Dec 09, 2025 Planning and Zoning

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:03]

ACTUALLY SHE HANDED OUT A FEW THINGS. OKAY. I HAVE 5:32 P.M. SO I WILL CALL THIS MEETING OF THE NORTH LAKE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO ORDER. WELCOME, EVERYONE FOR ATTENDING.

BEING WITH US TONIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE IN THE AUDIENCE AND ALSO MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION THAT OUR MEETING IS BEING RECORDED TONIGHT. SO IF WHEN SOMEONE NEEDS TO SPEAK AND ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, YOU'LL NEED TO COME FORWARD TO THE PODIUM, SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE, IDENTIFY YOURSELF. AND ALL OF US UP HERE NEED TO REMEMBER TO SPEAK INTO OUR MICROPHONES AS WELL. THANK YOU. SO AT THIS POINT, WE WILL OPEN PUBLIC INPUT FOR IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO WANTS TO ADDRESS A SUBJECT THAT IS NOT BEING COVERED BY ONE OF OUR ACTION ITEMS. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO JUST SPEAK TO US ON GENERAL TERMS? CAN I ASK A QUESTION? IF WE SPOKE AT THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING, DO WE ALSO NEED TO SPEAK AT THIS PUBLIC HEARING? IF NOT, I'D LIKE TO MAKE MY COMMENTS IN PUBLIC INPUT. BUT IF YOU'RE OPENING PUBLIC HEARING FOR YOUR AGENDA ITEMS. NO, NO. NOT YET. NO. BUT WHEN YOU DO, WILL EVERYONE BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK? YES. OKAY. PERFECT. THANK YOU. NO ONE NEEDS TO SPEAK ON ANY OTHER TOPIC. OKAY. THEN WE WILL CLOSE. CLOSE THE PUBLIC INPUT SECTION AT 533. OUR FIRST ACTION ITEM

[3.A. Consider approval of November 18, 2025 Meeting Minutes ]

DO I HEAR A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? THEN WE'LL VOTE.

[3.A. VOTE]

[3.B. 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 ]

NATHAN. RIGHT. THANK YOU. CHAIRPERSON. I'M GOING TO TRY TO FIX THE THE MIC NOISE. TURN IT OFF. TURN IT OFF. TEST. YOU GOT HIM. OKAY. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS ITEM WENT BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AT YOUR LAST MEETING. BUT JUST TO GO BACK OVER SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS, BACK IN OCTOBER OF 2022, COUNCIL ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE THAT CREATED THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT, AND IT BECAME THE NEW DEFAULT ZONING DISTRICT FOR ANY NEWLY ANNEXED PROPERTIES. WE ALSO DISCUSSED SOME OPTIONS TO REZONE PROPERTIES TO THE AG ZONING DISTRICT OVER TIME, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN THROUGH AN OWNER'S REQUEST OR TOWN INITIATED. SO A FEW YEARS MOVE, A FEW YEARS FORWARD TO LAST MONTH, AND THE TOWN DID TAKE THE INITIATIVE TO DO A KIND OF COMPREHENSIVE REZONING OF MOST THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT ARE OVER 20 ACRES AND ZONED THEM TO AGRICULTURE. A PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD WITH ONE SPEAKER WAS OPPOSED. THAT PUBLIC HEARING WAS CONTINUED TO THIS MEETING TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL NOTICE AND TIME FOR CONSIDERATION THERE. IF YOU RECALL, THERE WERE SOME ISSUES WITH THE NOTICES NOT BEING MARKED, THE DATE THAT THEY WERE

[00:05:04]

SO THIS STILL, EVEN WITH THAT CHANGE, EVEN IN THE RURAL RESERVE AREA, IT STILL PROVIDES OPPORTUNITIES TO REZONE BACK TO THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL FIVE ACRE LOT MINIMUM. AND IT EVEN ALLOWS OPPORTUNITIES TO LOOK AT SOME OTHER OPTIONS WITH THAT SAME DENSITY OF ONE HOME PER FIVE ACRE. THROUGH CLUSTERING AND PRESERVING OF CONSERVATION AREAS. YOU CAN DO THIS THROUGH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, ZONING, OR EVEN UTILIZING THAT CONSERVATION RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY. THEN THIS. THERE ARE SEVERAL AREAS OF TOWN WHERE WE ACTUALLY PLAN FOR MORE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT OR COMMERCIAL USES TO COME, BUT WE'RE EVEN PROPOSING TO CHANGE THOSE THAT ARE CURRENTLY ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO TO THE AG ZONING, BECAUSE THIS WOULD PROVIDE FOR A TEMPORARY ZONING UNTIL THAT PROPERTY IS READY TO DEVELOP, OR THE PROPERTY OWNER IS READY TO DEVELOP, THE AG ZONING IS MORE COMMONLY USED AS A AS A HOLDING ZONE, AND THIS WOULD HELP REDUCE SOME CONFUSION OR A FALSE IMPRESSION THAT FIVE ACRE RESIDENTIAL LOTS ARE PLANNED IN SOME OF THESE AREAS. SO WE'VE GOT SOME AREAS ON OUR PLAN THAT ARE SHOWN FOR, AND I'LL SHOW THIS NEXT SLIDE. THE SLIDE ON THE LEFT IS OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE SLIDE ON THE RIGHT IS OUR ZONING MAP AND SHOWING THE IN GREEN THE PROPOSED AREAS TO CHANGE TO AG. SO YOU SEE THIS COVERS A LARGE PART OF THE TOWN AND A LOT OF THAT AREA IN THE MIDDLE OF TOWN AND SOUTH EAST IS IDENTIFIED FOR COMMERCIAL USES OR INDUSTRIAL USES, BUT THOSE ARE EVEN INCLUDED IN GOING TO THE AG ZONING DISTRICT. SO WITH THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL, IT KIND OF CREATES THIS FALSE IMPRESSION THAT THAT RESIDENTIAL IS PLANNED THERE.

PEOPLE UNDERSTAND AGRICULTURE USES, AND THOSE AREAS AREN'T PLANNED TO TO TO BE THERE ULTIMATELY. AND IT CAN MAKE IT FOR A LITTLE BIT SMOOTHER PROCESS WHEN THOSE PROPERTIES ARE READY TO DEVELOP. THIS PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE CONFORMS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AS I MENTIONED BEFORE. AND STAFF BELIEVES THIS ZONING CHANGE REQUEST IS ACCEPTABLE FOR CONSIDERATION AS IT'S BEEN PRESENTED. ONE OTHER THING I DID WANT TO MENTION THAT OTHER THAN THE THE LOT SIZE MINIMUM, THERE ARE JUST A FEW OTHER SMALL DIFFERENCES OR A LITTLE BIT GREATER SETBACKS IN THE AG ZONING DISTRICT FROM THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE YOU HAVE LARGER PROPERTIES. SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO ACCOMMODATE. AND THEN THE AG ZONING DISTRICT ACTUALLY ALLOWS A LITTLE MORE INTENSE AGRICULTURAL USES, MORE COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURAL USES THAT WE HAVE REMOVED FROM THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL USES TO MAKE THAT FOCUS MORE ON RESIDENTIAL AND MORE. AGRICULTURAL USES THAT AREN'T GOING TO IMPACT NEIGHBORS AS MUCH. SO THERE ARE SOME THINGS LIKE COMMERCIAL STABLES ARE ALLOWED IN AG, BUT THEY'RE NOT IN RURAL RESIDENTIAL, AS AN EXAMPLE. SO THE NEXT STEPS ON THIS TONIGHT

[00:10:03]

SO WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FIRST? SIR, IF YOU WOULD COME UP TO THE PODIUM, IDENTIFY YOURSELF WHERE YOU LIVE. MY NAME IS KEVIN BRANNON. I LIVE AT 828 HOLDER ROAD. SO WITHIN WITHIN NORTHLAKE I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION AND A COMMENT. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS CHANGE HELPS THE LANDOWNERS LIVING WITHIN NORTHLAKE, BECAUSE MOST OF THE CHANGES THAT I HEAR WOULD PROBABLY HELP DEVELOPERS MORE THAN THE ACTUAL OWNERS. SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS CHANGE HELPS THE THE LANDOWNERS. OKAY. CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT, NATHAN? SECOND, I BELIEVE IT WILL HAVE LITTLE IMPACT ON EXISTING OWNERS. THE MAIN IMPACT IT WOULD HAVE ON ANYBODY THAT'S HAS PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL THAT PLANS TO DEVELOP FIVE ACRE LOTS TO. IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE ZONING CHANGE PROCESS, ANY OF THESE OTHER AREAS THAT ARE PLANNED FOR ULTIMATE INDUSTRIAL USE OR COMMERCIAL USE. IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SAME ZONING PROCESS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

SO SOUNDS LIKE WON'T REALLY HELP LANDOWNERS MUCH. MY MAIN COMMENT IS I THINK I'M GOING TO OPPOSE THIS AND WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST THE THE COMMITTEE NOT DO THIS BECAUSE YOU'RE TAKING US FROM A POSITION OF CERTAINTY TO A POSITION OF UNCERTAINTY, WHERE IF IT'S THE DEFAULT IS RURAL RESIDENTIAL PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS. IT'S THE FIVE ACRES OR SO OF POTENTIAL HOMESTEADING AND SO FORTH. WHEREAS IF YOU TAKE IT TO AG, IT COULD MEAN ANYTHING AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT'S GOING TO BE IN THE FUTURE. AND THAT'S ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT TO THOSE. WHILE I MAY NOT LIVE ON A LARGE ACRE, I LIVE RIGHT NEXT TO THREE OF THEM. AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS TO THE DEVELOPING GOING FORWARD. SO I WOULD LIKE TO OPPOSE THIS. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK NEXT? I. I'LL GO NEXT BECAUSE I HAVE A RELATED QUESTION. I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND THE AG VERSUS THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL. IN TERMS OF THE RESTRICTIONS. I GREW UP IN AN AREA WHERE THE AG DESIGNATION WAS LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN RURAL, A RURAL RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION. AND SO IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS INTRODUCING ALL THE PERMITTING AND REQUIREMENTS OF RURAL RESIDENTIAL, BUT IT'S MAKING IT EVEN MORE RESTRICTIVE WITH HIGHER LAND SETBACKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND I JUST I DON'T KNOW THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND WHY AN AG PROPERTY IS GOT MORE STRICT REQUIREMENTS THAN RURAL RESIDENTIAL. THAT'S MY QUESTION. I'M SORRY. YES. I'M SORRY, I APOLOGIZE, BRANDON BEARD I ACTUALLY LIVE IN HARVEST, BUT I DO HAVE AN AFFECTED PROPERTY ON HOLDER ROAD. OKAY, OKAY. SO THAT THAT WAS I WAS JUST WONDERING I WAS JUST WONDERING ABOUT THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND LARGER SETBACKS AND MORE RESTRICTIONS FOR AN ACT DESIGNATION. THE ONLY THING I CAN RATIONALIZE IS THAT THE AG DESIGNATION IS BEING USED FOR PROPERTIES THAT ARE INTENDED TO BE DEVELOPED, WHETHER IT'S COMMERCIAL OR HIGH DENSITY HOUSING, AND IT'S ALSO BEING APPLIED TO PEOPLE THAT ARE JUST GOING TO HOMESTEAD IT FOR 30 YEARS. THAT WASN'T MY UNDERSTANDING AT ALL. AND PERHAPS I'VE I'VE MISUNDERSTOOD BECAUSE NATHAN INDICATED THAT THE AGRICULTURE ZONING ALLOWS FOR MORE INTENSIVE AGRICULTURAL

[00:15:02]

WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK NEXT? I'M NOT SURE IF MY PAPER SAID I WANTED TO SPEAK OR JUST KIND OF.

BUT ANYWAY, I'M LISA GALVIN, I'M AT 1604 SCHOBER ROAD. AND SO RIGHT BEHIND US IS, I THINK, A 20 ACRE PROPERTY THAT WE JUST HEARD SOMETHING ABOUT THE ARGYLE ISD DOING SOMETHING WITH.

AND I JUST I WASN'T ABLE TO MAKE THE LAST MEETING. SO FROM WHAT I'D HEARD, IT HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE RECOMMENDATION. IF YOU TOOK IT TO THE 20 ACRE AG, IT WOULD NOT ALLOW THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT OF AN ISD, MAYBE, OR A SCHOOL, BUT THE BUT THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL DOES ALLOW IT. SO IT WOULD BE A WAY OF PROTECTING AGAINST SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT WHATEVER THE CASE, I KNOW THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL INITIALLY WAS EXPLAINED TO US AT MEETINGS THAT IT WOULD PROTECT US FROM THE DENSITY OF HARVEST. AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO DO THAT TO THE LANDOWNERS, BECAUSE WE ARE FIVE ACRE TRACKS DOWN SCHOBER.

AND THAT WAS FOLLOWED FOR THE WEST SIDE OF FORT. YOU KNOW, THEY TRIED TO MIRROR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT. IF IT GOES BACK TO THE 20 ACRE, I THINK IF THAT WOULD OPEN IT BACK UP TO A HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT OR EVEN A SCHOOL. I MEAN, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO SCHOOLS, BUT I WOULD HATE TO SEE THE NEW ARGYLE ISD BUS BARN PUT UP BEHIND US WITH THE GAS WELLS. AND THEN ESSENTIALLY, WE'RE IN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA FROM THE LOOK OF OUR HOME, FROM HOW IT'S CHANGED OVER THE LAST 18 YEARS, HAVING THE GAS WELLS AND THEN A STADIUM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD JUST DESTROY, YOU KNOW, OUR AREA. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS. I MEAN, I'M STILL NOT SURE. I KIND OF MISSED THE FIRST EXPLANATION. WHAT IS THE INTENT FOR THIS? WAS IT WAS IT DOES IT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT CHANGE OF THE ISD HAD THAT THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE HERE INCORRECTLY. WAS THIS A STEP TO AVOID MAYBE HAVING A STADIUM BEHIND MY HOUSE OR SOMETHING? YOU KNOW, NATHAN EXPLAINED AT THE BEGINNING WHAT THE INTENT WAS AND AND SO FORTH. SORRY. SO SORRY. I GOT STUCK BEHIND SANTA ON THE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR EXPRESSING THANK YOU FOR EXPRESSING YOUR CONCERNS. OKAY. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO TO SPEAK ON THIS SUBJECT? SO I'M MICAH BRADFORD KIDWELL. WE'VE GOT ABOUT 93 ACRES OFF BOULDER ROAD. WE'VE GOT TWO LOTS. ONE THAT'S ALMOST THREE ACRES AND ONE THAT'S ALMOST TWO.

WE HAVE OUR HAY FIELD. I JUST WANT CLARITY AS MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS CHANGES. THIS IS GOING TO CAUSE A LOT MORE PAPERWORK. WE'VE GOT OUR HOUSE PLANS READY TO BUILD NEXT DOOR TO HILLARY. WHAT IS THIS LOOK LIKE? BECAUSE WHEN WE BOUGHT, WE SPECIFICALLY CAME IN FOR THE REASON OF BEING HERE WITH THE ZONING THAT WAS PRESENT. WE LOOKED AT THIS AT HELPING TO MAINTAIN PART OF WHAT MAKES NORTHLAKE. NORTHLAKE AS FEW OF THE BIGGER LANDOWNER OWNERS IN THIS AREA. AND FOR ME, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IF THIS GOES THROUGH, THIS COMPLETELY CREATES A MUCH MORE LITIGIOUS ENVIRONMENT FOR US TO GO THROUGH AND BUILD OUR HOME ON OUR LOT, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE CONTIGUOUS WITH ALL OF THIS. WHAT SIZE DID YOU SAY YOUR ACREAGE WAS? WE HAVE ALL THREE LOTS THAT ARE TOGETHER. WE HAVE AN 87.2 ACRE LAND. ISN'T THAT ISN'T THAT ALREADY ZONED AGRICULTURAL? NO. WELL, THE TOP PART, THOUGH, IF THIS GOES OUR

[00:20:06]

SO YOUR 89 WHAT YOU SAID ACRE 80. YEAH. THAT PROPERTY IS IN HERE TO BE CHANGED TO AG. THE THE TWO SMALLER ONES AT TOP. THOSE AREN'T INCLUDED BECAUSE THOSE HAVE BEEN PLATTED. THOSE HAVE BEEN THOSE ARE DEVELOPED LOTS. SO THOSE ARE STAYING AT RURAL RESIDENTIAL. WE HAVEN'T PROPOSED CHANGING THOSE. SO THE IF THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE PLANNING TO BUILD YOUR HOUSE, THE STANDARDS WOULDN'T CHANGE. THEY'RE EXACTLY THE SAME. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. WHO ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. MY NAME IS MICHAEL SAVOIE. I LIVE AT 8132 FLORENCE ROAD. OUR PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY THIS. AND FOR THOSE OF YOU, IT'S A IT'S A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE AND IT'S A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE BECAUSE YOU'RE FORCING A ZONING CHANGE ON US. THAT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF PLANNING AND ZONING. THAT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF CITY GOVERNMENT, CITY GOVERNMENT. YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND, THE PURPOSE OF CITY GOVERNMENT IS TO BUILD A HOUSE ON EVERY SQUARE FOOT OF NORTHLAKE, BECAUSE IT GENERATES TAX REVENUE. I UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT. BUT YOU AS CITIZENS REPRESENT US, THE OTHER CITIZENS OF THE TOWN, AND YOU NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE CAME TO NORTHLAKE. OUR ZONING IS WHAT IT WAS WHEN WE WE CAME HERE. WE CAME HERE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT WOULD STAY THAT WAY. I HAVE NO PROBLEM IF YOU WANT TO DO THIS AND MAKE IT WHERE IT IS. AS NATHAN PUT UP THERE A MINUTE AGO, WHERE THIS IS BY THE OWNER'S AGREEMENT TO DO THIS.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS. THIS IS CLEARLY SOMETHING WHERE YOU ARE GOING IN AND FORCING A ZONING CHANGE. ON THE CURRENT CITIZENS OF NORTHLAKE. THE IDEA OF CONSERVATION OVERLAY. THAT SOUNDS GREAT. I WOULD REMIND ALL OF YOU THAT PECAN SQUARE WAS PART OF THE CONSERVATION OVERLAY. IT WAS FIVE ACRE MINIMUMS, AND THE TOWN WENT IN AND STRIPPED IT OF ITS CONSERVATION OVERLAY AND BUILT TEN HOMES TO AN ACRE IN PECAN SQUARE. IF YOU DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH ALL THE LAND THAT YOU'RE DOING THIS TO, YOU'RE WRONG. BECAUSE, LIKE I SAID, THE INCENTIVE FOR THE CITY, IF WE'RE AN AG, THE CITY IS NOT MAKING ANY TAX MONEY. IF YOU TAKE US OUT OF AG, RIGHT, AND FORCE ZONING ON US AND FORCE US INTO DEVELOPMENT, THAN THE CITY MAKES A LOT OF MONEY. BUT THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF NORTHLAKE, THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF OUR CITIZENS. I KNOW EVERYBODY LOVES THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT'S ON 407 RIGHT NOW.

TRIPLE IT AND SEE HOW MUCH YOU'RE GOING TO ENJOY 407. RIGHT. THIS IS THE QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUE. IT'S ALSO AN ISSUE OF RESPECTING THE CITIZENS OF THE TOWN. SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU TURN THIS DOWN UNTIL WE GET SOMETHING THAT'S MORE ALIGNED AND MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE CITIZENS, AND IS MORE BALANCED TO THE GROWTH IN THE SUCCESS OF THE TOWN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU SIR. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? MISS HARDEMAN? HI, MY NAME IS RENA HARDIMAN. I LIVE IN NORTHLAKE. I'M GOING TO BE REFERENCING SOMETHING THAT I TOOK OFF OF THE NORTHLAKE WEBSITE FROM THE COUNCIL MEETING THAT WHEREIN THIS ZONING DISTRICT WAS APPROVED. FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO DEFER TO TEXAS POLICY RESEARCH AND THIS IDEA OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE INTEGRAL TO INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, FREEDOM AND ECONOMIC SUCCESS. THEY ENSURE THAT INDIVIDUALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACQUIRE, USE, AND DISPOSE OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT UNWARRANTED GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION OR INTERFERENCE.

PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE A SAFEGUARD AGAINST TYRANNY. WITHOUT SECURE PROPERTY RIGHTS, INDIVIDUALS CANNOT INVEST IN THEIR FUTURES OR PLAN FOR THE LONG TERM, WHICH UNDERMINES BOTH PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC STABILITY. PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS HAVE BEEN STRONGLY DEFENDED BY POLITICAL THINKERS SUCH AS JOHN LOCKE, WHO WROTE IN TWO TREATIES OF GOVERNMENT THAT, QUOTE, LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY ARE FUNDAMENTAL NATURAL RIGHTS. LOCKE BELIEVED THAT THE RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY WAS INTRINSIC TO PERSONAL FREEDOM AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS IN THE UNITED STATES. JAMES MADISON ECHOED THIS SENTIMENT, STATING THAT, QUOTE, GOVERNMENT IS INSTITUTED TO PROTECT PROPERTY OF EVERY SORT WITHOUT SECURE PROPERTY RIGHTS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND PERSONAL SECURITY ARE JEOPARDIZED. SO I WANT TO ESTABLISH THAT FIRST, BECAUSE TEXAS IS ONE OF THE MOST PRO PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS STATES IN THE UNITED STATES. AND I PERSONALLY APPRECIATE THAT. SO I'D LIKE TO IF I COULD. DO YOU

[00:25:04]

WHENEVER THEY PASSED THIS, WHENEVER THEY APPROVED THE RIDGE DEVELOPMENT. AND SO I DON'T SEE HOW PUNISHING EVERY SINGLE LANDOWNER IN NORTH LAKE WITH 20 PLUS ACRES IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I URGE YOU TO DENY THIS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HAVE HAVE COMMENTS TO MAKE ONHIS ISSUE? NATHAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS ANY OF THE ISSUES RAISED? CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? YES, IT'S 6:00. WE WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SIR, IF YOU COULD HELP ME REMEMBER SOME OF THESE. BUT FIRST OFF, I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT. YOU CAN BUILD A HOUSE IN THE AG ZONING DISTRICT. IT ALLOWS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, JUST LIKE RURAL RESIDENTIAL. YOU CAN USE PROPERTIES WITHIN SETBACKS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. YOU JUST COULDN'T BUILD A HOME IN THAT SETBACK OR BUILD A BUILDING IN THAT SETBACK. BUT REMEMBER, THESE PROPERTIES ARE VERY LARGE, MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 20 ACRES.

THERE WAS A MENTION OF THE MAXIMUM COVERAGE, I THINK WAS WHAT WAS REFERRED TO A 15% IN AGRICULTURE, WHICH IS LESS THAN I THINK IT'S 25% ALLOWED IN RURAL RESIDENTIAL, BUT 15% OF THE 20 ACRE LOT IS 130,000FT■!S. SO YOU COULD HAVE 130,000FT■!S F BUILDING COVERAGE. SO THAT'S THAT'S THE LIMITATION THERE. AND ANOTHER POINT THAT WAS MENTIONED SOME THERE WAS AS IF THIS WAS TO BRING DEVELOPMENT. THAT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THIS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO HELP PRESERVE AND MEET OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR PRESERVING THOSE LARGER OPEN SPACES. A SIDE BENEFIT IS THAT IT IS A MORE NATURAL FIT FOR A HOLDING ZONE IN AREAS THAT ARE ULTIMATELY PLANNED TO DEVELOP, BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SAME DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, INCLUDING A ZONING CHANGE TO TO GET TO THAT POINT TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP. WERE THERE ANY OTHER THINGS THAT WERE MENTIONED THAT I DIDN'T ADDRESS OR YOU HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT? SO, NATHAN, IF YOU HAVE AN PROPERTY ZONED AG, IS THERE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT YOU

[00:30:07]

SO I'M JUST TRYING TO RECONCILE BETWEEN WHAT IS IN FACT BEING TAKEN AWAY, WHICH YOU'VE MENTIONED ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS, REALLY NOTHING MATERIAL TO WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL FOR SOMETHING THAT WOULD CREATE HIGH DENSITY, WHETHER OR NOT IT BE RESIDENTIAL OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT WOULD PUT MORE CARS ON 407 AT THIS POINT? YEAH. FOR ANYTHING, FOR ANY MORE DENSITY, THAT WOULD REQUIRE A ZONING CHANGE. SO IT'S THE PROCESS FOR PECAN SQUARE. IT WAS ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND WAS REZONED TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. YOU SEE NOW A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY ON OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. THERE WAS KIND OF A ANGLED LINE THAT WENT THROUGH THAT, AND THAT WAS A FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT WASN'T ZONING. SO THE WHOLE PROPERTY HAD TO BE REZONED. AND THAT WAS BUT THAT COULD THAT COULD OCCUR ON ANY ONE OF THESE PROPERTIES AT ANY TIME, REGARDLESS OF THE ACTION THAT'S BEING TAKEN TODAY, PNC AND COUNCIL SHOULD LOOK AT WHAT IS THE ULTIMATE PLAN FOR THAT PROPERTY ACCORDING TO OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO. BUT WHAT WOULD A REZONING OCCUR UNLESS SOMEONE DECIDED TO SELL THEIR PROPERTY TO A DEVELOPER AND THE DEVELOPER WANTED TO CHANGE THE DENSITY OR BUILD HIGH DENSITY? YES. THOSE TYPE OF REQUESTS FOR MORE DENSITY ARE ALMOST ALWAYS COMING FROM A PROPERTY OWNER THAT'S READY TO SELL TO A DEVELOPER, OR HAVE A DEVELOPER HAS PURCHASED IT. SO PROPERTY OWNERS WHO WANT TO MAINTAIN THEIR PROPERTY AS IS, SHOULD NOT BE IN ANY DANGER OF REZONING. CORRECT? AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY? OKAY, SO UNLESS THE PROPERTY IS FOR THIS TO BE THE THE BASE ZONING UNTIL THAT PROPERTY IS READY TO DEVELOP AS REQUESTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, OKAY.

NATHAN, IT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER THAT MOVING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO AG WOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF TAXES THE CITY COLLECTS ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY. IS THAT TRUE? NO, THAT BECAUSE MOST OF OUR RURAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, OTHER THAN THE HOMESTEADS, A LOT OF IT IS, LET'S SAY MOST OF IT IS HAS AG EXEMPTIONS. SO THE SAME WOULD APPLY IF IT'S ZONED AGRICULTURE. THEY WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT AT ALL. THE THE ZONING DOESN'T GIVE THE THE VALUE.

THANK YOU. THE USE AND I HEARD I HEARD RESPECTFULLY THE SUGGESTION THAT THE GOAL OF THE TOWN WAS TO INCREASE ROOFTOPS, SO TO SPEAK, IN ORDER TO INCREASE TAXES THAT WOULD BE TAKEN IN. I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT THE TOWN IS VERY DILIGENTLY PURSUING INDUSTRIAL OTHER OTHER MEANS, OTHER TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT, IF YOU WILL, IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE COMMUNITY TO DRIVE TAX INCOME FOR THE COMMUNITY. I HOPE I'M NOT MISUNDERSTANDING THAT. SO THIS THIS FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THE ONE ON YOUR SCREEN ON THE LEFT, THAT'S THAT'S THE

[00:35:06]

NATHAN, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THIS BLUE KIND OF DIAGONAL LINE THAT GOES THROUGH THIS MAP ON THE LEFT IS FLOODPLAIN. UNDEVELOPABLE UNDEVELOPABLE BULL PROPERTY. IS THAT CORRECT? THANK YOU. NATHAN, YOU'VE YOU'VE TAKEN SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO, TO CREATE WHAT IS THE VISION AND MARRYING THAT UP TO. YOU KNOW WHAT THESE THESE MAPS REPRESENT. YET MOST OF THE COMMENTS THAT I'VE HEARD TONIGHT, I WAS NOT HERE PRIOR. MOST OF THE COMMENTS THAT I'VE HEARD TONIGHT, AND MOST OF THE COMMENTS THAT I'VE READ IN THE SUBMISSIONS, SPEAK TO AN AMBIGUITY BEHIND WHAT IS POSSIBLE. YOU'VE PUT SEVERAL DOCUMENTS TOGETHER THAT I THINK, INCLUDING THESE MAPS THAT KIND OF LAY THAT OUT. IS THERE ANYTHING FURTHER THAT YOU MIGHT ADD? WHEN I HEAR OF AMBIGUITY, THERE'S IN THE MIND A PARADE OF HORRIBLES THAT THAT COULD OCCUR.

SOME OF THEM ARE IMAGINARY, SOME OF THEM ARE VERY REAL. AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO WITH RESPECT TO ANYONE THAT IS PROVIDED COMMENTARY IS TO TEASE OUT, OKAY, ARE THERE MEANINGFUL SCENARIOS HERE THAT THAT COULD BE HARMFUL TO WHAT THE RESIDENTS WANT VERSUS THOSE THAT ARE NOT? SO ALL THAT WRAPPED TOGETHER? ANYTHING ELSE YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO THAT THAT CAN ADDRESS CLARITY OF WHAT COULD HAPPEN TO WHAT YOU'RE HEARING, THAT THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING. SO YEAH, LET'S SEE. WHAT COULD HAPPEN IS IF THIS IS REZONED AS AG, THERE'S A LOT LESS THAT CAN HAPPEN ON IT. AND PRIMARILY THE GOAL IS TO PRESERVE IT AS AGRICULTURAL USE. LARGER LOTS ALLOW FOR A HOME THERE, WHICH FITS WHAT PRETTY MUCH ALL THESE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE DOING CURRENTLY. BUT IT CAN. BUT IT DOES KEEP IT FROM BEING DEVELOPED AT HIGHER DENSITY WITHOUT GOING BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS FOR FOR ZONING AND GETTING THAT APPROVAL. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS. FURTHER DISCUSSION QUESTIONS. MAY I ASK A QUESTION? ARE YOU GOING TO READ INTO THE RECORD THE NOTIFICATION RESPONSE FORMS THAT WERE SUBMITTED? OKAY, I THOUGHT YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO DO THAT DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WELL, WE HAVE QUITE A QUITE A FEW HERE. OKAY. WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. LET'S SEE HERE. I HAVE SEVERAL THAT DON'T INDICATE WHAT THEY'RE WHICH WAY THEY'RE GOING. ONE, THERE'S A BOX AT THE TOP THAT SAYS FOR OR AGAINST EVEN IF THERE'S NO COMMENT. I'M SORRY I SAID I THINK ON SOME OF OURS WE DIDN'T PUT A COMMENT, BUT WE PUT AGAINST. YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

OKAY. I WILL POINT OUT THERE WERE SEVERAL THAT WERE SUBMITTED AFTER THE PACKET.

THOSE WERE PASSED OUT TO YOU. THERE WERE A FEW THAT WERE WERE HANDED OUT HERE AT THIS MEETING.

SO WE DON'T HAVE THE EXACT TALLY. THERE ARE ACTUALLY A FEW THAT CHANGED AFTER THEY GOT THE SECOND NOTIFICATION, CHANGED THEIR THEIR OPINION ON IT. SO IT'S KIND OF HARD TO COME UP WITH THE TOTAL NUMBER RIGHT NOW. BUT THE ONE THING THAT DOES APPLY WITH THOSE WRITTEN COMMENTS IS THAT IF THEY'RE 20% PROPERTY OWNERS REPRESENTING 20% OR MORE OF THE LAND AREA, THAT'S SUBJECT TO THE ZONING CHANGE OR WITHIN 200FT OF THAT ZONING CHANGE, IF WE RECEIVED OPPOSITION FROM 20% OR MORE OF THAT LAND AREA, THAT IT REQUIRES A SUPERMAJORITY TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE. AND WE ARE AT ABOUT 23% OF THE AREA TO BE REZONED. THAT WOULD REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY BY COUNCIL. SO YOU CAN RECOMMEND IT, BUT TO GET IT TO APPROVE IT, WE'RE STILL REQUIRES A SUPERMAJORITY. RECOMMENDING JUST REQUIRES A SIMPLE MAJORITY

[00:40:03]

WELL, I ASKED THE QUESTION BEFORE THE MEETING COMMENCED ABOUT WHETHER PEOPLE LIVING OUTSIDE COULD EVEN ADDRESS AND WAS TOLD THAT ANYBODY COULD SPEAK. THEY'RE MAILED OUT TO PROPERTY OWNERS. YEAH. SO A PROPERTY OWNER COULD BE A RESIDENT OF ANOTHER CITY. OKAY.

SO THOSE ARE THE STATISTICS THAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME. WHAT DID I SAY? THREE AND NINE, THREE, FOUR, NINE OPPOSED AND SOME NONCOMMITTAL. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBERS, ARE WE. YOU HAVE. YEAH. I HATE TO BE A STICKLER ON THIS, BUT THAT'S MY NATURE. SO, CHAIRPERSON KING, WHERE I AM STILL AT A LOSS IS THERE IS A DICHOTOMY BETWEEN THOSE THAT ARE IN FAVOR AND THOSE THAT ARE OPPOSED. AND TO ME, WHEN I READ THE COMMENTS AND LISTEN, YOU'RE BOTH SAYING EXACTLY THE SAME THING. KEEP NORTH LAKE THE WAY WE ALL WANT IT. THAT'S WHAT I'M SEEING IN THE COMMENTS. THE DISTINCTION IS ON THOSE THAT ARE OPPOSED. YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE GOING TO RESTRICT MY RIGHTS AS A PROPERTY OWNER, WHICH I AM ADAMANTLY AGAINST, BUT I'M NOT HEARING THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING THAT OTHER THAN JUST A PROCEDURAL CHANGE THAT CAN OCCUR ANYWAY. SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO RECONCILE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THEM TO EXPAND MORE ON THEIR COMMENT, IS TO EXACTLY WHAT ARE WE RESTRICTING YOU FROM DOING? I'M HEARING A PERCENTAGE OF YOUR PROPERTY THAT YOU CAN'T BUILD ON, BUT I THINK NATHAN HAS DONE A REASONABLY GOOD JOB OF TAKING US THROUGH. IS IS THAT A MATERIAL IMPACT, OR IS THAT MORE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE IMPACT? I, I ASSUME IT'S THE IT'S THE, THE FORMER. SO I'M TRYING TO GET A BETTER SENSE AS TO FOR THOSE THAT ARE AGAINST THIS. AND MISS HARTMAN, YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB OF OF SHOWING THAT YOU'RE AGAINST IT. I IT JUST HASN'T BEEN MADE CLEAR TO ME AS TO WHAT YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO GOING FORWARD WITH THIS PROPERTY THAT IS NOT IN LINE WITH WHAT MOST RESIDENTS, INCLUDING MYSELF, AND WHAT THE CITY VISION IS SAYING. AND THAT IS WE WANT TO KEEP IT PRETTY RURAL. SO CAN CAN IS IT APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THEM TO ARTICULATE FURTHER? WE'VE WE'VE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. WELL, THEN IF ONE OF THE ONE OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS OR NATHAN CAN HELP ME BETTER UNDERSTAND THAT THAT WOULD HELP ME IN THE VOTING PROCESS. AND I'M SORRY THAT THAT NO, I UNDERSTAND. I THINK WE'RE ALL STRUGGLING WITH THE SAME THING. THAT'S A LOT OF ACREAGE. YEAH. DANNY, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? I'M HAPPY TO ADDRESS YOUR ISSUES. IF THAT'S ALLOWED, I'D BE HAPPY TO. CHAIR THE MEETING. POINT A POINT OF ORDER. YOU CAN RECOGNIZE ANYBODY AS CHAIR. OKAY. YOU OR THE THE BOARD CAN VOTE FOR A MOTION TO RECOGNIZE SOMEBODY.

BUT AS CHAIR YOU'RE OKAY. SO YOU CAN RECOGNIZE OR NOT RECOGNIZE. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO RECOGNIZE ANYONE WHO HAS ANYTHING SUBSTANTIVE TO ADD THAT WE HAVEN'T ALREADY COVERED.

MISS HARMON, THE QUESTION WAS DIRECTED AT ME, SO I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION. SO WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST TO EVERYONE IS THAT YOU READ IN ITS ENTIRETY THE AG ZONING DOCUMENT, WHICH I HAVE DONE, AND IT SPECIFIES ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WE LOSE. I ONLY HAVE A VERY SMALL PORTION OF THAT HERE WITH ME, AND THAT IS THIS LITTLE ZONING REDISTRICTING CHART THAT I TOOK FROM THE AGENDA FROM THE MEETING WHERE THIS WAS PASSED. OKAY. THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE ALLOWED IN RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND HAVE TO UNDERSTAND YOU'VE GOT A FIVE ACRE MINIMUM VERSUS A 20 ACRE. OKAY. SO THAT PERSON WITH FIVE ACRES CAN DO 420 ACRE, I MEAN, FOUR HOMES WHERE THE

[00:45:03]

YOU THE SETBACKS LIKE I SAID, THEY'RE CONSIDERABLE. IF I WANT TO BUILD A BARN ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND I NEED IT IN A SPECIFIC LOCATION BECAUSE WE ARE A LEGITIMATE AG OPERATION, I'D LIKE TO BUILD THAT BARN WHERE I NEED IT, NOT WHERE THE TOWN TELLS ME TO PUT IT. OKAY.

AND IF I HAD A SMALLER LOT, I COULD BUILD IT CLOSER TO MY FENCE LINE. BUT BECAUSE WE'RE A LARGER LOT OWNER, WE ARE DENIED THAT. RIGHT? OKAY. WE'RE DENIED A LOT OF RIGHTS. WE ARE. THERE ARE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR BARNS AND SILOS. THERE'S A LAUNDRY LIST OF THINGS. THERE ARE PERMITS THAT WE HAVE TO GET IN RURAL IN AG THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO GET IN RURAL RESIDENTIAL. THERE ARE DESIGN STANDARDS IN AG THAT ARE NOT PRESENT IN RURAL RESIDENTIAL.

SO THERE'S A WHOLE SLEW OF THINGS THAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE. READING THE ENTIRETY OF THE THING BEFORE YOU VOTE ON THIS TO, TO UNDERSTAND FULLY WHAT WE'RE LOSING BY THIS, I, I IF YOU HAD ASKED ME, I WOULD HAVE PREPARED EVERY SINGLE BIT OF THAT AND BROUGHT THAT TO THIS, BUT I WAS CUT OFF AT TWO MINUTES. SO I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO DO THAT. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT THIS IS A TAKING ESSENTIALLY, IN MY OPINION, AS A NON ATTORNEY, BUT SOMEONE WHO HAS WORKED WITH LOTS OF ATTORNEYS, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A TAKING OF OUR PROPERTY BY THE AND I'VE GOT AN ENTIRE LIST FROM I CAN SHOW IT TO YOU AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR A TAKING IF WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO USE IT FOR WHAT WE WANT TO USE IT. IT'S IT'S ONE OF THE TENETS OF A TAKING. OKAY. SO THERE'S A WHOLE LIST OF THEM THAT I HAVE HERE THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M SURE THE CHAIR WOULD NOT LIKE ME TO READ, BUT I WOULD BE HAPPY TO JUST TO ANSWER ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS. BUT I HAVE THAT LIST HERE. IT'S JUST IN MY PILE OF RESEARCH. SO LIKE I SAID, THERE'S A LAUNDRY LIST OF THINGS IN AG THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO IN RURAL RESIDENTIAL THAT WE NOW HAVE TO DO AS AN AG OPERATION. IF YOU WANT US TO FLOURISH IN THIS TOWN, DON'T DO THIS TO US. IF YOU WANT US TO MAINTAIN AN AG OPERATION. AND THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENCES. THERE'S ZONING AND THEN THERE'S AG USE. AG ZONING IS WHAT THEY'RE FORCING UPON US. AG USE IS HOW YOU USE LAND. IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT. YOU CAN HAVE AN INDUSTRIAL PIECE DOWN HERE, OKAY. THAT'S INDUSTRIAL. AND THEY'RE USING IT AS AG, WHICH GIVES THEM THEIR AG EXEMPTION, WHICH ALLOWS THEM TO NOT PAY AS MUCH PROPERTY TAX. OKAY. BUT ALL OF THAT LAND DOWN THERE, THEY DON'T CARE BECAUSE SEE, THEY'RE IN THE FLOOD FLOODPLAIN AND THE FLOOD WAY. AND LIKE YOU SAID, YOU CAN'T BUILD THERE. SO THEY DON'T CARE IF THEY'RE THERE. FLOODPLAIN AND FLOOD WAY IS REZONED. BUT THE PROPERTIES UP HERE THAT'S USABLE, WE DO CARE. AND WE ARE HAVING LAND LITERALLY, NOT LITERALLY, BUT TAKEN FROM US, THE USE OF THAT LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF REZONING EVERYONE. AND I BELIEVE IT'S SO THAT WE CAN KEEP THE SCHOOL OUT, THE ARGYLE ISD SCHOOL OUT. AND, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND, PECAN SQUARE HAS A SCHOOL, THE HARVEST HAS A SCHOOL. THE RIDGE WANTS A SCHOOL, OR ARGYLE WANTS TO PUT A SCHOOL IN THE RIDGE. IT'S A IT'S A HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. I UNDERSTAND PEOPLE NOT WANTING TO LOOK AT IT, BUT THE MAYOR HAS A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT LOOKS RIGHT OUT ON THAT. SO THAT'S A HUGE CONFLICT IN MY MIND. SO PLEASE ASK ME WHATEVER QUESTIONS YOU WANT TO ASK ME. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. NATHAN. YES, I DID WANT TO RESPOND TO A COUPLE OF THINGS. THE SAME PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS REQUIRE OUR APPLY REGARDLESS OF ZONING, AND THERE ARE NO DESIGN STANDARDS FOR AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURES SO THAT THAT DOESN'T CHANGE. OKAY. I'D LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING. SOMETHING I'D BE VERY GRATEFUL.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS TWO OF THE ISSUES THAT THAT WERE ASKED. AND ROGER, I DO APPRECIATE ALL THE WOULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF AGAIN, PLEASE? I LIVE AT 8132 FLORENCE ROAD.

THANK YOU. THE TWO THINGS I WANT TO ADDRESS IS THIS WE TEND TO LOOK AT AND GO WITH A 25 FOOT SETBACK. IT'S 100 FOOT SETBACK. YOU KNOW WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL? WELL, THE BIG DEAL IS THIS I HAVE TO BUILD A DRIVEWAY. I HAVE TO RUN WATER LINES. I HAVE TO RUN SEWER LINES, YOU KNOW, TO PUT IN, YOU KNOW, THE SEWER SYSTEM AND STUFF LIKE THAT. AND I'M TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPMENT. I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT FOR BARNS, FOR WHATEVER I NEED TO RUN WATER, I NEED TO RUN SEWER, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, I NEED TO PUT IN DRIVEWAYS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. SO ALL OF THAT'S GOING TO COST ME MORE MONEY BECAUSE YOU'RE TELLING ME I HAVE TO DO 100 FOOT SETBACK, SO, YOU KNOW, TO CONNECT TO A ROAD, 100 FOOT SETBACK VERSUS 25. I'VE GOT TO DO THAT, RIGHT? I WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE YOU'RE TELLING ME WHERE I CAN PUT MY BARN. AND SO IF I NEED A BARN IN A CERTAIN SPOT AND I CAN'T PUT IT THERE, I MAY HAVE TO DO DIRT WORK. I

[00:50:02]

WELL, WE'RE NOT FORCING ZONING ON ANYONE. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING RIGHT NOW, IS YOU'RE FORCING A ZONING CHANGE ON PROPERTY OWNERS WHO DON'T WANT IT. AND ONCE AGAIN, I WOULD POINT OUT IF THE ZONING IF THE PROPERTY OWNER WANTS TO CHANGE THEIR ZONING, I THINK THIS IS FINE. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT AT ALL. BUT WHEN THE TOWN NOW STARTS TO SAY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO FORCE A ZONING CHANGE ON YOUR QUESTION, I THINK WAS VERY VALID, WHICH IS, OKAY, NATHAN, IF SOMEBODY DOESN'T WANT TO CHANGE THEIR ZONING, ARE WE GOING TO FORCE THEM TO ZONE IT? AND NATHAN SAID, NO, BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING WITH THIS DOCUMENT, IS YOU'RE FORCING A ZONING CHANGE ON CITIZENS THAT DON'T WANT IT. FOR THE CITIZENS WHO WANT IT, THEY CAN CHANGE. RIGHT NOW, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL. BUT WHAT YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO DO IS FORCE ZONING CHANGE ON CITIZENS WHO DON'T WANT IT. AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO REALLY THINK ABOUT THAT BEFORE YOU VOTE ON THIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. COMMISSIONERS. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION. DO I HEAR A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO AGRICULTURAL FOR GENERAL FOR ALL RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE PROPERTIES LARGER THAN 20 ACRES.

CASE NUMBER 20 FIVE. DASH Z00003. DO I HEAR A SECOND? SECOND? THEN WE'LL VOTE. ON THE

[3.B. VOTE]

OKAY. DID YOU SAY WE NEED A MAJORITY? JUST A SIMPLE MAJORITY FOR THIS ONE. OKAY.

COUNCIL APPROVAL. I'LL TAKE A SUPERMAJORITY. OKAY. MOTION CARRIES WITH A VOTE OF THREE FOR ONE AGAINST. THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS. CONSIDER A

[3.C. Consider a recommendation on an amendment to the I – PD Industrial Planned Development zoning applicable to approximately 57.325 acres of land at the southeast corner of Harmonson Road and McPherson Drive. - Case # 25-PDA00004 ]

THIS PROPERTY WAS IN THE ETJ WAS BROUGHT IN AND REZONED FROM DEFAULT AG TO INDUSTRIAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND AS WAS CALLED FOR IN A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHICH HELPED GET IT ANNEXED.

BUT THE ONLY IT KIND OF ADHERED TO ALL OF OUR BASE INDUSTRIAL ZONING STANDARDS. THE ONLY MODIFICATION WAS THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG HARMON. AND THERE WAS ONE SPOT WHERE THEY NEEDED 20FT INSTEAD OF 30FT. HERE'S A LOOK AT THE THE SITE. THESE BUILDINGS ARE JUST ABOUT READY TO TO OCCUPY. BUT NOW WE GET TO THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT. THIS IS TO AMEND THAT EXISTING PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND TO PROVIDE FOR A FEW MORE MODIFICATIONS FROM THE BASE ZONING. AND PRIMARILY THE REASON FOR THIS IS TO ALIGN WITH OTHER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS IN THAT AREA. AND YOU'VE SEEN A COUPLE OF THOSE COME BEFORE YOU THIS YEAR. SO AGAIN, THIS WOULD BE BASED ON OUR OUR REGULAR INDUSTRIAL ZONING STANDARDS, WITH A FEW MODIFICATIONS, INCLUDING SOME ADDITIONAL PERMITTED USES WITH MORE REFINED DEFINITIONS, WHICH

[00:55:05]

[3.C. VOTE]

[3.D. Consider approval of a Site Plan of DHL Northlake Building 3, a proposed 368,280 square-foot warehouse building on a 22.589-acre tract of land to be platted as Lot 2, Block 1, Northlake Logistics Center, and located at 4055 McPherson Drive - Case # 25-SP00010]

HERE'S A LOOK AT IT. BUILDING THREE IS SHOWN ON THIS KIND OF OVERALL SITE PLAN. THE NEXT ITEM WILL BE THE BUILDING FOR BUILDING THREE IS ABOUT 378,000, OR 370,000FT■!S OF BUILDING SPAE COULD BE OCCUPIED BY ONE OR MORE TENANTS. 74 PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED THERE, PROVIDING 401 PARKING SPACES. IT MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, ZONING. AND HERE'S A LOOK. NOT REAL EXCITING, BUT THAT'S A LOOK AT THE THE WAREHOUSE. YOU'VE SEEN THESE BEFORE. AND LIKE I SAID, IT MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS. SO IT'S ACCEPTABLE FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS ONE? I HEAR A MOTION MOVE TO APPROVE.

SECOND SECONDED. OKAY. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS ITEM E CONSIDER

[3.D. VOTE]

[3.E. Consider approval of a Site Plan of DHL Northlake Building 4, a proposed 1,114,760 square-foot warehouse building on a 74.713-acre tract of land to be platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Northlake Logistics Center, and located at 4101 McPherson Drive - Case # 25-SP00011]

[01:00:06]

MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. WE DIDN'T PUT ANY SLIDES SHOWING THE LANDSCAPE PLAN BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY SHEETS. IT'S SUCH A LARGE SITE. IT'S IT'S HARD TO REALLY SHOW ON THE ON THE SCREEN, BUT IT DOES MEET OUR REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE PLANNING A LOT OF TREES. AND I DIDN'T SHOW THE THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR THIS ONE EITHER.

YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT IT'LL LOOK LIKE. SO AGAIN IT MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS OKAY.

QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION. MOTION MOTION TO APPROVE SECOND THEN. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. OUR

[3.E. VOTE]

[3.F. Consider approval of a Site Plan of Bank of America, a proposed 4,320 square-foot bank on a 1.704-acre lot known as Lot 1A, Block A, Harvest Town Center, and generally located at the northeast corner of FM 407 and Harvest Way. Case # 25-SP00008 ]

COULD BE ON THIS SITE, MAYBE ON ANOTHER ONE, BUT TO KEEP THE BANK OF AMERICA PROJECT GOING AND FROM DELAYING IT, WE PROPOSE A CONDITION TO ALLOW FUTURE MODIFICATIONS TO THAT LANDSCAPE PLAN AS NECESSARY TO MAKE WAY FOR THAT MONUMENT SIGN. IF IT'S IF IT'S IF WE WORK OUT AN AGREEMENT TO HAVE IT ON THAT SITE. SO REAL QUICK, THIS IS WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT IT GOING.

LIKE I SAID, THIS IS JUST RIGHT AT OUR TOWN BOUNDARY HERE. AND THAT SPECIFIC LOCATION ON THE SITE IS ONE OF THE FEW THAT'S NOT COVERED UP IN EASEMENTS ALONG THAT FRONTAGE. SO THAT'S ANOTHER REASON FOR THAT SPECIFIC LOCATION ON THE SITE WOULD HAVE TO BE WITHIN THAT KIND OF TRIANGULAR AREA. AND AS FOR REFERENCE, THIS IS WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE. BUT AGAIN, THAT IS SEPARATE FROM THIS SITE PLAN. BUT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE. WE WERE ABLE TO EXPEDITE THIS CHANGE AND NOT HURT BANK OF AMERICA IF THAT WAS TO HAPPEN. SO STAFF HAS SUGGESTED IF YOU APPROVE THIS, THAT YOU APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION THAT ANY OF THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE LANDSCAPE PLANS THAT MAY BE NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED SIGN SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHOUT FURTHER APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, IF THAT MONUMENT WERE TO GO ON THIS SITE, WOULD THAT HAVE ANY NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SITE ITSELF IN TERMS OF MAKING THE SITE NOT MEET OTHERWISE? IT

[01:05:02]

RIGHT. SO OKAY, THEY THEY HAVE TO MEET THE HARVEST TOWN CENTER GUIDELINES, WHICH ARE VERY STRINGENT AND ACTUALLY REQUIRE A LOT MORE LANDSCAPING THAN WE DO. THEY REQUIRE THOSE BERMS, THE SPLIT RAIL FENCING. SO YEAH, THEY THEY REALLY GO OVER AND ABOVE ON THE DESIGN. AND SO IT THIS DEFINITELY MEETS ALL OF OUR REQUIREMENTS, EVEN WITH THE REMOVAL OF SOME OF THAT. OKAY.

AND I WILL POINT OUT I DO BELIEVE THERE'S SOME REPRESENTATIVES FOR THIS PROJECT. IF YOU DO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM. OKAY. ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. NOPE. LIKE THE SIGN. YEAH. WELL IT'S ABOUT TIME WE HAVE A BANK OF AMERICA SOMEWHERE CLOSE BESIDE FORT WORTH OR DENTON. OKAY, I HEAR A MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. I'M GOING TO READ ALL THIS TO APPROVE SITE PLAN. BANK OF AMERICA POST 4320 SQUARE FOOT BANK ON 1.704 ACRE LOT KNOWN AS ONE A BLOCK, A HARVEST TOWN CENTER GENERALLY LOCATED NORTHEAST CORNER OF FM 407 HARVEST WAY. CASE NUMBER 25 SP 00008, WITH ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THE LANDSCAPE PLANS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED TOWN OF NORTHLAKE.

ENTRANCE MONUMENT SIGN TO BE ALLOWED WITHOUT FURTHER APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THANK YOU. SECOND. SECOND. IT. OKAY. IT'S ABOUT. MOTION CARRIES

[3.F. VOTE]

THANK YOU,

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.