Dec 11, 2025 Planning and Zoning

[00:00:05]

ALL RIGHT, IT'S

[I. CALL TO ORDER]

I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND CALL TO ORDER.

WELCOME TO DECEMBER 11TH, 2025, REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION, WHICH IS NOW CALLED TO ORDER.

UM, THE FIRST ITEM TO

[II. MINUTES]

DOES ANYONE FROM THE AUDIENCE WISH TO MAKE COMMENTS ABOUT OUR MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING? SEE YOU.

NO ONE I'LL CALL FOR A MOTION.

MS. RODRIGUEZ, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETINGS ON NOVEMBER 13TH.

OKAY.

THANK YOU, MR. WALLACE.

I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.

ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

OH, AND THE MOTION PASSES FIVE TO ONE.

NEXT UP IS

[III.A.1. PZ-2026-01 - A request to rezone approximately 80 acres of land, situated in the Thomas G. Zachary Survey, Abstract No. 1759, from “C-PD” Multiple-Family Planned Development District to “C-PD” Multiple-Family Planned Development District (18.6 acres) and “B” One-Family District (61.3 acres). The property is generally located on the east side of I.H. 820 between Veterans Pkwy and Chapin Rd (4501 W Loop 820 S).]

BEFORE WE BEGIN, I'D LIKE TO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WERE OKAY.

FIRST, THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT THE REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION, FOLLOWED BY A PRESENTATION FROM CITY STAFF.

THE COMMISSIONERS MAY THEN ASK QUESTIONS DURING THESE PRESENTATIONS, I WILL THEN OPEN THE PUBLIC MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ON THE ITEM.

WE'LL BEGIN WITH THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST, THEN WE'LL HEAR FROM THOSE OPPOSED.

WHEN INVITED TO SPEAK, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS, PLEASE TO THREE MINUTES.

ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE THE CHANCE TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS OR ISSUES RAISED.

THIS HELPS ENSURE ALL AUDIENCE MEMBERS HAVE A FAIR AND UNINTERRUPTED OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE THEIR INPUT.

ONCE ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WILL BE CLOSED.

AFTER THAT POINT, NO ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE HEARD.

PLEASE UNDERSTAND, THIS IS NOT A TOWN HALL FORMAT.

THERE WILL BE NO BACK AND FORTH DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE AUDIENCE AND THE APPLICANT OR THE COMMISSION MEMBERS.

AFTER THE HEARING IS CLOSED, THE APPLICANT MAY THEN RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERN RAISED DURING PUBLIC COMMENT.

THE COMMISSION WILL THEN DELIBERATE MAY ASK FOR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR THE APPLICANT AND CONSIDER A MOTION AND VOTE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

TO MAINTAIN RESPECTFUL AND ORDERLY MEETING.

WILL THE APPLICANT FOR PZ 2 0 2 6 0 1? PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM.

RON RAMIREZ.

WELL, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS RON RAMIREZ.

I'M PRESIDENT OF EVOLVING TEXAS, UH, REPRESENTING, UM, MY CLIENT ON THIS ZONING REQUEST.

UH, THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE APPLICATION AND, UM, I'LL JUST HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION TO GO OVER THE FACTS OF THE, OF THE, UH, OF THE APPLICATION AND, UH, LOOK FORWARD TO RECEIVING COMMENT AND FEEDBACK.

THIS REQUEST IS TO REZONE A PORTION OF, OF PROPERTY OFF OF EIGHT 20, UH, THAT IS CURRENTLY ZONED CP DASH D.

UM, IT'S IN TWO SECTIONS SHOWN HERE.

UM, THE LOWER SECTION OF THE BROWN SECTION IS KNOWN AS TRACT ONE.

UM, THAT IS A HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PORTION.

AND THEN THE UPPER PORTION IN YELLOW IS, UH, IT'S A LOW DENSITY, UH, REQUEST AT THIS TIME FOR STRAIGHT ZONING IS INTO B.

UM, WE'LL BE TALKING A LOT MORE ABOUT ABOUT THAT SECOND TRACK HERE.

AND THEN JUST A LITTLE BIT, UH, THE OBJECTIVE OF OUR, OUR REQUEST IS TO, IS SEVERAL, SEVERAL ITEMS. UM, OUR REQUEST THAT ALIGNS EXACTLY WITH THE CITY'S VISION, UH, PRINCIPLE 3.4 AND 3.5 OF THE COMP PLAN, UM, REQUIRE, UM, SIMILAR DENSITIES AND SIMILAR USES, UH, AS, AS TWO CORE PRINCIPLES.

AND THOSE ARE PRINCIPLES 3.4 AND 3.5.

IT ALSO UPDATES THE ZONING TO MATCH THE 2020 COMP PLAN AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

AND WE'LL TALK SOME MORE ABOUT, UH, SOME DISCREPANCIES THAT, THAT WE'VE SEE THERE.

AND,

[00:05:01]

IT SUPPORTS THE UNIFORM ZONING STANDARDS, UH, ALONG THE SAME LINES OF WHAT I JUST MENTIONED.

UH, BRINGS THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE WITH TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE TWO 11.04 THAT STATES THAT ZONING MUST, MUST BE ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE FLU IS SHORT FOR FUTURE LAND USE.

MAP IS PART OF THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND, AND WE'LL, WE'LL COMPARE THOSE TWO IN JUST A FEW MINUTES.

UM, THEN IT CORRECTS ALSO AN OUTDATED CLASSIFICATION, UH, SPECIFICALLY ON THAT SECOND TRACT THERE.

UM, THE, THE PD CALLS FOR AN OPEN SPACE OR CON CONSERVATION TRACT.

BASICALLY A ZERO DENSITY, UH, ZONING FOR NOTHING AND NOT, THAT'S A LITTLE PECULIAR.

AND SO THIS, THIS REQUEST ALSO KIND OF STRAINS THAT OUT.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, MOST OF YOU KNOW WHERE THIS IS.

IT'S OFF OF EIGHT 20, UH, NOT TOO FAR FROM WHERE WE ARE NOW.

UM, ADJACENT TO MARY'S CREEK AND SOME ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL AREAS, THIS AREA'S BEEN WIDE OPEN FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

1942, UH, AERIAL PHOTO THERE AND 2020, YOU SEE, UH, WHICH THAT'S FIVE YEARS OUTDATED, BUT IT'S MOSTLY TREES NOW AND, AND OPEN SPACE.

SO IT, IT'S BEEN SITTING IN THIS CURRENT CONDITION FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

YOU'LL NOTICE IN, IN 42, WE DIDN'T HAVE STATE HIGHWAY EIGHT 20 JUST YET EITHER.

SO NOW WE GET TO, TO SOME COMPARISONS AND WHY THIS IS KIND OF THE BACKGROUND OR THE BACKBONE OF OUR REQUEST.

HERE ON THE LEFT, YOU SEE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND IT'S, AS YOU NOTICE, IT'S VERY, VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT OUR PROPOSED ZONING.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, THEY'RE IDENTICAL.

THOSE AREAS, UH, MEETS AND BOUNDS OF THE BROWN, TWO BROWN TRACKS ARE THE SAME AND AS WELL AS THE, THE YELLOW TRACKS.

SO OUR ZONING REQUEST IS IDENTICAL TO WHAT THE FLUME IS, IS SETTING UP FOR ZONING.

AND ACCORDING TO, UM, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE TWO 11.004 STATES THAT ZONING MUST BE ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SO THAT THE I, THE FACT THAT THEY'RE IDENTICAL IS NOT A COINCIDENCE IN OUR REQUEST.

ANOTHER COMPARISON HERE, UH, THE STARK CONTRAST OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP WITH A COMP PLAN AS, UM, IN, IN COMPARISON TO THE EXISTING ZONING OF CPD.

UM, IT, I UNDERSTAND THAT A, UH, PD, UH, OFFERS US SOME FLEXIBILITY, UH, UH, ACCORDING TO A REQUEST SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT.

BUT THE CPD IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT DICTATED IN, IN THE WAY THAT THE EFFECTUAL LAND USE MAP SHOWS FOR IT TO BE A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA ON THAT TRACK TWO.

SO JUST TO RESTATE THAT, THE PROPOSED ZONING TAKES THE CPD, WE'RE GONNA LEAVE THE HDR PORTION, TRACT ONE AS IS, AND BY MEETS AND BOUNDS, WE WILL THEN DESCRIBE, UH, A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING B FOR 61.34 ACRES, AGAIN, BY MEETS AND BOUNDS OF COURSE.

AND THAT FALLS IN LINE WITH, UH, WITH, TO, WITH YOUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

I MEAN, AGAIN, IT'S IDENTICAL DENSITY.

SPEAKING AGAIN TO THE PRINCIPLES OF YOUR COMP PLAN.

UH, 3.4 AND 3.5 REQUIRING DENSITIES AND USES TO BE SIMILAR IN NATURE.

UH, JUST AROUND US HERE, WE'RE LOOKING AT, UH, PECAN VALLEY AT 2.84 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

UH, RUSS AT 2.6 AND RETA PLACE AT 2.25.

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS 2.87.

SO WE'RE TALKING HUNDREDS OF, OF AN INCREMENT HERE.

SO VERY, VERY SIMILAR.

TWO POINT SOMETHING.

I HAVEN'T SEEN A 0.67 OF A HOUSE ANYWHERE, SO IT'S JUST A ROUNDING ERROR IF YOU WOULD.

I THINK I MIGHT SKIP THE SLIDE.

NO.

OKAY.

SO IN IN SUMMARY, THIS REQUEST IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING USES CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN PRINCIPLES.

AGAIN, THAT'S 3.4 AND 3.5 IF YOU WANNA LOOK THOSE UP.

UH, THE PROJECT DESIGN MEETS MARKET DEMAND, AND THAT'S EVIDENCED BY, UH, QUALITY DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS THAT ARE WAITING FOR US TO COMPLETE THIS PROCESS SO THEY CAN ACTUALLY THEN PURCHASE A PROPERTY AND, AND,

[00:10:01]

SO THAT DEMAND IS THERE.

IT COMPLIES WITH STATE BENBROOK ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS AGAIN, UH, THAT AND THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 2.1104 REQUIRES THAT ZONING MUST BE ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND THAT'S WHAT THIS REQUEST DOES.

AND THEN FINALLY, CRICKS, WE'RE CALLING IT OBSOLETE ZONING, AND THAT'S THAT ZERO DENSITY ZONING, WHICH IS HIGHLY PECULIAR AND, AND, UH, THIS OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT THAT, IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

SO IN SUMMARY, UH, THIS, THIS WAS THE SAME AS THE FIRST SLIDE.

UH, THE REQUEST TO REZONE AREA TWO, THE YELLOW FROM A ZERO DENSITY TO LDR, WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP REQUIRES.

UM, AND ALSO TRACT ONE WILL STAY, UM, IN HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH ALSO IN, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE, WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND IS AS IS ALREADY IS ZONED CURRENTLY, IT'S HARD TO SAY THAT BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST, BUT I THINK YOU GIVE MY DRIFT THE, UH, THAT SECTION REMAIN AS IS.

SO WITH THAT, I'LL ANS ANSWER QUESTIONS NOW OR OKAY, I'LL ANSWER QUESTIONS NOW.

ANY MEMBERS ON THE COMMISSION HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. WALLACE, CAN YOU GO BACK TO, UH, SEVERAL SLIDES? I'D LIKE TO SEE THE ONES THAT HAVE THE, UH, FLOOD LINE ON THERE.

KEEP GOING, KEEP GOING BACK RIGHT THERE.

THAT ONE.

OKAY.

UM, THAT BLUE LINE, UH, WELL, THERE'S LOTS OF BLUE LINES.

YEAH.

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE DARK BLUE LINE? YEAH, THE, THE DARK BLUE LINE THAT GOES INTO FLOODWAY FLOODPLAIN.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT REZONING IN THAT AREA, CORRECT.

NOT JUST THE YELLOW AREA THAT'S IN BETWEEN THE BROWN AND THE BLUE STRIPES.

I DON'T HAVE A SLIDE IN HERE THAT SHOWS THE MEETS AND BOUNDS.

I, I THINK WHAT THE SHORT ANSWER IS YES, IT IS THE YELLOW AREA.

SO THE, THE WILL THE CREEK GET REZONED.

I THINK THAT'S IT.

I DON'T WANNA SAY IT'S ENTIRELY UP TO YOU, BUT IT MAKES SENSE TO, UH, TAKE IT TO THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY.

THE POPULAR BOUNDARY GOES TO THE THREAD OF THE CREEK SO WE COULD, IT'S NOT WHAT I WANT.

IT'S WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTING AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO CLARIFY.

OH, SO ARE YOU, IS YOUR APPLICATION INCLUDE REZONING, THE AREA THAT IS STRIPED BLUE? I THINK SO.

I, UM, DO YOU THINK THAT THAT IS ACCURATE? ARE YOU GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE RIVER WITH THE ZONING? YES.

IS THAT THE REQUEST? YES.

YES.

UH, DO YOU HAVE THE CLICKER, UH, MR. WALLACE, UH, CORY WALDROP HERE ON THIS LINE SHOWS, UM, THIS IS THE ZONING REQUEST HERE.

UM, SO THE BLUE LINE ON THE NORTH, UH, SIDE OR THE, THE, THE TOP OF THE PAGE IS YEAH, THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY.

SO IT'S THE, THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY ON THE NORTH, UH, THE PROPOSED OR THE EXISTING MEETS AND BOUNDS ON THE WEST.

OKAY.

THE EAST AND THEN ALONG THE, THE BROWN.

RIGHT.

GOTCHA.

CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE JUST TO MAKE SURE, UH, ONE AFTER THAT? OH, MAY HAVE TO BACK UP.

YEAH, YOU MAY HAVE TO BACK UP.

I MAY HAVE TAKEN THAT'S OKAY.

THE WRONG WAY.

THAT'S, THERE YOU GO.

THAT ONE, YEAH.

OKAY.

SO YEAH, I, I, I, I SEE THE CONFUSION THERE.

SO THE PROPOSED THANK YOU.

THE PROPOSED ZONING ON THE, ON THE RIGHT SIDE, IF YOU COMBINED THE, THE STRIPED BLUE, WHICH IS SIGNIFIES YEAH, THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

YEAH, THAT, THAT YELLOW AREA IS BIGGER THAN, THAN DEPICTED THERE, SO, OKAY.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THE REQUEST.

THANK YOU.

YES, SIR.

THANK YOU, MR. WALLACE.

ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, MR. ELLISON? YEAH, THANKS.

I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT, YOU REFERENCED THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, AND YOU SAID, UM, THE ZONING MUST BE ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT IS SHOWN BY A COMP PLAN.

THAT'S CORRECT.

I COULDN'T FIND THAT.

DID, DID YOU INCLUDE THAT REFERENCE ANYWHERE IN, IN YOUR, UM, PREPARED MATERIALS? I JUST COULDN'T FIND THAT.

I WANTED TO SEE WHAT THAT LANGUAGE SAID.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HA IF YOU INCLUDED IT.

I HAVE IT HERE FOR YOU.

I CAN, I CAN READ IT.

IT'S TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE TWO 11.004 PARENTHETIC A STATES THAT

[00:15:01]

WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, YES.

YEAH.

OKAY.

SO I WOULD TAKE THAT, WELL, I'M, I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT WITH THE, I THINK THE INTENT OF THAT, OF THAT SECTION OF STATE LAW IS THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A BASIS BY WHICH YOU SHOULD REZONE.

AND WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THAT YOU NEED TO BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT IT, PLAN, PLAN FOR IT, AND THEN TRY TO FOLLOW THAT COMP PLAN.

THANKS.

MM-HMM .

THANK YOU MR. ALLISON.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? THERE BEING NONE.

THANK YOU, MR. RAMIREZ.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU MR. HOWARD.

MAY WE PLEASE HAVE THE STAFF REPORT? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

COMMISSIONERS IS IN A, IN ADDITION TO WHAT YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT, JUST ALLOW ME TO REVIEW JUST A FEW ITEMS, UH, FROM MY STAFF REPORT.

UH, FIRST LET ME JUST, UM, TALK ABOUT THE FLOODPLAIN SIDE OF THINGS.

SO PORTIONS OF THIS, UH, OF THE SUBJECT SITE, UH, THEY DO LIE WITHIN THE FEMA DESIGNATED FLOODPLAIN.

HOWEVER, THE PRESENCE OF THE FLOODPLAIN DOES NOT PREVENT THE PROPERTY FROM BEING ASSIGNED A ZONING DISTRICT.

ZONING IS ONE OF THE FIRST STEP TO A MULTI-LAYERED REGULATORY PROCESS THAT GRANTS CERTAIN LAND USE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.

BUT A ZONING DISTRICT DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT A PROJECT CAN PROCEED WITHOUT MEETING ALL THE APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OUTSIDE OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS.

THERE ARE OTHER TECHNICAL AND REGULATORY, UH, REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE REVIEWED AT LATER STAGES IN DEVELOPMENT.

UM, AND THOSE ARE REVIEWED BY THE CITY AND OTHER APPLICABLE OUTSIDE AGENCIES, UH, SUCH AS FEMA.

UM, SO, UH, IF ANYBODY HAD ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS, I'LL, I'LL ANSWER 'EM AFTER MY PRESENTATION.

BUT, UH, LET ME MOVE ON TO THE CURRENT ZONING.

UH, THE ADJACENT ZONING DISTRICTS TO THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE CPD THAT YOU SEE THERE, UH, INCLUDE A MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY, UH, NEIGHBORHOODS AND A COMMUNITY FACILITY DISTRICT.

UM, IT ALSO BORDERS THE INTER, UH, THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY EIGHT 20, UH, WHICH ALSO SERVES AS THE BOUNDARY LIMIT TO THE CITY OF FORT WORTH BETWEEN BENBROOK AND THE CITY, CITY OF FORT WORTH.

UH, IF WE LOOK CLOSER AT THE NEIGHBORHOODS SURROUNDING, AND THIS MAY BE FAMILIAR, I BELIEVE THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO A SLIDE YOU'VE SEEN IN THE PAST, BUT I JUST WANTED TO DISCUSS THE NEIGHBORHOODS A LITTLE BIT.

SO WE DO HAVE THE, AND I, I SAY BOTH PECAN AND PECAN, BUT TODAY, I WILL SAY PECAN VALLEY, A ZONING THE UN PLATTED.

WE'VE GOT SOME UN PLATTED LAND, UH, TO THE NORTH AS WELL, WHICH IS ALSO A ZONING, UH, THE RUSS LOW VALLEY SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS A ZONING.

THEN FURTHER ALSO TO THE EAST, A 35 ACRE TRACK IN THE LA AND TERRA PHASE TWO EDITION, UH, WHICH STILL HAS A PRELIMINARY, UH, PLAT THAT HAD BEEN APPROVED FOR FIVE LOTS, BUT RIGHT NOW IT IS EXISTS AS A SINGLE PLATTED LOT.

UH, AND THAT IS B ZONING.

AND THEN WE HAVE THE RADA PLACE, UH, ADDITION AS B PLAN DEVELOPMENT ZONING.

I ALSO WANTED TO RUN THROUGH SOME PROPERTY HISTORY, INCLUDING SOME OF THE ZONING HISTORIES SO THAT EVERYBODY'S UP TO DATE.

UM, WE'VE IN, UH, JUNE OF 2023, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED ORDINANCE 1490, WHICH ESTABLISHED A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT USING THE C MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT AS ITS BASE ZONING DISTRICT.

THE ORDINANCE LIMITED PRIMARY BUILDING TYPES TO TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS ONLY.

IT RESTRICTED THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO PROPERTY LOCATED OUTSIDE THE A HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN AND WITHIN THE BOUNDARY AS DESIGNATED AS AREA ONE.

UH, AND THAT'S SHOWN ON THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT, THAT BROWN AREA, AND THAT'S APPROXIMATELY 18.6 ACRES.

IT ALSO PRESERVED MORE THAN 60 ACRES OF LAND AS UNDEVELOPED OPEN SPACE IN AREA TWO, AND IT SET A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 12.5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE IN THE, UH, IN AREA ONE.

THEN IN JUNE, 2024, ONE YEAR AFTER

[00:20:01]

TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP TO CHAPIN HOLDINGS OF THIS PROPERTY, CHAPIN HOLDINGS LLC IN SEPTEMBER, 2024.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THIS PARTICULAR ZONING REQUEST, WHICH SOUGHT TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO THREE REGULATORY AREAS.

WE HAD A D MULTIFAMILY AREA, UH, DESIGNATED THERE AS AREA ONE ABOUT 16 ACRES ATTACHED TO THAT WOULD BE SOME OPEN SPACE, UH, IN AREA TWO, WHICH WAS 36.9 ACRES.

AND THEN TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY, WE HAD A BR PD, UH, REQUEST, UH, ABOUT 26 AND A HALF ACRES THERE.

UM, IN RESPONSE TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION, UH, THE APPLICANT THEN WITHDREW THE REZONING APPLICATION.

AND THEN BECAUSE OUR REGULATIONS REQUIRED A 12 YEAR WAITING PERIOD AFTER THAT WITHDRAWAL, OR A 12 MONTH, I APOLOGIZE, 12 MONTH WAITING PERIOD AFTER THAT WITHDRAWAL, UH, IN NOVEMBER, 2024, UH, THE APPLICANT THEN, UH, CAME TO THE COMMISSION REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO ALLOW THE CITY TO ACCEPT ANOTHER ZONING APPLICATION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.

UM, AND THEN THAT REQUEST WAS, UH, DENIED BY THE COMMISSION.

THEN IN AUGUST, 2025, THE CITY COUNCIL DENIED WITH PREJUDICE A ZONING REQUEST INVOLVING TWO COMPONENTS, A REQUEST TO REZONE A PORTION OF THE SITE TO A D MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT, AND A REQUEST THAT WOULD'VE ALLOWED A B ONE FAMILY REDUCED DISTRICT, UH, DEVELOPMENT WITHIN AREA TWO, AS I IDENTIFIED IN ORDINANCE 1490.

BECAUSE THIS DENIAL WAS ISSUED WITH PREJUDICE, THE CITY MAY NOT ACCEPT ANOTHER REZONING APPLICATION REQUESTING EITHER OF THOSE SAME ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS, THE D OR THE BR FOR A PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS.

UH, THIS APPLICATION IS NOT BOUND BY ANY OF THOSE RESTRICTIONS.

UH, THEY ARE, THEY HAVE SELECTED DIFFERENT ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS.

AND THAT BRINGS US TO TONIGHT'S REZONING, UH, CONSIDERATION, THE APPLICANT REQUEST TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY.

AS YOU HEARD, WE HAVE THE CPD AND THE B, UH, JUST AS DESCRIBED BY THE APPLICANT.

UM, THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE, UH, CONCEPTUAL PLANS, UM, JUST TO SHOW HOW THE PROPERTY COULD DEVELOP, AGAIN, NOT REGULATORY IF APPROVED.

UM, ON THE SCREEN IS, IS THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR THE HIGH DENSITY AREA THAT, UH, CPD AREA.

UM, AND THAT, AS YOU SEE IS, UH, WHERE AREA ONE APPROXIMATELY IS, UH, ON THAT PICTURE ON THE RIGHT SIDE.

AND THEN IF YOU LOOK AT AREA TWO ON THAT PICTURE, ON THE RIGHT SIDE, THIS AREA IS APPROXIMATELY WHERE THE B ONE FAMILY DISTRICT IS OF THAT 61 ACRES, UH, WHERE THEY ARE REQUESTING THE B ONE FAMILY DISTRICT, THE SUBMITTED CONCEPT CONCEPT PLAN SHARE SIMILAR CHARACTERISTICS.

UH, WITH THE PRIOR REQUESTS, THOUGH, CHANGES IN LOT DIMENSIONS AND LAYOUTS, UM, ARE OBVIOUSLY REFLECTED, UH, COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS REQUESTED BR, THE PROPOSED B DISTRICT DOES PROVIDE LARGER LOTS AND WIDER BU BUILDING SITES.

UM, THE B DISTRICT REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 70 FEET, UH, IN WIDTH WHEN COMPARED TO THE 60 FEET FOR THE BR DISTRICT.

AND THEN AS FAR AS LOT SIZE, THE B DISTRICT REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 8,400 SQUARE FEET FOR AN INTERIOR LOT AS COMPARED TO THE 7,000 SQUARE FEET FOR THE BR ZONING DISTRICT.

AND THEN THE OTHER DIFFERENCE IS THE REAR YARD SETBACK.

SO WHERE THE B HAD A 15 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK, THAT IS INCREASED, UH, TO 20 FEET IN THE B DISTRICT, UM, WHEN WE'RE VIEWING CITY POLICY AND GUIDELINES FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

UH, RECENT COUNCIL ACTION AND POLICY DIRECTION DOES CARRY A A LOT OF WEIGHT WITH STAFF, UH, AS THEY REPRESENT THE MOST CURRENT EXPRESSION OF HOW THE CITY EXPECTS LAND TO DEVELOP.

STAFF ALSO CONSIDERS COMPREHENSIVE FLAN, UH, WITH FUN, WHICH FUNCTIONS AS A BROAD LONG RANGE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT, WHICH CAN BE BOTH INFORMATIVE AND INFLUENTIAL, BUT IT IS NOT REGULATORY.

UM, WHILE THE PLAN PROVIDES GENERAL DIRECTION ON LAND USE PATTERNS AND APPROPRIATE ZONING CLASSIFICATION, IT DOES NOT MANDATE SPECIFIC OUTCOMES.

IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND, UH, FOR US, WHEN WE ARE REVIEWING

[00:25:01]

IT WAS PROPOSED BY THE PRIOR APPLICANT UNDER A PREVIOUS PROPERTY OWNER, UM, AS PART OF A DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT THAT CLUSTERED THE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THAT AREA.

ONE, UH, WHILE LEAVING MORE THAN 60 ACRES OF LAND IN THE, UH, AS UNDEVELOPED OPEN SPACE IN AREA TWO AS PRIVATELY RETAINED OPEN SPACE.

THIS VOLUNTARY PRESERVATION DIRECTLY ADVANCED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PRINCIPLE 3.32, WHICH ENCOURAGES THE PRIVATE RETENTION OF STEEP SLOPES, NATURAL VEGETATION, DRAINAGE WAVES, AND OTHER SENSITIVE AREAS TO INC TO REDUCE THE EROSION, UH, AND FLOOD RISKS, AND PROTECT NATURAL FEATURES TO REINFORCE AND ENCOURAGE THE PRIVATE RETENTION OF AREA TWO.

THE CITY ALSO AGREED TO THE REQUESTED RELIEF FOR SOME OF THE, FROM SOME OF ITS TREE PRESERVATION AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS, UH, WITHIN AREA ONE.

SO THIS HISTORY REFLECTS, UH, REALLY THE POLICY BALANCE, UH, THAT CITY COUNCIL SUPPORTED IN 2023 AND REAFFIRMED THROUGH ITS 2025 DECISION TOGETHER.

THESE ACTIONS DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ZONING ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE 1490 IS APPROPRIATE ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY AND REFLECTS THE CITY'S EXPECTATION FOR HOW THE SITE SHOULD DEVELOP A LIMITED CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT IN AREA ONE AND A LONG TERM PRIVATE PRESERVATION OF AREA TWO, THE CITY COUNCIL'S.

QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DISCUSSION, FORMAL ACTION ALL DURING THE, UH, CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD LAST AUGUST, ESSENTIALLY COMMUNICATED TO STAFF THE FOLLOWING POLICY EXPECTATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY.

ONE, THE TIMING FOR HIS OWN CHANGE WAS NOT APPROPRIATE.

THE COUNCIL DID NOT WISH TO ABANDON THE RECENTLY APPROVED PD AS JUST OVER TWO YEARS HAD PASSED, UH, SINCE THEY HAD PASSED ORDINANCE 1490.

THE COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE EXISTING PD REFLECTS THEIR DESIRE TO PROTECT AREA TWO FROM DEVELOPMENT, WHICH ADVANCES THAT, UH, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PRINCIPLE 3.32 THAT I DISCUSSED.

AND THEN CITY COUNCIL WAS SATISFIED WITH THE EXISTING ZONING IN PLACE, WHICH IS THAT CPD.

WHILE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVIDES VALUABLE LONG RANGE GUIDANCE, ITS ROLE IN IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FROM A ZONING REGULATION AND ADOPTED ZONING STANDARDS.

THE PLAN GENERALLY HELPS INFORM DECISIONS ABOUT APPROPRIATE LAND USE DECISIONS WHERE ENTITLEMENTS ARE NOT YET ESTABLISHED.

ONE OF THE MAJOR REASONS WE HAVE IT.

HOWEVER, ONCE THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS A ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY, WELL, IN ADDITION TO ADOPTING REGULATORY STANDARDS FOR THE DISTRICT, THAT ZONING DECISION CAN RESET THE LAND USE POLICY FOR THAT AREA IN ADOPTING ORDINANCE 1490 AND LATER REAFFIRMING IT THROUGH THE 2025 DECISION.

THE COUNCIL EFFECTIVELY APPROVED A LAND USE POLICY DIRECTION FOR HOW THIS PROPERTY IS EXPECTED TO DEVELOP AND STAFF VIEWS THE CURRENT PD FRAMEWORK AS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S LONG TERM GOAL FOR THE AREA AND REPRESENTS THE APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THE SITE.

ALTHOUGH OTHER ZONING CONFIGURATIONS MIGHT ALSO ALIGN WITH SOME OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION THAT BEST IMPLEMENTS THE CITY'S VISION IS ALWAYS DECIDED THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL'S DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY AS THE EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT REFLECTS BOTH THE COUNCIL'S MOST RECENT POLICY DIRECTION AND THE DEVELOPMENT EXPECTATIONS FOR THE AREA STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT A REZONING THAT EXPANDS DEVELOPMENT WITHIN AREA TWO AS ESTABLISHED UNDER THE CURRENT PD THROUGH THEIR RECENT ACTION.

THE COUNCIL INDICATED THE EXISTING ZONING IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA AND CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S LONG RANGE GOAL UNTIL THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS A POLICY SHIFT, UM, OR APPROVES, UH, A DIFFERENT VISION FOR THE AREA STAFF FINDS NO BASIS TO SUPPORT THE REZONING REQUEST CHANGE AND RECOMMENDS MAINTAINING THE CURRENT DESIGNATION.

UH, AND WITH THAT, OUR RECOMMENDED MOTION WOULD BE TO MOVE TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THE REZONING REQUEST.

THAT WILL CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION.

I'M AVAILABLE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, MR. HOWARD.

ANYONE ON THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. HOWARD? MR. ELLISON? THANKS.

THANKS

[00:30:01]

SO I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT, UM, AREA TWO TODAY.

OBVIOUSLY THE CITY CAN'T COMPEL PRIVATE PRESERVATION, RIGHT? BUT, UM, IS THAT AREA ACTUALLY PRESERVED TODAY? LIKE WERE THE LEGAL STEPS TAKEN TO FROM THE OWNER AT THE TIME TO, IS IT PRESERVED OR DO YOU KNOW, YOU MAY NOT KNOW, BUT WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THAT TODAY? I, I, I BELIEVE WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, THE, THE ORIGINAL APPLICANT DURING THAT TIME HAD INTENDED TO, UM, RECORD OR, OR PROCESS SOME FORM OF, UH, PRESERVATION CONSERVATION EASEMENT.

UM, NO, THE, THE, AS FAR AS I'M AWARE, THAT HASN'T HAPPENED.

THE ONLY PROTECTION THAT IT CURRENTLY HAS RIGHT NOW UNDER LEGAL REGULATIONS WOULD BE THE ZONING, THE, SO THE, THE ZONING, UH, DOES NOT PERMIT DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA RIGHT NOW.

GOT IT.

THANKS.

I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.

YEAH.

MR. HARLE, UM, IS THERE SOME KIND OF CONFLICTING THINGS BETWEEN THE TEXAS ORDINANCE, UH, 2 1 1 0.004 A, THAT THEY WERE MENTIONING THAT ZONING HAS TO FOLLOW A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE CITY COUNCIL'S ADOPTIVE ORDINANCE OF 1490? THERE'S, THERE'S NO ISSUES THAT STAFF SEES IN IN COMPLIANCE WITH, WITH STATE STATUTE.

OUR ZONING REGULATIONS DO COMPLY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS.

IN GENERAL, UH, DECISIONS ARE MADE BY LOOKING AT THAT.

AS I STATED, THERE ARE, THERE'S SEVERAL DIFFERENT ITERATIONS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED COMPLIANT WITH A, WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ELEMENTS.

THERE IS A LOT OF DIFFERENT, UH, PRINCIPLES, UM, WHETHER YOU CAN ALIGN A HUNDRED PERCENT WITH EVERYTHING IN A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHO KNOWS? UH, WE DIDN'T DO THAT TYPE OF ANALYSIS, UH, BUT WHAT WE DID LOOK AT IS DOES IT GENERALLY COMPLY? AND THE CURRENT REGULATIONS, UH, WHEN WE ADOPTED 1490, WERE DEEMED IN COMPLIANCE WITH, WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR REPORT.

THANK YOU MR. HARWELL.

MR. WALLACE, UM, COUPLE QUESTIONS.

MR. HOWARD, YOU SAID AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR PRESENTATION THAT NOTHING PREVENTS, UM, PROPERTY OWNER FROM BUILDING, I BELIEVE YOU SAID, IN THE FLOOD PLAIN.

IS THAT CORRECT? I SAID NOTHING PREVENTS A ZONING DISTRICT FROM BEING ASSIGNED IN A FLOODPLAIN.

WHAT ABOUT, WHAT ABOUT A FLOOD? WHAT ABOUT A FLOODWAY? NO, THAT, THAT'S ONE OF THE, A, A BIG MISNOMER IS THAT ZONING INCLUDES, LIKE THAT FLOOD PLAIN IS A ZONING DISTRICT.

IT IS NOT.

FLOODPLAIN IS A FEDERAL FEMA DESIGNATION, AND IT IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH A ZONING REGULATION.

IT HAS ITS OWN REGULATIONS.

AND WE HAVE OUR OWN TITLE, TITLE 15, UH, IN, I THINK IT'S 15.

IT'S EITHER 15 POINT 40 OR 42, UM, THAT REGULATES FLOODPLAIN.

BUT WHAT ABOUT A FLOODWAY, INCLUDING THE FLOODWAY? BOTH FLOODWAY IS PART OF THAT, IT HAS BOTH.

THAT IS CORRECT.

AND DO YOU, COULD YOU PULL UP THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AS IT EXISTS? UH, I THINK THE APPLICANT HAD THAT ON THEIR SLIDE.

CAN YOU SWITCH ME OVER TO THE, THIS ONE? YEAH.

SO THAT IS HOW IT EXISTS TODAY, UH, ADOPTED IN 2020 PRIOR TO, PRIOR TO THE 1490 DECISION.

AND AM I CORRECT THAT THE PROPOSED, UH, SITE PLAN FOR LDR, UH, WOULD INCLUDE BUILDING IN AREAS CURRENTLY IMPACTED BY THE FLOODWAY? UH, THE CONCEPT PLAN APPEARS, IN MY VIEW, TO POSSIBLY INCLUDE SOME OF THOSE AREAS.

I DON'T HAVE A MEETS AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION IN FRONT OF ME, BUT IF I, IF I SEE THE TOP OF THIS GREEN LINE, UH, AS THEIR PROPERTY BOUNDARY, IT IS VERY LIKELY THAT IT WOULD INCLUDE SOME OF THOSE FLOODWAY AREAS.

BUT AGAIN, THAT, THAT ISN'T THE, THE REQUEST ISN'T, I UNDERSTAND.

AN ADOPTION OF THAT REQUEST DOESN'T REQUIRE HIM TO BUILD THIS CONCEPT PLAN.

THIS CONCEPT PLAN IS NOT REGULATORY IN ANY WAY, BUT IT IS A POSSIBILITY IF HE CAN FOLLOW ALL, ALL THE REGULATIONS THAT THE CITY HAS.

SO I JUST WANNA MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT IT IS A CONCEPT AND THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS THIS PROPERTY COULD DEVELOP EVEN

[00:35:01]

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION.

THANK YOU, MR. WALLACE.

ANYONE ELSE? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. HOWARD.

UM, ORDINANCE 1490 AND THE ASSOCIATED ZONING FOR THE, THE ORDINANCE 1490, THAT PARTICULAR PLAN KEPT PRETTY MUCH ALL BUILDING OUT OF THE FLOODWAY CORRECT.

OR FLOOD PLAN? THAT IS CORRECT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU, SIR.

ALL RIGHT.

I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, BUT BEFORE I DO, PLEASE LET ME REMIND EVERYONE.

YOU'LL BEGIN WITH THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST AND THOSE WHO ARE OPPOSED.

WHEN INVITED TO SPEAK, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, AND PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES.

ALL COMMENTS MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE THE CHANCE TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS OR ISSUES RAISED.

ONCE ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WILL BE CLOSED.

AFTER THAT POINT, NO ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE HEARD.

PLEASE UNDERSTAND, THIS IS NOT A TOWN HALL FORMAT.

AFTER THE HEARING IS CLOSED, THE APPLICANT MAY RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERN RAISED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT.

THE COMMISSION WILL THEN DELIBERATE, ASK ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND CONSIDER A MOTION TO VOTE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION IN HELPING US MAINTAIN A RESPECTFUL AND ORDERLY MEETING.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF MISUNDERSTANDING GOING AROUND ABOUT THE DUTIES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

SOME PEOPLE THINK IT SHOULD BE A RUBBER STAMP ARM OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

IT IS NOT.

IT NEVER HAS BEEN.

NOR SHOULD IT BE WHEN A DEVELOPMENT OR AN APPLICATION COMES IN, THE P AND Z LOOKS AT THINGS, WE HAVE BOXES OF CHECK.

WE LOOK AT LEGISLATIVE LAW, WE LOOK AT CASE LAW, AND WE LOOK AT RECENT CITY COUNCIL DECISIONS.

ANYTHING ELSE IS, IS UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THAT.

NO ONE UP HERE WANTS ANYONE'S YARD OR HOUSE TO FLOOD, BUT WE'RE KIND OF HAMPERED IN WHAT WE CAN DO.

THIS, THIS COMMISSION CANNOT COME UP AND SAY, NO MORE DEVELOPMENT IN A, IN A FLOODPLAIN.

CAN'T DO IT.

CITY WILL GET SUED AND THEY'LL LOSE.

WE CAN'T DO THAT.

CITY COUNCIL CAN MAKE DECISIONS LIKE THAT.

WE CAN'T.

CITY COUNCIL GETS PAID.

WE DON'T.

WE'RE ALL VOLUNTEERS AND WE'RE JUST TRYING OUR BEST.

ALRIGHT.

I DON'T THINK THEY'RE CHANGED.

I'M NOT PAID.

ALL RIGHT.

UH, WILL THE FIRST APPLICANT, OR WILL, WILL THE FIRST, UM, AUDIENCE MEMBER COME TO THE, TO THE PODIUM IF THEY'RE IN FAVOR? SCENE? NONE.

THOSE IN OPPOSITION.

ALL RIGHT.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

CAROLYN CAMPBELL, 8 1 1 7.

WENDY LANE.

I AM OPPOSED TO THE ZONING OF THAT OR CHANGING THE ZONING.

DID I SAY THAT RIGHT? OKAY.

YES.

YES, YOU DID.

THANK YOU.

NEXT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

MY NAME'S DUSTIN BELL.

I LIVE AT 4 5 1 3 CHARLES COURT.

ME AND MY WIFE AND MY CHILDREN ARE ABOUT A BLOCK AND A HALF AWAY FROM MARY'S CREEK.

AND SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE TWO 11.004, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO, LET'S DIG INTO THAT.

UH, SECTION TWO STATES, SAFETY AND SECURITY FROM FIRE, PANIC, AND OTHER DANGERS.

FLOODING IS MOST DEFINITELY A DANGER, IRRESPONSIBLE BUILDING FROM A BUILDER WHO CAN'T PAY HIS BILLS AND IS CURRENTLY UNDER INDICTMENT ON FEDERAL CHARGES IS A DANGER.

SECTION THREE, PROMOTE HEALTH AND GENERAL WELFARE.

SAME THING, GUYS.

DOESN'T, DOESN'T PROMOTE HEALTH AND GENERAL WELFARE.

I'M ALL FOR GROWING THIS COMMUNITY AND GROWING IT RESPONSIBLY.

I DON'T ENVY YOU FOR THE DECISIONS YOU HAVE TO MAKE.

I DON'T AT ALL, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT WE MAKE THE RIGHT ONES AND REPRESENT OUR CONSTITUENTS, OUR FAMILIES, AND THE VOTES.

THANK YOU GUYS, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU, MR. BELL.

ANYONE ELSE? HELLO, DEREK VARNELL, 86 0 4 ELMWOOD DRIVE.

UH, I LIVE IN MARY'S CREEK AND, UH, WE LOVE OUR, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE LOVE OUR CITY.

AND, UM,

[00:40:01]

UM, THERE'S NO NEED TO SEND THIS ONE TO HIM.

YOU NEED TO VOTE.

NO.

THANK YOU, MR. BROWN.

ANYONE ELSE? I'M NOT, OH, I'M NOT SURE HOW THIS SOUND IS GONNA WORK.

I'M CYNTHIA WAYLAN.

I LIVE AT 82 0 4 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE IN NORTH BENBROOK.

THAT'S IN, UM, I GUESS WE'RE AT THE FAR, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE BOTTOM OF WHERE MARY'S CREEK, UH, CROSSES AT 3 77.

AND, UM, I DID READ SECTION 1490 BEFORE COMING, AND IT STRONGLY PROHIBITS ANY DEVELOPMENT IN AREA TWO, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TONIGHT.

UM, I DID READ THE APPLICANT'S APPLICATION.

I BELIEVE THERE WERE 55 PAGES.

I DID READ ALL 55 PAGES, AND THERE WERE SOME WORDS THAT BOTHERED ME BECAUSE I FELT LIKE IT INSULTED, UM, THE PEOPLE THAT WORKED ON, UH, SECTION 1490.

I FELT LIKE IT, UH, WAS DISRESPECTFUL TO THE PEOPLE THAT WORKED ON THE 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND QUITE FRANKLY, TO YOU MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

BUT THEY CALLED THE PLAN INCONSISTENT, INCORRECT, OUTDATED, OBSOLETE.

BUT YET ON, ON HIS SIDE, HE SAID HE WAS GONNA PUT FORTH BEST, BEST PRACTICES, WHAT HIS BEST PRACTICES, BUILDING IN A FLOODWAY OR A FLOODPLAIN IS BEST PRACTICES CAUSING DETRIMENT TO PEOPLE DOWNHILL OF YOU AND INCREASING THE LIKELIHOOD OF FLOODING AND DESTROYING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

I ALSO LOOKED BRIEFLY AT THAT, UM, TEXAS LAW.

YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT TWO 11.004, WHICH THE APPLICANT REFERENCED IN HIS APPLICATION.

AND HE SAID THAT THERE WERE, UM, EVOLVING CONDITIONS, THERE WERE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HAD CHANGED.

SO WE NEED TO RE LOOK AGAIN AT THE REZONING OF AREA TWO.

WELL, WHAT HAS CHANGED IS THE APPLICANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.

THAT'S WHAT CHANGED.

SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. MS. WAYLAND.

ANYONE ELSE? HELLO, NAME IS AMBER LEE MULLINS, 4 2 2 5 DAWN DRIVE.

UH, JUST LIKE TO BRING ATTENTION TO, UM, EVERYBODY HERE, UH, FOR THIS SITUATION AS WELL AS FUTURE, UM, REQUESTS, UH, SOMETHING FROM THE ARBOR DAY ORG, UH, FOUNDATION SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF URBAN HEAT ISLANDS.

NOT SURE IF ANYBODY'S FAMILIAR WITH THAT, BUT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF CITIES, THERE ARE A LOT OF NATURAL AREAS, TREES THAT HELP TO LOWER THE HEAT IN OUR AREA.

UM, THERE'S A LOT OF RESEARCH BEHIND ALL OF THIS TO KIND OF GUIDE PEOPLE TO MAKING DECISIONS ON KEEPING NATURAL AREAS, ESPECIALLY THE TREES AS WE DEVELOP.

UM, IF YOU GO TO THE ARBOR DAY ORG FOUNDATION, THAT'S ACTUALLY AN INTERACTIVE MAP WHERE YOU CAN PUT IN YOUR ADDRESS AND YOU CAN LOOK AT ALL OF THE HIGH HEAT LEVELS WITHIN OUR AREA AND WHAT WE CAN DO TO SORT OF REDUCE THAT AS WE GROW AS A COMMUNITY.

AND THE DALLAS FORT WORTH AREA WITH EVERYTHING COMING IN.

JUST SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY'S AWARE OF, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO BRING IT TO YOUR ATTENTION TO KIND OF KEEP THAT IN MIND WHEN WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THESE THINGS.

UM, YOU CAN CURRENTLY SEE THAT THE VARIOUS CREEK AREA THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING IS ONE OF THE VERY FEW GREEN, UM, AREAS ON THIS MAP, UM, WHERE THEY'RE DEVELOPED UP IN THE CAMP BUOY AREA, AND WHERE ALL OF THE HOUSES ARE DARK, DARK RED, NOTHING IS THERE TO HELP ALLEVIATE ANY OF THAT.

UM, WHERE THEY'VE JUST BUILT THE AMAZON, UM, AREA THAT WAS GREEN AS WELL.

SO I'M SURE IN A FEW MONTHS WHEN THE MAPS REGENERATE, WE'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THAT THAT AREA HAS BECOME YELLOW OR RED.

UM, SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

JUST TAKE A LOOK.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU, MS. MULLINS.

ANYONE ELSE? HEY, Y'ALL DOING TODAY, TONIGHT, I GUESS, UH, JUSTIN MULLINS 4, 2, 2 5 DON DRIVE.

UM, I DO WANNA START OUT AND YOU WRITE MR. RAMSEY.

I DON'T THINK YOU GUYS GET THE RECOGNITION THAT YOU TRULY DESERVE.

UM, SO TRULY THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME, KIND OF BEING ALMOST INCENSED THAT BUFFER AND EXACTLY, YOU DON'T GET PAID FOR THIS.

YOU DO THIS OUT OF WHAT YOU FEEL IS RIGHT.

[00:45:01]

KEEP IT UP.

BUT I DO WANNA SAY IS SOME OF THESE ARE DEFINITELY COMMENTS OF WHY ARE WE HERE AGAIN? THE GENTLEMAN OVER HERE SAID, WE LITERALLY JUST MADE A LITTLE TEENY TINY LITTLE CHANGE JUST TO REOPEN IT AGAIN.

NOTHING'S CHANGED.

THIS IS THE PRETTY MUCH DEFINITION OF INSANITY.

IF WE'RE NOT THERE, WE'RE FLIRTING WITH HER.

REALLY CLOSE CITY CANCELED, LITERALLY JUST SAID NOT TOO LONG AGO.

NO, THIS DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

WHY ARE WE GOING BACK ON SOMETHING THAT WE JUST DID IN 2023? IT WAS TO BE PRESERVED.

WHY AREN'T WE PRESERVING IT? IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE WHY WE'RE COMING BACK TO THIS.

YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU BOUGHT, YOU KNOW WHERE YOU COULD HAVE BUILT, THAT'S WHAT YOU BOUGHT.

YOU DON'T LIKE THE BED.

YOU'RE, YOU, YOU, YOU MADE TOO BAD.

THAT'S WHAT YOU GOT.

THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS.

I'M, I'M STILL NOT IN SUPPORTIVE OF THIS.

THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME.

NONE OF THIS MAKES SENSE OF YOU WAS UP THERE.

I'M NOT SEEING ANY CHANGES.

I'M NOT SEEING ANY DIFFERENCES.

THE ONLY THING THAT I NOTICE, AND THIS IS A PURE COMMENT OF THE, OH, YOU MUST DO IT.

YOU SHOULD DO THIS, YOU MUST DO THIS.

I'M SORRY, THAT'S STRONG ARMING.

AND THAT SOUNDS LIKE SOMEBODY THROWING A FIT TO GET THEIR WAY.

AND THAT'S A PERSONAL COMMENT.

BUT AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO.

I APPRECIATE YOU.

I HOPE YOU HAVE A GREAT NIGHT.

THANK YOU, MR. MULLINS.

YEP.

MY NAME'S JACK ERLAND.

I LIVE AT 9 0 0 8 RANCH BLUFF COURTS IN RIHANNA PLACE.

UM, I'D LIKE TO KEEP THIS SHORT, UH, THROUGH THIS WHOLE, UH, I WAS AROUND WHEN THE, UH, 1490, UH, WAS PUT IN PLACE AND I RESPECT HOW EVERYBODY APPROACHED THAT ISSUE.

THEY WALKED AND LOOKED AT IT AND LOOKED AT HIS SITE AND, UH, UNDERSTOOD.

UH, AND IN THE, UH, DEVELOPERS PROGRAM, YOU SEE THE 1942 AND YOU SEE THE CURRENT.

TELL ME WHAT CHANGED BETWEEN THOSE TWO IN THE FLOODPLAIN? NOTHING.

OKAY, SO THAT KIND OF TELLS ME MOTHER NATURE KIND OF DUG SOMETHING OUT TO, TO PROTECT THAT AREA OR RUN THROUGH THAT AREA.

AND, UH, I SENSED THAT THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED WITH 1490.

THAT EVERYBODY LOOKED AT THAT AND SAID, GEEZ, YEAH, THERE'S A LOT OF SENSITIVE THINGS HERE.

IF WE MUS WITH THIS, THERE'S GOTTA BE PROOF, RIGHT? THAT WHATEVER'S, YOU CAN'T SAY IT, IT'S JUST ABSOLUTE OKAY.

YOU GOTTA GIVE REASONS WHY IT'S ABSOLUTE AND, UH, UH, UM, OBSOLETE.

I'M SORRY.

AND, UH, UH, I SAW NOTHING THERE.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ANYBODY TRY TO SAY THAT IT'S OBSOLETE, BUT GIVE REAL THINGS THAT CAN BE RESPONDED TO.

UH, I DON'T THINK IT'S OBSOLETE.

SO THAT'S MY RESPONSE TO NO FROM INFORMATION, EXCEPT THE FACT THAT 1490 LOOKED AT ALL THIS STUFF AND TOOK THAT VERY SERIOUSLY UNDER CONSIDERATION.

UM, AND THEN SECONDLY, I THOUGHT, UH, THE PLANS OF THE OTHER, THE PREVIOUS, UH, UM, WAS A LITTLE BIT IN THE VR.

HE, THEY WERE REALLY PACKED IN THE HOUSES, AND TO ME THAT DIDN'T FIT THE, THE, ANY OTHER AREAS.

THERE ARE DIFFERENT.

THERE'S A BEE IN THE BEE AND STUFF, AND THAT ARE AROUND THERE WHEN, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ACTUAL THAT WAS USED, ALL THE AREA AROUND IS REALLY VERY CLOSE TO THE A ZONING.

AND MY ARGUMENT LASTS MONTH INCLUDED THAT I THINK IT STILL SHOULD STAY TO THE A AND DECISIONS WERE MADE BY THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND, UH, I THINK THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SPEAKS TO, UH, TRYING TO KEEP THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOT SOME OR, UM, UH, BIG CHANGE IN WHAT THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKS LIKE BY NEW THINGS.

AND SO I STILL THINK THAT JUST TWO CHANGES FROM BR TWO HOUSING, TWO, TWO LESS HOUSINGS AND THE NEW ONE THAT HE, HE'S, UH, PLANNING, UH, HOW CAN THAT BE? IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT MEANS THAT HE'S TRYING TO REALLY STICK HARD WITH A ZONING THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. CARLIN.

MY NAME IS BRENDA LESTER.

[00:50:01]

I HAVE A TRIBUTARY NEXT DOOR TO ME, ME RIGHT ON THE SIDE, AND THEN I HAVE MARY'S CREEK IN FRONT OF ME.

I AM TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY AGAINST THIS.

I THINK THERE SHOULD BE NO CHANGE.

PLUS WE'VE GOT AMAZON BUILDING UP THERE.

WE'VE GOT THE DIS OTHER DISTRIBUTIONS BUILDING UP THERE.

THEN WE'VE GOT THE HOUSING ALL NORTH, I MEAN WEST THAT ARE ALL NEW HOUSING THAT'S DOWN MARY'S CREEK.

THERE IS NOT GONNA BE ANY LAND TO SOAK THIS WATER IN.

IT'S GONNA GO DOWN MARY'S CREEK.

AND WHEN IT DOES, LIKE IN 82, WHEN I FIRST MOVED HERE, THERE, WE HAD 21 INCHES OF RAIN IN AUGUST THE YEAR I MOVED INTO THIS HOUSE, IT WAS, THERE WAS OH SEVEN INCHES OF RAIN IN ONE NIGHT.

THE WATER CAME OVER THE BRIDGE THAT WAS IN FRONT OF ME.

WE CAN'T DO ANYMORE WATER THERE.

THERE'S GOING TO BE, THERE'S GOTTA BE AN AREA FOR IT TO GO.

SO I VOTE AGAINST THIS AND I HOPE THAT EVERYBODY PAYS ATTENTION TO WHAT'S BEING BUILT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MS. LESLIE.

ANYONE ELSE? HI, I AM SHELLY WARD.

I LIVE AT 39 0 4 SUNNYDALE DRIVE.

I'VE BEEN THERE SINCE 1993.

UM, I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS AND, UM, AT THE TOP OF MY LIST IS THAT WE SEEM TO HAVE A DEVELOPER, I QUESTION WHETHER THEY DID THEIR DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY.

HMM.

OTHERWISE THEY WOULD KNOW THAT THIS WOULD BE AN ISSUE.

AND I WOULD THINK THAT YOU WOULD TAKE CARE OF THE ISSUE BEFORE YOU PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AS PART OF YOUR DUE DILIGENCE.

BUT THAT'S JUST A THOUGHT PROCESS.

UM, I WANNA REITERATE WHAT SOME OF THE OTHER PEOPLE HAD SAID.

UM, USING WORDS LIKE OBSOLETE AND PECULIAR IS PECULIAR.

IT'S LIKE THERE'S A REASON THAT THAT PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN DEVELOPED.

UM, I FEEL LIKE TONIGHT WAS, THE LAST MEETING WAS A LOT OF THE PLANNING AND WHAT THEY WERE GONNA DO TO FI FIX THE CREEK, AND THAT THEY WERE GOING TO TEAR OUT 200 YEAR OLD TREES, PUT 'EM OFF SITE, FIX THE CREEK, MOVE THESE 200 YEAR OLD TREES BACK, A WHOLE BUNCH OF HANKY THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND OBVIOUSLY TONIGHT THEY DIDN'T GO INTO THAT.

SO TONIGHT FELT MORE LIKE THEY WERE PLAYING, TRYING TO PLAY GOTCHA.

WITH LEGALESE AND HAVING TO FOLLOW THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND AS SOME OF Y'ALL'S QUESTIONS SHOWED, JUST ONE LITTLE TINY WORD COULD MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE ON WHAT THEY WERE SPEAKING OF.

UM, SO I JUST FEEL LIKE TONIGHT IS THEY'RE TRYING TO PLAY GOTCHA.

HOPEFULLY THEY DO NOT SUCCEED IN THAT.

UM, ONE OF MY OTHER THOUGHTS IS THAT THE LAST MEETING THERE HAD, HE HAD BROUGHT AN ENGINEER WITH HIM FROM DALLAS THAT WAS STILL TRYING TO WORK OUT THE MARY'S CREEK PROBLEM, THE FLOODING PROBLEM.

AND THEY WERE RUNNING INTO ROADBLOCKS, BUT THEY WERE SURE THEY COULD DO IT.

SO, UM, AND WE HAD TALKED ABOUT AT THAT MEETING, UM, HAS HE TALKED TO FORT WORTH? HAS HE TALKED TO FEMA? HAS HE TALKED TO CORPS OF ENGINEERS? HAS HE TALKED TO ANYBODY ELSE? BECAUSE FEMA, MARY'S CREEK GOES FROM FORT WORTH THROUGH BENBROOK, BACK TO FORT WORTH.

WE DON'T LIVE IN A BUBBLE.

THIS AFFECTS A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE BESIDES JUST THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON THE CREEK.

UM, SO THERE'S NO MENTION THAT ANY OF THAT HAS BEEN SOLVED OR HE'S PULLED ANY OF THOSE OTHER ENTITIES INTO THIS CONVERSATION.

UM, AND THEN, I DON'T KNOW, THIS IS PROBABLY THIS JUMPING THE GUN.

THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING FOR CITY, FOR THE CITY IF, UM, THIS IS APPROVED.

BUT SHOULD THERE BE BONDS REQUIRED? BECAUSE IF THIS TURNS INTO A BOONDOGGLE, THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON THE CREEK, THEY'RE GONNA SEE THEIR PROPERTY VALUES DECREASE.