[00:00:05]
>> WELCOME EVERYONE TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR MONDAY,
[1. Call to Order, Roll Call, and Establishment of Quorum.]
OCTOBER 2ND. WE HAVE QUORUM.ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT.
MR. BLANSCET, WOULD YOU LIKE TO LEAVE THE INVOCATION AND PLEDGE?
>> LET'S PRAY. FATHER, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO GATHER THIS EVENING.
THANK YOU, FATHER FOR THIS COOLER WEATHER AS WE HEAD INTO THE FALL.
FATHER, I PRAY FOR EVERYONE HERE.
I PRAY FOR THE DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE, AND THAT ALL GUIDANCE COME FROM YOU. IN JESUS NAME, I PRAY, AMEN.
LET'S PLEDGE TO THE AMERICAN FLAG.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BLANSCET.
I'M NUMBER 3 NEIGHBOR COMMENTS AT THIS TIME,
[3. Neighbor Comments]
ANY PERSON MAY ADDRESS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGARDING AN ITEM ON THIS MEETING AGENDA THAT IS NOT SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING.ALSO AT THIS TIME, ANY PERSON MAY ADDRESS THE COMMISSION REGARDING AN ITEM THAT IS NOT ON THIS MEETING AGENDA.
EACH PERSON WILL BE ALLOWED UP TO THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
NO DISCUSSION OR ACTION MAY BE TAKING PLACE AT THIS MEETING ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THIS AGENDA, OTHER THAN TO MAKE STATEMENTS OF SPECIFIC FACTUAL INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO A NEIGHBOR'S INQUIRY OR TO RECITE EXISTING POLICY IN RESPONSE TO THE INQUIRY, AND WE DO HAVE A SPEAKER CARD.
DID I SAY THAT RIGHT? [LAUGHTER]
NEW DENSITY OF [INAUDIBLE], I'M JEAN KETSEL.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE VENUE.
I'M BEING TOLD THAT IT MAY NOT BE, SO IF MY COMMENTS ARE INAPPROPRIATE, I CAN COME BACK TO A DIFFERENT MEETING.
I'M CONCERNED AS A PROPERTY OWNER AND A NEW AND A RESIDENT AND SOMEBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CITY GROW IN A HEALTHY WAY.
I'M CONCERNED WITH THE SEEMING OVER ABUNDANCE OF MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES.
I DO LIVE IN A TOWN SQUARE AND IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY WINDOW IS ANOTHER APARTMENT STRUCTURE BEING BUILT AND I SEE ON THE AGENDA THAT THERE'S SEVERAL MORE BEING CONSIDERED AND I WOULD LIKE TO EITHER TALK TO SOMEBODY ABOUT WHAT POINT IN THE PROCESS DO WE GET INVOLVED WHERE WE ACTUALLY HAVE A SAY IN WHAT WILL OR WILL NOT HAPPEN.
WHERE COULD WE, AS INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS, MAKE AN IMPACT ON THAT? IF THAT'S NOT HERE, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHERE IT IS AND MAYBE JUST PUT IT ON THE RECORD THAT SOME OF US HOMEOWNERS ARE OVERWHELMED BY THE NUMBER OF APARTMENT STRUCTURES THAT ARE BEING BUILT IN THE CITY OF ANNA.
SEEMS LIKE IF THERE WAS DEVELOPERS THAT ARE INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING THE CITY IN A HEALTHY WAY RATHER THAN JUST MAKING A BUCK, THERE ARE OTHER HEALTHY, IMPACTFUL, POSITIVE WAYS THAT THEY COULD DEVELOP IN THE CITY.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKER SPEAKER CARDS? NO. I WILL CLOSE NUMBER 3 AND MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT ITEMS.
[Consent Items]
DOES ANY COMMISSIONER WISH TO PULL AN ITEM FROM THE AGENDA? NO. IS THERE A MOTION ON CONSENT, ITEMS 5-12?>> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BLANSCET.
ALL IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER MARTIN?
>> AND MYSELF, MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUS.
ONTO ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.
[Items for Individual Consideration]
ITEM NUMBER 13, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING.CONSIDER DISCUSS ACTION ON A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH ZONING ON 11 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FARM TO MARKET ROAD 2862 AND COUNTY ROAD 526 TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, CURRENTLY LOCATED IN THE EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION APPLICANT IS ANNA/121 HOLDINGS, LLC.
I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6: 04. MS. MECKE.
>> SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE WESTMINSTER AREA OUT IN OUR EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, JUST NORTH OF 121.
THIS PROPERTY WAS PREVIOUSLY PLOTTED AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE WANTING
[00:05:02]
TO ANNEX THE PROPERTY INTO THE CITY LIMITS AND THEN ZONE IT FOR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, NOT A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, JUST THE STRAIGHT ZONING.THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IDENTIFIES THIS PROPERTY AS RANCHING AND AGRICULTURE.
THE RANCHING AND AGRICULTURE DISTRICT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS DESIGNED MORE OUT FURTHER FROM THE CURRENT CITY LIMITS BECAUSE THERE ARE ISSUES WITH UTILITIES OUT IN THOSE AREAS AND TO PRESERVE THE WILDLIFE, PRESERVE THE NATURAL SPACES.
THIS IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE FUTURE LAND-USE PLAN.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ALSO HAS A PREFERRED SCENARIO DIAGRAM WHICH IS INTENDED FOR FURTHER PAST THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.
IN THIS AREA, IT WAS IDENTIFIED AS RURAL LIVING WITHIN THE WESTMINSTER FUTURE KEY CENTER AREA.
THE RULE LIVING DESIGNATION IS TALKING ABOUT LARGER PROPERTIES OVER FIVE ACRES FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES AND THEN THE WESTMINSTER FUTURE KEY CENTER IS MORE FOR FOCUSING WHAT'S AT THE INTERSECTION CURRENTLY WITH TOP FUND RANCH AND PROMOTING AGRITOURISM.
THIS DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THE PREFERRED SCENARIO DIAGRAM.
SOME OF THE ISSUES, AS I SAID BEFORE, OUR UTILITIES IN THIS AREA.
THIS PROPERTY IS SERVICED BY THE WESTMINSTER ESPECIALLY UTILITY DISTRICT FOR WATER AND THOSE WATER LINES ARE VERY THIN.
THEY'RE NOT REALLY INTENDED FOR HIGH DEVELOPMENT, WHEREAS THE CITY, THE LINES ARE [INAUDIBLE].
AND THEN ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU IS THE TWO CLOSEST POINTS WHERE THERE IS SEWER.
BOTH OF THOSE ARE WELL OVER FOUR MILES AWAY.
THIS PROPERTY IS OVER 1,500 FEET FROM THE HIGHWAY, SO THEREFORE, THAT NOISE ISN'T SO MUCH A CONCERN.
HOWEVER, TO THE NORTH OF COUNTY ROAD 526 IS A FUTURE RACE TRACK WHICH IS UNDER DEVELOPMENT.
WE DON'T KNOW TO THE EXTENT HOW MUCH THAT WILL BE USED.
IT'S A PRIVATE RACE TRACK AND IT'S IN THE ETJ.
THEREFORE, WE CANNOT REQUIRE THE RACE TRACK TO HAVE ANY NOISE ABATEMENT.
HOWEVER, I WAS ABLE TO FIND EXAMPLES WHERE THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ENJOY LIVING ON A RACE TRACK IN PRESENT TEXAS AND THERMAL, CALIFORNIA, WHERE THEY'RE BUILDING SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES ON THE PROPERTY THAT THE RACE TRACK EXISTS.
SO TO SUM UP MY PRESENTATION, IT'S NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN OR THE PREFERRED SCENARIO DIAGRAM.
WE DID NOT RECEIVE RESPONSES EARLIER UNTIL JUST BEFORE THE MEETING.
WE RECEIVED THREE AND OPPOSITION.
IF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTES IN FAVOR OF THE ZONING, IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE ASSOCIATED ANNEXATION, AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
>> THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE COMMISSIONER HAVE ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> I JUST HAVE ONE CLARIFICATION.
THE FUTURE KEY CENTER. WHAT IS THAT, I'M SORRY.
>> IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ON THE PREFERRED SCENARIO DIAGRAM, THERE ARE FOUR KEY CENTERS AND THE PURPOSE OF THOSE IS TO IDENTIFY LOCATIONS IN THE CITY OR WITHIN OUR PLANNING JURISDICTION THAT ARE IDENTIFIED FOR MORE DEVELOPMENT, SO ONE OF THE KEY CENTERS IS LOCATED AT HIGHWAY 5 IN COLLIN COUNTY OUTER LOOP, SO THAT AREA IS INTENDED TO BE MORE INDUSTRIAL FOCUS INDUSTRIAL USES THERE.
THIS KEY CENTER SPECIFICALLY IS FOCUSING ON THE EXISTING AGRICULTURE THAT'S OUT THERE AT THE TOP FUN RANCH THAT'S OUT THERE.
IN THE FAR FUTURE, WAY PAST 2050, THE INTENDED USES SHOULD BE COMMERCIAL.
POSSIBLY THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL SURROUNDING THIS PROPERTY AND THEN ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT IS THE DARKER GREEN, TEAL COLOR.
>> I'VE GOT A QUESTION ON THE UTILITIES.
SO CURRENTLY TO GET IF THEY WERE TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, THEY WOULD PULL CITY WATER AND CITY SEWER. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I WILL DEFER TO INTERIM DIRECTOR GREG PETER'S UTILITIES.
>> I'M SORRY. I KNOW THE QUESTION WAS ABOUT WATER AND SEWER, BUT BECAUSE YOU JUST RESET IT SO I CAN MAKE SURE I ANSWERED CORRECT.
>> IF WE ANNEX THEM INTO THE CITY, THEY WOULD PULL CITY WATER AND CITY SEWER FROM US RATHER THAN USE THE MUD THAT'S OUT THERE RIGHT NOW.
>> ACTUALLY, IT'S A LITTLE BIT COMPLEX.
THEY ARE NOT IN OUR WATER CCN.
[00:10:03]
FOR WATER, THERE IN WESTMINSTER SUDS CCN.THEY WOULD GET WATER FROM WESTMINSTER SAID UNLESS WESTMINSTER SAID WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE THEM WATER THAN THEY COULD.
THERE'S A PROCESS BY WHICH THEY COULD GO TO TRY TO BE ADDED TO RCCN.
NON SEWERED THEY ARE IN OUR SEWER CCN, BUT WE DO NOT HAVE ANY FACILITIES LOCATED WITHIN ROUGHLY FIVE MILES OF THEIR LOCATION.
I'VE SPOKEN WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY ABOUT THIS AND THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WOULD BE SORTED OUT IN THE SERVICES AGREEMENT.
WITH A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION, THERE WOULD BE A SERVICE AGREEMENT THAT THE CITY AND THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD SIGN, THEN WE WOULDN'T NEED TO SPELL OUT EXACTLY WHAT WE WOULD AGREE TO OR NOT AGREED TO REGARDING THOSE TERMS. THAT'S HOW THAT WOULD LOOK IS UP FOR NEGOTIATION AS FAR AS IF ANYTIME LINES WERE PRESENTED, WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IT WOULD BE TO EXTEND SEWER, ALL OF THOSE THINGS WILL BE UP FOR NEGOTIATION.
>> I GOT A QUESTION FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT.
IS THAT WESTMINSTER OUT THERE RESPONDING WITH WS? I ASSUME IT'S GOING TO BE WS, RIGHT?
>> CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW, IT'S IN OUR FIRE SERVICE DISTRICT AREA.
NOW, IF THE PROPERTY IS A ANNEX THEN IT WOULD BE OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE TO RESPONDING TO ANY CALLS.
>> IF THERE WAS A STRUCTURE FIRE AT APARTMENT COMPLEX WESTMINSTER, IT'S GOING TO BE [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO, IT'D BE THE CITY OF ANNA.
WESTMINSTER. OF COURSE, THERE ARE SOME AGREEMENTS IN PLACE, SO WESTMINSTER WOULD RESPOND, BUT IT WOULD BE THE CITY OF ANNA.
ONCE THEY WERE ON SCENE, IT WOULD BE THEIR FIRE.
>> STATION 1 HERE WOULD BE THE ONE GOING OUT THAT FAR OFF?
WHEN YOU SAID THAT THE CITY AND THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD HAVE AGREEMENT, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE PROPERTY OWNER SELLS?
>> THAT AGREEMENT WOULD CARRY WITH THE PROPERTY.
IF THE OWNER SOLD THE PROPERTY, THERE OUR SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH TRANSFER WITH THE PROPERTY TO THE NEW OWNER.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> THANK YOU. BARRY KNIGHT, 3521 RANKIN, DALLAS, TEXAS, REPRESENTING N121 HOLDINGS LLC, THE PROPERTY OWNER.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY OF ANNA FOR SOME TIME ON THIS PROJECT.
WE HAVE ACTUALLY GOT CONSENTED, IF YOU WILL, FROM THE CITY COUNCIL CONCERNING BOND FINANCING FOR A SENIOR LIVING FACILITY HERE, THIS IS NOT A NORMAL APARTMENT COMPLEX, THIS IS FOR SENIOR LIVING, SO 198 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX WERE ORIGINALLY SEEKING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, BUT WITH YOUR RECENT CHANGES TO YOUR ZONING REGULATIONS, TO THE MULTI-FAMILY REGULATIONS, WE CAN LIVE WITH THE STRAIGHT SONY MULTIFAMILY.
CLIENTS VERY MUCH AWARE OF THE UTILITIES ISSUE, POSES A PACKAGE PLANT THAT WILL OFFER SANITARY SEWER THAT WILL OPEN UP THIS AREA FOR DEVELOPMENT.
VERY MUCH AWARE OF THE RACE TRACK WITHIN RELATIVELY CLOSE PROXIMITY, NOT ADJACENT BUT RELATIVELY WELL ACROSS THE WAY AND ARE DESIGNING ACCORDINGLY.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WILL BE A SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY.
WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT WE WILL NEED TO PROVIDE UTILITIES IN ORDER FOR THE PROJECT TO WORK.
MY CLIENTS PREPARED TO DO THAT.
WE ASK THAT YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONING SO THIS PROJECT CAN MOVE FORWARD SO THAT THE PROPERTY CAN BE MANAGED WITHIN THE CITY OF ANNA AND TAX-BASED TO THE CITY.
I'D BE HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I HAVE WITH ME RICHARD ASTON REPRESENTATIVE THE PROPERTY OWNER AS WELL AS [INAUDIBLE] THE ENGINEER.
I THINK BETWEEN THE THREE OF US, WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.
[00:15:05]
>> DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION, JUST CLARIFICATION.
YOU SAID THAT IT'S SPECIFICALLY GOING TO BE FOR A SENIOR LIVING ONLY?
>> HOW DO YOU ANTICIPATE THAT WORKING WITH A RACE TRACK BEHIND IT?
>> IT WILL BE DESIGNED SO THAT THERE WILL BE NOISE MITIGATION AND IT WON'T BE A PROBLEM.
>> WHAT APPROACH ARE YOU GOING TO DO FOR NOISE MITIGATION ON YOUR PROPERTY?
>> APPROPRIATE WINDOW THICKNESSES, DESIGN OF THE BUILDINGS IN A MANNER THAT THERE WON'T BE A PROBLEM WITH THE NOISE.
>> WHAT BUILDING MATERIALS DO YOU PROPOSE TO USE?
>> PRIMARILY BRICK AND STONE WITH SOME PARTLY BOARD EXIT.
>> OUT OF CURIOSITY, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THIS SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE PRESENTATION, IS JUST GOING TO BE ONE LARGE BUILDING OR IS IT GOING TO BE SEVERAL? I DON'T KNOW HOW TO EXPLAIN IT, I GUESS IT WOULD BE.
>> I BELIEVE IT'S ONE LARGE BUILDING.
>> WILL THE DOORS TO THE DIFFERENT UNITS BEING INSIDE AND IT WOULDN'T BE AN INSIDE ENTRY [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEN THE PARKING IS ON THE EXTERIOR, I GUESS, ACCORDING TO THIS.
>> NO GARAGES OR ANYTHING. I GUESS THERE'S.
>> MAYBE A 50 PERCENT COVERED PARKING FOR [INAUDIBLE]
>> WAS THAT FOUR STORIES? SORRY. THANK YOU.
>> BUT THEN YOU ALSO HAVE THE ONE STORY BECAUSE SITA'S ACROSS THE NORTHERN OTHER PROPERTY, CORRECT? THAT ARE ALSO HAVE FOUR PER EACH.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> SORRY. WAS IT ANSWERED HOW MANY UNITS? I'M SORRY.
>> I THINK IT SAYS 215 ON THE PLAN, TOTAL UNIT COUNT. IS THAT ACCURATE?
>> AS FAR AS THE MAIN BUILDING AT 198.
BEFORE SHE GIVES UP ONE MORE QUESTION.
ARE THE UNITS AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE.
I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE DRAFT TOO CLOSE, ARE THE UNITS, ARE THEY ALL THE SAME SIZE ARE SOME OF THEM ONE-BEDROOM UNITS SOME OF THEM MULTI-BEDROOM UNITS, I KNOW.
SENIOR LIVING, I'M NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH SENIOR LIVING PLACES, SO [BACKGROUND] OKAY.
SO THERE ARE SOME MULTI-BEDROOM.
THANK YOU. I'M JUST NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH SENIOR LIVING.
IT LOOKS LIKE 183 SINGLE BEDROOM AND 32 TWO BEDROOM UNITS.
>> THANK YOU. WHERE ARE YOU SEEING THAT? I APOLOGIZE. I WAS LOOKING FOR.
>> PDF PAGE 56 ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER OF THE SITE PLAN, THEY HAVE A TITLE BLOCK.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THIS APPLICANT? NO, I DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER CARD.
DR. GLENN BROWN. CAN'T I WAIT UNTIL AFTER?
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME.
I LIVE IN ANNA TOWN SQUARE, 2109 ADRIANA DRIVE IN ANNA, TEXAS.
I WOULD LIKE TO BE CLEAR, ASK YOU TO WHOLEHEARTEDLY DENY THIS REQUEST.
THIS REQUEST IS ABSOLUTELY CONTRADICTIVE TO THE 2050 PLAN WHERE MANY RESIDENTS OF ANNA HAVE PARTICIPATED, MANY LEADERS OF ANNA HAVE PARTICIPATED IN DESIGNING THAT PLAN.
AS I UNDERSTAND THE DECISIONS FOR PLANNING AND ZONING, SOME OF THE KEY FEATURES BEYOND THE 2050 PLAN INCLUDE FEATURES SUCH AS HOW DOES IT AFFECT THE IMMEDIATE CULTURE OF THE AREA THAT THIS WOULD BE BUILT IN?
[00:20:02]
IT IS DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO IMMEDIATE CULTURE.THE CULTURE THAT THE 2050 PLAN CALLS FOR IS FIVE ACRES OR LARGER ESTATES OUT IN AN AGRICULTURAL AREA, WHAT CURRENTLY IS OUT THERE IS SOME OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL AREA IN NORTH TEXAS WHICH WE, AS ANNA, NEED TO SUSTAIN AND PROTECT.
NOT ONLY THE WILDLIFE, BUT THE VIEWS AND WHAT WE HAVE OUT THERE NOW.
THE SECOND QUESTION IS, HOW DOES IT AFFECT THE SURROUNDING AREAS AND THE CULTURE OF THE SURROUNDING AREA? SAME QUESTION.
IT IS TOTALLY IN OPPOSITION TO THE AREA AND THIRDLY, IS IT INVEST AND TRADE STUFF? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
WE DON'T HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE OUT THERE NOW.
WE'RE NOT READY TO BUILD A FACILITY LIKE THIS OUT THERE.
BUT WHAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE IS THAT WE REFER THESE GENTLEMEN TO JOEY GRISHAM AND SAY WE WANT TO WORK WITH YOU ON THE RIGHT LOCATION IN ANNA, LET'S FIND OUT WHERE THAT CAN BE.
LET'S WORK TOGETHER TO SOLVE THAT WHERE THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS THERE OR IT CAN BE READILY AVAILABLE AND THEY'LL SUPPORT OUR DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT OR THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE ALREADY PUTTING OUR DESIGN, ENERGIES, AND MONIES TOWARDS.
INSTEAD OF WHAT SHOULD BE FIVE OR MORE ACRE ESTATES AND A LARGE FUTURE GOLF COURSE.
>> COMMISSIONER CLEMENS, YOU HAD A QUESTION.
>> HOW MANY AMBULANCE DO WE HAVE SERVICING ANNA RIGHT NOW?
>> HOW MANY AMBULANCES DO WE HAVE?
>> I KNOW THAT WE HAVE TWO. THERE'S ONE.
WE HAVE A BACKUP, BUT WHEN FIRE STATION OPENS UP, FIRE STATION NUMBER 2 WILL HAVE TWO IN THE CITY.
CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW WE HAVE ONE THAT IS ACTIVELY IN USE, BUT IF SOMETHING WAS TO HAPPEN, WE HAVE A BACKUP.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
WHAT IS THE BUILD TIME ON THIS?
>> HI, I'M RICHARD ASHTON WITH THE APPLICANT SO THE BUILD TIME WOULD BE ABOUT 14-16 MONTHS ONCE WE BEGIN CONSTRUCTION.
>> THANK YOU. I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:22 PM AND CONFINE ALL COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION AND STAFF.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? QUESTIONS?
>> YEAH. THIS IS IN THE ETJ SO THEY CAN DO THIS BY RIGHT.
I UNDERSTAND THIS ISN'T WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT'S NOT PART OF ZONING, BUT CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG ETJ, THEY DON'T NEED OUR APPROVAL FOR THIS.
>> CORRECT. THE ONLY THING THAT THEY HAVE TO CONFORM TO IS THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
>> BY ANNEXING, THE BENEFIT IS WE GET FEES OUT OF IT BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PROVIDE DEVELOPMENT FEES.
>> THE DEVELOPMENT FEES, PERMANENT FEES, THE TAXES, THE PROPERTY TAXES.
>> RIGHT. THEN ALSO IT OPENS UP.
THEY'RE GOING TO PULL SEWER SO.
>> INFRASTRUCTURE, PULLING IT TO THE EAST.
BECAUSE I COMPLETELY HEAR THAT CITIZENS COMMENTS ABOUT, HEY, THIS ISN'T PART OF OUR PLAN, IT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT FOR THE FUTURE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WE CAN'T DICTATE WHAT THEY DO OUT THERE.
I THINK THE QUESTION IS, DO WE WANT THE CITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT COMES WITH IT?
>> THEY ARE ASKING FOR NO INCENTIVE.
THE THING IS THOUGH, IS THAT THEY'RE NOT GUARANTEED TO PULL THE SEWER IN THE WATER, THAT'S ONLY IF WESTMINSTER CAN'T PROVIDE SO THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO EVEN GET THAT OVER THERE.
WE'RE TOO FAR AWAY FROM THEM SO THERE'S REALLY NO BENEFIT THAT WE'RE GETTING OUR WATER AND OUR SEWER OVER TO THEM, SO TO ME, THAT'S NOT A BENEFIT.
FIRE EMS BEING A SENIOR LIVING, OUR RESOURCES ALREADY TAXED AS IT IS, THEY'RE GOING TO GO ON CALLS OUT THERE.
NO OFFENSE, THERE'S A LOT OF CALLS OF SENIOR LIVING, IT'S GOING TO BE TAXING TO THE CITY HERE WITH ONLY ONE STATION AND STATION 2 OPENING UP NEXT YEAR, SOME TIME ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 75.
[00:25:02]
I DON T THINK STATION 3 IS EVEN TALKED ABOUT YET, WHICH I BELIEVE WOULD BE OUT THAT AREA.BUT UNTIL THEN, WE GOT TO THINK ABOUT IF THE TAXING AND OUR GUY IS GOING TO BE PEOPLE OUT THERE A LOT AND WE KNOW HOW MANY ACCIDENTS ARE ON 75 AS WELL.
>> THIS IS A YEAR-AND-A-HALF OUT [OVERLAPPING]
>> BUILD START SO AS WE GROW, THAT WILL BE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WILL GROW, THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS WILL GROW.
>> IT WILL NOT GROW FAST ENOUGH.
>> I SECOND THAT. IT'S NOT GOING TO GROW FAST ENOUGH.
IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO BE THERE.
>> THEN WE'LL PULL OUR RESOURCES OUTSIDE OF TOWN.
>> BUT WE STILL SERVICE IT ON FIRE REGARDLESS?
>> WE DO. BUT AT 200 PLUS UNITS THAT SAY THEY'RE FILLED WITH SENIORS AND A FALL OR A CPR IN PROGRESS THAT'S GOING ON, WE'RE GOING TO BE TAXING AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER CPR PROGRESS IN LET'S SAY ANNA TOWN SQUARE.
NOW WE'VE GOT AMR HAVING TO RESPOND OR MELISSA.
YEAH, I AGREE. A YEAR-AND-A-HALF DOWN THE ROAD, BUT TWO IS GOING TO OPEN UP SOME TIME NEXT YEAR.
I THINK OUR GUYS ARE ALREADY PUSHED TO THE LIMIT AS IT IS.
WE HAVE TWO EMS BUSES ONE ANOTHER ON THE ROAD ALL THE TIME AND THE OTHER ONE'S A BACKUP HERE, THAT'S ANOTHER ONE ON ORDER.
SO UNTIL WE GET MORE INFRASTRUCTURE OUT THAT WAY, I SEE IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY TAXING TO OUR FIRE AND POLICE TOO.
>> WE HAVE TO THINK TOO, WHEN THEY GET BUST, WE DON'T HAVE A HOSPITAL HERE SO THEY'RE GOING TO MCKINNEY.
THAT'S A LONG DRIVE THERE [OVERLAPPING]
BUT EITHER WAY, THAT'S 20-MINUTE DRIVE AND TURN AROUND AND COME BACK AND DROP THEM.
I MEAN, WE LOSE THAT MBO FOR US. THAT SOLID HOUR.
>> IT'S ONE HOUR TO TRANSPORT TO BAYLOR OR MCKINNEY.
I KNOW THIS, MY SON IS A FIREFIGHTER AND ONE HOUR TO COME BACK FOR THAT BUS TO COME BACK SO THEY'RE OUT FOR TWO HOURS.
FINGERS CROSSED. WE DON'T KNOW THE PROBLEM THAT I'M JUST TELLING YOU THE TRUTH.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
IF WE DON'T ANNEX, WHERE DOES SEWER COME FROM? IF THEY CAN'T PULL FROM MENASHA THEY HAVE TO PULL FROM WESTMINSTER BECAUSE THEY CAN'T DO IT ON SEPTIC.
>> NO, WESTMINSTER DOES NOT HAVE THEIR OWN SEWER.
ALL THE PROPERTIES OUT THERE ON SEPTIC, SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO THEIR OWN PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANTS.
>> WHAT WOULD THAT ENTAIL? [LAUGHTER]
>> THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS TO SKIN THIS CAT.
THEY COULD CONSTRUCT THEIR OWN PACKAGE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, THAT WOULD BE AN OPTION.
ONE OPTION WOULD BE FOR THEM TO INSTALL TANKS AND PUMPING HALL UNTIL SEWER IS AVAILABLE.
OBVIOUSLY, THAT WOULD REQUIRE COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON WHAT THEY WOULD ALLOW.
THEY ALSO, IF THE COUNTY WOULD PERMIT IT AND THEY HAD ENOUGH LAND, THEY COULD ACTUALLY INSTALL A LARGE SEPTIC SYSTEM.
IT'S COMPLICATED AND IT TAKES UP A LOT OF SPACE, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE.
REALLY THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE SORTED OUT IN THE SERVICES AGREEMENT.
THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD WORK WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY AND PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING STAFF AND THE DEVELOPER TO REALLY SORT THROUGH WHAT'S THE BEST OPTION FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE AND THEN NEGOTIATE THAT WITH THE APPLICANT.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FOUR MILES OF ANNEXATION OR NOT ANNEXATION, BUT RIGHT-OF-WAY CONDEMNATION, THAT'S A LOT OF PROPERTIES TO GO THROUGH TO GET SEWER OVER THERE.
WHETHER OR NOT THIS GETS ANNEXED, WE STILL HAVE THE FIRE IN THE EMS BURDEN, CORRECT?
>> WESTMINSTER, A VOLUNTEER DEPARTMENT AND SO WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THEM.
TYPICALLY IF THEY CAN'T HAVE AN ANSWER THEN WE DO.
>> CAN I MAKE A COMMENT ON THE FIRE AND POLICE? I GET EVERYBODY'S CONCERNS ON THAT, HOWEVER, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG CITY YOU WHEN YOU LOOK AT STAFFING AND PERSONNEL FOR THAT, YOU ALL CONSIDER POPULATION NEEDS, AID TO THE COMMUNITY, ALL OF THOSE THINGS. AM I CORRECT?
>> WHEN WE CONSIDER STAFFING FOR OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT?
>> YES, SIR, FOR ALL THE FIRST RESPONDERS.
>> SURE. WE LOOK AT A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
[00:30:03]
OBVIOUSLY, IT'S DIFFERENT FOR POLICE VERSUS FIRE BECAUSE OUR POLICE ARE ON PATROL ROUTES AND SO THEY'LL HAVE AREAS THAT THEY PATROL WHERE THEY'RE OUT AND ABOUT WITH FIRE, THEY'RE TYPICALLY GOING TO BE AT A STATION UNTIL THEY ARE CALLED.BUT RESPONSE TIMES ARE A BIG COMPONENT OF IT.
IT'S REALLY A MATRIX OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
YOU HAVE POPULATION, YOU HAVE CALL VOLUME, BECAUSE YOU MIGHT HAVE A VERY LARGE SPREAD OUT AREA WHERE FROM A RESPONSE TIME PERSPECTIVE, IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE MORE FIRE STATIONS.
BUT IF COLLECTIVELY YOU DON'T GET VERY MANY CALLS, THEN THAT'S A FINANCIAL DECISION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS TO MAKE REGARDING HOW MUCH DID WE PUT INTO THAT INSTEAD OF PARKS OR RECREATION OR POLICE, OR THESE OTHER THINGS.
BECAUSE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS FUNDED OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND.
IT'S COMPETING WITH OUR SALARIES.
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PARKS AND RECREATION, CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, ALL OF THAT FROM A FUNDING PERSPECTIVE.
IT'S REALLY A MATRIX OF THINGS THAT YOU LOOK AT.
BUT WHAT I WOULD TELL YOU IS THAT, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE FIRE CHIEF OR ON BEHALF OF THE CITY COUNCIL, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT OUR CALL VOLUME, WHEN FIRE STATION NUMBER 2 OPENS, WE'RE NOT LOOKING EMINENTLY AT THIS TIME AT OPENING UP A THIRD FIRE STATION IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
NOW THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE AREN'T LOOKING AT OPPORTUNITIES TO GET PROPERTY FOR A FUTURE FIRE STATION NUMBER 3, BUT WE DO NOT HAVE ANY PLANS AT THIS TIME TO BUILD A FIRE STATION NUMBER 3 IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
OBVIOUSLY WITH THE LOCATION OF THIS SITE, THEY'RE RESPONDING STATION WOULD BE OUR STATION.
WE DO HAVE A MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT WITH THE VOLUNTEER DEPARTMENT IN WESTMINSTER, BUT OBVIOUSLY A STRUCTURE OF THIS SIZE, WE WOULD RESPOND BECAUSE THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING WHERE I THINK FROM A VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSPECTIVE, I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD BE EQUIPPED TO HANDLE A STRUCTURE LIKE THIS.
IT WOULD BE US, BUT THE MAJORITY OF OUR CALLS AND OUR COMMUNITY ARE EMS RELATED.
I DON'T HAVE THE STATISTICS IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF OUR CALLS ARE EMS.
>> I GOT YOU. I GUESS, FOR THE COMMISSION, I SEE YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE RESPONSE TIME, I SEE YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT ALL OF THAT.
HOWEVER, WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO BE LAGGING BEHIND THE POPULATION WHEN IT COMES TO THAT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? THAT'S JUST PART OF A GROWING CITY, THAT'S JUST PART OF PERSONNEL BECAUSE THE CITY CAN AFFORD TO OVER HIRE AND WAIT FOR THE CITIZENS TO COME IN.
AT THE OTHER END OF THAT, I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN WITH PROVIDING THE SERVICES.
HOWEVER, THAT'S WHERE THE CITY HAS GOT TO DO A ROBUST JOB OF MAKING SURE THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE DATA AND DOING ALL THAT.
BUT THAT'S JUST PART OF A GROWING CITY.
EVERY EVERY PUBLIC ENTITIES IS GOING TO BE LAGGING IN THE PERSONNEL WHEN IT COMES TO THAT.
I JUST USE MY TWO SENSE ON THAT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO MORE.
IS THERE A MOTION ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 13?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 13.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND MY COMMISSIONER BLANSCET FOR APPROVAL. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> I SECOND. WE HAVE TO FINISH THE FIRST ONE.
>> LONG, CAN I ASK A FEW MORE QUESTIONS?
>> I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE TRACK BEING NEXT TO IT BECAUSE BY THE TIME THIS THING GETS BUILT, THE TRACK WILL BE THERE.
PEOPLE KNOW WHAT THEY'RE BUYING.
THEY KNOW THEY'RE BUILT BY NEXT TO ATTRACT. THEY GOT TO DEAL WITH THE NOISE.
THEY WILL FIGURE THAT OUT. DO WE KNOW, PROBABLY NOT YET, BUT AN IDEA ON WHAT THE FEE POTENTIAL IS TO THE CITY OFF OF THIS?
>> BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S THE BIG QUESTION HERE.
IT'S THE FEES, BECAUSE THEY CAN DO THIS.
>> AND WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO SERVICE IT WHETHER WE ANNEX OR DONATE X.
WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO HANDLE THE FIRE.
[00:35:03]
IT'S DO WE WANT THE FEES FOR THE CITY? CAN WE USE THOSE FEES FOR SOMETHING ELSE?>> I'VE GOTTEN CONFUSED ABOUT THE FEES MYSELF ACTUALLY.
>> WELL, I UNDERSTAND THE EKG.
I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO GO SERVE AS A FIRE AND ALL THAT, BUT THE FEES, HOW IS THAT GENERATE? IF THEY'RE IN ERTJ, GREAT.
IF WE APPROVE THIS, WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO GET THE INFRASTRUCTURE BROUGHT OUT THERE. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> NO, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WHICH MEANS WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET FEES OFF THE INFRASTRUCTURE, PERIOD.
THE ONLY FEES WE'RE GOING TO BE GAINING, [INAUDIBLE] AND CORRECT ME IF I'M RIGHT, IS GOING TO BE THE [OVERLAPPING]
>> P&Z PIECE, WHICH IS MINIMAL IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS WE'RE TALKING A FEW THOUSAND DOLLARS.
>> I'M SORRY GUYS. I'M JUST REALLY CONFUSED.
I'VE HEARD THAT IT'S NOT THERE.
I HEARD THAT THE WATER THAT COMES FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE.
>> CASE IN POINT, IF THERE IS A STRUCTURE FIRES ENOUGH WATER TO PUT THE FIRE OUT. I DON'T KNOW.
BUT I'M JUST SAYING WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RESPOND ANYWAY.
THE FEES YOU ARE SAYING, I WAS ENVISIONING THAT SOMEBODY'S GOING TO PICK UP THE FEES TO MAKE THE SEWER LINES GO OUT AND THE WATER COME IN.
>> THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY US FEES, SO WE HAVE A SITE PLAN REVIEW FEE OR PERMITTING FEES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS HAVE TO PAY IMPACT FEES FOR ROADS, WATER, AND SEWER.
>> IT'S A CALCULATION BASED OFF OF THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT, HOW MANY UNITS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT.
SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO PAY TO MOVE THAT WATER LINE AND THAT I THINK IS WHERE THE SERVICE OR THE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY COMES IN.
WHO'S PAYING FOR WHAT? WHO'S MOVING THIS LINE THERE? THAT'S ALL GOING TO BE FIGURED OUT.
BUT LIKE YOU WERE SAYING, IF THE FEES ARE NOMINAL, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A FEW THOUSAND BUCKS, DOES IT REALLY MAKE SENSE FOR US TO ANNEX AND THEN A FEW THOUSAND BUCKS? BECAUSE IF WE DON'T ANNEX, THEN BASICALLY WE'RE SAYING YOU GUYS GOT TO FIGURE OUT LIKE YOU CAN DO THIS, BUT YOU GOT TO FIGURE OUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE ON YOUR OWN.
I GUESS THEY COULD STILL COME BACK TO US AND MAYBE WE CAN WORK SOME TYPE OF AGREEMENT OUT IF WE WANT IT TO FOR OUR INFRASTRUCTURE.
YOU CAN MAKE AN AGREEMENT FOR ANYTHING, BUT YOU HAVE THE FEES ARE SO NOMINAL.
I DON'T KNOW. THAT MIGHT NOT MAKE SENSE.
>> DON'T GET ME WRONG. MY NUMBER IS NOT ACCURATE, BUT IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF IT, THE NUMBER IS NOT SO IMPACTFUL OF WHAT YOU ALL ARE THINKING. IT'S NOT A LOT.
>> IT'S NOT GOING TO PROVIDE VERY MUCH REVENUE FOR THE CITY.
ALSO I THINK SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS PREMATURE FOR WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO.
THERE IS WATER ISSUES, THERE IS SEWER ISSUES, IT DOESN'T MEET THE 2050 PLAN AND IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO GO OUTSIDE AND THEN COME BACK IN.
>> YEAH, I'M WITH YOU ON THAT.
I DON'T THINK DEVELOPING ANYTHING HERE RIGHT NOW IS PROBABLY THE BEST IDEA, BUT IT'S NOT MY PROPERTY.
SORRY, I TOOK AWAY FROM YOUR MOTION. I APOLOGIZE.
>> I HAD A MOTION FOR APPROVAL, IS THERE A SECOND? THERE IS NO SECOND, SO THAT MOTION FAILS.
>> MOTION TO DENY BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MARTIN.
COMMISSIONER CLEMENS, YOU SOUND THE SAME.
>> ALL IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER MARTIN.
>> IT IS DENIAL. COMMISSIONER NYLEC?
>> I'M GOING TO SAY NO WITH COMMISSIONER BLANSCET.
I SEE BOTH SIDES OF IT, BUT THEY CAN DO IT BY RIGHT.
ITEM NUMBER 14. CONSIDER DISCUSS ACTION ON THE ANNA 121 APARTMENTS EDITION BLOCK A, LOT 1, OUR PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPLICANT ANNA/121 HOLDINGS, LLC.
THIS IS CONTINGENT ON 13, CORRECT?
>> WITH IT BEING CONTINGENT ON ITEM 13, WE RECOMMEND DENIAL.
>> OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER 14?
[00:40:06]
>> I HAVE A MOTION FOR DENIAL BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NYLEC.
ALL IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER MARTIN?
>> AGAIN, NO. MOTION PASSES FOR DENIAL.
ITEM NUMBER 15, APPROVE A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE ANNA 121 APARTMENTS ADDITION BLOCK A, LOT 1, OUR PRELIMINARY RE-PLOT APPLICANT, ANNA/121 HOLDINGS, LLC.
THIS IS ALSO CONTINGENT UPON 13.
>> MY RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR IT TO GO ALONG WITH THE ZONING ITEM.
HOWEVER, IT IS A PRELIMINARY [INAUDIBLE], BUT IT STILL WOULD BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL OF A DRIVEWAY PERMIT FROM THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED [INAUDIBLE].
>> RIGHT NOW, IT'S ONE LARGE PROPERTY THAT WAS PLANTED LAST YEAR.
THEY ARE PROPOSING TO DIVIDE IT INTO TWO PROPERTIES WITH A FIRE LANE ACCESS EASEMENT ON THE LOT 1R, AND THEN LEAVING THE REMAINDER IS LOT 2.
>> IT'S RUNNING ON 2862, SMALL PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN THE ENTIRETY OF THE NORTH IS COUNTY ROAD 526.
THEN THERE IS A PORTION ALONG STATE HIGHWAY 121.
>> IT GOES ALONG WITH THE ZONING CASE, SO IT'S UP TO YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
>> THEY'RE JUST WANTING TO BREAK IT INTO TWO PARCELS, CORRECT?
>> YES. THE PRELIMINARY PLOT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MULTIFAMILY.
HOWEVER, WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLOT, THERE'S NOTHING SAYING THAT IT'S TIED TO THE ZONING PER SE, THAT THE APPLICANT, IF THE ZONING IS ULTIMATELY DENIED BY CITY COUNCIL, THAN THEY COULD COME BACK IN AND PROPOSED AN ETJ DEVELOPMENT WHERE THEY WOULD STILL NEED THE PRELIMINARY RE-PLOT AND NOW THIS WILL NOT BE RECORDED.
THIS IS JUST THE PRELIMINARY STAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THE CIVILS.
BUT THEN AGAIN, SO WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS BECAUSE IT IS MEETING OUR ORDINANCE THAT YOU APPROVE THIS.
AGAIN, IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO WE DO HAVE IT SUBJECT TO THEM GETTING A TEXT DOT PERMIT.
WE DID SUBJECT TO ZONING, CORRECT? WE DID SUBJECT IT TO ZONING.
HOWEVER, IF THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARCEL, EVEN IF IT ISN'T INCORPORATED INTO THE CITY.
>> IF WE IMPROVE THIS PLOT HERE, THIS IS JUST PRELIMINARY?
>> IT'S JUST PRELIMINARY, CORRECT.
THIS DOES NOT GET RECORDED, IT'S GOOD FOR TWO YEARS.
IT'S ONE OF THOSE WHERE A FINAL PLOT WOULD STILL BE NEEDED, NEED YOUR APPROVAL TO BE RECORDED PRIOR TO ANY TYPE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR ANY BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY.
>> IS THERE A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER 15?
>> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CLEMENS. DID I GET YOU? GOOD. I'M JUST MAKING SURE IT.
>> DIDN'T COME FROM THAT END AGAIN.
ALL IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER MARTIN?
>> I'LL GO WITH NO, MOTION PASSES.
I WILL MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT AT 6:44 PM. DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MARTIN.
ALL IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER MARTIN?
MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT 6:44 PM. THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.