I'm going to start with the first one. So, I'm going to start with the first one. Yeah. I told you. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. like the interior. This is the standard. It's made sense. It's different. It's all good. I mean, if it doesn't exist, it's not going to be a good genie. It's just like a... Or what? I have a... I can't be sure. I have a new one. Yeah, I'm saying, I'm saying, I'm saying, I'm saying, I'm saying, I'm saying, I'm saying, Okay, 6.30 p.m. we're going to call the heat planning zoning commission meeting to order for the month of August. I hope everyone has had a chance to find room. I guess we do have some overflow space over here to the right. So up to you. OK. First item after your called orders, public comment. Has anyone signed up for public comment? Other than your comments, we welcome during the public hearings. Yes, sir. You don't need to sign up if you're here to speak to one of the items that are on the agenda that will be open for public hearing. So, but sometimes people have other things they wanna say. So that's what what public comments for. Okay, so we've had people sign in. Is there anyone here that is signed in that has something to say except we're in the public hearings that will be upcoming because you don't have to sign in for those. My, am I being unclear? Okay. Let's try again. Let's try again. Let me just read what it says. Let me read what it says on the agenda. Public comment. This is an opportunity for the public to address the planning zoning commission on any matter except public hearings included on the agenda. Okay below we have items that have public hearings for a CUP, a conditional use permit. We also have one for now we do not have one on the final plat for the field in addition, but we do have a public hearing for the zoning change request. And if you're here for that, then you don't need to sign up here. Okay. All right. I'm the last one I signed in. Okay. Please introduce yourself, Boris. Steve? Yep. Steve Widera. 244, Mackinburg Lane. Um, you've become these meetings for a while. City Council and Planning and Zone. And I think a lot of people here are for the same thing. Our city is on life support right now. We don't have enough water for anything. One week were on water restrictions, next week were nights. It's like the circus came to town years ago. Developers, home builders, and they never left. Some of them, they have some powerful people and things just keep getting past. Whether it's a hundred homes or one home, it's just too much right now. Landscaping's dying, age-, ways of finding people. And why are you gonna keep planning stuff? If you can't water it, just something gonna get out through it tonight and 100 degree weather and water stuff, it's not gonna happen. So the citizens here are suffering. The Perry Project, too many homes. I guess I 100 homes one home. Way too much right now. Until they get the water figured out it's impossible. And that's not going to happen next year or the year after. You're looking to five eight years before anything really happens. Get easements, finding something to put the water in, the large tanks, the station, it's not in overnight process. So, like I said, whether it's one home or a hundred, that falls under your feet. You guys are responsible for putting this town where it is right now. One home is another nail in coffin. People can't afford to continue to change their landscape every year. H-O-A's want something really nice and you can't put it in. It just dies. So that's all I have to say. Thank you for your comments. All right, moving on to the next item would be to receive report regarding the July 23rd, 2024. How you did. to receive a report regarding the July 23rd, 2024. I saw him going into the space. Oh, you did? Chiefs. I didn't realize that. OK, well, step up to the, and why you shouldn't. My name's Bob Shaw. I live at 135 Shepard's Wind. And I wanted to call something to the attention. We have a fine staff that works here and puts together these packets of information for everybody and stuff like that. But at the same time, this is usually what we get in advance. And this just happens to be this one that's coming up tonight. But that's 158 acres. I don't know that everybody can read that, but that is very small. The other other cities in the Dallas area require you to submit a full-sized, at least 24 by 36 sheep, which they then fold up and give to the council, the the PNZ to review, which is big enough to read. But I'm, I'm an old guy. I can't go to this thing but I'm their calls about what needs to be submitted by the applicants on the various projects that come before the various boards on this city. So we can see it and act on it favorably without having to guess what they mean. And then when the person parties come in to present their case, we have to ask them, well, what are you planning to do here? Well, show us. Give us a wall section right here on 740, for example. But I can't say anything about that because that's not the item I got to speak of. Anyway, thank you for your time. Okay. Moving on. City Council meeting minutes have been shared with you. Commissioner, City comments, questions. Okay. So item B, 3B, discuss and act on the minutes of the regular meeting for July 2nd 2024 to find any exceptions in those minutes. Take a motion to accept motion by Joe second by Wayne. All in favor. I have a question for staff but Wayne had had such a bad opportunity. Harry had said he wanted to participate via Zoom. Did that not work out? No, he changed his mind. Okay. See they got. I didn't see a Zoom link. Okay. So we're missing one member and he stated that he wanted to participate via Zoom but I guess it's not going to happen. And Jay, small more thing. Policy, do you make the motion? What do you do? Joe made the motion. Tomorrow. Next item is CUP 2024-05. Conduct public hearing and act on a conditional use permit, granting exception to the lake edge zoning district 159.30 Has to with the fence when the take line Good evening commission. This case as the chair just indicated is a conditional use permit to consider a fence exception in the take area. And the property address is the subject site and the antique well-bade park. And the this does require public hearing and we did so we sent notice to neighbors and we also published and posted notice by July 26. We received three responses in opposition and I've handed those to you tonight before the meeting. The property in question has a take area sub lease, and they are, as I mentioned, located adjacent to at a share property line with the public park access way to Lake Ray Hubbard in the Antiqua Bay subdivision. This is a take line survey that was prepared when the property obtained their sub lease for the take area. And the fence location is highlighted in yellow on this area. You can see they are proposing a 12-foot gate and the fence would extend down the property line from near the front of the property at the rear of the house all the way down to where it makes it L and connects back to the property line that is along the longer portion of the shoreline. A little bit of history on the take area, sub-lease, and the ordinance that regulates that. We don't come into contact with these types of cases very often, so I wanted to give you a brief reminder that in 2004, the City of Heath entered into an interlocal agreement and a lease agreement with the City of Dallas, who owns Lake Wright Hubbard and the take area surrounding the lake. In 2006 and again in 2007, ordinances were adopted and revised to create the lake egg zoning district ordinance. And when you read through that, you've are reminded that the city of Lake, the city of Dallas, while they own the lake and the take area, they lease that area to the city of Heath. And then Heath, in turn, is able to sublease take areas to properties who are adjacent to the shoreline of Lake Ray Hubbard. And so the sub-leases can make improvements in the take area as long as they comply with the regulations in the Lake Edge zoning district ordinance. And Heath regulates all of that on the half of the city of Dallas through this interlocal agreement. And at the same time, Lake Ray Hubbard and the take area are managed and are the responsibility also of the City of Dallas through their Water Utilities Department and they are governed obviously by the Dallas City Council. So it's a, it's a bit of a complicated arrangement, but it's been working pretty well here for almost 20 years. So you can see on this drawing here, the very antiquated map that we have of the take area of Lake Ray Hubbard, and just some glossary for you here, some vocabulary. The take area means the land that is owned by Dallas, that's between the take line and the normal pool elevation, which is 435.5, mean sea level. So that in layman's terms, that means it's the area between the property owners in the city of Heath, own and the normal pool elevation of the lake. So it's the area between their property line and what is normally underwater in the lake in general terms. sublies in order to construct a fence, they have to qualify for an exception. And in the the lake edge zoning district ordinance fences, um, may only be allowed or are prohibited and they may only be allowed as a barrier that separates a private least take area within within this area from from public property like a parkland. In this case, the park that is owned and is for public use within the Antigua Bay subdivision. And they may only have a fence there if they provide an access way as well, i.e. a gate to allow public safety and public services, maintenance, and other public personnel to do maintenance operations within the take area behind the home. And the exception can only be granted by a conditional use permit in this specific set of conditions. And the offense, when it, if a fence is approved, it also has to conform to all of the regulations in our fence ordinance, which is housed in the land use part of our, of our code of ordinances. And in there, there are some more rules that they have to follow. They can't protrude over a property line. If the fence is behind the front wall of the home, which in all of these cases, it would be the maximum height is 8 feet. Fences that are on lakefront properties, however, have to maintain at least 75% open space. And if the fence is located more than 35 feet away from the rear property line, so 35 feet closer to the home than the property line, it can be a privacy fence as long as it doesn't obstruct the view that's protected in the lake edge zoning ordinance. And the fences also have to be well maintained. And if there are columns, they must match, if they're a masonry columns, they must match the materials of the home. So this proposed fence is a rot iron fence with a rot iron gate with masonry columns. And as such, it does comply with the fence ordinance. And it also meets the criteria to be eligible for an exception according to the lake edge zoning district through conditional use permit. We have approved similar fences within the last several years. The most recent one was in 2022, and that was for a property at 1221 Valley Trail, where a five-foot rot iron fence was permitted along the Pake Area property line. And that one included brick columns and a gate, and that property is situated adjacent to the Windward Trail and the a street that dead ends into shoreline public access. And then another fence similar fence has been approved at 219 scenic which is the property on the opposite side of the park in Antigua Bay. And that property in 2017 was granted a conditional use permit for a fence exception to build a four foot, rot iron fence in the take line, take area of the property and it extends all the way down to the basically to the shoreline of Lake Ray Hubbard. I have some areas to demonstrate what I'm talking about. The one on the left is the 1221 Valley Trail that was approved in 2022. The fence is located right here. It's very small on the screen. You can't see very well that there is a trail that runs right on the opposite side of the fence. And that one was granted with this conditional use permit a couple years ago. And then the property at 1219 or 1231 scenic is right here. Of course the subject property is right here. So the property across this is the little park area right here that provides access down to the shoreline and a fence was allowed right here. The property in question tonight is requesting a fence and the request for the fence right here. And then here's the one that was granted on the opposite side of the park. So with that, I'll conclude my presentation and I can answer questions if you have any. Hi, please. Please. Oh, will the public still be able to to get access to the park area and be able to get down to the link. It looks as long as the public area. That is a great question. The fence was following this alignment right here. It appears from the area as though there is an area that is accessible right here. But the applicant also could speak to that as well tonight. I would defer to them as well. Right. So my question has sort of been the same thing. I haven't been able to find this access way is any kind of like public record. I mean, is it being dedicated public in some way? It is. I believe it's an in the ownership of the homeowner association or the homeowners in the Antigua Bay subdivision. Looking at the CAD maps, I just see them in the neighborhood. Yeah. Well, and there is a, there's like a no man's land on the CAD that appears between the two. And that's what this little strip is right here. It's an easement. It's an easement. Not a part. Not one. What? Okay. We'll have a public hearing just moment when it's a number. I'm not sure if we can get clarification from the owner. Yes, please. I did have one of the questions of staff. Just a quick one. Is this proposed fence? The same four foot height as the one on the other side of this. It is. Yes. Thank you. Do you want to speak to the commission on your Those defense the same four foot fight as one on the other side of this. It is. So, yes. That's it. Thanks. Do you want to speak to the commission on your application request? Yes, I'll speak. Please step back to the microphone, introduce yourself. Thank you. My name is Wendy Vanling and I live at 301 Scenic Drive with my husband Robert. We're just wanting to pinson our property line a public park, which is not. There's three parks in the city of heat. Anteville Bay that take line is not a park to our understanding. It's just an easement really. And I think the end of purpose was to have, you know, officials access the water area and also to access the easements and. I think the utilities back there. I could be wrong on that but I believe that's correct. So over the years we've seen a lot back here behind our house. Some things not quite so desirable. We've raised three boys there. We have pets there. We have there's some Arabian bees in the neighborhood now that are advertised as having lake access to our backyard. We just recently put in almost an $80,000 retaining wall to retain the property in because it was eroding behind our house. And now we have people jumping off our retaining wall. It's a huge liability for us. There's also an individual that brings a boat behind our property. And he does kite boarding lessons. He has his clientele parked in front of our house. They go back behind our house. They utilize his services for lessons. We also have families that come and bring jet skis back behind our house and have their children come off and onto our property into the debt skis. People get intoxicated back there, they leave their garbage. We've had families dispose of it in the water when they're done. It's a lot and it wasn't so bad when we first moved in to the property and it's just not really, really bad over the years. And then the parking along the front area of our house due to all of the activity, you wouldn't even be able to get a fire truck back there if we had to. It's very congested. We can't pull in and out of our driveway sometimes. So those are the reasons that we are wanting to put this fence in. It's not to take away from our neighbors enjoying the lake access that they have. I mean, they're still going to have that. They just won't be able to use the part behind our house, which I think is a reasonable request on our part. We've also been threatened on a couple of occasions from people outside of our neighborhood that come in. When we ask them to not allow their children to jump off our retaining wall, they literally come and threaten us as to why are we telling them that they can't do that. And, you know, sometimes it's kind of scary. You don't feel, there's some crazy people out there these days. I'm sure everybody can attest to that. But I will take more of your time. I do feel that we are in compliance with our request. I feel that the ordinance for the City of heat does allow us to do this. And based on those facts, I certainly appreciate your, you know, consideration and reviewing our case. Quick question. How long have you lived there? So we have actually, we bought the house, when do we buy? About 2013, we actually lived in Shepherd's Glen. So we, you know, we had that whole cold sag aspect with some friends there and our kids were little, so we stayed in Shepherd's Glen for a few more years. And then we decided we just really wanted to enjoy the property on the lake and finished raising our boys. I sail out of Rush Creek Yacht Clubs so we're closer to there. And so we've been there full time for about seven years now. Okay, thanks. Yes sir. I have a question. How will this proposed fence prevent people from jumping off or obtaining one? Maybe I don't understand it or that we're taking all it. Well, that's a very good question. So we just recently constructed our seawall and it goes all the way to the point area. So that's why we're wanting to, which is where our property and actually our property line with the lease back goes a little bit to the left of that, but the, I believe the city of Dallas would not allow us to put the retaining wall around the jetty that's there. So we had to stop in front of that. So that's why we are putting the fence just to where our sea wall ends because we feel like our liability is much less if the home entire sea wall is fenced in. I mean, you know, we don't have any control over people going around and getting on the jetty. That's not that doesn't have any concern with us, but our concern is the property that we just completed our erosion control. And so that's what we've been to that area. Now also one other thing I would like to point out, Robert and I, we've maintained this area for many years. We pay to have the whole entire area of mode. We irrigated. We've had people with their motor vehicles, which the sign on the tagline says no motor vehicles allowed, but they come down there all the time. We get side by side, we get golf carts, which we don't really mind those too much, but we have had actual motor vehicles come behind our house to drop things off. They damage our sprinkler systems, so we just need to try to get that under control. So you said you've been under seven years or so. Now you want to put this fence in seven years ago. You didn't want to know that's not correct. We didn't want to. We just couldn't afford to. We can't put the fence in until you put the $80,000 retaining wall in. Which we just took out of our retirement plan to do. So now we're ready to put the fence in but we've been wanting to do it for a while. Okay. Thanks. Yes. Aaron, could you go back a couple of slides to the one that shows the proposed fence with the yellow highlighting? The big one on the little one. The little one forward one. Yeah. Forward one. Yeah, there. Smith, Vandolin, could you? I guess there's been some erosion since this picture was taken, probably. Where is your sea wall? The sea wall does all the way along the perimeter of the water. I'm going to make it. So, I'll give those next door. Okay.. So there's sea wall basically now that was this entire red line. Yeah, all the way out to here. Okay. down and then turns in so our sea wall had to be turned in and it's actually underneath the ground right there Yeah, because at some point you know There's gonna the city of Heath has we tried to get them to put in the sea wall all the way along the other side Which is a very small amount and? That hasn't been done yet. So that land most likely is going to roast. We have to turn our sea wall in and it's underneath the ground. You can just see the very top of it. If you, you know, you've got to scoop a little dirt off. Yeah, good. Yes. And the goal was when sea tech put in our sea wall, the goal was when they turned it in like that, was that hopefully the city of Heath will connect to that and continue it. How many feet is there over? Maybe 50 feet something like that or about 50 feet. That way that land will continue to road and the public can continue to enjoy that access. But you know since we have the sublies on our our area, we are responsible to maintain that we're responsible for their regime control. And we also have the liability. We, by signing that sub-lease, we have relinquished any thank the city of heat that all comes on us as somebody gets injured on our property back there. So it's a must that we have to fence in that from the public areas just too much of a liability for us if it doesn't get fenced in. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Any other questions? Okay so just out of curiosity, do you have any sign in child? We're not allowed to have signage out. It's to my understanding. Who says? I believe it's in the city of Heath ordinance that we're not. They can't state that it's private property. Uh, I thought that we couldn't, but I have, I believe Jenny had signs and people just take them down. They don't. They don't care. They don't care if you have a sign up. Okay. And when you did the, y'all did the lease after you all required the property when there were you for the property? No, sir. It's out of the lease. No, it was not. Okay, so in the city to find what area it could be, sub-lease? Yes, the area that is sub-lease is the extension of our property line all the way down to the water. Okay, and I'm curious about the seasment. Who's lot is the easement on? Is it on your lot or your neighbor's lot? Well, the easement I think is its own entity. I don't, ours is not considered an easement. Well, I'm not going to the CAD file right now. It appears that there's two lots that doesn't show any kind of third lot. What do you mean by third lot? I'm not going to be. It is on your property. So there's an easement on your property. Okay. No. I don't believe so. The original thought of our lot goes all the way down there to the to the water. It goes in that direction. And when you sub lease, the sub lease area is an extension of your property line. Yeah. Is anybody salmon the Eastman document? Who filed Eastman document and whose land is it in cumbersome? It's in the park, it's listed in the smarts. It's in the park on the street. That's because I'm not clear because I'm not I'm not 100% clear on the nature of this public access. I mean, whether, you know, that's what you know, the summed or been explained to. I'm just we haven't assumed any of the public area. The public area. It's certificate for your property. Did it did say anything about easement? And no, I don't believe so. Not sure. Yeah. So there's the easement, the truities that's there and you've got two of them that are behind us. One is for the city, the other is for the county of Brockloft. One is for the children, right? When you say behind the house, that means from the street down to the lake. Yeah, so this area, that strip of land that you're specifically asking questions about. And poll transparency has been a big unknown box for an extended period of time. Well, when you got your property, there's a title policy. And when you got your property, a title policy, either one of the private easements, it's not. James, I can speak to this a little bit. I don't have it in my folder with me tonight, but it is reflected on the plat for Antigua Bay as being a separate entity from both of their logs. Yeah, our proposements is not going to encroach on that easement, that public easement is just going to divide it from our property line to that easement. Will you explain everything that's. Aaron, I have a quick question. This easement is it considered public property? To your knowledge as far as I know, yes. It. I don't have any I don't have any reason to answer that no. It is used that way for sure. When we've had these take issues come up previously, sometimes the city of Dallas will weigh in on this issue. Has the city of Dallas even been informed of this or have they have they weighed in at all on this particular issue about this fence. Let me see. I'm going to defer to Is Lisa here? There she is. If you could give, would you mind coming in and, did you hear the question? No. Okay. Would you ask it again? Sure. I was to Lisa. Thank you. Maybe it's for her. We prepared a bit for that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Maybe it's worth it. Okay. Prepare to be prepared for that. Just wondering if the city of Dallas is weighed in on this issue about a fence on this particular problem. No, they have not. And the city of Dallas relies on people. Right. We issue those variances. And in our ordinance and our rules of Dallas the only way that you can get a fence down to the taekwondo is if you would but have put peace of property. Right. So we only have, there's a very cute and very cute of them in the city that will allow you to sit down with your buddy public property. And an ear-fidget, this easement, the public property. That easement gets its public property. And it's about big, good-wide. And those from seeing it all the way down into the waters aged. I have research just the only doctor and there's actually some least program document. Yes, we have yes, and I'll think they've read it. But it's specifically talks about that property. It's page three, you've never did. OK, thank you. You can bring it up in your fonts. Just go ahead and look at what's said. It explains everything. We'll have your comments for just a moment. I hope we're all right so any more questions before we go to the public hearing. Okay, we'll have seven or four we'll enter into our public hearings conditional use permit anyone wants to speak or against cases that the mind about the public hearing we're supposed to just listen to your comments and not question you. Do you see what I'm saying? I'm not sure. My name's Jay. I live in the four-year-old. I actually have some documents for band-outs, but I left them at my office. I left late. So there is a document that talks about this and it specifically references that that is a property. So it's really, it's not an incident, it's been an incident, it is a part. I didn't receive the, he's a male, we're supposed to say, yeah, you're made for this. I think you said only three were turned in. I talked to my other neighbors and they didn't really get on me either. So there wasn't much notice of that. The, my neighbor here that put the fence up, I had no notice on that. That just got put up. So I know, here's say, but most of the neighbors are against it. You know, I don't want to be a bad neighbor, but we're down there quite a bit with our grandkids. And the things that they described about drinking and all of that, I've never seen that. I take my three grandkids down there and we go down with the water. So it may, it probably happens, but I don't think it happens to spring, because we're just saying, why I've never seen it that way. So, I'm against it. But I'll answer any questions. I read the document. And there's a reason that you have to ask special permission to the defense of. If you could just put a fence up, you wouldn't have to go through this process. So, can you explain one of the. Can we enter into a question answered at this time? Public hearing. I don't recommend. Okay, let's not do that. Okay. You can. You can. You can. You can. You can. You can. You can. You can. You can. You can. You can. You can. You can. You can. You can. You can. You can. if you can read it and explain it for a day. Who else wants to address mission? Go here. My name is Jenny Seale. I live at four Ravens, Sherkecling in Nunnkees. I moved to her in her 480. 1971. And I lived at 219 St. X. So I'm the woman that thought the other kids. There's someone else in the house. I have a list here. I mean people would bring boat paper. They come camp. They leave boats and trash. I mean, people would bring boat paper, they'd come camp. They'd leave boats and trash. I mean, all the things that the banlings are describing happened to us. So because somebody took their kid down there, I didn't see it during the day or whatever, I can assure you that that went on. I had metal fences, I mean, metal, what'd you call them? No. No, I don't know. It was more, it said least property. Keep out. Well, I'll sign sign. I mean, heavy ones like, you know, I heard in the grant. And they were totally ignored. My grandkids were run off by people that came fishing from. Out in the neighborhood. And I can tell you that a lot of people know that the pig wine has got some least that they can pull on to anybody's property. If you're on the waterfront and but then when they don't get off because of this public access, after put the fence up. There's a 50 foot easement, and I know he used the word park, you know, I'm just saying, for 50 years or whatever, it's been called an easement, and I've been up here at the city a lot, so I think the only three parks on Heath, everything, Antitra Big Park, Cherry Park, and the city working. The easement's going to say exactly the same. It's always been like 50 feet wide going down the walk. So that is not changing by their fence whatsoever. And it didn't change on high foot of Benson. So the easement will always be there. The thing that's disturbing for the neighbors is the fact that the vannelling's property line runs at an angle when it was originally platted at the ran at this angle. So it takes part of the water front away from where people go jump in the water. It's not that they've been taking over this piece property or taking over property from age, men or apart from whatever it is. I actually was here when the ordinance was written and they sure that there is something in here that allows her fencing. There are only five properties at the time in the whole city of heat that could have qualified for events. One was mine, one was fan links, and another one I think down by Terry Park, and I think the other two might have been, oh, Shepard's corner, so, but anyway, only five properties, actually even qualified. And that was the whole point here. If you're by public access and you are running a risk on people being on your property, getting injured. And like they said, they paid 80,000 dollars for their erosion control. At the time, I think I paid 40 something for erosion control. So what we're really doing is saving property on the lake. And when you lease a bar front, you have to do that. It's part of the lease. Within a year, you're supposed to put that in. You're supposed to maintain it. You know, I think you can roll the bar to you out there that you can't make a bar for you, you know, put a trombone on things like that. So there's lots of rules about it. I think that they definitely deserve to have accents based on my history. I want a bigger and bigger voice. Thank you. Yes. Well, I'll give you again, or shall I out of the bigger at St. Concudials, but I just want to ask some questions to get right. I'll illustrate now mine first of all, it's just you know, oh, sorry, Ernie, forget to send some turd. First of all, if I'm here in public property, that they're going to pinstown to a fan down to a waterfront that they have already spent $80,000 so that they could do such a thing so they could start enjoying in that part of their public property. And just recently, I've even had some experiences at least, at least Texas and probably head out there. And we had an easement problem. And so I looked on Webster's dictionary, I got the impression strong definition of an easement, is temporary use. I mean, people coming on and turning your easement into a parking lot or any other thing that infringes upon the property you own, but by the state, you think you know can have an easement. We were brought on the ground, and now it's someplace up east there. And yeah, we had a problem. People come down and just think they're gonna park there and then find the best way to go to something, fish or whatever. And yeah, it was an easement and they parked there, which was I didn't, you know, we sold it police. I mean, I got taught this. I don't like to get mad. And I was dealing with my neighbor and I said, Hey, you know, I'm retired. I'm done with all the stuff that I've had to do over the years. I'm done. And it's like it just hurts me that there's these confusion things that seem to interfere with people's, especially private property. I mean, maybe I'm hearing something wrong here, but I don't see what the being confusion here. So I mean, it's their property. And if they want to put a fence longer for property line, not to end it if it's cool to do that, out to the place where they have the wall by the water. What I don't understand what the problem is that they want to take over and enjoy their property and for sound sounds like lots of people, they lead the lady you just spoke seems to be a witness to the fact that yeah, there's people there that shouldn't be there. And I wondered about the business of, you know, I wondered what's happening with, with after maybe on the road, they maybe they don't come down and park there in the easement. I don't know about all that yet, but they park out there on the road, isn't there some laws that say that, hey, it's understood that you leave a car out here on the road that could be a hazard to fire trucks, etc. So forth, whatever, causing people to get into arguments and who knows what happens after that. It's a volatile person. It's in the way of situation right now. Sounds to me like it's very volatile, impossible, very volatile situation, which could get ugly. And we, none of us in the live, live that way, we come to heat to, to, to, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no Well, you guys figured out earlier on their neighbor, 303 scenic Kenny Wolk and my wife and I live next to where we also have two children. We've owned the house since 2007 kind of time frame. And you know, to say that this is a polarizing subject within our neighborhood would be an understatement, right? Facebook, social media, everything, and everybody's got an opinion. To hear that there are some people that don't believe that they activity, right? Where people are out drinking or they're driving vehicles down there on the easement, on the take line. I'm sorry that if they just don't see that, but if they live there and they're their neighbors, they would absolutely see it. So I don't know if I can pass out some pictures, but I gave Mr. Rask some earlier with my feedback, but if you don't mind, you guys can share them. And you know, clearly don't take pictures every single day, but over the course of time, this has been enough of a nuisance that have been taken pictures. So the first one, you'll see there's three golf carts out there and a bunch of people out there are fishing and guess what? Every single one of them is on Vanle's property. Second picture, a little shoot. There's a golf cart, probably 20 people, and there's people down there in the water. Swimming is a little arrow down there. Third one, we've got a pontoon boat and some golf carts that are up on their property. And by the way, not a single one of these pictures is taken on the same day, right? So of course time. Clearly summer is worse than other times. Kite Porter, guess what? Kite Porter got his kite stuck up in the tree. He got his kite down. He cut the limbs. Where do you think he left the limbs? Right there in the backyard, right? Not exactly good neighbors. Sunsets are absolutely beautiful. We've got a guy this behind my house. He drove all the way through there there you are. It's my backyard and that happens on a regular basis. I'll skip the next one. Skip it out. Here's some kayakers that are not even from the neighborhood that are coming in. And then it will fast forward to the second to the last one and I think this one really kind of drops point home and it's a parking issue. That's right there. And whether this is approved or not, there is no way that an emergency vehicle will get through should something happen, right? And everybody can see this. On multiple occasions, our kids are getting picked up in school buses because fishing is hot early in the morning. So they come really early. Maybe that's why you're not able to see a lot of the activity as well. They line up there in the mornings and the school buses have had to back out because they can't make the turn around there and they're parked like this. And this is a regular occurrence. It starts in the spring, as soon as the weather starts to get a little bit better, and then it just continues all the way into the very heat of the summer. So right about now, things have absolutely started to taper off. They come out for the sun sets, which I don't blame them, and they will absolutely still be able to do that. But living there and being their neighbor, I can attest that this is, it's not a small issue. The trash, the people that, when we saw, or the July weekend, the people come out with porta-pods, it absolutely blew me away. I wish I had taken some pictures on that face. So, anyways, clearly I'm in support of this, and I will ask that, you know, the people that earn our neighborhood recognize that they'll still get access, and I just understand that, hey, you know, this is something that they have to do to protect themselves. We obviously support that. So. That's thank you. We have other people to speak to this matter. I'm Barbara Stewart. I live at both three scenic drive. I'm about 5 houses away from it. We're also on the lake. And we have a take line in our backyard. Obviously we understand that take line is not our personal property that there are people that are going to go fish. There are people that are going to, you know, get their kayaks down there and they're going to, they're going to be in our backyard. We understand that. We've never had a role in the backyard ever, not even one time in our backyard. It's usually the neighbor's occasion. They'll get somebody from outside of the neighborhood. My concern, I'm one of the opposition letters that you got. My concern with this is that they have taken so much of this little park. And by the way, it is a park. I can give you the ordinance where it was made into a park. And it's named is called the Point Park. And that is in ordinance 999, I'm sorry, that is 090915E. And then it's exhibit A of 090915E, part 90-15, in parentheses C, big C, park. It's named Public Point and Open Space. There's two parks. There's a big Open Space Park and then there big C, park. It's named public point and open space. There's two parks. There's a big open space park, and then there's this point park in into La Valle. So when we first moved to the neighborhood, which again was several years ago, about nine years ago, the park that park was that had a beach area, we also took our grandchildren down and played in the beach area. We might have been one of the nuisance neighbors in their backyard because the beach area is in this park that they're trying to fence off. Erosion did occur as I'm also a member of the board of the HOA there and as the years went on, we talked about putting, talking with the city of he's and putting some money into that beach area to make it chance a little more safer for people instead of you know walking down a a brick wall kind of a thing and some some dirt steps we talked about maybe we could put some money into it and make it real steps going down into the beach area but then just recently we went down there and there's a big seawall that goes all the way down to the jetty and there's little like no beach area left anymore. So what we're seeing is an erosion of the public area where we don't really have a park anymore. We have a little strip of land that kind of goes down to the point area, the red area on the left, that is being eroded because now we have a sea wall that sends all of the erosion to this little point there. And if you look at Virginia had named that used to be her fence line. If you go to the edge that's now her fence line, you can see where that land is also being eroded. And so that entire point that now exists in just a few years that won't exist anymore. So we're seeing an erosion of our little park area where we really do spend a lot of time. There's a lot of people that go there and fish and play and have a little picnics and watch the sunset and kind of pick the you know fireworks the fourth of July we're seeing fireworks across the the water so we'd like to what we would like to see is not the fence not be so large that it takes away from some of that shoreline and maybe the city could put trash cans out there to pick up some of the trash and do a regular trash run. Maybe put some signage about no parking on this corner, just a little bit to help ease the problems that they're having with people and problems, instead of taking the rights away for the rest of us who live in the neighborhood. And one more point is when people do buy in that little neighborhood, we're not exactly the high end neighborhood of Heath, we're kind of the stepchild out there. When they buy in that little neighborhood, they like having access to the lake. They don't have to buy a high end waterfront home to have lake access. They can walk down to that little point and stick a pole in the water. But with the erosion going on and the jetty becoming more and more inaccessible, that's going to go away and I think that will affect our neighborhood values at the same time. So I don't want to be a bad neighbor either but I just feel like Jenny, well it's not Jenny's house and more, but the people that moved in there, they rebuild the fence that had fallen down, they had been gone for a long time. They've rebuilt the fence, they put it all the way down to the edge, and now the van man's want to put in a fence on the other side. And we have like this little roadway, it feels like it's 50 feet wide, but it's like a little pathway that gets down to an eroded point now, rather than something that you can actually enjoy. That's why I post it. Thank you. One more? Yes. I have a 402 CITIC jack watch worth. I'm in an opposition as well. I have, just like one of my neighbors, Jeff, with Whitwell down there occasionally. Now, I don't know exactly. I have seen these problems that the gentleman mentioned, but why can't we put no parking signs and like Barbara said, trash cans along there. That is something that as a person who lives in the neighborhood, you know, I feel like as one of the attractions that we had my wife and I had when we moved in there. So, you know, as far as the traffic in the morning or whenever the school traffic comes, school buses come along. We just put post science, there's no parking on the streets around there. And that way, there would solve any kind of a fire truck or anything that would come through there. So that's all so. I'm in opposition to the votes. I choose this one. Thank you. Come in. Okay. You get back to you. No. Yes. Please step up. Hello. I'm Jill Carras. I'm at 401 scenic. And I'm like front next to Barbara. So when I've been there 10 years, when I moved in, I knew that the take line was public property. I know it's not mine. I've built a sea law. I take care of the land. I'm owe it. I irrigate it. That is my responsibility as being a homeowner on the light. I don't have a leaseback. Typically, leaseback would happen typically if you're going to the old Agasiva about house or a dock. People I'm all that live. Most do not lease back just because it's expensive and it's not oh it's necessary to do that. I've certainly learned a lot. I did not know that if you lease back that it's considered part of property or not part of property that no trust passing. I didn't know that, so that was interesting. So to address some of the traffic that is in the park area, so you were talking about the golf carts. Those golf carts probably came from either our neighbor or the neighborhood adjacent to us. That's not really unfriendly neighbors that came out of wherever, you know, the trash area. Some of them are actually our neighbors too when I thank you, look, they are. And I didn't know there are the neighbors that do not have lake access to go down there and kayaks. I've seen them do it. The building of the seawall seems to have prevented the lake access a little bit. There is there is some on the other side of the jetty, but that's very dangerous. It's rugged. It's pretty tall and sometimes those waves get pretty pretty strong so that each access is definitely not not there. Barbara and I walked down there on Sunday and noticed that the neighbor on the other side where they have the fence, their seawall is all eroded and it needs to be rebuilt. It looks pretty dangerous to me. And also the last thing is on the traffic. On the curb, understand the issue of the cars. It's not just people that are visiting. There are also a lot, we have a lot of parties in our neighborhood. People, you know, have parties and join the lake. But it's also residents with big trucks cross from each other on the corner. I've had trouble getting my boat pulling it around to light because of that. So it's not always just that either, you know, our roads are not going to lie. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I have a question of staff. We're with the leasing of the take line by the applicant. Are they required to build that seawall? They are required to maintain this shoreline. Yes. Okay, that seems significant to me. You said build and maintain. Yeah. Hey Lisa, can you come back out here? Lisa's our building official and she's more intimate with the ordinance than I am. The question I asked was with the leasing of the tape line, is the applicant required to build a seawall and maintain a seawall. Yes. Okay. If they ever want to put a boat house or be top of the structure back, then they have to have seawall in the press. Now, if you don't lease the tape on it. No, but they never ran, never ran. In this case, it is weeks. So. Yes, I would be sick. Yes. All right. So a little background, the city of Dallas realized that they had a huge liability if their lake started eroding into people's property. And so in exchange, so about 30 years ago, they started the process of thinking what they, what could they do about it? And one option was to put a sea wall all the way around the lake, which would be hugely expensive. So they decided to allow homeowners with land adjacent to the lake to use that property in exchange for providing erosion control. So it benefits the city of Dallas because they have erosion control. It listens their liability because otherwise if they're lake, erodes into people's property, then they have the obligation to stop that. Okay. Thanks. And there it is, just suddenly, that they sign that having a place here that allows them to put a fence, if they, if we allow it through a CUP, right. In other words, they have to have some ways to do this. Correct. And they paid money for the someplace and then they built the the sea wall. True. I'm curious what the applicant wanted to say. Yeah, this. Wendy Van Ling, 301, scene of drive. Just not to be redundant. I just wanted to, from hearing our neighbors speak, the ones that are in opposition to our, uh, this, uh, conditional use permit. A couple of things. Putting parking signs is not going to prevent people from parking. There's a no parking sign right next to the lease take line. People park right there in front of the no parking sign. They don't care. Number two, the lease back, it does make that that area the take line. It is considered our private property when we lease it back. And, you know, everybody else that lives in Lakefront property, by Lakefront property for a reason to enjoy the life with your family. And it's our property. We paid for it. We bought it. You know, if they want to enjoy Lakefront property, then there's Terry Park. the city. I was enjoying Lakefront property. There's a beautiful park that the city of Heath put in for late front enjoyment. This is our property. What Barbara was saying about the beach. There was never beach there was erosion. The property behind our house was eroding, which was causing a sandy area, that it was eroding into, I mean, our property was diminishing. I'm not sure about the city of Heath ever getting into any negotiations with Antigua Bay about trying to make the beach nicer. The city of Heath isn't gonna do that when it's in our property area. I've never heard of that. That's the first I've heard of that. And just the last thing, this is not personal. We are neighborly people. We have lots of friends and neighbors in the neighbors. We're good people. We're at the liability is huge if we don't put this fence in for us. And unfortunately unfortunately in the neighbors when they do go enjoy the area, they just don't see everything that we see. And again, we are not taking any way, anything away from them that the city hasn't established for the public area. We're convincing an our rightfully own property that we have leased back. This is our property. It's not it's not for public use anymore. And it's just it's just business. It's a matter of facts. It's nothing personal against our neighbors. Exactly. So I wanted to say. Thank you. I had a question. We get quite a bit down. And I'm trying to put you on the spot. Then earlier we saw where we have in the past we've recloved two fences. I think one was 17 and maybe almost 22. Have there been other cases where we have denied fences over the years in this area? Yes, well, not in Antigua Bay. I don't know of any other applications for fences in Antigua Bay. I could be wrong about that. In 2022, when the fence was approved on Valley Trail, there were about seven or eight applications that came through in a short amount of time. We were charged by the governing body at that time to do some enforcement of fences that had been popping up without permits in the take area. And as a result of that, there were a few applications for conditional use permits to try to for lack of a better word, legitimize some fences that had been built without without without permitting and they were not approved. As I recall, those were not adjacent to right or wrong. Yeah, none of them were adjacent to right or public space. Yeah, and it's not allowed by doubts. So that means none of them were allowed. You were against the way we wrote it, and it caused it's not allowed by doubts. So I get a question for the neighbor, Ms. Wolfe, I think it is. Yes. You were just south of this property. So you share a common property line with this Eastwood? No. That was Jenny when she used to own that. So that neighbor's not here. That neighbor's not. Okay. It's a project I'm gonna announce. It doesn't live there. Okay, but that house, do they have a fence that goes all the way down to the floor? Okay, so we've got a fence on one side of the Eastwood, which we don't have a flat out of, but we've heard that it's there. Yes, they got it there. And you've got your... I thought about it a little bit about through all this. But it's the same conversation, but just from the south side. So there's already a fence there that goes down in the water. And the guy that built the house there, he tore our fence down. So that's why another fence went up I mean, I would be curious to see anything regarding the public dedication of like I said, I've been here with our 400 and even before and I've spent a lot of time I've been on just talking to myself. But if people want this 55-50 foot wide strip, if you want to back your your boat trailer down there and then hit to launch. Yeah and there's actually a take from you're not watching. It's snow. There's a lot of time. I want to. It's. It's. It's. We haven't talked about it. There's a few side common area. Some subdivisions. They're. They're. They're. They're. They're. They're. They're. They're. by a grand space. And that's what makes you feel like this was a city of heat. Part of it has a bit of a rush freeze because our ice freeze ended in need to have a barrier or a sounds of a point can and the water, I mean, ended a hard work. So it's always been considered in use. When signs have gone up like no part in the park. I think in the comprehensive plan, they may have probably parts that. It is referred to as a park in chapter 90 of our ordinances in chapter 90.15 of the city of Heath code of ordinances. It's referred to as park. That 50th theory. Yes. And the open space. There are two different spaces and entryiqua Bay that are referred. But those are separate. They're not continuous. I mean, this is just 50 feet that goes straight down in the water. That's right. Yeah. That's one of the two spaces that's referred to as park is being built on. No, it's adjacent to it. Adjacent to it, but not in it. Not in it, right? It's a property line between the van blinks and the easement. OK, no, that's all right. Any further questions? Discussion, maybe, but I'm sorry. My opinion is this is an allowable exception based on everything that I've read and in fact the property on the other side of this already has it in place. I feel like a lot of people use it and I felt badly about people that had fences on the take line. Again, it's Dallas property. It was really theirs to put it up, but they did put it up. And I felt that it's really unfortunate that they may be in joy that. But the bottom line is, in that case, they were putting a fence on property that they didn't have the right to. In this case, they wanna put aence on property that they didn't have the right to. In this case, they want to put offence on property that they do have a right to come here, request the exception. It's an allowable exception. And my sense is that we, I have no reason not to occur to this. So, my wife and I owned a waterfront property from 2002 to 2020 here in Heath. And prior to that, we owned waterfront and relette when they were going through the take line, relette did it a few years before Heath. And so, I've got a little background and I've dealt with a lot of these issues that we're dealing with. We're talking about firsthand. So if you don't lease the take area, then anyone can come onto the property and you don't really have anything to, you can say something to him, but you don't have any grounds. But not your personal property. Not for take one. The take line behind seems to be as waterfront of long owners we get the impression that the area behind our house is our property but it's not unless you lease it but once you lease it it's treated as if it's your own property and you have liability and you're expected to maintain it and that's where thing. We didn't have a problem, we didn't lease ours, but I'm getting a long way around to saying that these homeowners have a unique situation and everything goes along with the code. I think this is what the code was written for is to protect a homeowner's least take area from the public encroaching onto it. And there's some other issues. You know, when the take lines were drawn, it's not a perfect system. And you know, it looks like their property is kind of a pie-shaped property. They're on a corner. And so the lines go out. If you measure the take line at the lake, it's wider than their back property line. And so that's just the way that things happen. If you're on and the border goes the other way, then sometimes you have a smaller piece of the lake. So I can understand the residents not liking the fact that these homeowners have such a large expansive area, but that was done 20 years ago, 17, 18 years ago, those maps were drawn, and they don't have any control over that. The erosion, I think that some of the speakers had valid claims, erosion could be dealt with. That might be a homer's association issue. Maybe they could apply for a permit and get erosion control there. Trash cans, signs. That's outside of our permit be here, but I pervue, but I think those are all valid concerns and maybe they can be dealt with in some way. But that's a long way of saying that I'm in favor of this request and nothing that needs all the criteria. One emotion. What's going on? Let's just say something. No, I really agree with Joe and with Mike. I mean, I think these folks have done everything right from what I can see. And that's exactly what the ordinance is for, is to allow fence like this and the one thing that I haven't heard is I don't really have a good understanding of what difference this fence is going to make to what already exists on this property. And I understand the opposition, I understand you wanting open and not wanting fences, but I don't think it really changes. Anything that doesn't already exist out there. And I think they've done it right here and they had a right to put it to fence up and we granted it in two other times. And I can't distinguish those times from this fact that maybe more argument for this. So I'm in favor. I agree with you guys. Three guys that have postponed each polka. I agree with that. In fact, I get over with one thing on that. But what he's saying is the problem that exists along the sea wall. People are coming to it from the lakeside too. It usually gives the playground. Some of these golf carts are coming down, they probably come down to the amusement and go over them. But I think the biggest side is policing it from the lakeside and get these people from quick making it a playground and then leaving their trash along there. That's what looks like to me because, and from what's been said, they just throw in a trash and they're not picking them up after themselves. So I'm kind of, I'm kind of told either way, but I'm kind of agreeing with what these other guys have said. Very simple. I think when you're looking at making an exception to something that you had, I think it's important to take a minute and look at, are there any negative repercussions from doing that? And based on what I see and what I hear and look at this, I don't see that. I don't see that as a problem. And so I think as Joe said, you know, I think moving forward here, I think makes a lot of sense. I don't think it causes negativity. I don't think it's a precedent where we're doing something that we would look at later for someone else. So at this point I would be in favor. Motion. accepting the proposal. Request for conditional use permit. Correct. Yeah, I recommend approval of the condition use panel. Okay, get emotional Joe. I was sucking it. I'm gonna say my comment. All in favor? No. Not opposed. Okay. Move on. You. You. You. You. You. Next item is F-2024-05. We'll consider an act on a final slab of a feeling addition to containing one lot on 13.998 acres. Miss Adele. So this is a final plat that you have seen once before. It is for the fielding edition. In March of this year, the planning is on the commission reviewed this plat and moved to recommend denial of it for a couple of reasons. One, the development review committee comments that had been submitted to the applicant the month prior had not zoning district that controls the property. So because of that condition as well, the commission recommended denial. So the plat moved forward to the city council and the city council concurred with the commission's recommendation and did deny without prejudice citing those same two reasons and the without prejudice was important because the applicant could continue to work on the project which they did and since March they have submitted a revised flat which is in your. And it's also on the screen right here. The major difference between this version and the version that was considered in March is some treatment to load to the area adjacent to low road right here on the south edge of the property. And we'll go into that a little bit more detail. Here's a south edge of the property. And we'll go into that a little bit more detail. Here's a blow-up of the plat and the right-of-way that I'm referring to again is this strip right here. It's a 25-foot dedication of right-of-way. And that's important because this property is controlled by a planned development ordinance, ordinance number 190723b. And that document discusses some access issues that were present in 2019 when the property was first being considered for development. And so that planned development made some requirements that future improvements to low road be accommodated in the plant by way of some right of way be indedicated. Now the concept plan on the screen is different than the development scheme in the plant that is before you tonight. This plan development allows for the property to ultimately be subdivided into eight lots over an acre each with an interior street. That is not what is proposed in the Plath tonight. The applicant is requesting a single lot, almost 14 acres to construct one single family home. And the interior street is not necessary because there are no other properties to access other than the home that will be built on this one as well as they own the two lots, they own the two tracks, this one and this one as well. So you're going to see here in a second I'm going to show you a site plan that shows a proposed drive would be a fire access lane that would serve each of those three properties that will ultimately each have a home on them. So here's an aerial view. You can see low road is labeled, and it's a gravel road that goes right here. It connects to Rabbit Ridge. Next to it is a drive that provides access to the property that we're discussing now. It's owned by the fieldings and then this property is also owned by the fieldings and this property that is owned by the fieldings. So access to all three of those properties is coming off of Rabbit Ridge through by way of this long drive right here. The side plan that they have presented for the ultimate plan for this property is on the lower left. It is showing a paved drive coming off of rabbit ridge, meandering, to serve a home site somewhere on this property, and then also to serve these two structures on these two separate tracks. Part of the requirement during this stage of the process is a tree scape plan and they have submitted that and it's shown here on the screen. If there are any protected trees that are surveyed and labeled on this tree survey, if any of those are removed or damaged to the point of not being viable anymore, they will have to be mitigated at one to one caliper inch at the time that the building permit is processed. Sour for this property will come by way of onsite sanitary, sewer facilities or septic. The water is served by the City of Heath's water system already, and drainage grading and drainage plans both will be reviewed when the building permit application is processed. The drawing on the right with the red oval is circling the property on our future land use plan. And this is just to show that the plant would establish an estate residential lot of 13 plus acres. And that does conform to the future land use plan in the comp plan for this area, which is is designating the area for rural estate use. Rural estate use in the conflian is defined, the compatible zoning districts are defined as SF 43, which is the one acre zoning SF E 3.0, which is the minimum three acre zoning district and then ag with residential use, which has a minimum lot size of 10 acres. So we did do a compliance assessment against our ordinance. And the only deficiency that's noted at this time is the lot width that I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation. The SF 43 requirement in section 159.21 is 100 feet of lot frontage and a long rabbit ridge, the distance is 74.12 feet. So that will be a matter for the city Council to take up and consider as a variance when it makes when the plot moves on to that next step in the process, which will happen at the end of August. The state of Texas has made it so that flat review is a ministerial function. And so your options for emotion are to approve, to approve with conditions or to deny with reasons. And so we are suggesting three items to mention in a motion. And those are listed on the screen right here. The first one is very minor. The plat is labeled as preliminary rather than final. So we need that to be corrected. The lot width of 74 feet doesn't comply to them with the minimum width. So that will need to be dealt with as by the city council. And then the proposed driveway that was shown on that site plan that I showed you, this driveway right here. It serves, it will ultimately serve three separate residential tracks and because of that, it must be a fire access lane or drive. Brandon, you can correct me. The fire marshal can correct me on which terms could be used there. But it must also be enclosed within a fire access easement. So we will need them to add that easement to the plat. And that is the end of my presentation for now. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. I have a couple. I'm curious, just curious on this, did the owner change and went from eight possible homes to one? It did, yes, the owner changed since the 2019 timeframe. This could be SF3.0 is is there an option to make this an SF3.0 or they could consider that if they ever decided to rezone it, but the zoning is compatible with what they're asking for at this time. Okay. So this is all that I have to keep. Well, this is already zone is a plan. It is. Yeah. And it's what kind of plan. Residential. No, it's potential. 43. That's a 43. Okay, the compliance matrix is final plat and agricultural district. Oh, that's it. That's a typo. Yeah. Okay. Oh, that's a typo. That's a typo. Okay. So I think we're asking for the dedication of land against a future possible road that would go where low road is now. Crew, and they have provided that. And it goes for the whole length of their property. It does, yeah. So all the way through the bins. It goes from there. This lot, I'm going to try to draw the boundary. It's right here and it stops right here. So the right of way goes along this dog leg shape right there. That's low row. Okay. They're not putting their their drive. They're still going to be an input drives for the fire access. No, it'll be 24 foot. Yeah. me get back to the plant. This is the trees, this is the tree survey. That that one would have done right there. Right. I want to get to the right one. This one. This is the right of way right here that they're dedicating. It's 25 feet and right now it will be just land that is set aside and dedicated as right of way should there be an improvement later at some point in time for low road. Okay, but she showed one that had the driveway on it. Which one you want? It's the one that had the far right corner. Yeah, just look at that one right there. Yes. So that driveways 24 foot wide. Oh, yes. Okay. And are they building it beyond their property line? Or is it just stuck there? No, it will go beyond. They're going to. But that condition of this final plan. The that that be enclosed in an easement. Yes. So it's protected as a fire access. Right now, right now, all the access to both, to all three parcels comes from a road, a paved road that's already here. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Is that up and up. So the turnaround for the fire trucks on this far access. Where is that? Right here. Okay, but that's not on the final flat, final flat, just the stuff on the right hand. Right, that's why we're asking for it to be in an easement that will be shared as it in what point will the other two lots have the drive go across and what's the process for this? What are the conditions of filing the final flat where you're going to have a fire drive that extends beyond the final flat. Right now the flat is adequately accessed by this little drive right here. Right? That's where they have it. They have an existing apron coming off of rabbit ridge right here. And they can get all the way back to all these tracks with that. It's not really adequate for a fire access. Correct. That's why we're wanting as a condition of this platt to establish an easement here that will ultimately be constructed and then extended to serve these other homes. That are. Is that a follow-up plan that tripe has to be built at least for their property line? No. that are. Is that a problem with the plan that try to be built at least for their property line? No, they'll have to, they were just asking that they accommodate for that with an easement being established on the plan. I understand that. They will when they construct the home, it'll be part of the building permit for the home. Yes. I thought certain things that accomplish with pretty bad fall. They do if they're public improvements, but this will be a private and private drive improvement. So low road is not a public road. No. No. And low road is off site. Low road is not part of this plan. It's adjacent to it. I don't know what we do because I mean it sounds like we don't have any control over the building of that road. Whether it ever gets built or not. We do. We do. We control that during the building permit process. And I could ask for the FAR marshal to come up and speak to that if you'd like. Sure. It's I'm asking for you're saying that they can't complete development on that lot without building the improvements that you're showing. True. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. That was a long-winded way to get around to that answer. Yeah. It's clearer than it just because they put it on the flat. And then this is the final flat. And we don't have anything but ministerial function over it. Unless there's a deficiency that can't be addressed. Okay, the 74 foot, it can't be addressed. It cannot. No, let's take care of that. Right. Yeah. cannot. No. But we don't have any assurance that it'll be completed on the other two properties, do we? We're not at this time. We don't have a mechanism to require it at this time because those two homes are already in existence. And it doesn't exist. Yeah. Because the act of error, Is the applicant here? Does anybody want to speak on this? I'm here. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to talk about it. I mean. My name is Ken Hallefield. I'm with RGB, the architect. I'm here to speak. Copy. I'm Jeremy or killing. You can have any questions regarding what's going on? Who do I can't answer? Any further questions? No. This is really for Aaron, but as I understand it, the exception of the Avery is to be done by the City Council. They basically cured all of the other issues we had which led to our now, like in March, it's low. So what's it like trying to do? Correct. Correct. OK. I think maybe important for people here to try and understand just one of the comments, I think, that you all mean earlier, is, hey, even one property is another name on the path. And when something is already approved approved as this has already been zoned, we don't, we can't say you can't build on it. We can say you have to agree to the ordinances. If there is an exception, we could validate whether there's an exception, but we don't have the ability to be able to say we've already zoned it for residential and you can't build off it. They have the right to pick up the only way to do it based on whenever this was approved years ago. Just so you understand sometimes. Well, so the general and not just you, so that people understand if something has already been approved and zoned to be residential, we, at times it will still come to us if they're requesting the variance of some sort, but that we don't have the ability of being able to say unilaterally, well, we just don't want to build because we don't like them. All right. Okay. Why don't we to do it because we don't like it. All right. Okay. Why don't we take action on this? I'll thank you. Thank you. I'll make a motion and would need to get to the. You want your script? Yes, please. I move to approve the final plat of fielding addition with the following conditions. Change the title of the platform preliminary plat to final plat. A lot with the 74.12 feet does not comply with minimum lot with a 100 feet required by section 159.214 to establish and propose a lot with a variance must be granted by the city council. And the proposed driveway shown on the site plan must be a fire access drive and within a fire access easement, this fire access easement must be added to the final plaque before execution. Yeah. Now second motion. I got a second by the way. Paul and Bayer. Yeah. I'm going to have an executive session. And how do we want to do this? I'll let more respect to that executive session. Are you asking? Well, we've got to move people out or move us out. Logistics. Sorry, that's me. That's. So yes, we do have to clear the room for an executive session. If you are here to observe and participate in the Perry property items that are on the agenda, those will be taken up by the commission after the executive session. We don't know how long the executive session will last. You are welcome to move into the community room. The question is could we do the commissioners into this space and could we record it? What do we mean? We don't record executive sessions. So we need to be kind of, it was mentioned to be presented on the screen. I don't have it. That would make more sense. Why don't we do that? That way they can stay cool and here we don't even miss out on our field purposes. Oh, I see. I'm a cook with that. Let's do that. OK. So you guys ignore everything I just said. You all stay put and we'll move. I need to say the fish. You don't share. Right. Yeah. Do we have it? OK, in accordance with Texas government code chapter 551, 7 chapters, the plan is only conventional exam recess into executive session, a close meeting to discuss the following. 4A agenda item section 551, for 07, the one-pointed patient with the turning on a matter in which the duty of the attorney 4A agenda item section 5, it's the 1.2.7.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. C-A-20403. And then, and this is at 807-P1. on matters discussed in the executive session. First item is case number ZA2020401, deducted public hearing and act on an ordinance changing the zoning designation from eight agricultural district to plan development SF 43 for single-family residential uses on 158.6 1-3 acres, the property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Furnham Market 740 slash Ridge Road and Heathland Crossing adjacent to White Road and further described as abstract 207 ETL survey track 55 city of Peter Rockwell County text. But before we proceed, I want everyone here to know that this is item 6a and 6b is going to sound a whole lot like what I just said. And there will be a second public hearing and the second consideration and action on a second zoning ordinance. So the first one is for a planned development. And the second one that we will consider following this will be for a straight SF 43 zoning change. Session. Clear enough? That's great. Same property, we've got two different zoning cases for porous because the applicant has given us two different applications. True. Okay. Okay. Okay. So we are going to be discussing the property that the chair just described. The applicant is Jim Knight with KFM engineering on behalf of the owner, which is BC BC golf to limited. And the property is shown on the map here on the right in the blue area. It's currently zoned a agricultural district and this application is an application for a plan development with SF 43 as the base zoning. So that's a plan to the area within the yellow boundary. It's a little bit harder to distinguish the yellow boundary which is the larger dotted boundary from the white boundary which is a 200-fit smaller boundary and I'll explain the importance of that here in a second. But we mailed notices within the 500-ffoot notification boundary. We also posted on our website and published in the Dallas Morning News by May 24, 2024. And the reason that occurred a couple of months ago is that's when this process began. That was the notification to lead up to the first hearing that took place on this application. In response to the neighborhood notices, we received back 14 responses in favor and 59 responses in opposition. And each and every one of those responses are included in the commission's packet that they have been able to brief before the meeting tonight. There's a little asterisks beside that word opposition because we will need to verify the ownership for each of those responses so that we can determine, at some point down the line, if we have enough written responses in opposition to qualify as a protest. And that's a matter that will be considered when this case makes its way to the city council for their consideration. The protest is based on the 200-foot boundary. The 500-foot boundary is the city of Heath's adopted notification boundary for all zoning cases. So here's a little history on how we got to where we are today. On June 4th, the Planning and Zoning Commission took their first look at this application. At that meeting, the toll breathers came and made a presentation, and they highlighted two different concept, all plan alternatives that they included in this plan development application. One alternative alternative one was for a plan development with a base zoning of SF22, which is our one half acre zoning district residential zoning district, residential zoning district. Alternative two is a plan development with SF 43 as the base, which is our one acre zoning district, one acre minimum zoning district. On June 4th, they discussed both of those alternative concept plans, and we held a public hearing. Many of you probably were here that night. We heard from quite a few representatives of the community. The first meeting was the commission table. We're here that night. We heard from quite a few. Representatives of the community. And the result of that meeting was the commission table to the application. With both of the alternative concept plans. To the July second planning and zoning commission meeting. And they continued the hearing as well. After the June 4th meeting. the applicant turned in an additional application, and that application was for a straight SF-43 zoning. So we had that application in hand for about two weeks before we got back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their July July second meeting. And at that time, they took action on the alternative one concept plan, which was the PDSF 22 concept, which has been common referred to as the half acre concept. And they recommended denial at that meeting of that for that concept plan. With regard to alternative two, the PDSF 43, the commission tabled that concept plan, that portion of the application to tonight's meeting. So following those actions by the commission on July 2nd, we moved forward to City Council with the alternative one PD SF22 concept for the City Council to consider the recommendation of the Commission and they did and they concurred with a move to deny without prejudice. So that portion of the application has been resolved. What is still under consideration tonight is the PDSF 43 concept. The concept plan is shown on the right here and the tables up at the very top of that drawing, contain several important pieces of data. So we've blown those up here on the screen. So we have a chance of trying to read some of these numbers. The concept plan suggests phasing. Two step phase phase one would be approximately 83 acres plus or minus 56 lots, all of which are one acre or larger. The minimum dwelling unit size in phase one and phase two is 3200 square feet. And the suggestion is that phase one major capital improvements would be completed by December of next year, December 2025. Phase two would be the area on the right, and that contains about 75 acres, approximately 59 lots. As I mentioned, the same minimum dwelling size of 3,200 square feet, and they're anticipating that phase two capital improvements could be installed by December of 2028. Some key features of the layout are the floodplain area, which obviously is around the existing pond area. There's a 15 foot sanitary sewer easement that cuts across right here, this green line, and that accommodates drainage from the development on the opposite side of Ridge Road. There's also some, quite a bit of existing tree coverage throughout the property. And some open space is shown in the green areas on the concept plan for the most part around the perimeter of the pond here and the pond up here as well as a bit in this area. The total amount of open space shown is 14 acres, which amounts to approximately 9% of the total area of the property. And that does exclude right of way, a lot areas in floodplain. So with regard to the one acre lots, the area regulations for the SF-43 are reflected in what we see on the right, the column on the right of this table right over in here. So in the SF-43 district the maximum lot coverage is 35% that's for a structure the percentage of structure coverage of the lot. The maximum height is 35 feet for structures, primary dwelling units that are built on the lot. The minimum front yard setback is 50 feet. Side yard for interior side yards is 15 feet. Side yard setback when it's adjacent to a street is 30 feet and then the rear yard setback is 25 feet and As I mentioned that is consistent with our SF 43 area requirements this number right up here Plus or minus 0.79 dwelling units per acre I want to be clear that that does not mean that the lots are 0.79 acres. That means that when you average out the number of dwelling units divided by the number of lots, it's less than one dwelling unit per acre. So the planned development is accompanied by a cover letter, which we often refer to as a narrative that describes the standards that are proposed for this particular plan development. And I'm going to go down this bullet list. They are described in more detail in the cover letter that the commissioners have in their packet and that packet by the way is available on our website for the anybody in the community to get access to if you want to review that in more detail. So the permitted uses are all of those that are allowed in the SF 43 district which are predominantly residential accessory structures, accessory dwelling units, some home occupation, the things that are typically allowed in the SF-43 district would be allowed in this PD. They do set a masonry requirement of 80%, and I believe that at most 20% of that can be cementitious board. The garage orientation does follow our SF 43 requirements which does require that the garage either be set back from the front wall of the home or have a J-swing or some other orientation where it's not a front facing garage at the front wall of the home. Building permits would be allowed before substantial completion for up to five structures and that's pretty typical for contractors to be able to build a model home. Spincing would be would have to be in compliance with our fence ordinance, which is in chapter 157 of our code of ordinances. Streets also would be per city standards street lighting would conform with our dark sky outdoor lighting ordinance sidewalks are proposed for feet wide at four or more feet from the curb. They are planning for new utilities to be buried and also some of those, an allowance for some that are difficult to be buried to be allowed to be above ground. Neighborhood signage in Heath, when you build an entry feature for your neighborhood, that has to be reviewed and approved by our architecture review board. So that is part of to discuss, a variance request. And then the document also does a state that an HOA will be created. So as I mentioned, this alternative to plan development for SF 43 uses does include three variance requests. And I'm going to go over these quickly because I believe the applicant also plans to touch on each of these and their presentation, which will follow mine. The first request for a variance is for lot to lot drainage. And they, I'm, what you're seeing on the screen and what I'm about to read to you is pulled directly from the explanation that is provided in the narrative or the cover letter with the application summarized. So the purpose of a lot to lot drainage is to would be allowed to maximize tree preservation. Also preclude the need for any obtrusive drainage easements best allowing for the site to remain in a more natural state. The italicized portion there is an excerpt from our city of heat, the engineering design standard general notes, which state that no lot to lot drainage is allowed unless it in limited cases where no adjacent owners are negatively impacted, and the drainage is contained in a private drainage easement maintained by others than the city of heat. It should be allowed only on a case-by-case basis for the subdivision ordinance. The second variance request is for a proposed landscape ordinance amendment. You may recall within the last year, we have adopted a landscape ordinance. This was one of the byproducts, the work products that resulted from the moratorium period of time that was put in place from the fall of 2023 through the spring of 24. And the request here is to make a text amendment to the landscape ordinance for the benefit of this plan development that would decrease water usage in landscape areas, allow for non-seeding varieties of Bermuda, and also recognize sources from Texas SmartScape database, which is part of our new landscape ordinance, the requirement that we use that database for our species list, as well as this amendment would also utilize Texas Water Development Board guidelines. The third variance is a proposed tree preservation ordinance amendment and the stated purposes behind this amendment request or variance request are to be able to utilize industry best practices and incentivize the preservation of protected trees to provide exemptions for the removal of exempt trees, which are invasive and or destructive to their surrounding environment. That would be a departure from what our current tree preservation allows for. We do not have exempt trees in the current tree preservation ordinance. Also, this variance aims to increase the minimum caliper size to 8 inches to qualify as a protected tree. Our current tree preservation ordinance sets the caliper diameter at 3 inches to define a tree as protected, and that's measured for and a half feet from the ground. And then the final of stated reason for this variance is that removing some of the exempt trees would allow for more groundwater to recharge the vital aquifer rather than sustaining these undesirable tree species. So those are the three variances that are requested in the plan development SF43 concept. When the commission considers this application, the first consideration as far as compliance with our ordinances and comp plan goes would be to consider the comp plan. So we're going to talk about the zoning ordinance compliance. So, with regard to the comp plan compliance, we have a major component of the of the future of the comprehensive plan is a future linkage use plan and that's a map of the entire city limits and the extraterritorial jurisdiction that establishes a future land use category for every piece of property within those boundaries. And so the comprehensive plan for this property sets the future land use category as rural estates. And that is described as large lot, single family residential development with the density of an overall minimum of one acre lots. And that corresponds to some zoning districts and our city ordinances. And those zoning districts are agriculture, SFE 3.0 and SF43. And the application does comply with one of the zoning districts listed in the rural estate corresponding zoning district list. And that is the SF43. There are two other zoning districts in the rural estate, corresponding zoning district list, and that is the SF 43. There are two other zoning districts in the plan that could also be considered and would comply with the future land use category of rural estates. So one reminder is to use the comp plan and the land use strategy as a guide to determine if the request is appropriate and if it's consistent with what the city's stated ideals of quality and sustainability are and that is a that is a state of Texas local government code statement as well. So in doing so and considering the comp plan there are some questions that the commission should ask prior to approving a zoning request. And this is taken directly out of our comprehensive plan. Those questions are does the development provide something unique for heath? and that is noted on page 54 and 55 packet. In the development is the development within walking distance to public uses like parks and open spaces. Does the development provide off-street pedestrian and bicycle connections to existing and future development? How does the development proposal impact the city fiscally? Tax revenue, infrastructure, public services, and other considerations such as parks and schools? How does the development respect environmentally significant areas like flood lanes? Are these areas used as an amenity? And a statement would be to ensure that the proposed development like flood plains, are these areas used as an amenity? And a statement would be to ensure that the proposed development is of a type and quality that will be acceptable for the long term, especially if immediate development of the property is not intended to occur upon greening the proposed zoning. So those are some of, that's the guidance from our comprehensive plan. Those are the questions for the commission to consider. With regard to the zoning ordinance. Near the opening, one of the opening paragraphs of the zoning ordinance is this section 159.05, which discusses the purpose of zoning districts. And that is to group together uses that are reasonably compatible with one another according to their normal characteristics. And so as the commission is taking into consideration the different aspects of a development, it should do these things. It should permit in connection with these uses those customary and necessary accessory activities that are incidental to the principal use. To permit certain other uses which may be established in some situations and subject to specific conditions so that the special uses will also be compatible with the uses allowed as a matter of right. To promote orderly timely economic growth and to recognize current land use conditions. To provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for the development to meet the present and future growth needs of the city with the allowance for adversity of sites. To protect use areas as far as possible against heavy and unnecessary through traffic. I promise I'm going to read you about seven more of these verbatim and then we'll move on. To protect use areas against pollution, environmental hazards, and other objectionable influences. To protect use areas against congestion as far as possible by managing the density of population in and around them by providing for proper off street parking spaces and by providing open areas for rest and recreation and to break them a not access of light and air to windows and to all the devices that are powered or healed by the sun as far as possible through controls over the spacing and height of buildings and other structures. To promote the most appropriate use of land and direction of building development, which is not in conflict with the comprehensive plan or the adopted policies of the city to promote stability of development, to protect the character of the districts, to conserve the value of land and buildings and to protect the city's tax base. For more, to promote the most efficient use of city facilities and services, to protect against fire and explosions and other safety hazards and to protect against fire and explosions and other safety hazards and to provide for fire protection and access by fire equipment and vehicles. To accommodate use activities and operations whose external physical effects are restricted to the area of the district and in no manner affect in a detrimental way any of the surrounding districts and finally to preserve and protect the favorable and unique quality of life enjoyed by the citizens of the city. So that's the purpose of our zoning regulations. And those are the things for the commission to consider in terms of zoning compliance. That concludes my part of the presentation. Chair, there is a presentation prepared by the applicant. And we do need to call for public hearing on this. And we will. In that compliance. This is for the plan development. Did they provide a HOA document? No. So is the applicant here? What is it? Okay, so you're going to use this thing button right there. It goes too far. Go back with that one. That's good. Oh, you will. Thank you. Thank you. Our data since 2728, fourth Harlowwood representing 12 brothers. I'm not going to go to a lot of the stuff that she'll solve last month in terms of what the property looks like about the applicant, all those kinds of things because you've already been through that is going to talk about it. I'm at the end just about the straight zoning case because it kind of plays in what we're talking about, but we're really pleased to be able to bring what I think are to attract alternatives for the commission to consider today. The one that we're talking about right now is the PD. And what it's kind of unique here is if you look at the zoning, we've been talking about the comprehensive plan, but we need to look at a big picture of the comp plan. You also look at what is the type of zoning development that's a right on the picture of a comp plan. You also look at what is the top of zoning development that's a gray out the area of the request. And if you look at it, if you go to the west of Ridge Road, we've got a LR retail center. We've got half acre zoning. If you go to the north, you've got, I think, 15,000 per foot of my eyes for my decade. And then if you go to the north, you've got, I think, 15,000 square foot miles from that good. And then if you go to the east, you have minimum 6,000 square foot. And then there's a pocket, one acre on the south, east, of course, and of the property, a small track. And then you have, I think, 15,000 or smaller on to the south. So when you're looking at it, the conquer is a plan issue. It's not just what the document is. You look to see how the city's been built out. How it's been planned over the years. The cases that I had, if somebody came in, it kind of came like this, but lots that were smaller, then the lots around them, you would have a lot of adverse responses. Typically, if the lots are bigger in this case they're significantly bigger but with those parts typically the responses will be favorable. So that's one of the things that's actually our background. So the difference between two applications, the PD concept plan is for if PD, you actually have a right show of zoning ordinance. This case, there's not a lot of revisions to what the conference in zoning ordinance says because we're following most of the provisions that are there with three very instances, but you also get to see the layout and what it looks like. Okay? So I'm straight zoning, just so you'll know there's no lawfully up like this. It's just gonna be straight zoning just so you'll know there's no law like this. It's just gonna be straight zoning just Basically say that it's gonna be SF 43 So you saw the word is compliance matrix with that first S U P hearing so this is where the Staff basically wants to ensure that there's not their instances with regards to the development standards, there are no appearances with either one. Because the straight zoning case is just going to follow whatever the ordinance says. This one is going to, on the development standards, like lot size, all those kinds of things, is the same thing. So the code deviations that we are requesting, this is just for the PD, plan development district application, not the screenstone. Lot to lot of brain, and sad to talk about this, proposed landscape ordinance amendment, proposed pre-pricement ordinance amendment. We kind of explained a lot to life. So the intent there is trying to minimize rating and swells and things like that. So that would avoid heavy drainage go from one life to another. Don't personally go back. A little bit like that. All right, good job. So if you look at the North, for example, see where the tree lines are up on the North side, the goal would be to keep those like life, you're able to say those, and that's the intent is specifically to protect, um, and try to prevent removal of some of the larger mature trees. So the landscape ordinance has been a y'all pass one that is a lot of the intent if you read through it is trying to save water right because when it's getting as an impact there so the the top one basically deals with the ability to put in materials that are not plants right so the crush planet all those kinds of things. The second one is to have the finds what type of irrigation to have, which basically will reduce the amount of water from that stem point. And then the last one is to have the HLA areas to only be required to have 10-10% of the turf gas coverage. You can see that there. The intent here is to try to minimize water usage as much as possible. The one other permuticide, the challenge there is the permuticide that its reference in smart scheme is difficult to obtain. There's not as much material that's available. And so we're asking for an option for the seedless variety, or not seed it. Here's the issue for a post tree preservation ordinance amendment. I mean, if y'all been out there, you know, there's lots of trees. So I grew up in West Texas, my mother's sin, never cut down a tree town. I came to the Dallas and I thought we first house we had this huge concrete tree. Hey, you know, let's see them, the life stuff's coming down. The most cities that basically, you know, I'm going to call them trash trees, oh god, I would never say that. Exempt tree, so for example, here, if one of these is cut out, and if you have replacement tree, the sea would not allow you to replace the tree you cut down with that type of tree, because it's really an undesirable tree. It's one that has an significant amount of water usage. It basically is softwood, the sorts of things. So the coast of the amount of trees that are out there, we're asking that we not be required to mitigate those. The second part is, right now the DBH is free inches in the ordinance. Most cities have six or eight inches. Most cities exempt trash trees from their tree ordinances. Most cities have larger than the three inches the city has. We're just asking for at least there, because of the number of trees that are on the side. So other than those three deviations, the PD ordinance matches a 100% compliance with the Congress, so to the court. So this one, that's what I was talking about. For the straight zoning, you don't have a lot of layouts that we call it the PD. It's just going to be when you come into a plant, you have to comply with the zoning ordinance. So you're going to deal with all the infrastructure issues and the things like that. So we'll go back real quick to the PD. So I was not involved in the half acre zoning discussion from what I heard and from what I read. I heard a few things. One was the half acre lots people did like. So we've agreed that we're going to the one acre, we need the comprehensive plan. The that will result in a bigger house, more expensive house helps on the tax values, which is one of the purposes that the city has. In fact, I think you probably hit probably all of them on the purpose. The little points that were there. Also heard about traffic. So we had a traffic study done. It had, and basically the traffic works. We've agreed to put in diesel lanes, right here, diesel lanes on bridge roads. And that's a state highway highway so it's going to be governed by textile. That's the which you where you can put streets and have you can you know prevent and we've also going to have left hand turn lanes in as well. So from that standpoint the traffic analysis in the case that it works. So the graphic is not a concern. It's not an issue with regards to the zoning case. The second thing I heard about was water. And I was involved with that group sitting folks involved with the moratorium. My understanding is the water moratorium is over. And so water cannot legally be used as a reason to delay or to not develop them because the city's listed more. I think it's important to point out here that there will not be folks living in houses in this subdivision to before 2027. I would hope that the city would get their water issues addressed by them. So it's not like something today. It's going to happen. It takes a period of time. You have to decide the engineer. You have to go through the planning process. You have to build it. Then you start house construction and then people may be in. So from standpoint of where we are and while I appreciate staff talking about it, yeah, we can zone you, that's not correct. The lay of note, what we talked about in our RSP request, and landowners have rights. They have protected constitutional rights and with a lot of development, thoroughly, that's a constitution you can't do it. Three acres, really. I mean, I'm already double tripled the size of everything around me, except for the one that's most stretched of the time, one acre once there. I don't see any way that a three acre zoning can be justified there. It's just not reasonable, it's an infill site. If you wanna go out where there's a rich land, or they're out farming new things, maybe not, and in this case, there's no legitimate reason that that can be three acres. So the three options are had, which means no development, or three acres, which I don't see how anybody could look at that and say how three acres are reasonable. On one acre, which is double the life size of the last request is bigger than almost all of the lives better within 500 feet or some exceptions, which from some people. Come up and tell me that. And if there is any infrastructure issues, those get addressed in planning. But I really don't think there are any today. So we would request either one, the PD or the straight zoning, that's why we basically did it this way to get the commission all from a different. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Oh, see any questions. We do have a private rest here. There are specific questions about that's what I've been taking this time. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Commissioner, she'll want to say your questions to the after we go through public energy. Okay, let's do that. Okay, so, 9.49 PM, we will enter into the public hearings. So if you come to and waited through this, you address the commission, regarding this matter, please step up, Aaron, right across the street, there are interpret highlights. Yes. Yes, but we have a few times here. But I appreciate the esteemed chairman, the commissioners, the mayor, to the council here, and all of you, members of the community. I'm a little bit taken aback by Mr. Anderson because, at least you come in from the south side of Heath, you have the old Lambeth land there. And then you have those nice three acre lots that were along there, which really, when you go just pass into line. So then you have Heath Galton Yacht Club, but it's now developing to, you know, more of a high density in those areas. For him to say that, you know, no, there's, you know, no reason, no justification for going with a larger estate type plot. I begged to differ because we do have it down on our south side. Number one, number two, the area that was built out around there, my home was built in 1998. Shepherds Glan was built in the early 80s. So what was accepted then has been changed as our comprehensive plan has grown. You know, we sit there and we say, oh, we changed with the Tomps. I think it was really interesting today with the fielding property, how they looked to go and develop that into eight lots. And all of a sudden, it's a 13-acre. People see the value of the size here, and I have no doubt that it wouldn't have restricted it would actually benefit not only the city of Heath, Miss Perry herself or her kin in being able to have those estate-sized lots, because I tell you that individuals who have money to move here would be able to have those estate-sized lots. Because I tell you that individuals who have money and move here would be willing to have that type. It also would give relief on the infrastructure, the water need. I haven't heard them talk about anything about solutions like rain catchment systems. I mean, there's pretty common. I mean, they've developed a lot in Austin. Austin is really big on it. South Texas, come to us with solutions. But I think at the end of the day, I'm not looking for... How many you put it? A coal shop and a new workstrum community? This here we need to be able to put forth because I know that custom builders will come out here as you know. I mean, we've had a Paul Reagan and everyone else over the decades. They will do that. That would actually reduce the infrastructure. It would give what would be that shining star that we see as we come in, we see those homes. On the right hand side, they're like, oh, wow. They already have their own little water solution. That can be down here too. Thank you. So thank you all for your time. Thank you. We also would like to speak. I serve. Just as a quick reminder, but it is a lady. So we hurt some of these comments before so. Put it into a condensed three minutes. Yeah, I just want to make the observation real quick. Can you state your name? Oh, Ernie. Forget to set some. Yeah, I just wanted to make the observation real quick. Can you state your name? Oh, Ernie for kid two-sub-sub-sum-turied Just bam take a look from North South South and North West They're on the Longest of Ridge Road. I Can't lots for about 30 houses. So you're coming in from Rockwall coming South to Heath There's about 30 lots there from up to the top where the green starts down here at the bottom where the ones at, about just about 30 lots there that there'd be 30 houses. That's what you see. And over there on the other side, which I feel sorry for those people that went white road, there's about 13 houses that in the lots that that you're going to have there. And right now there's a really a lot of really good looking, well no, they need some work. I mean they're wild. It's all life. And but to try to make it look kind of deep, neat and decent, there would definitely have to be some trimming, but nonetheless there's a really nice strong buffer zone that that the people over the east side of the white road are all are going to lose and be looking at the houses, which I said like about 13 houses there. I'm just trying to. And then just about the trees themselves. I mean, it used to be, you know, you check a tree out, a foot from the ground. There may be two foot. Four and a half feet up there and eight inches. Wow, that's going to have to be a pretty big tree to be able to qualify for being something or a key to. It's four and a half feet high to get an 80 inch trunk. Here, about a time you get a 4.5 inch, you can velocity a lot of the big part of what the trunk is. It's pretty rotten in terms of using that as a standard to get rid of what could be some real decent goodies. And I just want to throw that out axe and know you don't want me here. You just, but think about it. I mean, it's just, I agree with the gentleman who's just up here. I mean, why not have that area to where there are a lot of three acre houses? And develop that where it's a beautiful piece of property that truly magnifies the beauty of the house. I'm sorry, but those houses I saw brought to you. They're just cheap looking. The ones that maybe there's been some changes about that. Oh, man, I'll hit that hard. They're just cheap looking houses. They have no character. They have no architectural design that really says, hey man, I've got some nice. and you won't see this anywhere else. It's just going to be a line of houses that already I'm coming down, uh, uh, Ridge Road there. And I just think it's, uh, uh, it's, uh, it's something that that thank you for kids. Yes, ma'am. And Andrea Woodworth won three-saugrass. I'll be quick, I know you're all tired. I spoke a couple of weeks ago. And just three things I wanna point out, I know that you guys had a traffic study done and said that it wasn't an issue with all due respect. You don't live here and I can tell you traffic is an issue. Number two, again, we all chose to live in Heath because it's not play now. It's not Frisco. It's not McKinney and I'm still getting very much typical Southern suburban vibes from this and that's not what we live here. And then number three, the last time we talked, I think, unanimous feedback was that the plans don't have enough green space and there's no biking trails and walking trails and I think we all agreed that in sidewalk is not a trail. They're actually two very different things and I don't see that address than any of this plan. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Yes, sir. I'm sorry. Hello everybody. I'm come all perry. I live at. Excuse me. 109 Falcon Point Drive. Just right here and need their on the corner. I know. I guess recently about this Perry project, I don't know if any of you are familiar with the 12 brothers, I'm actually originally from Park of Colorado, so we do have the 12 brothers building out there. Their houses, I'll just try to stay neutral. They are decent houses and it wouldn't look too out of place here, although you do have, and they would have like stone, and rock and coin Point and there's like wind and mirrors and stuff like that that are like super duper nice neighborhoods. So that's just up to the individual home bars as far as where they want to spend their money. It's not a terrible company, there's definitely worse home manufacturers out there. But one of the biggest concerns that I have is, I think of this community as more of a family. And we need to realize that when we increase the size of our family, we need to make sure that we can provide a quality life for all the people that live here. And as the first speaker that came up here to speak about the Perry property. You mentioned that our city is in crisis and that couldn't be more true because we don't have reliable water. I find it quite scary that we can go from having a lot of drinking water, everything's fine one day and then you wake up the next morning and my mom filled up the coffee pot and that water was not saved the drink. And I don't know if it could have killed us or not but when you add more people to your family you want to make sure that everybody's safe. One of the other things I've noticed from my five years of living here is that a lot of things like water and electricity are not as, I guess, what's the word whenever it's just reliable, I guess. It's not as reliable, I guess. I wish it was. This isn't the first time we've had a boil, our water is in the first time we've been on water restriction and I feel like these are concerns for our community and our family if we can't provide a safe environment for everybody to live in. I know that it's everybody's going to have a different political view of if we should expand our city or not and that is definitely something that is up for debate. I know that the people of our city want that who are like the important government people want more people to live here because it means more taxes, more money for the city. And I get the argument for that. But once again, I just want everybody to have the safety in mind where we're essentially a family and we were expanding that family and we don't want to bring people into this area without them knowing that it's not safe to actually live here. So thank you guys. Thank you Mr. She's behind she was out. Hi, I'm Stacy Rose at 483 Keystone Bend. We've been residents of Heath for 20 years. You are charged with making all new developments unique to Heath and making it something special. I'm also a real estate agent, and I like that so much of Heath is custom homes. If we do a planned development with this, and we have elevation A, elevation B, elevation C, there's nothing unique about that. You might have white stone on this house and brown stone on that house, but that's not unique. I feel like most of you in here would feel the same way that we would rather have custom homes. I don't want to walk into a house where, if I'm showing five houses through the floor lanes are the exact same. That's not unique, that's not special. This is a special area. As everyone else has said, you're coming in from the north, coming south, and you want to see something unique. And I don't think that this product is unique. Yeah, and so I'll take. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. We'll get to you in a moment that you want to be next. Okay. Hi, my name is Lee Lashley. I'm at 500 Heathline Crossing. I'm at the Southathland Crossing at the South Corner of this property right there at Lawrence Road and Heathland Crossing next to the Sandpit. And I would, I'm really sensitive to the way that he looks as you come in as this being the Crown Jewel property and endurance welcoming people coming in the Nirokwala area. And I definitely had been to the other told worlders meetings. I've seen the original plans, the original one acre plan they showed is different from this one. Like the original one they showed all the neighbors when they took a severed buffalo creek and said hey, so what we want to do. And the big thing that was there on the one acre plan that isn't here now is a lot of that green space, a combination. And I think with Heath wanting to kind of do that French countryside feel, what worries me about this is that that's missing. And like some of my many very smart neighbors have already said with very good taste. And my dad, that's missing. And the park's piece of this is also missing. I've been a homeowner in heat for six years. My family's been here since the 80s. And I know that's one of the big things that has always been important in considering the growth of heat that many people have already noted. And I think it's being a neighbor that's going to actually face this property every single day. Now we have the cows, but what is it going to actually face this property every single day. Now we have a cows, but you know, what is it going to be? And what I do suggest is coming back with a plan where that green space is still maintained. So all neighbors around the perimeter are seeing this beautiful, inviting lush area that still maintains that French countryside feel and really kind of sets the tone for the type of area that he thinks across the board. So the last thing I want to point out is that there's a little bit of talk about drainage and I do just want to call out that on the north side and Buffalo Creek along that Serenity Lane, you know many of my friends live there and do experience some horrible drainage issues when it comes to their homes and I know that building up behind them those things need to be considered and I just don't see it again in this plan as well so I just wanted to point that out and thank you for your time. Thank you. And Bill, I live at 609, Willow Springs Drive. I guess what I'd like to say is we kind of have an option of, is this property going to be something that is a step up relative to what's around it, right? We want it to be something nicer and that's the bar by which we said it. Or do we want to say, well, the things that's surrounded of what's smaller or what I could build down to and still be within the character, that's what I'm going to do. Because that's okay. I can build to the lowest denominator rather than build above. I don't think any of us want that. I don't think I'm saying anything that is not echoing what people have said. But it seemed like the plan we were proposed with was was this. And if you don't like this while I can just move forward with my other zoning one. And I will give you a plan. Because the landowner, they just have rights. And I guess I would say. As a member of the community, I fully support the board and enforce and enforcing the community's rights, because we have rights too. And so, you know, whatever the city, whatever the board needs to do, in order to, you know, fight for the rights surrounding owners have to make this a development that is consistent with what the goals of the board are to make things nicer and not build R. I call this support. And I think you could build a lot of community support too by saying, this is what we're doing doing this is the action we're taking it and we're taking this action in order to preserve and increase the character of the locks that are being built. So I just wanted to know you have my support and that's been echoed throughout. And until that problem is taking care of this land is owned agricultural. They bought a piece of agricultural aid zone plan. This is your opportunity to control the zone. As it was pointed out, once the zoning's passed, then they have rights to build according to that zone. Right now, they have the right to raise cows, to do other things in accordance with agricultural zone. Let's get some water. Then they can build. Richard Keppie, who I changed right. Three things. She read 22 things up there. And I listened to probably 15 of them and of those. Maybe one or two. I don't know. It just seemed to me like you guys are in charge of making sure that everything's unique, good, meets everything, and all those and they didn't. That's number one, number two, infrastructure. We don't have an infrastructure. We're going to put 150 houses. How many of that was I can't, I'm an Aggie, I can't add, but how many there are, we don't have the infrastructure for that. And number three, the water's gonna get fixed. I know that's gonna happen. You know that's gonna happen, but guess what? Texas is gonna be hurting that water. And it's not your all's problems, not even the city's problem, but we don't need to be doing massive projects like that. It's all I guess. Thank you, Mr. Good. Hi, Karen Wider, 244 Mockingbird Lane. And so I wanted to kind of follow up on what Stacy said because I am as well a realtor. And living in Thalcon Point, we had some lots that were sold to a volume builder. We most of those homes are custom homes. They're now being built as by a volume builder. And that is changing the values of the homes that have been there for a while. And now this community would all be, you know, the same, if you will. But you can see the differences you drive if you are in neighborhood, which one is a custom home and which one is a volume builder home. And I mean, they're nice, but they're not what was there. And it changes the look of the neighborhood. And the water issue, I mean, my husband with, you know, first fever. But, you know, I, I agree with Stacy too, that it's nice to be able to show unique homes, and he has something special. We have something special here and I don't know that allowing this the way it's planned out Absolutely. We give to be. We wish. Kathy Burns, 2308. So, I just want to remind you and I remember I was in one of these meetings and you talked about that being the heart of he. And you did talk about the three acre pots. And you talked about even some 10 acres, but I could live with three acres. My house backs up to that to that property. The drainage issue, yeah, this last growing that we had. There was, I mean, I thought that water was going to start coming to the house. So I'm not against the building out there, but I did want to ask. You know, like, we all have custom homes, and that's what we have. And we want something really nice for that property. And it's nothing against you or anything, but that's just not what fits in with Heath. And we've lived here for 27 years. About right now with the water issues and the water is a huge issue. Everybody can say whatever they want, it is a huge issue, it's our number one issue. We have to get that resolved. So we just need to delay this a little bit, get that resolved, you know? And because about right now I'm regretting not selling my house about two years ago. And I hate that, that I regret that because my children grew up here. That's it. Any other speakers? Might as well. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. think that would help. All right, let's stand on my tiptoes. That's what happens. I have a beautiful home, I think. I have lots of flowers. I have flowers in the front. I have flowers in the back. I have flowers on the side. I love flowers. And for you to tell me that I have no water to waddle them and pick care of them. And I really need just zero landscape, whatever that is, that I've just got to have two shrubs or something. Bothers me greatly. We've lived here since 1997, and I love it. I love living here. But the lack of water is a huge concern to me. Thank you. Do we have any more public comments? I'll be working. Joe renters to ship the accord. I've tried to sort of take the emotion, not emotion, the reality, the cold, hard reality of the water out of the context of the way I value it with the saying, but this, you can't underestimate and out here what your report say, you can't underestimate the issues with water. My lot on Sheffield Court is 0.71 acres. I got a 3200 square foot home and I've got 19 zones on my water. My water irrigation system uses 10.5 gallons per minute. Okay, if I extrapolate that 19 zones up to a one acre thing, that's 27 zones. 27 zones for 20 minutes. Each zone 10.5 gallons per minute is 5,700 gallons. Every time the irrigation system runs. Times 115 houses, 652,000 gallons of water. That 652,000 gallons of water is 12% of our 5.4 million gallon stage two trigger. 12% of that trigger level is in one subdivision. Okay. Can't do it. And the old thing about it, we've all said in different ways, when you find yourself a whole stop digging. And I'm sorry, that's why it is. What else want to speak? Same one where just just but I get up there to just say hey, how about all the Smebim blues. We're having to talk about Smebim blues. We're going to have another hearing in just a few minutes. Okay. You're going to have a chance. Okay. So 10, 15 p.m. we're going to close this public hearing. And are there questions or comments for the applicant? I believe they're here in addition to Mr. Anderson. I believe he said he had some other people. If you have any technical questions. He's technical questions? Sure, okay. Well, I had a question for the applicant. I mean, they came in here a couple of months ago with two concept plans. And we gave them a lot of feedback on both concept plans, even though one of them was non-conforming and we turned it down based on the SF-22. But in the feedback that we provided, we don't have any revision whatsoever in this PD request, so it's in silence. They've had two months. So did they hear what we had to say the last time? I mean, I wouldn't hear. I don't know. I just don't think you can address it because you weren't here. Well, I guess the question was, I mean,, we could enter into the record our narrative that we provided at our main meeting, which was I mean, bullet point by bullet point aspects of the conference plan that one trust and the speed. And you've got a lot of plans. It's a lot of stuff. Yeah, I don't think there's anything in the conflite that we don't want. Well, we've got a different opinion. I mean, can you tell us what it is? Yes. Yes. So I'll just give a few examples. Okay. Feedback. I want to appreciate this. I'm not the front end deal. No, I understand. I'm not either the boss. We wanted to work with the app. Yeah. Yeah, put him to us and said they wanted to work with the city. And we got alternatives, A and B. And Joe tell him we told him about it. Right, so let me first just reiterate, we want to make this work for with Heath, but also taking the feedback that everybody is given. You've heard part of this, but again, we've tabled this several times, and this is the third time I think that we're talking with you as a group with you all about it. And we've just to give some examples. We've asked for trails within the property. We've asked for frankly lower density to be able to help us with the infrastructure as well as be able to provide some variety in the zoning types that are included in this very large piece of property. It doesn't have to be what you refer to as compliance is truly the low bar. It is the least possible, the highest density, the least possible set of capabilities. And we're saying, look, give us a mixture of SF3.0, SF43 of agricultural, by the way, it doesn't just mean towels or agriculture. I mean, we just approved a single property on 13 acres. Last month, when you were here, we said, look, we had another property that was over four acres for a single piece of property. Heath can support that, and we do have a lot of that. But I'm with James, I'm not seeing any difference in in this over the last three times you've come here. It's it's the exact same thing that I've seen. So those are some of the things that I appreciate that. I think that was the PD the half acre PD no I'm talking about the one acre PD and the feedback that I had. Sorry I was was going to say, what was the trail from the parks? Yes, but we said this is the lot size is sufficient. But what you haven't provided is the open space that was in the SF-22 application. So it had, it had shrunk the lots, had the same number of lots, but it provided trails and a buffer zone between Ridge Road and the back of those houses that you're driving down so that you're not just looking into backyards. And we had a full discussion about the nature of the fence ordinance. The city has fence ordinance, but it does not, it does not, the fence ordinance does not address the open space requirement in the view court where it's required along that road. I mean, you can put up fairer cases in the back. A fee tall may I want it. And there's, there's nothing in the, in the, in the current ordinance that prevents that, but there's something in the conference of plan that addresses that. And so we would invite you in a PD to address that concern. As you drive down Ridge Road, that we're not looking at, you know, wooden fences, you know, or in the interior of the development, they're very regularly shaped lots. Every one of them, I mean, it's like they're almost identical. And it's just like a long row of houses. I mean, that is not unique. And if you look at our right, our ordinance, I'm gonna look at our ordinance and this is one of the things that Aaron had listed, says provide open air, this is the ordinance 159.05 I think, provide open areas for rest and recreation and to break them and not many of continuous building bulk. I mean, that's that's a kind of thing I think that James is referring to that we're looking for you. That's a kind of feedback that hopefully can help us come to agreement. We're trying to make this work, but that's our ordinance. And that includes SF-43. It says protect areas against congestion as far as possible. Manage a density of population in and around them, provide proper off-street parking spaces. I really didn't see much in the way of parking spaces and provide open areas for rest and recreation. That's the kind of thing that will reduce the density and improve our ability to have the infrastructure handle this and also be far more consistent with this the unique characteristics that we as a commissioner charged with trying to to approve. Yes, not to be redundant, but you know, back in May when we first met and you didn't know us and we didn't know you. I want to hear that. I was talking about that. But when we first met, I thought we did a diligent job of providing a comprehensive here's the things we're looking for and we gave that to you guys and then and then you guys asked for some time That's correct and we've been happy to do that But here we sit it's August 6th We met I forgot it was May 2nd right? I'll turn you know we met twice and June and we haven't had any Here's the challenge. Yeah, well, not not so much such. Yeah, change, but just recognition of what we share with you. And you said, well, you know, you share this with us here so we can do what the mechanic or the recruitment. We've heard nothing. It's like, it's like that meeting didn't exist. Do you understand? Can I go ahead and respond? You're right. Yeah, you're correct. I'm in a disinvated, and y'all wasn't there. So I think the challenge to what you're telling me is gonna be density, right? So if you can get, that's the half acre mod plan. Y'all didn't like the half acres, but it accomplished what you wanted to accomplish, right? You get the number of units you need to make it economically viable, and you provided lots of green space, trails, everything else. If you have to switch to the one acre, and first of all, can't a mixture of half acres and one acres, that might be good. But the way that, you know, the economics is going to work. We have applicants that have found economic viability with much of the facts. Sure. You heard so many people. Well, every situation is different. I understand. But that's so it's time seeing lots of $10 million dollar houses on one acre lives, you know, everything else. So I mean each one's different. I think the goal here was to come in. Well, we think it's a development that can work. The concern I have is I'm here at three acre. I'm here at, don't do anything because it's water. Keep it ag, which is by the way, is the temporary zoning classification you get annexed in preparation for getting to a permanent zoning, right? So that's hard to deal with. You see what I'm saying? And so I'm not sure how to get from point eight point big. Well, I can make a recommendation. I'd love to have you guys, I'm trying to solve or you know procrastinate, but I'd love to have you go back to our original meeting, our original notes that we share with you and come back to us with your answers to what we provided you guys. What did you think that? Well, I think the challenge is to go in and to shift all the logs, to put in a bunch of parks and a bunch of trails is going to reduce the log count by so high. So much is not going to be viable. So did you listen to the did you listen to our June and July meetings? I'm sorry, there's a lot of people talking. Did you listen to the June and July meetings and choose to not include the feedback or did you just not know about those items? I did not know about those items. But I'm not sure. Because I'm just saying it really seems like if you're coming on to a case, you would go back and see what's going on and what's what we look at. I think the analysis has been done that to do, include all of those items, the projects might be useful. So you do know about the items? Well, I'm assuming that's why I'm looking. Okay. Because if it was possible to do, they'd be done. Right? I mean, you know it's well and speed body in this way that this zoning change is where we have the most discretion to protect our citizens. And it's incumbent upon us to try to do that. And the citizens of Heath, as well as our current city council, as well as people on the comprehensive plan committee looking at updating our comprehensive plan have made it clear, at least to us and everybody else that they want a world by design concept. They want less density. They want to make sure that we handle the traffic of the right way and the infrastructure of the right way. They want more open space, more green space, more walking trails. And that's what we're obligated to try to provide the citizens of Heath if we can do that legally. Okay. And that's, as you know, that's the challenge. Right. Right. In there for an hour. Well, here's one of the specific things that I'm talking about is that this when that you presented let's just look at the exceptions that you're the lots a lot drainage there's all sorts of problems with lots a lot drainage I think that creates for not only for people living next to each other, but for the city itself. That could be an economic terrible thing for the city of Eden. The landscape and irrigation. We don't want ship rock and rock. We don't want it to look like Phoenix for Scottsdale here. We won't green. We won't greenery. So that's not in compliance with what the citizens want. The tree preservation. We don't have trash trees here, or exempt trees that I'm aware of, under our ordinances. And so we want to keep trees. And so those three variants end of itself when your application are inconsistent with what we've been told the citizens of Heath want and what the city council wants in this case. And if you look at the ordinance and Joe did a great job reading some of them, but there's about seven right on them that I think this plan does not hit at all to promote orderly, timely, economic growth and to recognize current land use conditions to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for development to meet the present and future growth needs of the city with a lounds of adversity of sites to protect use areas as far as possible against unnecessary traffic and heavy traffic to protect use areas against congestion as far as possible by managing the density of population in and around the development to promote the most efficient use of city facilities and services to preserve and protect the favorable and unique quality of life enjoyed by the citizens of this city. I don't think this plan does it. And in the previous meetings, we tried to suggest changes that might help in that regard. And it seems to me like we've been completely ignored by the tone of roads. All of our suggestions, they have stopped 115 lots into this 158 acres. There's no reason. I know you said, well, it's not economically viable. Who says? I don't know that it's not economically advisable to have a viable, to have a three-quarter acre washer or an acre or a half to an half-acre, to have them mixed, but right now you've got ever what, just looking the same. You know, with a track builder, building on three or four four plans, and that is there's nothing unique about that or the city of heat. So our feedback is still the same. We've bought that lower density. We want parks. We want real trails, not a sidewalk along the Texas highway. We want something that has a mix of these different zoning areas. They are economically feasible for many other builders, right? We've approved so many of these, including last meeting and this meeting. We have, here are some of the things we have to uphold. Does the development provide something unique for each, right? And avoiding what I said previously, monotony of continuous building bulk right which is exactly what that proposed plan was showing. That's our feedback. So we want to be able to work together to find something that accommodates the things that you've heard people today and and in the previous meetings you can listen to them request that's what we need. But you need to consider a lot of sizes less than an acre in order to accomplish that. You have to make a mixture of larger lots. You have half acres and one acres as an example and then you can do trails and parks and they can all work. So do you the other way would you consider three acre lots and a mixture of one SF 43s? Oh no. I guess where we're at is I'm hearing a variety of things about. For us to revise the plan way that you're talking is going to decrease the lockout so much I just. Maybe I'm sorry. I don't know how much it would reduce your lock in. But and I can only speak for one vote on the commission. So you might hear different things from Joe, but for me, but, you know, I agree that the one acre lot complies with conference plan minimum as a minimum. It's a work city. I can't literally keep talking about one acre is a huge lot. These are $1.5 billion of houses. I can't believe we're complaining about one acre loss. No, no. This is not very significant. You started that afternoon with the due quarter worth. I mean, it's right here in the conference of plan under objective or goal five. If you want to find, you make a note, it's on page six of the conference of points, up pretty close to the front, it says, require residential and non-residential development to maintain open view borders and open perimeter features and entryways. There is simply no way that you can propose that what we're being shown is going to protect the view corridor in open perimeter features. I think the fourth is my recommendation is to have done to improve the straights on me. Because your conference is only for mix and specimen, corporate the comprehensive plan goals and guidelines. So that they require to do buffers and parks and view corridors and the contents and sunny ordinance, that the firements will be required to do that. And we'll agree to do that. We'll address that in a few minutes when we get to the open to the straight zoning. But I was just gonna read you one more since I know you're done here. Sorry, I'm sorry. I'm Let's see. Okay. So recommendation 4.4 page 23 require uniqueness and the layout of each development layout. Preserve open space and make it as a cost of the development? I mean, you've honored the one actor, minimal. You know, why don't you honor the open space that we asked for two months ago? Again, I think my recommendation is vote on the straight zone because if the conference plan is supposed to be reflected in your conference in seven mornings. I think by our state's arcs and trails and buffers and view borders will do everything that the conference in seven mornings tells us today. Okay. Currently if I'm wrong but what I hear you saying is that and I haven't heard this from the told brothers, but I'm assuming you make perhaps speak for them is that they think there's I think the reduction. When I'm hearing the reduction and then that's not even talking about the issues on the water gas being three out there. Some blah blah blah. But if for when I'm hearing, I think the read not just visualizing it, I think the lockout would be so significantly reduced that it would not be viable. According to the federal brothers. Well, there we go. There we go. That's another contract. Yeah, it goes to my slide. Yeah, I don't want, you know, a, you know, a New York Stock Exchange company or whatever, but I can tell you that if you've got a certain amount of development costs divided by 115, that if you shrink that lockdown to provide the open space we're talking about by a factor of 15%. That it's going to increase the cost of the base lot of 15%. That's all. And that's the lot. That's not the house that goes on top of it. So we're not asking you. Bigger lots we're asking for the owner space. Again, I don't have the authority to say that we can do the type of shrinkage that I think that you all are using. Well, please take our feedback then and give us something that we can evaluate. In the first presentation that we had in June, we heard that toll likes to be at the corner of Maine and Maine. And excuse me, I've said this, this is my third time now. And I took that to mean that they want the premier property in a city. And I would argue that this is probably the premier piece of property, the most visible piece of property in the city. And when you look at that, I mean we've had overwhelming response from the citizens. I've got a stack of responses here that they've taken the time to fill out and mail in and you know we need to consider all that. And the citizens want a unique development that's worthy of this, this town. And there are other developments that are three-acre lots. And somehow they find a way to make money. The developer is not going to put in a development with three-acre lots and not have money, not make money. And the larger lots is one thing, but also the other features that we're looking for. You know, this, and I'll take you the words that I heard at the first presentation. If you're going to be at the corner of Maine and Maine, and you're going to have our premiere piece of property, and expect us to re-zone it, we want something that's fitting with what this town is. To me, the half acre, I'm the same size only consistency, because that's what I do all the time. And it's bigger or the same, lot sizes, everything around it except that we're big there at the southeast one. And that got you everything. You want trails and opens face and parks and everything else. But to say, go to one acre and do that. I think just don't work. Okay, well thank you for that. Just to be clear, it's a comprehensive and minimal. It needs a minimum. That's the minimum. Yeah, it's a minimum. Minimums, we finally put you open space as well. So do we have any more questions for the applicant? On this particular request, this beauty? No. And you can just take what I said for the next one. So I don't, I think I'm going to have to use it out. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. We'll let you go home if you want to. Here it is. Okay, commissioners, how do you want to proceed on this? I would make a motion that we deny this, the one that we're talking about, the PD-43. And PD-43 denial and set in bottom line is because the exceptions that they wanted, I don't think, are in compliance with the ordinances or our comprehensive plan. And certainly the concept that they presented is not in compliance with. And not being in the ordinances or a comprehensive. I would agree with that in particular. I don't see the open space. I don't see the parking. I don't see the ability for people to walk to amenities and features. I don't see the trails and park within the space. And, you know, again, the rural states has three different zoning. And this is the bear only uses the bear minimum for the highest density. It also, in my view, kind of violates our ordinance saying, you know, you shouldn't have this monotony of continuous building, which I think is is clearly part of this request. It's just not interesting. I mean, when you look at that, it's just just a grid of houses. And once again, under the compliance summary, we had from heat ordinance 159.23 for SF 33. We have to consider 159.05, purposes of the use districts. And I took particular interest in item G, to protect you serious against congestion as far as possible by managing the density of population and in around them, providing for proper off street parking spaces, and by providing open areas for rest and recreation, and to break the monotony of continuous building bulk that's providing any more desirable environment. And for my boats, I don't feel like the plan accomplished that. So we have motion from Wayne to tonight and I will request by second. And motion a second, all in favor. And is that with or without bridges? Without bridges, without bridges. So we'd love to hear the applicant come back and address our concerns. Absolutely. We want a development for Laura. I mean, this property was eventually going to be developed. It is. It's just a matter of time, but we need to make sure we do this the right way. Yeah. Once I want to offer the motion. It's your animals. Okay. If that's watching. Okay, the next item. Before we move into this next item, if you could please remind the public to refrain from comments. It's not a public hearing. You have a duty to record this meeting. You make it very difficult. All of these microphones are on. Make, pick up your comments in the background. It makes it very hard to hear the commission and the recording. Thank you. Julie, no. That's only advice of our council. The next item is item 6p case number is ZA 2024 3 conduct public hearing and act on an ordinance change in the zoning destination from a agriculture district SF 43 single family residential district on the one 158.613 acres property located North East Florida the intersection of FM 740 Ridge Road and Heathland crossing Jason white road and further described this abstract to a 70 tier survey, corrected by city of the Rockwell County Texas. All right, so this is same song second verse. We're talking about the same piece of property, a separate application. This application is for SF 43 zoning without a planned development. So we call that straight zoning. And we did mail notice to this effect. And I apologize the date on the slide is incorrect. I mean, need to adjust that. That should say July 25th and not May 24th. We mailed notice, published and posted by July 25th and not May 24th. We mailed notice, published and posted by July 25th for this hearing tonight. We received 12 responses in favor, in 25 responses in opposition. Some of those were including your packet and some of them were received after the packet was distributed. So you do have a stack of paper clips, responses that were available between the packet and tonight for your further consideration. There was a concept layout included with the application for the straight zoning. And this is what it looks like. It's very similar to the one that was provided for the PDSF 43. There are some slight differences in the phasing that I wanted to point out. The phasing chart is at the bottom of this slide. And mostly it refers to the phase one major capital improvements installed with a tentative in parentheses. Instead of the tentative was not present on the on the concept plan for the PD SF 43. So that's the major difference, not major difference. That is a difference that I see when comparing this conceptual layout to the concept plan with the previous application. Beyond that, it's very similar in all of the area requirements and the .72 dwelling units per acre is as well. Same number of lots presented here 115 lots and the same amount of acreage 158 plus acres. There are no deficiencies when we compare the application to the straight zoning area requirements. And we have the same compliance considerations for this application that we have for the last one. And I would be happy to read all of these slides again for you, verbatim, or I can just click through them just like this, which is what I'm doing. And let you know that that's the end of my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. Other than the other. Sorry. Other than the phasing errands, is there any other structural difference in the in this straight SF43 in this proposal or request versus the earlier request that we just talked about. Well, there are all of the map outside of the phasing from the first request to this request? Because I certainly, I didn't see any difference. We didn't identify any major cultural differences. He called it a concept plan. Conceptual layout. No, we're not being told that. Is a concept plan even required in straight to it? It is not. They provided this with their application, so we're providing it to you. But the concept plan is a part of the plan development. I'm not typically with the straight zoning. But when they provide it, we look at it. And then we tell you about it. So that's what we're doing. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Any further questions before we learn? Does the applicant is there any further commentary? We just stand on the list. Just a question. Is this in any way outside of the there's no variance requests? Is this in any way outside of the there's no variance requests is this request different than the first one and in planning. So you can pretty much disregard that in terms of the analysis because everything has to comply with the zoning ordinance of the city and the planning ordinance. No variance is nothing else. So we would strictly comply with the city standards. But that is misleading because it's really not, I think like the chair said, it really has nothing to do with the application itself. Could you provide any sort of rationale for providing the request for straight zoning as opposed to the plan development that we've just recently mentioned? Sure, I mean, if the commission is not interested in improving the deviations, which is what I heard then we'll just comply, you know, like applicants, especially will fully comply with all the ordinances. Thank you. Okay, so public hearing time. 10.50 PM. We've opened a public hearing and this reason in the question is separate and apartment. The biggest one. But if your comments are the same, let's just leave. Yeah. I don't know. Again. Mike, the floor to 177, Larry Heronline. No, my comments are the same. Okay. My comments are actually reflective. Mr. Anders. And I took the straight SF 43 to be a flat threat. To what we are trying to do here within the heat with a plan development. the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the ones that meets whatever the requirement is under the current comprehensive plan So I just want to make sure that everybody is kind of aware of what I observed and let's have dirt. They wrong. Let me know So that's all I have We've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got, we've got you guys just denied, but we can afford this one. We'll just do it a different way and really won't make it comply. We'll just make it comply with just square of the boundaries. It just really feels so like they're not listening to you and not listening It looks like the meat is just kind of a sneaky way. longer ad. So now we can work with something then we got one step towards the greedy end of this deal that we want to make. You know, I mean, that's what it seems like to me. It's it's like, uh, want the straight zoning conceptual layout. Just somehow or another is that kick it away from being now officially zoned agricultural. If you all were to look to the positive say okay well let's have a snap. Does that mean that it's no longer going to be agricultural land? It's going to be now something that they can take back and try to manipulate into the way that they want to do it. Leave me now the wishes that are all out here very clear. I mean, I think you have a few years on the same page and we don't want something moving forward. Yeah, it's gonna give them a sneaky way to get into the back door and get what they want and we don't get anything except the slapping phase. Just, I had a question. I hope somebody answers it. It's a song. It's our answer to the question. And I'm not really. Anybody else wish to speak in the public here? Yes. Please. I believe last five hundred people are crossing again. Hi, not to belabor this. It's late. Well, what I would really like to express is probably I imagine a lot of people in this room are feeling is that it's really told by others has should be really embarrassed to show up here and tonight without implementing changes. So waste of time through this community. And this committee who is extremely patient and kind and spiting for the community of Heath and for toll brothers to show up here. And for you to be so ill prepared to speak on behalf of toll brothers is really shameful and unprofessional. And I would implore this committee to not even consider anything coming from told brothers in the future but I do understand there's a process and people do have a right to conduct business and to put these things forward I would just hope that the next time you're better prepared and um it's told brothers just take this seriously and just consider what this community um means to its just consider what this community means to its people and what this committee tries to do on behalf of respecting that and it's really embarrassing and I'm going to show it for all of these and if I show it again and nobody's prepared, well I expect more people like me and my neighbors here to express their help that they are without how much time has been wasted. And thank you very much to this committee for your time. Okay, who else? Yes. Hello again everyone. I'm Kamal Perri. I live at Falcon Point or 109 Bob and Point Drive. I'm not going to talk about the water issues. I'm going to speak about suggestions point drive. I'm not going to talk about the water issues. I'm going to speak about suggestions I have. So whether we move forward with the negotiations with the Gold Brothers or we decide to go with a different custom home builder, I think we could talk about some of the suggestions that we would like to see in our community. So I didn't even know that the three-eyed care auction was available. I think that's a super good idea. That would really like express our exclusive activity that we have here in need. Or just kind of the greatness of our city. We have big lots and we have big nice houses and we're an athlete, athlete community. I feel like the free-dacre plan is brilliant to be honest. It would be premium homes that are worth upwards of $2 million. And it would be a better option than, of course, to have bigger and bigger lots. So that would be my suggestion for the council and the commissioners of the county or the city to explore the three-acre options. So thank you guys. I think it's just two, I think, 12 or other representatives in asking to work with us on this. It sounds like, you know, the commission itself was certain to put forth what I feel to be reflective of a lot of what we feel. And I think that's what I feel to be reflective of a lot of what we feel. And if you did take that into account and come back with, is this the best you can do? And if this is the best you can do towards incorporating the feedback they gave, then say it. We did. We took it back. This was the best we could do. There's nothing else we can do. But if there is something that you can do, something you can go back working with the one-acre lot sizes reconfiguring it to be more interesting. So it's not like domino rows of houses, but maybe you can keep the one, you know, maybe you can keep the one-acre lot, we can figure it in a more interesting geometry and somehow make more efficient use of the space to make the public open land space for parks, walking trails, whatever. Please do. Like I think that's what they're saying. Like just, we gave you a lot of commentary and if the answer is, what we gave you before that commentary match is exactly what what we gave you before that commentary matches exactly what we give and you after that commentary because this is literally the best we can do. Then say it, but if not, please take into account what they're asking and make some attempt to work within the confines of what they're asking. We have anyone else who wishes to speak. That's please. My name is Lace Rieves, I live at 3.45, Broadmore and Heat. I debated not saying anything, I'll make it brief with respect to the time and how long we've all been here. But I will say the ROI is simply not there. 75 houses is probably deemed what everybody is aiming for. If you simply cannot make that and that gross profit just doesn't meet your metrics, walk away. Why waste everyone's time not being prepared. It comes off calm to Cindy. They'll prepare it and it comes off malicious. That's not what we want here. This may be a our home. Okay. So, comments commission. On this case, I will reiterate some of the requirements of our ordinance that. That need to be addressed that we're obligated to support. Protect your use areas against congestion. Manage the density of the population in and around them. By providing proper off street parking. Open areas for rest recreation. And break the monotony of continuous building bulk. We have an obligation to make sure this development provides something unique for heath. I don't, this has even less detail so I don't see evidence of that. that those are the kinds of things that we need to see to be able to Recommend approval to the city council. I think you've you've heard James Indicate or at least out from my perspective if In a plan development you had some lots that weren't quite one acre, they're a little bit smaller because of the shape of flexible with respect to being able to address that if the overall density per our ordinance is is reduces congestion if the overall density is lower as perhaps was you know just suggested, there's flexibility in how you get there. It doesn't all have to be cookie cutter. In fact, that's exactly what we don't want. We want to have something that looks unique, open, has spaces, trails, and is attractive. As someone else said, this is sort of the premier property that people see when they first come into Heath. We want it to be absolutely beautiful and make people feel like this is a stunning and great place to be. And as far as the economic fiabilities concern, I'll just say again and again, we approve properties that are much larger lots with lower density number of houses and heat supporting the economics for those. It's my comment. So I want to try to make this work. That's my feedback. I would agree with Joe and echo really what he's already said. I just don't think what they presented here. And I see no reason to do anything, but deny this application, like we did the application before, because I do not think that it meets the goals of our zoning ordinance, as we've tried to lay out in the previous application for the same reasons for this application. I don't think it meets those notes. So I would like to deny. So yeah, I agree with Joe and Wayne and without repeating everything, I'll just hit on a couple of things. You know, we are asked or tasked with making sure that we approve and recommend projects that meet what is going to be able to make sure that we approve and recommend projects that meet what our citizens hold us to. And one of the items is to preserve and protect the unique quality of life enjoyed by the citizens of Heath. And I don't think that a straight SF-43 zoning that's proposed is going to preserve this unique quality of life that we all moved here for. Does it provide something unique for Heath? No, I don't think it does. And, you know, we're just looking for something more unique. We're not looking for the minimum. We want something that the citizens can drive by in and out of the city and be proud of. So I don't, it's not, it doesn't meet what I'm looking for. And again, I just want to thank the citizens for the written feedback or the comments. And just to kind of give you an idea where we are in this process, the Planning and Zoning Commission is a recommendation body. So we're going to make a recommendation and then it's going to move from here on to the City Council. So you're not done yet. So you need to provide your comments and your input to the City Council. And so we're a recommendation body. If we deny something, then it does meet a higher threshold that the City Council has to overcome if they decide to approve it. But we don't have the final say. Just I believe everyone knows that, but I just want to let you know we're not done here. You know, it'll go on to City Council after we get done. I make one comment to piggy as many times as you want. But we have everything we've already received will be packaged and sent to the city council just like it was to the Planning and Zoning Commission. And to put you back on what both those comments were, as we pass on our recommendation to City Council, if City Council chooses to make an approval without a variation of what we've just seen, it does take a higher level of approval. It's not just a simple majority of the council, but that's based upon the planning zoning commission that there's this, and what I was trying to get to, there's a second test, which you had explained that in mainly now to the neighbors, what percentage of neighbors within a 200 feet have a bearing on whether there has to be a higher level of approval than it counts. So I'm gonna take the microphone and hand it to my city of earning. So you address the protest question. I'm sorry, say that again. So just trying to explain to the public and get it into the record that there is also a condition placed on the council and their approval process pinning upon the level of protest that is returned in our public notification. It's 200 foot mail-out. Correct. So if there is a protest of 20% or more of the lot areas, so I'm trying to simplify this explanation. If the protest area is 100 acres and one person owns 30 acres, they own more than 20% of the protest area. So if that one person protests then it forces that three quarters vote, so that would require so that's, but it's the same condition that the council has to overcome as a overcoming the planning zoning's negative. That's correct. Okay, so trying to clarify that, everybody understands the rules under the state of toxicity. And it's a super majority, which means six of the seven members of the council, not whose present denied of the vote, but the membership of the council. Okay. I think there was before we... I had less not moved forward, but quite yet. Bob, do we got any comments on this? Just for you to see. Yeah, just looking at both of these plans, they look like they're the same layout, which is trying to maximize the amount of notable lots given on this thing. And I'm just wondering if the density can't be reduced somehow to make this fly in order to get some of the amenity deals that we're looking for. And I just feel like this is just take a piece property, Max Mears and Masks, and how many houses you can put in there. And that's against the density thing that we're looking at. All right. Got it. I didn't have a comment on the case. Somebody had a hand up over there, and I just wanted to see was there a we've already finished with public hearing so okay. I have a question for the applicant. It's my perception and I use the word protection. The applicant feels of the proposal that he brought forth is their best proposal possible to make their economic situation work for them. And my question is, is if the applicant was provided another alternative or another option, it's different than what they have proposed, that equal or greater through your profitability, would you have any interest in that? Those are the most significant. You're saying, for those of you city. Well, sure. Okay, thanks. Anything further down there? Okay. Just to be clear from what I think I've heard, we gave feedback to the applicant two months ago, but we're looking at the same plan. Okay, so we really didn't get anything different than what the original application was. You've also provided the straight zoning request, which to me is sort of a challenge about whether future land use plan calls for state lots. We got an SF3. Is it not compliant? Um, and the answer is, is that without some consideration of the things we've drawn out from the compliance summary, the zoning ordinance, we bred off, you know, paragraphs G and I in particular, that I don't feel compelled to make a zoning change at this time because I don't see where the applicant is addressing the concerns that we brought forth. So there's nothing wrong with the SF43. There's nothing wrong with one acre lots, but it's the application that we have that I have a problem with. So I just want to be clear that we're willing to talk to them and there were two possibilities that we discussed. One is that reduce the lot count to provide more open space and view corridors and trails. But the other one was you brought up the question about whether a variation in lot size to where there's some give on smaller lots and larger lots and everything averages out to an acre. We really can't address that as this commission because SF 43 says what it says. So you'd have to get to the council to find out if they had any inclination to do that or not. I mean, that didn't even provide the open space, but it'll certainly take care of some of the unique problems in the monotony of the way the streets are laid out. And that's pretty obvious. So anything for everyone? No. Your motion. So I'll make a motion to deny the applicant's straight zoning SF 43. So I can go to second from Joe, one favor. Hi. Okay, that concludes our business tonight. 11123M. But Eric, you're the April Secretary of the Bill. Maybe, yeah. Can't talk to you. I can't talk to you. Thank you. Thank you. Eric, thank you all. I appreciate it. We can't make it about the waters. We just can't make it about the waters. Which is how the best part of the meeting is. You're the best. You're the best. You're the best. Yeah.