Planning & Zoning Commission Agendas & Meeting Information - Regular Meeting

As I said, I said back again. Yeah. Where are they going?

Yeah. They're going to the new subdivision. Couldn't go down Blank. Well, 46. Where is their Oh, they're up 281, right? Yeah. Go down Boulevardie. The only cover truck. So you

Oh, really? Yes. All right, everybody. Good evening. Join lead us in the invocation this evening. We pray, excuse me, we pray for wisdom, for strength, for courage to do what is right, good for all citizens. May we put the interest of others above our own. May we act with love for the common good. May we be good neighbors, recognizing each with every person here. Amen. Amen. All right. I have 601 is the official start.

To the flag of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible. Okay, looks like we have everyone in attendance this evening. Um, thank you everyone for joining us tonight. Um, hopefully it won't be too too long, but um, if it is, that's okay. We're here. We're here for that. Um, and then we have about three items this evening to take care of. Um, city staff, anything we need to talk about before we get started today?

No, ma'am. Okay, let's go ahead and get started. So, first regular agenda item, we're going to consider the approval of the planning and zoning commission meeting minutes from September 2nd of 2025. Yeah. Number four, 2.4 was not 2.4. Oh, the motion. Um, yes. Oh, got it.

Perfect. Any others? Okay. Does anyone like to make a motion about the approval with this one? Correction? Uh, I move that we uh approve the planning commission meeting minutes from September 2nd, 2025 with 244 as I'll second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor?

I motion passes. All right, moving on. Item 22, hold a public hearing and consider a request by Eric Gomez on behalf of Bulbergie Village Holdings LP for approval of a variance section 17.06 0105 of the city of Albertie code of ordinances related to tree protection measure requirements at 2541 2545 and 2549 roadie Texas 78163. Uh good evening, madam chair, members of the commission. Uh this request is by Chisum Cook and Eric Gomez uh for a variance to the city's tree preservation ordinance related to construction activity allowed within the drip line of a tree. Uh just as a reminder, the drip line of a tree is a calculation of the ground area surrounding the trunk of a tree. Uh for example, a 10in tree would have a 10 foot drip line radius. Uh a 20-inch tree would have a 20 foot drip line radius and so forth. Uh the city's tree protection measures ordinance states if a foundation street or alley pavement utility line, septic system, pool, tennis court, patio, sidewalk, driveway, or parking lot must be constructed within the drip line of a tree and must be constructed under the supervision of a certified arborist and that those structures cannot be closer than five feet from the trunk of the tree. Uh the ordinance goes on to state that parking lots and driveways under the drip line of a tree must be constructed of pvious material. Uh this variance request relates to the same site and project that the commission reviewed at the July PNZ meeting. Uh the commission recommended approval of the drip line portion of that variance, but council ultimately denied the drip line request at the July special council meeting. The applicant is back with a more refined request to the drip line restrictions in the works. uh instead of requesting blanket

authorization of encroachments into all drip lines of every tree on the site um he has isolated and highlighted the requested encroachments as you can see on this site plan. Uh on the site plan the applicant has depicted portions of drip lines containing encroachments. The blue color indicates encroachments for proposed drainage structures. The pink color indicates encroachments for driveways and parking lots. And the green color indicates encroachments um of foundations. Uh to summarize the request, the applicant is requesting a variance of the drift line restrictions for the specified list of trees. Um the applicant is requesting a waiver from the five foot distance requirement from um from the trunk of a tree where existing encroachments already exist. And the applicant is requesting a waiver to the permeable material requirement to allow for the construction of impermeable blacktop within the drip line of those specified trees. As you can see here, this is blocks uh one and two. And then this is a lot of existing stuff. And then back here is the proposed um portion. If you have any questions for me about the subport, I can answer and the applicant is here to answer questions about the project.

Um were you present for the city council meeting when I was? Yes. Do you do you remember possibly um a conversation about why the drip line I think that they went into executive session on this and then they came out and voted. So I don't I don't know if there was I guess there was conversation before but amongst the council uh this was a little while ago my recollection was uh they were not comfortable with the scale of the request the first time through. There may have been other issues. Like I said, it's been months. That's all that stands out to me.

So, remember some some of the original applications about the the fee and loo. Well, that was a separate action item. So, that's the same and they were considered at the same meeting. Okay. Uh that one was uh modified and approved. Okay. So, that portion of it was it was just this drip line. This one drip line uh amendment was not. Okay. Or that one. This technically is different. Anyone have any questions for city staff? Does this also include the removal of the 11 trees? It's not just the lines of which trees the ones refer to on page 153. This is just the request.

Yeah, this is just one line. This is not mitigation and treatment. I was on the path. They can go remove whatever trees they want. They just have to pay replacement. Okay. This is this doesn't cover that point, right? Yeah. This is just drip. Thanks.

Hi, my name is Sarah Gomez. Good evening. I'm an attorney, but I I I assure you I actually do serve a Lord. Um despite that, u yeah, we I wasn't I wasn't present for for the first the first application. But um what I understand is that as Mr. Bats stated the the first variance request was broad and encompass the whole project. Here we have narrowly tailored it as we listen to city council um and identified specific trees going to be impacted um and identified those trees. And the the heart the heart of this matter is really um we have an obligation to provide access to EMS. Uh the access needs to be as direct as possible needs to be efficient especially when every second can make the difference between life and death. Commercial projects as opposed to many residential carry with them special health and safety concerns. Right. Um so access to emergency services is is paramount and important. We are required by the code to provide this access and several several citations. I don't want to cite those u but I have provided them in the application. We're also required by the code to collect storm water to treat that storm water so that we don't impact our neighbors so that we take care of surface and groundwater. We're required to do that by the code. Um the problem is that those infrastructure requirements take up quite a bit of space and u a unique feature of the site if you might recall is that's an urban forest. There's 650 trees 34 trees per acre. If you can see the map and it's it's own commercial. So the city has determined that this project is

ideally fit for a commercial purpose. Um, and we have tried every kind of way to draw the the access and put the detention facilities in places where it impacts the least amount of trees. I know the the map looks like uh, you know, like the Death Star and and how the Jedi are going to fly in and blow it up. It's kind of hard to tell from back here, but the the access meanders and it contains these roundabouts and the detention facilities have these quirky shapes because they are avoiding tree. You know, we we have tried, you know, it's it's cheaper to draw a straight line and to create a perfect rectangle, but we have tried really really hard to not to to avoid as many trees as possible. Um, despite those intentions, we we've got to provide access. We've got to provide storm water facilities and they've got to go somewhere or there just can't be a commercial project at the site. And that's impossible here because of the number of trees without impacting the drip lines. What what might be easier is for us to come up and just ask to remove all these trees. Um, but but we don't want to do that. We want we want the trees to be there. Um it's it's part of our plan to have something that meshes with the natural environment. I think that's part of the character of the city of Birdie. So the way that we see that happening best is by branding this variance. We can accomplish both goals. We can keep the trees in place. Um we can provide the health and safety infrastructure that we're required to um and this project can go forward. Um, as a final consideration, you know, I think it's important that uh that we all recognize that the the creator of this project lives here

that's a family behind this who's raising kids here and they're involved in this community. They they they participate nonprofits. This isn't a a faceless corporation that's coming in trying to take advantage and maximize profits and move on to the next town. um what's happening here is going to impact their family. Uh and they're trying really hard to do right this project and um the this honorable commission granite experience when it was much broader than last time. It's narrower now, more specific. And all we're asking is that you do you you offer us the same consideration and and uh and grant this variance request and see if we can go to council and and get it approved the next time.

So, thank you. Yeah. Any questions? Uh so the driveway um this this one is pretty much original, right? Like it's in but then when you go to the next uh lot that's all new in there. It's it's new. There is compacted there's a compacted dirt road for for for a good bit of it. Um it's it's interesting you city by city I I I worked at city of Austin

um for a long time and they would consider compacted dirt or compacted uh decomposed granite to be impervious. Um but you know the different cities are different for different reasons. Um there's a there's a dirt there's a compacted dirt road on that on lot number three. Uh but you know the for lot 2 it's it is a pucked I mean if you if you go out there and see it it is a pucked asphalty crumbly not safe for the general public in my opinion uh existing asphalt road that needs to be resurfaced and improved um as quickly as possible. questions.

Yeah, it says TCQ considers compacted or impervious cover. That's where Yeah, it's true. I've got

I've got another meeting just like like this with in front of them. Um yeah, you're right. I think one thing that was super interesting was the the letter from the arborist that you guys were able to to get and um the conversation within that letter about her cover um and how a lot of times it can do more harm than good due to how deep you need to you know dig that out with the I think they're talking about the moisture and retaining heat and you know all these types of things in terms of previous cover which got me thinking I There's some other things that we didn't think about or you know look at um you know obviously all this up here we're not you know professionals when it comes to arburist or installing a previous cover. So um I I appreciate you guys doing the due diligence of that study and and including that in your packet. So thank you.

Just thank thank you for mentioning that. Uh we're actually required by the code if we're going to be within a drip lines to have a certified arborist supervis this project. We've gone out of our way to find the best one we could find. Okay. She's done a heck of a job. She's actually recommending to like use the structure that's there because the best course is the least invasive. Um it's the trees have already adapted to what's out there. So repurpose that, resurface it, use that. It's it's according to her it's much more harmful to have to strip that up even with pvious materials you have to go down like you said a few feet

um hidden roots uh and and stuff like that. So um yeah thank you for mentioning that. Thank you. All right we don't have any public comment on this matter at all. If no one has any other questions we can discuss amongst ourselves or a motion is is made. What are you guys thinking or or seeing on this one? I I have one question. Um how much more is this costing you than it would be to just I mean how many square feet is the building all the buildings together? 30,000 30 35,000. So how much more is it to do it this way than building a one one big 35,000 foot building?

Right. We didn't even we didn't even look at the other option. because we're trying to do it this way. Okay. I just I was just curious if you guys have looked at that like, you know, because I see what you're trying to do here. Yeah. I'm just Yeah. I'm just trying to see what the cost would be if you did it because then you could take all the building trees out by right and you only have to replace parking lot. Um Yeah. Okay. I was just curious if you had a number on that, but just really what the percentage difference is to do it this way versus that way.

That's what I remember last time too, you know, the conversation we were having of um how thankful we were that someone locally was coming in and trying to do their best for preserving these trees. Um yeah, so and I I do always appreciate having more information, too. So, thank you for providing that as well. Yeah, I just struggle because it seems like doing it this way is definitely more expensive. More expensive. Yeah. Right. That's why, you know, I think we looked at it last time and kind of came to the same conclusion. Yes. Yeah. I appreciate the fact where you said he stood up there and pulled out a check. We didn't have to beat him up, you know.

I mean, this narrows the scope a lot. That's a con issue. I think you know this is worth putting back in front of them that have that let them have that discussion. Again, similar to kind of some of the other stuff we've been looking at when it's super broad. You want partners. It's a little tough to say yes. But this is much more specific. It's also the first one that we're not talking about removing trees. Simply talking about So they got that part through. I understand what they're doing here. They're saying, "Hey, we might cause more harm than good to these trees. No problem. Okay. Would anybody like to make a motion? I'll do.

I make a motion to city council for approval of a variance section 17.06.010 010 five of the city code of ordinances related to tree protection with measurement requirements at 2541 2545 and 2549 440 road Texas 78163 second we have a motion and a second all in favor I motion passes thank you thank you very much

right two Three, hold a public hearing and consider a recommendation to the city of city council on request by Melanie Norris on behalf of EDI Goldmith for the approval of a special use permit to allow the use of a water booster pump station located at 1015 East Almond Road, Texas 78163. Yes, good evening. This is a request by Kirk on behalf of the Goldmith Development for the use of a water booster pump station. Um, a pump station is considered a public utility and requires a special use authorization in all zoning districts. The applicant is proposing a pump house and two 500,000galon ground storage tanks on this 1.1 acre residential wall off road at the July PNZ meeting. This item was tabled by the commission with the request that the applicant provide answers to the questions asked at the meeting. These questions related to the capacity needed to reinforce existing systems versus future development. uh different types of screening options, the number and size of tanks planted to the site, where the closest groundwater source is located, and what the protocol would be tank failure. The applicant has provided the answers to these questions listed in the supporting documents in this package. If you have any questions about the staff, please let me know. Um the applicant with freelance work is here. I believe representatives here as well. Any questions for city tech? Good evening, commission. My name is Alaskar with Crew Engineering Group here on behalf of Texas Water Company. We appreciate the opportunity to return this evening regarding the special use permit for the booster pump station uh within the Goldsmith subdivision off Bannon. At the last meeting, you posed several questions for us to review and respond to. We prepared that information for your consideration and are here to

provide a clarification as needed. With me tonight are Ted Bryant and Heath Woods with Texas Water. So some of the concerns that you guys had screen uh how much will be used for future development on these tanks tank side options. So I'll touch on a few of those. forest green screening. We're proposing a concrete panel fence. You can kind of see a picture of it there in our buffer plan. So for the breakdown as far as how many millig gallons are going to be used to reinforce the existing system, the primary focus and goal of this pump station is to provide reliability for the Texas Water's entire system. And you'll be able to see that in one of our other exhibits. Uh the initial construction of this is going to provide hunking and storage for Goldmith, Alopes, Glenwood and Park Village subdivisions that are you know located west of Koma County Lopes being within the city limits. So how much will be used for future development? Uh text water does not control future development but needs to be proactive with the preparation. uh they have an ob obligation to serve future customers. You guys asked about size options for the site whether we could do one or two tanks restricting gallons in height. So initially we have discussed 50 foot in height. So we're proposing 25 to the dome reference line. So in total that' be about 35t total height and around 60t uh diameter. And and the reason we proposed two tanks is um for redundancy and for maintenance. So we could take one side one tank down, work

on the other uh as needed if you know leaks and maintenance as needed. You guys asked about the closest groundwater storage groundwater source for Texas water to the city of Overy. Um we mentioned the Panther Drive well station is the closest site. That site primarily serves to that development and most of the water is coming from the park shores park shores water treatment plant. You asked about protocols for tank failure. Um while tank failures are extremely rare, it's important to note these tanks are subject to strict regulations by TCQ. So they'll be mandating and inspecting that those tanks they'll be visited daily and uh Texas water standard for new tanks are now we're using a concrete tanks a lot more safely. Any questions?

Um I just quick one. So you're mentioning the two tanks so that one is available for maintenance. So only one is going to be filled apart and the other be empty. No. So, initially we're proposing to construct one for this phase and then another one will come soon after. But the main reason that two tanks are used is to provide some redundancy uh in case of failures or you know extenduating circumstance. Got it. So they'll both be full. So there really will be room in another one to drink it. But it it gives us that leeway to be able to, you know, if something were to happen or if we need to do maintenance on one, we can drain one momentarily use the other one.

Got it.

Yeah, I I can piggy back on that. I'm Pete Woods. I'm the director of engineering at Texas Water. I've been with Texas Water. I've lived in Bhardi 20 years. So, yeah, I've seen the change. Um this project is is part of uh it building our system building redundancy building resiliency. Uh currently developed area is a standalone fed from a single point of water from DB. Um so this project will be involved in connecting it to our overall park shore water system which is our largest water treatment plant on the north side of the lake that feeds all the way down into southern Bombardi. Um, so it'll give us operational uh flexibility to take GBR water in different locations, be able to move surface water, you know, throughout our our uh area. We we've met with the mayor recently. Uh, I think the the relationship between the city and the water company when I started seven years ago was was very disconnected. Uh we've had some really good meetings with the mayor recently to try to reconnect and you know let you guys know what we're doing, what's going on with our overall system. We have a lot going on throughout our overall system. We have large water supply projects that are currently under construction that's going to be bring more water to our overall system. We have large pipeline projects like the one on road that's interconnecting our different water systems so that we can move water throughout. If we have wells that that that go dry, we can supplement with surface water and vice versa. Um and and we also have projects that we're looking with GBas that are out 2030 2040 that's bringing water from the coast. So there's a lot of overall master planning and at these sites if that project with GPR8 does move forward that this is

going to be a key site in in delivery and movement of water. So, it's it's it's a lot bigger than any one subdivision. It's it's improving the entire area for all of y'all's residents, all of our customers. So, and also we've developed standards on our facilities in the last five to six years. Um, you know, we don't have the voltage steel tanks that are in 10 years they're falling apart, leaking and all that. We we spend the money on these concrete tanks that are very expensive in the beginning, but they to me they look good, they last um and and safe. Um fences, we do have a standard offense. That's not our current standard with fence, but when we're coming into a situation where there's houses next door that this used to not be there, this is the standard that that we're looking at. Our typical standard is 8 foot green vinyl chain link fence. And so this is the kind of thing that that we're willing to do to be good neighbors. Um and and try to screen as much as possible. Uh our buildings, we're we're not building a metal building that's falling apart in in a few years. These are split face uh CMU block wall that that's tan on the outside. It looks very similar to most houses around with concrete roofs. Um, so anyway, we we have a lot of upgraded standards based on our our current facilities and we can certainly share locations of some of those newer facilities uh if anyone wants to go take a look at. They're nice.

Um, so you mentioned that this is going to connect to the the big station that's north of the of the lake that comes all the way down to 281. Do you see this also them providing and then you also coming from the coast you also see this providing you know any future expansion like towards the west like towards Bernie or anything further

the current there's no current planning on that right now um yeah really the projects that we have going on right now where that blue line starts that's park shores plant on the north side of lake and that water comes all the way around it's about 20 23 miles to get to here. And I know we've talked about the Panther well. I don't even know if that's online right now. I mean, most of the wells on the south side of or down in this area are struggling big time. And so, it's it's a blessing that we we have that plan. We've upgraded over the last five years. All of our line 306. We're working on the last phase of 281, a bigger, more redundant. instead of PVC, we're using ductal iron so that we can deliver that water more consistently than we have in the past. That's honestly one of the one of the biggest outage reasons is breaks along that 281 line.

So I have a couple questions just for clarification. So what what's the main purpose of putting this facility here? It is to boost water from this pressure zone. It's a lower pressure zone that's um up into a higher pressure zone which is the elevated storage at Bentana which serve bell right um so then we can deliver water surface water to bellows or we can take that GB water at one of our other locations. So it's redundancy.

So the current current model this part is not connected to surface water. Oak is not. So you're either getting Well, not our surface water. It comes It is surface water, but it comes from Jerry's treatment plant and the western canyon line that we have. Okay. So you're buying that water. Yes. Yeah. Right. So it's not coming out. It could come out of well, but it's not necessarily. It's coming from that. And your intention is to shut that off, bring your own surface water in so you don't have to buy water.

So So currently we have with DB, we have four different what we call turnouts from DB. Uh we have three in Komo County and one in Kendall. Um right now we're taking our full allocation from Jira at the Glenwood turnout because that's their only source of supply. So when we connect these it gives us flexibility bas Yeah. So I I guess I'll just I'll tell you at least somewhat of my thoughts are. So I think you're getting some push back on this sort of stuff is right. You guys talk a lot. I went to meeting very happy you guys are here. Thank you for being here. that's been a struggle for us when we ask questions.

Um, and so I'm glad that there's a team there and I think working through them there that's worked well. So the I think the main issue is is that um, one thing to be thoughtful of is there's a lot of people in this area that are not your customers. Right. Right.

Right. There's a lot of people who have wells and things like that. We're worried about you guys continuing to pull groundwater because we don't have the money that you guys have to go to go do that sort of thing to, you know, my wall goes dry. What am I supposed to do? I don't have a pipeline to tap into. Those those were how I started. Just kind of asking, you know, I asked the question the last time kind of asking around this one of why specifically here. I think I know why and I can understand why. I think Bitter Blue is probably giving you a decent a decent deal on on the land and things like that. But, you know, it's just there specifically a couple of neighbors, right? I appreciate the com stuff and I'm just trying to kind of figure out, okay, it sounds like it's a pressure zone issue is what you're telling us, right? I know that we had the elevated storage tank that that came through a while ago and has gone away and may come back. Who knows? Um, so I'm just trying to understand so that for people that live in that area, they understand why we're doing this when it really doesn't benefit them.

It it's a hard sell for properties that aren't our customers, right? I mean, everything that we're doing is to improve for our customers. Um, but it's interesting that we're get a getting a lot of meter requests from five acre lots in that area and larger. So it's it's uh I think some of them are be want to become our customers but

no I mean I think it's I think eventually that might be something that has to happen and I think the city and you guys and those people are going to have to potentially deal with that in the future. And so I guess you know I'm more hunting of okay this is infrastructure it's not serving the people around it. Is there a different place that we could put it? Not that I have to put it next to somebody else that also is the same but is directly right like they're directly benefiting from it. And so that have we looked at other sites in this area? Is this the only site that engineering wise works or you see what I'm getting? So yeah. Yeah. So this this is a developer agreement that was done long ago. Um essentially the developer had to provide this lot

and and it was discussed within the engineering group that which one would be better. This is up by the transmission line which is essentially the line that's on Ammon road. So it works it works the best and it's Yeah. Um so that but what we're doing as part of any future developer agreement when we do open developer agreements again is the developer is going to be responsible for getting giving us a piece of property that is permitted for our use. because we're running into this that that we go in and we need to build infrastructure on these lots and then we're we're getting push back on on uh on what we need to do. And so in the future, we're finding ways to, you know, we're not going to be in this situation. It'll be you guys will be talking to the developer and figure out where on the property, you know, it it works. But but this is what we dealt with on on this property. So, um, yeah, certainly we're willing to do all that we can to to appease the neighbors and and still get the infrastructure that we need to to serve our our customers.

Go ahead. On uh 306, I know that Lenar Homes has Canyon Ranch coming in, but it's going to have 1500 homes on it. And then also Simmons branch on 21 and Spring Branch is gonna have 720 approximately and then Vornbrook is going to have 302. So for me it's that and then looking at our um I wasn't able to attend the meeting but to see that the lake we only it went up when the huge flood happened and now it's starting to go back down I just don't feel that there's going to be enough.

Well so I I recognize all of those developments except one the last one. Which one is that? is storm broken.

Oh, okay. That's right. So, essentially we have a water supply study that was conducted for our service area and that getting results from that was the reason for for causing health. It wasn't the totally the level of delay. It was a lot of different factors. Um and and so we we are looking at that. We're I I'm very proud of the company I work for for making that decision to pause development because we're an investor owned utility in the business of making a profit. We're capped on profit by the PUB. But I I was proud of the company for saying, "Let's pause. Let's get these water supply projects a little farther along. Let's get the more water in the lake." Um until we start taking on new development. all of those developments were it was probably four, five, six years ago that those those agreements were were negotiated. The other thing that's coming out um in the next couple of months is our water availability report. That's been kind of a hot topic. Um we've we've gone through a really good process on this one. We had an advisory committee that included some people that really picked apart our last one, some some very intelligent people. Um, and so that's going to come out and it's going to tell the whole story of the for the next 40, 50 years of what the water looks like for us.

Would that be completed that you said caused you guys to stop? Um, it hasn't necessarily been completed uh because it's going to be a living document that we're going to update every year. But what what came out of that is the water availability report that will be a public document that everybody but that just addresses Kal County because that's for the county and their their plat. Right. So as this availability availability report was being produced you guys saw some of the data and before Yeah. stopped. Yeah. Okay.

And we did the same thing in Kendall County. We have um a system out on the west side of Bernie. Same thing. Three years ago, we paused development just because the supply is at a max. So, it has nothing to do with like needing to have certain amount of storage. There's like some requirements you guys had to have certain.

Well, there's there's all the requirements from TCP on the amount of storage, pumping, supply, and um yeah, none of it. It was all based mostly on supply. But the thing about our system, our our system is so spread out, so many different pressure zones. Um, but they're all kind of interconnected. And again, that's the whole purpose in a lot of these regional projects is if we are right at right at the peak of supply capacity or pumping in one area and we connect it back to the other area, then they they combine and work together. So,

um, one of the questions that I have also is from, um, someone that emailed in in opposition to this project, but they were wondering if it could be designed specifically as a rainwater catchment and harvesting system, which I'm I know it can't, but is there a way to harvest the rainwater? Is there a big square footage amount of of tank there that's going to be up? Is there availability to do that? So on generally on rainwater harvesting all of our facilities that we're building like new buildings like our warehouse like some of our new offices we're including rainwater catchment. Um at this point we're using it for irrigation. We're we're not I I know there's some ideas and possibilities of using that for for public water. Uh we are not involved in that yet. Yeah, it has to rain. Problem

is when it rains it pours. Bel is completely built out, isn't it? Um, it's I mean it's not built out. I think all the infrastructure is in. Oh, okay. There's still lots that are until by property next door like they just did 9. Yeah. Yeah. So, but yeah, I think it's pretty pretty close. Yeah, all the infrastructure built out. Um, but I don't think every lot is Oh, and that's that that's a good example of of one of our newer facilities is back in unit 9. I'm not sure the street name, but the highest point.

Yeah. Yeah. So, that's one of our newer facilities and built to our standards. So, if anybody wants to go by and look at that, that one has a that one has a steel tank. The building the pump building is all very similar. And typically we're at like 300,000 gallons and below we do a steel welded steel not steel and then anything above that we're we're doing concrete.

And all those people have water that live in Yeah. Yeah, they have very good resilient water. That elevated water tower that everybody hates when the power goes out when there's a fire. That's that's that's it's a beautiful thing. A question for the for the neighbors around the immediate areas. The uh the turbines themselves, the pumps, are they fairly quiet? Yes, absolutely.

Okay. The the back generator that I assume that's like a diesel run that just um monthly monthly run, but I believe monthly test an hour or so that they and they're also they're enclosed type and and again I think we have one at also but they're they're very quiet. Yeah, they're all insulated. Yeah, I've heard some that are like Oh, yeah. No, these are all all insulated.

And there's no lighting on the tower itself like on the ground tower. No, the just in the building around.

Yes. just for safety when our uh people are there doing checking on things their job so they can be but it'll be all dark skies complant other questions we did have one uh public comment on this matter Richard Osber Thank you for the opportunity to talk with y'all briefly. Uh my knowledge of the pressure tank and booster station is somewhat limited. I try to do some research. I live adjacent to it. I mean, I'm the only house that's physically close to where they want to put their uh big tanks. Uh it'll say I've been out there a long time res over 20 some odd years. So anyway, am I concerned? Yes. U feel like I'm losing some of my country feeling because of having subdivision built next door to me. Yes. But I called TWWC. I said, "I'd like to go look at a tank, see what y'all proposing to build." They give me an address over there, Kane Lake for Starksville. There's a bunch of tanks. I have no idea which one. And they're talking about they told me it's be 50 ft high. That's a fivestory building sticking up above the old trees. Uh all and I'm I'm on an emotional part. They're taking me all the facts and figures. They gave a real wonderful song and dance over at the uh hotel the other night. There were no questions answered. There was no question answer session

afterwards. Everybody left kind of discouraged after that. U but I wanted to physically see what one of the tanks look like. And we talked about noise actually to be able to hear that hear it. Is it quiet? Is it safe? Or is it BS? you know, is it going to stick it up way above the trees? Uh the houses are being built to be built next door to the they're all starting around 900,000 and going up. They will be driving past that all the time. Uh when they put in their pipeline, they clear they broke out every tree for about 30 foot width. I don't know exact width, but it was wide. the whole my property line. I didn't know these but they started across the road. They put in their stuff underground and it was clear all the way up to Leroy Shield and beyond. They stripped out everything and you know does that aesthetically look like Bover being a country property? No. But I understand that's progress. You got to let them put in their 80s bunt said what happily I didn't do good because I've got a lot of ancient oaks part of my yard and I didn't want them to leave. They said, "Hey, you know, we'll let you hook up to us at no cost. You let us have the east." Didn't do good. I'm glad I did. But anyway, my concern is it changes the not only the aesthetics with the main reason why most of us want to live area

and why we moved out here from San Antonio and other places. Fine. What is that? So anyway, my point is that should be a consideration map. They show it was a threeinut time limit. Okay. One last the line they show their line where they end at that line. A booster system tells me you're pushing it on past that. People are overtly not getting the benefit of that. It's the people that beyond future people are the beyond limits. They're getting the benefit of that, not perverting. Thank you.

With that, thank you all. I appreciate your time. Thank you so much. And I have 646 to close the public comment. Um, did you sign up by any chance? I I can't. I'm so sorry. I was aware that you I thought you What else? The policy that's been I think for a few months now has been the um to sign up at the very beginning. Um there should be a sign on the door stating that as well.

I apologize. Commissioners,

is there any way that this uh is there any way this type of facility could be relocated up to 81 to one of these more densely populated areas that benefits from more storage on hand? So, so I'm just gonna y'all can tell me if I'm making the incorrect statement. So what they're trying to do is there's a low right now they're service from GB for this. This is its own standalone water system service from GB. What they're going to do is they're going to connect to their existing system. They want to be able to shut off their GB source so they're not paying for water. They want to use their own water that they've got, but because of that it's going to leave a low pressure area out there and they need a booster pump station to boost the pressure. Not saying they're never going to turn GI back on. They might need to. They'd rather than right they told us to mean rather than paying for water expensive water they would rather use their own water they need a booster system in order to do that and it also would provide pressure back through the system to go to other parts.

Yeah. Essentially so that area uh Ammon and Bertie road that's that's a much lower elevation than Glen or than Bell Oaks is currently. So it's essentially boosting into that pressure zone. Right. So, so it couldn't it couldn't be relocated. I mean, it would have to be within the vicinity of that 24 inch waterline. Yeah, it really needs to go in ideally would go before the Thornbrook sub to be functionally right and

so but just to be clear you don't need it right now to service you have service out there that's correct right just but they have no redundance they have no redundance yeah right now and they being y'all sit yeah so fellow I'm assuming that's not that's not an art that's not so it's really just in that and people in wells don't have it take to build the system

uh 12 to 18 months I'm feeling conflicted personally. Um, it's this hard balance of growth and development in the city and and progress, but also like you were saying, not wanting to hinder the neighbors that are around that do have wells and that aren't benefiting from this system. Uh,

y'all don't think you're going to be opening up or opening new contracts until like the middle of next year or we're not putting a date on it at this point because one factor easements on an offsite line that we're trying to bring that water supply project back, which we're making really good progress. Uh but the other is like I mean yeah it came up 13 feet or so with the flood. Um but that's we need more we need more. So we don't control that very much. So

and then another thing about the meeting uh that we had at town hall um that was just very that that was the first initial getting the mayor getting us together. Um, we didn't put the format together, but it was the initial one. There's there's going to be many more, especially again as the water availability report comes out. We're going to come we're going to visit with y'all. We're going to visit with county uh and the EDF and some others and just talk about the regional water supply. Um, because it's it's constantly changing too. There's there's well fields that come available that we start looking at. There's water coming from the the coast. We're looking at every opportunity to shore up our water, make sure that our existing customers have water.

I have one last thing I wanted to ask you about. You did mention it's a 25 ft tank and 35 maybe to the top of the dome. Yes. I just wanted that clarification for this gentleman because he was thinking it was 50 feet. Okay. And they're talking about two separate tanks at a lower elevation. So, I just wanted to make sure that

and and the other thing with the concrete tanks and so really with any tank, there's an optimal diameter to height ratio when it comes to cost. And so, we try to go with that. Um and and but you know, if there's a limit on the height that the city ends up wanting, we'll put that height on it. But if if we can make it work with the with the site, um but it just drives up the cost and when the when the costs get higher, our rate payers pay pay that. Our customers pay for that. So we try to build things to the optimum to to save cost for our rate.

So the sizes y'all have in here are the size the optimal sizes. Yeah, that's a pretty pretty optimal size. There's a range for a 500,000. What's the lowest height to still be optimal? I think that's the lowest 30. Yeah, that's a that's about the lowest. The other ones are like 36 to 40 that we have and that's a 60 foot diameter tank. So yeah, we keep expanding outward and size constraints of the of the site get

I think all the technical answers are perfect and I and I'm very confident that you know what you're doing. I wish that uh sometimes the marketing department of the PR department at DWC would would step up a little better like this gentleman right here. I think he would have felt a lot better if somebody would have given him better answers and maybe, you know, taken a a few extra minutes with him to believe his fears and so forth. And I also think we were told, and correct me if I'm wrong, we have city councilman here that can correct me, but we were told that we needed to submit our questions for this TWWC meeting by September 18th to Miss Ham. And then those there would be question and answer period at the meeting and that didn't take place. And so everybody's sitting there going, "Hey," you know, and um so I I know there was some disappointment and there was some comments that it was a song and dance or dog and pony show because they weren't direct. Uh there was no direct input. So I don't have a question about the technical expertise. I have a question about the way your message is being transmitted to some of the local citizens and I think that could be better. But at the same time, you know, we don't have the town newspaper anymore where you can put all that stuff in the town newspaper. You have to put it online and then you got to find it.

So, uh, that was just a comment. And, and that was Fred's comment there that we want to alleviate his fears.

Yeah. And you know that the conversation with the mayor, that was one of the big big points is the communication from us and and the transparency and letting us know what we're doing, why we're doing it, and and we we do have to improve that and and even like with water and and things like that that keeping keeping the city in the loop and um so there's definitely an effort to try to improve. I think we have improved over the last couple years, but we still haven't. Well, you have some things down the path. I'll be floating around in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico or I'll be in Europe and I'll get a phone call saying that gee, there's a water break on where Triple Peaks and I'm going to be without water for four hours, you know. So, that part you've got down pat the part about gee telling the guy that tank you're building how it's going to be, you know, there may be a gap.

So, last one for me. this particular pressure zone that you guys are talking about, how many customers does that pressure zone serve roughly?

Like like rough order of magnitude like a thousand. So you got 300 in Thornbrook. I don't know how many dollars about 300 in in Thornbrook and you got another three or 400 in dogs. Yeah. So say somewhere around 900 close to So what size is this per is this booster pump station sized for that. I wish we had our design engineer that couldn't come tonight.

The pump station's designed for known development. So it's sized to serve all the known development in that pressure. Okay. So you're telling me that this is so that if there was another development that got approved, you're going to have to build another pressure station possibly. Or we could expand with the second. Got it. Yes. And additional we would need dumping upgrades. Yeah. We don't have anything else out in that area at all as far as new development goes on the radar. I mean, today

I want to interject here uh and make sure everybody understands that what's uh being requested and potentially authorized is going to be the limit of what you'll be able to do. You won't be able to circle back and expand this facility without an additional an amendment to your SUP. To make sure everybody was aware of that. Yeah. And I would only say just for one little sales side of things, no earlier than would be a great date when people ask you for a date.

Right? I get it. You can't tell people, but like the water availability report is not available to December. You know, there's no way we're doing any developments. Just say, "Hey guys, it's not anytime. Don't worry about you know that sort of thing." So on the commun I know your communications director was that might be a that might be a good one to be like hey not doing any at least six months because we got these things we got to get in front of us so we that would help me because I get all the calls I'm sure you go up a little bit my phone start calls Okay.

To to Danny's point, I mean, I think I think in the future for expansion, it'd be hard to turn down expansion because the facility is already there. I don't know about that. So, so what they're saying is they're saying that now every new development they're going to have to segregate off pieces of property to do these sorts of improvements. So, a new development is going to have to give them a spot for a booster pump or elevated storage or whatever they which is which is not a bad thing.

No, I mean again the development should bear the cost or the visual problem. That's the whole idea of mud pass taxes and mud districts and things like that. Don't don't push that on it. That's a whole another No, no, no. I live in Houston, you know.

Yeah. No, that's great. That's the thing. So, you know, it's really quick question. You had mentioned that the initially you're going to build one tank, one booster pump. You got two tanks here listed and you'll need a to come back here again and have another pump approved if you need that capacity. Is there any need for that second tank at this this level of approval? Could you get by with one tank and one pump? One tank and two.

Yeah, we don't have one. We never have one pump. We have to have two pumps. The way the way I understand it's one tank, two pumps with the authorization to do an additional tank and an additional pump. Yeah. So for a total basically one for each tank and then one redundant back two and they're going to put two in first because they need a redundant one for Yeah. Because with TCQ you have to have what's called firm yield. Yeah. which firm yield is. If your largest pump is down, what is your capacity? And so if you only have one pump, you have no firm yield and you're not in

the slogan used to be if you have one, you have none. If you have two, you have one. That's it. for pans and bullets.

So, I'm I'm a I'm a definite no as it sits currently. Um I'm debating whether we give them the one tank in two pumps and if they want to expand later or future development then have them potentially come ask for it. I'm not even sure 100% there. That's that's my two cents. Do they um for the amount of customers this is servicing, do they need that big of a tank? I don't know. I'm We're just going off what they told us. Yeah, I I don't do that type of

I do I do the other um so yeah, I don't do force water or water stuff. So, um, yeah, I I think I think the thing that we're kind of in my mind evaluating, right, is they're currently buying water that costs them a lot of money. Costs a lot of money right now. It costs our customers a lot more money, right? And so putting this putting this in allows them to use their own water at a lower cost, right? It provides some redundancy within the system because they can then use two sources of water versus one. Um, you know,

I'm not I'm personally not a customer of yours um because I'm on a well, but for the customers that are paying a heightened rate right now due to some of the purchase water, how is how are you guys capturing that that data? And is it all the water that they're using no matter where the source is coming from? is at a heightened rate right now or is it only the certain water that's purchased? I'm not an expert in our rates. We deal we deal with engineering and get I'll tell you what.

Okay. I have an office in Lake. I live here in a well. So my office in Lake for four years from middle of COVID till about uh June I was paid $44 a month. All right. I don't go to my office very often and then meters turned off at the street. So even though I've not used a gallon of water in four years, I'm paying $44 a month. Now the rate just went up to $506 in June. So now I'm paying $50 meter. Just my meter fee, right? And the first 2500 gallons of water. You're paying for 2500,

right? I paid the 2500 gallons whether I use it or not. So the the increase went up as per you know uh in June as per conditions uh necessitated. So I would say that they put a search charge on there but you know it was a it was went through the state. They had to go through the regulatory channels to get the increase and so forth and so you know and that's how it's passed along to everybody and that's every household over there on Canyon Lake on that water system on the south side canyon lake. Mine's a little was my lake house, now it's my office, but next to me is a big huge house. It's the same amount. So, uh,

my my question was, I mean, if this get approved and they don't have to purchase water anymore, does that mean for the people they have a lower rate? But

I think I don't think we should let that enter into the conversation. So here here's an example. Let's let's say we don't get this free. Then our options are going to be to go buy more land outside of the city limits and build this infrastructure. That's that's more money spent that's going to go into the rings where we have a lot that was given to us by a developer that we have planned to build our infrastructure. So that's that's a direct savings in rent.

And you're in stage three right now. And um it's you know people get the water every other week but then if you drive through those paper beds and I really don't do that I just zip it by but everybody is green so they're using their water I don't know the water in the middle of night and no one can see them but um what 72% of the water goes into people's yard absolutely and it's just not fair

well and I will say one one of the updates on on our end. We got passed in legislative is we have the ability to turn people home. We we never had that in the past that we would drop restrictions. This is what you're supposed to do. Okay, we go put a flow restrictor on. We couldn't shut them off. Now we have the ability to shut them off. and and we've started implementing that really it's builders that are the number one offenders and so we we we have the ability to go in they're not following job restrictions and shut them off and so I think the word is starting to spread that we have that now it's going to help it's going to help with that because yeah that's always been the challenge um yeah if if people understood the amount of money that goes into our infrastructure to pay for that. You have your normal use

and then you have the irrigated the dollar that goes in to to paying for that irrigated lawn. My lawn's brown. It used to be really green before I started working for the water company and understood the situation we're in in this area. I mean, you look around, you go outside those green lawns and what does the grass look like around But when it rains, it comes back. It does quickly. Okay. Um, you're thinking an approval with

I don't have a problem size of the tank. I think once you, you know, once you start building a tank, a small tank shows just about the same footprint as a big tank. I mean, especially if you're living next to it. Um, I don't think you can hide one no matter how big or small it is. Make it small enough to hide. Um, I'm on the the edge like everybody else. But I mean, just like I said, I we turn them down to go outside the city limit build one and pass the cost along. Um, I think we need to make a decision on whether we want to uh put this off on people within the city or put it off on people outside the city.

I think with our our city boundaries, it'd be hard to tell if you were or not because a lot of people that do live in the state would be driving by, right? We're all all neighbors anyway and more likely at that point it would be the change of right yeah we would have control so I'm going to say I would vote one tank let them come back they did feel

well I feel like they can and when Simmons and uh Canyon come on board and because it only takes a year to build and I just feel like you would have a better gauge of what's going to happen since Bells is doing fine the number of people there um and if they're out of if we have a freeze and pump goes down and everybody's out of water like the rest of us on wells for five days you just get used to it and you have things stored at your house to get by. Um, well, the Simmons not the right time.

The the Simmons and the Canyon Ranch are totally separate conversations. Those Canyon Ranch has their own booster station. They're going to have their own elevated. Uh, Simmons has their own elevated that's starting construction right now. Um, where the water comes from.

Yeah. Yeah. But this this project is being built regardless of anything whether it's here somewhere else and it has nothing to do with anything along 281. It's to create redundancy for our customers that we have in Greg as far as the approval of one tank through pumps. Um, or as Michelle said, you just wait and it ends up in a neighborhood pops up down the road. I don't know. None of them are great alternatives. Madam Chairman, can I interject real quick?

Yes. Um, the applicant verify if one tank of two pumps is something that you utilize or would that kill your project? what we have in yes we could utilize yeah and just one pump and no certain two pumps one tank no certainty if another tanks ever come okay just I wanted to clarify that point and then I wanted to make sure um if the commission is considering recommending approval that you'll also talk about additional things like the requiring the concrete paneling screening other things like that that they had mentioned should be locked in is that not part of the application I think it's me we got picture on it, but it's an option.

Yeah. But I don't think we need to make sure that you guys say if you want it. You would need tape height. You would need all that stuff maximum height. Yeah. Maximum height. Okay. Get everyone's opinion. The topography between the where the paint would go. What's your your last name? Your last name. Your house is the closest house to the to where the tank

you gain about 10 to 12 feet I think to your house from the tank site where they want to build. It's what I'm looking at. It's not real clear, but I saw exactly where it had just I'm looking at the map. Looks like it gains about 10 to 12 feet from the tank side to your house. back. Yeah, there's a buffer zone. How many beyond that?

No, he's talking about Yeah. And that's part of my worry.

Part of the worry is is what he's going to be looking at. second time they've come for the pursuit hill neighborhood is going to be subject to whatever we're going to be looking at whether it's a 150 foot tower or these two paints or one thing and I'm thinking about what he's going to be looking at is west view for your house let's the other thing to consider if we're going to go with one tank and we require that it be a shorter and have a bigger diameter four neighbors. Well, I think we're only going to approve one.

Yeah, I think he was saying that that that optimally and and Brad, you back me up on this, but and Ashley was listening to this too because they were asking questions on it, but I think he was saying optimally that the 30 that the height is by the diameter. So, a 35 foot crown, 25 foot tank, 35 foot crown would be about 60 foot tank. Yeah. So, I think that's about as slow as he's saying he could go. Well, they say that's optimal, but it's not on the side. Yeah, they would have to come back for for the elevated tank that they have a lot for.

That's a separate item. Yes, but they would have to come back for another. Okay. And if they want to add this second amend,

I'll have to have some help making a motion, but I'll make a motion if you let them have the one thing. two pumps, but we put restrictions on it that the height can't be over 25 feet. So, it's 25 feet to the line of the tank, 55 ft to the Exactly. Right. And that uh you know, they have to put concrete wall around it, barrier around it.

What height do we want that concrete? 8. Well, that's TCQ. Y'all do try to keep the in the presentation the trees around around you try to keep what you what trees that the challenge with trees again with TCQ they have stringent requirements on can't have them close to the fence like overhanging so we try to keep as many trees as we can the Ventana elevated storage if you go by that project uh in Ventana you can see we kept some of the really Nice and pretty. We We try to make that, but it it uh we we can't have them next to

that covers it. Okay. All right. Are we recommending making a recommendation?

Okay. I would like we would like to make a recommendation to city council that they approve um where I get two. Okay. Okay. We want to make a recommendation to city council that they approve the approve the request by Melanie Norris on behalf of EBI Goldmith to approve the special use permit to allow the water boost pump station located at 1015 East Ammon Road, Texas 78163 and that the the maximum height would be of the tank would be 25 ft at the um what they call that dome reference line. dome reference line 35 feet on the ground that we're approving one tank and two pumps uh that they would have concrete fence at least 8 feet tall restricted gallons

I'm sorry restricted the gallons okay specifically they can make a 25 foot tank that's 200 feet wide how about 25 foot tank 60 no more just I would just say no more than 25 feet height on reference line 20 35 ft for the crown and no more than Okay. And no more than 500,000 gallons. Okay. 25 ft the dome line, 35 ft crown, no more than five, no more allowed than 500,000 gallons. Uh put 8 foot at least 8 foot concrete fence barrier around it. Okay. Anything else we need to add? Okay. Excuse me. There's the motion. Okay, we have a motion.

Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? All opposed? Opposed. Motion passes. Four to three. Let's if we need to do it again. Yes, I'm opposed. And I think Michelle and Okay. Thank you.

Moving on. We have 24 public hearing may consider a request by Samir with one group LP on behalf of Dash Interest LLC for the establishment of a PD plan development district with the base doning of R2 residential district for approximately 329 acres generally located one mile north of the intersection of highway 281 and FM 1863. Uh yes, Madam Chair. This request is for the establishment of the PDD plan development district with the base zoning of the R2 residential district on 329 acres of the 388 acre McCarti Ranch property on Highway 281. The applicant is proposing approximately 233 single family residences on a minimum of 1acre lots. The applicant is proposing a list of modifications to the city's code of ordinances. The modifications to residential lot requirements are related to waving the lot aspect ratio requirement. The modifications to shrink geometry are related to reducing the minimum rightway width from 60 to 40 ft. Reducing the ride ofway center line radius from 200 to 100 ft. Reducing the center line alignment minimum weight requirement. Reducing the minimum culde-sac rideway diameter from 120 ft to 100 ft. and altering the method of calculation for lots from team culde-sacs. The modifications to the cuts, fills, and disturbance within steep slope requirements would be contained within the uh assumed limits of disturbance and grading area that is depicted in exhibit G. Uh this is a 140 ft zone uh being the 40 foot rideway and 50 feet on either side of that rideway. Um it's shown on the the white zone here at the rightway. Uh currently the city exempts roadway construction from cuts, fills, and steep

slope disturbances within the established rideway. Uh the developer is proposing to construct road improvements outside of that 40ft rideway uh and request that these exemptions be extended to that work outside of the rideway as well. Uh the modifications to trees are related to reducing the requirements for replacement trees from 6 in to 4 in. uh altering the tree survey requirements from a tree survey prepared by a statelicicensed land surveyor uh to allow for a list of trees prepared by a certified arborist uh that lists the trees GPS locations instead of a site survey. Uh lastly, they are requesting to wave procedural majestic tree removal requirements. Uh currently, u majestic trees require a tree removal permit for each majestic tree. Uh and each permit requires review from the PNC commission and approval from council. Uh so they're requesting just the the procedural requirements from that from the majestic trees within this zone which is that 140 ft um including the rightway. Uh regarding riparian buffers, current ordinances require the buffer be contained in its own non-billable lot. Uh the modifications to the riparian buffers are related to altering the riparian buffer restrictions to allow for encroachment of storm water facilities into the riparian buffer and altering the restrictions to allow for approximately 45 to 55 instances of encroachment of the buffer into residential lots. The modifications to parkland dedication are related to altering the requirements to be uh to allow for a reduced amount of parkland that is less than five contiguous acres or altering the requirements to allow for a portion of the riparian buffer to count towards that 5 acre minimum of dedicated park.

The applicant does have a presentation. Miss Ham will go ahead and switch over to that one. But if you have any questions for me before do any questions before.

Okay.

Good evening. We are back. Uh so just wanted to open up uh with a context. Uh we listened to what was said last time and uh we listened very carefully. Uh there was a lot of modifications when they listed. They sound like a lot of modifications and uh really I believe we're losing sight as to why these modifications are asked for. And uh I believe the context here has to go back to the beginning where we came in saying we want to listen. We have something zoning. We want to listen to what the city has to say. Want to listen to what staff have to say, what council has to say to over 100 citizens have to say. Then we come back and we spend the money and effort and time to design something to fit with what everybody's asking us to do. So uh to that effect we uh we did have a presentation city council on March 11th and uh that presentation if you look at the audio if you listen to the audio recording uh if you start around the 38 minute going to about you know the hour and 20 uh you will hear the interaction as to when we presented uh seven different plans going up to 580 offs down to that 200ish uh plan. So, and there was unanimous unanimous uh feedback that they favor the one obviously. So then we sent about 300 150 invitations uh out to neighbors personally addressed out of respect and

we got everybody uh to get together presented all of these plans and we got the same feedback on ac worked out all the math commissioned engineering architects make sure that you fit within those partners. Now this is partly I I wanted to go back to this because uh when we are being asked to do one and make it work of course we're going to be asking for certain adjustments to you know the some certain modifications in the code to be able to allow us to go one acre lots even in those areas where we are by right allowed to go with half acre right. We were also specifically told personally as I was walking out of here on March 11th by the current mayor. Uh she wasn't the mayor. I didn't know who she was then that she didn't want to have a uh she preferred not to have a uh sewer treatment facility on that property because of the orders flowing that way. So thought okay we actually took it into consideration even though on I had no idea who she was thought you know what if that neighborhood is concerned with that is I know there was another neighborhood close by that is that is having this kind of issues and we thought okay well instead of putting a uh a sewer treatment facility that will allow us to put halfacre lots why don't we just take all this into consideration and maneuver around getting one acre lots in place and still make this project successful, viable. Right now, I can tell you with assurance that not many developers would be doing this with the skinny profits that you get out of a project like this, right? So now u in that context I want to refer you back to this and ask you please take

that into consideration when you're looking at that long list modifications because all of this must be framed around our ability to be able to deliver to you what you asked us for which is one acre lots. So you ask us for it we come back delivering and now we're going to be penalized for delivering that. We met our end of this deal. So that's all I'm going to say. We listen. We deliver what we were asked to deliver. And if we are going to be shut down on technicalities, that's your call. We hope to God that the city honors what they have told us and appreciate the fact that we are a willing partner and we are a willing partner. We do want to work with the city. We have had great experiences with the staff with with the administration and we want to work to continue working with just ask for instead of you know for us to go oh okay well look at this particular law well we're only doing this if we had half loss, we would not have to worry about anything. Right? So, I'm just going to I'm just going to leave you with this and I'm just going to step through what uh for this presentation as well. I'll go quickly. Uh so, all that being said, a lot of the stuff that was said last time was absolute legit concerns. All right? So, I'm not downplaying that. I took it upon our team and our leadership team to basically make the actual investment and uh I'm not the only guy standing here. There are people on video watching uh from actually all over the place. So uh I'm representing a whole bunch of people that we work with. We

have a large portfolio of projects, over $150 million worth of projects going on right now. and uh we're prioritizing these projects. So as far as as we're concerned, we want to make this work and we want to do it the best possible way. We want to do it the way you ask us to do it and that's what we're here for. So the but the last time what happened is you came to us and say hey we appreciate the fact that you went with one acre lots. It's a nice design. Some people said this is the best we want to get. uh you know 50 acres of green space that's part of the riparian buffer of course uh we will not be altering that not be mitigating this we will not be trying to you know go to uh you know the different authorities FEMA and others to try to change that to lower whatever we're not doing any of this stuff we're not trying to get extra acreage out of the buffer right we're not pushing through any traffic to neighbors uh We're improving wildlife uh movement by taking out these fences on the south and north. We are uh creating a water plan. The water folks were here. They were talking about dedicating lots. We were they didn't even have to ask us. We dedicated a lot on top of that uh property. And uh we came forward and we did assess uh we talked about rainwater which is fine. and talk about uh the zero escaping which is fine but nobody has talked in in this whole area none of the developers have suggested that they are willing to make the extra investment to take water under the tension and pump it back into irrigation and we suggest that we are willing to make that extra investment. All right. So uh we have conducted the forward range analysis even if it wasn't requested because we

know this was a hot topic but honestly the concerns that came out were okay you've done it on your property what's happening past that past fair enough the honest is ask to answer those questions uh tree assessment yeah we detect 10% of the problem could you have done better yeah we could have and but it's also not a requirement at the stage normally. But you know what? We want to go the extra effort to give everybody comfort, honestly, including us because when we're coming in throwing number, oh, $300,000, we're buying insurance. It's all we're doing, right? Because we don't know what we don't know. Now, we do know because we did do a full on tree inventory of the whole car and we have GPS locations. drag all the GPS locations onto onto our plan. We know exactly where everything is. So, we're not going to give you $300,000. We are going to take our chance because we believe we're going to do it without having to pay you a penny because we will get our hopefully, you know, for sure. This is this is good faith because this is good news because we're not going to be taking out trees that matter. All right. this is and and thank you for giving us the time to do this. So like so from from our viewpoint uh that last exercise was a good exercise. We needed to smack on the head say go do do go do a better job and we are doing this. So uh this what what what you did like is the fact that we have a buffer of 100 ft for Bver Hills and something I want to just throw out there that maybe our development will offer a little bit a fire buffer very hills as well uh just for products. All right. So let me

proceed here with uh so the concerns are based oning uh we will not super on that obviously uh the impact of drainage downstream uh to uh impact of water quality where in a contributing zone uh I actually have been sitting in meetings with the uh with the EA uh on separate project doing some common work with them and we're actually considering doing some work with them from a conservation perspective on this property. Uh so regardless uh we want to make sure that we're improving water quality going downstream and we would contend and we would prove to you that our development is going to improve the the we're going to mitigate downstream uh uh flood flood uh flood risk as well as uh water just by us existing and by us spending a little bit more on our detention retention and our ability to pause the water to to slow down the sediments and then throw back good water better. All right. So, we requested a car launch last time. honestly was I I don't know why we did that because I don't believe we just did a little more digging and we discovered shame on us that we don't need a uh modification to the code when it comes to cutting and filling inside the RW which was the biggest issue as well as we don't need uh any modifications to the code because there's no maximum required for the paths and 10 ft around Right. So we can where we're building we don't have that switching either. So that was

really good news. So we took out the car launch we already had. So now uh in terms of the pavement that was a big that was a big deal. Uh especially with Mr. Porter uh and and you were right 20 20 ft was just too tight. Way too tight. So went back to the board and here's what we've done. Uh so I basically asked for for us to invest in uh further study in uh flood mitigation downstream past 281 water quality contribution downstream. So we can show you real time what that looks like with our calculations, our engineering work. And we have the model to show you. It's a live model of what's before, what's currently there, and what's going to happen afterwards. All right. So, in terms of tree preservation, we went out, we spent the money. There were five guys on the property for seven days. They had sunburns. They had been attacked by mosquitoes. I don't know what, but they got it. Uh we looked at 4,700 trees and we ended up inventorying about 767 trees exact type. We have the caliber and we have GPS location for we have that. So we know what we're taking out and what we're not additionally for the law modifications and cut modifications. uh we decided we needed a second opinion and Dawson uh have done this work back in 2017 when the NDP that was approved uh basically they were all familiar with this problem. We went back to them and said we would like you to come in a

second opinion and maybe re design the site plan. That's what they did. Now at the same time we asked them to come up with a grading plan that is more educated. Now they couldn't deliver all this stuff was happening quick a month into this but what I asked for was specific. I said I want instruction plan standard grading plan and they said that's going to cost you a lot of money. I said I will take that. Now, when we asked for our modifications here, we did not have that plan. Uh, so we do have a plan. We're going to need a little bit more leeway on that because our plan is substantial realistic, more realistic than what we had before when we wrote this. And I'll talk about this in uh so finally water conservation. Uh just mentioned it in terms now we can go fast on this. Uh so here Dawson came back we have a we've done basically a lot of stuff uh making sure that all lots number so we can refer to them making sure that all the setbacks are represented so we have D2 exhibit shows you all the different setbacks front setback back the rear setbacks and the side setbacks on every single log that you see compliance of those setbacks each lot. Uh it's an effort I wanted to go through because I want to make sure that uh there are no question marks on our compliance. Uh so now we even put uh just to represent what those setbacks would look like. So that's the conceptual site plan. Uh this the site plan also shows uh the parkland now include a stable. So the parkland is like right on the top

right corner right here. So there was an issue around interpretation of which part of the code applies you know and we'll get to it but u this was a little bit and it's still in our mind. We we would we would love to get everyone's perspective here on what makes sense and what doesn't. So uh you look at the log dimensions again we had all these different all these different uh modifications that's on the left is the previous on the right is put it all down. We basically don't need any of it with the exception of the aspect ratio. And for those who don't know the aspect ratio is basically it's the depth versus the width right typically for an R2 uh the depth to the width is four to one so it cannot go beyond 4 one wide okay but because we're forced into not forced we chose to work with everybody on one lot and in some cases we don't need that the lot may be narrower and longer than the fourth one ratio And uh the other thing is the definition on the sat minimum frontage. Did anybody of you did you guys look at what that formula looks like? It's pretty cool. You need the PhD. So we thought, you know what? Why don't we just make it simple? Now we say the front we're going to pick 35 ft, but we're going to stick with the one one acre lot minimum and we're going to stick to setbacks. Simple, right? Now, lot dimensions. This is the one I was I was referring to the D2 that shows every single lot with the setbacks

uh with the number so you can see exactly which lot is doing what how it's behaving. All right. So in terms of the hour that's for you Mr. Per we basically we're still reducing the uh maybe I should go to the next slide here. shows a better. All right. So, we went from 20 ft to 28 ft. The code is 22 for pavement. All right. Uh we just wanted to show that you know what you were right. And I believe 28 ft is the right thing to do. It's going to cost us more money to pay and all stuff, but there's hopefully you will take that for a second and help us with other stuff. So now we are going to we had zero for the shoulder initially. We're now adding six foot in the shoulder on each side. That adds up to 40. So you have 28 plus 6 plus 6 that's 40. Last time we discussed we've already come up with the drainage. So now we're dedicating 10 ft at the front of each lot as a drainage ement and that is where we're going to why because so we can say we have a one. If we didn't need the one echoloc, we would just do 60 foot right away. You had some good questions last time about that. So that's the way to get to give us the 60 foot right away while keeping the one acre one acre footprint. Now this is where uh so we we did the 50 foot. we thought you know for sure we'll be okay with that and we will be okay with that in certain parts of the development in other parts we're going to need more now that we have spent the money on so this is something that would have normally come out that time where we

just spent the money then to do the construction plans but I thought you know what I don't want to be coming back for things like this later and say oh we asked for 50 now we need more to see here I thought we wanted to be upfront with you that the 50 foot is not going to But here's what I want to suggest that basically we do have a car launch within the path. The pad we expected to be about 80 ft deep just on average. So we able to cut and fill within that without any switches. We'll be able to cut and fill within the 40 ft without any switches. Is that true?

Because they they want you to do this on that. Can you say the state say the question again? I was reading the slide when you said it. Yeah. Okay. So So what I was saying is uh in in the code uh the cut and fill restrictions are weighed when you are in the out. That's right. as well as when you are on the path the footprint of the building of the building. Yes.

Perfect. Okay. So, if that is the case, then you're going to have the ROW here and then jump, jump, jump, and then you're going to have the P. We're going to cut here. We're going to cut here. So effectively what we're looking at is the ability to do what we need to do between the middle of the hour right to the end of the path which is we already have the path and we have the but we don't have what's in the middle. So in some cases we are wanting to keep the trades trust me good news is we don't have a lot of exposure on that's why we need to take that chance we're not asking for a lot of uh for the same variances or modifications on the trees and so what we will need here because typically you have the 40 ft then you have in this case we have a setback of about 50 ft and then we have the 80 foot that we will be where we putting the building footprint so I just wanted to add it up and we'll just leave it at that for now we'll talk about what would be reasonable maybe maybe Danny can jump in and help us with this one a little bit. Uh so that I mean we have we have filled here not you know no restrictions we have filled here no restriction what happens right

this is where we need in the past typically they'd come in on a lot by lot basis if they needed some kind of variance in between the road and the pad side and get a variance for each one and justify each one individually. Right. Previous approach, right? So, but but I mean when you have development, so our hope our hope is that we can get it done here and just have have everything on the table. So, sorry.

No, I'm sorry. I was just explaining you're you're asking for the the right of way to be extended essentially your rights to take out trees and so forth and the right away extended to the back of the potential pad. Yes. But not but not like a clear cut like you know like we're not we're not going to be clearcutting. I understand that, but you you understand that giving you an approval like that would be very difficult to allow that in that space considering our tree ordinances and and the objections. So, so is your preference then for us to stick within a narrower uh so basically we'll stick within that that 50

presentation. I'm sorry.

Okay. All right. All right. We'll we Yeah, we'll we'll talk about this. Uh so in terms of uh this is the disturbance so on this is slightly now we can work with this right now as it is uh with the view of having further conversation about it later. Uh in terms of the trees again uh we don't need we don't need the cash loop anymore asking you for to remove to to be able to cap that if we owe you money or pay it. uh the the survey honestly as long as you give us the ability to just honor what we've already spent ton of money on uh we we have the GPS location we're able to just simply provide that which is really what surveys generally do uh so we hope for your consideration on that uh and finally again that we will fit the tree removal within that same guideline as as uh our plan dedication. Okay, let's talk about it. So when you look at our plan, we have the palm coming here. All right, so let me just So this is this maybe I should go back. Sorry about this. I'm going to go back to this plan. Sorry. Okay. So, when you look at the restrictions that we have, we've got the land to give the five acres. No issue. Is that 3.85, 3.64? Is it five? Honestly, it doesn't matter. We have the land to give. And uh what's the definition of contiguous? I mean, contiguous could be that we can put a bridge here like a pedestrian bridge uh

going this way, and then we'll make it contiguous coming this way, right? Uh it could be also that which is what our engineers basically had that conversation when we are putting this pond here we are rerouting the water course water course is not going to continue like this that's going to no longer be a water course nor will it be part of the area so we will have all the space we need to put our parkland here that we will dedicate up to five up to five acres, no problem. I'll be more. So, effectively, as we look at this more closely, we don't believe we need a modification to the code on this one. So, uh, this all stuff, uh, I think that's basically Oh, the last thing has to do with the Riperian buffer, unfortunately. Okay. We currently own the Riperian buffer. All right. This is our land. And when we're buying it, we're buying it with the Riperian buffer. They don't charge any differently for an acre in the riparian buffer than they do for an acre outside the riparian buffer. All right. So it's it's interesting that we would so we're encroaching on our own land basically. Okay. Now the buffer understanding that we have to dedicate a lot for it to protect it. We have zero issue with that. The technicality of the code makes it so that we're encroaching on our own land. I don't get it.

So, and why can we not have a lot that is dedicating an easement to that area so that we can make sure that the 60 foot from the water course on each side is primary. I mean, isn't isn't the intent for us to be able to protect that 60 foot on each side? And if it is and if we are doing it the mechanism now are we are we debating what the mechanism is. We will put an easement on the back of each one of these lots that is a drainage easement zero disturbance. This is how we will protect for those lots that are encroaching in some places by like 10 ft. That's the encroachment. Right? So there's big difference between encroachment and disturbance. Big difference between encroachment and disturbance. An encroachment I could have. So now I have the riparian buffer on my property and I'm encroaching all over it. If if the the definition is that I can't own land that is where I have a migrating doesn't make any sense. So I'm just leaving it with you. Say it may sound like a big deal. It's wait I mean how are we counting? You want us to get to get one acre loss. We're giving you one acre loss. It's our land. I'm going to encroach on our land ement. What's wrong with that? So this I mean but the code says you can there are two parts of the code that speak to the same thing differently. All right. Now I'm going to I'm going to pull it out because that's important. So, we have one part of the code that says, sorry, I'm going to put my glasses because I have eyes. 1707003

C says, notwithstanding uh uh subsection B immediately above, a developer shall dedicate to the public the area of allian buffers as open space easement. as open space easement with terms incorporating the provisions of the section and in a form reasonably acceptable to the city. Okay. So if I'm dedicating an easement why can I not so why can I not dedicate an ement from chapter 17 and chapter 10 govern different processes. They're not the same thing. Would you mind explaining it?

Sure. Chapter 17 has to do with uh development that's not taking place in the context of a subdivision. There's no division of the land coming. There's no plat. There's no opportunity to establish slots. It's usually somebody coming in taking a piece of land and developing it as one property and they there are certain exceptions in the law where you don't have to plat in those scenarios. And since we can't force you to plat under a chapter 17 process, we require an ease. But when you're going through chapter 10 subdivision process, we can force you to plat and dedicated as a lot and that's why it's different over there. It's not a mistake or an oversight. It's different processes. Okay. Thanks. Yes sir.

Thank you very much. Okay. So now that this is clear, one must al always go back to the intent. The intent is to protect 60 foot from the water hose and we will do that. We hope you work with us on the mechanism. Is it that we dedicated our land and now we have to come back and get an easement from the property that we dedicated to allow us to honestly it's very confusing. All we're asking for is you please consider this for what it is and we are not we are not disturbing and we will put on every single one of these plots that are encroaching whatever the definition is uh that we will put an easement to make sure that that 60 foot is absolutely fair enough. That's that's our request. We we hope that you that you honor that. So uh now we have one lot that raised some attention last time that's lot 117 now we have number for it we can refer to it and that is where you know so we have seven lots in total where we have I would call it encroachment one is this lot here but we're not disturbing it right we're just encroaching on it Again, we we'll mitigate this with an easement, but we just wanted to show that there's enough land for us to still be able to put uh Denny, last time you had an issue. And actually, I had an issue with it and you were right because what we had to do is push that blog up. So, so thank you for that. Anyways, uh so yeah, we were able to we were able to

actually make it and we show it how we can we can get the setbacks that we need there. Is is the orange 60 ft? Yes. On either side. So it's 120 ft wide. The orange is 120 ft wide.

Okay, that's a good question. Sorry, I should have I should have uh clarified that. So, but this here is where we needed to be able to uh work with cut and film and at the same time be able to manage cost and manage the drainage. So, we have to basically we have six slots here where we will be having to mitigate. It's going to cost us a lot of money to mitigate that. we're going to have to put culverts be able to access the lots. So we will be meeting the TCP requirements uh on that as long as you don't see anything that jumps at you from

I mean not from the perspective TC is still considering think I think that's all TCQ cares about.

Yeah. So that's basically honestly all we have. This is this is the it looks like a big list. Uh that's what we need for the one and we've been shrinking it and shrinking it and read it a couple times. We we're honoring what you requested and we're bending backwards. We're able to make it healthy. Uh that's how I would like to leave it with you and I'm happy to answer any questions. Oh, by the way, studies uh for zoning uh process. We've never spent so much money on studies, but we have basically done the uh sewer suitability analysis accepted. We've done a drainage analysis. We've done a water distribution analysis. We've done a preliminary tree assessment. We've done a second full on uh tree inventory. We did slope modeling initially and we what's not here also is the uh the last grading plan that we asked of P Dawson. We've done a wildlife study. We've done again the downstream impact on 281. Alan will be coming up to talk about that. and we've done uh basically water quality and we're still doing so we want to work with you that's why we came back and I'm going to turn it over to Alan to talk about the models and the downstream impact from a train all right uh thank you um so what Samir asks us to do is put together a detailed hydrarology hydraulics model to show the proof of concept that the

project is safe and we came up with a conceptual plan. It's a detention and a retention facility that sat satisfies the requirements from uh in the bulbert drainage criteria manual and the TCAQ contributing zone plan requirements outlined within RG348. So the image you see here at the bottom that's just the terrain the proposed grading of the retention and retention facility. Uh it's going to be uh acting first uh for that retention for the water quality. Uh this is a very large feature. Um there's a lot of water draining to this. Uh there's going to be a retention of up to 15 acre feet. So that's about seven and a half uh Olympic size swimming pools. So this is very large facility. Uh it's going to be treating not only the uh total suspend solids carried in the uh the water from this property but from 32 acres from Bulver Hills. Uh and there is going to be up to 60 acre feet of water total being detained uh in this facility. So 15 retains. So that just means before before 15 acres of water acre feet of water is going to need to be filled up before being released through the detention facility. Um so we looked at the model all the way down to Johnson Way and with that conceptual plan it reduces the flows just a little bit about three and a half% during the 100redyear storm. Um, and all of this is going to need to be reviewed by uh the city of Bvery during the tier 2 submitt uh during the plotting phase. So all of this typically isn't done at this stage. It's done and

signed and sealed by an engineer. It's reviewed by the city and typically their consultant and that's going to happen in in order for this to be constructed. So this is just a conceptual plan say hey we went down to the nitty gradient all the way down this is Johnson way this is the 100red-year uh flood plane that's existing there we are not making this any worse there's issues there currently uh we're this project uh is going to be designed to be uh less than existing conditions and another thing I'd like to add there's about there's five covers, box covers at Johnson Way currently. Uh, one of them is is almost completely full of debris and that's all coming from drainage from Bulbertie Hills and the McCarti tribe. Uh, so whenever we have a big detention retention facility, that's not going to get clogged up as much because it's going to be uh contained and retained in the facility that's going to be constructed on this property. So um that that uh current pulver facility is 20% blocked. There's five culverts, one's fully blocked. Uh that's not going to happen in the future. It's going to reduce maintenance on those pulvers. uh just as a concept saying hey we looked at this very detailed uh we looked at all the drains from uh Johnson Bay from Bvery Hills and McCarti tract before uh development of this site and after development of of this site you can see the darker blue on that post development that is the uh detention retention facility just saying hey we we did really look at this thing we looked at three separate areas for downstream impact just downstream of the site just downstream of 281 and Johnson Way to

identify what the difference flow would be if this facility was built and we had reductions all the way through and see here as for the water quality again uh this is required to be reviewed by TCQ they're not only going to review our models and analysis but they're going to be reviewing the construction plans uh to make make sure it's buildable and it complies with their requirements and that is required to be reviewed uh and approved before the approval of the flat. Um so that bottom right picture is very it's just conceptual of the idea is it's going to be retained until the water is released at a higher elevation through some sort of box cover. uh the CCP requirements uh we ran the numbers and this uh facility is going to be uh designed to remove about 130,000 uh pounds of holes suspended sediment load and uh again this accounts for offsite drainage as well.

Can I ask you a question just for my own clarification here? I I I'm having trouble uh estimating the scale size of that detention pond. I mean, how many acre feet is that? How many? You can give me a 100 by 100 dimensions or those lots are acre, right? So So what would be the total size of that? Four and a half. About four to five acres. Okay. All right. That's probably what four foot four deep five. Well, it's going to be deeper than that. Yeah. Depends on how much water's in it. Yeah. Well, I mean, he's got to provide two feet of fruit water via the code. I mean, he's got a bunch of stuff he's got. Yeah.

So, does this take into account what y'all were talking about pumping back up into the neighborhood? So, uh yes. So that 15 acre feet uh that's going to be stored via retention.

There could be a separate pump that uh is part of that facility that draws the water. Most likely I think the best idea for that is just to be irrigation for the park facility. I mean you got you know four or five acre park um you want to irrigate that would be the water source. And what size um rainwater storage tanks at each house are y'all talking about? That will be a question for um Samir

and that's not in this estimate right here.

No, that's that's a separate uh we honestly have not made uh that determination. Uh we're still dealing with a lot of stuff here. I would not go down to 1,00 foot level. We're still at 5 10,000 foot level. Uh I mean normally would be 30,000 foot level. But uh I I wanted to to also answer your question about the utilization drawing back from the retention point. So, uh, although Alan is suggesting that we would, uh, irrigate the park, we want to go an extra mile on that, we want actually to see there's a lot of lots close by and, uh, we're just analyzing. We are committing to irrigating some lots and hopefully a lot of them. Uh how many is going to honestly depend on but the too is helpful over there because you know we don't have to put massive bunks to be able to get to these lots lots. So definitely we'll get to those uh the park will definitely get to that. So uh it'll honestly be just a matter of cost of these pumps as to how how high up we can go. Now you're going against gravity, which is really what TWWC is trying to do. Blowing up a little bit of a water. Uh, you know, so uh I hope that makes sense. Does it answer your question? We I I think we are and again please remember uh a lot of stuff is not to final construction planning stage. It's conceptual people are conceptual as things change. So I would like to make sure that nobody thinks that you know this is it again we everything changes during construction process a lot of small things do we

still have to comply with the code we still have to comply with whatever we agree to here but you know is it four acres is it five acres is it three and a half is it four and a half basically has something to Can you describe park land to me? Parkland. Park. Describe it to me. What does it look like? I mean, like, is it do you mow it? Is it live wild? Is it It's dedicated to the city. No, it's just Yeah, they have to just dedicate an area. We could make a park if we want. Oh, they could. Um, are these private streets or public streets? Private private street.

Yeah, we wouldn't accept a park inside a gated community because it has to be available to the whole. So you'd have to dedicate the park and then turn it over to the HOA in that case. Well, we're not gonna be private without No, I don't think you can. I've never seen private streets that weren't gated. But I No one's ever asked me that question, so I don't have the answer to that.

We can't but private streets you can restrict. Even if they're not gated, you can say, "Hey, you don't live here. Get out." Yeah. Uh and so an HOA down the road can say we don't like all these non neighborhood people in our park get out or you can't drive to the park. So that's why we wouldn't accept it in that circumstance. Uh it'd have to have a public access public right of access before the city could accept it as public and we can do that because we usually I mean you might can move the access point further in. Yeah. And public up to it or something. I'm just saying I wanted to make that

I have a clarify question to the city. So that his application has been amended with all these new asks. That's right. Correct. Okay. Revised. Revised. Yeah. And I had a question about the initial zoning. Uh he he referred to an initial zoning by RI building cafe lots. Is that the case on this slot? I think the 2017 approval is null and void. Well, the the 2017 MDP is void, but the zoning on this track, it's still divided between the R2 on the back, thousand ft and the R three on the rest. So, that's the existing zoning today.

Okay. Um, do you have any more in your presentation or you're ready for questions? I am ready for questions. Yes. I would like to kind of go down in order like we did last time if you guys are okay with that. Um so let's start with the lot dimensions. I'm gonna using his chart. Can I ask one question before you start?

I wanted to ask one question but we haven't asked this question. We didn't ask the last time. So what is the total dollar amount of this subdivision? When you went to the bank and you go to to finance it when you sit around with your with the developers what do you say? You say this is a $300 million project. You said it's a $200 million project, $500 million project. Can you picture in all the houses, which are going to be nice houses, I know. And then the business development and so forth. What what dollar amount would you think this is pushing into the community? Well, you're talking in terms of like sales, in terms of final uh product built, sold.

Yeah. Well, it's a simple answer because we're expecting about 233 lots who are projecting million dollar lot $133 million. So, okay. And that that should bring quite a bit of revenue to the city. And then then and then there is there isn't there some business areas set aside for business development too? Is it all that? They're not going to touch that. That's different. Okay. All right. So yeah, that's what I'm that's what I'm taxable taxes, but but I'm just saying. So we're we're talking about a $230 million plus project. Okay. So that's that's why I was saying you just assume that every house is a million bucks.

Well, and then whenever they get finished developing whatever else gets developed on the outside that Okay. And that's really good for the IST also. And I know I know I put my I'm just saying half to the city city taxes include taxes ESD taxes all I'm just saying and that's at today's correct. So you just say 2% at 200 million. No, but I'm just saying $230 million project today. By the time it gets to provision and and final stages, it may be more than that. But okay.

So thank you. Thank thank you. Uh because econ typically we save clear I mean I mentioned it very quickly but a lot of these projects are measured by their also their economical value to the city. I mean all cities are struggling with budgets these days and to have what we believe is attractive clean large lot project that would bring in a lot of revenue to the city and have people generally with money uh coming in people who can buy million-dollar homes. And many of these people uh may have older kids because you know as as we look at the demographics of money generally it's pushed up the age. So you're going to get the ISD getting a lot of money without a lot of usage. Uh you know the ESD will be getting more money the city's getting more money uh in a in a private in a private uh setting where the city does not have to maintain roads. Uh so so I hope but thank you for being really appreciate that question.

Um Sandra, can we go to this slide? 1973. It's 197. It's 23. That's what I just got. 197. Okay. Um, lot dimensions. Any questions regarding lotions? Yeah. So, you can you can maintain 110 ft on every lot in the front except with cold sack lots and you just need an aspect ratio. It's all you need. Maintain all the other easement setbacks, all that stuff. We've proved it.

Okay. I I didn't go through every lot, measure it up. I can't tell you. tell you all the stuff that we know and try to do this and try to take into consideration the cut the cut fill and the trees and all of that because we have visibility into the trees we don't want to be people people don't I'm sorry some people don't get it trees are a selling point

they're a selling point any developer going in and cutting more trees than they need to they're idiots trust me the way I see it every tree is a selling point. If you have a tree in front of your house, it's a selling point. I love trees. I would buy a house with trees on it. I don't want a house in area like this that doesn't have trees. To us, we are more incented to keep the trees than the city is. It's so important for everybody to understand that we we do not want to create a product that doesn't sell. And by the way, we want to create product that will touch more because it's got features like trees. Any other lotion questions?

I think we're good. Okay, let's move on to the street. Um, I was trying to follow a little during the the presentation. Can you clarify because I thought you were saying to you're asking for more than what we currently require, but then I think this chart is saying something different. So, I'm a little confused. Yeah, fair enough. Okay, it's the definitions. Uh, let let me just go. He's basically really what he's saying is he's going to give us a bigger street than what's required by code and because he needs to maintain a oneacre lot. He's gonna push

he's going to push the drainage into the lot, which we normally wouldn't want. He's like, if I do that, then I can't maintain one that which I which I totally I'm on board with. Okay. Yeah, I understand why it needs the oneacre lot. So, and and I know that the street is going to extend into that encroach is his word encroach into that. So, the the thing that I would be concerned if I was a buyer buyer beware is why do we have drainage area in my in my lot, you know, but that's for him to decide.

It's just it's just the same way you'd have an electrical easement or water. It is the same way and you know in most subdivisions there is I bought houses with a easement in the back utility ements you know so you say okay you're buying a 10 acre lot but that last 50t back there is a is easy so I mean there's no problem with that I just want to make sure that that street is wide enough as we brought up before that James and I were talking about this you park fire truck in the middle of the street putting out a fire can the ambulance get around it or the sheriff's department get around it to go down the street and you know service something else. You happy? Yeah. What do you think, James? We happy with that.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's it's definitely for first responders is better. Yeah, it's much better. Yeah. Okay. I can I can do that. I can see that. I'm not not so sure about the cold sack thing because you got to turn something around in that cold sack, but we'll talk about Oh, no. We have No, no, no. They call the sack has a different uh uh they call the sacks the dimensions we we're compliant with the dimensions. No I no I'm saying I'm saying this is not saying it's called yeah I understand that okay yes I'm I'm I'm satisfied with that.

Did that answer your question? Yes, but I want to make sure that because I'm looking at this chart, right, that's saying that the modified RO is 40 feet, right? Which is I but technically it's still 60. But I just want to make sure that then we're capturing this 10 foot easement somehow in this application. Yeah, we are. We get the definition. And so we're gonna have to state like this is going to be a the motion from you know that's why I'm wondering if it's showing already do we does it have to be within if the language is already there the language is here if you look at this particular chart which is part of the exhibit

no exhibit we have to prove what's application the actual application this exhibit exhibit this exhibit I don't know that that's how that would read would Danny, what are we talking about? So that baranning motion pages. Oh, no.

There's an application amended. Uh, it's been amended. These three pages are um that's all it is. Well, so for instance, what Ash is talking about says reduce minimum 60 foot rideway with to 40 foot uh rideway, right? But then there's nowhere in there that it says there'll be a dedicated template ement on either side of that. We need to clarify that as part of the motion which is what I'm like so right and I see developers do me if I correct me if I'm wrong, but they'll see it put together and they'll they'll do what he did right signature thing like that doesn't matter. It's this motion. These three pages are what we're motion right.

May I may I disagree and I will I will invite them to my screen. Uh our application is not pages. Our application contains exhibits that are referred to in these three pages. Those exhibits part and parcel of the application and it is a force to the audience. that is guaranteed that's the case and then so what he's saying is that or what the commissioner is saying is that um this uh exhibit is in the application but it's not stated as clearly as they would like in black and white u in the application that in words a narrative of what that's going to be. So in order to ensure that there is not confusion later,

they want to make sure that they mention tonight when they make the motion the high points we want the application or if that's the right um recommended approval of the of the application as amended provided that the uh you know we recommend that the ordinance contain these asurances that the right of way with the 40 ft but also accompanied by the 10 foot 10 footments for drainage on each side of the rideway. And we probably need to make lists, but that's what happens when something's this complex. Yeah.

Uh yes. Because when the code enforcement officer comes out, you know this, when a code enforcement comes out, there's going to be an argument between, you know, whoever your field representative is, code enforcement officer, and he's going to say, "Hey, when I measure this, it's only this." And you're going to, your guys going to say, "Well, now when I measure this, this is this." And they're going to have to turn back and look at the black and white and probably come back to city hall and research it because it's going to be read two different ways. So, we're trying to make it as clear as possible when we do this so that you know everybody's on the same on the same page.

And there will be parts of the application that are very clear and there will be parts of the commission may feel are not clear, but this is the time to state those clarifications in the motion. Yeah. And because then you're going to have to take it to the city council and they're going to have to look at it and they're going to have they're going to ask what we're saying too, how we understand this, how you explained it. And so to so doing two extra minutes worth of work here is going to save everybody hours down the road. That's why we're trying to be so specific. We are pain in the ass, but we're trying to be specific.

No, no, it's not it's not it's not that. I mean, you're asking for something that's legit. And I was just trying to bring your attention that this exhibit is part of the uh the application does show easement on the side is well defined as a stand, right? But what I'm trying to say at the end of the day, the way the ordinance reads is what you're going to not what's inact.

Can you talk us through the uh so in regards to streets, the now that asks for the modification of the minimum center line radius and the center line alignment curves. So again, I'm just an engineering thing. Honestly, I honestly don't understand it either. I don't I don't know how to answer just being honest. It came from from these guys actually came from Poss on the right. So maybe the city engineer can potentially decide if this is reasonable or not. Uh maybe this is something to be part of theation. Right.

Just clarify what what you're asking. She's asking about the she wants to know about this the center line radius for um rural local streets for minimums and line radius and then center line alignment between tangential curves. So they're asking modification for both of those things is to basically cut them in half of what our code states. Right. So it it just again I haven't done transportation engineering a hot minute. Um local minimum center line radius is just the curve of the road. How steeply you can curve the road,

right? And then center line alignment is um between both curves that you put together on the tangents of that. And so it's basically saying correct. And so I I think these are the same ones that you asked for last time. These ones did not change. Correct. That's right. The one that really changes the RO in terms of doing the drainage on the side

and and just to clarify also what I am is the IFC right and the international fire code has very strict limits on those subjects right so we are compliant with the international fire code on that so basically doesn't matter how we're compliant and that's important somes times uh for aesthetics uh some of these I mean honestly I don't know how how this came but it seemed like for engineers was exactly you guys think about this

uh this review doesn't happen at this stage it's a planning review when you actually get geometry and look at each individual road because if it's on the side of a hill if it's you know there's all kinds of factors that that would go into the engineering analysis whether this would justify or not and we don't have the u we don't have the documentation or the resources to make it we need street designs which are not done at this stage of development

and uh money which is not part of this application fee it's part of the planning application fee to determine to have our pay pay our third party engineers to make determination um that I don't think you've got anybody here ready to explain Why y'all are asking for that? Yep. I'm assuming it's just layout. And it is asking me that is not

I wish honestly I invited Brooklyn. She's she's our engineer from from Dawson. But they have a corporate event tonight and it's been permitted for a long time. So I I I mean this is something that we would normally I'm sorry I may interrupt you. This is something we normally consider on a case by case basis at the planning basis

and then come in and say we need this on this section of the road here versus a car launch across the whole thing. So I really can't give them feedback on it. It is something that allows us to put the one acre lots in, right? And and as long as it is compliant with the IFC requirements, generally municipalities don't have an issue with it. The IFC requirements, the IFC standards are the most strict standards. They're the ones usually obvious to those two this one. No, this one's probably

Yeah, it's just that has to be asked for based on I don't think so. Can we just say that we're not making a recommendation on the centerline radius or the reverse curve? You should make a recommendation one way or the other. Uh, I mean you could say we recommend against it and give them an opportunity to bring more justification for it. We could just say it doesn't it doesn't we could strike it essentially, right? Yeah. Come back when you're actually there and

we could just say under street geometry requirements. We could even say just you know reduce minimum right away as depicted on exhibit E2, right? Exactly. Because he doesn't say anything about how wide the road's got to be. Yeah. In that, right? And if he's saying he'll do 28, that's great. I want him to do 28, right? Not through it that way, then they can go back to 20. Well, that's that's a good that's a good solution. It's a great solution. if you want to say, you know, refer back to site plan and say, you know what,

I think I'm just trying to capture, you know, what we were talking about earlier because, you know, there's a lot of nuances to narrowing the right away and I want to make sure that we're all clear on what that is. Um, so yeah, um maybe it was a condition that we will not go below the rightway uh as depicted on on We'll figure out soon as we get there.

So, right away as it is now, I think you provided a an explanation that is clear, right? And we can make sure it's even more clear within the the motion. It's the other two things that we don't have an exhibit on. We don't have and again, I'm I'm not a big stickler of needing to know that information now. It's more because I understand it's going to come later. It's more of I wish the ask would also come later when the information typically is being presented to us. Yes. Um we're hereations of it and you don't know the ramifications of it.

And I'm sure she laid that out, you know. Hey, we're going to need that if the cycle goes exactly how it is. Yeah. Um okay, let's go on to the culax is the next section. So, it's the culde-sac minimum right away and the culde-sac minimum frontage. Any particular questions about those at all? Um, I'm assuming that we're going to need to add a 10 foot drainage easement around that. It's part of the It's outside the rideway, right? or is it property that drainage going all

right basically he's take the 20 ft he's taking out is what would be the dra he's not decreasing the pavement size of yet but again we just need to state that because if not it can be interpreted as yeah it's the same language yeah same language just just saying 100 feet instead okay uh steep slopes Um [Music]

so I'll mention um the way this is manifested on a smaller scale uh in the past. So for instance I believe ranch has an exemption for driveways within a similar zone but that's it. It's not hard blunch. 50 feet across the whole development is now no longer uh constrained by steep slopes or trees or any, you know, it says you can put in driveways uh and the footprint of the driveway is exempt from the tree ordinance, but the driveway can't be more than 10 or 12 feet wide. And that's and so they have a zone of eligibility, but it's limited to certain improvements only. uh

with them and and so that makes it makes sense. Makes sense. If if the concern is how do we get from the road to the house uh on on steep uh is Yeah. Yeah. So, so basically there's the gut fil and there's the trees, right? Uh and that's all makes sense, right? So, uh, we just need to be able to get the minimum, be able to, you know, cut in that in that particular, uh, topography and to be able to access the lots obviously. So, with a driveway and to be able to build the house and maybe have a little backyard.

So, my question is going to be around, do you need to cut and fill in the 50t between the rideway pad in order to make the road work properly? There there's a certain element to that. Yes. Because that's that's the fear. That's the 50T. That's the 50t that we were requesting. That's your request. So second question, you're going to put every house 80 feet from the street. No. Right. Okay. So no. So no is the answer, which is what I thought it would be. Yeah. So Danny's solution is a cleaner solution honestly than than what we have.

Yeah. say put the driveways. We give you give you an exception for the grading, you know, that 53 whatever on the on the hour and then we'll give you the exception for the grading for the uh and and the trees for uh the driveway and for the pad and maybe give us 30 feet in the back uh just to be able to do uh 35 ft to do. Right. That's basically all. See how it keeps expanding? Yeah. [Music]

These are very long lots. Like these lots are like 400 ft long. The majority of them like there's zero issue. That's why when when we're saying look we're going to claim first 80 feet or 100 feet still have 300 feet in the back. And are you still planning to scrape the first eight? That's what is. So that's what Brad is saying is that you know to be able to grade for the RW it's not just grading the R you need to grade and cut around it be able to just make it especially in street slopes. Uh so that's why the 50 and 50

so we can maintain that just add to the language. Oh I was talking about inside. Yeah. um not passive. He's he's simply saying the closest it could be because it's 50 foot7 closest your house could be is 50 feet from the street, right? So he's essentially saying, "Hey, you know, right, if I have to come in and cut this road and by doing that, I fill I can fill I can make the road 20 ft out of the ground if I want. That'd be really dumb because it cost a lot of money." But right now, you have a 20 foot drop off between the road and your propert. What he's saying is he needs room. He's saying that 50 feet would be enough room to reshape that in order to not make your driveway have to drop 20 feet directly outside and also put the ditches,

right? And and to be able to to cut bar ditches and things like that. So I think the question from us is is 50 feet too much? Is that the right amount? What is the right amount to give him in order to do that? But I recommend that again you can limit it to say only for driveways only for road construction because right now the way it's worded it's a 50 foot zone and if in that particular area they didn't have to do anything they could still come in and scrape it right um because there's no limitations on it. If they're saying that they need that 50 ft for road construction

for road construction and they don't actually know all of what they need whether they need all of it in every lot for road construction. That's just the maximum extent. I mean, set like some kind of serrated thing, you know, that goes through there that um those are the only two things you're allowed to do that on. Not just because it's not just a zone. We don't basically you don't want them going, I'm gonna put the finished elevation 10 feet below the road and just strip it all the way down 10 feet straight all the way. Right. And I'm not saying he's going to do that, but the way that it is currently worded, you could do that. So to Danny's point, that's what I'm trying to figure out is like what kind of restriction do you put around that? I think for road construction, driveway construction would be.

So, do you all remember the uh variance that came through for Walmart last cycle where they had come in and got the variance for um just the road footprints that went outside the right way. We would have a similar document like that, but it would be a staff approval instead of be already authorized here. And then yeah, so I think it's either that or we have to just we can say hey you can do that restrict you on how much you can actually cut you know or something like there's got to be some restriction. I don't

Oh yeah. So the language would basically change. Instead of allowed within 50 feet on either side of the ro, it would change to just allowed within still say allowed within 50 feet either side of the right way, but for only for road construction or driveway construction with a driveway being a maximum of 12 and that um I would consider that road we can call it out. Let's call it ditches are required for road construction. So they're part of of the road construction. I'm not just painting the paint.

But yeah, you can clarify. quickly and clarify that because because it's uh you know now right now the is only 40 right but fact technically it's actually so if we're just limiting to 40 ft we're going to fall into problem so and can we also can we also talk about the footprint and include that in it and maybe maybe give us some leeway around it to be able to do How would you know within the lot?

How do you know where the pad's going to be? Well, we don't. What we're saying is if we have the driveway, driveway has to get to the pad, right? So, wherever the pad is, we just want language that allows us to be able to uh because we currently have the cut fill. There's no max on that, but you just But there's no language on the trees that you're able to take the trees out. So would you say that's the case? Right. Right. You have to go through the standard tree mitigation process to remove tree per driveway the way it's written at the moment. Yeah. Right. So what we're asking for and same for the for the building, right? Yes.

Well, the building footprint itself is exempt by right. Yeah. I write us already language. Okay. So, so if we can get is it fair to ask for maybe just the perimeter around just be able to let's take let's take one step back. Yeah. Are you planning on selling these as finished lots or are you planning on selling them to developers and build houses? Honestly, at this point in time, we don't even know if you have our so we don't know where we're going to end up because right just finished. We typically we typically have done both. We have done is finished lots and the homeowner has to come and then and I'd rather let that process play the normal way it plays.

Yeah. Honestly, we don't like to be would prefer to potentially get homeish builders and to just maybe segment it. So 20 finished lots to build. Yeah. So very similar. Yeah. So, so we will need we'll need like you know assume that we are know getting Dan it's still all captured as part of the building per process for a new home isn't it? Uh what's all captured uh drive where the driveway is going tree mitigation things like that tree survey cut um yeah yeah that would all be part of um that individual permit that individual permit so if somebody needed to cut you've seen cut bill varian yeah

yeah I I think we got to leave it at that process oh you're going to have 233 of them

I was curious I'm curious why you would want to go ahead and do the building footprint. Is that not an extra expense? No, he's simply saying that he wants the homeowner by the right you would give them to do to build a home plus some perimeter around the home and not have to come ask us. That's not the application. That's a new thing tonight because right now he's allowed the footprint 10 ft by by the regular thing. So what he's talking about here, I just want to make sure everyone's clear is is another zone

uh that's not in the application. I don't know what the number is, you know, 20 30 40 50 feet around the house to allow for other things and it would be an expansion of the exam. So you can either you can either snake your driveway to miss a bunch of trees or you come after a variance to go straight to your house. I think we all this is this is a way of saying clear cutting without saying clear cutting. I think we are in about to go into the tree. I just want I don't like the maximum limit. I mean, are we just passing over that like sorry, what do you mean

cuts and bills? There's no maximum limit, but the language is going to say um only in regard to road construction and he's not, trust me, he's not gonna go if we limit him to that. So, there's no way he's gonna go just like just despite us take out 20 foot extra on top right away. No, because his plan is to have 50 feet on either side, but code is just allowed within right. Correct. So, we're going to stick with code.

No, what what what they're talking about is there's a 50 foot um zone on each side of the road. Inside that zone, we're going to pre-authorize unlimited cuts and bills for road construction, bonafide road construction, which is something city staff's going to have to sign off on, and driveways that are no more than 12 feet wide. They're basically those are pre-authorized items within that 50 ft, but only those items. So if the road in one section because of the topography goes 45 feet into a lot then that area is going to be exempt from any cuts or builds restrictions. In another lot it only goes 15 feet. They can go to 15 feet and then they can't do anything else past that inside the 50 foot zone or anywhere really.

City is going to be able to regulate that and say you don't need to cut 45 feet to make that road work. Wouldn't this part normally be from the home homeowner? No, because these are the streets. Normally they nor most developers contain all of these improvements within the rightway and they just make the rightway as big as it needs to be to contain whatever the improvement is. In this case, they don't have that their content is that the they don't have enough land to contain all of the road improvements in the rideway and still have one acre lot. So they're seeking to incorporate a lot of those improvements that traditionally would be in a rightway in an ement so that it's technically still part of the lot technically still want

that. Okay. Um let's go on to trees everybody. Um, yeah. So, let me go back to your presentation. So, you're not you're not asking for a cap on Lou. Um, all he wants I think all you really want is he want he wants to be able to take out of just a tree without asking for if it's in that zone. If it's in that zone. Yeah, that's it. It's real simple. It's an over. There's no way.

That's the one. Yeah. So, all we're asking for is that we're able to clear where we're grading because you can't grade without clearing. So, so that's and if if we have a majestic tree in there, which honestly I don't believe I don't believe we do that, there may be one right at the fringe that we're going to try to protect because for us majestic tree should be protected. It brings more value to that lot because we have this big beautiful tree and that lot be worth more money. Trust me. So uh so what we're asking for is just within those minutes just talk about to be able to hear

I don't want to give the waiver I don't want to give you I don't want to give I I'm not gonna say you because I'm not you know I'm not I'm not picking on you okay but I I don't want to allow the waiver of majestic trees I mean that's that's what we sit here too 90% of times argue about no we don't want to let cut down all the trees the 36 inch tree needs to be protected. Yeah. And again, the process for that is to come here and the council to even be allowed to take it down, right? And that's not true. And that is for even for areas.

But how do I know? We're not there yet. You told us you looked at 4,700 trees and you have GPS on 700. How do we know that there's only 700 that are

767 trees? We have we have a we have commission a certified arborist uh that basically stamped all that stuff and we have a count of trees that are invasive versus trees that are noninvasive and we have some willow trees that we found and each tree with its caliber with its species and its GPS location was produced by them. We don't know anything just This is you get what you pay for that we paid a lot of money.

I I hope to God we we're getting paid for because I can tell you it cost us an hour. So the next item is 4 in Michelle 6 in versus a lot of replace inches but allowing to go down. No, you would say no. I would say no. I just heard they're harder to get. They don't grow as fast before that is harder to experience. I'm happy to share our experience and I I trade off. Well, and before we

Sorry, go ahead. Um, so if you're not going to be just scraping the whole lot or in to put a house on and the person that purchases is going to come here and ask for whichever trees are going to be in their underneath their house and tend they get what's underneath their house, right? They get that. But sorry. Um, I'm talking about the 6 inch versus 4 in. Yeah. Right. So then you're saying you're going to add orange trees. Why would you even need to add trees? I guess well that's a good we don't we don't need to add trees.

We would like to add because where we're bringing we would like to add so we can do one tree that is 6 inch and they don't survive very easily. We can do two trees that are 4 inch. Now, we are we we believe that when we came in and presented that we would do two trees for each lot and we would replace basically about 1,800 inches of trees by doing that. I guess I just don't want it to look like so Danny real quick though in the road right away he can take out as many trees as he wants by right exception or he has to replace

not within the tree not not within the road right away no roads and um but he's grading outside the rightway no that won't be exempt again because everything in ordinance is tied to rightway so if we're shrinking the footprint of the rideway we're now bringing more trees into mitigation than would have been otherwise. So this this is just a a motion to say if he does have to do at least that's how I see he does have to do tree mitigation code says six is the minimum. It says 50% of the replacement trees have to be six inches 50% can be 4 in. Right. So he's asking for all of them to be 4 in. Yeah. But then he's still replacing the same amount of caliber.

He's also 4 inch trees on the side too which sometimes people miss. So if he's got a bunch of science trees that aren't protected like live oaks, he can just elect to keep those and count them towards his all. Well, and it's an option, but um I just wanted to I just want to make sure that that's what we're talking about here, right? Is if he has to mitigate, we're allowing him to do 4 in trees instead of six on the 50%. The way this is written, yes. Okay. So I'm asking you is that do you think that's okay from a tree perspective is a 4ish tree versus tree? But but I think

I think y'all should limit it again the same way you did cut and fill road construction driveways in that 50 foot buffer is what we're talking about right? Um no we're talking about size of the tree. Oh did we move past the uh I guess I'm up on tree one. We're down. Never mind. Yes. Sorry. Well, I guess it would be okay because also it depends on the time of the year that they're planted. Yeah. I mean, right 12 caliber two six inch trees or three four inch trees. Same thing. Yeah. Right. You're still going to have to do 12 inches of replacement. Oh, yes. Yeah. I think it's just saying like because I mean I've heard that the smaller trees

are can root better, right? Like they try to transplant a more mature tree. So, okay. I guess I guess I'm that one. Um tree survey. Yeah, tree survey. I think he needs tree survey. I mean, you did all the work. I get it. I know. Is there a way just to take that data? I was saying just a survey and have them put it on the survey so it's automatic. Oh. Oh, we can do that. I said, "No, we have to certify." So, we have engineers that can just take that stuff and put it in. We I think we want That's what you would like to see. We want to see a normal tree. Two differences here

uh that that I see are changing the professional from a registered land surveyor to a certified arborist and then uh archery surveys also require the drip line to be depicted and this is not this is just a list of the trees of the trees right so if you put it on a map to make this inventory a tree survey you'd have to put it on a map and show the drip lines right and then which the arborist could do would each individual lot owner then have to perform tree survey or no no this tree survey is basically covers the whole development because they have to do the whole development correct do what he's asking because he's only providing the right way.

So typically what'll happen is the developer will come in do a tree survey for the whole development and then they will only do a tree mitigation plan for the portions of the property they are actually touching. So for drainage uh utilities uh streets whatever and you usually don't get a huge mitigation number there. And then when they say they sell a block of 20 lots to a developer, a builder, that guy's going to come in and do a mitigation for his 20 blocks, his 20 lots. And that's where you're going to see more usually um of that tree mitigation start to kick in. Uh because we're in an area that's not exempt,

the developer usually most of his stuff is in an exempt uh rights of way or or some other utility related thing that's justified. But um anyway, so that's how it'll be staggered. We'll get a tree expire 12 months. Um right, the tree survey does not expire. Uh the the environmental assessment expires. So 12. We've done this on other subs where he said no just just only do a tree survey where you disturb which in his case would be 40 plus the 50 and then leave the tree survey later to

you can that's so that's not the code but we have approved developments in the past where the tree survey was only conducted where dirt was turning and if that was all up front then it was all up front. It was just for the roads now and then the builder did it on his block of lots. They did a dem that hasn't been proven before. Did you go do every tree on the property or did you do it just where you were doing? So you've already done it pretty much. You just need to get a surveyor to do it and put it on a plant. But so so u so yeah we've done we've done pretty much the whole right. Uh we have every single tree over 6 in 6 in.

So of the 4,700 you only have 767 not invasive. So we have okay so we have uh here I mean this is the survey and every single one of these trees has a GPS location. We looked at four 4,792 trees. 767 were actually native, not invasive, fell into the category of right. So about 85% of this property are invasive. And what are you considering invasive?

And that's not a distinction we make in our code. We have a specific list of it's also and and that specific list 85% of the trees belong in that specific list. It's it's basically ash juniper that is that is juniper and yeah so so that is basically not governed by the code there's no hacker but I think that's there's no hacker mostly hacked China berries might be trash trees that were I could be I know China berries on there

yeah so we so we found we found some widows. We have live oak, red oak, bur oak, uh but and ash juniper. There aren't many species on that probably. It's interesting, but uh but we do have we currently have five majestic trees that are live one and this will uh we have we call heritage specimen trees. Sorry about that. uh we're about 45 of them that are alive out of the whole the whole place. We have 712 that are between six and 28 right in. So that is the uh yeah that that's

so let's go back. We are we we are all in favor of having the survey done having Yes. Okay. But the survey but is the survey are you okay with since we've done this we have it by certify are you okay with us just doing a survey for those areas so I think that's the question do we want to limit a tree survey to just where he's turning dirt which would be 40t plus the 50 on either side

but it's gonna have follow the code or it's going to be what he's already done. No, no, it's full full code just what you need a full tree actual tree not so so it's an actual survey but where you could potentially disturb and does that mean you're going to go in and take down every juniper because I know that on my property is like we have trees sell Yeah, that's what I'm even ask

um the repair buffer encroachment. Um so I believe the are allowed but limited to approximately 45 encroaching lots as shown. So does the language in your application state that those are going to be easements or those are encroaching like you said it doesn't shame on us but that's the intent. Yes. So, so we will it says approximately 50 to 55 instances of encroachment of wants within their appearing buffer as depicted on D1 is what support says.

So, so basically yes, I mean the in the applicant is proposing to contain encroachments within drainage ements. So Danny question driveways buffer. I know we have standards for roads but do we have standards for driveways through buffers? No, you'd need a variance for a driveway through Red. Okay. So, but but these are on the back of Well, I don't know. There's like six or seven where you have to drive through the Red. Yeah. Well, actually, okay. We're mitigating. So, basically, we're putting culprits crazy. Um

that's that's where and you I will show you that's and and if that is the language, then that's what we would put in there. Yeah. Do we have a I'm sorry. Do we have a provision for that? No, we we talk about roads um and uh other utility type stuff. Driveways are not crawled out as a as a standard allowable encroachment in the right period riparian bumper. So that's something that would need to be also. So the question is why is a road allowed but not the driveway? One would think it's the other way around

because the driveway is only used by actual people. because we don't allow lots to be plotted within the rip period numbers. This wouldn't be because we don't allow lots within riper period numbers. Yeah. Fair. Uh yeah, I think I think at a high level, right, you got to be able to get around the subdivision, which means you're going to be traversing your own period buffers, but we typically don't allow within lots, so there's no provision for it. And so I feel like there's you need to put some thought into that. So because um what a standard would be for a road culvert. I think a homeowner might think different.

So we could just say constructed to road standard like well we're the road is still going to have to be covered because even when you cross it with a road you still have to protect the actual road the flow the flow. You can't just create a dam or or reduce the um runoff. The Yeah, you can't obstruct the flow, right? You can't obstruct the flow, right? So, and I don't think style driveways would be very undesirable. Yeah. Because if it flows, it can't get out. So, um I think the cover is almost going to be

I just want to make sure that the standard is set of what that cover needs to look like. I mean, we don't just say that the driveway has to be constructed to roadway the rightway road. Uh I just limited to the drainage portion of that. Correct. Yeah. Does that make sense? But couldn't you just easily say there and just put your lot in from the side and that's actually two lots instead of six.

You could do four flag lots and then two lots. Do we allow flag lots on R2? Uh flag lots have the net can't be any longer than 500 feet and the uh distance 30. So, as long as it's in those parameters, and they have to be redesigned, obviously, and they're going to be very different than what they look like now. Yeah, it's it's easier to stick to what we've got in place here than making some special provision to allow them to travel through this area because you and I both know.

So, at the end of the day, he's not asking for that. And so I'm what I'm trying to get to the heart of is if we say yes, you're allowed to encroach on these lots with riparian buffers and they're going to be put in a drainage. Can you build a driveway through the riparian buffer or not under the code? No. No. Okay. So, he's gonna have to do a variance for those six lots, right? At some other time. If it's not provided for in the PD yet. Great. No, no, that that that would not be fair to us as we were planning. Uh but we can't just leave these laws with a question mark, right? What we're hoping for is

we're hoping for you guys you had a good idea saying you know what build it to standard if you just hear and that's it and we will do that if you give us that at least you know from budgeting perspective. Yeah, that's I mean that is expanding outside the scope of this that you currently have in your your application. It's something that you it's something that you guys brought up. You have the you have the discretion just add that something it's it's a mitigation.

I mean you are going to find things as you go through this that don't make sense and or something else better. Yes, you can make a recommendation contrary to what they've applied for or in addition to what they ask. He's not asking for it, but the problem is that he's gonna need it. Yeah. Well, he has a lot.

If we if we don't add that extra one, then maybe there's an opportunity for them to think about this section a little bit differently and we'll see it differently when we see the MDP and during the flatting process. Most likely that the context that this would take place in is if you were of a bind to allow the riparian buffers to be contained in easements, you would also have provision that would say any riparian buffer contained in also be transgressed by a driveway as long as it has the road road standard construction related to that and that would be super that would work since that mean I mean yeah okay because he's adding more

sure I If if I'm in a lone minority there, then I guess that's where I am. So, no, you're fine. This is why we're doing this. So, okay. Next one. All right. Dedicated parkland. So, that we saw. Yes. That is the we either allow him to give us more dedicated parkland after he relocates the riperian buffers into the drainage facilities. Well, but that's part of part of our plan is changing the water. Well, let's talk about that for a second. Should we bring up that shows the park on some level? A procedural question. Um, do you need to ask a question before I start?

No, go for it. All right. So, whoops, we were there for a second. Yeah, I was looking for the the visual. There we go. So, you're saying that this waterway is going to be changed to a different route once your drainage is in? Well, it's going it's going from here into the spawn, right? But it still leaves the down this way from here, right? But it ties right back into the area of Are you saying you're going to get rid of this and it's going to flow back out this way? Yeah. Then you want to give this space as part, right? But not any of but not any of this.

So this is 3.84 four that yeah he was saying remember he talking about walkway across or something continuous I don't know how they eliminate that neck will not do anything you say no we got to provide five it is five we don't have to do anything strike it Okay. Well,

the idea that that's going to happen, but until I have an engineering analysis that said that that that neck is no longer I hear you though. I won't be able to prove it. So, I'm just saying that we're going to leave it just the way the code says. That's exact. Okay. Any other questions? Yes. So you don't have your water yet. So what if they tell you you can't have water till 2027? Then this is a financial issue would have to be it's really it's really a financial decision for us and wait do we do we just uh we just sit on it until

we can't touch it until you have Well, they're not going to turn dirt till they have water. No. Right. Okay. That would be bad. And like we were talking about this last time he was here, you know, if you walk in right now, and trust me,

if you walk in right now and you sit down with JP Chase or you sit down with Proane, the first question they ask you, do you have water? Do you have water? that they asked that before you they ask you have an absolutely right that's one of the first questions but for us actually the risk uh we have a very intricate matrix for our risk mitigation and honestly water is one of them but uh for us a lot of the stuff we're talking about today is is risk uh when when you have anytime you have a question mark on cost it's a risk like even these riparian buffer uh you know

yeah there's market risk and there's utility risk and very very infrequently anymore and I mean I've been doing business development since 1985 they used to ask you you know questions about your financing questions about your environmental aspect they never ask you utility questions they never ask you where you gonna get your water where you gonna get your power where you going to get who's going to take care of your your waste or anything like that now they're asking especially here. Yeah, we start.

Yes, we I would like to just ask for permission to revisit those six lots and please reconsider allowing us a certainty on those lots without uh so if we are able to meet the standards of of the road construction, we're already building some of these roads inside inside the right. So if we are able to up the standard, pay the extra money for the coverts, make sure that we have uh uh basically these driveways built the same standard as the please ask for consideration on that because that will allow us to just fix our budget and move on with this project. just one of the last things that I see potential in allow super you're not giving up much honestly in terms of and the standard will be upheld it's if you're allowing if you're allowing roadways inside the buffer which you are why would you not allow driveway that is built to the same standard as the way

would the culvert have to run this entire frontage of this lot the only the only driveway only under the driveway. You would need little sections. So, it's not going to run 300 feet. So, has to flow the riperian buffer. You can't obstruct the flow of the riperian buffer. You have to leave it in its natural water course. I state that right? That's correct. So, has to stay in a natural flow path and everything and it can't can't dam up. can't you know any of that stuff. Yeah. So without changing any of that just

I mean it may be big. You can't put box covers in on these like lots and just enjoy it. They're expensive. I don't I mean that's that's really all there is to it. They're only like 12 foot wide. Well, I mean it depends, right? Like so if you wanna I you build the roadways has to be out of there's there's any flooding that could happen there any of that. It's got to be elevated. Yeah. So you could have right you might have to really mount it up and build it up and there's a whole bunch of things they'd have to consider to do. So that be something they call on as extra cost just to get the certainty of being able to build the SP.

Yeah. And you might you might be better off once you get into it realizing that's not the best way. Yeah. But I mean at least if we have that if we have that that will cover us uh even if it's more money then we so we just ask you for your restoration so there's no question marks we just need some level of choices that we can just move on from there's so many things that you need and you understand from our perspective it's like this feels forced this doesn't feel natural it doesn't feel like you really looked at our rules rules and said I can build the project within these parameters. You said here's my parameters.

Yeah. No, sorryensive to what's going on. I do understand that. But well, let me invite you let me invite you to consider consider this

when you're a developer. Uh you start with some baselines. Start saying you know what I'm buying this land for x amount of money because it's currently zone for this and this. So your yield or productivity is X and you start working the math right and as part of that math you need to look at target sale price look at construction cost construction cost in this particular property is very high per lot because of the Yes. Right. So when you have when you have less slots which is what we're doing by giving up by saying okay you want one echol we're giving you one echol we drop say from 320 to to 230 but the cost of development is not changing by much right so now my cost per lot

is here versus here right now so even though it may sound to you like we're asking for lot we We're trying to box a global field. No, but all of this seems to me that I would come to this, look at it, and go, man, I don't know if I'm going to spend the first time and do the the tree survey. This seems like a mountain to climb. And we're going to make a motion to pass or deny here shortly. And I'm sure most of us have already made up our mind at this point. But once again, your ask is not light. And I know I know you made a lot of trips down here to do this.

I got I

But but you know, I'm going to follow with Fred on this. When you started on this down this path, all right, not this month, not last month, month before last came in here. You know, the deal is we have a certain set of standards here and you knew what they were coming in and and I understand that there's better ways to do some of these things. I understand there's better ways to make money, but you didn't even have to be here. All you had to do was do everything that's in the code and it would have been a rubber stamp and you could have walked out the door. but you decided that you wanted to do it to make more money and now you're making a really really involved process here and and you're already on a $230 million budget and you know the reason you're doing that is so you can make more money. You're not doing it out of the kindness of your heart. You know, you keep telling us, okay, we're doing this because you know this is the right thing to do or this is the way we want to do it. No, you're doing this to make money, which is fine. I want you to make the money. I want you to do the job the way you want it. But like Fred's saying, this is just a ton of asks. And if it was me and it was a privately financed project, I can assure you you'd never get past the front door because it's just too much to to load up on somebody to do too many changes. If if I had a personal set of parameters and you went outside of my personal set of parameters as far as you've gone outside of our code, it would have never flown. It would never fly. And you know, I don't mind sitting here and doing this, but you know, you don't have to be here. You can come back and build 329 R2 lights. All you have to do is I'll hold every one of our codes and then you can build the rest of R2s. you know, I mean, you can build whatever you want as long as you fill the codes, but you're asking for a lot of different variants.

Some of them we're happy to grant, you know, and some of them we're just like, is he just trying to wear us down? I mean, that's my viewpoint on it. I I get your point and I apologize for coming across like this. I would like to present you with the other side of this that yes, you're right. We could have come forward with 329 lots and we could cut and fill within the hour concern and we could and we could uh also put a a store facility store treatment facility. Good.

But these are not the things that you told us that people don't want a sewer treatment facility. We can go ahead and apply for work and we can get it the DCQ requirement and and if that's what it comes down to, that's what we will do. Okay. At the end of the day, if if if you guys ask us for one acre lots, we come back with one acre lots. We we go the extra mile to make sure that, you know, we're coming up with the best possible plan. We're creating those buffers for the neighbors. We're not putting a sewer facility. We're we're making sure that we're not encroaching in any way. We're perspecting the code in in 95% of the code, right? Yet we're asking for that those those allowances that will give us the ability to deliver on what you asked us for.

But you're but you know at the same time you know I don't think you're doing it out of the goodness of your heart. I think you're doing it because you think you make more money off the oneacre lots than you could offer lots. You know what? Why don't I tell you I have parties I have partners that that uh that would love to do this project and I ask you to please consider what I am offering

because because because I have partners that are absolutely willing to go to the code to the code and build 500 units including the apartments to the code and all I ask for is for And you know, and you know that that's fine, too. We can't stop that. But but you know, the thing about it that Fred and I are both saying is that we're just almost overwhelmed here, you know. Is that the way I mean? Yeah. I mean, seemingly the list is extremely long. We still have public comment. I'm not seeing my children this evening.

This is this is we're here. This is three months in a row. months. It's it's ground. If you would like us, if you would like us to go back and you say no and we will go back and we'll go back with the code and we will do it. I understand I understand what you're offering. I understand what you're offering here. But you're saying we are doing it to be good citizens. I You're saying to me, I'm gonna give you what you want. Give me all this stuff. But all the stuff and I'd like to I'd like to make a clarifying point. Not trying to be contrary to anybody,

but nobody with the city has made any deals. The city has not told anybody or asked anybody for anything. I just want to make sure that's clear. We got feedback. That's it. I didn't say Well, I just I'm not trying to pile on you or or him. I don't want the narrative to become the city asked for oneacre lots and then that hasn't happened. Yeah. I know. Okay. Do you guys mind if we get into public comments? No. Go ahead.

All right. We are at 9:15 opening public comment. We're going to start with Mr. Cisk. Good evening, commissioners. The presentation of this proposed development as a planned development district allows my curiosity. I believe this entire presentation as a PDD is a misuse of the PDD ordinance. The level of detail in much of this 112page presentation you've seen is totally inappropriate to a request for a plan development district. The criteria for approval of the PDD must include as noted the proposed source of all electric water gas telecommunications and wastewater services. The proposal under consideration lists the Texas Water Company as the water supplier and nothing more is required at this stage. Now we all know that an adequate supply of water must be submitted to every sub subdivision and therein as Shakespeare noted lies the row. You are essentially being asked to approve a subdivision request for which the requirement of water is unlikely to be satisfied soon or at any time in the foreseeable future. The Texas Water Company, as we've all heard, currently has at least nine subdivisions on hold, and I have it from reliable sources in the neighborhood immediately adjacent to the McCarti Ranch property

that TWWC often cannot supply either adequate water pressure or water of acceptable quality to existing customers. The Texas Water Company is mandated by Camal County Regulations to provide an updated water study by the end of this year and every three years, which they promise to do at a recent meeting hosted by the city. And I look forward to seeing that report given the many changes with respect to water supply that have occurred since the previous report three years ago. Folks, we're out on water. In the meantime, I know you will do what you need to do at this stage of development. I have one more point about that. The city council may require additional studies to approve a PDD. One of them should be a drainage study. In addition, I would highly recommend that the city council recommend a water supply and supply certification for this project before proceeding to approve it. Thank you,

Ryan Tucker. Try to be brief. Uh there's there's a lot to um to go through individually. I'm not going to waste uh the commissioner's time on that. Um I do want to remind you though at the outset um when the developer got up here, he said we held up our end of the deal. So to Danny's point earlier, if someone's willing to come up here and say, you know, I held up my bargain, you didn't hold up yours. What do you think he's going to do with a PDD that's very generalized? He's going to take that PDD and shove it right down our throats. If we have to spend two hours and write a Warren Peace novel to fix what should have already been fixed and presented, then a general vague PDD, he's going to look at that and say that controls over our city code. There's language in the in the PD. uh if the PDD is passed, if you miss something in uh this motion from H double hockey sticks that you might prepare, then um the the trouble on the back end is he's going to point to a general PD and say I'm in substantial compliance. So the the point is when the developer comes in here, he's had his ducks in a row. They're not there. Just from a selfish side, it's probably unnecessary. There was talk earlier about uh the water tower from the prior example. I'm the guy that that lives off Barton Hill and was concerned about the water tower going in my backyard. A water tank. Um it says proposed water tank on there. Um as I stand here, I still have no idea where that that water tank may go. I don't know whether trees might be around it. I don't know what the size dimensions of it. There's multiple other questions that we didn't really get into

tonight. So, in addition to the laundry list that you have, I as a homeowner have no idea how that might impact me, nor do my neighbors. So, again, I I think rather than than vote on a motion that best of luck trying to figure out what that's going to say, I think the easiest thing to do is just deny the application. Thanks.

Thank you, Melissa Koski. Hello. And yes, I'm sorry. I kind of do feel like Groundhog Day again because I feel like we're just talking about the same things over and over. Um a little bit earlier there was mention about trees and the size of the replacement trees, but the state nursery uh ar or the state arborist requires 6 in for those replacements. And Bulverie in their tree code that was adopted what about 15 years ago. Um it also says in there six inches, not four inches, not three inches, six inches. So just a little bit of groundhog day on that. Um, I I just want to go back over McCarti Ranch, you know, is a is adjacent to 281 and I think that the city has responsibility to not only just the citizens of Bullbergie, but the people that are passing through 281 with the recent floods and everything on July 5th. Those are just things that have to not be forgotten because it didn't just happen once every hundred years. um going back over where's the water coming from where you know where where is this tank going to go how high is this tank going to be today we were talking about 35 ft 50 feet I mean what kind of unsightly thing do we have to look at in our in our neighborhood and where is this water coming from and why should us as neighbors have to sacrifice what we already have issues with so we know there's issues with water um shortening the risk the width of the streets. I absolutely, you know, if you can't get a fire truck down there or you've got, you

know, an accident or, you know, my F250 is parked on the street and something else can't get by, it's not safe. We have enough of that over on the west side of 281. There's a lot of neighborhoods where it's very difficult to get through when somebody's parked on the street, and that's without even an issue. Um, I made a little or I read something today. The city of Bulbert's website states the current mission of the plan Bulberty planning and development is to properly manage the growth and development of the community by carrying out adopted policies and provide professional expertise in the area of planning and development. So, I just ask you, please use your expertise to protect and preserve the current laws. You know what's on code. I know you've been talking about this all night, but we have to stick to what is right, what's been done, what's been studied, and not just give in and not just help someone else create what they want to do. We've got issues in this town. We've had floods. A lot of things happen, but we really have to stand up and say this has this can't be done. And maybe sometimes it just shouldn't be done. Maybe this there's a different plan for this property. I don't know, but it just doesn't seem right. That's all. Thank you,

Mark. After about an hour and 37 minutes of that part going on, you get our three minutes each. Is this I mentioned this is the last two times. This is the third time. It is groundhog day. We're repeating the same thing over and over again. A lot of more open-ended questions here. Well, this is what you need to do. Brad, are you a engineer? Okay. I work in the manufacturing business. I work with architects all the time. I did a AIA presentation yesterday. What rules a job? What rules a bu building commission plan. The specs, the specs are put together. And you're all talking here about adjusting the specs to his demand. When he came the first time three weeks ago, it was here's my list of nine things I want done. If you don't do it, we're going to take our toys and go away. And everyone was pretty clear on that. That's not the way he wanted. But she gave me the opportunity to elaborate. It was G. Danny wasn't here the first time, but he's been here the last two times. He's done a great job filling me in as a resident of this area. And Brad, you do a good job of trying to take it from the engineering perspective. I like that. But specs are specs. Open-ended blueprints don't work. They don't work. They're not the too many jobs I've been to where guys, it says this on the blueprints. Well, that's great. The specs say this is what you got to do. This is what building code says what you have to do. He doesn't want to do that. and you keep opening the door for him to walk through that door and say, "Well, we'll do this for you. Ah, we'll do this. Can you do this? Can you do that?" This is the plan's right. Bring it to Danny. Bring them to all you guys. Bring it to your building commission. Whatever it is, do it right the first freaking time. Every time it's here, it's a whole different excuse. Same old thing. Well, I'm doing this great and I appreciate the way you address it today. You're doing it to make more money. Okay. I'm

here because there's other people in my neighborhood that are elderly somewhere here that have left now and they can't stay up this late and they're tired. They don't want to be here. Okay. I got up at 5:30 this morning to go do a presentation to somebody. We're all there, but I'm here with my neighbors. I'm not I don't back up to this place. I love Bertie. I told shared a story before when I drove through here 18 years ago. I I want to come here. They're neighborly. They wave to you. They greet you. They're happy. They're good people. I believe all of you here are good people, but when someone comes to my neighborhood wants to bully me, intimidate me, bull crap, okay? I I don't appreciate that. And I don't appreciate for my city and my people. And I don't want us to listen to that. We deserve better than that. We're owed better than that. You all on this commission because you want to make this town a better town. And I'm sorry. This whole presentation has gone up these last three months is BS. And it's time for it to stop. It needs to go away. Come back with a better plan. Put it through city. Put through whatever you got to do, but don't keep bring us the same crap over.

Thank you,

David Ro. My name is David Arolo. I live at 3777 Lariat Drive for Birdie. Mr. Porter, I want to thank you for your comments. They were clearly a breath of fresh air for this meeting because you went straight to the point. You spoke frankly and you hit the nail on the head. It's about money. If you recommend approval of his request, what will you recommend when the next developer comes along and requests the same volume of variances? Your approval recommendation sets a precedent. In other words, you'll be opening Pandora's box for future developers. But my question is, what criteria will you use to recommend approval? Certainly, it can't only be to the developer's presentation or the numerous documents that he submitted. What are the criteria? And are you obligated to approve it? Is there a state law, county law, city law that says any developer that walks in here must be approved with whatever his plans may be? Finally, in article 10 relating to fit with the city's vision, the developer simply states that this proposed plan upholds all stated goals in the city's 2025 comprehensive plan summarized 2025 and its intent. Yet, there's no discussion how the proposed plan does that. He simply makes the statement that it does and expects you to accept it at face value.

But clearly based on the questions and the discussions I heard tonight in this meeting between the developer and some commissioners, it appears that you are looking for a way to approve this development. And I don't believe that's the purpose of this commission. As was said previously, he's been in three or four times. He should come in, go by what the ordinance are, and that's the end of it. Instead of asking for a cart blanch, let me do what I want. Give me that approval. And like I say, you approve his, you're opening Pandora's box for every other bell that comes down the road. Thank you.

Thank you, Lorine. Room. Uh Gary Short. My feet are asleep sitting that long. Commissioners, thank you very much for the opportunity. Uh I'm going to be very h very uh I want to applaud you for your patience uh and your sense of fairness uh and listening to this. But obviously uh this has not been a plan that's been presented well as Lindy mentioned and you have tried to make them come forward and really present this. So it is a plan. It's really not. The residents appreciate your dedication to continuing to make this community the best. And we ask you to stand by that. Stand by the regulations, the standards that have been set for proper reasons. And most importantly to most people that I've talked to in our neighborhood in the Johnson Ranch area and surrounding area is drainage and potential flooding. And that's been something since the early 2000s we moved out here that we have heard that the city has tried very desperately to ensure the best and safest area particularly related to flooding. So thank you for your consideration for that as well as everything else. We appreciate it.

Brian Weller.

Hello again.

Really uh just keep it short like I always do to the point like getting all those details. Um, I mean, I see the zoning map over there. You know, it could look worse. It could look like Johnson Ranch, man. You know what I mean? I back up to the fence right there. So, I see it every day. So, when it looks ugly one day, I'm going to invite you guys over and have take a look at that whenever KB buys that crap. Uh, or we just take Why don't we just not sell the ranch and buy the city should buy it. You think the 200 to $400,000 that they're using for this chips? That looks terrible. Has anybody seen that right down Casey Road?

Yeah. See chips. Huh? Let's Let's worry about something else. Let's save that money and buy this property, man. If you think you don't think anybody should be back there, I do. I don't want to look at any KV homes back there. I don't want to see it back there right now. It doesn't matter about the water. You put someone R2, they're going to drill a well. They're going to put they're going to put it in. If they build it to the specifications, I get it. I deal with it daily. I work in utility field. I deal with it daily. So, uh I mean, water well. Um I mean, every time I've been there, I've seen variances of proof. Everybody comes with variances, right? So, you know, I'm not saying I'm I'm 100% for everything, but you know, the guy's trying. I mean, I get it. He's here. It's third time, whatever. I didn't make it to the first first meeting. I wasn't invited to it. Um, I think I think when everybody's kind of uh dogging him about the recommendations, it's because when he's here and y'all are talking to him, you're kind of giving him recommendations and he's kind of taking that. And that's why I think he's talking like that because he's he's hearing like, "Hey, we recommend that the rideway be a 50 or 60 foot rideway." So, he's kind of taking that and going back with that. I don't think, you know, we're all here to make money, man. So, that, you know, that's at the end of the day, that's what he's doing. I mean, but anyways, I don't know. I don't know what else to say. I say we we just buy the city, buy the ranch, and make a park out of it, man. quit quit uh using the two to $400,000 chips that he knows what I'm talking about. That that is a terrible job of chipsing on Casey Road. Sure. And through down my

neighborhood through Barton Hill. That's just that was a waste of money, man. I mean, we waste a lot of money. Bulberty Road, they did a good job. I'll give you that. I'll give them that. Bulberty Road, they did a great job. So, thank you. Thank you. Uh Jay Davenport, he left.

He left. Okay, that is closing public comment at 9:34. Okay. Um there's a couple things that I want to say with this. Um, and there's a lot of things, but I think the the main thing that's really sticking out to me is I feel like if we truly look at what he's asking for right now, granted, yes, in the very beginning, the last first time, last time, he was asking for a lot and it was a ton. Tonight, he's listened to what we've had to say previously. He's really not asking for that much. If we actually look at it, he's asking for slight difference on the RO, but it's still the same because we're getting the 10- foot drainage. So, we're still getting the same thing we would get if we did follow the code. We are with the culde-sac, it's the same thing. Steep slopes, we're only making sure it's with the road construction. And we said driveways, but it doesn't have to be driveways either because we're not having to do the pad of the building. So, he doesn't have to have a spot to get to the pad. It could just be the roadway. We're not allowing him the any of the tree removal. We nixed that out.

Still see the trees already. We still did the tree survey. So, that's not changing. The repair buffer, there's nothing really changed there. and we took out with plan. So there's only two three things, right?

Yeah. So, so I just want to say high level for me and just again I appreciate everyone's public comments especially staying this late. Um you know I think I think a lot of it happens with these sorts of things right is we point out things to the developer they bring things to us. Also, you know, the developers are obviously trying to make money, like we said, and they're also trying to stay at a high level because the deeper you dive, the more money it costs to do this. So, yes, he's come back three times, but every time he's come back, I promise you, he spent a lot more money to get much more specific on the details he's giving us to try and help remove a lot of those gray areas. And so for me and and I maybe haven't done the best job of like really setting the tone or the stage for this and I want to take a second to do that which is what we're debating right now is he's going to give us an R2 where R3 is possible. So the question becomes is 233 lots better than 550 lots? That's really what it comes down to, right? So, do we allow some small variances to allow him to do 233 or do we say nope, not it? And he goes back to his investors or somebody else comes back and they go, great, we'll do it by the code. The code would allow 550. That's that's really what we're debating here. So, the question is, do we allow some variances to lock this all into R2 or do we say no, we allow KB Homes or somebody or, you know, some of these more track home builders to come strip hillsides? That that's that's where that's what I believe we're in front of us.

Order, please. So that's how I personally see what is happening here is is because if not and it was all R2, we wouldn't we would be here just evaluating them. We might say, "Hey, no, but we're getting something in return for something else, right? are getting R2 in return for some variances to be allowed. If we say no, then again, maybe the project has to come back. We have another person comes in with R2 and kind of tries to do the same thing or or whatever or we have somebody come in and try and do 500 um homes out here. So, at least that's how I see it. I don't Does anyone else see that different? I mean, I think that's what we're really evaluating here is the difference between those two things and whether that's a good deal. Aren't a lot of those problems still exist or R3?

They are. And the next guy's going to come in. He could do R2 or R32 depending on the the thing is I I don't want to see the 550 homes. I agree. I want to see the 2331acre home and I think he'll make more money off the oneacre homes. And I think he meant that too. I actually disagree. I don't think I made more money off 500. All right. Well, then then then the next guys don't look at it. And I don't think K&B Homes can come in and do it according to our standards and they'll still make money. You know,

but, you know, I I I I don't want to I don't want to say definitively that, you know, we should be held to one standard or the other. he wanted to do the the halfacre homes and wanted to do them according to our standards, we wouldn't have any, you know, recourse other than that. But but we have to change the law if we didn't want it. We'd have to change the standards. I mean, right now, he could do what he wants to there. But now, I agree. No, but I'm not disagreeing with you. I agree that I would have had the 233 home 550 homes there. And I also agree that every time he's came back is insufferable as it's been and it has great

uh and uh you know that he has he has been more specific in what he's asking and that he's been limiting what he's asking. In other words, he's been pointing out certain things and and the things that that like Ashley said right now we have a small list to approve tonight. You know, I mean, it's taken three months to whittle it down, but it's taken three months to whittle it down. So, again, it comes back to me of are these things that he's asking for worth locking the property into doing an RT?

Well, that's the discussion we had last time, you know, last time we were like, and I know that the discussion was we want to lock this into a PDD so we could guarantee this piece of property is never going to be at anything but 1acre lot. And I mean, this is a showcase piece of property. It's a nice piece of property lot that's still left there on 281 right there, you know, on the highway. Um, you know, I mean, it's it's it's it's your own personal viewpoint there. I mean, uh, and we're not gonna lie and make it hard. Great idea.

Yeah. But I mean that's a great idea, but I mean we're not my concern is flooding downream. Does it or what they proposing going to that will also be addressed during the drainage study and they still have to follow the drainage manual which is one of the strongest that we have in our state is within our city. They're not asking for any manual at all. They still have to buy all of that.

And I would say that 500 homes worse than 233 more streets, a lot more houses and all that stuff. So I mean, as much as I think we would all agree we don't want this property to develop, we'd love to keep it the way that it is, you know. That's right. So again, is this the is this the one that we should put must you know say yes okay we think that this is a good plan or is this just not a good plan and we just need to let somebody else come in and we may approve it and I want but might be no water there right

I mean and council may do something different also just in a couple weeks so um to me personally I mean I the gentleman that came the first month when he was like this is the best we're going to get right I think we have worked really hard not even us I would say I would say the develop has worked very hard to get us even better than the one that we saw that first month. Yeah. Oh it I mean the list is definitely awesome. Now, one of the residents though brought up during the presentation, if we approve this PDD and we do miss something, the developer is under no obligation to follow whatever we missed.

Well, uh what we're going to end up doing is we'll make a recommendation. We'll go to council and find out if they um are interested in pursuing approval. And then if they are, we'll start writing an ordinance to bring back a meeting after that that will nail all of this down. So, so I would actually propose that we do a clean slate of the PDD, which is we only say these things and I don't care what any of this says.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Like just say the only thing we're going to give you variances on are the things Ashley's going to say and the rest of it is like I don't care what's in the presentation. I don't care anything's in the application. I'm going to give variances to these things and that's it. Okay. That's very that's yeah that's very refined. Like it's very black and white, right? Like we are only going to like we don't even really need to bring up the tree survey because he's got to do it. You just have to simply say you're limited to your tree survey at this area. Yeah. The only the only change on trees is that he can do four inches instead of six, but he still has to replace all the caliber branches

that he takes out three oranges instead of two six inch trees. Yes, that's the only thing in regarding of trees that we're saying, right?

That's it. So again, I think to eliminate a lot of this gray area back what is in here, what isn't in here, you just simply say it would just be a base R2 with these exceptions. That's it. I I can I can see that and personally I know that how y'all thinking about this and nothing but integrity that you're bringing this up. The thing I worry about is um I just I hate to leave hate to be like I don't know how to say it. I hate to um give any gray area. So we need to be very plain. I mean, you know, uh, don't want to give anybody gray area and I hate to too many times when you meet in the middle, you know, both sides are unhappy. So, I feel like we got to be very careful. We don't want to be in the middle. We want to demand we won't. Okay. So, yeah, I think if we're just going to do this, we're going to do this. We just do it on these three two or three specific items because because again going back through it, right? So waiting aspect ratio I don't think any of us necessarily have those crazy and so we're gonna hold it to the the road profile that he's put out which is really a 60 foot it's really the right

we're just naming a horse of a different so it really is comp right so then you can maintain whatever that's what right the culac is the same thing the minimum footage of the pole sack. I mean, that is a very that that is a difference, but I I don't see a huge issue with that. I think the one that that gives me the most heartburn is the cut and fill steep slopes of the the gray area that I feel like we have there. Um that's that's going to be a compliance, but that's not our issue.

Well, when we if we say it's unlimited within the area, it's not really a compliance. They get to do whatever they want with the area. So, um I think we, you know, we might need to put some thought into that. We're not doing any of the tree stuff except the per inches of tree and then the the tree survey just being on the disturb area, too. Yeah. Which we've done on many subdivisions. Yeah. Before. Um and I think it's the right way because again I I don't if this goes on for three years or you put streets in, they don't build for two or three years on one of these phases. Like I want a new tree survey. I don't want you using a tree survey that's five years old. Yeah. because those trees could have grown, you know. So, I actually like that approach better than

Well, I mean, yeah, he's not going to build until he's not going to do roads. Yeah, but if we make him do the tree survey. Yeah. Again, I don't want the most updated tree survey. We're taking trees out of the most updated tree survey, right? I'm still scared to death start building and then we're going to wind up with scalped up side of the hill with half built roads. I mean that's and then the riperian buffer stuff. I mean it's really the six lots that Yeah. It's not I don't care about the little encroachments on those other lots.

That's kind of why I'm thinking we don't we don't touch the driveways. we just leave it and he can come ask for variances on those six slots. Yes, I like that. And then the parkland dedication, he doesn't want to touch it. So, okay, we have aspect ratio. I mean, we are giving we're saying they're variances, but they're really not on streets. We're actually getting a better street. We're getting wider. So, that's better. I think we need to hash out the disturbance and cut and fill in that area. tree and trees and riparian buffers. We're not going to touch those six lots. We just just say, "Hey, you can dedicate an easement on that."

Yeah, it can be an easement. So, it's really it's really the riperian buffers is really and the aspect ratio is really the only variance we're giving. It seems pretty good. Yeah. So, it's just what do we want to do? Cut fill and disturbance. I thought that was only in the roadway and the driveway. We're addressing cutting fill at this time. We are, but I'm still not sure that I'm comfortable giving him cart launch in that 170 feet to cut and fill whatever he wants. That's that's where my head is. I don't know what the question. Um,

well, we had discussed um limiting it just to road and driveway construction. So, that's true. That is what we talked about. And then technically that's allowed anyways, right? So they'll be out of the rideway um in the area. We're talking about the 50t on each side of the rideway, right? So technically it's it's really only 40 feet because 10 feet would be in the right putting it in the lot because it needs to maintain the one acre lot. It's really 40 feet on either side of the road so to speak is 50 but it's really 40. So it's like is that too much? Should we limit that more? say if you got to go outside that you know where do we limit the actual height

what about the question that you asked though about if it's going to be required for the road right I mean because then it gets into well how far do we have to disturb in order to well that's what it is right so if you if you got to cut six feet you got to slope that at a certain point you're just getting further and further away from the road right and and if we if we limit I'm just playing a devil's advocate here. If we limit it, does that and he does comply with whatever our limitation is, does that create a more dangerous road? I mean, the road is not to standards. It's more of I was shy.

There really would be any limitation on the road. Uh, unless I miss something. I'm saying like if we because we're saying if we can't, right? You're not following. Yeah. So, it's a little nuance, right? limit that 50 ft to so the so the problem is technically you can build the roads probably just fine without disturbing any the question the problem is you may have a sixoot cliff on the side of your road which is unsafe right and so we wanted to bench and slope that into the land that's built

so right that's why our code says what it says you can discern in the right but then he's gonna have to put tiebacks in just to have a cliff face there which seems kind of silly right? Or vice versa, cutting into that you cut a sheer face right at the edge of the lot and the homeowner or whoever's deals expensive and I don't think he's going to just go cut randomly to cut. But that's why I'm a little I just don't know the best way to get there on it. I mean, yeah. Well, that that we just did last time, but they said the only it would only be about the size of this where they were going to be

doing those big. I mean, I guess it's a lot more in this property. That's only what 22 acres. But I think I think big thing right now is they just don't know where or what this area is going to be yet. Um, I mean it's it's a matter of I mean it's much easier to come back when you bring you come back and you bring us home. Yeah. Right. Yeah. But then the question is where his his perspective is going to be on that is he's he doesn't own this property,

right? is if they're his group is willing to take the risk of us later, even if they they bought it and they come forward and say, "Okay, here's here's the spots we need it. It's only as big as this DAS, we can say no, right?" And then they have a lot they can't get to because it's six feet from the road to the lot. And so from their perspective, they're asking for it now so that they're mitigating that risk of us saying no later. And I mean, we can't say, "Oh, well, we're gonna say yes later." Like, we we can't say that. No, we can't.

Um, I'm I'm with you guys that again. I I like having information later as well. Supposed to be done. Yeah. He's trying to risk.

Yeah. I mean, to me, I've almost like less We can we can make a you know a motion that we feel good about and we don't have any uneasiness with the gray area of it and then it's the developer's then responsibility to decide what he wants to do with that information right like he can still come forward but he he can either walk or he says okay I'm willing to take that risk exactly where it is or take the risk or you come back and you say hey I want him in the PD these areas and I think these areas

better the verbage was for only driveways you can do grading Right. So question for you is can you actually support that? So to an extent I mean I can I have an engineering team that's going to review the road plans and I can they'll tell me if it's necessary.

Right. So so freezing vehicles is going to be able to say this is not necessary. They could do this this. So if it's in some area and we're talking about a slope and their plan shows it going 45 ft a nickels can look at that and say that given the configuration that only needs to be 27 and we'll change it and direct it to be changed. So even if we say yes to what he's asking for in regards to this that type of a review is still going to happen and you guys can limit him later to 27 feet even though he's technically allowed to 50.

Yes, he's not allowed to 50. he's allowed what I'm not really because what I'm suggesting if it's something you want to entertain is that um on those 50 foot zones they be allowed to have the cut and fill restrictions lifted for bonafide road work that happens in that 50 and they have to prove that it's road

and they'll have and that and what that means is that they're going to submit plans for the whole scope of the road construction construction and we're going to count the drip ditches and everything else that's typically part of a road as part of the road and everything that's got to be built for that and then our review engineer will also see if he concurs with their judgment about the scope of that the footprint of that improvement. Um, and we do that anyway now. Um, with regular road uh plans, we won't be able to to interpose our opinion for theirs if we think something's better, but if they do something that we think is completely unjustified, we'll be able to roll it back.

Okay. Okay. Um, in regards to to this stuff, my personal opinion is that we say only the bonafide road construction. I think since he doesn't know, since we're not allowing the building pad aspect of it, there's no reason to allow the driveway aspect of it at this time. Okay. Okay. Um, okay. Any other gray areas, concerns that we need to talk through a little bit more.

So, so Danny, it would be proper to say base sounding of R2 the whole thing with only these exceptions. Okay. Should hopefully make it clean for you, too. Yes. Okay. All right. Let's try it out. If I stumble, forgive me. That's going to be a lot.

Trust me, nobody's perfect yet. Okay. Um, I make a motion that we recommend approval with conditions item 2.5, sorry, 2.4. Um, a request by Samira Shahade with One Stop Group LP on behalf of Dashin Interest LLC for the establishment of a PDD plan development district at the base zoning of R2 um, residential district for approximately 329 acres generally located one mile north of the intersection of highway 281 and FM 1863. The conditions are as follows. Um the base zoning of R2 is recommended approval. The applicant's request for lot dimension um R2 lot aspect ratios regarding to the depth and width is allowed. The rural in regards to streets, the rural local street minimum roid is modified to 40 ft but with a 10-ft drainage easement or sorry 10 foot drainage on either side which was to be an easement. The um minimum center line radius of 100 ft is approved. The center line alignment first curves minimum length between tangents at 50 feet is approved for culde-sacs. The culde-sac minimum right of way is 100 ft with again a 10-ft drainage um easement on either side of the roadway. Um actually can I back up really fast? I'm so sorry. No. um with the in regards to the streets, the local street minimum RO width of 40 feet, but this is including a 28 foot street of uh pavement, a six

foot shoulder, and then also including that 10 foot drainage on either side. Um back to where I was with the culacs. Um culac minimum frontage of 35 feet is allowed. Um in regarding steep slopes, disturbance of within steep slopes is allowed but only within bonafide road construction. Um the cotton fills regarding to the sorry with the 50t on either side of ro um and the ser of sleep steep slopes only allowed in areas regarding bonafide road construction. Regarding trees, um we will allow replacement trees to have a minimum caliber of 4 in. For the tree survey, the applicant is allowed um to well is required still to provide a tree survey with all of the documentation needed for our ordinances, but only within this. The area of study only needs to be within the disturbance area of the road rightway plus the 50t on either side

facilities too and for drainage facilities as well. All areas proposed to be disturbed. Yeah. All areas proposed to be disturbed. And regarding the repairarian buffer, um the applicant is allowed to um encroach within the repairarian buffer, but those areas of encroachment are required to be within drainage easements. Is that the right language that sounds right? And that is it. Is there anything I'm missing? Um I think we should restrict it to the number of lots that he's asking for of instances of the right period buffer. Okay.

W no no no. He's saying there's only 50 50 to 55 instances of encroachment of I think we should restrict it. So that way you can't go put more in the repairarian buffer later. So I would just say and he's 55 at the top. Okay. with a um amending the repairarian buffer recommendation um to only allow the repairarian buffer encroachment up to 55 lots and that encroachment is required to be within a drainage easement. Is that good enough for you? I'll second.

We have a first and a motion and a second. All in favor? I. All opposed? Motion passes. All right. Where we at? All right. All right. Um, is there any public comments related to uh not related to this agenda items? I don't have anyone signed up. Any here? No. Um, public comments close at 10:02 and we are adjourned also at 10:02. Thank you everyone.