of requests calls for a lowering of the city development standards. Further, the ordinance does not require you to modify any of the standards. In fact, the PDD ordinance states that the city council may require any additional information, analysis, or study they deem necessary to evaluate the application. I don't believe this precludes the planning and zoning commissioning from recommending additional studies such as a comprehensive tree survey so you know what's out there. In the application process, the planning department shall conduct a review to determine whether the application is administratively complete. Does that mean the the application has all the boxes checked or does it mean that the planning department has conducted a comprehensive analysis looking at the impact of the requested variances on the city's other

ordinances impact on the surrounding properties and the impact on future residents of this development? From the planning department, I see a recitation of the project summary and a listing of the variance requests, but no in-depth analysis. Perhaps city policies preclude a comprehensive analysis of the project, or perhaps their analysis is not open to the public. As with any major medical procedure, it's always wise for the patient to get a second opinion. Will the city request review of these plans by an independent third-party engineering firm to determine the various impacts of the various requests? Finally, how are you assured that developer will not clearcut everything like Lenard did on Highway 306? How will the residents of Johnson Ranch where I live and the fire department be assured they will not be flooded with runoff from development? And finally, on Narrow Street, come out to Johnson Ranch around school time. You cannot get a fire truck down horseshoe path. While this development may ultimately be good for the city, I would not make a recommendation until I am sure of all the risks of this development. Thank you.

Thank you,

Melissa Koski. Hello. I live at 31563 Bulver Hills Drive and I just really want to make a point here that uh the trees are important to our city and in June of 2011 the city of Bulbertie created a separate ordinance from the zoning just to protect the native and the established trees. The purpose of ordinance 17.06.001 001 stated that trees once destroyed can only be replaced after generations if at all. Trees provide for open space and more efficient drainage of land, therefore reducing the effects of solar erosion and the need of additional drainage facilities. The purpose of the law is to also prevent the clear cutting of land and mitigate the ill effects of rapid and intense urbanization. I appreciate the tree study that was just done um on Mardio Ranch, but I think it only really talked about a small portion of the property. Um it looks like a portion of it of the three um areas that were studied might have been in part of the riparian buffer. Um, and I just wonder if that's a fair assessment of the total trees of the property. Um, in the riparian buffer or a ravine area, sometimes only what are called junk trees are in there. So those aren't the protected trees that we're considering. But again, if we allow the areas around the riparian buffer or the areas that

the developer is asked to clear, we can end up with that entire clear-cut look. So, I know you guys have been talking about this, but I just feel it needs to be repeated again. Um, I ask that you really consider the validity of this study, but I I feel that we really do need a proper legal survey and I feel that you should press on that, that that is done, and that each and every one of those trees is identified properly so that we know exactly what's on that property and what should be protected and preserved. Um, article 15 of the current application, the developer is asked to modify the ordinance to allow for the removal of protected specimen and majestic trees within the steep slope disturbance zone. Um, I want you to ask how will this affect the area? What about the risk of landslides and the risk of floods? Just got done talking about the basin collecting for one inch of water. I believe July 5th, didn't we have about three inches of water here in full birdie on one day? Actually, I think in a few hours. We've got it. We can't forget that. Um, OneTop group has asked to limit the total cost of replacement of the trees. Thank you,

Cheryl Short. Hello y'all. My name is Cheryl Short. I live at 30860 Sher Lane in Johnson Ranch South. Um I've become increasingly concerned as I live there now for 10 years about what I'm seeing going by drainage issues. The tributary that runs south of this property drains down to and underneath 281 and comes into Johnson Ranch between the fire station and the elementary school. This last rain in July, the water was so high the firemen were out there taking videos of it because it had just about gone out of its banks and there's a bridge right there on Johnson Way. The water was almost at the top of that. I understand that they took some of the fire equipment, the trucks out of the fire station because they were concerned about being able to get out and get to neighbors if they needed it. So that's a safety issue for all of Bulbury, not just Johnson Ranch. Um, moving on from there, the tributary that that same tributary then joins 21, which goes along the western portion of Johnson Way. That area was so high that the culvert of Larat um culde-sac right in there. That culde-sac could not drain. So water backed up into the culdeac and it came up about 2 feet from some of these people's front doors. We've never seen that before in the neighborhood that we're looking at doing maintenance down there and there could be an issue with it being clogged at 1863, but it's still so much water is coming to us in the north. The tributary north of this property will drain into Mustang Vista and it goes across over to 4S Ranch. The detention pond this time up in the north had so much water it was moving up closer to neighbors than it ever had before. And my understanding is Mustang Vista actually had water over it. And there are videos of the fire

truck kind of trying to go through it. So, I know they're talking about what they plan to do, but I I still worry that we are going to end up with a lot of water in our neighborhood that I don't know how we're going to address it when it happens. Um, I'll say the rest of this because we you have a lot of people talking. I'm just going to ask there is a what Bulverie storm drainage criteria manual that I spent a lot of time yesterday reading through and I would just ask you all created that. You did it for a reason and it's for the drainage and the flash flooding that goes on in Bulbertie. So, please adhere to what is in there and don't let any developer get all of these variances to get around it. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Very short, members of the commission. Thank you so much for your dedication to your job here. Although it be voluntary, we do thank you for the questions that have already been raised tonight and uh they'll cover some of the things that I had to say. Uh some of my resident friends and very special friends have already brought forward some really good questions. It's really about drainage and potential flooding that comes to my mind. You have the storm drainage design criteria manual and it was created as has been stated tonight uh to present to you and to the city minimum standards to be dealt with uh throughout the city and the ETJ for that matter. As I've looked into these and looked at the variances that this developer had presented, uh you're really being asked to ignore, modify, or adjust the very standards that are in this manual, uh that have done a very good job of protecting the gateway to the Hill Country, if you will. uh in certain areas being asked to to take down trees, even majestic trees, and being replaced with trees 3-in diameter. Uh how is this going to impact the runoff from this area? Not to mention the destruction of what we call hill country, which is the hill country. Uh why would you consider giving variances that would allow these things to happen that are already described in the minimum standards? I would also ask you to remember that we are we are involved in in explicitly the flash flood alley. Current residents are certainly alarmed as to what would

happen if we did not have these standards to protect us all. The applicant has said that a drainage study is not required. It may not be required but it may be required by the city council as a condition of a consideration of the application. As I understand it, this could be the single most difficult property to construct uh or to develop u because of where it is located and because of all the issues including as has been mentioned the two tributaries that flow from the this into the flood plane. These both uh cause effect not on Johnson Ranch north and south but other residents further down. We would ask you if you are going to consider this to be able to provide the resources to effectively study to provide engineers who would be able to review this and certainly if it were to move forward to be able to provide city personnel who would be able to monitor it. It is our hope that you will stay with the standards that have been so artfully constructed and are protecting the citizens of residents. Thank you for your service.

Thank you, Robert Boyd.

Good evening. Thank you for your time. I'm sure you get time and a half like I am tonight. Okay. I'm want to talk about the water. All right. Uh I live at 4620 Blue Sky Drive, Mil Village North. I've lived here 31 years and I'm concerned about the availability of water in the future here. Uh looking at this particular project, they're going to be using using Texas Water Company uh for their services which uses 51.2% of surface water i.e. Canyon Lake 36.86% from groundwater i.e. our Trinity aquifer and then 11.94% from purchased water that they purchased from another uh water company. They're currently stage three restrictions. The maximum is stage four. Now, we have been uh watching Canyon Lake drop and drop and drop. Current level is 892 ft. at 17 ft below full p fullpool level. Prior to the January uh I'm sorry, the July 4th rain flood, should I say, unfortunately. Uh it was down to 877 full 32 feet below. Okay, it's starting to go back down again. All right, it's uh last time I checked, we got some rain here recently. last five days it's uh it's gone down one/tenth of a foot but it was going down one/10enth of a foot every three days until we got this recent rain. This is we can't keep uh sustaining this uh and as far as our current graph goes that started in 2019 and uh we are here 2025. If you look at

this this is our graph history since 2000. Okay, here's our drought history. All right, most of the droughts have been about 1 to two years. We had one back in 2011 that was uh that was for for five years. This one is six years now. The worst drought we've heard of was uh uh last one I heard of was uh 10 years about 1940s50s. So, we could still have quite a ways to go here. Um according to the schedule K the uh the usage of water would be uh let's see 240 to 360 gallons per day. That would be two 20.6 to 30.9 million gallons of water a year. the it's important that we sustain this this type of uh uh our water and I like the ideas about doing the the water containment and so forth but uh uh we need to take very careful consideration for this. Thank you for your time. Bark Koski. Hello. I'm Maros. I live at 31563 Street Bore Hill Drive. I want to finish. Well, my wife started a little bit. A little bit left to go. Uh oneoff group is requesting the city change the tree mitigation requirements to limit the total cost of replacements to not exceed 300,000 discuss about the comfort of developer. Alter the tree replacement requirements to not exceed the planting of two trees per lot and reduce the minimum replacement diameter to 6 in or 3 in. You go by Johnson Ranch or the Canyon Copper Canyon, you can see the difference trees even on those lots and

how they bury and that's not much tree quite honestly and that's not replace the tree that's six or eight or nine or 12 in and it's going to take some time for those to replace city tree orders 17.06.009 at least 50% of the replacement trees shall exceed 6 in in caliber width. The code also states Texas Association of Nursery Men say that it shall have a minimum caliber width of 4 in. 3 in is too small. Simple as that. Please protect our trees and require quality replacement. I ask you, is the city responsible to develop his cost in this project or is the city responsible to enforce the laws, protect the city's current vision plan? The whole 2050 plan was built upon everything you guys are talking about tonight. And one of the things I recall from the last conversation a month ago and I apologize I don't know who said it but one of you guys asked if you don't get all these nine variations varies mix are you prepared to say no to it and someone asked that question he said no I don't want to do it if I don't get these nine things I need it's not going to work and then I made a comment later on we had a 45m minute discussion here about other stuff and I'm sorry he's just loving on the bunch of BS to get his point across yet that's a community don't get a chance to say that opportunity and that's wrong. That is flat out wrong. But let him come back here because he's going to come back here after we're all done and try to talk again for another 30, 45 minutes. You can shake your head, but that happened last time. So that's that's my reasoning behind that. It's very important that we consider what we're all here for. I moved here from California in 2007 for a reason and I don't regret that for a moment. And I told you a story before. I I drove to the home and everybody wakes me. This is a wonderful community. I'm not saying he's a bad developer or something like that, but he's doing things or wants to do things that go against what the city has believed is the proper way to run the town. And we've seen variations just like the fire truck during the rainstorm going on trying to go down that street

during school school getting out going down 46 when the school's getting out over there closing the streets down making them narrower not going to work. It's not working. It's not safe and it's not proper and I think you guys all here understand that. take it very very seriously and any variation that I think is attractive. Thank you. Hey Brian Weller,

I just got a few notes. Um um one is uh well I've been here since 2003. So um one is what whenever he's asking to go from Mark 2 R3, right? So, I get it before. I've seen some other properties they want to go down and then, you know, but at least he's going in the right direction from R2, you know, taking R3 to R2, right? So, I mean, I I hear Johnson Ranch a lot. When they started putting in Johnson Ranch and all the different places, I drove over there and I was like, what the heck is going on, man? Look at all this cutting over here. But now they're complaining about it on this side of the street. You know what? If it was on this side and not their side. So I actually border the the property, the McCarti ranch. So that would be my fence line. When I look out my back porch, I will be looking into that subdivision. So um my Johnson ranch and all those other ones came. I mean ATV, I have to drive to Evans Road now. Um I'm I'm kind of for this but it's just uh I mean the variance is asking for some seem legit. I mean everybody comes and ask for variance and obviously earlier someone asked for variance right if you want to move pull your house forward you have to ask for variance. So he just asked for variances on this property, man. At least he's coming up front, you know. Now, if somebody was to say, "Hey, I want to make that an R5." I would be like, "Oh, heck no." You know, I mean, we don't want to move, you know, into that direction because then you could sell it and then we would be stuck. I don't know if you remember on the 100 acre track, it happened a couple years ago. I know somebody was here. I know that 100 acre track was trying to get an R5 down there. Um, y'all probably not remember, but um, so those are a couple

things. Actually left my notes at the office. I had to leave early. Um, I know the topography on that property. It's pretty rough. So, I get where he's want to cut and fill, you know, and I get and I see all the I know about the drainage. Anyway, I mean you should come in but the percentage I think if you came in a little bit with some more information about percentage of each variance per property like they were kind of ask for that would help. Maybe the rightway width is it's could be an issue. Um if there is variances it would to only him. I mean I wouldn't give it if he decides to back out. We wouldn't be able to give it to someone else. I mean it would only be to that builder you know. So, I uh I think that's about all I got. I just stuck a few notes right now, so I didn't bring them from my last meeting. Another question I got too is think about it. Why was this ever zone R2 and R3? Why was it ever if we weren't somebody wasn't going to come in to build? That's it, you know.

Thank you, Ryan Tucker. Good evening. Ryan Tucker, um 2936 Park Hill Drive. Words matter. More importantly, words matter in real estate context. Um we've heard a lot about variances this evening. Um and those are no doubt important. In fact, it takes forever to list out all the variances that developers asking for. But it's more than that. It's the extremely broad language that's included in the PDD. I want to talk briefly about the vague plans uh that are included there and how that's going to actually tie and screw over the city itself. I had a I have a litany of different examples. I went through the PDD and I have pages upon pages upon pages of permissive language that's included in the PDD. Take for example what I call the supersede clause. I think it's exhibit 10A, but it says uh where the city's code as modified herein conflicts with the feasibility of the development of the conceptual site plan, the conceptual site plan shall supersede. Well, that means that whenever the city's ordinances make um development quote unquote infeasible, whatever that means, it's not defined. This clause effectively shifts zoning authority from the city over to the developer, replacing mandatory rules with a permissive loophole. Or better yet, take for example, in fact, I live off Martin Hill, right behind me, the Lutheran property. Uh, last time we were here, we saw a graph or a slide that showed what the preferred water tower would look like. Now, I understand the developer can get up here and say, "Well, we're going to stick with our plan to to place this elsewhere." Well, let's go look at the PD and see exactly what it says. Article 8, exhibit exhibit J. I believe it says an optional

optional water storage tank may be located at the 1300T elevation if required by the water service provider. The words optimal may that's not mandating anything. I as I stand here now I have no idea where the water tank's going to go. In fact, that actually violates city code 14.031013. He's required to tell us where that's going to be. He's hidden. As a as a homeowner right now, me and others on my street that are also limited about this have no idea where that's gonna where that's going to go. Am I going to go out my backyard and see a giant antiquire tower? I don't know. If you approve this, they're giving him that cart launch ability to do so. Take slopes, cuts, fills. It says cuts and fills greater than four feet and disturbance within slopes greater than 25% may be permitted. I could go on and on. At the end of the day, um, words like cart launch, give us leeway, honor the spirit, should scare the heck out of you. We should not give this developer a blank check to host our community. I ask you to deny this.

Thank you. This everyone on the list, I did have one person that was marked out. Just want to double check that they don't want to speak, and that was Russell Hank. want to double check you're not speaking. Yes, he told me he thought it was a sign in comment. Perfect. Okay, awesome. We are closing public comment at 911. Um I do want to say we're going to discuss I kind of want to go in order again discuss internally. Um my hope is that we won't have any further questions. So hopefully you won't have to come up anymore at this time. We're just going to discuss. All right, let's get started with Zony.

All right, I'm gonna say something. Jeff,

I'm okay. I'm gonna throw this out. I'm going to start right here and then we'll work our way back. I say we just blanket n right now and we just say no variances, nothing. Period. We got them for a reason. We got plenty of questions about this. We dislike this in a lot of ways. I say we just across the board. We deny any request for varian work it out. Well, to your point, this is a PDD. So once the PDD, always the PDD. So we could do what you're doing and say if you need a variance going forward, you come ask for variance, not for PDD. So there's only one problem.

Okay. I'm listening. It's currently zone R3. You know what I mean? Like I request your microphone so we can hear what you're saying. Yes. Absolutely. Thank you. You want me to restate it?

Yeah. Go. Okay. I'm just gonna put this out there for the board. Um, I think we just denied this right across the board. Flat. We just say no variances, nothing right now. Zero. And you can come back and give us stepby-step varants every time you want one. I know that's going to be more work for us, more work city council, but I just flat out no. Go ahead, Jeff. What I mentioned is that the PDD includes all these variances into it. Meaning if we reject the PDD, the developer has to come back for each and every variants rather than us just saying, "Okay, you can have everything in the PD."

And then yeah, I guess my only concern is right at a high level, right? Just cutting everything out, is R2 in general a better deal than part R2, part R3? We can't even do R3. You have to have a sewer plan to get one. No, I I I get that, right? But we approve R2. So, so here's my point. If we don't put a clause that says he can go back to R30, he's passed the PDB, then it's locked on to whatever.

I think you uh I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. Um I think you need to re reject it as a package including the zoning change if you're going to do that for that reason. That's exactly right. Yeah. We can't vote on take out say we're gonna keep the R2. We're gonna get rid of everything else. No, no, no, no. I'm just simply I'm stating are the things we can live with to get the whole thing R2 or would we rather roll the dice and say he comes in, he's going to do R3. There are some things that I'm okay with in his and that's why I'm okay with something I'm not okay with

is an R2 deal with some variances something that we would want to entertain because if we say no he's going to walk away and then somebody could come in and go R3 on that whole thing and just strip that whole I mean grant they're gonna pay a ton of tree tree stuff I'm sure but you know you see what I'm saying right like okay something else

I'm gonna say I'm gonna say this now we we had discussions you know in the milit one way to die in the city of Alberta is to come in here without a plan for your water and without to try to get something less than one acre lot. I mean, I guarantee you that people sitting on the city council would would rather die in the spot than have that happen. And most of us would all us. So, but someone could come forward

and comply with our they can they can do that but but we can cause enough not if they follow the coverage. But to that point, they still have to have water no matter what.

I agree with that. But there's there's ways there's ways there's ways to delay things too. There's ways to delay developments and projects. Just I'm not worried about coming in on hard and doing this. What I'm saying is this is patchwork. where there's things in here I don't have to I think honestly that that this is a a good thing for the developer in the city but I just hate this OG let's give a nickel and I want a nickel here and I want a nickel here and I want a nickel here and I want a nickel here and it's all patchwork and I don't like the way that we this is is set forward for us to to look at. I don't I don't even think he can get a loan. This is my opinion. So, I'm going to say this carefully. This is my opinion. I don't think he can go to the bank unless he's got a better relationship with good banker than I do. And I have a really good relationship with my banker. I don't think he can go to bank and get loan because he can't get full water to this. My banker would never do this and I felt projects.

Again, that's something for later on that he would have to I mean, right now there's a total halt on any water coming, right? There's no water. Yeah. driving entertaining applications at this time.

Yeah. I mean, you know, you can pop in from East Texas or wherever else that doesn't make it economically feasible, but he's not worried about that. That's people buying houses about that. So, I just I'm just throwing it out as as that's now if y'all think that's not fair. If y'all think it's not fair and take this out of hand, then we need to go back and look down. I don't. But I just wanted to make that that first point. I think my worry comes from who could be waiting in the shadows to take this property. They're still going to have a lot of the same issues that they have with but if they can follow ordinances

and pay and Lou I mean they made the city well I'll just clarify the city's position is that you can do R2 on the back and R3 on the front. We're fine with that as long as it's 100% compliance authority, right? Which that could be very

well that's true and you know we get 100% compliance and we've seen and we've seen you know the different project guys there's nobody at Lamar as smart as that guy. I know it but you know that doesn't mean they don't have lawyers back with the eyes dotted these cross too. Hey, there were some questions during that came up during uh public comment that I think might be useful since this is kind of a matter of fact. You could go really quickly just on like the the process that a development needs to go through

within the stable verdies. Right now we're in the PDD stage. There's MDP, there's planning. Can you just kind of go through that process and kind of what very brief overview what kind of comes up on each aspect? This is this isn't the first time we're going to be seeing this property. I mean, generally speaking, um, if somebody comes in for a development and they already comply with the zoning restrictions, then they can spread head straight to platting. Uh, if they don't, then they've got to get the zoning the use authorization lined out first. But, uh, the second step is platting where we're going to get um on a development like this, master development plan. It's going to give us the phasing and some of the big questions like uh water, sewer, other things going to be answered. Then we're going to get into the uh platting itself of each individual phase where we're going to get the street geometry. We're going to get the utility layouts, we're going to see the lot layouts uh in a final fashion uh and we're going to see the construction start on the infrastructure and we're going to get the tree survey. Actually, I think we get the tree survey now

MDP at the MDP stage. Generally what we get is just the survey and they don't bother telling us what's going to come out until they come to that we get a survey of all the trees and they say zero mitigation because we're not taking any out of this stage. So then we get when the individual plats inside that development are platted we get the actual plan for what's going to be removed what the actual plan for mediation and the fees are for and any variance requests come at that point. Uh do they do that in maybe the drainage plan so they're at that at the individual plat stage? They don't do the drainage analysis at the MDP stage. They do it at the plat stage because the street geometry and the lock layouts affect that pretty significant.

And at this time there's no alterations being requested to the actual drainage manual to the drainage manual itself. No. um it will alter the drainage manual is basically a giant uh calculation or equation. So it'll affect what comes in and what comes out but uh the manual itself. No, we're not they're not asking for varian that's correct. I'm sorry, the traffic portion. The traffic port come at the um phase I think get it usually get it at the MP stage and then we may get modifications to it platting stage or something

at the phase plat. Yeah. But usually we'll get one for the whole development. And as long as each section that comes in conforms with the assumptions that were made at the MDP stage, they don't change up. Right.

I would just like to say that I don't think that if somebody came in behind this developer, they would never get the cut and fill and disper disturbance pass. It wouldn't get a tree survey removal and mitigation variance passed and they wouldn't get the riperian buffer uh variance pass either. So that's three huge strikes I think for someone trying to come in and bring it R2 R2 and R3. So you're saying in the sense of like uh Evo's denial it's not viable is what you're saying that if if we deny this and then someone comes in after them and says I want to develop it and all R3 or R2 and R3 with those three variances they'd be asking for. We would never approve those.

Well I I want to clarify that. I want to make sure that we're clear about that. Um, there is an infinite number of ways property could be arranged or proposed for development and any request would stand on its own merits when it came in. So, we're not prejudging what could happen. No, I believe that there are solutions to just about every proposal. Whether that meets the developer's ROI requirements, I don't know. But that's not the city's problem. Um, so I wanted to make that clear. Okay. He could build this code. He could. He's just going to lose a lot of that.

That's what I'm saying. Let's just It's not our problem that that gee, it's a million dollars trees or $2 million trees. It's not our problem that the street needs to be 30 feet wide instead of 20 feet wide. I'm just saying geez, we're being overwhelmed. We're being nickel and dime to death with the things right here. And rather than make a mistake, rather than give somebody a car launch on something, I say build like we do it up in the city plans.

So to that same point, let the developer come back with a plan for R2 and R3 the way it's already set and if there's a variance needed, come back at that time and ask for it rather than doing this PDD. But also, it's that down below, they're already flooding unbelievably. So, if we were to pass this, it's just going to compound. And I know that they say that they can mitigate that or there won't be any additional flooding. And in fact, it will improve it. But I don't think that we're at that point yet on this property around it. I just don't think that what they're proposing because it's already a problem for flood down below. So if they go in and they cut and fill and they have all these different mechanisms for storage of the water, I just don't think at this point that it's going to improve. It's just going to make it worse down below. That that's just my opinion. I um engineering is not an exact science. I'll say that but I but I do believe in it and I do this method works and I think that it will work. Um again it's not an exact science but I believe in so they say that they're designing and I think they are

well they're reading code then they're reading code. No they are the right engineers. That's what I'm saying. Stuff that he pretend is good. You know, I think there's always very extreme cases that fall outside of things that people can latch on to and that happens a lot. But I again, it's what I do for a living, too. So, I believe in it. It's it's generally very a very conservative process. So, that that particular aspect doesn't phase me as much as some of the other things do, but he's not even asking for answers for that. I mean, I get what we're saying. It's like, hey, that's a concern. I I do think that what we're doing is the right thing to do and I do think it's

my view as well. Um, so how do we move forward? I I think I think at this point um I don't I I know where I'm at. If you want to make a motion to deny it, we can take a vote on it. If if we get four votes, then it's denied. If not, then we can move on to trying to figure out how to piece it together. I don't know how the rest of youall feel about it, but I don't know if Danny at this point probably the right thing to do. I guess I think that's the simplest way to handle Yeah.

Can I ask one quick question? Um Danny probably ask me like a million different I'm still always trying to wrap my head around PD purpose and everything. um main thing let's say if we take all the modifications out of it then it's just the zoning change is not really a PD anymore it's just zone change at that point and it's one that would be considered negative to property owner because there's no balancing we'd have to renotice and presented it in the state law about downzoning something so you could do that but then we'd need to renotice it his his all branch is I will do all R2 if you give me Right.

And if we take away anything, but we'll take the R2. That's not it reposting renoticing and we considered just the down zoning. Yeah. Just the zoning.

Tell me that. I would like to recommend to the city council. I would like to make I think we should make a recommendation to the city council to deny the u this will the uh uh application for okay I will we will I recommend we deny or I recommend that we advise city for this application. We have a motion. We have a motion and a second. All in favor of denial.

All opposed. Motion passes.

Okay. Item three, any public comment not related to postage agenda items? Anyone sign up? No one signed up. So we are adjourned at 9:29. Thank you. [Music] I'll be honest with you, I did not know that was your