K.1. FM2499 / FM3040 Intersection Improvements - Consider approval of a Construction Agreement with 2L Construction LLC, for the FM 2499 at FM 3040 Intersection Improvements project, in the amount of $2,820,681.50; and authorization for the Mayor to execute the same on behalf of the Town.

[K.1. FM2499 / FM3040 Intersection Improvements - Consider approval of a Construction Agreement with 2L Construction LLC, for the FM 2499 at FM 3040 Intersection Improvements project, in the amount of $2,820,681.50; and authorization for the Mayor to execute the same on behalf of the Town. ]

BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. WE WILL MOVE FORWARD TO OUR REGULAR ITEMS. THE FIRST ONE WILL BE ON FLOWER MOUND 2499, FLOWER MOUND 3040, THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN K1 AND 2.

SO, NO, SORRY, WE'RE NOT THERE YET. TWO AND THREE ARE GOING TO BE TOGETHER, JUST THIS ONE SEPARATE. THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND GOOD EVENING.

SO, YES, I'M DALE CROWN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING, AND I'LL BE PROVIDING SOME INFO ON THE CONSTRUCTION AWARD FOR 2499 AT 3040 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT. JUST TO GIVE YOU A QUICK OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, MAKING SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTERSECTION TO INCREASE TRAFFIC FLOW, IMPROVE THROUGH-LANE ALIGNMENTS. MAKE IT A LITTLE SAFER AND THEN ALSO STRAIGHTEN OUT THE CROSSWALKS. RIGHT NOW, THERE'S LIKE DOG LEGS IN SOME OF THEM. AND WITH THE NEW CONFIGURATION, WE'LL ALSO BE REPLACING SIGNAL POLES, SIGNALS AND ADA RAMPS.

SO YOU SEE KIND OF A BIG PICTURE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING THERE. AND I'LL GET INTO SPECIFICS BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE. I THINK COUNCIL'S BEEN UPDATED ON THIS. AND SO DEFINITELY WANTED TO PROVIDE YOU SOME VISUALS AS TO WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE AT EACH OF THE FOUR LEGS OF THE INTERSECTION. YOU SEE THERE ON THE BOTTOM WE HAVE CROSS SECTIONS. THIS IS LOOKING NORTHBOUND, SO THIS IS THE NORTH LEG OF THE INTERSECTION. SO THE CROSS SECTIONS ARE LOOKING NORTH, AND SO THAT MEANS NORTHBOUND WOULD BE ON THE RIGHT SIDE, SOUTHBOUND WOULD BE ON YOUR LEFT SIDE THERE. WE'VE GOT THE EXISTING ON TOP, AND THEN WHAT WE'RE MOVING TO AS A PROPOSED SECTION ON THE BOTTOM. SO FOR SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC, WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, RIGHT NOW THERE'S ONE LEFT TURN LANE, AND WE'LL BE ADDING A MUCH NEEDED... SECOND LEFT TURN LANE HERE. AND THEN MOVING ON TO THE SOUTH LEG, AGAIN, WE HAVE CROSS SECTIONS ON THE BOTTOM. ALSO LOOKING NORTH, WE'LL BE PROVIDING A TURN LANE TO THE CHICK-FIL-A DRIVEWAY.

IN THE PAST, WE'VE HAD TRAFFIC FOR THE DRIVE-THROUGH BACK UP INTO THE MAIN LANES. IT'S BEEN A REAL ISSUE FOR US, SO WE'RE ADDING THIS TURN LANE. I THINK THIS, IN COMBINATION WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS THEY'VE MADE WITH CIRCULATION WITHIN THE CHICK-FIL-A SITE, WILL GO A LONG WAY.

IN THE PAST, IT'S EVEN EXTENDED OUT INTO THE INTERSECTION. SO I THINK ONCE THIS IS ALL DONE,

[00:20:01]

IT'LL ALL BE A THING OF THE PAST. BUT MOVING ON TO THE WEST LEG, SO WITH THE CROSS SECTIONS HERE, WE'RE LOOKING EAST AND AGAIN EXISTING AND PROPOSED ON BOTTOM. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE TWO THROUGH LANES HERE, AND WITH THIS PROJECT WE'LL BE ADDING A THIRD THROUGH LANE, SO THAT'S THE BIG THING THAT WE'RE DOING HERE. IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN AND MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF PAVING AND AVOID THE CONFLICTS WE HAVE ON THAT NORTH EDGE. THERE, WE ARE CONVERTING THAT WESTBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE THAT GOES TO THE GAS STATION INTO A THROUGH LANE. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'LL BE DOING HERE, AND I GUESS IT'S WORTH MENTIONING WE'LL ALSO BE KEEPING THE DUAL RIGHT TURNS AS WELL. THAT'LL STAY AND THEN MOVING ON TO THE EAST LEG AGAIN, LOOKING EAST ON THOSE CROSS SECTIONS. RIGHT NOW THERE'S ONLY ONE LEFT TURN LANE FOR WESTBOUND. WITH THIS PROJECT WE'LL BE ADDING A SECOND LEFT TURN LANE. AND SO WE HAD FOUR BIDDERS ON THIS PROJECT. BIDS WERE OPEN IN DECEMBER. 2L CONSTRUCTION WAS THE WHAT WE CONSIDER THE LOWEST QUALIFIED BIDDER. J.R.

WEST, THEY WERE THE LOWEST BIDDER, BUT WITH THEIR WORK HISTORY, THEY DIDN'T SHOW SIMILAR PROJECTS IN SCALE, IN SCOPE, AND IN COMPLEXITY. SO WE HOPE TO GO WITH THE MORE QUALIFIED BIDDER IN THIS SITUATION. PROJECT SCHEDULE, SO, AS I MENTIONED, WE DID OPEN BIDS IN DECEMBER LAST YEAR. THERE WAS A DELAY WITH COUNTY FUNDING. THE ICA WAS APPROVED LAST MONTH, SO NOW WE'RE SITTING IN FRONT OF YOU WITH...

WITH THIS CONSTRUCTION AWARD FOR PROOF TONIGHT, WE'LL LOOK TO ISSUE A NOTICE TO PROCEED THIS SPRING, ESTIMATING PROBABLY MAY.

THAT'LL TAKE ABOUT 13 MONTHS TO COMPLETE, OR TO GET TO SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION, 14 MONTHS TO GET TO FINAL COMPLETION. IT'S A LITTLE BIT LONGER OF A TIMELINE BECAUSE OF THE RESTRICTED TIME TIME FRAMES WE HAVE FOR LANE CLOSURES, WHICH WILL BE FROM NINE TO THREE. AND WITH THAT, I'LL OPEN UP TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

DALE, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE FUNDING SOURCES FOR THIS WORK? SO FOR THE FUNDING SOURCES, YEAH, WE'RE, WELL, I WANT TO GET INTO LIKE, EXACT DOLLAR AMOUNTS, BUT THE COUNTY IS PUTTING QUITE A BIT OF MONEY INTO THIS. AND WE HAD, I THINK, 500,000 THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN SPENT BETWEEN ALL THE EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITIONS AND THE DESIGN. AND THAT WAS ABOUT $500,000. THAT WAS PROBABLY THROUGH IMPACT FEES, BUT THE REST WILL BE FUNDED THROUGH OUR FROM THE COUNTY, THROUGH THAT ICA. OH, REALLY? IS THAT RIGHT? THE COUNTY SALES TAX? IS THAT A COMPONENT? I DON'T BELIEVE SO. NOT EVEN FOR THE CHICK-FIL-A? IT MIGHT BE TRIP 22. TRIP 22 BOND.

RIGHT. IS THAT COMING INTO PLAY? I BELIEVE IT WAS.

SOME MONEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN SPENT FROM THERE, BUT I UNDERSTAND IT WAS IMPACT FEES.

OKAY. THE CHICK-FIL-A DRIVE-THRU IS THE ONE THAT'S KIND OF INTERESTING TO ME. I KNOW IT'S NECESSARY, AND I KNOW TODAY. WE PROBABLY WOULD NEVER ALLOW THAT PROJECT TO BE DEVELOPED THAT WAY WITHOUT THAT TURN LANE, BUT IT CERTAINLY IS NEEDED.

AND I KNOW THAT ON THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, WE WOULD SOMETIMES TALK ABOUT SOME IMPROVEMENTS. THAT SALES TAX WAS, THERE WAS LIKE A BUDGET FOR THE SALES TAX DOLLARS EVERY YEAR TO FUND TURN LANES AND STREET LIGHTS AND WHATNOT. AND I WAS CURIOUS TO SEE IF WE WERE USING ANY OF THAT IN THIS CASE. BUT IF WE'RE USING ALL COUNTY FUNDING, THAT'S EVEN BETTER.

FOR CONSTRUCTION, IT'LL BE GREAT. OKAY. AND IMPACT FEES? WELL, NOT JUST FOR THE, FOR CONSTRUCTION, IT'LL BE JUST COUNTY. OH, INTERESTING. GREAT. MUCH OF THE COUNTY FUNDING IS ACTUALLY MOVING OVER SOME OF THE KIRKPATRICK DOLLARS THAT WE WERE GIVEN TO PRIOR, AND IT'S TAKEN A WHILE TO MOVE THAT OVER. WITHIN FIREMAN, BUT MUCH OF THE MONEY THAT'S BEING GIVEN BY THE COUNTY IS ACTUALLY FROM THE KIRKPATRICK PROJECT.

OH, GREAT. OKAY. WELL, THIS IS A MUCH BETTER USE OF THAT FUNDING THAN A BRIDGE THAT WE DON'T NEED. OKAY. GREAT NEWS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. GOOD JOB, BILL. OKAY, WELL, SO AT THIS POINT, IF NO ONE HAS ANY DISCUSSION POINTS ON THIS, WE CAN MAKE A MOTION. I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM K-1 AS PROPOSED.

SECOND. OKAY, WE HAVE A SECOND.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARNER? AYE.

MAYOR PRO TEM MARTIN? AYE.

COUNCIL MEMBER TAYLOR? AYE.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHEESTAL? AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER DREW? AYE. OKAY, ITEM K1 PASSES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. THE NEXT

[Items K.2 & K.3]

ITEM, I CAN OPEN THESE TOGETHER.

LEX, I WAS THINKING OF DOING THEM SEPARATELY SINCE JAKE IS GOING TO PRESENT ON THE SECOND ONE, BUT DO YOU WANT ME TO OPEN IT TOGETHER? I THINK YOU CAN OPEN THEM TOGETHER. I HAVE A COUPLE OF SLIDES THAT ARE ABOUT THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IN MY PRESENTATION, AND THEN, IF YOU ALL WANT TO ASK ANY MORE DETAILED QUESTIONS, THEN JAKE WILL COME UP, AND HE CAN PULL

[00:25:01]

UP SOME ADDITIONAL RESOURCES.

IT JUST KIND OF DEPENDS ON HOW IN-DEPTH IT GOES, BUT I WOULD GO AHEAD AND OPEN THEM TOGETHER. OKAY, OKAY, SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN ITEM K2 AND K3 AT THE SAME TIME. THIS IS ON THE HAVENWOOD PHASE ONE DEVELOPMENT, ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU LEXON, THANK YOU MAYOR COUNCIL. UM, AS MENTIONED, THIS IS HAVENWOOD PHASE ONE SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN. THIS IS THE AREA THAT WAS FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE SMITH TRACT. THAT ZONING WAS APPROVED ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO, IN MAY OF 2024. SO HERE IS THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY, SOUTH OF CROSS TIMBERS, EAST OF SHILOH, WEST OF SCENIC.

HERE'S A MORE DETAILED VIEW.

THE LAND USED FOR THIS PROPERTY IS RURAL RESIDENTIAL USES WITHIN THE CROSS TIMBERS CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. SO THIS IS A CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT.

ZONING IS P.D 197 WITH AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT USES.

HERE IS THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE PRELIMINARY PLANS THAT AREN'T FULLY ENGINEERED.

SO THOSE WERE APPROVED BY STAFF. IT WAS BROKEN DOWN INTO FOUR DIFFERENT PHASES.

AND SO THIS IS THE FIRST PHASE THAT'S COMING FORWARD WITH THE SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN.

AND SO, AGAIN, THOSE ARE THE FULLY ENGINEERED.

PLANS PHASE ONE PROPOSES 87 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES TO OVERALL 172.73 ACRES. THE P.D.-197 FOR THE FULL SCOPE OF THE PROJECT WOULD PERMIT A MAXIMUM OF 222 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND CONTAINS A TOTAL OF 447 ACRES. SO AGAIN, HERE'S THAT ZOOMED IN VIEW OF PHASE ONE. THE AREA IN YELLOW IS WHAT'S BEING DISCUSSED TONIGHT. THE REASON THAT A SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN IS BEFORE THE COUNCIL IS BECAUSE THERE IS AN EXCEPTION REQUEST ASSOCIATED WITH IT. SO THE EXCEPTION REQUEST IS TO IMPACT FLOODPLAIN. TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE TOWN'S CODE, ONE THAT SPEAKS TO FEMA FLOODPLAIN AND ONE THAT SPEAKS TO FULLY DEVELOPED FLOODPLAIN.

AND SO THAT'S BECAUSE FEMA IDENTIFIES THE AREA THAT BASICALLY IS CONSIDERED FLOODPLAIN TODAY. THE TOWN TAKES A BROADER LOOK AND LOOKS AT FULLY DEVELOPED. HOW MUCH AREA WOULD BECOME FLOODPLAIN ONCE THE AREA AROUND IT IS FULLY DEVELOPED? AND SO WE HAVE THAT IN TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS. AND SO THE PROJECT, AS PROPOSED, WOULD IMPACT BOTH THE FULLY DEVELOPED AND THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN. SO, THIS EXCEPTION WOULD ALLOW FOR PHASE 1 AND THE SUBSEQUENT PHASES TO CROSS THE FLOODPLAIN THAT'S ESTABLISHED IN PHASE 1. AND CONSTRUCTION FOR ALL PHASES IS LIMITED TO ONLY PRIVATE TRAILS, RETENTION PONDS, GRADING, AND ROADWAY WITH UTILITY CROSSINGS. SO THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO RECLAIM ANY OF THE FLOODPLAIN. THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO PUT ANY OF IT INTO LOTS. THEY'RE BASICALLY ONLY DOING WHAT THE TOWN WOULD ALLOW, WHICH IS JUST CROSSING IT WITH INFRASTRUCTURE. SO TRAILS, AND THE APPLICANT HAS A...

PRESENTATION THAT SHOWS MORE IN-DEPTH THE TOWN TRAILS, BUT YOU CAN SEE THEM ON HERE TOO, YOU KNOW, EQUESTRIAN TRAIL HERE, TRAIL CROSSING, TRAIL CROSSING. SO, WITH THE RECENT MASTER PLAN UPDATE FOR THE TRAILS PLAN. WE DID ACTUALLY IDENTIFY SOME TRAILS THAT WE WANTED TO BE WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN AREA.

JUST BECAUSE THEY MAKE FOR REALLY BEAUTIFUL TRAILS.

AND SO THIS WAS KIND OF A KNOWN THING THAT WAS PROBABLY COMING UP IN THE FUTURE. BUT SO THEY ARE LIMITING THAT REQUEST TO ONLY ALLOW FOR THAT TYPE OF THING, THE INFRASTRUCTURE CROSSINGS, NOT ACTUALLY TRYING TO RECLAIM ANY OF THAT PROPERTY. AND THE REASON WHY THEY'RE MAKING THE REQUEST FOR THE FULL SCOPE OF THE PROJECT NOW IS BECAUSE THEY'VE BASICALLY ALREADY DONE THE CONCEPTUAL FLOOD MODEL FOR ALL OF THIS. AND SO, WHILE THEY DON'T NECESSARILY IMPACT ANY FEMA FLOODPLAIN WITHIN PHASE 1, THEY WILL IN FUTURE PHASES. AND SO IT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO GET... HALFWAY INTO THE PROJECT AND THEN ASK FOR PERMISSION FOR A FUTURE PHASE. YOU KNOW, IT'S BEST TO BE LOOKING AT THIS AHEAD OF TIME, MAKE SURE THE COUNCIL IS OKAY WITH THEIR PLAN FOR THIS. SO, LIKE I SAID, THEY HAVE FULLY LOOKED AT THE ENGINEERED PLANS WITH THAT FLOOD STUDY FOR PHASE ONE, BUT THEN THEY'VE DONE KIND OF CONCEPTUAL MODELING WITH THE FLOOD STUDY FOR ALL THE ADDITIONAL PHASES.

AND SO BASED ON THIS, THEY ARE NOT SHOWING THAT THERE WILL BE ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS, THEY WILL MEET ALL OF THE TOWN'S REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THE TOWN HAS STANDARDS, EVEN THOUGH YOU REQUEST AN EXCEPTION TO IMPACT FLOODPLAIN. IT'S NOT AN EXCEPTION THAT ALLOWS YOU TO NOT MEET THE TOWN STANDARDS.

WE STILL REQUIRE THAT THERE CAN'T BE ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON OFFSITE PROPERTY, THAT YOU CAN'T INCREASE FLOWS, THAT SORT OF THING. SO THEY ARE STILL, AND AGAIN, AS OF NOW, LOOKING AT THE FLOOD MODEL.

THEY ARE STILL MEETING ALL OF THOSE STANDARDS. IT WAS A

[00:30:02]

LOT OF BACK AND FORTH WITH THE TOWN'S FLOODPLAIN MANAGER TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THIS WORKED. SO I WANTED TO BE CLEAR ON THAT, THAT THEY WEREN'T TRYING TO SAY, WELL, WE'RE ASKING FOR AN EXCEPTION. BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO FLOOD ANOTHER AREA OVER HERE A LITTLE BIT. OR THAT KIND OF THING. SO IT'S NOTHING LIKE THAT. THEY'RE STILL MEETING THE TOWN'S REGULATIONS.

BUT WE REQUIRE AN EXCEPTION JUST TO HAVE ANY IMPACTS AND BASICALLY TO ADJUST. WHAT'S CONSIDERED FLOODPLAIN? AND SINCE THIS AREA HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN STUDIED, YOU KNOW, FEMA KIND OF GENERALLY SAID, WE THINK IT'S IN THIS AREA. BUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE THE EXACT SPECIFICATIONS BECAUSE IT HADN'T BEEN STUDIED. SO THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT THIS DOES.

EXCEPTION IT ALLOWS US TO PUT IN MORE EXACT LINES FOR WHERE THAT FLOOD STUDY IS.

THEY'LL HAVE TO GO FORWARD WITH A LETTER OF MAP PROVISION IN THE FUTURE AND GET THAT FORMALLY ESTABLISHED THROUGH FEMA. IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT AT FULL BUILD OUT OF ALL FOUR PHASES, THE OVERALL DRAINAGE CONDITIONS WILL IMPROVE IN THE PROJECT VICINITY. THEY ARE ROUTING SOME OF THE WATER AWAY FROM, FOR EXAMPLE, MIRACLE LANE. AND SO IT'S SUPPOSED TO SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE THAT DRAINAGE ONCE IT'S FULLY COMPLETE. SO LOOKING AT THE SITE, HERE WE ARE LOOKING WEST ON 1171. HERE WE ARE LOOKING SOUTH DOWN, SHILOH. AND THEN LOOKING NORTH UP, SCENIC. SO AGAIN, HERE'S THAT PHASE ONE PLAN.

NOW WE'LL GO INTO THE INDIVIDUAL CLOSE, MORE CLOSE, CLOSE UP VIEW SECTIONS.

HERE. WE ARE JUST SOUTH OF 1171, THIS IS GOING WEST, SO THIS IS THE WHERE THE MINOR TRAILHEAD PUBLIC PARK WOULD BE.

OH, I SAID, GOING WEST, THAT'S NOT ALL RIGHT. SO THAT HE'S SILENT. SO THEN HERE WE ARE, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE MATCH LINES MATCH UP. THIS IS SOUTH OF WHERE WE WERE JUST LOOKING, SHEET TWO, SO THIS IS JUST CONTINUING SOUTH. AND THEN HERE WE ARE MOVING WEST, YOU CAN SEE THIS IS THE MATCH LINE OF SHEET THREE, AND THEN THIS GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE BOTTOM. AND THEN HERE WE ARE, MATCH LINE OF SHEET TWO, SO THIS IS LOOKING WEST. THIS IS JUST BELOW THAT. THIS IS MATCHING LINE OF SHEET ONE.

IT'S KIND OF HARD TO VISUALIZE THIS. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS MEANING A LOT TO Y'ALL, BUT JUST LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. SO THIS IS THE OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN. THEY ARE MEETING ALL OF THE TOWN'S LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS WHEN IT COMES TO LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, ESTABLISHING THE TRAILS, HARDSCAPE, ALL OF THOSE THINGS. HERE IS TREE SURVEY. SO THEY ARE REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR THREE SPECIMEN TREES. ON FEBRUARY 3RD, 2026, UCC RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THOSE TREES. THIS IS SHOWING, HERE IS THE FIRST ONE, TREE 9942-63, SO 23 INCH POST OAK. HERE'S ANOTHER 24 INCH POST OAK, AND YOU CAN SEE IT'S CIRCLED TO LOCATE THE GENERAL LOCATION OF IT. AND THEN THERE IS A THIRD, THERE IS ANOTHER 24 INCH POST OAK. TREE 9.2.5.1. SO THOSE ARE THE THREE, I THINK THEY'RE ALL KIND OF CONTAINED WITHIN THE LOT THEMSELVES.

AGAIN, IF YOU ALL HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON THE TREES, I'LL ASK JAKE TO HELP WITH THOSE. THE CONDITION STAFF IS PROPOSING AND PNZ DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THESE CONDITIONS IN PLACE. FIRST, JUST THE ALIGNMENT OF THE INTERSECTION OF DEER HOLLOW TRAIL AND SCENIC DRIVE WILL MEET TRAFFIC AND ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION. THAT'S REALLY JUST RE-EMPHASIZING THAT THAT WILL BE THE CASE IF THERE WAS ANY CONCERN, SINCE THAT LAYOUT ISN'T IN FINAL FORM YET. NEXT, THE FOLLOWING ONES ARE RELATED TO FLOODPLAIN EXCEPTION.

FLOODPLAIN STUDY REQUIRED WITH PHASE 1 OF THE HAVENWOOD DEVELOPMENT WILL SET BOTH THE LIMITS OF THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN VIA A LETTER OF MAP REVISION AND TOWN FULLY DEVELOPED FEMA FLOODPLAIN THROUGH THE FULL EXTENT.

OF THE HAVENWOOD DEVELOPMENT.

THE APPROVED DRAINAGE STUDY WILL BE UPDATED AND REVIEWED BY THE TOWN FLOODPLAIN MANAGER WITH EACH SUBSEQUENT PHASE OF THE HAVENWOOD DEVELOPMENT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE TOWN'S REGULATIONS AND CRITERIA. ALL FINAL FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARIES WILL BE IDENTIFIED ON EACH SUBDIVISION PLOT PHASE WITHIN AN UNBUILDABLE X-LOT THAT IS DEDICATED TO THE HOA AND CONSTRUCTION FOR ALL PHASES OF THE HAVENWOOD. DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN IS LIMITED TO PRIVATE TRAILS, RETENTION PONDS, GRADING AND ROADWAYS WITH UTILITY CROSSINGS.

ADDITIONAL APPROVALS FROM TOWN COUNCIL WILL NOT BE REQUIRED AS IT RELATES TO CLOSING THE FLOODPLAIN. THE APPROVAL OF THIS EXCEPTION, THAT IS ASSUMING THAT NOTHING CHANGES. IF THEY WISH TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING, THEN IT WOULD COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR A NEW EXCEPTION REQUEST.

[00:35:02]

SO AGAIN, THERE'S PHASE ONE. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

COUNCIL, YOU CAN GO AHEAD WITH ANY QUESTIONS, OR WE CAN HAVE THE APPLICANT COME UP.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, MIKE BOSWELL, 2665 VIRGINIA PARKWAY, FLOWER MOUNTAIN, TEXAS, 75022. BUT HOPEFULLY EVERYTHING THAT I GO THROUGH TONIGHT IS KIND OF, WE'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE, WHAT'S NEW. THAT'S BEEN OUR GOAL ALL ALONG. IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE MILITARY CHAPLAINCY APPROACH. YOU TELL THEM WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO TELL THEM, TELL THEM, THEN TELL THEM WHAT YOU TOLD THEM. JUST TO KIND OF GO THROUGH EVERYTHING, WE'VE REALLY JUST GOT FOUR CHAPTERS HERE TO TALK THROUGH. I WAS INFORMED BY MY WIFE. YOU MENTIONED THE MID-CITY SUMMIT. MY WIFE IS THE CAPEL VERSION OF THAT, SO YOU MAY GET TO MEET HER SATURDAY.

SHE INFORMED ME THAT HE ONLY SAYS THE HORROR OF THE HORROR TWICE IN THE BOOK, SO I HAD TO CORRECT IT UP HERE JUST FOR ACCURACY. TO START OFF WITH CHAPTER 1, LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE GAS WELLS. IF YOU RECALL, THERE WERE THREE SITES ON THIS PROJECT INITIALLY.

BOB SMITH TRACKED PAD A, PAD B, AND PAD C. PAD A AND PAD B CLOSED VERY QUICKLY, BUT PAD C WAS PROBLEMATIC IN SO MUCH AS THERE WAS A SHALLOW CONTAMINATION OF GROUNDWATER THAT WAS FOUND THERE. AND SO WE WORKED WITH THE TOWN STAFF, WE WORKED WITH EAGLE RIDGE, AND IT WAS REALLY THE OUTCOME OF A SETTLEMENT THAT WAS REACHED BETWEEN THE TOWN AND EAGLE RIDGE YEARS AGO. AS I POINTED OUT AT THE PNZ MEETING, IT WAS ONE OF JIM ENGLE'S LAST ACTS ON COUNCIL PRIOR TO HIS DEPARTURE. BUT WITH THAT SAID, IT TOOK A GOOD BIT OF TIME WORKING WITH THE CONSULTANTS, WORKING WITH THE FOLKS UP AT WICHITA FALLS, AND THEN, BECAUSE THERE WAS A PROBLEM, IT HAD TO GO DOWN TO THE STATE GROUP DOWN IN AUSTIN. WE FINALLY GOT THERE, AND ON JANUARY, THE 26TH, I'M SORRY, THE 21ST, THE LETTER WAS ISSUED BY THE STATE INDICATING THAT IT HAD BEEN DEALT WITH AND CLOSED OUT, AND SO THE GROUNDWATER ISSUE HAS BEEN REMEDIATED. JUST A SITE VIEW HERE AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL.

PAD SITE C WAS THE ONE AT THE VERY SOUTH END. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO ACCESS AT THIS POINT, BUT I WILL ALSO POINT OUT THAT YOU CAN BARELY SEE PAD SITE A AND B ANYMORE BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY LARGELY OVER-VEGETATED. THE ONLY WAY YOU WOULD KNOW THAT IT'S STILL THERE IS THAT. THERE ARE SOME TREES THAT WERE PLANTED WITH THE SCREENING PER THE ORDINANCE, THAT ARE STILL THERE AND GROWING, AND THEN ALSO THE STEMS STILL STICK IN THE AIR.

AND SO THOSE ARE STILL THERE.

WE'LL HAVE TO WORK THROUGH THAT AND SCREENING THEM. THEY HAVE TO REMAIN IN SIGHT, AND THOSE AREAS CAN'T BE INSIDE OF A RESIDENTIAL LOT.

BUT THAT PART IS BEHIND US ALL. AND I WANT TO APPRECIATE STAFF WORKING VERY DILIGENTLY WITH US ON IT, MATT AND HIS TEAM. THE FUTURE OF SCENIC, WE'VE HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT THROUGH THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT. WE'VE LOOKED AT KIND OF WHERE TOWN STAFF WANTED TO LOOK AT DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. WE ARE AWARE THAT THE TOWN COUNCIL DOESN'T WISH TO GO FORWARD WITH THAT AT THIS TIME, SO AS A FUNDING PRIORITY, IT'S MOVED DOWN THE LIST. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, STAFF WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER WE DID ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER WAS THERE TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY FOR THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT IN THE FUTURE.

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL LIFE, I ACTUALLY USED THE WORD MULTIVERSE IN A TEXT. BECAUSE THERE WERE MANY DIFFERENT OUTCOMES THAT COULD OCCUR THERE. THERE'S A LOT OF IMAGINATION THAT GOES INTO THESE ENGINEERING PLANTS.

AND SO WE CAME UP WITH ONE.

AND IT'S BASICALLY THIS. WE STARTED A REVERSE CURVE AND THEN TURNED IT TO GO BACK IN AND TO MEET SCENIC WHERE IT IS TODAY, AND TO BE AT A PERPENDICULAR INTERSECTION.

YOU WANT TO DO THAT FOR SIGHT, VISIBILITY, ETC.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE WANTED TO PROVIDE THE ABILITY TO BEND IT UP TO HIT A CERTAIN PI POINT.

SO, WITH THAT SAID, WE WORKED WITH STAFF TO KIND OF WORK THROUGH WHAT WOULD BE AN ACCEPTABLE ALIGNMENT.

UNDERSTANDING THAT A WATER LINE WOULD ALSO BE NEEDED, THAT TREES WERE THERE, AND THERE WOULD ALSO NEED TO BE A TRAIL AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. SO THAT'S WHAT IS IN THE PLANS TODAY. IT ALSO IS IN, WE'VE TALKED WITH THE FOLKS ON THE NORTH SIDE AND SOME INTERACTION WITH THE GENTLEMAN TO THE SOUTH, BUT THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE IN THE PLAN TODAY, AND WE THINK IT'LL WORK IN JUST ABOUT ANY SCENARIO THAT THE TOWN COMES FORWARD WITH IN THE FUTURE. SO, MIKE, LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT ONE JUST FOR A MINUTE, SINCE THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE SOUTH HAS COME

[00:40:01]

TO US A COUPLE OF TIMES NOW.

AND I THINK THAT YOUR STATEMENT THAT WE'RE IN AGREEMENT NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS RIGHT AWAY IS MAYBE NOT 100% ACCURATE. I THINK THERE'S STILL SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S A CLEAR DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL YET IN TERMS OF THE TIMING OF THIS. SO I WANTED TO FIND OUT FROM YOU, SO NUMBER ONE, WHEN DO YOU ANTICIPATE THAT THIS ENTRANCE WILL BE OPEN AND AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE TO USE? SO THIS WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED WITH PHASE ONE, SO PROBABLY IN THE NEXT 14 MONTHS, I WOULD SAY, WE WOULD START PUTTING TRAFFIC THERE. OKAY. AND DO YOU ANTICIPATE ANY CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC USING THIS ENTRANCE? I DOUBT IT. I THINK MOST OF THE TRAFFIC IS EITHER GOING TO COME OFF OF SHILOH ROAD.

RIGHT. WE ALSO HAVE A DRIVEWAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO USE TEMPORARILY FOR CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC OFF OF 1171. AND CAN WE MAKE SURE THAT THEY DON'T USE THIS ENTRANCE? IS THAT POSSIBLE? IT'S VERY DIFFICULT IN THE WORLD OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND IN THE WORLD OF WAZE. I MEAN, WAZE WILL GET YOU LOST MORE WAYS THAN YOU KNOW. THE UNFORTUNATE PROBLEM IS IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO CLOSE THOSE OFF TO CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC.

RIGHT. IN A PERFECT WORLD, WHEN WOULD, FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, WHEN WOULD THE SCENIC IMPROVEMENTS BE COMPLETED? WHICH SCENIC IMPROVEMENT? SO IT'S IMPROVED, LET'S SAY IT'S IMPROVED AT THE TURN TO THE NORTH, WHICH IS WALSINGHAM AND SCENIC GOING NORTH, AND LET'S SAY THAT'S DONE. AND THEN IT'S NOT GOING TO BE IMPROVED SOUTH OF HERE, SO THIS AREA IN BETWEEN, THIS EAST-WEST SECTION.

IN A PERFECT WORLD FOR YOU, WHEN WOULD THOSE IMPROVEMENTS BE COMPLETED? THIS IS NOT A PRIMARY ENTRANCE FOR US. THIS IS MORE OF A SECOND POINT OF ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS. IT HAS MORE TO DO WITH... PROVIDING MULTIPLE POINTS TO GET PEOPLE IF THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED ON 1171, IT'S REALLY JUST A MATTER OF MULTIPLE POINTS. GETTING PEOPLE IN AND OUT AND TO THE SOUTH, WHATEVER IS NEEDED. REMEMBER, WE HAVE A FIRE STATION ON THE NORTH EAST, NORTHWEST CORNER, WE ALSO HAVE A FIRE STATION TO THE SOUTH AND WEST OF US, OR SOUTH AND EAST OF US. AND SO THIS, IN OUR MIND, IS MORE OF A ROUTING SITUATION FOR A LARGER REGIONAL SITUATION.

WHERE WE NEED TO CLOSE AT 1171, LAND A HELICOPTER, AND WE MAY NEED TO ROUTE TRAFFIC THROUGH ALTERNATIVE MEANS.

RIGHT. SO YOU DON'T REALLY, YOU'RE NOT TOO CONCERNED ABOUT WHEN THESE IMPROVEMENTS ARE COMPLETED? NOT AT ALL. OKAY.

SO, MR. PETERSON, IT SOUNDS LIKE HE WANTS THEM DONE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE IMPROVEMENTS COMPLETED KIND OF IN COORDINATION WITH WHEN THIS ENTRANCE IS AVAILABLE FOR YOUR NEW HOMEOWNERS TO MOVE, TO COME AND GO. SO WE DON'T REALLY HAVE, THERE'S A LOT OF UNKNOWNS.

THERE'S A LOT OF... DIFFERENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND QUESTIONS.

AND I THINK YOU KIND OF HAVE TO GET YOUR ENGINEERING DONE BEFORE WE CAN EVEN HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND FROM YOU THAT YOU'RE PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE WITH THIS ALIGNMENT. AND IF WE HAVE TO DRAG OUR FEET A LITTLE BIT, THEN THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE A PROBLEM FOR YOU, BUT WE'LL TRY TO GET IT DONE AS FAST AS. I LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE WE USE THE PACE, ACRONYM, PRIMARY, ALTERNATE, CONTINGENCY, AND EMERGENCY. I HAVE TO LIVE IN THAT WORLD, RIGHT? IT'S HOW WE UNDERWRITE EVERY DEAL. IT'S HOW WE UNDERWRITE EVERY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, OR WHAT HAVE YOU. SO I HAVE TO COME UP WITH MULTIPLE ALTERNATIVES IN CASE THE FIRST ONE FALLS APART.

THAT'S WHAT WE APPLIED TO THIS THOUGHT PROBLEM. HOW WOULD WE REROUTE THIS IF WE HAD TO REROUTE IT? AND ALSO WE'RE AWARE THAT THERE'S A WATER LINE SITUATION HERE. WE'RE ALSO AWARE THERE'S A DRAINAGE COMPONENT TO THIS. WE'RE AWARE THAT THERE'S A BUILDING THAT'S VERY CLOSE TO WHERE THIS NORTHERN, ON THE NORTHERN LINE, THERE'S A HOME THAT'S REALLY CLOSE TO THAT PROPERTY LINE. OR WHAT WOULD BE A RIGHT-OF-WAY TAKING TO GET TO THE ULTIMATE DIMENSION.

THIS ROAD AND IMPROVING IT IS NOT REALLY IMPORTANT TO ME FOR ACCESS TO OUR PROJECT.

AGAIN, IT'S MORE OF A, IF EVERYTHING GOES WRONG ON 1171 AND WE NEED TO REROUTE TRAFFIC, THIS IS ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE TO GET PEOPLE EAST, SOUTH, NORTH, WEST, WHATEVER DIRECTION THE EMERGENCY SERVICES FOLKS NEED IT TO GO. I MEAN, THAT'S REALLY ALL WE'RE FOCUSED ON.

SO YOUR OPINION IS THAT YOUR NEW RESIDENTS, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THIS AS A PRIMARY ENTRANCE, AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO USE IT SIGNIFICANTLY? I THINK SOME OF THE FOLKS ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER WILL. I DON'T KNOW THAT THE PEOPLE ON THE WEST SIDE WILL. AND SO THE LANGUAGE IN THE PROPOSED MOTION WOULD INCLUDE THAT. THIS NEEDS TO BE BUILT TO THE TOWN STANDARDS, I THINK, WHEN SCENIC IS IMPROVED. AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE TO GO IN AND RECONFIGURE IT A LITTLE BIT TO MEET THAT. AND UNDERSTAND, IF MR. PETERSON WANTS TO GO IN AND IMPROVE SCENIC WITH HIS... SITE PLAN, HE'S MORE THAN CAPABLE OF DOING THAT AS WELL. I MEAN, THIS DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A TOLL PROJECT. IF CIRCLE R RANCH WANTS TO COME IN AND DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT WITH THEIR SITE, THEY TOO COULD TAKE THIS ON.

WE'RE TRYING TO COME UP WITH AN ALIGNMENT THAT'S AS FLEXIBLE AS POSSIBLE. SO THAT WHATEVER YOU GUYS DECIDE IS THE RIGHT TIME AND WHAT IS THE RIGHT ALIGNMENT FOR THIS, IT ACCOMMODATES THAT.

I HOPE THAT MAKES SENSE.

YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE. AND I THINK WE WANT TO BE A GOOD PARTNER,

[00:45:01]

AND WE WANT TO TAKE CARE OF THIS GUY AND YOU AND HAVE EVERYTHING WORK. AND, I MEAN, THERE'S JUST A LOT OF UNKNOWNS AT THIS TIME THAT HAVE TO BE FIGURED OUT BEFORE WE CAN MOVE FORWARD, I THINK, STARTING WITH YOU COMPLETING THE ENGINEERING ON THIS. I AGREE. OKAY, THANKS.

THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS. I APPRECIATE IT, MIKE. THE TREES, THE TREES. OH, SORRY. YEAH, THE TREES. ARE YOU PRESENTING MORE ON THE TREES? IT'S GOING TO BE VERY FAST. NO, GO AHEAD.

SO. SO. AS WE WORK THROUGH THIS AND WORK THROUGH OUR FINAL DESIGN WITH PHASE ONE, WE TALKED WITH JAKE SPECKLES. HE ASKED US TO RESUBMIT THE EPP, WHICH GOES THROUGH JUST AN ASSESSMENT OF EVERYTHING THAT'S ON THE GROUND TODAY.

BUT NOW IT'S INFORMED BY THE ACTUAL GRADING THAT WE HAVE FOR THE PROJECT. IT GOES BACK AND LOOKS AT THE DRAINAGE PONDS THAT WERE THERE AND HOW THEY'VE BEEN MODIFIED TO FUNCTION AS DRAINAGE FACILITIES, ETC.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU WOULDN'T REALLY RECOGNIZE ANYTHING DIFFERENT FROM THIS, FROM WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED. IT, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT STAFF DID REVIEW THAT. THEY ASKED FOR AN UPDATE FOR IT, AND THEY DID REVIEW IT. AND IT'S GENERALLY IN A POINT WHERE WE'RE STILL NOT PROVIDING ANY MITIGATION BECAUSE IT'S JUST NOT REQUIRED. AS YOU RECALL, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF TREES ON THE PROPERTY. WE WENT THROUGH ECC. WE HAD A NUMBER OF THEM THAT WERE APPROVED, AND THEN WE CAME TO COUNCIL.

COUNCIL DELISTED A FEW OF THEM, BUT IN THE PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH THE ENTIRE SITE, WE SURVEYED OVER 12,933 TREES.

STEVE DIXON HAS A WHOLE BUCKET OF TREE TAGS. AT SOME POINT, WE HAD LIKE 15,000 PLUS TAGS, AND WE WERE RUNNING OUT OF NUMBERS, AND STEVE DIXON WENT AND STARTED PULLING THEM OFF OF HIS TREES. SO, WITH THAT SAID, WHEN WE FINALLY GOT THE BOUNDARIES ADJUSTED TO NOT INCLUDE THEIR TRACK, WE ENDED UP WITH 12,933 TREES.

THERE WAS ALSO SOME DOUBLE DIPPING WHEN WE HAD GONE THROUGH AND DONE SOME WORK ON SCENIC ROAD BACK IN THE DAY.

SO WHEN WE LANDED, WE ACTUALLY NOW HAVE 790 SPECIMEN TREES ON THE PROPERTY. THAT'S IN PHASE ONE, BEEN LARGELY VERIFIED TO BE 46 MORE TREES THAN WHAT WE ORIGINALLY HAD. ON PAPER, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH ABOUT 140-SOMETHING MORE FOR ALL PHASES, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TODAY IN TERMS OF OUR TOTAL COUNT.

WITH THAT SAID, WE ALSO INSTRUCTED OUR FOLKS THAT CAME IN, AND AGAIN, A LOT OF THESE PEOPLE CAME FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY, SO WE MADE SURE THEY WERE AWARE THAT IF YOU SEE AN INDIAN MARKER CANDIDATE, YOU NEED TO LET US KNOW. A COUPLE OF THEM KNEW WHAT THAT WAS BECAUSE THEY CAME FROM FLORIDA.

SEVERAL OF THEM DID NOT, SO WE HAD TO INFORM THEM OF THAT. LONG STORY SHORT, THEY DID NOT SEE THAT THERE WERE ANY CANDIDATES FOR THAT.

WITH THAT SAID, WITH THIS NEW ASK, WE'RE ASKING FOR THREE ADDITIONAL TREES.

LEXAN DID A GREAT JOB OF SHOWING WHERE THEY ARE.

THEY'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF PADS. WE'VE DONE A GOOD BIT OF WORK, TRYING TO MOVE THINGS AROUND AND SHIFT THINGS AROUND, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE DO HAVE DRAINAGE CONSTRAINTS.

WE HAVE MINIMUM WIDTHS FOR THE OPEN SPACE AREAS, IF IT'S GOT TO BE OVER 40 FEET, ETC. SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE HITTING ALL THE OTHER LEVERS ALONG THE WAY. SO THIS IS AN ASK FOR THREE ADDITIONAL TREES. WE COULD PUT IT OFF AND HAND IT WITH THE BUILDING, BUT IT SEEMS MORE APPROPRIATE TO COME FORWARD NOW AND DEAL WITH IT UP FRONT. SO, WITH THAT SAID, WE'VE GOT A TOTAL OF 301 SPECIMEN TREES IN PHASE ONE.

WE'RE ASKING FOR THREE ADDITIONAL HERE.

WITH THAT SAID, WE RECEIVED THE ECC APPROVAL BACK IN EARLY FEBRUARY, SO WE'RE JUST ASKING THAT THOSE THREE TREES BE ALLOWED. TWO OF THEM LOOK LIKE THEY'RE ON THE EDGE OF THOSE PAD SITES? YES, BUT BY THE TIME WE GET THE GRADING, SO, FOR INSTANCE, THE ONE ON THE FURTHER SOUTH, SO WHAT THAT IS IS? IT'S RIGHT THERE, ON THE EDGE OF WHAT'S THE OLD HOMESTEAD, AND THE TOPOGRAPHY DROPS DOWN FAIRLY RAPIDLY THERE. SO WE'VE WON. WE'VE ALREADY HAD A NUMBER OF TREES AROUND THAT HOME DIE. THERE'S PROBABLY FOUR THAT I KNOW OF THAT HAVE ALREADY DIED, AND WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE HEALTH OF THIS ONE.

SHE DIDN'T SHOW YOU THE PICTURES, BUT THESE TREES, WHILE THEY'RE STILL CONSIDERED FAIR, THEY'RE NOT IN THAT GREATER CONDITION. SO RATHER THAN TRAUMATIZE THEM AND TRY TO DO SOMETHING CRAZY, WE JUST FELT IT WAS MORE APPROPRIATE TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE THAT ONE OUT AND LEAVE THE REST. I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

CAN YOU SHOW THE GRADING? I DON'T HAVE THE GRADING HERE, BUT BASICALLY IF YOU STAND RIGHT HERE, YOU CAN SEE LIKE GRAPEVINE, AND WHAT YOU'RE STANDING ON IS THE GRADING. GOES SOMETHING LIKE THIS. SO IT'S COMING OFF THAT HILL, AND THE ORIGINAL, THE HOUSE THAT BOB SMITH BUILT, IS LOCATED RIGHT HERE, WHICH IS WHERE WE ARE PLACING THE AMENITY CENTER.

WHEN YOU SPOKE AT ECC, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT A RETAINING WALL. AND THERE ARE TWO WALLS THERE. SO THIS ONE RIGHT HERE, THIS IS A RETAINING WALL. AND YOU SEE THE BUBBLE HERE? WHAT THAT'S DOING IS TO PROTECT THIS TREE. AND THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER RETAINING WALL BEHIND THIS PAD. SO THE BOX THAT YOU SEE HERE IS THE ACTUAL HOME PAD. SO

[00:50:02]

WITH THAT HOME PAD, THAT IS ACTUALLY, THAT TREE IS IN THE PAD ITSELF. IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE COME OFF THE BACK OF THAT PAD AND WE PUT ANOTHER WALL HERE AND THEN WE HAVE TO ADD ANOTHER WALL. YET THROUGH HERE AND ALONG THE SIDE. THE BOTTOM LINE IS, ONCE YOU ROOT, PRUNE IT, IT'S IT'S PRETTY TRAUMATIC FOR THE TREE, SO IT'S IT'S LIKE, I SAID, IT'S. IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS. WE'RE ALREADY REMOVING THESE TWO HERE. UM, WE'VE, WE'VE GOT DRIVEWAY AND ROAD HERE, I MEAN, WE'RE DOING WHAT WE CAN AGAIN.

UH, JAKE CAN SHOW YOU THE PICTURES OF THESE SPECIFIC TREES? THEY'RE NOT IN THAT GRADE OF CONDITION. AND THE THE ONE TO THE EAST IS THAT, IN A SIMILAR SITUATION, VERY SIMILAR. YOU CAN SEE HERE A RETAINING WALL COMING ALONG THIS AREA HERE. YOU CAN ALSO SEE AN ADDITIONAL RETAINING WALL ON THE BACK HERE, WHERE WE'RE MAKING SURE WE'RE NOT GETTING INTO THE FLOODPLAIN. JAKE, DID YOU WANT TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THIS? I CAN REVIEW THE PICTURES OF THE TREES, BUT LIKE MIKE WAS SAYING, THIS ONE RIGHT ON THE RETAINING WALL, RIGHT THERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS, THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOME, AND THEN THIS ONE IS STILL CATCHING THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOME. SO IT'S JUST A LOT OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO THESE SPECIMEN TREES.

WELL, IS IT JUST THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOME, OR IS IT BECAUSE OF THE GRADING ON THAT 401 TO THE EAST? I THINK THIS ONE'S CATCHING PART OF THE BUILDING PAD ITSELF AND THEN ALSO THAT GRADING. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MIKE, BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE TRAINING, PROBABLY BACK HERE. SO, INEVITABLY, THOSE TREES WILL BE LOST.

THAT'S CORRECT, YEAH. BECAUSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. I BELIEVE SO, YEAH. WITH ALL THE IMPACTS TO THE ROOT SYSTEM, THEY DO NOT HAVE A GOOD CHANCE OF MAKING IT THROUGH.

BUT EVEN IF THEY LAY THE PAD FOR THE HOME AROUND THE TREE WITH THAT HUGE PAD? AREN'T THESE LOTS ALREADY BENCHED? WE WOULD BENCH THEM WITH CONSTRUCTION, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, REMEMBER, YOUR ORDINANCE IS NO LOT-TO-LOT DRAINAGE. IT HAS TO GO TO A RIGHT-OF-WAY OR TO AN X-LOT, SO YOU'RE KIND OF LIMITED. AT THE SAME TIME, YOU'VE GOT TREMENDOUS SLOPE OUT HERE. THAT'S WHY WE HAD THE SLOPE EXCEPTION, SO IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND. I MEAN, AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU'RE GOING TO COME OFF THE PAD. DOWN TO A SWELL IN BETWEEN THE TWO HOMES AND THEN DIRECT IT TO THE BACK, OR DIRECT IT TO THE BAR, TO THE FRONT OF THE HOME. YOU HAVE THE PICTURES. YEAH, THEY'RE PROBABLY ON HERE.

YEAH, I GOT THE OTHER TWO.

JUST THAT ONE, I WANT A LITTLE BIT MORE INFO.

THEY'RE GOING TO THE INTERWEB. THE ONE ON THE BOTTOM? THE EAST ONE. I THINK IT'S 6636. OR IT MIGHT BE 40. YEAH, BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE THE HOUSE. SO 6636. I THINK WITH THE ONE ON THE LEFT, I'M SEEING QUITE A BIT OF CANOPY DIEBACK. THE ONE IN THE MIDDLE'S ALREADY GOT SOME DAMAGE IN THE CENTER LEAD THERE. THE ONE ON THE RIGHT HAS LARGELY BEEN LEFT ALONE. THERE'S SOME OTHER UNDERBRUSH UNDER IT THAT'S PROBABLY IMPACTING ITS GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OVER TIME. WERE ALL THESE PICTURES TAKEN AT THE SAME TIME? THEY WERE.

NO, THEY WEREN'T. I TOOK, I THINK, THE 6636. I'D HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE DATE, BUT THAT ONE WAS TAKEN LATER.

AND THEN THE OTHER TWO, I'D HAVE TO FIND THE EXACT MONTHS, BUT YEAH, SO SOMEWHAT. MIKE SAYING THE 994263, JUST THE FACT THAT THE CANOPY IS NOT AS FULL. WHEN YOU COMPARE IT TO 9251, I'D SAY 994263 IS IN FAIR CONDITION, 9251 GOOD CONDITION. AND THEN, YEAH, THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF BREAKAGE IN THAT. THAT STEM ON 6636. THE MIDDLE ONE LOOKS VERY THIN. IT DOESN'T LOOK VERY HEALTHY. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS TAKEN AT THE SAME TIME, THEN THAT SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY STARK DIFFERENCE.

IS THE ONE IN THE MIDDLE, THAT'S THE EASTERNMOST TREE THAT CHRIS IS ASKING ABOUT? YOU CAN SEE THE HOUSE ON 4263.

OKAY, YEAH, I DO SEE IT.

YEAH, SO THAT'S IT. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WAS TAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OF FALL. IT SAID IT WAS LISTED AS GOOD CONDITION IN THE LIST. THAT'S THE ONLY ONE I'M A LITTLE, IS THERE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO SAVE IT? YEAH, I ASSESS THEM AS GOOD CONDITION, THE OTHER TWO, 6636 AND 9251.

BUT THEN I WOULD SAY, 994263 IS UNFAIR. YOU SAID 9251 IS IN GOOD CONDITION? I'M CONFUSED.

YES, 9251. YEAH, IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT. SO I UNDERSTAND 42, 63, AND 92, 51, BUT I'M A LITTLE SKEPTICAL ABOUT 66, 36. WELL, THIS IS A

[00:55:12]

PUBLIC HEARING. I MEAN, WE CAN, ARE YOU ALL DONE WITH YOUR PRESENTATION? DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, I WANT TO MOVE INTO DELIBERATION, AND I WAS GOING TO ASK BRENT A QUESTION, BUT I THINK WE STILL HAVE ANOTHER POINT TO MAKE IN YOUR PRESENTATION, SO I CAN WAIT. VERY SIMPLE STUFF HERE, THE FLOODPLAIN EXCEPTION. AND THIS GOES BACK TO THE ORIGINAL TRAIL STUFF.

WE WANT TO GET THE TRAILS IN THERE. YOU'RE ALSO SEEING THAT THESE ROADS, WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE IS WE'VE FOLLOWED THE OLD GAS WELL ROADS THAT WERE PUT IN YEARS AGO. WANT TO MINIMIZE IMPACT TO TREES, WANT TO MINIMIZE IMPACT TO ESA AREAS. ODDLY ENOUGH, IN THE SOUTHERN ROAD, THERE'S ACTUALLY AN EXISTING WATER EASEMENT THERE TODAY THAT CONNECTS THE WATER LINE FROM SCENIC TO SHILOH. SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING THAT. AGAIN, THE EFFORT HERE IS TO MINIMIZE IMPACT. I THINK STAFF HAS DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB OF HIGHLIGHTING THE PLUSES AND MINUSES. IT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH, YOU KNOW, AS WE SIT HERE TODAY, PHASE ONE DOES NOT HAVE ANY FEMA DELINEATED FLOODPLAIN ON IT.

BUT IT IS CITY FLOODPLAIN, AND WE KNOW THAT WHEN WE'RE DONE, WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH AND DO A LOAMER FOR THE ENTIRE TOP TO BOTTOM, AND THAT WILL ESTABLISH THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS, THAT WILL ESTABLISH THE MINIMUM FINISH FLOOR ELEVATIONS ON THE HOME SITES, SO THAT WHEN THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS ACTUALLY REVIEWING THE PLANS, THEY LOOK AT THAT WITH A FORMWORK SURVEY, AND THE MORTGAGE UNDERWRITER DOESN'T PROVIDE A NEED FOR FLOOD INSURANCE. WHEN I STARTED MY CAREER IN THIS BUSINESS, IT WAS A FEW HUNDRED DOLLARS.

IT'S THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS NOW. AND IT'S IT'S IMPACTFUL TO THE RESIDENTS, SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CONTRIBUTING TO THAT.

ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS AS WE WORK THROUGH THE NOTIFICATION MEETINGS THAT WE HAD VERY EARLY ON WITH THIS PROJECT. WE HAD THOSE CIRCLE, OUR RANCH, THE MIRACLE RAIN, MIRACLE LANE FOLKS WERE THERE, WE DO. WE ARE AWARE THERE'S A DRAINAGE ISSUE THERE AND SO IT'S, IT'S. IT'S VERY MUCH IN THEIR MIND.

BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF OUR DRAINAGE WENT TO ZERO, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE A PROBLEM. SO WE'VE WORKED WITH STAFF TO UNDERSTAND THE EXISTING CONDITION. WE'VE ALSO WORKED WITH STAFF TO COME UP WITH WHAT WE THINK IS A GOOD PLAN. AS I SAID AT THE P&Z MEETING, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE DRIVING FROM AUSTIN, OR FROM DALLAS TO AUSTIN, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE HITTING THOSE MILE MARKERS AS WE GO. YOU KNOW, 423 IS GWF, WACO IS LIKE 350 SOMETHING, AND THEN AUSTIN'S IN THE 230, 240 RANGE. AND SO YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE HITTING THOSE MILESTONES AND MAKE SURE YOU'RE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. AND IT ALSO HELPS YOU QUANTIFY WHAT YOU'RE DOING ALONG THE WAY. SO WE WANT TO, FOR INSTANCE, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DESIGNING THESE PONDS WITH THIS PROBLEM IN MIND. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS POND, KNOWING WHAT WE CAN DO TO REROUTE WATER TO GET IT.

TO LAKE GRAPEVINE, WHICH IS THIS LITTLE PIECE RIGHT HERE.

SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE AS WE'RE DRIVING, WE'RE HITTING THOSE MILESTONES AND PICKING UP THAT WATER AND GETTING THE QUEUE OFF OF THOSE RESIDENTS TO THE SOUTH. THE ONLY LAST THING THAT I'LL SAY, AND THIS GETS BACK TO THE PARK PROGRAM HERE, WE WILL BE COMING BACK AT SOME POINT. WE UPDATED THE PARKS BOARD A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, LET THEM KNOW WHAT WE WERE DOING HERE, KIND OF GAVE THEM. SOME. VISUAL CUES. LARGELY MATCH WHAT WE'VE ALREADY SHOWN YOU. WE DID INCLUDE A LOT OF THE FLAT WORK, SITE WORK IN WITH OUR CIVIL STUFF WHEN WE BID THIS STUFF A FEW MONTHS AGO. SO WE WANT TO GET THOSE NUMBERS CORRECT.

AND ON A PIECE OF PAPER, WE'LL GET BACK WITH STAFF AND WITH THE PARKS BOARD, COME UP WITH THE AGREEMENT AND HOW THE PARK IMPROVEMENT AND THE PARK DEVELOPMENT FEES CAN ROLL. AND BASICALLY, MAKE SURE THAT WE COME TO Y'ALL ONCE FOR ONE MONEY AMOUNT AND NOT MULTIPLE HITS AT IT. SO, WITH THAT SAID, THERE IS THAT. AND THEN RELATED TO THE FEMA MATTER IS THIS PIECE DOWN HERE. AGAIN, THE PIECE THE TOWN PARKS FOLKS DON'T WANT TO TAKE OWNERSHIP OF IS PARKLAND THAT'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN. SO AS THIS IS DONE AND MAPPED, THE IDEA IS WE WANT TO SET THAT LINE, AND THEN WE WANT TO BASICALLY SET THE WESTERN OR EASTERN EDGE OF WHAT THAT PARK WOULD BE, AND THAT'S WHERE WE TRUE UP THE TOTAL ACREAGES AT THE END OF THE PROJECT.

WITH THAT SAID, THAT'S REALLY THE END OF THE PRESENTATION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'M HERE ALL NIGHT.

COUNCIL? YOU HAD SOMETHING? I DO. I DO HAVE SOMETHING. AND ACTUALLY, IT'S ABOUT THE TREES. SO MAYBE YOU COULD PUT BACK THE SLIDE 14, MAYBE. OKAY, THAT'LL DO. SO WE HAVE SOME BRAND NEW FACES HERE IN THE AUDIENCE. AND MAYBE IT WOULD BE FOR THEIR BENEFIT TO UNDERSTAND HOW, WHILE THIS COUNCIL IS VERY IN TUNE WITH TRYING TO PROTECT AND SAVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE. THAT THERE ARE SOME LEGISLATIVE ENCUMBRANCES THAT TIE OUR HANDS SOMETIMES. AND I WAS HOPING, BRIAN, YOU COULD JUST ADD A LITTLE BIT OF THAT FOR OUR NEWCOMERS IN THE AUDIENCE. SO THEY UNDERSTAND WHY WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SAVE SOME OF THESE

[01:00:01]

TREES. I CAN ARTICULATE THE STANDARD FOR THE ESSENTIALLY LEGAL THRESHOLD FOR WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO APPROVE A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. AND WHILE THERE ARE SOME LEGISLATIVE MATTERS REGARDING MITIGATION FEES AND PAYMENTS, WHAT'S REALLY AT PLAY HERE IS OUR OWN ORDINANCES. AND YOU WANT A LEGAL STANDARD, RIGHT? BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT'S GOING TO BE ARBITRARY. AND SO THE LEGAL STANDARD HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT WHEN YOU LOOK AT A TREE, WHETHER THE PROPERTY CAN BE ECONOMICALLY OR PRACTICALLY DEVELOPED. IF THE TREE IS NOT PERMITTED TO BE REMOVED. AND SO THAT'S THE FACT QUESTION THAT YOU APPLY AGAINST THE RULE TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE OBLIGATED TO APPROVE THE REMOVAL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT.

CERTAINLY. OKAY. COUNCIL, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I ACTUALLY HAD ONE QUESTION. IT'S KIND OF ANCILLARY TO THIS DISCUSSION. YOU MENTIONED AT ECC, AND YOU SAID IT AGAIN TONIGHT TOO, THAT YOU FOUND SOME EXTRA TREES, SOME EXTRA SPECIMEN TREES. AND I MISSED EXACTLY HOW MANY.

WHAT HAPPENS WITH THOSE, AND ARE THEY IN THIS PHASE? SO 46 OF THEM ARE IN PHASE ONE.

WE LEAVE THEM THERE. I MEAN, OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY. OKAY, THEY'VE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND THEY'RE STAYING.

CORRECT. OKAY. THE OTHER PART IS, RIGHT NOW WE'RE SITTING AT ABOUT 760, 761. 761. ALL RIGHT, BUT THOSE ARE IN FUTURE PHASES ONCE WE GET DONE WITH THE ENGINEERING. WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU WITH THE SITE PLAN, I BELIEVE.

I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.

MAYBE I'M WRONG. BUT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN. WE WILL KEEP A RUNNING TALLY OF THOSE. I DON'T PLAN TO PLAY GOTCHA WITH THE NUMBERS. IF YOU'LL RECALL WHEN WE CAME THROUGH THE FIRST TIME. I TOLD YOU, THIS IS NOT THE LAST TIME YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THIS. WE ARE KEEPING TRACK OF THOSE AS WE MOVE THROUGH, AND WE'LL BE TOUCHING THEM PERIODICALLY AS WE MOVE THROUGH THE PROCESS. AND, MIKE, ARE SOME OF THOSE BECAUSE THEY WERE PROTECTED? AND THEN OVER THE YEARS, THEY'VE GROWN INTO A SPECIMEN SIZE NOW.

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, EITHER IT DOES OR IT DOESN'T, AND MAYBE THEY JUST HAVE GROWN? I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE CONTEXT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS UNDERSTANDING THAT. YEAH, IF ADDITIONAL TREES ARE FOUND, IT'S NOT LIKE, OH, WE MISSED IT THE FIRST TIME, SO IT'S NOT SUBJECT TO OUR REGULATIONS. IT'S SIMILAR TO, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING WHERE YOU GO FROM ZONING TO SITE PLAN. HERE WE'RE GOING FROM ZONING TO SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN BECAUSE IT'S RESIDENTIAL. BUT WE ALWAYS GET AN UPDATED SURVEY WHEN YOU GET IT TO THE NEXT ENGINEERED STEP.

AND SO ANYTHING THAT'S IDENTIFIED WITHIN THAT STEP, YOU THEN HAVE TO ADDRESS. SO SIMILAR AS TO THIS, WHERE THERE WERE THREE ADDITIONAL.

MULTIPLE, 46 ADDITIONAL SPECIMEN TREES THAT THEY FOUND, BUT THREE THAT THEY FOUND THAT THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO SAVE, AND SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE BACK TO YOU ASKING. SO THAT WOULD BE THE SAME FOR ANY OTHER PHASE AS THEY MOVE FORWARD. IF THEY IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL TREES, THEIR SPECIMEN THAT THEY CAN'T SAVE, THEN THEY'LL COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL. I THINK SOME OF IT JUST HAS TO DO WITH THE SHEER SIZE OF THIS PROPERTY AND THE NUMBER OF TREES ON IT, YOU KNOW, BEING MORE THAN LIKE 12,000.

THEY WERE TRYING TO DO SOMEWHAT OF, I THINK, AN AERIAL SURVEY. AND SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, NOT ENGINEERED.

SO THEY DID THE BEST THAT THEY COULD.

BUT WHEN THEY ARE COMING IN WITH THESE ENGINEERED PHASES, THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE VERIFYING EVERY DETAIL AND GETTING PERMISSION FROM COUNCIL IF NEEDED. YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE. I GUESS I WAS JUST MAKING SURE THAT THEY WERE STAYING, THE ONES THAT HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED. THANK YOU. YEAH, I THINK SOME OF IT ALSO MAY BE THAT SOMEONE THAT'S 6'2 VERSUS SOMEONE THAT'S 5'5 MEASURING.

THE TREE. I THINK THERE'S, AND HOW TIGHT DID YOU TIE IT? DID YOU TIE IT IN THE RIGHT SPOT? DID IT, I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH ERROR.

IT'S, IT'S A SCIENCE, BUT IT'S, IT'S NOT AN EXACT, IT'S AN APPLIED SCIENCE. IS THAT FAIR? OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU, MIKE. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD, SINCE THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THIS UP TO THE PUBLIC AT THIS TIME.

THIS IS FOR ITEM TWO, I'M SORRY, ITEM THREE. HAVENWOOD PHASE THE APPLICATION FOR THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.

DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS POINT? TRACY WE DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENT CARDS, RIGHT? DOES ANYBODY WISH TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK DURING THIS PUBLIC COMMENT TIME? OKAY. I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT COUNCIL. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER? DELIBERATION YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH BEFORE MAKING A MOTION.

I'LL JUST SAY I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY ISSUE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE WITH THE FLOODPLAIN. I THINK THAT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. I THINK WE UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT. IT MEETS THE INTENT OF OUR ORDINANCES AND OUR REGULATIONS ADMINISTRATIVELY HAVE TO COME THROUGH COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL FOR THE EXCEPTION. I THINK WE'RE MEETING ALL THE TOWN STANDARDS, SO THERE'S, I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THAT. WITH THE TREES, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE SAVING 43 OUT OF 46 NEW IDENTIFIED SPECIMEN TREES. OBVIOUSLY, WE SAW FROM THAT ONE FIGURE THAT HAD THE INDENTION IN THE RETAINING WALL, YOU KNOW, I THINK EVERY EFFORT'S BEEN MADE WHERE POSSIBLE TO

[01:05:01]

SAVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE.

SO I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THE THREE THAT ARE PROPOSED TO REMOVE. I, I DISAGREE. I THINK 6636 POTENTIALLY HAS SOME ROOM TO SAVE. I DIDN'T SEE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY IT BEING REMOVED. I'D RATHER WAIT TILL WE HAVE A SITE PLAN FOR THE HOME AND THEN WE CAN REMOVE IT. THEN, IF NEEDED, THE OTHER TWO, I THINK, ARE PRETTY GOOD JUSTIFICATION.

COUNCIL. CAN I CALL MIKE BACK UP FOR A MINUTE, PLEASE? SORRY. SO ARE THESE HOMES CONSIDERED SEMI-CUSTOM HOMES? YES. SO THAT MEANS THAT THEY MAY NOT HAVE AS MUCH FLEXIBILITY AS A FULL-ON CUSTOM HOME. THAT WOULD BE OF A VERY DIFFERENT NATURE, FROM HOME TO HOME, AND PROBABLY BENCHED IN A VERY DIFFERENT WAY? SO WHEN YOU SAY CUSTOM, THAT...

IF YOU'RE SITTING IN FRONT OF THIS HEATH TOWN COUNCIL, IT'S A VERY DIFFERENT CONCEPT.

BUT SITTING HERE, THE WAY WE TRY TO LIKEN OURSELVES IS WE'RE THE BMW 7, OR MERCEDES S-CLASS, OR WHATEVER, THE BMW 7 SERIES. SO WE'RE NOT ASTON MARTIN, WHERE YOU HAVE TO REALLY WORK TO FIND THE GUY TO WORK ON YOUR TRANSMISSION.

WITH THAT SAID, WE HAVE A BOX THAT WE LIKE TO TRY TO DESIGN TO, AND THAT BOX ALLOWS US TO BUILD ANYTHING THAT OUR...

BUYER WOULD WANT TO BUY, AND FOR THIS WITH THIS LARGE PRODUCT, WITH THE PRICE POINTS AND EVERYTHING, THEY'RE GOING TO WANT. THE ABILITY TO SELECT THEIR OPTIONS. AND IT'S A VERY CHOW, VERY CHALLENGING PROPOSITION.

TO ONE DEAL WITH THE SIZE OF THE HOME, AND THEN TO ALSO DEAL WITH THE SEPTIC SYSTEM TO DEAL WITH IRRIGATION. FUTURE DESIGN FOR A POOL AREA WHERE THAT AREA IS GOING TO BASICALLY DO BACKWASH OR BACKFILL OR WHATEVER THEY DO. SO WE WANT TO BE REALISTIC UP FRONT AND NOT WISH PROJECT WHAT WE CAN DO.

WE'RE FAIRLY CONFIDENT THAT TREES THAT ARE IN THE WRONG LOCATION, THEY'RE GOING TO STRUGGLE.

ESPECIALLY THE POST OAKS BECAUSE THEY ARE VERY SENSITIVE TO BUILDING AND ROOT DISTURBANCES AND SUCH. SO THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO ASK YOU IS SEVERAL, SEVERAL YEARS AGO, I REMEMBER DEVELOPERS CHARGING A LOT PREMIUM IF YOUR LOT HAD BEAUTIFUL, ESTABLISHED TREES.

IS THAT STILL SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS? NO. A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE A VIEW OF WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR HOME. AND UNFORTUNATELY, WE VERY OFTEN ARE DEALING WITH BUYERS THAT ARE ALREADY PLANNING. THEY'RE FOREVER HOME AND THEY HAVE A PRETTY GOOD IDEA WHERE THEY'RE ALREADY WORKING WITH. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR THE POOL COMPANY, OR WHOEVER TO COME IN AFTER THE HOME IS DONE AND IMMEDIATELY START THAT WORK. WHICH AT THAT POINT, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO CUT DOWN A BEAUTIFUL TREE WITHOUT ANY INTERVENTION OF GOVERNMENT. SO THAT WOULD BE THEIR PURVIEW AT THAT TIME. BUT I JUST WAS THINKING THAT THAT WOULD BE SAD, THAT THEY DON'T VALUE THOSE TREES IN THEIR YARD BECAUSE THAT'S SUCH A BENEFIT.

IN MY OPINION. THEY VALUE A LOT OF TIMES WHAT WE DO IS THEY VALUE THE PERIMETERS OF THE COMMUNITY. THEY WANT SCREENING. THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE TRAILS ARE NOT TOO CLOSE TO THE REAR OF THEIR HOMES. SO HAVING IT WHERE WE HAVE IT TODAY, THE TRAIL, FOR INSTANCE, IS A VERY, IT'S IDEAL. IT'S NOT RIGHT UP AGAINST OUR HOME, WHERE PEOPLE ARE LOOKING INTO HOMES. AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK AT TOWN, LIKE, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF WOOD FENCE. IT'S OPEN.

WE'VE TRIED TO FOSTER THAT.

IT'S VERY MUCH A TOLL THING.

SO. WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL WHERE WE PUT THESE TRAILS SO THAT PEOPLE DON'T FEEL THAT THEIR PRIVACY IS BEING INVADED.

BUT AGAIN, THEY LIKE THE TREES ON THE PERIMETER. THEY LIKE THE TREES ON THE ENTRY DRIVE-IN. THEY LIKE TO PLANT THE TREES WHERE THEY FEEL THAT THAT'S WHERE IT ACCOMMODATES THEIR LIFESTYLE.

OKAY, THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO I CAME INTO THIS MEETING, YOU KNOW, READY TO APPROVE THIS, AND I'VE LISTENED TO CHRIS.

AND I THINK I WOULD FEEL BETTER APPROVING THIS LAST TREE IF...

I HAD A CLEARER UNDERSTANDING OF EITHER THAT THE TREE WAS UNHEALTHY, WHICH IT KIND OF LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT BE IN THAT PICTURE, OR IF I KNEW THAT IT WAS 100% NECESSARY TO PROPERLY GRADE THAT LOT, WHICH, OF COURSE, DRAINAGE IS THE OTHER THING THAT RESIDENTS TEND TO COME TO US WITH ISSUES ON, TREES AND DRAINAGE, WHICH ARE SORT OF MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, UNFORTUNATELY.

WITH THAT SAID, WHEN WE SAW THE TREE REMOVAL PERMITS THE LAST TIME FOR THIS PROJECT, I CAME IN WITH A LIST OF SIX OR TEN TREES, HOPING THAT MIKE WOULD SAVE A COUPLE OF THEM, MANY BE AGREED TO SAVE THEM ALL. SO I FEEL LIKE HE'S EARNED SOME CREDIBILITY WITH ME FROM HIS EFFORTS ON THE PREVIOUS TREE REMOVAL.

THAT I WOULD GIVE HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT ON THIS ONE. AND WITH DUE RESPECT TO CHRIS, I THINK HE'S TRYING TO SAVE A TREE THAT MAYBE IT CAN BE SAVED, MAYBE NOT.

BUT IF I'M THE DECIDING VOTE, THEN I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THIS ONE, MIKE. I'M WITH YOU ON THAT, ADAM. AND CHRIS, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE EFFORT YOU'RE GOING TO, BECAUSE I THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT AND LOOK AT EVERY APPLICANT.

[01:10:01]

EVERYONE INDIVIDUALLY, ON ITS OWN, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

BUT I THINK IN THIS CASE, IT'S SO CLOSE TO THE FOUNDATION THAT I THINK IT WOULD BE UNLIKELY THAT IT WOULD SURVIVE, EVEN IF WE DID TRY TO SAVE IT.

BUT I MEAN, ARE THESE THESE FOUNDATION IMAGES IN HERE? IS THIS THE MAXIMUM FOOTPRINT FOR THE HOUSE? BECAUSE THESE ARE LIKE THREE-QUARTER LOTS MINIMUM, CORRECT? SO THESE WE HAVE WHAT WE CALL OUR SIGNATURE SERIES, WHICH IS WHAT THIS WILL BE, THESE WILL THESE. THESE ARE 100 BY 100 PADS. THERE ARE A FEW THAT WE HAVE PULLED BACK SO THAT WE CAN ACCOMMODATE TREES TO 95 FOOT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WE HAVE TO MARK THOSE OUT FOR THE HOME BUILDING OPERATIONS GROUP BECAUSE THEY NEED TO KNOW THAT WHEN THEY'RE OUT THERE ACTIVELY SELLING TO RESIDENTS. SO WHAT WE DO IS WE PUT A 100 BY 100 AND THEN WE START WORKING THE GRADING PLAN AND DRAINAGE FROM THAT. AND THAT 100 BY 100 CAME TO US.

BECAUSE. ROB PAUL, OUR REGIONAL PRESIDENT NOW, SAT IN A ROOM WITH ME IN 2014 AND SAID, WE'LL NEVER BUILD ANYTHING LARGER THAN A 90 BY 90. AND HE SAID THAT AS WE WERE GETTING READY TO APPROVE TOWN LAKE. AND WE WERE APPROVING HOMES THAT WERE 105 BY 108. SO WE'VE HAD TO REALLY BE REASONABLE AND REALLY PULL OUR HOME BUILDING COMPATRIOTS BACK. AND WE'VE GOT THEM ON 100 BY 100 NOW. SO, JEAN-PIERRE, DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO MAKE ON THAT? I GUESS I'M, I MEAN, I SEE CHRIS'S POINT AND I'M WONDERING. AND THEY HAVEN'T BEEN BENCHED. AND YOU HAVEN'T PUT IN THE THE RETAINING WALL YET, YOU KNOW, COULD? DOES THE RETAINING WALL HAVE TO BE THERE? COULD THERE BE? I SAW WHERE YOU PUT A, YOU KNOW, HALF CIRCLE FOR THE OTHER TREE THAT WAS WAS DOWNSTREAM FROM THAT ONE. IS THERE A POSSIBILITY FOR THIS ONE, YOU KNOW, TO HAVE, YEAH, A CARVE OUT IN THE RETAINING WALL? THE THE CHALLENGE WILL BE THE DRIP LINE AND THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE. AND SO WE, THE WAY WE MODEL THOSE IS, YOU KNOW, A 24-INCH TREE HAS A 24-FOOT CRITICAL ROOT ZONE, AND THEN WE HAVE THE DRIP LINE.

THAT'S EVEN BEYOND THAT.

WITH STUFF THAT'S IN AN AREA THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO IMPACT, WE TYPICALLY JUST USE CIRCLES FOR THAT. THERE'S RULES OF THUMBS THAT THE ASI PEOPLE USE FOR THAT, BUT WHEN YOU GET INTO THE LOT PADDING APPLICATION, WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT STREETS, WE'RE LOOKING AT MINIMUM GRADES AND GETTING DRAINAGE FROM HERE TO THERE, WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE, WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD HANDLE ON THAT. AND SO WE WILL ACTUALLY GO AND MEASURE WITH THE SURVEY ROD, THE PERIMETERS OF THAT TREE AND ANYTHING THAT'S A SPECIMEN TREE. WE WOULD DO THAT, SO THE DRAWING WOULD BE INFORMED BY THE GRADING AS WELL AS WHAT WE KNOW TO BE THE TRIP LINE. SO IF IT'S ON THERE, I'VE GOT TO TRUST THAT IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT TO PRESERVE IT. SO IT'S JUST OUR EXPERIENCE WITH THOSE TREES, OUR EXPERIENCE WITH TREES THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO ACTUALLY SAVE. THAT WE DIDN'T, WE HAD ACTUALLY ASKED FOR PERMISSION TO REMOVE, BUT WE IN THE END ENDED UP SAVING.

THERE'S SEVERAL CREEKSIDE, THERE'S A FEW AT TOWN LAKE.

OUR EXPERIENCE TELLS US THAT IT'S JUST NOT A LIKELY SAVE, AND THAT'S SO THAT WE CAN GET THE DRAINAGE TO WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE. YES, WE COULD LOWER THIS AND RAISE THAT, BUT THEN THE QUESTION BECOMES IS, IT'S A MANIFOLD IMPACT TO OTHER TREES UP AND DOWN THAT SYSTEM. I HOPE THAT MAKES SENSE. IT'S NOT A TWO-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM. IT'S VERY THREE-DIMENSIONAL AND FOUR-DIMENSIONAL WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT FLOW WITH WATER HAS ALSO GOT A TIME COMPONENT TO IT. SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET STUFF TO CERTAIN INLETS IN CERTAIN PLACES AT A CERTAIN TIME. I THINK THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION TO SOME DEGREE. I THINK IT DOES. SO, MIKE, IF WE DID DENY 6636 AND YOU GUYS CAME BACK TO US? WITH A SITE PLAN WITH A LAYOUT AND THE DRAINAGE AND THE CHANGES TO THE TOPO, I WOULD APPROVE IT TO BE REMOVED. BUT RIGHT NOW, I DON'T FEEL LIKE THERE'S ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO REMOVE IT. THAT'S WHY I'M.

SO WHAT I DON'T WANT TO BE. SO WE DID THAT ONCE WITH HILLIARD. IT'S OAK BRIDGE AT FLOWER MOUND. THE ORIGINAL PHASES, AND THE UNFORTUNATE PROBLEM WAS IS THAT WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING IS IT GOT DENIED.

AND SO WE'RE SITTING THERE DOING REALLY WEIRD STUFF WITH LEAD WALK AND WITH SIDEWALK AND WITH THE DRAINAGE ON THE LOT.

AND I, JUST LIKE I SAID, I TOTALLY GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

IT'S JUST THAT IT'S A WHOLE NEW PROCESS AND WE HAVE TO DRAG THE THE OWNER, THE NEW PROSPECTIVE BUYER THROUGH THAT PROCESS. AND IT.

IT GETS DIFFICULT BECAUSE THEY'RE ALWAYS ASKING, WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY SAY NO, I CAN'T BUILD MY HOME? SO AGAIN, WE'RE SIMPLY TRYING TO GET IN FRONT OF THE ISSUE HERE WITH YOU GUYS. AND I'D RATHER BE OPEN KIMONO AS BEST AS POSSIBLE, BASED ON THE EXPERIENCE THAT WE'VE HAD WITH THESE PARTICULAR TREES.

MIKE, I THINK WE HAVE THE VOTES TO GET YOU THIS PERMIT.

BUT I JUST, I WANT TO ECHO CHRIS AND SAY IF. A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ON THE HEALTH OF THE TREE OR THESE TASKS REQUIRED AND WHAT MAKES IT NECESSARY TO CUT IT DOWN, WOULD HELP ME FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. SO THAT'S MAYBE JUST FEEDBACK FOR THE NEXT TIME, BECAUSE WE'LL PROBABLY DO THIS

[01:15:01]

AGAIN. NO WORRIES. NO WORRIES, YOU'RE WELCOME, WE'LL WALK IT WITH YOU IF YOU'D LIKE. WELL, YOU CAN. I'M GLAD TO PUT THE WORDING IN FOR THAT. WELL, LET'S, I MEAN, I'VE GOT YOU HAVE THE MOTION FOR THE SITE PLAN. WELL, I WAS GOING TO DO K2 WITH THE STAFF AND PNZ RECOMMENDED STANDARDS INCORPORATED. IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE THINKING? YEAH, I WAS.

YOU CAN TAKE IT AWAY. I HAD IT WRITTEN DOWN, YOUR WELCOME. SO THIS IS JUST FOR K2, WE'LL DO K3 NEXT. CORRECT.

OKAY, I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM K2 AS WRITTEN UPDATED TO INCLUDE STAFF AND PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDED STANDARDS.

SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER DREW? AYE. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHEASTAL? AYE. MAYOR PRO TIM MARTIN? AYE. COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR? AYE. COUNCILMEMBER WERNER? AYE. AND DID YOU WANT TO REWORD K3? THAT PASSES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. ADAM, DO YOU WANT TO REDO K3? AND I'LL HAVE TO REWORD. I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO APPROVE IT WITH ALL THREE. OKAY, THAT'S FINE. SO ARE YOU READY? OH, NO, I WAS JUST GIVING HIM FEEDBACK.

THIS IS A VERBAL AGREEMENT.

TO BRING A LITTLE BIT MORE CASE FOR CERTAIN SPECIFIC ONES, BUT YEAH. OKAY. I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM K-3 AS WRITTEN.

SECOND. COUNCIL MEMBER WARNER? AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER TAYLOR? AYE. MAYOR PRO TEM MARTIN? AYE. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHEASTALL. AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER DREW. NAY. OKAY. ITEM K3 PASSES BY A VOTE OF FOUR

[Items K.4 & K.5]

TO ONE. OKAY, WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO ITEM K4 AND 5. WE'RE GONNA OPEN TOGETHER. THIS IS THE FORESTWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRACT REPLACEMENT. MYSELF AND SEVERAL OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS. I WENT OVER TO THE SITE TO LOOK AT THAT TOO, LEXAN, SO I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR PRESENTATION. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, AFTER THIS, WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION AFTER WE DO THIS, THIS ONE, JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS. SO, AGAIN, FORESTWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL TRACK REPLACEMENT SITE PLAN. HERE IS THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S EAST OF MORRIS. HERE'S A MORE DETAILED VIEW. IN THIS IMAGE, YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING TRACK.

LAND USE FOR THIS PROPERTY IS INSTITUTIONAL AND THE ZONING IS SF-10, SINGLE FAMILY, 10 USES.

HERE IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.

SO YOU CAN SEE THEY ARE MAKING A LITTLE STRAIGHTER AND ALSO LONGER. BASICALLY, THEY'RE MAKING IT A REGULATION SIZE TRACK, AND THEN THEY ARE CONSTRUCTING ADDITIONAL AMENITY AREAS WITHIN THE INSIDE OF THE TRACK. SO HERE IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WENT TO P&Z.

IN THIS SITE PLAN, IT DID.

STILL, IT INCLUDED AN AREA HERE THAT'S KIND OF, I THINK, THE CHUTE FOR FOR THE TRACK RACES, SHORTER RACE, DISTANCE RACES, AND ONE OF P&Z'S RECOMMENDATIONS WAS TO LOOK AT WHETHER THAT COULD BE RELOCATED. AND SO WE DID GET AN UPDATED VERSION JUST TODAY FROM THE APPLICANTS ENGINEER.

AND SO THIS IS REMOVING THAT AREA THAT WAS IMPACTING ON THAT COMPATIBILITY BUFFER.

SO THAT'S THE REASON THAT THE SITE PLAN IS BEFORE THE COUNCIL. BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO COMPATIBILITY BUFFER EXCEPTION ASSOCIATED WITH THIS TRACK. BECAUSE, AGAIN, THIS WAS AN EXISTING TRACK, BUT IT IS MOVING CLOSER TO THE RESIDENTIAL, SO THAT'S WHY IT'S NEEDING TO COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL.

AND SO AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE KIND OF THE OUTLINE OF THE PROPOSED FACILITIES THAT WOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN IN THERE RELATED TO TRACK AND FIELD, SOCCER, FOOTBALL. THEY WOULD ALL BE PRACTICE FACILITIES. THE APPLICANT INDICATED IN THEIR LETTER OF INTENT THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE INSTALLING BLEACHERS OR LIGHTING IN ASSOCIATION WITH THIS. SO THEY DIDN'T REPLACE THE CHUTES ELSEWHERE. OR IS THAT THE NEXT SLIDE? I DON'T SEE WHAT LOOKS LIKE A CHUTE HERE AT ALL. THEY JUST TOOK IT ALL OUT SO THEY DON'T NEED THAT ANYMORE FOR THE STRAIGHTAWAY. I WOULD TALK TO THE APPLICANT TO GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THEY WERE ABLE TO ELIMINATE THAT.

LIKE I SAID, WE JUST GOT THIS TODAY, SO I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION ABOUT IT AND KIND OF WHAT? WHAT THEIR THOUGHT PROCESS WAS IN BEING ABLE TO MAKE THAT CHANGE? SO AGAIN, THIS WAS THE EXCEPTION REQUEST THAT WAS BEFORE P&Z. YOU CAN SEE THERE WAS A GREATER IMPACT THERE ON THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER, AND THEN A VERY SMALL IMPACT IN THIS SECTION. AGAIN, THE TOWN REQUIRES 25 FOOT COMPACT LANDSCAPE BUFFER. AND THEN, TYPICALLY, YOU WOULD HAVE A SIX-FOOT MASONRY WALL. WHEN YOU'RE IMPACTING AN AREA AND THERE'S AN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD ADJACENT TO IT.

AND SO, AGAIN, THIS IS ALREADY

[01:20:02]

CONSTRUCTED, SO THEY'RE ASKING TO NOT BUILD THE SIX-FOOT MASONRY WALL. THE HOMES HAVE ALREADY CONSTRUCTED WOOD FENCES THERE THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDING THAT KIND OF SCREENING UP TO THIS POINT. SO THEY'RE REQUESTING TO NOT DO THE WALL AND THEN TO HAVE, THERE'S STILL GOING TO BE SOME SOME SLIGHT IMPACTS THERE ON THAT 25 FOOT COMPATIBILITY BUFFER AREA.

THEY ARE PREVENTING, THEY ARE PLANTING ALL OF THE TREES THAT ARE REQUIRED BASED ON SPACING. THEY'RE JUST NOT HAVING IT TOTALLY UNOBSTRUCTED FOR THAT 25 FOOT DISTANCE.

BUT SO AGAIN, HERE'S THAT UPDATED VISUAL.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THE AMOUNT OF IMPACT THERE WITHIN THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER HAS BEEN REDUCED DUE TO THE CHANGE THERE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE ATTRACT. SO THIS IS LOOKING KIND OF NORTHEAST THERE. HERE WE ARE LOOKING SOUTH IN THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE TRACK. AND THEN THIS IS LOOKING EAST, DIRECTLY AT THE CURRENT TRACK, THROUGH THE FENCING THERE. SO AGAIN, HERE IS THAT REVISED SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN.

THERE IS A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS REQUEST.

SO THIS SHOWS YOU THE LOCATION OF THE TREES. THOSE IN RED ARE THE ONES BEING REMOVED.

ACCORDING TO THE TREE SURVEY FOR THE PROJECT, THE SITE CONTAINS 28 SPECIMEN TREES. APPLICANTS REQUESTING TO REMOVE 15 FROM THE SITE TO FACILITATE THE TRACK REPLACEMENT. THIS IS THE LIST OF THE 15 TREES THAT ARE COMING OUT. ECC DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS TREE REMOVAL PERMIT REQUEST. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS ALSO THAT THIS PROJECT WAS A BOND PROJECT FOR LISD. SO I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, AND THEN THE APPLICANT ALSO HAS A PRESENTATION. DO YOU KNOW WHY IT WAS APPROVED THIS WAY? BECAUSE IT JUST SEEMS WEIRD THAT WE WOULD BUILD A TRACK WITH ALL THESE TREES IN THE MIDDLE. I DO NOT. I WOULD DEFINITELY DIRECT THAT TO LISD.

I DON'T KNOW THE ORIGINAL THOUGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER FOOTBALL FIELDS IN FLOWER MOUND WITH TREES IN THE MIDDLE OF THEM? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.

WELL, THE PREVIOUS TRACK, HOW OLD IS THAT PREVIOUS TRACK? YEAH, I THINK THE 90S OR EVEN THE 80S, MAYBE. I MEAN, AT THAT TIME. NO, MAYBE IT WAS THE VERY EARLY 90S. WE WERE TRYING TO LOOK BACK. I THINK WE DIDN'T CHANGE OUR COMPATIBILITY BUFFER. WE DIDN'T CREATE THOSE REQUIREMENTS UNTIL FOR EARLIEST I COULD FIND IT WAS THE 94 VERSION OF OUR ZONING ORDINANCE. SO THIS PREDATED THAT. THAT'S WHY THERE WASN'T ANY SPECIFIC COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS BEFORE. SO IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN LIKE 91 OR SOMETHING. IT MIGHT BE THE ONLY PLACE THEY CAN PUT IT BASED ON THE LEVEL TOPOGRAPHY. I KNOW WE TALKED TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT HOW YOU COULD. REWORK THAT TRACK. THERE'S NO REAL OPTIONS THERE. WE CAN HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD AND SPEAK. YEAH, I THINK THEY HAVE IN THEIR PRESENTATION, THEY SHOW KIND OF THE TWO OPTIONS THEY CONSIDERED AND WHY THIS ONE WAS THE BETTER CHOICE.

YEAH, I THINK THE OTHER OPTION LOST A LOT MORE TREES, I BELIEVE, IF I RECALL. OKAY, GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. MY NAME IS TANYA COTTLE, AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING LOUISVILLE, ISD.

THE ADDRESS IS 1597 EDMONDS LANE IN LOUISVILLE, TEXAS, 75067. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO HEAR THIS ITEM TONIGHT. I'D JUST LIKE TO BRIEFLY WALK THROUGH THE PRESENTATION AND EXPLAIN THE NEED FOR THIS PROJECT.

FORESTWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL SITS ON ABOUT 20.8 ACRES. THE CAMPUS SHARES THIS SPACE WITH WILKERSON PARK AND SPACE PARK, BOTH THE TOWN AND FLOWER MOUND FACILITIES. HERE YOU CAN SEE AN AERIAL OF THE SITE WITH THE SCHOOL, THE TWO PARKS, AND THE TRACK.

AS A DISTRICT, LOUISVILLE ISD IS COMMITTED TO EQUITY ACROSS ALL OF OUR CAMPUSES.

RIGHT NOW, FORESTWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL IS THE ONLY MIDDLE SCHOOL IN LOUISVILLE, I.S.D.

THAT DOES NOT HAVE A FULL-SIZE TRACK. ON THE LEFT, YOU CAN SEE THE LIMITED SPACE OUR ATHLETES CURRENTLY HAVE TO PRACTICE SAFELY.

ON THE RIGHT IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT A TYPICAL MIDDLE SCHOOL FIELD LOOKS LIKE WHEN IT ISN'T ENCUMBERED BY TREES. AND THAT'S THE STANDARD SETUP AT ALL OF OUR OTHER MIDDLE SCHOOLS.

THESE PHOTOS SHOW THE CURRENT TRACK AT FORESTWOOD. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE TREES ARE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE TRACK AND EVEN ON THE FOOTBALL FIELD AREA, WHICH LIMITS HOW THE SPACE CAN BE SAFELY USED. AND THEN HERE'S ANOTHER IMAGE OF A TYPICAL LOUISVILLE I.S.D TRACK, WHICH DOES NOT HAVE A TREES IMMEDIATELY ON IT. AND THAT'S THE STANDARD WE'RE LOOKING TO PROVIDE TO BE CONSISTENT ACROSS ALL OF OUR CAMPUSES.

THIS PROJECT IS PART OF THE 2024 BOND THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS OF LOUISVILLE ISD. AND 65% OF THE STUDENTS

[01:25:03]

AT FORESTWOOD PARTICIPATE IN ATHLETICS, WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE STUDENT BODY. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE WILL BE NO BLEACHERS AND LIGHTS AS PART OF THIS PROJECT.

LOUISVILLE ISD WILL HANDLE THE REQUIRED TREE MITIGATION, AND WE ARE PROPOSING TO PLANT 50 TREES, INCLUDING THOSE REQUIRED WITHIN THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER. THE DISTRICT HAS DESIGNATED COMPETITION FIELDS WITH LIGHTS WHERE GAMES ARE HELD, AND THE NEAREST ONE TO THIS CAMPUS IS SHADOW RIDGE MIDDLE SCHOOL.

LOUISVILLE ISD HAS HIRED MCADAMS AS OUR CIVIL ENGINEER TO HELP DEVELOP THOUGHTFUL AND COMPLIANT SOLUTIONS. AND AT THIS POINT, I'D LIKE TO HAND IT OVER TO MCADAMS TO WALK THROUGH THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT. THANK YOU, TANYA. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. JOSH BARTON WITH MCADAMS, 4400, STATE HIGHWAY, 121, LOUISVILLE, TEXAS, 75056. SO, AS MENTIONED, THIS WAS A CHALLENGING SITE TO TRY TO FIT A FULL-SIZE TRACK ON.

THERE'S EXISTING FLOODPLAIN HERE ON THE NORTH AND NUMEROUS SPECIMEN AND PROTECTED TREES.

SO WE WENT THROUGH TWO CONCEPTS REALLY WITH THE DISTRICT. CONCEPT A IS WHAT YOU SEE HERE. CONCEPT A REMOVES 15 SPECIMEN TREES AND 10 PROTECTED TREES, BUT WE HAD TO RELOCATE THIS EXISTING STORAGE BUILDING HERE. SO THAT WAS ADDITIONAL COST INCURRED BY THE DISTRICT. CONCEPT B, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THE TRACK RUNS KIND OF EAST-WEST. THIS REMOVES 21 SPECIMEN TREES AND 20 PROTECTED TREES, BUT THE DISTRICT DID NOT HAVE TO RELOCATE THE EXISTING STORAGE BUILDING. SO THE DISTRICT CHOSE CONCEPT A, AS I KNOW YOU ALL KNOW, BASED OFF WHAT LEXAN'S PRESENTATION WAS. SO THEY DECIDED TO RELOCATE THAT EXISTING STORAGE BUILDING AND TRY TO IMPACT LESS TREES WITH THIS SITE. AND LEXAN DID POINT OUT THE REMOVAL OF THE STARTER CHUTE. SO WE TOOK THAT FEEDBACK FROM P&Z, LOOKED AT IT, TALKED ABOUT IT WITH THE DISTRICT. ONLY TWO OF THE 15 MIDDLE SCHOOL TRACKS ACTUALLY HAVE THE STARTER CHUTE. AND AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A COMPETITION TRACK, SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY NEEDED FOR COMPETITION. I DID JUST WANT TO ZOOM IN ON THE COMPATIBILITY BUFFER EXHIBIT THAT PNZ SAW.

WITH THAT STARTER CHUTE, THE TRACK WAS ABOUT SIX FEET AWAY FROM THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINES. AND THEN, WITH THE FINAL CONFIGURATION, WITH REMOVING THAT STARTER CHUTE, THE TRACK IS ALMOST 20 FEET AWAY. SO IT IS A PRETTY DRASTIC MOVEMENT FROM THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINES. AND THE EXISTING FENCE THAT IS HERE IS ABOUT 15 FEET AWAY. SO IN EVERY INSTANCE, WE'RE BETTER THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE.

AND THAT IS THE END OF OUR PRESENTATION. PLEASE LET US KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. NO, I THINK THAT'S NICE, YOU KNOW, BEING OUT THERE AND ACTUALLY SEEING THAT SITE A WHILE BACK, QUITE A FEW MONTHS AGO THAT WE WENT OUT THERE, AND JEAN-B.A. AND I, AND I KNOW THE REST OF COUNCIL, I BELIEVE, WENT AS WELL. AND THERE WEREN'T REALLY, VERY MANY OPTIONS, EXCEPT FOR THOSE TWO THAT YOU SHOWED.

AND I LIKE THE FACT THAT...

IT'S NOT GOING TO IMPACT THE NEIGHBORS BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE LIGHTS AND YOU'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, IT'S VOTER APPROVED THROUGH THE BOND. SO, I MEAN, IT'S HELPFUL. WELL, I ALSO LIKE WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT IT NOT BEING A COMPETITION TRACK AND THERE ARE NO BLEACHERS. SO THAT MEANS WE AREN'T GOING TO HAVE SOME OF THE NOISE CONCERNS THAT MAYBE A COMPETITIVE TRACK WOULD BRING WITH IT.

FOR THE NEIGHBORS IMPACTED BY THAT COMPATIBILITY BUFFER EXCEPTION. SPEAKING OF THE NEIGHBORS, ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAD WHEN I WENT OUT THERE IS, HOW ARE THESE NEIGHBORS GONNA FEEL? CUZ IF THEY CAME HERE IN NUMBERS AND WANTED, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO BUILD THAT MASONRY WALL.

DID YOU DO ANY OUTREACH TO THOSE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS, AND WHAT KIND OF FEEDBACK DID YOU GET FROM THEM? YEAH, SO THE TOWN SENT OUT NOTICES, AS WELL AS THE DISTRICT SENT OUT SPECIFIC NOTICES. AND AS OF THIS TIME, I DON'T BELIEVE THE DISTRICT HAS RECEIVED ANY FEEDBACK AND I'M WITH THE TOWN. OKAY, THANK YOU.

NOT RECEIVING ANYTHING. NO, NO EMAILS THAT I'VE SEEN. YEAH.

ONE THING THAT WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED EMAIL FROM. SO, OKAY.

WELL, AT THIS TIME, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY DELIBERATION, OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? ISN'T THIS A PUBLIC HEARING? NO, THIS IS, IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING. NO, IT ISN'T. IT IS. IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING. IT SURE IS. CONSIDER A REQUEST. IT SURE IS A PUBLIC HEARING. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY, WE'LL OPEN IT UP, AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT CARDS, RIGHT? SO IF ANYBODY WANTS TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THIS, THEY CAN? OKAY. NO TAKERS, SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

IF YOU ALL HAVE NO DELIBERATION. I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DELIBERATION. IT'S REALLY MORE JUST A GENERAL COMMENT. I WAS SO SAD WHEN I SAW, I KNOW THAT TRACK. MY SON USED TO PRACTICE PEE WEE FOOTBALL THERE, AND IT WAS THE MOST COMFORTABLE PLACE TO PRACTICE AFTER SCHOOL.

IN THE SUMMER, OR, YOU KNOW, IT ENDED AT THE END OF THE YEAR. IT WAS SO HOT EVERYWHERE ELSE WITHOUT THESE TREES. THESE TREES KEPT IT VERY COOL AND I

[01:30:01]

COULD ROLLERBLADE ON THAT TRACK WHILE HE WAS PRACTICING. IT WAS AWESOME. YOU KNOW, 41 INCH, SEVERAL 30 INCH POST OAKS, IT JUST BREAKS MY HEART.

BUT THEY DID WORK WITH US IN MOVING THE ORIGINAL LOCATION, THAT IS MUCH BETTER. IT IS CLOSER TO THE NEIGHBORS. THANK GOODNESS, THEY DIDN'T COMPLAIN. BUT THERE COULD HAVE BEEN ALMOST ALL THE TREES IMPACTED WITH THE ORIGINAL PLAN. SO I DO APPRECIATE. IT'S A HUGE LOSS.

AND I HOPE THAT SCHOOL STAYS THERE AND DOESN'T GET TURNED INTO ANYTHING ELSE. I HOPE IT CONTINUES TO BE A MIDDLE SCHOOL. LONG ENOUGH TO SEE THOSE NEW TREES GROW UP A LITTLE BIT.

EXACTLY. AND WE DO APPRECIATE YOU DOING THOSE PLANTINGS.

WELL, JEAN-PIERRE, DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION? I'D RATHER NOT. I'LL DO IT. I MOVE TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM K-4 AS WRITTEN. SECOND. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

COUNCIL MEMBER DREW? AYE.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO-TIM SHEASTLE? AYE. MAYOR PRO-TIM MARTIN? AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER TAYLOR? AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER WERNER? AYE. OKAY, ITEM... K-4 AND I THINK WE CAN DO THAT COMBINED, BOTH OF THOSE, DIDN'T IT? OR NO? JUST ONE K-4, YEAH, K-4 PASSES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE, SO NOW WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION ON K-5. WE NEED TO OPEN K-5 AT THE SAME TIME THAT K-4 WAS OPEN? WE DID OPEN IT. I OPENED BOTH OF THOSE AT THE SAME TIME. DO YOU HAVE TO CALL A SEPARATE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THAT ONE? NO. OKAY. SO I'LL DO IT. I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM K-5 AS WRITTEN.

SECOND. OKAY. WE CAN TAKE THE ROLL. COUNCIL MEMBER WARNER? AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER TAYLOR? AYE. MAYOR PRO TEM MARTIN? AYE. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHEASTALL? AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER DREW? AYE. K-5 PASSES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. SO WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE AGENDA A

[M. CLOSED MEETING (Part 1 of 2)]

LITTLE BIT. TIME IS NOW 732 AND THE TOWN COUNCIL IS CONVENING INTO CLOSED SESSION AT THIS TIME PURSUANT TO SECTION 551-.071, 072, 074, AND 087. GOOD EVENING, FLOWER

[N. RECONVENE (Part 1 of 2)]

MOUND. THE TIME IS NOW 7.58 AND WE ARE RECONVENING INTO AN OPEN SESSION. THERE'S

[K.6. LDR25-0003 - 2025 State Legislative Updates - Public Hearing to consider an ordinance amending the Land Development Regulations (LDR25-0003 – 2025 State Legislative Updates) by amending Chapter 34, "Environment" of Subpart A "General Ordinances" and Chapter 78, “Administration” and Chapter 98, "Zoning" of Subpart B "Land Development Regulations" related to notice and protest procedures, home occupation, land uses, and noise. (PZ recommended approval by a vote of 6 to 0 at its February 23, 2026, meeting.) ]

NO ACTION TO BE TAKEN AS A RESULT OF THE CLOSED SESSION. LEXAN MURPHY IS BACK. SHE'S GOING TO PRESENT ON OUR 2025 LEGISLATIVE, STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATES. AND THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. THERE ARE KIND OF THREE REAL AREAS THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING WITH THIS LEGISLATIVE UPDATE.

THE FIRST IS CHAPTER 34, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND IT HAS TO DO WITH NOISE. SECOND, CHAPTER 78, ADMINISTRATION, JUST CREATING THIS COMPREHENSIVE ZONING MAP DEFINITION AND ALSO UPDATING OUR NOTICE AND PROTEST PROCEDURES BASED ON NEW STATE LAW. AND THEN THIRD IS CHAPTER 98, ZONING, LOOKING AT PERMITTED USES, HOME OCCUPATION, AND DEFINITIONS, AND ALSO NOISE AGAIN THERE. SO FIRST SECTION, THAT'S CHANGING, AMENDMENTS.

TO SECTION 78-153 REVIEW BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, UPDATING IT TO INCLUDE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING MAP, AMENDMENTS AND THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS. THESE ARE ONLY REQUIRED IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH AS A JOINT MEETING BETWEEN P&Z AND COUNCIL. OR WHEN A PROPOSED REGULATION WILL CAUSE A PROPERTY TO BECOME A NON-CONFORMING USE.

NEXT, WE'RE UPDATING 78-154 ACTION BY TOWN COUNCIL. IT'S UPDATED TO INCLUDE NOTICE HEARINGS TO BE PUBLISHED ON THE TOWN'S WEBSITE AND FOR PUBLICATIONS TO BE AT LEAST 16 DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING. THOSE ARE NEW REQUIREMENTS THAT THE STATE PUT IN PLACE, SO WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT SINCE THESE WENT INTO EFFECT IN SEPTEMBER. ALSO, UPDATE TO INCLUDE THE NEW DEFINITION OF A COMPREHENSIVE ZONING AMENDMENT. SO AGAIN, THIS IS MANDATED BY THE STATE. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING AMENDMENT ARE CHANGES PROPOSED BY THE TOWN THAT MEET ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS.

THESE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROTEST PROCEDURES AS DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION. SO THIS WOULD INCLUDE A TOWN PROPOSAL THAT WOULD ALLOW MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAN THE PREVIOUS REGULATION AND WOULD APPLY UNIFORMLY TO EACH PARCEL IN ONE OR MORE ZONING DISTRICT, THE ADOPTION OF A NEW ZONING CODE OR ZONING MAP THAT WOULD APPLY TO THE ENTIRE TOWN, OR THE ADOPTION OF A ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT.

THAT WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF ALLOWING MORE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED WITHOUT THE OVERLAY.

AND SO ALSO TO 78154, THIS IS LOOKING AT PROTEST PROCEDURES. SO

[01:35:03]

BEFORE THE LANGUAGE THAT TALKED ABOUT PROTEST PROCEDURES, IT WAS 20% OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. AND SO THIS IS INCREASING THE AMOUNT IN THE CASE OF, IN THESE CERTAIN CASES, INCREASING THE AMOUNT NEEDED TO TRIGGER THE PROTEST THRESHOLD.

SO, THE RULES GOVERNING AMENDMENT OVER PROTEST, EXCEPT FOR COMPREHENSIVE ZONING AMENDMENTS, DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION D1. SO, FOR PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION OWNER, THIS IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD, OWNER AND OWNER SHALL MEAN THOSE PERSONS OR ENTITIES INDICATED BY THE MOST RECENTLY APPROVED TAX ROLL AS OWNING SUCH LAND. COMPUTATION OF LAND AREA, PERCENTAGE OF LAND AREA GOES TO THE CENTER LINE OF ABUTTING. STREETS AND ALLEYS SHALL BE INCLUDED. THAT'S NOT REALLY CHANGING, EITHER. LAND AREA SHALL BE CALCULATED AS THE AGGREGATE FOR ALL TRACTS OF LAND. IF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT, SUPPLEMENT, OR CHANGE IN A ZONING REGULATION OR DISTRICT BOUNDARY INCREASES RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BEYOND THE EXISTING ZONING.

AND DOES NOT ALLOW COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL USES TO EXCEED 35% OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT LAND AREA AND LIMITS COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL USES TO THE FIRST FLOOR OF ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THEN THE FOLLOWING SHALL APPLY.

A WRITTEN PROTEST MAY BE SUBMITTED THAT CONTAINS THE SIGNATURES OF THE OWNER OF AT LEAST 60 PERCENT OR MORE OF THE AREA OF THE LOTS OF LAND IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING THE AREA.

UPON RECEIPT OF A WRITTEN PROTEST MEETING, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE ONLY UPON THE FAVORABLE VOTE OF THE MAJORITY OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL. SO AGAIN, BEFORE IT WAS IF 20 PERCENT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, UM, YOU KNOW, PROTESTED OR SIGNED A PETITION, WRITTEN NOTICE, THAT SORT OF THING. THEN IT WOULD UP THE REQUIREMENT TO BE A SUPER MAJORITY REQUIREMENT. SO NOW IT'S SAYING THAT IT HAS TO BE 60% OR MORE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS. AND IT REALLY JUST CHANGES IT TO BE... THE FAVORABLE VOTE OF THE MAJORITY OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL, INSTEAD OF JUST THE MEMBERS OF THE TOWN COUNCIL THAT ARE PRESENT AND VOTING THEN. SO I DON'T REALLY THINK THIS WILL COME UP FOR US. HONESTLY, SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, I DON'T THINK WE'VE HAD ANYBODY TRIGGER, EVEN THE 20%. SO THIS IS NOT REALLY, I THINK, A BIG, I DON'T EXPECT IT TO HAVE MUCH IMPACT TO US, THE FACT THAT THEY MADE THIS CHANGE. YOU KNOW, I THINK THE LEGISLATURE MADE THE CHANGE, THEY HAD SOME CONCERNS, I GUESS, THAT A FEW LARGE PROPERTY OWNERS COULD BE IMPACTING THE DECISION-MAKING BODIES. THEY WERE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE MORE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THERE'S CONCERN ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THAT SORT OF THING. SO THAT'S WHY THEY KIND OF CARVED OUT, IF YOU'RE CREATING MORE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT TO GET THAT APPROVED. IF IT DOESN'T MEET THIS DESCRIPTION, FOR THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY INCREASE, THEN IT WOULD STILL BE THE NORMAL REQUIREMENT THAT WE WOULD ENFORCE. I'M HAPPY TO HEAR THAT PRACTICALLY IT'S NOT ANTICIPATED TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, BUT PHILOSOPHICALLY IT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE. AND I THINK HERE IN FLOWER MOUND, WE'RE SENSITIVE TO THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS APPROACH. BECAUSE AS OUR RESIDENTS COME FORWARD, THEY WILL TELL US. AND WE HAVE AN ENGAGED POPULACE, WHICH IS A VERY GOOD THING.

BUT THIS...

TO ME IS TROUBLING. THEY'RE CLOSING LOOP BY LOOP BY LOOP, JUST TRYING TO TAKE AWAY ALL OF OUR FREEDOMS. AND SO, UM, THE THE THRESHOLD WON'T APPLY AT ALL. JUST TO CLARIFY THE THINGS THAT ARE CONSIDERED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING AMENDMENT, THERE IS ONE GOOD THING ABOUT THIS CHANGE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING AMENDMENT AND THAT IT. UM, IT CLARIFIED THAT IF WE'RE DOING A FULLY ADOPTING A NEW ZONING CODE, THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO NOTICE. EACH PROPERTY OWNER THAT'S AFFECTED BY THAT.

BECAUSE THERE WAS A COURT CASE THAT HAD, UM, THAT HAD ACTUALLY REQUIRED THAT. UH, WHEN I THINK WHEN AUSTIN ADOPTED THEIR NEW, LIKE COMPLETELY NEW CODE, UM.

THE COURT HAD RULED THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE NOTICED EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT WAS IMPACTED BY IT. SO I THINK THEY TRIED TO ADDRESS THAT SOMEWHAT WITH THIS AND CARVING OUT THAT THERE WERE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. SO, PERMITTED USES, AMENDING OUR PERMITTED USES, FIRST, IS HOME-BASED BUSINESS. WE'RE ADDING EVERYWHERE THAT YOU CAN HAVE A HOME-BASED BUSINESS. A HOME OCCUPATION IS BASICALLY ANYWHERE THAT'S CONSIDERED RESIDENTIAL. SO THIS CAME FROM CHANGES THE LEGISLATURE MADE.

THEY CREATED THIS NEW DEFINITION OF A NO-IMPACT HOME-BASED BUSINESS AND SAID THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE A NO-IMPACT HOME-BASED BUSINESS ANYWHERE THAT ALLOWS RESIDENTIAL. THE LAST RESIDENTIAL USES, SO WE'RE UPDATING THAT TO MAKE HOME OCCUPATION PERMITTED IN ALL RESIDENTIAL CATEGORIES.

ALSO JUST KIND

[01:40:02]

OF A CLEANUP ITEM. WE'RE TAKING OUT RESIDENTIAL RELATED USES IN THE WATER REC AREA. THAT'S AREA THAT'S INTENDED TO BE FOR THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROPERTY. AND SO DON'T WANT TO BE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO LIVE THERE. SO THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. THEN I'M TALKING MORE ABOUT THE OTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE HOME OCCUPATION SECTION.

UPDATE TO INCLUDE HOME OCCUPATIONS MAY BE USED IN ALL RESIDENTIAL USES. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT. UPDATE TO INCLUDE HOME OCCUPATIONS TO BE OPERATED BY THE OWNER OR TENANT OF THE DWELLING. AGAIN, THIS COMES FROM THE LEGISLATION'S OWNER OR TENANT. WE HAD TO REMOVE FLOOR AREA REQUIREMENTS AND OUR OUTDOOR INSTRUCTIONAL CLASS OCCUPANCY LIMIT. NEW LAW DOES NOT ALLOW US TO MAKE THOSE KIND OF RESTRICTIONS WHERE WE TALK ABOUT THAT. YOU KNOW, BEFORE, IT COULD ONLY BE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE HOME, YOU COULDN'T DO IT IN YOUR GARAGE, THAT SORT OF THING, UM, IT WAS SUPPOSED TO TRY TO LIMIT THE IMPACTS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND SO WE CAN NO LONGER MAKE THOSE CLARIFICATIONS, SO REMOVING THAT LANGUAGE, ALSO REMOVING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PATRONS ON THE PREMISE AT ONE TIME OF FOUR AGAIN, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS.

IN OUR PREVIOUS CODE, YOU WERE ONLY ALLOWED TO HAVE FOUR PATRONS VISITING YOUR HOME OCCUPATION AT ANY ONE TIME. WE CAN'T LIMIT THAT. UPDATE TO INCLUDE HOME OCCUPATIONS SHALL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM A STREET OR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. SO THAT WAS NEW LANGUAGE THAT THE LEGISLATURE ADOPTED THAT, YOU KNOW, SHOULDN'T BE VISIBLE FROM A STREET OR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THE LEGISLATURE ALSO ADOPTED LANGUAGE THAT SAID NO GENERATION OF ON-STREET PARKING OR INCREASE IN TRAFFIC. SO WE'RE ADOPTING THAT LANGUAGE AS PART OF THE UPDATE. AND THE LEGISLATURE ALSO SAID THAT...

YOU KNOW, THE HOME OCCUPATION SHOULDN'T INCLUDE THOSE THAT ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE BUSINESS IS LOCATED. THEY DIDN'T REALLY GIVE MORE SPECIFICS TO THAT.

WE WENT AHEAD AND DEFINED THOSE THAT WE THOUGHT WOULD NOT BE COMPATIBLE. AND WE USED WHAT WE PREVIOUSLY HAD IN OUR CODE AS THOSE USES THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED AS A HOME OCCUPATION. SO, PHYSICAL OR MEDICAL TREATMENT OF PERSONS OR ANIMALS, BEAUTY SHOPS, DANCE STUDIOS, CARPENTER SHOPS, ELECTRICAL SHOPS, MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS, PLUMBER SHOPS, HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING, RADIO SHOPS, AUTO REPAIR, PAINTING, FURNITURE REPAIR, SIGN PAINTING, OR SIMILAR ACTIVITIES. AND THEN AGAIN, THE LEGISLATURE ADDED THIS LANGUAGE ABOUT. DOES NOT, YOU KNOW, NO IMPACT.

HOME-BASED BUSINESS DOES NOT INCLUDE THOSE THAT SELL ALCOHOL OR ILLEGAL DRUGS, SOBER LIVING HOME, OR SEXUAL-ORIENTED BUSINESS, SO WE ADDED THAT LANGUAGE AS WELL. SO TO GO BACK SOME TO THE NEW DEFINITION WE'RE PROPOSING. SO WHAT WE TOOK TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WAS THIS TOP PARAGRAPH HERE, MEANS A BUSINESS, PROFESSION, OCCUPATION. CONDUCTED WITHIN A DWELLING UNIT OR ELSEWHERE IN A LOT, PRIMARILY USED FOR DWELLING PURPOSES, FOR COMPENSATION OR GAIN. ALL THAT WAS ALREADY THERE BY THE OWNER OR TENANT OF THE DWELLING UNIT.

UPDATED. THAT SAY, INCLUDING A HOME OCCUPATION NO IMPACT, AND THEN, IN CONDUCTING OPERATIONS, A HOME OCCUPATION SHALL NOT AT ANY TIME EXCEED THE OCCUPANCY RATE OF ONE PERSON PER BEDROOM.

PLUS ONE ADDITIONAL PERSON ON THE PREMISES AT ONE TIME, INCLUDING EMPLOYEES, CLIENTS OR PATRONS. SO P&Z HAD SOME CONCERNS WITH THAT. I FEEL LIKE PART OF IT WAS THAT WE NEEDED TO WORD IT BETTER, AND SO WE ATTEMPTED TO DO THAT. YOU KNOW, THERE WAS NEVER AN INTENT FOR THIS TO BE LIMITING THE ABILITY OF PEOPLE TO USE THEIR HOME AS A HOME, YOU KNOW, JUST HAVING FRIENDS OVER OR THAT SORT OF THING.

THE INTENT WAS TO BE MORE ABOUT LIMITING THE OCCUPATION SPECIFICALLY, OR THE OCCUPANCY OF THE BUILDING SPECIFICALLY IN RELATION TO THE BUSINESS.

YOU KNOW, PNC ALSO FELT LIKE MAYBE THAT WAS JUST TOO RESTRICTIVE ON THE NUMBER.

LIKE I SAID, BASICALLY WHAT STAFF WAS TRYING TO DO IS GET IT AS CLOSE TO WHAT WE PREVIOUSLY HAD AS BEFORE. YOU KNOW, WHEN THE LEGISLATURE MAKES NEW LAWS, WE LOOK AT WHAT OUR CURRENT LANGUAGE IS. IF WE FEEL LIKE IT'S WORKING, WE SEE, WELL, WHAT CAN WE ADJUST TO TRY TO AFFECT WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE? OR SOMETHING AS SIMILAR AS POSSIBLE. SO BEFORE WHAT WE HAD IN PLACE LIMITED. LIMITED THE HOME OCCUPATIONS, IT COULD ONLY HAVE ONE EMPLOYEE THAT DIDN'T LIVE IN THE HOUSE, AND COULD ONLY HAVE FOUR OCCUPANTS OR FOUR SHOPPERS. BASICALLY PATRONS OF THE BUSINESS. SO KIND OF FIVE PEOPLE THAT ARE JUST THERE FOR NOT LIVING IN THE HOME. SO WHAT WE HAD SAID BEFORE WAS ONE PERSON PER BEDROOM PLUS ONE ADDITIONAL PERSON, WHICH WOULD BE THAT EXTRA PERSON THAT'S WORKING THERE. BUT, LIKE SAID P&Z, THOUGHT MAYBE THAT WAS TOO RESTRICTIVE. SO WE WENT BACK AND ADJUSTED THAT. WE ALSO ADJUSTED THE LANGUAGE, SO I THINK IT WORKS A LITTLE BETTER, SAYING, IN CONDUCTING OPERATIONS, A HOME OCCUPATION SHALL NOT HAVE THE TOTAL EMPLOYEES, CLIENTS, OR PATRONS AT ANY TIME. EXCEED

[01:45:02]

THE OCCUPANCY RATE OF TWO PERSONS PER BEDROOM PLUS ONE ADDITIONAL PERSON ON THE PREMISES AT ONE TIME.

SO WE CAN GO WITH THAT. WE CAN GO WITH THE ORIGINAL ONE. IF Y'ALL WANT TO COMPLETELY STRIKE THIS, WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT, TOO.

IT'S BASICALLY JUST YOU TOOL THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT HAS AT THEIR DISPOSAL IN CASE THEY SHOULD GO TO THE PROPERTY. AND THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE THERE.

BASICALLY. THE LEGISLATURE, LIKE SAID, KIND OF RESTRICTED OUR ABILITY TO LIMIT THIS IN THE WAY WE HAD BEFORE.

BUT INSTEAD, THEY SAID THAT.

IN NOTE, AT NO TIME SHALL IT EXCEED THE ALLOWED OCCUPANCY RATE OF THE HOME.

BUT THERE IS NO OCCUPANCY RATE FOR RESIDENTIAL USES THAT'S ADOPTED BY THE BUILDING CODE.

SO WE KIND OF HAVE TO CREATE WHAT WE THINK THE INTENTION OF THAT WAS. AND SO, LIKE I SAID, WE LOOKED AT IT AND SAID, OKAY, WELL, IF WE ASSUME THAT THERE COULD BE TWO PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, PER BEDROOM, AND THEN ONE EXTRA PERSON, THEN IF YOU DOUBLE THAT FOR THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE, THEN... OKAY, MAYBE THAT WOULD BE MEETING THE EXPECTATION OF NOT HAVING MORE THAN WOULD NORMALLY HAVE IN A HOME. SO, LIKE I SAID, THIS IS WHAT'S IN THE ORDINANCE, THAT'S BEFORE YOU. TONIGHT IS THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, THE YELLOW LANGUAGE. I KNOW THAT P&Z ALSO BROUGHT UP THE POTENTIAL, OR TALKED ABOUT THE FACT OF POSSIBLY LOOKING AT IT BY SQUARE FOOTAGE. YOU KNOW, I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT US DOING IT THAT WAY, JUST BECAUSE YOU COULD HAVE SOMEBODY THAT HAS A VERY SMALL.

EVEN AN APARTMENT, A ONE-BEDROOM APARTMENT TYPE OF THING. AND SO IF WE SAY, WELL, YOU HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST MANY SQUARE FEET, 02,000 SQUARE FEET, THEN THEY COULDN'T HAVE ANY AT ALL. BASED ON THAT. BUT IF WE MADE IT A VERY SMALL NUMBER AND SOMEBODY LIVED IN A LARGE HOME, THEN YOU COULD ADD IT UP. AND, OH, WELL, I'M ACTUALLY ALLOWED TO HAVE LIKE 20 PEOPLE HERE.

SO THAT'S KIND OF THE CONCERN WITH DOING IT ON SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THEN JUST CODE ENFORCEMENT, LIKE IN THE FIELD, REAL TIME, TRYING TO ENFORCE IT BASED ON THAT. SO IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS LANGUAGE. THIS IS WHAT WE'VE PROPOSED AT THIS TIME, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY DO WHATEVER Y'ALL WOULD PREFER. I WANT TO ASK ONE QUICK QUESTION.

WHEN YOU SAY HOME OCCUPATION, JUST SO THERE'S SOME CLARIFICATION IN THE COMMUNITY, IS THIS INCLUDING THINGS LIKE YOUR SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM RENTALS, THAT TYPE OF BUSINESS, OR IS THIS PURELY, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM RENTALS? BECAUSE I THINK, IS THAT TRUE? THAT'S TRUE.

NO, RENTAL OF A PROPERTY TO LIVE IN IT, I THINK THE COURTS HAVE ACTUALLY DEFINED.

LIVING IN A HOME, WHETHER YOU RENT IT OR OWN IT, IS JUST A RESIDENTIAL USE.

THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THIS TYPE OF OCCUPATION.

RIGHT. I THINK THERE'S ACTUALLY SOME LANGUAGE THAT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE SHORT-TERM RENTALS. THAT THE LEGISLATURE WROTE IN THERE OR ALLOWED US TO ADOPT. SO, NO, IT'S NOT THAT. SO, I ORDINARILY AM VERY IN FAVOR OF...

SPECIFICITY AND CARVING OUT THE RIGHT RULES SO PEOPLE KNOW THE EXPECTATIONS. MY CONCERN ABOUT THIS IS THAT WE MAY ALREADY HAVE SOME PEOPLE IN TOWN WHO HAVE WELL-ESTABLISHED BUSINESSES, WHO'VE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY OPERATING THEM.

NO ONE CARES. NO ONE'S UPSET ABOUT IT. AND, AS WRITTEN, THAT MAY NO LONGER ALLOW THEM TO DO WHAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING SUCCESSFULLY FOR MANY YEARS.

SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER, HAVE COUNCIL CONSIDER, IS SOME KIND OF AN EXCEPTION PROCESS. OR A PERMITTING PROCESS. OR, YOU KNOW, WOULD IT BE ABLE TO GO TO BOA FOR AN EXCEPTION? YOU KNOW, LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, WHAT IF THERE'S AN ARTIST WHO HAS IN-HOUSE ART LESSONS? OR WHAT IF THERE'S A WRITING STABLE THAT GIVES LESSONS OR BIRTHDAY PARTIES? YOU KNOW, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS THAT MAY BE NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL. I THINK A WRITING STABLE WOULD BE DIFFERENT BECAUSE THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE A STABLE. AND...

IT COULD ACTUALLY BE. SO IT'S ONLY A RESIDENTIAL HOME.

THAT'S IT. NOT LIKE A BARN OR MULTI-USE BUILDING. I MEAN, HYPOTHETICALS, I KNOW IT'S A TERRIBLE THING TO TALK ABOUT, BUT. I WOULD NOT, I WOULD NOT NECESSARILY RECOMMEND DOING AN EXCEPTION PROCESS BECAUSE WE DON'T EVEN ISSUE A PERMIT FOR THIS. SO THERE IS REALLY NO, AGAIN, IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT IT AND YOU WANT TO STRIKE THE LANGUAGE, THAT'S FINE. BUT. WELL, THIS SAYS WITHIN A DWELLING UNIT OR ELSEWHERE.

ON A LOT THAT'S ELSEWHERE, NOT IN THE DWELLING UNIT, RIGHT? SO I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. NO, I AGREE. IT WOULD DEFINITELY APPLY IF YOU HAD, LIKE, JUST AN ACCESSORY BUILDING OR SOMETHING ON YOUR PROPERTY. YET. NO, YOU COULDN'T DO IT THERE EITHER. I MEAN, LIKE THAT, I WAS MORE SAYING A STABLE, BECAUSE IF YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A FUNCTIONING STABLE,

[01:50:01]

THEN THAT WOULD BE ITS OWN USE.

BUT AGAIN, Y'ALL CAN DO, WE CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO WITH IT. I'VE TALKED TO MATT ABOUT IT, OUR DIRECTOR OVER CODE ENFORCEMENT. HE DIDN'T HAVE A STRONG OPINION. I WOULD NOT ADVISE US TO MAKE IT REALLY COMPLICATED.

SO IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DO IT OR HAVE CONCERNS, I WOULD JUST SUGGEST STRIKING IT, AND THAT'S FINE. DO YOU ALL UNDERSTAND WHERE I'M COMING FROM? YEAH, I UNDERSTAND. SO I'M JUST THINKING THAT IF SOMEBODY IS A BAD ACTOR AND THEY'RE HAVING... LOTS AND LOTS OF PEOPLE OVER ALL THE TIME AND IT'S DRIVING EVERYBODY CRAZY.

AND THAT'S THE ONLY TIME THIS IS REALLY GONNA COME UP. AND THEN SOMEBODY'S LIKE, WHAT DO I DO? I'M IN A NON-OH AWAY. IT'S THIS GUY NEXT DOOR'S GOT PARTY EVERY NIGHT. HE'S SAYING HE'S RUNNING A ARTIST STUDIO, BUT REALLY, IT'S MUSIC BLARING. SO HE CAN CALL CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THEY CAN SAY, LOOK, PAL, YOU CAN ONLY HAVE SIX PEOPLE PLUS ONE IN YOUR HOUSE. BUT COULDN'T THEY ALSO SAY YOU MIGHT BE VIOLATING THE NOISE ORDINANCE OR THE PARKING ORDINANCES? BECAUSE YOU WOULD THINK THAT PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TO DRIVE THERE. AND THEN. WE DO HAVE A NOISE ORDINANCE, SO I'M THINKING SOME OF OUR CURRENT ORDINANCES MIGHT SUFFICE, WHICH IS LESS GOVERNMENT, IN CONTROLLING SOME OF THESE CONCERNS. AND CERTAINLY, IF THERE IS AN HOA, IT COULD BE UNDER THEIR PURVIEW. WELL, YEAH. FOR ONES THAT ARE NOT.

MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE A HOME BUSINESS IN AN HOA. BUT IN THE NON-HOA NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE, AND I'VE LIVED IN A NON-HOA NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I'VE HAD A BAD NEIGHBOR, AND HE WAS RUNNING SOME KIND OF CAR. AUCTION, YOU BUY CARS AT AUCTION AND THEN SELL THEM.

AND YOU'D HAVE EIGHT CARS IN FRONT OF HIS HOUSE AND HE'D LEAVE AN ENGINE BLOCK FOR THE TRASH GUY TO PICK UP.

AND IT WAS CRAZY. AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO BUT CALL THE COPS. AND SO WHAT I THINK I'M UNDERSTANDING IN THIS IS THE PNZ MADE THE SAME CASE YOU MADE, WHICH IS, LET'S NOT BE TOO RESTRICTIVE.

IT WAS ONE PERSON PER BEDROOM, WHICH IS LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT, YOU GOT ONE PERSON, THAT'S ALL YOU CAN HAVE. WHICH IS EXCESSIVE. BUT NOW WE HAVE AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD. IT'S ONLY GOING TO COME UP IF THEY CALL CODE ENFORCEMENT. THEY HAVE RULES. PROBABLY NEVER GONNA COME UP, BUT IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY RULES AT ALL, THEN I JUST WONDER, WHAT DOES THAT GUY DO IN THE SCENARIO WHERE IT IS A BAD ACTOR? AND THEY DON'T HAVE, AND I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, I THINK OTHER ORDINANCES COULD BE USED, LIKE NOISE AND PARKING AND TRASH. WHAT IS THE PARKING OR ISN'T? YOU CAN'T HAVE EXTRA PARKING, LIKE YOU CAN'T PARK ON THE LAWNS, PEOPLE CAN PARK ON THE STREETS. AS MANY CARS IF IT'S AVAILABLE, BUT WITH SO MANY CARS, RIGHT? WITH THIS CHANGE TO THE ORDINANCE, THE LEGISLATURE ACTUALLY DID WRITE IN THAT IT SHALL NOT GENERATE ON-STREET PARKING. NOW, IT CAN BE CHALLENGING TO CATCH SOMEBODY GOING TO THEIR CAR AND PROVE WHY THEY'RE PARKED THERE ON THE STREET. SO I DON'T WANT TOALL OF THESE CAN BE CHALLENGING TO ENFORCE, BUT I DON'T WANT TO GIVE THE IDEA THAT, AH, SINCE WE SAY THERE'S YOU CAN'T GENERATE ON-STREET PARKING.

NOW WE DEFINITELY HAVE THE MAGIC BULLET. IT'LL STILL BE CHALLENGING, BUT IT IS HONESTLY MORE THAN WE COULD DO PRIOR TO THAT WITH PARKING, BECAUSE BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE ADDED THAT LANGUAGE, ON-STREET PARKING IS LEGAL.

ANYBODY CAN PARK ON THE STREET FOR ANY REASON THEY WANT TO.

SO NOW THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO TRY TO VERIFY WHY PEOPLE ARE PARKED ON THE STREET AND IF IT'S EXCESSIVE PARKING. IN RELATION TO A BUSINESS. I STILL THINK THIS, EVEN AS WRITTEN, IS GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE. UNDERSTANDING CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES AND SOME OF THE CHALLENGES WE HAVE IN DEFENDING POSITIONS ON OTHER INFRACTIONS, I DON'T THINK THIS IS EVEN GOING TO EVER REALLY COME UP, BUT I DON'T WANT TO CREATE IT JUST TO CREATE IT. IS THIS LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN WHAT WE HAVE TODAY? IS WHAT YOU'D SAID AT THE BEGINNING THAT CURRENTLY THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO MODEL THE CURRENT STANDARDS WITH THE FIRST DEFINITION? YES, I THINK THIS IS LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN WHAT WE HAVE TODAY. BECAUSE TODAY YOU WOULD NOT EVEN BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A HOME-BASED BUSINESS IN AN APARTMENT. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE IN A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.

I DON'T REALLY KNOW OF ANY ONE-BEDROOM, SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. SO ASSUME YOU'RE STARTING AT A TWO-BEDROOM, THEN IT WOULD BASICALLY BE, IF YOU HAD A TWO-BEDROOM HOME, IT WOULD BE THE SAME. SO IT WOULD BE OUR CURRENT CODE WOULD ALLOW YOU TO HAVE FOUR PATRONS, ONE PERSON WORKING THERE. THIS ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE FOUR PATRONS, CLIENTS, EMPLOYEE, WHATEVER YOU WANT, PLUS ONE EXTRA. SO IT'S THE SAME NUMBER FOR KIND OF, I THINK, WHAT WOULD BE THE SMALLEST COMPARISON.

BUT THEN YOU CAN HAVE, WITH THIS, THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, IT WOULD BE LESS RESTRICTIVE AS YOU GO UP. SO IF YOU HAVE THREE BEDROOMS, THEN IT'S MORE PEOPLE THAN YOU'RE CURRENTLY ALLOWED. FOUR BEDROOMS, IT'S EVEN MORE PEOPLE THAN YOU'RE CURRENTLY ALLOWED.

SO IT'S, AT WORST, AS RESTRICTIVE AS OUR CURRENT CODE ON THE SMALLEST UNIT POSSIBLE BUT IT ACTUALLY IS LESS RESTRICTIVE FOR EVERY OTHER OPTION. I'LL JUST SAY THAT I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS LANGUAGE. I'LL ALSO SUPPORT

[01:55:01]

THIS WITHOUT IT. THE MAIN THING IS GETTING THE NON-COMPATIBLE BUSINESSES OUT OF THE LIST. I THINK THAT'S REALLY, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT SOMEBODY DOING AUTO BODY WORK. CAN WE LOOK AT THAT LIST AGAIN? BRENNA HAS A COMMENT. SORRY, I JUST WANTED TO INTERVENE QUICKLY. I APOLOGIZE. THANK YOU, CHRIS.

JUST BEFORE WE GET TOO FAR DOWN THE ROAD, I JUST WANT TO EXPLAIN THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THIS. SO WE CAN REGULATE HOME-BASED BUSINESSES IF WE WANT TO. IF WE HAVE SOME CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE WE WANT TO ALLOW A BUSINESS THAT DOESN'T QUALIFY AS A NO-IMPACT HOME-BASED BUSINESS, WE CAN ADOPT A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT PROCESS. WE CAN ADOPT CRITERIA FOR IT. THIS LEGISLATION IS TOTAL PREEMPTION. IT'S NOT AN INVITATION FOR US TO REGULATE. IT BASICALLY SAYS, IF YOU QUALIFY UNDER STATE LAW AS A NO-IMPACT HOME-BASED BUSINESS, THEN WE HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER IT WHATSOEVER.

BUT I KNOW SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS AT THE WRITING CENTER, I THINK PNZ MENTIONED A YOGA STUDIO. SO, UNDER STATE LAW, IN ORDER TO QUALIFY, YOU CANNOT EXCEED THE MUNICIPAL OCCUPANCY LIMIT, WHICH IS WHY I'D GO WITH OCCUPANCY LIMIT, NOT SQUARE FOOTAGE, BECAUSE SQUARE FOOTAGE ISN'T MENTIONED IN THE BILL ANYWHERE, AND I THINK WE'D BE PREEMPTED FROM THAT. NUMBER TWO, DOES NOT GENERATE ANY OFF-STREET PARKING. SO IF YOU'VE GOT A BUSY YOGA STUDIO, UNLESS YOU HAVE AN ENORMOUS DRIVEWAY, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU ACCOMMODATE THAT. NUMBER THREE, THE ACTIVITY CANNOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET WHATSOEVER. SO YOU BETTER HAVE A GOOD FOREST THICKET OF TREES TO DO YOUR RIDING STUDIO BEHIND.

OTHERWISE, IT'S GOING TO BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, AND YOU DON'T QUALIFY FOR THE PREEMPTION WHATSOEVER.

AND THEN IT CANNOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE NOISE.

SO WE CAN... WE CAN APPLY OUR NOISE REGULATIONS. BUT THIS IS REALLY JUST CODIFYING WHAT WE ARE TOTALLY PREEMPTED FROM REGULATING. THANK YOU. SO THE LIST, AGAIN, OF THE NO IMPACT. THIS IS DOWN HERE. AND AGAIN, THESE ARE ALL OF THE USES THAT WE ALREADY PROHIBITED. AND THEN ADDING THESE AT THE BOTTOM THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT. SELLING ALCOHOL, DRUGS, SOBER LIVING.

WELL, JUST SAY I WANTED TO DO, SINCE I'M GOING TO BE RETIRING SOON, I LIKE TO PAINT FURNITURE AND I WANT TO REPAIR FURNITURE IN MY GARAGE, AND I OCCASIONALLY HAVE A COUPLE PEOPLE HELPING ME LIFT THINGS.

I CAN'T DO IT. I'M JUST ASKING.

YEAH, AGAIN, I THINK...

BECAUSE THAT'S A PRETTY BASIC THING THAT PEOPLE DO. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE REQUIRE A PERMIT FOR. SO I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE... REPAIRING FURNITURE IN YOUR GARAGE IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IT BOTHERED YOUR NEIGHBORS ENOUGH THAT THEY CALLED CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THEY WOULD COME AND ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS. BUT AGAIN, FOR YOU, YOU AND A COUPLE OF PEOPLE IN YOUR GARAGE WOULD NOT EXCEED THE OCCUPANCY LIMITS, BUT BASED ON THE USE ITSELF, WE HAVE NEVER ALLOWED THAT AS A HOME-BASED BUSINESS. I MEAN, AGAIN, DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL, KIND OF, SORT OF.

BUT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IF I WANT TO REPAIR SOME FURNITURE IN MY GARAGE AND HAVE A COUPLE PEOPLE HELP ME LIFT SOMETHING, THAT'S NOT REALLY A... AND SELL IT. AND SELL IT. RIGHT, BUT THAT'S... THAT'S MY AUNT'S FURNITURE REPAIR BUSINESS.

WELL, I MEAN, YOU CAN'T HAVE A SIGN, SO... OKAY, RIGHT, NO SIGNS. I MEAN, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO SELL THINGS ONLINE THAT YOU DO IN YOUR GARAGE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN... I'M JUST BEING HYPOTHETICAL ABOUT IT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A LITTLE RESTRICTIVE. WHAT ABOUT AN AT-HOME DAYCARE? WE DO HAVE. THAT'S UNDER ITS OWN USE ALREADY IN OUR CODE. OKAY. SO A NURSE WHO DOES TREATMENTS OUT OF HER HOUSE COULD NOT. YEAH, I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE OUT OF THEIR HOME. THERE ARE PEOPLE DOING AESTHETICS. YEAH, THERE'S, WELL, THERE'S. AND THEY COULD BE MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS, RIGHT? AND THEY'RE GIVING INJECTIONS AND HAVING, THEY'RE HAVING PARTIES, RIGHT? AREN'T THEY LIKE BOTOX PARTIES OR SOMETHING? IF YOU HAVE A PARTY, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

FOR A BUSINESS, THOUGH. I'M SAYING IT WOULDN'T BE COUNTED A BUSINESS IF IT'S A BOTOX PARTY.

AND YOU CONTACT A PERSON THAT HAS THEIR OWN WEBSITE AND SAY, I DO THIS, AND YOU'RE LIKE, COOL, I WANT YOU TO COME TO MY HOUSE. I'M HAVING A BOTOX PARTY. BRING ALL THE BOTOX. THAT'S GOING TO BE A PARTY. THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE A BUSINESS. BUT NO, WHAT IF THEY'RE GETTING PAID? BUT IF IT'S SUSTAINED AND THEY'RE DOING IT REGULARLY, THAT'S A BUSINESS. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THE NURSE, THE WHOEVER. OPERATING OUT OF THEIR HOME. AND AGAIN, IF YOU HAVE LIKE ONE PERSON THAT'S COMING IN TO SEE YOU, I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYBODY'S GOT. ALL OF THESE REGULATIONS ARE INTENDED TO ADDRESS SITUATIONS THAT BECOME A PROBLEM WHERE PEOPLE ARE OPERATING LARGE-SCALE BUSINESSES OUT OF THEIR HOME. I CAN TELL YOU CODE ENFORCEMENT HAS RUN INTO ISSUES WITH ALL OF THESE, MOST LIKELY. AND THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE MADE IT

[02:00:01]

ONTO THE LIST AT SOME POINT IN OUR HISTORY. IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THERE'S NOT SOMEONE THAT COULD DO IT AT A SMALLER SCALE. THAT DOESN'T IMPACT ANYONE, BUT THIS IS INTENDED TO PROTECT NEIGHBORS. IF NOBODY HAS BEEN COMPLAINING TO YOU ABOUT HOW STRICT THE TOWN'S HOME-BASED BUSINESS REGULATIONS ARE, IT IS PROBABLY NOT IMPACTING THEM IN THEIR CURRENT BUSINESS. BUT YOU COULD ALWAYS HAVE A DISCUSSION. A DISGRUNTLED NEIGHBOR, FOR WHATEVER REASON, NOTICE.

YOU CAN. I'M NOT SAYING THAT EVERYBODY THAT COMPLAINS IS CORRECT. WELL, SO I THINK I'D BE OKAY LEAVING, OBVIOUSLY, ON THIS SLIDE, EVERYTHING AS PRESENTED, AND ON THE NEXT ONE, WHERE WE HAVE THE UPDATED LANGUAGE FROM PNZ, I THINK I'M OKAY DOING THIS, ACCEPTING THE LANGUAGE FROM PNZ. BUT THEN I THINK, AS WE DO WITH EVERYTHING, WE TAKE A LOOK AT IT, AND IF IT'S NOT WORKING, IF WE'RE GETTING TOO MANY COMPLAINTS OR THINGS ARE JUST SLIDING THROUGH THE CRACKS, WE REVISIT IT BECAUSE WE CAN ALWAYS REVISE IT AGAIN AT SOME POINT DOWN THE ROAD.

SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD STARTING POINT. I'D BE OKAY WITH THAT.

THAT'S REASONABLE. AND I WOULD SUPPORT TAKING IT OUT BASED ON WHAT BRYN, THE INFORMATION BRYN GAVE US. SO IF EITHER MOTION COMES FORWARD, I'M FINE WITH IT. SO IF YOU WANT TO STRIKE THAT OUT, THEN I'M NOT GOING TO CHALLENGE YOU ON THAT. I WANTED TO CLARIFY FOR YOU ALL, BASED ON WHAT BRYN TOLD YOU, TOO, WE ARE NOT REALLY CREATING TWO SEPARATE ONES, NO IMPACT HOME-BASED BUSINESS AND REGULAR HOME-BASED BUSINESS, AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE COMPLICATIONS OF ENFORCING THAT FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT'S PERSPECTIVE.

SO. WE FELT LIKE WE FOUND A WAY TO PRETTY MUCH MAKE MOST OF OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS FIT IN WHAT THE LEGISLATURE ADOPTED. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S SOMETHING Y'ALL WANT TO REVISIT, IF YOU'RE LIKE, I HAD NO IDEA WE HAD THESE, I HATE THESE, ANYTHING LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT TRYING TO PUSH THIS.

THIS ISN'T A STAFF-LED INITIATIVE. WE JUST TRIED TO MAKE IT AS CLOSELY MATCH OUR CURRENT CODE AS WE COULD.

COULD, BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE DID NOT HAVE CONCERNS WITH THE CURRENT CODE. BRYNN, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. SO IF A HOMEOWNER WERE CONDUCTING ONE OF THESE NO IMPACT BUSINESSES, BUT, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY DIDN'T LIKE IT, OR THEY COMPLAINED, AND THEN THEN IT WAS LIKE, OH, THAT'S REALLY NOT THIS. IT'S REALLY THAT WE DON'T ALLOW THAT HERE. WHAT IS THE PATH FOR THEM TO PROTEST THE RULING THAT THEY'RE IN TROUBLE OVER THIS. SO THEY WOULD REPORT IT TO CODE ENFORCEMENT. I ASSUME CODE ENFORCEMENT WOULD GO VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT THEY MEET THE CRITERIA TO SATISFY THE HOME-BASED NO-IMPACT BUSINESS CRITERIA UNDER STATE LAW. AND IF CODE ENFORCEMENT DETERMINED THAT THAT WERE THE CASE, THEN NO CITATION WOULD BE ISSUED.

OTHERWISE, A CITATION IS ISSUED AND YOU GO TO MUNICIPAL COURT AND YOU ARGUE THROUGH THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE. THAT, LOOK, NEVER HAD OFF-STREET PARKING.

YOU CAN'T SEE OUR TAX PREP BUSINESS INSIDE MY GARAGE. YOU KNOW, WE DON'T EVER EXCEED THE OCCUPANCY LIMITS. REMEMBER, THE PROSECUTOR HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF, AND IT'S A HIGHER BURDEN OF PROOF. THE PROSECUTOR HAS TO PUT ON ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

LOOK AT ALL THESE CARS THAT WE SPOKE TO ONE OF YOUR CLIENTS, AND THEY SAID THEY ALWAYS PARK ON THE STREET, IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE, THAT SORT OF THING. SO THE PROSECUTOR WOULD BE PRESENTED EVIDENCE FROM THE DISGRUNTLED NEIGHBOR? FOR EXAMPLE? THAT'S RIGHT. AND YOU WOULD HAVE THE NEIGHBOR TESTIFY THAT I SEE CARS ON THE STREET THERE ALL THE TIME. AND YOU'D HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, WHICH IS 90% OR MORE, THAT THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. AND NO REASONABLE PERSON WOULD THINK THAT THE FACTS WERE IN DISPUTE IN ORDER TO GENERATE THE CITATION, OR AT LEAST THE CONVICTION. I APOLOGIZE. ALL RIGHT. YOU STILL HAVE MORE. IT'S NOT FINISHED YET. THERE'S MORE. THERE'S EVEN MORE. THERE ALSO WERE SOME CHANGES TO HOW WE REGULATE NOISE, AS FAR AS THE DECIBELS AND THE TIMING IN PLACE. AND SO WE'RE JUST UPDATING THAT BASED ON, AGAIN, STATE LAW. SOUND REGULATIONS FOR FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THIS NEW SECTION OF CODE THAT THE STATE ADOPTED.

THE OTHER THING THAT WE CHANGED IS THERE USED TO BE NOISE. WAS WAS ADDRESSED IN TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS, 98 AND 34, BUT THE WAY 98 WAS WRITTEN WAS WAS REALLY PRETTY CONFUSING. IT WAS HARD TO TRY TO CALCULATE ON YOUR OWN. SO BASICALLY EVERYBODY USED 34 INSTEAD. SO WE'RE JUST PROPOSING TO REMOVE SECTION 98 AND INSTEAD REFER BACK TO 34 WITHIN SECTION 98. AND WE'RE WE'RE UPDATING 34 TO MATCH WHAT THE NEW STATE REQUIREMENTS ARE.

SO UNDER COMMERCIAL, IT'S NOW ANY TIME WHERE THE DECIBELS EXCEED 67 DECIBELS. YES. HOW IS THAT GOING TO WORK

[02:05:01]

FOR OUTDOOR CONCERTS IN THE MULTI-USE AREAS THAT WE HAVE IN TOWN? THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE NOISE REQUIREMENTS.

SO WE WOULD ADD THAT? THAT LANGUAGE ISN'T BEING CHANGED.

MATT, DO YOU REMEMBER ANY OF THAT? 67'S NOT THAT LOUD, REALLY. THE EXCEPTIONS ARE MAINLY FOR OUR EVENTS, SCHOOL EVENTS, THINGS LIKE THAT.

NOW, IF SOMEBODY'S HAVING A CONCERT, WE TAKE THE MEASUREMENT AT THE PROPERTY LINE.

RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE? YEAH. IN THE MULTI-USE AREA? YEAH. SO WHAT ABOUT AN OUTDOOR MUSICIAN ON A PATIO, WHICH HAPPENS A LOT AROUND? WELL, IT DEPENDS ON THE PROXIMITY OF THE PROPERTY LINE. IF IT'S 200 FEET AWAY, IT MAY NOT BE VIOLATING THAT 67 DECIBELS. I MEAN, IT'S JUST AMPLIFIED SOUND.

HONESTLY, WE'D GO UP AND TELL THEM TO TURN IT DOWN. IF IT'S GETTING A COMPLAINT, AND WE DO A NIGHTTIME NOISE MEASUREMENT, OR WHENEVER IT'S OCCURRING AT THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH COULD BE SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET AWAY, IF IT VIOLATES, IF IT'S AMPLIFIED SOUND, WE'D TELL THEM TO TURN IT DOWN, WHICH WE HAVE DONE.

AT ANY TIME, BECAUSE THIS SAYS ANY TIME NOW.

IT'S NOT JUST AFTER 10 P.M. I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A CHALLENGE AROUND TOWN FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF... ENTERTAINMENT. I'LL SPEAK FOR THE HISTORY. IT HASN'T BEEN AN ISSUE, EXCEPT FOR ONE LOCATION WHERE THEY DID HAVE AMPLIFIED SOUND, AND THERE'S THERE ARE RESIDENTIAL UNITS ACROSS THE STREET.

AFTER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, OR ANY TIME? THIS WAS THIS IS AN EVENING AFTER 10 P.M. THIS IS BEFORE 10 P.M.

BUT THEY WERE OUT ON A PATIO AREA WITH AMPLIFIED SOUND. IT DOES DISSIPATE OVER DISTANCE, BUT IF IT'S RIGHT THERE, IF YOU'RE RIGHT NEXT TO A RESIDENCE, OBVIOUSLY IT COULD BE. I MEAN, WE HAVE SOME MIXED USE WHERE IT'S COMMERCIAL ON THE BOTTOM AND RIGHT UPSTAIRS. SO DO YOU GO 15 FEET UP TO WHERE, I MEAN, IS THAT THE PROPERTY LINE, THEN? I DON'T. THERE, YOU'D MEASURE THAT.

THREE-DIMENSIONAL, I GUESS, RIGHT? PRETTY MUCH AT THE SOURCE THERE. IF YOU GO UPSTAIRS, I MEAN, IT'S GOING TO BE RIGHT THERE. BUT AREN'T WE ONLY MODIFYING THE DECIBEL ON ONE ROW? EVERYTHING ELSE IS PRETTY MUCH STAYING THE SAME.

THE TIME FRAME WAS TAKEN OUT.

BECAUSE IT SAID 7 A.M. TO 10 P.M. WAS THE PRIOR QUALIFIER.

NOW IT SAYS ANY TIME FOR COMMERCIAL. I DON'T KNOW. I WOULD MAYBE LIKE TO HEAR FROM OUR BUSINESS OWNERS A LITTLE BIT. BUT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK ABOUT IT? COMMERCIAL VERSUS RETAIL USE. I MEAN, I'M THINKING IT'S MORE OF A RETAIL USE IF YOU'RE THINKING IF IT'S A RESTAURANT WITH A PATIO. COMMERCIAL, IT SAYS, COMMERCIAL. YEAH. THAT SECTION IS NOT. THAT WAS JUST TO BE, NO. ISN'T COMMERCIAL, WHAT WOULD CATEGORIZE THE RESTAURANT WOULD BE COMMERCIAL? EITHER RETAIL OR COMMERCIAL.

USUALLY, WE WOULD CONSIDER COMMERCIAL THOSE USES THAT ARE PERMITTED IN, LIKE COMMERCIAL ZONING, C1 OR C2 ZONING. ONLY C1, C2, NOT MIXED USE. NO, DEFINITELY NOT MIXED USE. SO WHERE DOES THAT FALL INTO PLAY? PROBABLY IN THE, I ASSUME WE PROBABLY DO OFFICE RETAIL FOR, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RETAIL, THAT'S IN MIXED USE.

LIKE RESTAURANT. I'M THINKING, RESTAURANTS WITH PATIOS AND MUSIC, MUSICIANS. BECAUSE IT'S BROKEN DOWN INTO THESE CATEGORIES.

SO, YEAH, OFFICE RETAIL WOULD BE THOSE, YOU KNOW, OFFICE AND RETAIL TYPE USES IN O OR RETAIL ZONING, COMMERCIAL AND COMMERCIAL ZONING, INDUSTRIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING. RESIDENTIAL WOULD COVER ALL THE RESIDENTIAL LAND USES. IF WE'RE CERTAIN THAT THE RESTAURANT IS PART OF OFFICE RETAIL AND WE'RE KEEPING THE 10 P.M. TO 7 A.M, I THINK I'D BE OKAY WITH IT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY WEREN'T TOLD UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES. CAN YOU EVER EXCEED 67? IT'S NOT THAT HIGH, I MEAN, AND YOU WERE CORRECT AND WHAT YOU JUST ALL SAID. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THE OFFICE RETAIL WAS.

IT'S 62 DECIBELS FROM 10 P.M.

TO 7 A.M. AND THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN. AND THAT'S OKAY, BUT I'M JUST SAYING, IF IT'S ANY TIME IN 67, I THINK THAT'S REALLY TOUGH AND LIMITING FOR OUR... I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE EVENINGS, SOMETHING A LITTLE EARLY.

RIGHT. I MEAN, I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE EVENINGS, ESPECIALLY IN MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, BUT... I MEAN, I'D BE OKAY MIRRORING THOSE OTHER TIMES. I DON'T THINK I'D HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT, BUT I DON'T... I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE SOME UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IF WE... JUST FOR COMMERCIAL TO MAKE IT MATCH WHAT OFFICE RETAIL SAYS? YEAH. I MEAN, COMMERCIAL IS ACTUALLY... IT'S

[02:10:01]

LESS RESTRICTIVE IN SAYING 67 ANYTIME. IT'S NOT GETTING A LESSER DECIBEL IN THE NIGHTTIME. BECAUSE I THINK THE ASSUMPTION IS COMMERCIAL, AGAIN, IS MORE OF THOSE COMMERCIAL, HEAVY COMMERCIAL USES. YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL. SIMILAR TO HOW INDUSTRIAL IS ANYTIME, BUT IT'S 70 DECIBELS. BECAUSE INDUSTRIAL IS PROBABLY CLOSE TO OTHER INDUSTRIAL. YOU'RE TYPICALLY NOT ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL. YOU MIGHT BE MORE ADJACENT TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL USES. I'M REALLY THINKING THAT FOR THE MUSIC ASPECT, IF WE'RE KIND OF FOCUSED ON THAT, THAT'S MORE THE OFFICE RETAIL.

IT'S MORE RETAIL, ANYWAY.

OKAY. AS LONG AS THAT'S WHERE IT BELONGS, I'M OKAY WITH IT.

BECAUSE I JUST THOUGHT, IN LIEU OF THE LIMIT OF 67 DECIBELS, THERE ISN'T A LIMIT, SO THEY COULD HAVE MUSIC LOUDER THAN THAT OUTSIDE OF THOSE ALLOWED HOURS. IS THAT RIGHT? I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST 67. NOT FOR OFFICE RETAIL.

IT'S 62, BUT IF IT'S BETWEEN 7.01 A.M. AND 9.59 P.M., THERE IS NO LIMIT. IS THERE? THAT'S WHAT THAT SAYS. THAT LIMIT APPLIES DURING THOSE HOURS. SO IT ALSO DOESN'T THAT APPLY THAT, IMPLY I THAT OUTSIDE OF THOSE HOURS, THERE IS NO LIMIT FOR THE LET ME MAKE SURE I'M FOLLOWING YOU? FOR THE OFFICE RETAIL, THE 7 A.M TO 10 P.M IS 62 DECIBELS.

NO. 10 P.M TO 7 A.M IS 62. I MEAN, 67 DECIBELS THE YES.

FROM 10 P.M. TO 7 A.M. IT'S 62 FOR OFFICE RETAIL RIGHT MORNING TILL NIGHT TILL 10 P.M. AT 67 COMMERCIALS ANYTIME. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ADDING 780. YOU'RE ADDING THAT. IT WASN'T THERE BEFORE. RIGHT. SO YOU'RE ADDING THE LIMIT OF 67, WHERE PREVIOUSLY THERE WAS NO LIMIT.

I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. THE ADDITIONAL STANDARD IS BEING ADDED. I THINK THAT'S TOO LOW FOR A NIGHTTIME, OUTDOOR, MUSICAL, AMPLIFIED SOUND. 67 DECIBELS IS LOW. AND I THINK PEOPLE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH COMPLYING. I MEAN, I GUESS IF YOU DON'T GET A COMPLAINT.

IF YOU DON'T GET A COMPLAINT, THEN IT'S ALL GOOD? IS THAT HOW THAT WORKS? THIS WOULD BE REACTIVE. OKAY, SO I KIND OF DON'T LIKE MAKING UP LAWS JUST IN CASE LIKE THAT, EITHER.

IT'S A STANDARD, OR IT ISN'T.

THAT'S JUST ME, PERSONALLY.

BUT I STILL THINK, ADDING THAT 7 A.M. TO 10 P.M. AT 67, EVEN IF IT IS OFFICE RETAIL, A RESTAURANT WITH A PATIO AND A MUSICIAN, IS GOING TO HAVE PROBLEM COMPLYING. AND I DON'T LIKE SETTING UP LAWS THAT PEOPLE HAVE A PROBLEM COMPLYING WITH, AND THEN WE ONLY GET TO USE THEM IF THEY GET TATTLED ON.

YOU KNOW, IT'S A LAW. MAKE IT FOR A REASON.

IN THE CURRENT STANDARD, THERE IS A MECHANISM IN PLACE, IF YOU'D LIKE TO DELETE THAT SECTION, THERE'S A MECHANISM IN PLACE.

THAT EXCEEDS A CERTAIN LIMIT, A HIGHER DECIBEL RANGE, I THINK IT'S 15. I HAVE TO PULL UP THE EXACT CODE.

LIKE, AT AN INSTANTANEOUS TIME OR A 30-SECOND WINDOW, IF IT'S VERY LOUD, THERE'S A TOOL. YES, THERE IS A TOOL CURRENTLY IN THE CODE TO ADDRESS IT. IF IT EXCEEDS BY, I BELIEVE IT'S 15 OR 20 DECIBELS. AMBIENT. THAT'D BE A 30-MINUTE MEASUREMENT OR AN INSTANTANEOUS MEASUREMENT, IF IT'S 20, I THINK 20 DECIBELS. BUT 20 HIGHER THAN AMBIENT NOISE OR THIS LEVEL? NO, 20 HIGHER THAN THAT DISTRICT LEVEL THAT'S SET IN THIS TABLE. OR IMPACT NOISE.

I COULD DEFINITELY SEE IT WITH COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL.

SURE, BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO BE INDUSTRIAL NOISE AND IT CAN BE IMPACT HAMMERS, AND IT COULD BE... AIR WRENCHES AND THINGS THAT ARE VERY LOUD AND VERY ANNOYING AND VERY ABRASIVE.

BUT I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT MUSICIANS. DID SOMETHING HAPPEN THAT MADE YOU FEEL LIKE WE NEEDED TO ADD THIS LINE? KRISTA FELT IT WAS AN ADDITION THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT TO HAVE IT IN PLACE FOR THE TIME. I MEAN, JUST KNOWING THE CHALLENGES THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT FACES IN METERING OUT JUSTICE FOR THE CURRENT CODES WE HAVE IN THE BOOK, THAT CAN... BE EGREGIOUSLY VIOLATED, I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE THIS WILL NEVER MATTER. IT'S HARD FOR THEM TO ENFORCE CODES, IS MY UNDERSTANDING. IT CAN BE.

I MEAN, I DON'T WANT US TO BE THE FUN POLICE. I MEAN, I GET WHERE WHAT ANN IS SAYING.

SO, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW. IF THERE'S A BIG PROBLEM THAT WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF AND WE NEED A STANDARD TO CORRECT SOMETHING, THEN I'M IN FAVOR OF IT. I DON'T KNOW, NECESSARILY, THAT WAS A BIG PROBLEM. IT JUST PROVIDED A WINDOW, A MEASUREMENT WINDOW. OKAY, WELL, I GUESS ANNE'S TALKED ME INTO IT. MAYBE WE LEAVE THIS OUT UNLESS WE GET SOME INFORMATION THAT MAKES US THINK WE NEED THIS. IF THERE'S A REASON DRIVING IT, I'M ALL FOR IT BECAUSE... WE DON'T NEED TO PHONE POLICE, BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE, IF THERE IS A RESTAURANT WITH A PATIO THAT'S CONSISTENTLY LOUD AND DISTURBING THE RESIDENTS,

[02:15:01]

WE WANT THOSE RESIDENTS TO HAVE A TOOL TO MODIFY THAT. SO IF THERE IS A PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE, THEN LET'S SOLVE IT, BUT I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THE REASON AND WHY. FAIR ENOUGH.

SO THAT'S IT FOR THIS LDR. SO I GUESS I WILL LET YOU ALL DISCUSS AND THEN LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. IF THERE'S SPECIFIC PIECES THAT YOU WANT TO CARVE OUT OR CHANGE, OR THAT SORT OF THING. AS YOU'RE DECIDING WHAT YOUR MOTION IS AND PUBLIC HEARING SOUNDS LIKE YOU, YEAH, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT WHAT? YEAH, WE CAN OPEN THIS UP TO ANY PUBLIC COMMENT IF ANYONE WISHES TO SPEAK. WE DON'T HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT CARDS, SO WE'RE CLOSING THIS.

ANY DELIBERATION NOW WE CAN DISCUSS? DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY CHANGES? IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ALL WANT TO CHANGE THE NOISE. REMOVE THE OFFICE, RETAIL AND DAYTIME NOISE LIMIT, I THINK, IS WHAT WE'VE AGREED ON. I'M FINE WITH EVERYTHING ELSE IN IT.

AND DID YOU WANT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE NON-IMPACT BUSINESS, PARKING, ET CETERA? I WAS FINE WITH THAT. YOU'RE OKAY LEAVING THAT? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WHO WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION? SO, WAIT, CAN WE GO BACK TO THE NOISE? I'M SORRY, CHRIS. NO WORRIES. I'M JUST MAKING SURE. OKAY. WE'RE MOVING THE DAYTIME, BUT ARE WE STILL KEEPING THE ANYTIME FOR COMMERCIAL? I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE. WE DON'T WANT THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. IT SEEMS LIKE WE WERE MISSING THE NIGHTTIME HOURS. THAT'S WHAT WAS MISSING. NO, IT STILL HAD 7 A.M. TO 10 P.M. IT WAS 7 A.M.

TO 10 P.M., BUT NOW THEY WANT ANYTIME.

YEAH, 10 TO 7. WAIT, WHY WOULD IT BE 7 A.M. TO 10 P.M. ONLY? WOULDN'T IT BE 10 P.M. TO 7 A.M. LOGICALLY? SAYING THAT THE LIMIT IS FROM... RIGHT, BUT IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT LANGUAGE, THEN THERE IS NO LIMIT DURING THOSE OTHER HOURS, WHICH I THINK YOU NEED... NO, ANY TIME IS WHAT THEY WANTED.

COMMERCIAL IS TYPICALLY OPERATING DURING THOSE HOURS, SO THAT'S WHY... AND I'M OKAY WITH ANY TIME.

BUT TAKE AWAY THE 7 A.M. TO 10 P.M. FOR OFFICE RETAIL.

UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT WOULD ENCOMPASS RESTAURANTS WITH PATIOS AND MUSICIANS. YOU KNOW, AND IF WE GET MORE DATA, THEN WE'LL REVISIT THAT. I MEAN, I'M KIND OF THINKING ABOUT THE RIVERWALK AND IF THOSE RESTAURANTS GO IN AND THEN THE NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET WHO MOVE THERE. YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THAT CONFLICT COMES UP.

BUT I WOULD RATHER NOT TRY TO TACKLE IT. LET'S LET THEM KIND OF PUSH THE ENVELOPE A LITTLE BIT AND WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS. AND THE 10 P.M. IS FINE IS AN EXPECTATION.

RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. SO YOU WANT ME TO TAKE A... TRY ADDING... WELL, I HAVE THE LANGUAGE. YOU HAVE IT? OKAY, PERFECT. OKAY. SO, THIS IS REGARDING THE LDR 25-0003. I MOVE APPROVAL WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE OFFICE RETAIL DAYTIME NOISE LIMIT. AND THE P&G RECOMMENDATION? NO, I WAS GOING TO LEAVE THAT IN. DID WE AGREE TO TAKE THAT OUT? AS RECOMMENDED BY P&G. YEAH, WITH THE... OH, I'M SORRY. WE NEED THAT SPECIFICATION. NO.

AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR. THAT WASN'T SPECIFICALLY P&G'S RECOMMENDATION. THEY JUST RECOMMENDED THAT WE LOOK AT...

LOOSENING THE RESTRICTION. SO WHAT WAS BEFORE YOU, THIS LANGUAGE, IS WHAT'S WRITTEN IN THE ORDINANCE. SO IF THAT'S HOW YOU WANT IT, YOU CAN JUST SAY. NO, WE DON'T NEED TO CALL THAT UP. SO THAT MOTION IS CORRECT. OKAY.

SECOND, THANKS. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. COUNCIL MEMBER TRUE? AYE. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHEASTILL? AYE. MAYOR PRO TEM MARTIN? AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER TAYLOR? AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER WARNER? AYE. OKAY, THE

[K.7. LDR25-0004 - Parking Mitigation and Foundational Planting Update - Public Hearing to consider an ordinance amending the Land Development Regulations (LDR25-0004 – Parking Mitigation and Foundational Planting Update) by amending Chapter 74, “General Provisions” and Chapter 82, "Development Standards" related to definitions, parking mitigation, off-street parking, foundational planting, and parking area landscaping. (PZ recommended approval by a vote of 6 to 0 at its February 23, 2026, meeting.)]

STATE LEGISLATIVE. UPDATES PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.

LEXAN, YOU'RE STILL UP HERE FOR OUR PARKING MITIGATION AND FOUNDATIONAL PLANTING UPDATES.

YES, SO ANOTHER LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AMENDMENT. THIS LOOKS AT THREE BASIC SECTIONS.

CHAPTER 74 GENERAL PROVISIONS, NEW DEFINITIONS TO ACCOUNT FOR, NEW MITIGATION OPTIONS, CHAPTER 82 OFF-STREET PARKING, CLARIFICATION OF PARKING DEVIATIONS, AND THEN UPDATING PARKING MITIGATION OPTIONS TO INCLUDE MORE DETAIL. AND THEN CHAPTER 82, LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING, UPDATES TO PARKING AREA DESIGN TO ACCOUNT FOR THE MITIGATION OPTIONS, UPDATES TO PAVING STANDARDS TO PROVIDE FOR NEW MITIGATION OPTIONS, UPDATES TO FOUNDATIONAL PLANTINGS TO HELP CLARIFY AND PROVIDE SOME FLEXIBILITY. SO HERE ARE THE NEW DEFINITIONS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED. BIOSWALE, NATIVE PLANT, PARKING SPACE, THIS IS JUST FOR CLARITY PURPOSES, PERMEABLE OR POROUS SURFACES, RAIN GARDEN, AND TURF GRASS.