[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:07]
NOW 531. WOULD EVERYONE PLEASE TAKE YOUR SEATS? I'M 531 CALLING THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO ORDER. WE ARE INITIATING A NEW PROCESS TONIGHT. TONIGHT.
AND GOING FORWARD, ALL THE MEETINGS WILL BE LIVE. LIVE AND RECORDED AND STREAMING. SO I'M GOING TO ASK ANYBODY WHO NEEDS TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. WE'LL ASK YOU TO COME TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND THEN TELL US YOUR COMMENTS. OKAY. THE FIRST ITEM
[2.A. Briefing - Approved Plats Report ]
OF BUSINESS TODAY IS ANNOUNCEMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS. NATHAN, WOULD YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. CHAIRPERSON, THIS FIRST ITEM IS JUST A REPORT ON APPROVED PLATS.SINCE YOUR LAST MEETING. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF THOSE. THIS FIRST ONE IS A FINAL PLAT FOR NORTH LAKE VISTA. IT'S A FIVE ACRE PROPERTY ON FLORENCE ROAD ON THE NORTH OF THE FIELD HOUSE VOLLEYBALL FACILITY. IT'S. THERE IS NO ZONING FOR THE SITE CURRENTLY BECAUSE IT'S IT'S NOT IN THE TOWN LIMITS. IT'S IN THE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. BUT THERE'S BEEN A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPROVED FOR THIS PROPERTY THAT CALLS FOR IT TO BE ANNEXED AND FOR THE PROPERTY TO BE USED FOR KIND OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. THERE'S PLANS TO BUILD ABOUT 68,000FT■!S OF BUILDING SPACE AD SIX SEPARATE BUILDINGS, AND WATER SERVICE IS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE TOWN PURSUANT TO THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND ANNEXATION, AND THAT THERE IS NO SEWER AVAILABILITY IN THIS AREA. SO SEWER WILL BE HANDLED BY PRIVATE SEPTIC SYSTEM. AND THE NEXT PLAT IS A FINAL PLAT OF THE TEXAS BUSINESS PARK OR THE NORTH LAKE BUSINESS PARK.
THIS IS 668 ACRE SITE. THE LEFT SIDE IS NORTH, SO IT'S KIND OF HARD TO FIT ON THE SCREEN, SO YOU KIND OF HAVE TO TURN YOUR HEAD IF YOU WANT TO ORIENT THE RIGHT WAY. BUT THIS IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 407, GENERALLY KIND OF BEHIND THE SUN BELT SELF STORAGE. THIS. LET'S SEE IF I CAN GET THE LASER POINTER HERE. THIS IS 407. AND PECAN PARKWAY INTERSECTS WITH 407 HERE. AND THEIR PLAN IS TO CONTINUE A ROAD CALLED GRAGG ROAD NAMED AFTER PROPERTY OWNER, LONGTIME PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS AREA WILL PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. SECONDARY ACCESS WILL BE PROVIDED THROUGH A ETJ DEVELOPMENT NORTH OF IT, AND THEN ALSO THROUGH EXISTING PRIVATE DRIVEWAY ACCESS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE SELF STORAGE FACILITY TO 407. AGAIN, THERE WAS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR FOR THIS PROPERTY. IT WAS IN THE ETJ. IT'S SINCE BEEN ANNEXED BY DEFAULT. IT HAS AGRICULTURAL ZONING, BUT THAT IS TO BE REZONED TO INDUSTRIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. SO YOU'LL BE SEEING THAT COMING TO YOU SOON. PER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THIS PLAT INCLUDES 29 LOTS AND IS PLANNED FOR ABOUT 500,000FT■!S OF BUILDING SPACE, ULTIMATELY. ANY QUESTIONS ON EITHER OF THOSE? LOOKS LIKE NONE, SO THANK YOU.
THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS A PUBLIC INPUT. IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON A TOPIC THAT'S NOT UNDER OUR ACTION ITEMS, NOW'S THE TIME YOU CAN DO THAT.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT? OKAY, PUBLIC INPUT AT 535. WOULD YOU PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF? YES, IT IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT I SPEAK THERE. YES, PLEASE. YES, PLEASE. OKAY, OKAY. ANYONE WHO WANTS TO TALK ON A DIFFERENT TOPIC. OKAY.
[4.A. Consider approval of meeting minutes from October 21, 2025 ]
THEN WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC INPUT AND MOVE ON TO OUR ACTION ITEMS. FIRST UP IS[00:05:03]
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 21ST COMMISSION MEETING. AS EVERYONE, THE COMMISSION HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THOSE MINUTES. ANYONE HAVE ANY INPUT FOR THAT? I HAVE ONE POINT THAT I NOTICED ON PAGE 13 OF YOUR HANDOUT IN THE MINUTES. IN THE LAST SECTION ON.ACTUALLY THE LAST COUPLE OF LINES FROM ON PAGE 12 ARE REPEATED AGAIN ON PAGE 13. AT LEAST THEY WERE IN MY COPY. SO ONE OF THOSE COPIES NEEDS TO BE ELIMINATED JUST TO CLEAN IT UP.
ANYONE ELSE ON THE COMMISSION HAVE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MINUTES? NO THEY'RE
[4.A. VOTE]
NOT. DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES WITH THE IDENTIFIED AMENDMENT? SECOND, OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND WE WILL VOTE. OKAY.ALL. OKAY. ITEM PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT
[4.B. Consider a recommendation proposed text amendments to Section 9.5, Exterior Construction and Design Standards, Section 9.10, Landscaping and Tree Protection, and Section 11.18, [Sign] Definitions and Requirements, of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to update standards related to exterior design, landscape variances, and billboards]
ITEM. CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 9.5 EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN STANDARDS. SECTION 9.10 LANDSCAPING AND TREE PROTECTION AND SECTION 11.8 SIGN DEFINITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO UPDATE STANDARDS RELATED TO EXTERIOR DESIGN, LANDSCAPE VARIANCES AND BILLBOARDS. ALL RIGHT, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WAS BRIEFED SEVERAL TIMES ON SOME PROPOSED CHANGES TO SECTION 9.5 OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. THIS SECTION CONTAINS THE EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN STANDARDS, SO SOME OF THE CHANGES WE DISCUSSED WERE INCORPORATED IN THIS, AND THESE CHANGES ARE PROPOSED TO ENCOURAGE USE OF MASONRY AND SECONDARY MATERIALS WITHOUT REQUIRING THEM. BECAUSE AS YOU GUYS ARE AWARE, THAT IS REGULATION OF BUILDING MATERIALS HAS BEEN PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW. SO THIS IS NOT REQUIRING THEM, BUT IT GIVES THEM ADDITIONAL WE'VE CHANGED IT SO THAT THEY CAN GET SOME POINTS TOWARD DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. IF THEY USE THOSE MATERIALS THAT WE WOULD LIKE.IT ALSO UPDATES BUILDING ARTICULATION REQUIREMENTS TO REDUCE THE NEED FOR VARIANCES.
IN OUR REVIEW, WE FOUND OUT THAT SIX FOOT OFFSET WAS WAS MUCH MORE THAN ANYWHERE ELSE WE HAD FOUND. SO. BUT WE ALSO WANT TO CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE QUALITY DESIGN THAT INCLUDES ARTICULATION. SO WE'VE LEFT SOME ARTICULATION REQUIREMENTS IN THERE. AND IN THAT POINT, SYSTEM ENCOURAGED GREATER OFFSETS TO GET MORE POINTS. KIND OF OVERALL UPDATE OF THE DESIGN ELEMENTS POINT SYSTEM. IT ADDS ARTICULATION MASONRY AND SECONDARY MATERIALS ELEMENTS TO IT, AND IT UPDATES THE OVERALL POINT REQUIREMENTS TO CONSIDER THESE ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR POINTS. BUT ONE THING TO NOTE IS THERE'S STILL THE ABILITY TO MEET THE REQUIRED POINTS WITHOUT HAVING MEETING ANY OF THOSE MASONRY OR SECONDARY MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS, BUT THAT WOULD BE AN EASY WAY THAT THEY COULD MEET THAT. AND THEN FINALLY, IT SPECIFIES THE ROLE OF THE OF PNC AND VARIANCES TO TO THIS SECTION. IT WAS KIND OF UNDERSTOOD THAT PNC HAD A ROLE BECAUSE VARIANCES ARE CONSIDERED WITH SITE PLAN, AND ANY SITE PLANS WITH A VARIANCE GO ON TO TOWN COUNCIL AFTER RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PNC. BUT WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS NOTED IN THAT SECTION. AND THEN WHILE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE UDC AND WE'VE HAD SOME OTHER RECENT ITEMS COME UP, THERE'S A COUPLE CLEANUP ITEMS THAT ARE ADDED FOR FOR CONSIDERATION WITH THIS. ONE IS UPDATING THE SECTION 9.10, THE LANDSCAPING AND TREE PROTECTION SECTION OF THE UDC TO INCORPORATE THE ROLE OF PNC AND RECOMMENDING
[00:10:05]
ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE FOR LANDSCAPE PLANS. SO. SO INSTEAD OF CALLING IT A VARIANCE, THEY CALL IT ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE. AND AGAIN, THAT GOES ALONG WITH THE SITE PLAN WOULD BE SIMILAR, WHERE PNC MAKES A RECOMMENDATION THAT WOULD GO ON TO TOWN COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.AND THEN WE'RE ALSO SPECIFICALLY INCLUDE AN OPTION TO PAY A FEE IN LIEU OF PLANTING TREES. AND WE'LL HAVE IT REFERENCED THE TOWN FEE SCHEDULE AND ADOPT A SPECIFIC FEE FOR THAT. SO WE'RE NOT HAVING TO. HAVING TO KIND OF BID JOBS OUT OR SEE HOW MUCH IT WOULD COST FOR THAT, THAT SITE. AND THIS WOULD JUST BE AN OPTION. AND SO WE'VE SEEN IN SOME CASES RECENTLY WHERE THERE ARE SEVERAL EASEMENTS THAT MADE IT DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO PLANT THE REQUIRED TREES THERE. ONE ONE OPTION WOULD BE TO PLANT TREES ON OTHER AREAS OF THE SITE, BUT THAT COULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT THAT'S DEVELOPABLE, MAY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF PARKING AREA. SO THIS ALLOWS YOU TO CONSIDER THAT OPTION, BUT ALSO MAYBE THE OPTION OF JUST HAVING THEM PLAY A PAY A FEE WHERE YOU CAN USE THOSE FUNDS TO PLANT AND, AND OTHER AREAS, AND THEN FINALLY, THERE'S A PROPOSED UPDATE TO THE BILLBOARD PLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IN THE SIGN SECTION OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE 11.18. AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS, SOME OF YOU MIGHT RECALL IN THE THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, WE UPDATED THAT ORDINANCE TO TO MEET A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT THAT WAS INCLUDED FOR A PROPERTY THAT WAS ANNEXED INTO THE TOWN OFF OF 114. IT WAS TO ALLOW BILLBOARD ON THAT SITE. TEXDOT HAS NEW REQUIREMENTS WHERE IT HAS TO BE WITHIN OUR SIGN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW BILLBOARD SIGN AT THAT SITE. IT CAN'T JUST BE A ONE OFF VARIANCE. IT'S APPROVED OR MERITORIOUS. EXCEPTION IS WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST, SO WE HAD TO UPDATE THAT THAT SECTION TO ALLOW FOR BILLBOARDS AND LIMITED SPACE PLACES. THE INTENT WAS TO ALLOW THOSE CLOSE TO THE TOWN LIMITS WHERE OUR HIGHWAYS ENTER THE TOWN LIMITS. JUST ON 114 AND 35 W, BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE OUR EXISTING SIGNS ARE LOCATED. AND PLUS THIS, THIS ONE THAT HAD COME IN OR WAS COMING IN AS NOW EXISTING. SINCE THEN WE'VE SEEN THERE'S A LITTLE LOOPHOLE AND SOME BILLBOARD COMPANIES HAVE FOUND IT. FORTUNATELY THE THE THE INITIAL LOCATIONS DON'T MEET THE FULL REQUIREMENTS, BUT THERE ARE LOCATIONS THAT POSSIBLY COULD. AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE TO CLEAN THAT UP. SO THIS IS SPECIFYING THAT THE DISTANCE FROM TOWN LIMITS BOUNDARY APPLIES ONLY TO WHERE TRAFFIC ON LIMITED ACCESS HIGHWAYS CROSSES THAT TOWN LIMITS BOUNDARY. SO IT'S NOT ANYWHERE WHERE THERE'S A TOWN LIMITS WHEN IT MAY RUN PARALLEL TO THE HIGHWAYS. AND IT ALSO UPDATES THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FROM FROM OTHER SIGNS, SO THAT EXISTING SIGNS, FROM OTHER SIGNS AND FROM THAT TOWN LIMITS LINE SO THERE ARE EXISTING SIGNS REMAIN CONFORMING AND IT REDUCES POTENTIAL PROLIFERATION OF ADDITIONAL SIGNS. SO TONIGHT YOU'LL NEED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING. AND THEN AFTER THAT YOU CAN CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION ON THIS. AND THEN THIS IS SCHEDULED TO GO ON TO TOWN COUNCIL AT THEIR MEETING ON DECEMBER 11TH. WILL THEY'LL AGAIN HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND THEY CAN CONSIDER APPROVAL OF IT. OKAY. ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU? YEAH, JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, NATHAN, RELATIVE TO THE UDC SECTION STATING DIFFERENT MATERIALS, THOSE SPECIFIC CHANGES OR THOSE SPECIFIC ITEMS, THEY'RE NOT MANDATED, CORRECT? NO, THEY'RE NOT OKAY. THAT'S CORRECT. ANYONE ELSE? SO NATHAN. SO WITH THIS MATERIALS CONDITION, WE'RE ENCOURAGING BUT WE'RE NOT MANDATING. RIGHT. SO WHAT IS THE INCENTIVE FOR DEVELOPERS TO USE IT. SO WE HAVE THAT DESIGN ELEMENTS POINT SYSTEM. AND THEY DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING YOU HAVE TO GET A CERTAIN NUMBER OF POINTS. AND THERE'S A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ELEMENTS OF WAYS YOU CAN GET THOSE POINTS. THIS IS JUST ADDING MASONRY SECONDARY MATERIALS THAT MEET WHAT WERE OUR REQUIREMENTS. AND AND FOR ARTICULATION LIKE BUILDING
[00:15:08]
OFFSETS THAT ARE FOUR FEET OR MORE. AND IT'S ALLOWING THOSE AS OPTIONS TO GET SOME POINTS TOWARDS THAT, THOSE REQUIREMENTS. SO IT'S ENCOURAGING THEM TO MEET OUR REGULATIONS BUT NOT REQUIRING THE AND THE THE POINTS ARE SPECIFICALLY SET UP SO YOU CAN GET ALL THE POINTS WITHOUT HAVING TO DO THOSE. IF, IF IT REQUIRED THOSE THINGS AND IT WOULD BASICALLY BE REQUIRING IT, WHICH WOULD GO AGAINST THE STATE LAW ALSO CANNOT REQUIRE WE CANNOT, YOU KNOW. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE RIGHT NOW? THANK YOU. I HAVE 546. SO WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS SUBJECT? THERE BEING NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 547. I DID NOTE A COUPLE OF EDITING THINGS. WHILE BEING MOI. LET'S SEE IN PARAGRAPH. LET'S SEE. TWO POINT A I BELIEVE WE HAVE A MISSPELLING OF THE WORD PLAIN. AND THEN IN PARAGRAPH. FOR A FOR A. LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIND THAT TO READ THE WHOLE THING. OH YES. MASONRY. MASONRY SHALL CONSIST OF BRICK, NATURAL STONE, SIMULATED STONE, THREE PART TRUE STUCCO. SHOULD THE SHOULD IT BE OR THREE PART TRUE STUCCO. OKAY, THOSE ARE THE COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I NOTICED. ANYONE[4.B. VOTE]
ELSE ON THE COMMISSION HAVE INPUT OR QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. THEN DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED? CHAIRPERSON, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM FOUR B AS AMENDED WITH THE TEXT CORRECTIONS. OKAY. OKAY. ARE WE? ARE WE APPROVING THE THE ENTIRE REQUEST OR JUST THAT PARAGRAPH? NO, MA'AM. WE'RE MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ENTIRE. PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION WITH THE TWO TEXT CORRECTIONS. DO I HEAR A SECOND? DO I HEAR A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY, THEN WE WILL TAKE A VOTE.OKAY. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR FINAL ITEM
[4.C. Consider a recommendation on a proposed zoning change from RR – Rural Residential to AG - Agricultural for generally all RR zoned properties larger than 20 acres. Case # 25-ZCA00003]
OF CONSIDERATION. CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION ON A PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO AGRICULTURAL. FOR GENERALLY ALL RURAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES LARGER THAN 20 ACRES. CASE NUMBER 25 DASH ZC A THREE. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR A WHILE. BACK IN OCTOBER OF 2022, COUNCIL ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE WHICH CREATED THE AG ZONING DISTRICT THE AND ALSO MADE THAT ZONING DISTRICT THE DEFAULT ZONING FOR ANY NEWLY ANNEXED PROPERTIES. AND LIKE WE JUST TALKED ABOUT THAT NORTH LAKE BUSINESS PARK PROPERTY SINCE IT WAS RECENTLY ANNEXED, IS STILL ZONED AG. AND THEN AFTER THAT APPROVAL, WE DISCUSSED WITH COUNCIL SOME OPTIONS TO REZONE PROPERTIES TO AG. THAT COULD EITHER BE DONE AT AS THE OWNER REQUESTED, OR IT COULD BE A TOWN INITIATED PROCESS. SO[00:20:01]
BEFORE YOU, THIS IS A TOWN INITIATED PROCESS AND IT'S FOR ALL RURAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT ARE OVER 20 ACRES, BECAUSE THAT'S THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. AND ALL OF THOSE THAT ARE UNDEVELOPED. WE ALSO CONSIDERED ADJACENT TRACTS UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP. THERE ARE CONSIDERED TOGETHER AS ONE PROPERTY. IF ANY OF THEM WERE SLIGHTLY UNDER 20 ACRES, BUT IF COMBINED WERE ABOVE 20 ACRES, THEY WERE INCLUDED. SO JUST WANTED TO DISCUSS THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING THIS REZONING.NUMBER ONE IS TO BETTER IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND BY PRESERVING LARGER LOTS AND OPEN SPACES. THAT IS A BIG PRIORITY OF THE PLAN. AND AND IN PARTICULAR IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE TOWN, SUCH AS THE RURAL RESERVE AREA IDENTIFIED IN OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. SO THE IDEA IS THAT THIS WOULD BECOME THE BASE ZONING FOR THAT RURAL RESERVE PLACE TYPE IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE RURAL RESERVE CALLS FOR MINIMUM LOT SIZES OF FIVE ACRES TO 20 ACRES. SO WE'VE GOT THE FIVE ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE DISTRICT THAT'S RURAL RESIDENTIAL, BUT WE'RE PROPOSING WE GO TO THAT 20 ACRES AS THE BASE, AND IT CAN BE ADJUSTED AND REZONED FROM THERE. THIS STILL PROVIDES OPPORTUNITY TO POTENTIALLY REZONE TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL AS FIVE ACRE LOTS. OR IT CAN EVEN ALLOW SIMILAR ONE HOME PER FIVE ACRE DENSITY THROUGH CLUSTERING AND AND CONSERVATION. THIS CAN BE DONE THROUGH A PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OR THROUGH OUR CONSERVATION RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY, WHICH ALLOWS FOR MINIMUM LOT SIZES OF TWO ACRES IF AT A DENSITY OF ONE HOME PER FIVE ACRE. OVERALL, IF YOU PRESERVE THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY AS AS OPEN SPACE. ADDITIONALLY, OUTSIDE OF THE RURAL RESERVE AREA, IT WOULD SERVE AS A HOLDING ZONE, AND THIS WOULD PROVIDE KIND OF INTERIM OR TEMPORARY ZONING UNTIL PROPERTY OWNER IS READY TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY OR UNTIL INFRASTRUCTURE IS THERE AND AVAILABLE. AG ZONING IS MORE COMMONLY USED AS A HOLDING ZONE. AND IT'S ALSO, I THINK, MORE COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD, PARTICULARLY IF IT'S AN AREA CLOSER TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RIGHT OFF OF HIGHWAY, THAT IT'S LIKELY TO HAVE A DIFFERENT USE IN THE FUTURE. WE'VE SEEN THAT WITH THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING, ALTHOUGH IT ALLOWS FOR AGRICULTURAL USES. THERE'S KIND OF BEEN THIS CONFUSION OR A FALSE IMPRESSION AT TIMES THAT THAT WAS INTENDED TO STAY FIVE ACRE RESIDENTIAL LOTS INTO PERPETUITY. THERE ARE SOME AREAS IN TOWN WHERE THAT IS THE PLAN. AND THEN THERE ARE OTHERS WERE WHERE THAT'S NOT SO DOES MAKE IT DIFFICULT. SOMETIMES IF A PROPERTY OWNER TRIES TO REZONE THOSE PROPERTIES WHERE IT DOES FIT OUR PLAN. BUT THERE'S THIS UNDERSTANDING WITH NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, THERE'S LIKE, I THOUGHT THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO STAY RESIDENTIAL. AND THEN FINALLY, THIS PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE CONFORMS STRONGLY WITH THE NORTHLAKE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST IS ACCEPTABLE FOR CONSIDERATION BY YOU. AND I JUST WANT TO SHOW YOU REAL QUICK THIS IS TOWN WIDE. SO THIS MAP ON THE RIGHT IS THE ZONING MAP. THE AREAS OUTLINED IN GREEN ARE THE AREAS PROPOSED TO BE REZONED FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO AGRICULTURE. YOU'LL NOTICE SEVERAL AREAS. WE'VE GOT SOME FIBERGLASS SUBDIVISIONS. BRIAN'S PLACE, WHICH IS INCLUDES SCHOBER ROAD. YOU'VE GOT THE NORTH LAKE COUNTRY ESTATES, WHICH INCLUDES BINGHAM, SOME OF STARDUST RANCH, THE.
FALK FARM DEVELOPMENT IS THOSE THOSE ALL STAYED AND AREN'T INCLUDED IN THIS. THIS IS A NORTHWEST SIZED OUTDOOR LEARNING CENTER. THEY'VE PLATTED THIS, AND THE SCHOOL FACILITIES ARE PERMITTED USE IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING. SO THAT'S THAT'S STAYING. BUT OTHERWISE MOST OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE TOWN THAT ARE ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL ARE PROPOSED TO GO TO THIS AG ZONING DISTRICT. THE MAP ON THE LEFT IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. YOU
[00:25:01]
NOTICE THESE. THE DARK GREEN IS THAT RURAL RESERVE WHERE THE. THE PLAN IS TO PRESERVE 5 TO 20 ACRE LOTS. SO YOU'LL SEE A LOT OF THESE AREAS MATCH UP WITH THAT. AND THEN YOU'LL SEE OTHER PARTS IN TOWN WHERE IT'S COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL. AND EVEN SOME, EVEN SOME INDUSTRIAL INNOVATION AREAS ON OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP, WHICH ARE ALSO BEING PROPOSED TO TO CHANGE TO AG USE, JUST AS THAT INTERIM HOLDING ZONE UNTIL THEY'RE READY TO DEVELOP. SO TONIGHT YOU'LL NEED TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING. WE'VE PROVIDED NOTICES ACCORDING TO STATE LAW, THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH SOME NOTICES THAT WERE MAILED OUT ON SATURDAY THAT DIDN'T GET MARKED BY THE POST OFFICE UNTIL THE FOLLOWING MONDAY. WE BELIEVE THAT THESE STILL MEET STATE LAW, BUT OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION AND WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IS AWARE AND HAS PLENTY OF TIME, WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER GOING AHEAD AND HOLDING THE PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT AND CONTINUING THAT TO DECEMBER 9TH. IF IF YOU WILL BE ABLE TO MEET ON THAT DATE, HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING ON THAT DATE AND THEN SO YOU WOULDN'T BE ACTING ON THIS ITEM IF THAT IS WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO DO, AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO ACT ON IT ON THAT DATE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO, AND THEN THIS WOULD STILL BE SCHEDULED TO GO ON TO COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 11TH. SO AGAIN, HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND THEY CAN CONSIDER APPROVAL OF IT AT THAT TIME. FROM THE COMMENT THAT YOU MADE, AM I CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT MANY OTHER TOWNS AND CITIES USE THE AGRICULTURAL AS THE HOLDING? YES, YES, IT'S PRETTY COMMON.OKAY, NATHAN, I HAVE A QUESTION. CAN YOU PLEASE GO BACK TO YOUR FIRST SLIDE? SO COUNCIL APPROVED THIS ON OCTOBER 13 TO 2022, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. SO COUNCIL HAS ALREADY SAID THAT WHENEVER WE ANNEX A PIECE OF PROPERTY INTO THE TOWN, IT'S BROUGHT IN AS A THAT'S WHERE IT STARTS OUT AT. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. AT THIS TIME 558 WE WILL OPEN THE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE HAVE GOTTEN INPUT FORMS FROM THREE PEOPLE. IF. SORRY. WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION WITH COMMENTS ABOUT THIS SUBJECT. IS MISS YOUNG HERE? I DID, YES. NO PROBLEM. LET'S SEE. I CAN'T READ THAT. WHO WANTED WHO WANTED TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT? SO I'M GOING TO REFER TO WHOEVER. OKAY. I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY READING THE NAMES ON SOME OF THESE. IS ALBERT HAMMOND. THOSE ARE JUST WRITTEN RESPONSES. OKAY. OKAY. THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY HERE OKAY, OKAY. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M I'M GATHERING. OKAY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO AHEAD SINCE THE OTHERS ARE NOT HERE? SURE. HI, MY NAME IS RENA HARDIMAN. I LIVE IN NORTH LAKE. YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE RECEIVED THIS ON SATURDAY, SO WE'VE HAD LESS THAN 72 HOURS TO GO OVER THIS AND DO OUR RESEARCH AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I WAS AT THE MEETING IN OCTOBER WHENEVER THEY PASSED THIS AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE. OKAY. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS A SINGLE PERSON THAT SPOKE FOR IT AND I DEFINITELY SPOKE AGAINST IT. WE DID NOT WANT AN AG ZONING DISTRICT BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY HAVE AN AUTHENTIC AG OPERATION, AND THAT ORDINANCE DID NOTHING FOR US AS TRUE AG PEOPLE. OKAY. AND SO WE ASKED THAT THEY NOT DO THIS. AND THEN WE FURTHER ASK THAT THEY PLEASE NOT FORCE IT ON THE PEOPLE OF NORTH LAKE AND ON THE LANDOWNERS, BECAUSE IT WASN'T GOOD FOR US. IT DIDN'T DO ANYTHING FOR US. NATHAN SPOKE A LOT ABOUT THE PLAN. LET ME GO BACK TO 2017, IF YOU DON'T MIND. 2017. THERE WAS WHAT WAS CALLED THE
[00:30:01]
CONSERVATION RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY, AND IT WAS OVERLAID ALL OVER WHAT IS PECAN SQUARE TODAY? OKAY. FOR THE BILLIONAIRE DEVELOPER, THEY STRIPPED THE CONSERVATION RESIDENTIAL PLAN OVERLAY AND THEY GAVE THEM UP TO 12.1 HOMES PER ACRE. OKAY. SO AND DANNY KNOWS THIS BECAUSE DANNY WAS ON COUNCIL AT THE TIME. SO THESE THE IDEA THAT YOU'RE GOING TO FORCE US INTO A DISTRICT AND THEN GIVE AWAY ZONING LIKE 12.1 HOMES PER ACRE IN 40% OF PECAN SQUARE, IT'S CALLED THE LIFESTYLE SECTION. AND GIVE THAT TO THE BILLIONAIRE DEVELOPER, BUT DENY THE LANDOWNERS WHO HAVE ACTUAL AG OPERATIONS, THE RIGHT TO USE THEIR LAND THE WAY THEY WANT TO, AND HAVE IT ZONED THE WAY THEY WANT TO. I THINK THIS IS THIS IS AWFUL. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE IN A DEMOCRACY AND A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. A DEMOCRACY IS MAJORITY RULES. A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC IS NOT. IT'S BROUGHT IN BY BY A CONSTITUTION. AND IT'S NOT A PURE MAJORITY DEMOCRACY. SO WE HAVE THAT IN TEXAS. AND THIS IS A DENIAL OF OUR PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. AND LET ME JUST TELL YOU THAT DURING THAT PECAN SQUARE, THE ZONING CHANGE FOR PECAN SQUARE, OVER 98% OF THE RESIDENTS WHO RESPONDED, WHO FILLED OUT ONE OF THESE NOTIFICATION RESPONSE FORMS SAID NO TO IT. THE ONLY PEOPLE IN THE TOWN OF NORTHLAKE THAT SAID YES TO IT WERE THE LANDOWNER AND ONE OTHER PERSON. OKAY, AND HE NO LONGER LIVES IN NORTHLAKE. SO THAT'S HOW THE TOWN AT THAT POINT IN TIME WENT AGAINST THE RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN, JUST LIKE THE TOWN COUNCIL DID WHENEVER THEY PASSED THIS BACK IN OCTOBER 2022. WE SPOKE AGAINST IT, LIKE I SAID, AND ANYTIME THAT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY WANTS TO FORCE SOMETHING ON ITS RESIDENTS, NOT ASK THEM IF THEY WANT TO VOLUNTARILY COME INTO THIS AG ZONING DISTRICT, THEN IT'S SUSPECT. WE KNOW THAT THERE'S SOMETHING GOING ON THAT THE TOWN ISN'T TELLING US ABOUT, AND WE JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT THAT IS. AND WE ASK THAT YOU NOT FORCE THIS ON US. I AM LOOKING TO SEE WHAT ELSE I HAVE FOR THIS. ONCE AGAIN, WE HAVE NOT HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO RESEARCH THIS AND TO BRING TO YOU THE EVIDENCE FOR, FOR OR AGAINST THIS. AND I AM, AS YOU CAN PROBABLY TELL VEHEMENTLY AGAINST THIS, ANYTIME YOU ALL WANT TO FORCE US TO DO SOMETHING, IT'S NOT GOOD FOR US. AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.AND THAT'S THE VERY REASON THAT WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE AGAIN ON DECEMBER 9TH. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. AND I HONESTLY, I APPRECIATE YOUR PENCHANT FOR DETAILS, CHAIR KING, BUT THEY WANT TO ACT LIKE THAT. IT WAS PASSED AND THEN IT'S OKAY. IT'S GOT THE STAMP OF APPROVAL. IT DIDN'T HAVE THE STAMP OF APPROVAL OF THE CITIZENS WHEN IT WAS PASSED.
AND I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU ALL. OH YEAH. I HAVE A QUESTION. SURE. YOU MENTIONED SEVERAL OCCASIONS AN ACTUAL AG OPERATION. YES, SIR. PLEASE, FOR MY BENEFIT, AT LEAST EXPLAIN HOW THAT DOESN'T JIVE WITH AN AG ZONING. WELL, AND THIS IS WHERE I SAID I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO GO BACK AND REREAD THE ORDINANCE. BUT AT THE TIME, AS I RECALL, I READ THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE. AND YOU'VE GOT TO UNDERSTAND, I'VE SLEPT SINCE THEN. SO IN 2022, I RECALL, AND I STATED SO, AND YOU CAN GO BACK AND WATCH THE VIDEO OF THAT. I STATED THE REASONS ON THE VIDEO IN THAT MEETING, THE REASONS WHY IT WASN'T IT DIDN'T ALIGN WITH AN ACTUAL AG OPERATION. AND SO I APOLOGIZE THAT I DON'T HAVE THAT FOR YOU RIGHT NOW, BUT I WILL HAVE IT AT THE COUNCIL MEETING. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS. OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT? I BELIEVE WE NEED TO TABLE THIS UNTIL OUR DECEMBER 9TH MEETING. DO I HAVE HERE A MOTION FOR THAT? I'M SORRY. SURE. CHAIRPERSON, IT IS 605 AND WE ARE CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS POINT. CHAIRPERSON I'LL MAKE A MOTION. MADAM CHAIR. YES. TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL DECEMBER 9TH. SO WE CAN'T CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. JUST CONTINUE IT. MY APOLOGIES.
OFFICIALLY, WE WILL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON DECEMBER 9TH. GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. SO WE DON'T NEED A MOTION. THAT'S. THAT'S ALL WE NEED TO DO. YOU CAN HAVE A MOTION TO CONTINUE
[4.C. VOTE]
PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL DECEMBER 9TH. YEP. CHAIRPERSON I'LL MAKE A MOTION. WE CONTINUE CASE NUMBER 25 Z00003A UNTIL DECEMBER 9TH. DO I HEAR A SECOND? SECOND. AND WE'LL VOTE.[00:35:18]
MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU EVERYONE I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES OUR BUSINESS TONIGHT.* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.