[00:00:01]
[Call to Order - Determine if a Quorum is Present: ]
IT IS 6:00 PM WE'LL CALL TO ORDER THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.UM, CRYSTAL JOHNSON IS PRESENT.
KYLE IS NOT BRITTANY'S PRESENT, JOHNNA IS PRESENT, AND SUSAN IS PRESENT.
WE'LL DO THE INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, MS. CRYSTAL.
IF YOU WOULD BOW YOUR HEADS OR OBSERVE THIS MOMENT IN THE WAY YOU CHOOSE.
HEAVENLY FATHER, WE COME TO YOU WITH OPEN HEARTS, SPIRITS, AND MINDS ASKING THAT YOU GUIDE US ALL IN ONE ACCORD WITH THE GROWTH, PROSPERITY, BETTERMENT, AND POSITIVITY OF OUR COMMUNITY HERE IN AUBREY, TEXAS.
WE ASK THAT YOU CONTINUE TO GIVE US TRAVELING GRACE, AS YOU GAVE US ON THE WAY HERE TO GIVE US THE SAME GRACE ON THE WAY HOME.
WE ASK THAT YOU CONTINUE TO GUIDE OUR HEARTS AFTER WE LEAVE THIS BUILDING AND BEYOND.
IN JESUS NAME, WE ASK AND PRAY.
FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CONSIDER REPUBLIC FOR WHICH STANDS.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO BE TEXAS.
ARE THERE ANY COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS? NO.
[Community Announcements]
CITIZEN INPUT.ANY PERSON MAY ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
IF YOUR COMMENTS ARE CONCERNING AN ADDITION AGENDA ITEM, YOU MAY WAIT UNTIL THE DISCUSSION ON THAT ITEM IF YOU PREFER.
HUTCH, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK NOW OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO WAIT UNTIL THE AGENDA ITEM DOESN'T MATTER TO ME? I GUESS IT'S UP TO YOU.
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
AN EXEC EXECUTIVE SESSION.SECTION 5, 5, 1 0.0 7, 1, 1, AND TWO, CONSTELLATION WITH ATTORNEY.
WE WILL MOTION, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECESS AND TO EXECUTIVE SESSION? I MOVE THAT WE MUCH, I MOVE THAT WE TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
AND DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
AND WE ARE GOING INTO AN EXECUTIVE AT SIX ZERO 3:00 PM OKAY.
[Reconvene into Open Session]
MM-HMMWE WILL RECONVENE INTO OPEN SESSION AT 7:09 PM
[New Business]
NEW BUSINESS TWO CONSIDERATION AND ACTION ON APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 9TH, 2026 MEETING.DO I HAVE RECOMMENDED MOTION? I CAN MOTION WE APPROVE THIS.
NICOLE, DO I HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND.
I STILL ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? NICE NUMBER THREE, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION.
TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT 14, A ZONING ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 0.43 ACRES OF LAND BEING LOT ONE BLOCK, A B BOUGIE, A BUCCI.
A EDITION IS GENERALLY LOCATED NORTHEAST OF INTERSECTION OF MAPLE STREET AND ROCK HILL ROAD LEAVING, UM, NC COMMISSION.
SO THIS ITEM, UM, IS FROM LAST TODAY WAS TABLED, UM, AT THE LAST, UH, MEETING.
UM, THIS PROPERTY IS HERE FOR REZONING FROM A MULTI-FAMILY ZONE TO APARTMENT ZONE TO A, UH, DUPLEX, UM, ZONE ZONED.
AND IT'S GENERALLY LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF MAPLE STREET AND ROCK HILL ROAD.
[00:05:05]
THANK YOU.THIS SITE IS SITUATED IN A BLOCK THAT IS ENTIRELY ZONED, UH, MULTIFAMILY AND LACKS, UM, ANY MULTIFAMILY OR APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT IN IT.
THE DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT OF THE BLOCK, UM, IS PRIMARILY, UH, DUPLEXES, WHICH ARE, UH, TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND ALSO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
AND ALSO THE SURROUNDING CONTEXT IS MOSTLY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, THE BLOCK.
THERE'S SOME BLOCK ANALYSIS HERE.
UM, SO ON THE, UH, KEY OF THE 11 DWELLING STRUCTURES IN THIS BLOCK, UM, ARE ACTUALLY DUPLEXES WHILE THREE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE YELLOW DOTS.
THOSE ARE, UH, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DETACHED.
SO THIS ALREADY HAS, UH, THIS BLOCK IS PRIMARILY, UM, TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, UH, WHICH IS WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AS WELL.
THE PARCEL ADJACENT, UH, IS ADJACENT TO ALSO AN ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO THE WEST, UH, JUST ACROSS FROM MAPLE STREET.
UH, OFTEN WHEN CITIES ADOPT ZONING MAPS, A SINGLE DISTRICT IS APPLIED TO AN EXISTING OLDER PART OF THE CITY, UM, WHETHER ALL THE LOTS MEET THE STANDARDS OR NOT.
UM, SO, UM, THIS SEEMS TO BE THE CASE HERE.
THERE'S, UM, UH, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF LOTS HERE IN THIS BLOCK THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO THE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
UM, AND, UM, THE PROPOSED ZONING IS FOR A DUPLEX OR A SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED, UM, UM, ZONING, SFAC ZONING AND THE PROPOSED ZONING IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE OF RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY THAT CONTEMPLATES, UM, UH, DEVELOPMENT OF DUPLEXES ON SITE, THE DENSITY OF EIGHT TO 12 UNITS PER ACRE.
THE SFAC SERVES AS A TRANSITIONAL OR BUFFER DISTRICT BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL AND HIGHER INTENSITY USES.
UM, SO BEING ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, IT DOES, UH, IT IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT PROVIDES SORT OF A BUFFER BETWEEN HIGHER INTENSITY, UH, IF THERE'S A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, UH, ON ONE SIDE.
AND THEN THE OTHER SIDE IS A SINGLE FAMILY HAS A, A GOOD MIDDLE, IT PROVIDES A GOOD MIDDLE GROUND, UM, WHERE IT'S SLIGHTLY HIGHER DENSITY THAN THE SINGLE FAMILY, BUT NOT AS HIGH AS APARTMENTS.
HERE IT'S A, UM, THE SIZE OF THE SUBJECT LOT IS ALSO PROXIMAL, UH, UH, IS SIMILAR TO THE, UM, OTHER, UH, LOTS WITH SIMILAR NUMBER OF, UH, DUPLEX UNITS.
SO, UH, THE SIZE OF THE LOT IS APPROXIMATELY 8,800 SQUARE FOOT.
WHILE THE, UH, I HAVE DONE SOME ANALYSIS ON THE, ON THE MAP THERE OF, UH, WITHIN THE SAME BLOCK, THERE'S A, UM, SET OF TWO, UH, DUPLEX STRUCTURES, UH, HAVE A LOT AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 17,000 SQUARE FOOT.
SO THIS LOT IS COMPARABLE, UH, TO WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN THIS AREA.
AND NOTIFICATIONS AS REQUIRED BY TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND THE CITY OF A ZONING ORDINANCE WERE PROVIDED.
AND SINCE THE TIME OF AGENDA REPORT, PREPARATION CITY HAS RECEIVED ONE RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF THE REZONING REQUEST.
ON THE JULY 9TH PNZ MEETING, CONCERNS WERE, UH, RAISED REGARDING PARKING AND TRAFFIC.
UM, STAFF VISITED THE SITE MULTIPLE TIMES ON DIFFERENT TIMES, UH, DIFFERENT DAYS, AND DID NOT FIND ANY CONCERNS WITH PARKING OR TRAFFIC IN, UH, IN THE SURROUNDING AREA AND SEE THESE PICTURES.
UM, THERE'S, UM, MULTIPLE DAYS, UH, THERE WAS NO PARKING, UM, ALONG THE, ALONG ANY OF THE STREETS IN THE, IN THE SURROUNDING AREA, STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE REZONING APPLICATION AND RECOMMENDS IT FOR APPROVAL.
AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
SO JUST TO BE SO THAT I UNDERSTAND IT ZONE FOR LIKE 12 UNITS, LIKE TURN IT ON.
SO RIGHT NOW IT'S ZONED FOR UP TO 12 UNITS, AND THEN IT WOULD BE, SO THE, THE DENSITY, WHICH IS WHAT I MENTIONED IN MY, UH, SLIDE EIGHT TO 12 UNITS PER ACRE, THAT IS WITHIN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
UM, AND WE HAVE TO ZONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE,
[00:10:01]
UH, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.SO, UH, WHAT THIS, UH, WE, UH, THAT SLIDE NOTED WAS THAT, UH, THIS REZONING TO SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE, UM, EIGHT TO 12 UNITS PER ACRE DENSITY.
I THINK, UM, WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS, UH, FOUR UNITS.
SO IT'S TWO, UM, SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED, TWO DUPLEX STRUCTURES, UH, FOUR UNITS TOTAL, AND THAT WOULD RESULT INTO APPROXIMATELY 9.3 UNITS PER ACRE.
SO IT IS WITHIN THAT RANGE OF EIGHT TO 12 UNITS PER AC.
SO A MAXIMUM OF 12 UNITS DOWN TO FOUR UNITS DOWN TO EIGHT.
WHAT AM I MISSING? UM, SO, NO, I'M SORRY.
SO SINCE THIS IS, THIS LOT IS LESS THAN AN ACRE, IT'S UH, APPROXIMATELY 0.43 ACRES.
SO HERE THE DENSITY WOULD RESULT IN, FOR FOUR UNITS, THE DENSITY WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 9.3 UNITS PER ACRE.
UM, QUESTION, UH, EXCUSE ME IF I'M ALL MY FACTS CORRECT, STILL GETTING USED TO THIS, BUT JUST SO TO CONFIRM AND THEN ASK A QUESTION BASICALLY RIGHT NOW, ZONE FOR MULTIFAMILY USE AND DUE TO WHERE IT IS BOTH IN PRACTICALITY OF PUTTING THAT THERE AND THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA, UH, JUST WOULD NOT BE PRACTICAL.
WE WANT TO DOWN ZONE TO ALLOW FOR, UH, THOSE DUPLEXES THERE.
MY QUESTION IS, YOU SAID THE WHOLE AREA WITH THOSE OTHER LOTS IS ZONED FOR MULTIFAMILY, BUT THEY ALREADY HAVE DUPLEXES ON THEM.
I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS A DUMB QUESTION THERE, BUT THOSE OTHER ONES DON'T, LIKE, DIDN'T REQUIRE A CHANGE IN ZONING WHEN THEY WERE BUILT.
WHY, WHY DO WE NEED A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR DUPLEXES BE BUILT ON THIS ONE? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
UM, SO, UH, IF YOU CAN GO TO THE TWO SLIDES BACK.
UM, SO THESE ARE THE STRUCTURES.
I DID NOTE THAT THE ENTIRE BLOCK IS ZONED AS MULTIFAMILY, BUT, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT HERE, THE EXISTING STRUCTURES ARE MOSTLY DUPLEXES.
AND, UM, I AM, THIS USUALLY SOMETIMES HAPPENS BECAUSE ZONING IS PUT IN PLACE, UM, AFTER THE FACT.
UM, SO RIGHT NOW I WOULD CONSIDER THESE DUPLEXES TO BE NON-CONFORMING, UM, TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
BUT, UM, THEY PROBABLY WERE THERE BEFORE THE ZONING WAS PUT IN PLACE.
AND THEN WE ESTABLISHED THE ZONING LATER ON, UM, AS MULTIFAMILY, BUT, UH, WHICH DOES NOT CONFORM TO WHAT'S ALREADY THERE, BUT NOW THAT WE ARE GOING INTO A NEW DEVELOPMENT, IT NEEDS TO CONFORM TO ZONING, WHICH IS WHAT, UH, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE TO, UM, WHICH IS WHY THE APPLICANT IS APPLYING FOR A ZONING CHANGE.
JUST A REMINDER, THERE WAS SOMEONE WHO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
WAIT, THIS WAS, WAS THIS ONE YOURS? THIS WASN'T ONE.
DID YOU SPEAK? UH, MY NAME IS GLENN HUSKE.
UM, AND I WAS HERE LAST MONTH, VERY NERVOUS, YOU MIGHT REMEMBER ME.
UM, AND THAT WAS A NICE PICTURE THAT WAS POSTED, BUT THAT'S ALL IT WAS, IS A PICTURE.
I MEAN, MAPLE IS MAPLE'S NARROW AND I MEAN, MY OWN DAUGHTER HAS TO PARK IN THE STREET.
SOMETIMES IT, DEPENDING ON WORK SCHEDULE AND SCHOOL SCHEDULE AND EVERYTHING.
AND THERE'S PEOPLE LIVING IN THE DUPLEX THREE HOUSES DOWN FROM WHERE THIS LOT IS.
I MEAN, SOME PEOPLE ARE PARKING IN THE YARD.
I JUST, I DON'T THINK MAPLE STREET CAN HANDLE THE TRAFFIC AND THE CONGESTION AND POTENTIAL PARKING ISSUES.
AND I'M BEING HONEST, I DON'T THINK WE NEED ANY MORE RENTAL PROPERTIES ON MAPLE.
YOU KNOW, HALF THE RESIDENTS OR HALF OF THE STRUCTURES ON MAPLE ARE RENTALS.
YOU KNOW, YOU GET THAT MANY RENTERS IN, YOU CAN'T BUILD A SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
AND I JUST, I KNOW IT'S VERY, THE, THE, THE RENTAL PROPERTY.
I KNOW IT'S VERY SELFISH AND PROBABLY NOT A VALID CONCERN, BUT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE,
[00:15:01]
THE STREET AND THE PARKING AND EVERYTHING THAT THAT ENTAILS.OKAY, WELL, DO WE HAVE A RECOMMEND TO APPROVE TABLE OR DENY THE REZONING AND WHENEVER THIS CAME OFF OF THE TABLE, CORRECT? YES, YES.
FROM LAST MONTH, THE OWNER HERE OF THE APPLICANT'S HERE AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'M JIM BUSHY, UH, 1 33 HILL DRIVE, CABELL, TEXAS.
I AM THE APPLICANT AND THE, UH, OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.
I'D LIKE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT THE PARKING.
SO A GOOD THING ABOUT DOING THIS IS THERE'D BE ACTUALLY LESS CARS.
IF, IF I HAVE TO BUILD AN APARTMENT, THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE CARS AND, AND I, THERE'S NO ROOM TO PUT A, UH, PUT 'EM IN GARAGES.
THEY, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED 'CAUSE OF THE SETBACK.
THERE'S 60 FEET SETBACK ON TWO SIDES AND I CAN'T BUILD ANYTHING WITH A COVER ON IT.
AND, UH, SO I CAN'T EVEN PUT CARPORTS IN THERE.
UM, BUT THE IDEA HERE IS TO BUILD TWO DUPLEXES, ONE ON THE CORNER THAT HAS TWO ENTRANCES, ONE ON MAPLE, ONE ON ROCK HILL, AND IT'LL HAVE TWO CAR GARAGES, ONE ON MAPLE, ONE ON ROCK HILL, SO THERE'LL BE PLENTY, PLENTY OF PARKING RIGHT THERE FOR AT LEAST FOUR CARS, NOT WITHOUT GOING INTO THE STREET.
THE OTHER BUILDING WILL HAVE, UH, NOT THROUGH THE PLAINS EXACTLY ON THAT ONE, BUT IT WILL HAVE AT LEAST SINGLE CAR GARAGES.
SO WITH A DRIVEWAY THAT'S AT LEAST 25 FEET, THEY CAN EASILY GET TWO CARS, UH, THERE.
SO, AND WE CAN MAKE THE DRIVEWAYS A LITTLE WIDER IF WE NEED TO.
IF YOU WANT, I WANT THEM PARKING NEXT TO EACH OTHER SOMEHOW, SO, AND THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM.
WE DIDN'T SHOW 'EM THE, UH, THE LOT SIZES DRAWING YOU HAVE THAT IT'S IN THE PACKET.
YEAH, SO THERE'S A 60 FOOT WIDE LOT AND A 72 FOOT WIDE LOT.
SO 72 UH, FEET BEING ON THE CORNER CORNER HAS 2 25 FOOT SETBACKS, WHICH MAKES IT A LITTLE TOUGHER TO BUILD ON IT.
BUT, UH, THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM ON, ON BOTH LOTS TO PUT THE DUPLEXES.
SO ANY QUESTIONS? NO, THANK YOU SIR.
SO DO WE HAVE A RE RECOMMENDED MOTION? I MOTION TO RECOMMEND I MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
AND DO I HAVE A SECOND? YEAH, I SECOND THAT.
ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? RIGHT.
HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDER AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF AUBREY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, FUTURE LAND USE PLAN TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 11.977 ACRES OF LAND FROM RURAL LIFE TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY BEING ALL LOTS, 11 AND 12.
AUBREY ESTATES GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF WEST SHERMAN DRIVE, FM 4 28 AND WEST OF LINDA STREET.
THIS ITEM IS A, UM, APPLICATION TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UM, TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE, UH, DESIGNATION OF THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT'S APPROXIMATELY 11 FROM 9 7 7 ACRES FROM RURAL LIFE TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY.
UM, THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY IS PART OF A, UM, UH, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT'S, UM, WAS EXECUTED EARLIER THIS YEAR.
UM, AND IT'S PLANNED TO BE DEVELOPED AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP, THERE'S ONLY A PORTION OF THE SITE THAT'S DESIGNATED AS RURAL LIFE, WHILE THE REST OF IT IS RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY.
[00:20:01]
THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE RURAL LIFE DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY, UM, TO MAKE THE ENTIRE SITE AS RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.THE RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE SUPPORTS SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED AS PROPOSED FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
UH, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, UM, ALSO HAS, UH, RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY TO THE NORTH, THE EAST, AND ALSO SLIGHTLY FURTHER WEST.
UM, SO, UM, THIS IS A VERY COMPATIBLE LAND USE, UH, PROPOSAL.
UM, THE RE DESIGN, THE RE DESIGNATION WOULD RESULT IN THE ENTIRE SITE BEING DESIGNATED AS RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY, UH, ALONG DEVELOPMENT OF THE SINGLE COUNTER RESIDENTIAL, UH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOTIFICATIONS AS REQUIRED BY TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE WERE PROVIDED.
NO RESPONSES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, UH, SINCE THE TIME OF AGENDA REPORT PREPARATION.
UH, STAFF HAVE REVIEWED THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ENVIRONMENT AND IT FOR, UH, UH, RECOMMENDS IT FOR APPROVAL AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK? NO.
WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7 27.
DO WE COMMISSION, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I DO.
RURAL LIFE VERSUS RESIDENTIAL.
UM, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO CHANGE IT.
LIKE RURAL LIFE, WOULD THAT BE MORE ACREAGE PER DESIGNATED? ABSOLUTELY, YES.
UM, AND THEY WANNA CHANGE THAT TO CONDENSE IT AND PUT MORE HOMES ON IT? THAT IS TRUE, YES.
RURAL LIFE IS, UH, MOSTLY LIKE AGRICULTURAL.
THE DENSITY FOR RURAL LIFE IS, UH, LESS THAN FOUR UNITS PER ACRE, SO IT WOULD BE LESS THAN FOUR UNITS PER ACRE.
THAT WOULD BE, UH, 10,000, MINIMUM, 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT I WOULD THINK, LIKE ROUGHLY JUST, UH, UM, BUT UH, HERE THEY WANT TO HAVE SLIGHTLY SMALLER LOTS WITH THE AVERAGE SIZE LOTS, UH, WC UM, AND WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY.
AND THAT FOR THAT THE DENSITY IS, UH, FOUR TO EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE.
SO THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.
UM, IS THERE A NEED TO, TO, UM, CHANGE THIS TO RESIDENTIAL IN ORDER FOR THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT TO GO THROUGH? IS IT THAT AN ISSUE THAT IS THE, UH, REQUEST YES.
TO, UH, FOR THEM TO DEVELOP THE ENTIRE SITE AS A RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY, WHICH CONSTITUTES SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS.
BUT IS IT, IS THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH ANY, ANY OTHER SPACE IF THIS DOESN'T CHANGE? IS THAT WHAT, THAT'S MY QUESTION.
IF THIS DOESN'T CHANGE TO RESIDENTIAL, DOES THAT HINDER THE REST OF THE DEVELOPMENT? IT DOES.
UH, SO THIS WAS TWO DIFFERENT PARCELS.
IT WAS TWO DIFFERENT LANDOWNERS, AND THE DEVELOPER PURCHASED BOTH PROPERTIES.
UM, ONE OF THE PROPERTIES, UM, ALREADY HAD THE DESIGNATION FROM THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, UM, BUT THE OTHER PARCEL DIDN'T.
UM, SO THEY'RE WANTING TO, UM, AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SO THAT THEY CAN BUILD THEIR SUBDIVISION ON BOTH THE PARCELS SO THAT THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR WHOLE PLAN.
YEAH, THEY, THEY'RE, THEY'RE ADDING THE TWO PARCELS TOGETHER TO MAKE ONE.
DO WE HAVE AN APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF NEW HOMES IS THE FIRST QUESTION.
AND ARE THERE ANY ANTICIPATED CHANGES TO THE CURRENT FLOOD PLAN OR ANY OF THOSE OTHER ISSUES THAT CURRENTLY AFFECT THAT LAND? YES, SO THE APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF, UM, WE'LL GO INTO THAT IN OUR, UM, DURING OUR NEXT, UH, ITEM AS WELL.
THAT'S FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING.
UM, THE APPROXIMATE NUMBER IS, I THINK IT'S, UH, 120 APPROXIMATELY, BUT WE HAVE THAT SLIDE COMING UP IN THE NEXT, NEXT ITEM.
UM, AND FOR FLOODPLAIN, I DON'T BELIEVE, UH, ANY OF THIS AREA IS WITHIN, UH, THE FEMALE FLOODPLAIN.
DO I HAVE A RECOMMENDED MOTION? I
[00:25:01]
HAVE A QUESTION REAL QUICK.IS THERE NOT AN OPTION TO HAVE, LIKE IF YOU DO THE WHOLE SUBDIVISION, BUT TO HAVE AN OPTION FOR PEOPLE TO MAYBE BUY A LARGER LOT AND MAKE THE LOT A LITTLE LARGER AND NOT MAKE ALL OF THEM SO CONDENSED AS FAR AS THE WHOLE, THE WHOLE SUBDIVISION GOES? YEAH, THAT IS, I'M SORRY, I'M LOSING MY VOICE TOO.
SO THERE IS AN OPTION, UM, WHEN YOU'RE WORKING ON A, A DEVELOPMENT OR A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MM-HMM
UM, WHERE WE HAVE A MIX OF 40 FOOT LOTS, 50 FOOT LOTS, 60 FOOT LOTS, BUT THIS PARTICULAR ONE IS VERY SMALL.
UH, SO FOR THEM TO MAKE THIS DEVELOPMENT WORK, I THINK THEY'RE ALL 40 FOOT LOTS.
SO THERE WILL BE TWO DIFFERENT SIZES.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND? RECOMMEND MOTION.
I MOVE A MOVE THAT WE APPROVE.
AND DO I HAVE A SECOND? A SECOND.
NUMBER FIVE, HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT 14, A ZONING ORDINANCE TO ZONE IN APPROXIMATE 23.039 ACRES OF LAND, MORE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AS ALL LOTS 11 AND 12 AUBREY ESTATES AND ALL OF LOT NINE R AUBREY ESTATES.
FROM ITS CURRENT UN ZONE LAND DESIGNATION TO THE SHERMAN RIDGE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF WEST SHERMAN DRIVE AND WEST OF LINDA STREET COMMISSIONERS.
THIS ITEM IS THE COMPANION ITEM TO THE PREVIOUS ONE.
THIS IS THE, UM, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING, UM, OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM, UM, SO CURRENTLY IT'S UPZONED, UM, TO, UH, AND THE ZONING WOULD BE TO PD, UH, WITH A BASE ZONING OF SF 75.
THE, UM, PROPERTY IS LOCATED, UM, NORTH OF WESTMAN DRIVE, UM, AND JUST, UH, WEST OF THE, UM, CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION AUBREY HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT.
UM, AND, UH, THIS REQUEST IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE, UH, COMPANION, VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION OF THE PROPERTY, UH, WHICH IS SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 27TH.
UH, CURRENTLY THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE ETJ.
UH, SO ONCE THE ANNEXATION IS, UH, UH, APPROVED, UH, THEN AT THAT POINT, COUNCIL WOULD, UH, BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT ZONING, UH, AND ACT ON IT.
THE PROPERTY PERMITS, UH, TWO TYPES OF, UM, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, 40 FOOT WIDE AND 50 FOOT WIDE LOTS.
AND THEY'RE APPROXIMATELY 122, UH, LOTS.
THEY HAVE, UM, UH, THIS SITE HAS A MINIMUM OF, UH, 2.5 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE, INCLUDING A DETENTION POND.
ACCESS WILL BE FROM WEST GERMAN DRIVE, AND WATER AND SEWER WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF AUBREY.
UPON APPROVAL OF THE COMPANION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT BY, UM, COUNCIL, UM, THE, UM, TO RE DESIGNATE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM RURAL LIFE TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, UH, THE PROPOSED PDS, UH, ZONING WOULD BE, UH, INCON CONFORM, UH, WOULD BE CON, WOULD CONFORM TO THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.
SO, UH, THE PROPERTY ABUTS AUBREY HEIGHTS, SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION TO THE EAST, UH, AND AUBREY MIDDLE SCHOOL TO THE SOUTH.
AND IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH BOTH NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND THE AUBREY ZONING ORDINANCE.
AND NO RESPONSES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.
STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT REQUEST AND RECOMMENDS IT RECOMMENDS IT FOR APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT THE PROPERTY IS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF AUBREY PRIOR TO PDS OWNING APPROVAL BY COUNCIL THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS APPROVED PRIOR TO PDS ZONING APPROVAL BY COUNSEL.
AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
SO YOU SAID THERE'S ONLY ONE ENTRANCE INTO THAT SUBDIVISION THAT'S COMING OFF SHERMAN? THERE WILL BE, THERE ARE TWO ACCESS POINTS OFF OF SHERMAN.
[00:30:01]
THEM, BUT NOTHING ON THE BACK END OR GOING OUT BY ROCK HILL, OR IS IT EVEN GOING DOWN THAT NO, MA'AM, NOT NOTHING, UH, ON BACK SIDE.BUT WILL THERE BE NO, UH, BEHIND THEM IS BLACKJACK, BUT THERE'S OTHER BLACKJACK.
YEAH, THERE'S OTHER PROPERTIES IN BETWEEN, SO THERE'S NO ACCESS.
THAT'S WHY THEY, THEY'LL HAVE THE TWO ON SHERMAN STOPPING.
IF YOU TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING, 7:37 PM ANYBODY WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ANY QUESTIONS? COUNT CONDITIONS? NO.
DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDED MOTION TO APPROVE APPROVE CONDITIONS? DENY NO.
I'LL MAKE A RECOMMENDED MOTION TO APPROVE.
I MAKE A, UH, TION TO APPROVE.
AND DO I HAVE A SECOND? FIRST, SECOND.
HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A REPL APPLICATION FOR THE CLIENT EDITION BEING APPROXIMATELY 36.45 ACRES.
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF BLACKJACK ROAD EAST AND WEST OF 29 31, UH, COMMISSIONERS.
THIS, UM, ITEM IS A REPL, UM, TO CHANGE ONE LOT LINE, UM, BETWEEN THE TWO LOTS.
UM, SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS A PLAID AND THERE THEY SHOW THE, ON THE PLAT, THEY'RE SHOWING AN OLD LOT LINE, UM, AND THEN THEY'RE JUST, UM, MOVING IT SLIGHTLY TO THE SOUTH.
SO, UH, FOR THE TWO LOTS, ONE OF THE, I THINK ONE LOT IS GAINING APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES AND THE OTHER ONE IS LOSING APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES.
THIS, UH, WOULD RESULT IN ONE OF THE LOTS CHANGING IN SIZE FROM 10.25 ACRES TO 12.25 ACRES.
AND THE OTHER ONE WOULD BE FROM 26, UH, 0.2 ACRES TO, UM, 24.19 ACRES.
THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE ETJ AND, UH, WATER IS PROVIDED BY A PRIVATE WELL, AND SENATOR SEWER WILL BE HANDLED BY FACILITIES APPROVED BY DEN COUNTY.
PUBLIC HEALTH NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND THE CITY'S SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY, UH, RESPONSES IN SUPPORT OR IN OPPOSITION.
THE CITY ENGINEERING AND CITY PLANNER HAVE REVIEWED THE RELA AND RECOMMENDS IT FOR APPROVAL.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
UM, ACTION OPTIONS INCLUDE, APPROVE THE RELA AS PRESENTED, APPROVE THE RELA WITH CONDITIONS, OR DENY THE RELA.
OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING AT SEVEN 40.
NO, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT SEVEN 40.
COMMERS, ANY QUESTIONS? NONE TO NO QUESTIONS.
DO I HAVE RECOMMENDED A MOTION? I RECOMMEND WE APPROVE MS. PRESENTER.
NUMBER SEVEN, CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION TO MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION FOR LOTS ONE THROUGH 11.
BLOCK A DUCK POINT ESTATE BEING APPROXIMATELY 11.827 ACRES, AND CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION TO MAKE RECOMMENDATION REGARDING TWO WAIVER REQUESTS SEEKING A WAIVER FROM COMPLIANCE WITH MAXIMUM BLOCK LENGTH REQUIREMENTS AND PRIVATE ROADWAY DESIGN STANDARDS REQUIRE REQUIRED BY THE CITY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.
THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF COFFEY ROAD, SOUTH OF FM 4 28, AND
[00:35:01]
WEST OF FM 1385.UH, COMMISSIONER, THIS ITEM IS A, UM, PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION, UH, FOR 11 LOTS.
UM, THE, UM, THIS RANGE IN SIZE, UH, THE, THIS RANGE, THE SIZE RANGE OF THE LOTS WOULD BE FROM 0.6 FOR TWO ACRES TO 0.1 0.035 ACRES.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE, UH, CITY OF A ETJ, UH, ON APPROXIMATELY, UH, 11.8 TO SEVEN ACRES, WHICH IS A PORTION OF A LARGER TRACT, UH, OF APPROXIMATELY 80.612 ACRES.
THE REMAINDER, UH, OF LAND IS TO REMAIN UNPLED AND IS NOT PART OF THIS SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT.
ACCESS TO THE SITE WILL BE FROM FUTURE RECFIN ROAD LOCATED NORTH OF THE SUBJECT LANDS.
UM, THE SECOND POINT OF ACCESS WILL BE FROM AN INTERNAL LOCAL ROAD, UH, WITHIN THE ADJACENT CHAPARRAL RIDGE DEVELOPMENT.
THE, UH, SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL INCLUDE A 26 FOOT WIDE PRIVATE FIRE LANE ACCESS, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT.
UM, AND THE ACCESS WILL BE, AS I MENTIONED, WILL BE FROM RED FERN.
AND THESE, THE SQUARE LINE ROAD WATER AND WASTEWATER WILL BE PROVIDED BY A MUSTANG SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT.
ELECTRIC AND GAS WILL BE PROVIDED BY COSER PARK.
UH, LAND DEDICATION OR PAYMENT IN LIEU OF PARK LAND DEDICATION, UH, WILL BE REQUIRED.
UH, AT THE TIME OF THE FINAL PLAT.
PRIOR TO FILING OF THE FINAL PLAT.
AS PART OF THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED WAIVERS FROM, UM, THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.
UM, NUMBER ONE IS THE MAXIMUM LENGTH OF BLOCK OR STREET SEGMENT OF 800 FEET.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A STREET SEGMENT LENGTH OF, UH, 1100 FEET.
UH, WHILE THE REQUIREMENT IS A MAXIMUM 800, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS A LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION WITH A FEWER NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL LOTS COMPARED TO AN AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION.
UM, WHICH WILL RESULT IN LOW TRAFFIC VOLUMES, UH, MITIGATING ANY IMPACT, UM, OF THAT LONGER STREET SEGMENT, DAN COUNTY REQUIRES A BULB OUT EVERY THOUSAND FEET.
SO IT IS GENERALLY, UH, IN LINE WITH THAT, UM, PRIVATE.
AND THE SECOND ONE IS PRIVATE ROADWAY DESIGN.
THE CITY CROSS SECTION REQUIRES A CROWN SECTION, WHICH IS RAISED IN THE MIDDLE AND THEN SLOPES DOWNWARDS TOWARDS THE EDGES.
THE PROPOSED CANDLE, UH, ROAD, WHICH IS THE PRIVATE ROAD, IS PROPOSING A UNIDIRECTIONAL CROSS SLOPE WHERE THE SURFACE OF THE ROAD SLOPES IN A SINGLE CONTINUOUS DIRECTION, UH, WITH HIGHEST POINT OF THE ROAD BEING ON, UH, ONE EDGE OF THE ROAD AND THEN SLOPING DOWN TOWARDS THE OPPOSITE EDGE SINCE THE DRAINAGE FLOW WILL, UH, BE FROM WEST TO EAST AND THERE WON'T BE ANY, UH, IMPACT TO ANY OF THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
UM, UM, SO, UH, YEAH, THERE WON'T BE ANY IMPACTS TO THE, ANY OF THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS, UM, APPROVAL OF THE SUBJECT, UH, PRELIMINARY PLAN APPLICATION SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT THE APPLICANT IS TO PROVIDE WILL SERVE LETTERS FROM MUSTANG SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT, COSER ELECTRIC, UH, SHOW AND LABEL ALL PROPOSED EASEMENTS INCLUDING DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ALONG THE PROPOSED CUL-DE-SAC.
A COMPLETE SET OF ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION PLANS ARE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT APPLICATION AND SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE FINAL PLAT.
UH, THE FUTURE REDFIN ROAD IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS PRIOR TO FILING OF THE FINAL PLAT WITH DENTON COUNTY, AND APPROVAL OF A WAIVER FROM MAXIMUM BLOCK, UH, OR STREET SEGMENT OF 800 FEET.
AND, UH, PRIVATE ROADWAY DESIGN, THE PLANNING.
I WILL ALSO LIKE TO MENTION THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED REVISED PLANS, UH, REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT TO ADDRESS STAFF'S COMMENTS.
AND, UH, CURRENTLY THEY'RE BEING REVIEWED.
SO WE ANTICIPATE THAT A LOT OF THESE CONDITIONS WILL BE ADDRESSED, UH, BEFORE, UH, THE COUNCIL MEETING.
THE ACTION OPTION FOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION INCLUDE, APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH CONDITIONS AS OUTLINED, APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OR DENY THE PRELIMINARY PLAT.
ACTUALLY, ONE, UH, REDFERN ROAD.
IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT A CONTINUANCE OF REDFERN ROAD GOING ACROSS OR IS IT? NO, MA'AM.
IT'S WOULD BE, UH, THEY WOULD HAVE AN ACCESS POINT OFF OF REDFERN, SO, OKAY.
SO THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT ADDING OWNED TO REDFERN ROAD, IS THAT CORRECT? OR IS IT IT'S JUST THAT THE ROAD IS A MAJOR, UH, I BELIEVE
[00:40:01]
IT'S A ARTERIAL, UH, WHICH IS A PRIMARY ROAD.SAY THEY, UM, THEIR ACCESS, THEIR PRIVATE ROAD WILL BE OFF OF REDFERN FUTURE RED ROAD.
UM, THAT'S WHAT I MEAN, FUTURE REFERENCE ROAD.
SO WE ADDING ON OR OKAY, SO WE'RE, SO REDFERN ROAD IS PLANNED TO EXTEND FROM COFFEE YES.
UH, THERE'S MULTIPLE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE HAPPENING ALL AT ONE TIME.
UH, SO DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTS ARE BUILDING DIFFERENT PIECES.
UM, IN FRONT OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, UM, IT IS BEING BUILT FULLY BUILT OUT AND WIDENED, BUT IT'S BY THE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT ON THE NORTH SIDE.
UM, Y'ALL PROBABLY SEEN THAT, YOU MAY NOT HAVE SEEN THAT.
BUT WE HAVE A COFFEE DEVELOPMENT OR COVEY CREEK DEVELOPMENT, UH, THAT'S GONNA BE BUILDING, UH, THEN WE ALSO HAVE CHAPARRAL RIDGE MM-HMM
WHICH IS BUILDING PART OF REDFERN.
SO THAT'S WHY THE, THE CONDITION IS ON THERE.
THAT THE ROAD DOES HAVE TO BE BUILT, UM, BEFORE THEIR PLAS FILED, I THINK IS WHAT THE CONDITION WAS.
SO IT IS BEING BUILT, BUT NOT BY THIS DEVELOPER, UH, BY A DIFFERENT DEVELOPER, BY A DIFFERENT ONE.
HAS THIS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY FIRE? UH, FIRE DID LOOK AT IT AND THEY DIDN'T PROVIDE ANY COMMENTS.
IT'S ALSO WITHIN DENTON COUNTY.
UH, SO DENTON COUNTY FIRE, UM, DID PROVIDE SOME COMMENTS AND, UH, THAT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.
BEING IN THE ETJ, UM, IT'S DENTON COUNTY, NOT THE CITY OF AUBREY FIRE THAT REVIEWS THE PLANS.
UM, AND THAT WAS THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE FIRE LANE, THE PRIVATE ROAD BEING IT'S A PRIVATE ROAD.
THE ENTIRE ROAD IS REQUIRED TO BE A FIRE LANE.
MY OTHER QUESTION IS WHO'S A RECOMMEND MOTIONS? DO YOU WANT US TO READ THE WHOLE, UM, SO THIS IS KIND OF A TWO PART PROCESS.
THE APPLICANT HAS ASKED FOR VARIANCES, SO YOU REALLY NEED TO DECIDE WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO, UH, RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF THOSE FIRST.
BECAUSE IF YOU GO WITH THE PLAT FIRST, THEN YOU'RE AUTOMATICALLY KIND OF LOOPING THOSE IN AND IT'S STILL A CONDITION.
SO I'VE PROVIDED RECOMMENDED MOTIONS JUST TO KEEP US KIND OF IN ORDER.
SO WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THERE, DEPENDING ON WHAT Y'ALL WANT TO DO, BECAUSE IF YOU DENY THE VARIANCES, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO ADD A CONDITION ONTO THE PLAT TO REQUIRE THEM TO MEET THOSE BLOCK LENGTH.
AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR KENDALL ROAD, IF YOU GRANT THE VARIANCE, THEN THE CONDITIONS AS STATED IN THE POWERPOINT ARE FINE.
SINCE THERE RIGHT FROM ROAD WILL BE CONSTRUCTED BY SOMEONE ELSE, WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY DOES THAT LIE? AS FAR AS MAINTAINING IT OR MM-HMM
UH, SO IT'LL, IT'LL BE A CITY STREET.
UM, IT'LL BE ANNEXED IF IT HASN'T ALREADY BEEN ANNEXED INTO THE CITY.
UM, SO IT WILL BE A CITY STREET ONCE THE DEVELOPER BUILDS IT AND TURNS IT OVER TO US.
DO I HAVE A RECOMMENDED MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF THE REQUESTED WAIVERS TO ALLOW A STREET SEGMENT THAT IS APPROXIMATELY 11,000 HUNDRED FEET IN LENGTH AND TO ALLOW THE PROPOSED ROAD DESIGN FOR KENDALL ROAD 1100 FEET.
1100? DID I SAY THAT RIGHT? MM-HMM.
1100 FEET AND LENGTH? MM-HMM
I SECOND, WHO WAS SECOND DID YOU SAY? I SECOND.
AND THEN THE SECOND PART FOR THE CONDITIONS, DO WE, YOU WANT US TO READ THOSE? YOU CAN JUST REFERENCE THEM AS CONDITIONS ONE THROUGH FIVE LISTED ON THE STAFF REPORT.
AND ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED MOTION FOR THE CONDITIONS ONE THROUGH FIVE ON THE REPORT.
[00:45:01]
WANT ME TO SAY OUT, WE DON'T NEED TO SAY OUT.THE MOTION'S GOING TO BE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS ONE THROUGH FIVE OR RECOMMEND DENIAL SUB RECOMMEND DENIAL AND STATE FOR REASONS.
DO I HAVE A RECOMME MOTION FOR THE CONDITIONS? ONE THROUGH FIVE.
I MOVE THAT WE GO WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS ONE THROUGH FIVE.
AND DO I HAVE A SECOND? A SECOND.
SO TO CLARIFY, THAT'S APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITIONS APPROVAL.
THE, I DIDN'T HEAR THE WORD APPROVAL IN THERE,
I RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS TO RECOMMENDATIONS ONE THROUGH FIVE.
WE WILL ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:52 PM.