[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:14]
GENTLEMEN, WELCOME TO THE COMMISSIONER'S MEETING OF JANUARY 23RD, 2024. AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551.071, THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, THIS MEETING MAY BE CONVENED UNTIL THE CLOSED CONSECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEEKING LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON ANY AGENDA AND THE CITY OF RALEIGH TO REALIGN THE REGULAR SESSION OR CALLED EXECUTIVE SESSIONS OR ORDER TO BUSINESS AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT. THE PROCESS REPUBLICAN PUT IF YOU WERE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND IN PERSON YOU MAY COMPLETE A CITIZENS' INPUT FORM ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE BY 3:30 P.M. THE DAY OF THE MEETING, ALL FORMS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING. FOR IN PERSON COMMENTS, REGISTRATION FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE AT THE DOOR. IT IS 7:03 WE HAVE WARM, I WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL REQUEST CITIZENS' INPUT. A THREE-MINUTE COMMENT. MICHAEL BE TAKEN FROM ANY AUDIENCE ON ANY TOPIC , NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION DURING THE CITIZENS' INPUT. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO HAVE INPUT? -- WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO READ THIS? WE DO HAVE INPUT FROM JERRY MILLIKEN. WHO IS A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT, SPECIFICALLY ON ITEM 3B. AND HE IS OPPOSED. I AM A RETIRED ENGINEER, WHO HAS SERVED THE CITY MANAGER FOR SEVERAL CITIES IN NORTH TEXAS OVER MY 40 YEAR CAREER, I BRIEFLY REVIEWED THE FINAL PLAT FOR THE LAKEVIEW DISTRICT BUSINESS THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT I CONTEND THAT APPROVING THIS LAD WILL BE VERY DANGEROUS. A PROBLEM WITH THIS PLAT IS THAT IT DOES NOT ADJUST THE EXIT RAMPS ON THE FREEWAY, AT THE NORTHBOUND ENTRANCE RAMP IS OF CONSIDERABLE CONCERN , IT IS ONLY 1100 FEET LONG AND IT IS UPHILL. I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO TAKE -- EXCUSE ME -- I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE ATTACHED TABLE 6 IN FIGURE 7, TAKEN FROM THE PUBLICATION ENTITLED TRUCK ACCELERATION BEHAVIOR STUDY OF ACCELERATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR METERED ON RAMPS, FROM THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION OF SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY, DATED SEPTEMBER 2016, TABLE 6 AND FIGURE 7 SHOWS THE PROBABLE MAXIMUM SPEED OF A FULLY LOADED HEAVY TRUCK CAN ATTAIN AT THE END OF THE 1100 FOOT LONG RAMP, WHERE IT WILL MERGE WITH THE OUTSIDE LANE, IT IS ABOUT 40 MILES PER HOUR, THE SPEED LIMIT ON BUSH FREEWAY -- EXCUSE ME -- THE SPEED LIMIT ON BUSH FREEWAY, BUT FROM PERSONAL OBSERVATION, THE 95TH PERCENTILE OF THE SPEED IS ABOUT 80 TO 85 MILES PER HOUR, AND THE 95TH PERCENTILE OF THE SPEED IS TYPICALLY USED TO SET SPEED LIMITS BASED ON THE ENGINEERING STUDY. HAVING TRUCKS ENTERING THIS SLOW SPEED INTO A HIGH-SPEED TRAFFIC WILL CAUSE TRAFFIC JAMS, AND SERIOUS ACCIDENTS AND THUS THE PROBLEM CAN ONLY BE SOLVED BY LENGTHENING THE ON RAMP TO AT LEAST 3000 FEET LONG. THAT WILL INVOLVE CONSIDERABLE CONSTRUCTION, TO 300 MILLION SURETY BOND, THE DEVELOPER PROPOSES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT NEAR ENOUGH TO HANDLE THE NECESSARY FREEWAY IMPROVEMENTS UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED UNTIL IT IS DETERMINED WHAT SPEED A FULLY LOADED TRUCK CAN ACHIEVE ON THE SHORT ENTRANCE RAMPS AND THEN CONSULT A TRAFFIC ENGINEER, AND YOUR POLICE DEPARTMENT TO GET A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE ACCURACY OF THE EXISTING RAMPS . IF ALL AGREED, THE RAMPS ARE TOO SHORT, POSTPONE OR DENY THIS PLAT, UTIL THE RAPID MATTER IS RESOLVED. THE FREEWAY ARE AT STAKE. JERRY MILLIKEN. -- ARE THERE ANY
[3. CONSENT AGENDA]
OTHER COMMENTS? HEARING ON, WE WILL CLOSE CITIZENS' INPUT.THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE CONSENT AGENDA. WE HAVE TWO
ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> ITEM 3A, CONSIDER APPROVING THE MINUTES. ITEM 3B, CONSIDER APPROVING OF THE
[00:05:04]
FINAL PLAT. >> COMMISSIONERS, DOES ANYBODY REQUEST HAVING ONE OF THESE ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
AGENDA? >> I WENT LIKE TO REQUEST 3B REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION.
>> ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHERS ? >> I WOULD LIKE TO SECOND
>> WE WILL PULL ITEM 3B FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. AND THE CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 29TH, 2024 REGULAR MEETING. I WILL HAVE A MOTION.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM MR. HERNANDEZ.
>> THAT WE HAVE A SECOND FROM HIS WILLIAMS. -- LET'S CALL THE -- WILLIAMS, YES. AND THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. AND
[3B. Consider approval of a Final Plat]
ITEM 3B, CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT, THE APPROXIMATELY 94 48 ACRE TRACT IS LOCATED EAST OF THE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE AND NORTH OF THE LIBERTY GROVE ROAD SITUATED IN THE JAMES HAMILTON SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 544 IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT , DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS. AND I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND REMIND THE COMMISSION THAT THIS IS A PLAT, AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION . AND THAT WE REALLY DON'T -- WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY SAY AS TO WHAT IS ON THERE, IF THE CITY HAS APPROVED IT. SO --MISSES BRADLEY >> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
-- NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO THIS EVENING WE WILL BE CONSIDERING A PLAT FOR A 94.47 ACRE LOT. AND THIS IS FOR THE CREATION OF A TOTAL OF SIX LOTS, WHICH ONE IS PLAT AND THE R AND THE ZONING FOR THIS IS LIKE MANUFACTURING AND RETAIL COMMERCIAL AND THIS IS THE FIRST SPACE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AND IN THIS PLAT IT WILL CAPTURE THE EASEMENTS, AND THE WATER EASEMENTS AND THE MERRITT ROAD CONNECTOR AND IN HER CONNECTOR AS WELL. NEXT SLIDE. JUST TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BACKGROUND ABOUT THIS PLAT. ON DECEMBER 5TH A RESOLUTION FOR IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT WAS APPROVED AND WHAT THIS IT WAS APPROVED FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE INSTALLED AND IT WAS APPROVED FOR THIS PLANT TO BE COURTED AND CONSIDERED BY YOU ALL, BEFORE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS INSTALLED, THAT WAS ON DECEMBER 5TH . NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO, HERE YOU HAVE THE PLAT AS IT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND THIS IS THE FINAL PLAT WHERE IT WILL SHOW THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS AND IT WILL CAPTURE THE EASEMENTS AND THE WATER EASEMENTS ON THIS PROPERTY. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IT WILL DIVIDED UP INTO SIX LOTS. SO, WITH THIS, THIS IS CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL, THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, IT DOES MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND OUR CODE REQUIREMENTS. WITH THE BOND BEING ACCEPTED, THAT ALLOWS FOR THIS TO BE PLANTED PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE BOARD TO BE INSTALLED.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. AND MR. HERNANDEZ?
>> MY CONCERNS WITH THE PLAT SPECIFICALLY , I CANNOT TELL WHETHER OR NOT TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE ALLOWED ONTO OLD MERIT OR ONTO LIBERTY GROVE. AND IT SURE SEEMS AS THOUGH IT IS.
WHICH RAISES MAJOR CONCERNS BECAUSE THOSE TWO ROADS ARE
[00:10:04]
NOT CAPABLE OF HANDLING THAT. SO, THAT WAS ONE OF MY FIRST CONCERNS THERE, I DON'T SEE THE PLAT WHERE TRAFFIC WILL NOT GO ON TO THOSE HIGHWAYS OR STREETS. AND ON TOP OF THAT, OF COURSE, THERE'S ALL KINDS OF OTHER CONCERNS. AND FOR THE SERVICE ROAD, AS THE CITIZEN INPUT INDICATED ON THE ON RAMPS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. AND THE TRAFFIC WAS ONTO OLDMERIT. >> MAYBE YOU CAN ASSIST ME WITH THE QUESTION HERE, BT I WILL SAY WITH THE PLAT, IT IS TO FIND OF A SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY WITH ACCESS EASEMENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT. YES, IF YOU DON'T MIND GOING BACK.
>> THE INNER CONNECTORS, SURE. BUT GOOD EVENING COMMISSION.
AND, THERE WILL BE ACCESS OFF OF THE MERIT IN HER CONNECTOR BUT THIS PLAT HAS NO ACCESS EASEMENTS CONNECTING TO EITHER LIBERTY GROVE SO, THERE IS NO PLAN TO DRIVE AWAY.
>> I'M JUST CURIOUS, I'M SURE YOU HAVE DONE A ANALYSIS. AND IT HAS BEEN SIGNED BY AN ENGINEER.
>> THANK YOU. >> I'M IN A LITTLE BIT OF A DILEMMA HERE PROCEDURALLY BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE I STAY IN OUR LANE, IN TERMS OF THE PURVIEW OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES THAT WE HAVE. AND WITHIN OUR DUTIES AS A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. AND THE FIRST THING I WANT TO DO IS THINK THE COUNCIL AND THE STAFF FOR INCLUDING A SITE PLAN IN THIS PACKAGE, WE DON'T ALWAYS GET TO SEE THAT, SO THAT IS HELPFUL. I THINK WE MENTIONED THAT BEFORE. SO SOMETIMES WE ARE JUST LOOKING AT A PLAT. AND IT'S KIND OF DIFFICULT TO REALLY VISUALIZE WITH THAT BEING ASKED , TO APPROVE, SO THANK YOU FOR INCLUDING THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS DELIBERATE OR IF THAT JUST SLEPT THROUGH OR SOMEHOW WE GOT A SNEAK PEEK AT IT. BUT I'M GLAD YOU DID. AND REGARDING THE FINAL PLAT. AND THE PURPOSE OF THE PLAT IS TO ESTABLISH AND TO CONFIRM THE BOUNDS OF THE PROPERTY AND ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC RIGHTS AWAY IN THE EASEMENTS AND SO FORTH THAT ARE GOING TO BE DEDICATED AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. AND WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION BEFORE. PERTAINING TO BE AND, THAT IS CONTINUING TO BE A CONCERN FOR ME. AND, TO GENERALLY UNDERSTAND , THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A PROJECT THAT RUNS THE WATER BODY LIKE WE HAVE. AND, I SHOULDN'T SAY LOOK THE OTHER WAY BUT WE TEND TO LET THINGS SLIDE, AND IN THIS CASE, THOUGH. I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE NEED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, THE FIRST OF WHICH IS THAT, THIS IS A WAREHOUSE DISTRICT, THAT MEANS, WE PROBABLY HAVE LESS THAN 10% OF THIS DEVELOPABLE LAND. REMAINING, AS EITHER LANDSCAPING OR ON UNIMPROVED LAND. THAT MEANS WE HAVE A VERY VERY HIGH RUNOFF GENERATED FROM THE SITE. AND, I AM NOT SEEING ANY ATTENTION EASEMENTS, OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE, SO IS THAT CORRECT, SO WE DO NOT HAVE THE TENSION ON THIS SITE? AND SO BECAUSE THE TENSION WOULD REQUIRE AN EASEMENT, THAT WOULD BE A PART OF THE PLAT, SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK COMES INTO OUR PURVIEW, FOR ROVIO, CORRECT ME, IF I NEED TO STAND CORRECTED. AND, THE
[00:15:01]
BIGGEST CONCERN OBVIOUSLY IS THAT THE CITY OF ROWLETT OVERALL WE GOT A LOT OF WATER BODIES AND TWO THIRDS OF OUR PERIMETER AND OUR WATER. OF OUR CITY LIMITS. AND THEY ARE EITHER THE LAKE OR THE GREEKS. AND IT JUST SEEMS THAT IF WE KEEP MAKING THESE SUBSECTIONS, ALL WE ARE DOING IS CREATING A CHAIN OF EVENTS, THAT WILL JUST COMPOUND, TO CREATE PRETTY SERIOUS REPERCUSSIONS DOWN THE ROAD.SO I HAVE EXPRESSED THIS CONCERN BEFORE AND I APOLOGIZE FOR REHASHING IT. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK, STAFF, WHAT CHOICES OR WHAT OPTIONS DOES THIS BODY HAVE IN TERMS OF APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OR, WHAT CARDS DO WE HAVE, THAT WE CAN PLAY HERE.
>> REGARDING DRAINAGE AND AS PART OF THE CIVIL REVIEW, WHICH WAS A PART OF THE FINAL PLAT, THAT WAS THE WRITER CITY ENGINEER TO INSURE, WE ARE NOT INCREASING RUNOFF, ANYTHING MORE THAN WHAT IS EXISTING NOW. I WILL DEFER TO JEFF AS IT RELATES TO THEIR REVIEW AND HOW IT'S BEING ADDRESSED HERE. AND IF THERE ARE ANY EASEMENTS PER YOUR QUESTION OR HOW IT IS BEING HANDLED FOR THESE LOTS.
>> THANK YOU, ROSS. YES, COMMISSIONER FRISBY, THIS DID COME UP DURING THE ZONING CASE I BELIEVE, AND THE APPLICANT DID SUBMIT , FOR THE DRAINAGE STUDY, THIS PROPERTY IS ESSENTIALLY HYDRAULICALLY, DISCHARGING DIRECTLY TO THE LAKE ESSENTIALLY. THERE REALLY IS NO BENEFIT TO DETENTION IN THIS CASE. SO, WE CONCURRENT WITH THE APPLICANT'S CONCLUSION, THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY DETENTION NEEDED FOR
>> I DON'T KNOW IF I'M IN THE RIGHT LANE, SO IF I AM NOT, JUST LET ME KNOW. I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE ACCELERATION AND THE DECELERATION OF THESE 18 WHEELERS. THEY WOULD HAVE TO EXIT, GOING WEST, AT THE MAIN STREET EXIT , WHICH WILL PUT THEM ADJACENT TO THE HIGH SCHOOL. THE TRAFFIC AT THE HIGH SCHOOL BACKS ALL THE WAY UP TO MIDDLE GROVE, WHEN THE PARENTS ARE BRINGING KIDS TO SCHOOL AND PICKING THEM UP. AND I THINK IT WILL BE VERY DANGEROUS FOR THESE 18 WHEELERS. GOING 70 MILES AN HOUR. TO ENTER THE SERVICE ROAD BY THAT HIGH SCHOOL, WITH ALL OF THOSE VEHICLES LINED UP AND THAT IS IF THEY ARE DOING 70 MILES AN HOUR. IT WILL TAKE THEM AT LEAST 600 FEET, IF THEY ARE EMPTY, TO COME TO A STOP. AND IF IT IS FULL, IT'S GOING TO TAKE A WHOLE LOT MORE FEET TO STOP. SO THAT'S A REAL CONCERN OF MINE AND I ALSO SHARED THESE CONCERNS WITH ENTERING THE FREEWAY. AND THE ACCELERATION TO ENTER, AT 40 MILES AN HOUR BECAUSE THEY FLY ONTO THE GEORGE BUSH, THAT IS MY CONCERN, AND IF IT'S NOT IN
THE LANE, PLEASE FORGIVE ME. >> OKAY. DID YOU SAY THE HIGH
SCHOOL >> YES, AT THE MAIN STREET EXIT. OFF OF GEORGE BUSH, AND OFF OF THE MAIN STREET EXIT.
GOING TO THE GEORGE BUSH. >> THIS IS NORTH, THE DISTANCE.
66, AND YOU ARE AT THE MERIT CONNECTOR.
>> ANOTHER EXIT. >> HOWEVER, WHAT MY COMMENT WOULD BE, IS THAT ALL OF THOSE ARE DECELERATION RAMPS, GOING OUT TO THE SERVICE ROAD, WHICH, THAT IS ACCORDING TO TXDOT AND EVERYBODY ELSE THAT DOES THE ENGINEERING STUDIES , THEY
TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. >> THOSE TRUCKS ARE GETTING OFF
[00:20:01]
TO GO ON 66 AS WELL. SO, CAN I INVITE THE APPLICANT UP HERE, WHO'S PROBABLY MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE T.I.A. ?>> YES SIR. >> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS, MYLES TERRY, AND DALLAS , TEXAS. COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ, TO YOUR QUESTION WE ELIMINATED BOTH ON LIBERTY GROVE AND OLD MAYOR ROAD , WE STARTED THE ZONING PROCESS, SO NO PLANS TO HAVE ANY TRAFFIC ON EITHER OF THOSE TWO ROADS, PLUS IT'S COMING FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD OTHERWISE NO TRAFFIC WOULD BE ON EITHER OF THOSE ROADS. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, TO YOUR QUESTION I THINK A LOT OF THE TRAFFIC THAT ACTUALLY GOES UP TO MERRICK ROAD IS WHAT OUR TRAFFIC STUDY SUGGESTED, AND HE TO YOUR POINT, THEY WOULD BE UTILIZED BY TRUCK TRAFFIC, SO IT SHOULD BE SLOWING DOWN AND THIS IS WITH EMBERLEY HORN, YOU CAN TOUCH MORE ON THE SPECIFICS OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY
THAT I CAN. >> I DON'T REALLY HAVE A WHOLE LOT MORE TO OFFER ON THE TAFFIC STUDY THEN IT WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY TXDOT. SO, OTHER THAN THAT, WE ARE FALLING ON ALL OF THE STANDARD IN TERMS OF THE COMMENTS.
>> COMMISSIONER FRISBY TO YOUR, AND I DID LOOK IT UP, I WAS AT A BIKER, 42%, BUT 42% OF THE SITE WILL BE ON THE LANDSCAPE AREA. THERE IS CERTAINLY CONCRETE BUILDINGS. BUT
>> AND THAT RUNOFF GOES RIGHT INTO THE ALL OF YOUR RUNOFF
WILL GO INTO MONEY CREEK. >> WHICH IS THE SITUATIONS THAT THE SITES WILL STAY. IF WE ARE NOT INCREASING THEM.
>> CAN YOU SHOW ME, HOW THESE 18 WHEELERS ARE GOING TO ENTER THIS DEVELOPMENT, CAN YOU POINT THAT OUT TO ME?
>> SO IF WE FLIP BACK, I THINK ONE MORE. SO, AS PART OF THE ACREAGE THAT WE PURCHASED, WE ARE DEDICATING, THE ACREAGE, WHICH IS ROUGHLY TWO ACRES, THAT IS WHAT IS BISECTING A LOT, IS THAT FOUR OR FIVE, FOUR OR FIVE THERE, RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE. THAT IS THE NUMERIC ROAD THAT WE ARE CONSTRUCTING, AS WE POSTED, SO WE ARE PAYING FOR THOSE COSTS. AND THAT IS THE ONLY POINT TO BOTH THE SOUTH AND NORTH SIDE OF THE SIDE. AND THERE WILL BE NO TRUCK TRAFFIC AND THERE'S NO EGRESS POINTS OR EGRESS POINTS. NO DRIVEWAYS.
>> EXCUSE ME, I HAD TO LOOK IT UP BECAUSE IT WAS BOTHERING ME.
AND THE EXIT RAMP, IT IS FOR MERRICK ROAD. FROM GEORGE BUSH AND NOT MAIN STREET, THAT WOULD BE THE PRIMARY EXIT FOR THIS
TRAFFIC AND FACILITY. >> IT WOULD BE MERRICK ROAD --
OH, GOOD. OKAY. >> I HAD A QUICK QUESTION. AND IT MIGHT BE A DUMB QUESTION. OKAY. NUMBER ONE, WHAT INCREMENT OF TIME, LIKE A TRAFFIC STUDY WAS DONE WHERE WHEN ONE WASN'T CONDUCTED, AND WHAT WAS TAKEN AS FAR AS IT WAS IMPACTFUL TO SAY THAT WE CAN GUARANTEE THERE WILL BE AN INCREASE IN TRAFFIC BECAUSE CURRENTLY IT IS, LIKE AT CERTAIN TIMES OF THE EVENING, THERE IS HAVE A TRAFFIC THAT GOES A LONG WAY WITH A PARTICULAR CORRIDOR. SO LET'S
TAKE IT INTO CONSIDERATION. >> SO WE COMPLETED THE TRAFFIC STUDY IN EARLY 2022. AND ZONING WAS APPROVED IN 2022. I CANNOT SAY THAT TRAFFIC WOULD INCREASE BUT WHAT WE DID DETERMINE IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY IS THE NEW TRAFFIC SIGNALS THAT WE INSTALLED HERE. JUST SOUTH OF HERE, WILL ACTUALLY IMPROVE THE TRAFFIC FLOW SIGNIFICANTLY FROM WHAT IT IS TODAY, COMPARED TO WHAT IT WILL BE AFTERWARDS BECAUSE OF A
PROPERLY TIMED SIGNAL. >> AND IT WILL BE ONE ENTRANCE
AND EXIT, JUST ONE >> ONE EGRESS POINT, BUT THAT IS NOT MEANT TO BE, AGAIN IT IS OFF THE SERVICE ROAD. AND IT IS THE EGRESS POINT FOR BOTH VEHICULAR AND TRUCK DRIVING.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> KEEP ME HONEST.
>> MR. FRISBY. >> IN A SIMILAR VEIN, I WAS WONDERING, BECAUSE IT DID COME UP DURING THE ZONING CASE,
[00:25:01]
REGARDING THE PAVEMENTS FOR HEAVY TRUCK TRAFFIC WAREHOUSE LOANS. ARE WE USING STANDARD AND TYPICAL SECTIONS , FOR THE ENTRANCES OR HAVE THOSE BEEN BEEFED UP TO ACCOMMODATE THEHEAVIER LOADS OF TRAFFIC? >> WE DID ASK TO LOOK FOR THE TRUCK COUNTS AND DO A PAVEMENT ANALYSIS AND THEY DETERMINED THROUGH THAT ANALYSIS THAT THE STANDARD 10 INCH CROSS-SECTION THAT WE USE, FOR OUR ARTERIALS WITH THE TWO INCH ASPHALT BASE, AND THEN, THE PREPARED BASE , RIGHT. IT IS AND WILL SUFFICE, FOR THE EXPECTED TRUCK COUNTS, THAT THEY PROJECTED.
ANY ANALYSIS, THAT WAS FOR THE NEW STREETS GOING IN. THE NEW
PAVEMENT. >> I'M SORRY, THAT IS MILES, THE MERIT WROTE IN HER CONNECTOR.
>> WASN'T ANTICIPATED THAT ANY OF THIS TRAFFIC COULD IMPACT ANY OF THE EXISTING ROADS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THAT AREA? OR ARE WE ANTICIPATED THAT ALL OF THIS TRAFFIC WILL BE LIMITED EITHER TO THE FRONTAGE ROADS OR THE NEW CONNECTOR?
>> I DON'T THINK IT IS ALL, BUT IT WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT.
>> JUST A THOUGHT ON THE PAVEMENT STUDY. WHEN I THINK ABOUT THIS AREA, I THINK A LOT ABOUT THE OLD RADEON SITE IN GARLAND , THAT IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE VERY SIMILAR TO THIS. AND I WOULD HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT JUST THE STANDARD THICKNESS OF THIS BECAUSE OF YOUR LOOK AT STREETS LIKE INDUSTRIAL OR KINGS, THOSE ROADS ARE A MESS. AND THAT IS BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC THAT GOES THROUGH THAT.
CHECKED THE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE TRUCK COUNTS AND WE RELY ON THE MATH AND THE PAVEMENT DESIGN PROCEDURE. AND IT WAS
SUFFICIENT. >> CAN YOU GIVE US WHAT THOSE
ASSUMPTIONS WERE? >> THAT WOULD BE THE INPUT OVER THE LIFE OF THE PAVEMENT, THE NUMBER OF TRUCKS AND I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT THE TRAFFIC AND THE T.I.A. IS AVAILABLE. I CAN MAKE THAT AVAILABLE.
>> JEFF, CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT IT'S A A PART OF THE PLAN, THAT THE TRAFFIC WAS DISCUSSED
>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> HOW FAR IS THE MERIT WROTE EXIT, FROM THIS MERRICK ROAD THAT YOU ARE GOING TO INSTALL?
>> IF YOU GIVE ME 32ND SECOND TELL YOU PROBABLY. BUT JEFF
BEAT ME TO IT. >> SO, FROM WHERE THE D CELL LAND STARTS, IT'S ALMOST TWO MILES AWAY.
>> OKAY. OKAY, THANK YOU. >> MR. FRISBY
>> SO, JUST AS A REMINDER, I WILL STAND CORRECTED, IF I MISS SOMETHING. BUT IF I RECALL, THE ZONING CASE, THAT CAME BEFORE PLANNING AND ZONING SEVERAL YEARS AGO, UNLESS THERE WAS ANOTHER ZONING CASE, I BELIEVE THAT IT FAILED IN PLANNING AND ZONING BUT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY OVERTURNED BY THE COUNCIL. AND THE REASON THAT IT WAS NOT ACCEPTED AT THE TIME, AS I REMEMBER WITH THESE CONCERNS THAT WE HAD JUST DISCUSSED NOW, WHICH WERE THE TRAFFIC AND THE IMPACTS TO THE COMMUNITY AND THE IMPACTS TO DRAINAGE AND SEVERAL OTHERS BUT I'M JUST KIND OF REHASHING AND GOING BACK SO, JUST FOR THE
RECORD. >> I THINK FOR THE RECORD, THEY HAVE ALSO COME BACK AND GET A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND AN IMPACT STUDY AND THAT ATTEMPTED TO ADDRESS ALL OF THE ITEMS THAT
WE WERE THINKING ABOUT. >> AND THAT HAPPENED BETWEEN
[00:30:02]
THE TIME THAT IT WAS HERE AT THE PNC AND THE TIME THAT IT WENT TO COUNSEL IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY. I DON'T THINK IT>> JUST TO BE TRANSPARENT. >> MISS WILSON?
>> DID YOU ALL DO A STUDY ON THE ACCELERATION LANE, GETTING
BACK ONTO THE GEORGE BUSH? >> I THINK ALL WE DID WAS MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE MEETING THE TXDOT STANDARDS AND THAT IS
>> MISS WILSON? >> I WANTED TO ASK SOMETHING QUICKLY AND JUST TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT IF THE ASPHALT WERE TO FAIL, I'M PRETTY SURE A PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT OR SOMEBODY WHAT MONITORING THE SITE, THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS?
>> SO THE CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL WILL BE CONCRETE.
>> IT IS CONCRETE, BECAUSE I THOUGHT I HEARD ASPHALT.
>> I'M SORRY? >> OH, BUT YES , IT'S A 10 INCH CONCRETE LAYER, UNDERLAIN BY A TWO INCH ASPHALT LAYER,
UNDER LATE BY A PURVEYOR BASE. >> OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THE
>> SO ASKING ABOUT THE RAMBLINGS AND EVERYTHING AND YOUR ANSWER WAS THE AREA, WHERE DID YOU FOLLOW TXDOT MATERIAL? BUT YOU ARE NOT CHANGING THE RAMPS.
>> WE ARE NOT CHANGING THE RAMS, THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY TXDOT AND WE ARE AWAITING APPROVAL FROM THE CITY
>> FOR THE ACCESS TO THE FRONTAGE ROADS, SO THE ARE THE ONLY CRITERIA, JUST THE ACCESS MANAGEMENT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. TO APPROVE THE PLAT AS PRESENTED. OR
NOT? >> JUST ONE MORE QUESTION. WAS IT ANSWERED BY STAFF, AS TO WHAT OPTIONS WE HAVE, WITH REGARD TO THIS? I MEAN OTHER THAN APPROVAL OR REJECTION?
>> SO, AGAIN, IT IS A CONSENT, ÚIT WAS INITIALLY A PLACED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA BECAUSE THE PLAT HIMSELF, IS MEETING HIS RULES AND REGULATIONS, DEDICATED TO THE EASEMENTS AND ON THE RIGHT AWAY AS WELL AS ANY OTHER EASEMENTS THAT MAY BE NEEDED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY.
>> ONCE AGAIN , LOOKING FOR A MOTION.
>> MR. FRISBY ? >> SINCE MY NAME HAS BEEN CALLED, AND A PUBLIC FORUM, I DO HAVE A REALLY HARD TIME AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, BASED ON THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE EXPRESSED IN THE PAST, TO MAKE A MOTION OR EVEN TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT. BUT THAT IS MY PERSONAL OPINION. AND, FOR ME IT'S GOING TO BE HARD TO VOTE IN FAVOR ON IT BASED ON WHAT
I'VE SEEN. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO REJECT THE FINAL PLAT FOR THE LAKEVIEW BUSINESS DISTRICT
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO REJECT, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? MR. FRISBY SECONDS . ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I NEED A CLARIFICATION FROM CITY STAFF THEN BECAUSE THIS IS A PLAT. AND, UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS --
>> AGAIN -- IN ANY MOTION FOR DENIAL, THERE SHOULD BE GROUNDS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO HOW THE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITIES ADOPTED RULES AND REGULATIONS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY BE CONCERNS AS IT RELATES TO THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF, OR THE ZONING ITSELF, HOWEVER, IT WAS ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY COUNCIL AND, I THINK AS PNC, IT IS,
[00:35:09]
YES IT IS UNDER YOUR PURVIEW TO DENY IF THAT IS SOMETHING, HOWEVER THERE NEEDS TO BE A SPECIFIC CONDITION AS A RELATES TO WHAT IT IS, THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED, WHEREAS THE APPLICANT TEAM HAS SUBMITTED THE TRAFFIC STUDY AND THEY HAVE SUBMITTED THE DRAINAGE AND THE STORM WATER AND PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE CITY, SO IT JUST NEEDS TO BE A SPECIFICCONDITION IF YOU WERE TO DENY. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. HERNANDEZ, SO, I WILL REQUEST MR. HERNANDEZ TO PROVIDE A
REASON. >> MY PRIMARY REASON TO DENY WOULD BE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC STUDIES AND A STUDY OF THE
DRAINAGE. >> THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE.
>> UNDERSTOOD. >> IF THAT IS THE CAS, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION.
>> OKAY. ANY OTHER MOTION ? MR. FRISBY?
>> I WOULD REINTRODUCE THE DENIAL , BASED ON THIS, I DID LOOK THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, PRETTY THOROUGHLY, PREVIOUSLY AND I UNDERSTAND THAT A DRAINAGE STUDY HAS BEEN PERFORMED, WHICH WE WERE NOT PRIVY TO, NUMBER ONE, BUT I DID NOT SPECIFICALLY SEE IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE IN THE CODE DETENTION THAT CAN BE WAIVED , AS A REQUIREMENT. AND IF STAFF, IF YOU CORRECT ME AND SHOW ME SPECIFICALLY IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, THAT DETENTION CAN BE WAIVED BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTAND IT ANY TIME THAT YOU DEVELOP AN INCREASE IN RUNOFF FROM THE SITE. AND, IT IS ADVISABLE IF NOT REQUIRED, TO HAVE THE TENSION SPECIFICALLY. AND AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, IS NOT JUST A BENEFIT, TO HOLDING BACK THE WATER, BUT IT ALSO HOLDS BACK POLLUTANTS, AND TRASH ET CETERA. AND THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP IN ADVICE TO COUNSEL, AND THROUGH THIS BODY BEFORE.
>> MR. COHEN. CAN YOU HELP US OUT HERE?
>> ALL RIGHT, SO 77 502 E-2, I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK IT UP BUT THAT IS THE CLAUSE THAT REQUIRES RETENTION AND ALSO PERMITS AND SITES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE WAY DO NOT
HAVE DETENTION. >> COULD YOU REPEAT YOUR
QUOTED SECTION, >> 77 502 E- TWO . ALEX, COULD YOU CONFIRM THAT, DO YOU HAVE THE ORDINANCE?
>> I DO HAVE THE ORDINANCE, I'M LOOKING AT IT, SECTION 2, AND I WILL LET JEFF CONFIRM THAT SECTION AS WELL .
>> AND CAN THE APPLICANT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, IS THAT
WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? >> I WORK WITH KIMBERLY HORN, WE DID AN OVERALL DETENTION TIMING STUDY AND FOUND THAT THE RUNOFF THAT WAS COMING OFF THE SIDE, IF IT WERE TO BE DETAINED, AND MORE DETRIMENTAL TO THE CREEK AS THE WATER SERVICE ELEVATION, WE DID A STUDY, WHICH IS A CONDITIONAL LETTER, AND SUBMITTED THAT TO FEMA AND IT WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY FEMA. JUST TO HEAR THAT . AND THAT WAS ALSO REVIEWED BY HIS TEAM AT THE CITY. THANK YOU.
>> WHILE THEY DID DO A STUDY THAT DOES SHOW AN ADVERSE EFFECT PRIMARILY, THE PERMISSION TO WAIVE THE DETENTION DOES COME FROM THAT SECTION THAT WE CITED.
>> IF IT IS IN THE CODE SPECIFICALLY IN BLACK AND WHITE. THAT YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT TO WAIVE IT , THEN I WILL STAND CORRECTED. BUT I DID NOT SEE IT AND I DID LOOK THROUGH THE STANDARDS VERY CAREFULLY. AND I WILL READ THAT
[00:40:03]
>> FOR DRAINAGE AREAS IN EXCESS OF 200 ACRES WHERE THE USE OF RATIONAL METHOD THAT IS IN QUOTATIONS, DOES NOT PROVIDE RAW DATA, THE USE OF BELOW DETERMINATION, AND THE USE OF A UNIT, AND WILL BE BASED UPON THE STANDARD AND ACCEPTED ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES, NORMALLY USED IN PROFESSIONAL SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER. WHICH IS WHAT MR. COHEN IS, THE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE TECHNICAL RELEASE IN NUMBER 55 IS AN ACCEPTABLE METHOD AND COMPUTATION OF RUNOFF SHALL BE BASED ON A FULLY DEVELOPED DRAINAGE AREA OR WATERSHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROJECTED, INTO THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY. AND THE DEVELOPER OR BUILDER WILL DEVELOP THEIR PLANS SO THE GREATER RUNOFF CREATED BY THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT EXCEED THE RATE OF RUNOFF WHICH PRESENTLY EXIST.
AND THE RUNOFF WILL EXIT THE PROJECT AND THE RUNOFF RATE WHICH WILL AS THE PROJECT SHALL NOT BE GREATER THAN THAT VOLUME OR VELOCITY DETERMINED THROUGH THE DIVINE DESIGN CRITERIA.
AND THIS IS A PERTINENT PART, THIS PARAGRAPH AND WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT CANNOT PROVIDE DIRECT DRAINAGE OUTLET WORKS INTO HUBBARD CONSIDERATION WILL BE GIVEN TO ALLOW THE DESIGNED STORE RUNOFF WITHOUT RETENTION WITHIN THE PROJECT
LIMITS. >> DID YOU SAY FOR PROJECT OVER 200 ACRES, CONSISTENT LESS THAN 200.
>> THAT IS FOR A DRAINAGE AREA. AND THAT IS FOR THE WATERSHED OF THIS AREA. AND SO THIS IS FOR AND AREA OF EXCESS OF 200 FEET. YEAH. YEAH, OKAY. COULD YOU GO BACK UP, YEAH.
>> TO CALCULATE RUNOFF TO THE DISCHARGED POINT OF THE PROJECT, AND THE WATERSHED TO THOSE DISCHARGED POINTS, IF THERE LESS THAN 200 ACRES , THE RATIONAL METHOD CAN BE USED IF MORE THAN 200 ACRES, THERE ARE OTHER METHODS TO CALCULATE RUNOFF, BUT THEY WERE NOT NECESSARY IN THIS CASE.
>> ALEX, WITH A FOLLOW-UP. COULD YOU REREAD THAT SENTENCE SPECIFICALLY THAT DISCUSSES LAKE GREAT HUBBARD.
>> WHEN DEVELOPMENT DOES PROVIDE DIRECT DRAINAGE OUTLET WHAT CONSIDERATION WILL BE GIVEN TO THE DESIGN OF STORM RUNOFF WITHOUT RETENTION OR RETENTION WITHIN THE PROJECT.
GREAT HUBBARD, BECAUSE THE NORMAL POOL, IS ABOUT 2500 FEET DOWNSTREAM. OF THIS SITE, SO TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, NOT LAKE GREAT HUBBARD. UNLESS YOU ARE DEFINING IT AS THE 100 YEAR ELEVATION WHICH IS A DIFFERENT ANIMAL.
>> AS I SAID BEFORE. THE SITE IS EFFECTIVELY CONNECTED TO LAKE GREAT HUBBARD. WE ARE AT THE MOUTH OF MUDDY CREEK , AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THE WATERSHED AND AS YOU HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT, THE TENSION COULD BE ADVERSE, IF IT WERE APPLIED IN THIS CASE. AND, WE CONSIDERED THAT DETENTION WAS
NOT NECESSARY. >> WERE THERE ANY VILE SWELLS OR ANY OTHER IMPROVEMENTS OF THAT NATURE? THAT WERE CONSIDERED. TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THIS. I'M JUST TRYING TO GIVE YOU A WAY OUT. AND HOW CAN YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT HAS STOOD BENEFICIAL. BECAUSE REMEMBER A PART OF THE DEAL HERE, IS THAT THE CITY OF RYLAND IS PONYING UP A FAIR AMOUNT OF OUR OWN RESOURCES AS IS PART OF THE INCENTIVE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING THAT IS BENEFICIAL TO THE CITY COMING BACK. AND AS I HAVE SAID, DETENTION IS NOT JUST FOR THE TENSION OR SLOWING DOWN THE WATER, IT IS ALSO A METHOD OF POLLUTION CONTROL, AND IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS MOSTLY WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT. AND THERE IS AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS WELL. >> I DO AGREE WITH THAT, COMMISSIONER FRISBY. I DO NOT HAVE A REGULATORY LEG TO ENFORCE SUCH A THING. I WOULD HAVE TO ASK THE APPLICANT TO VOLUNTARILY PROVIDE THOSE TREATMENT METHODS, AND FOR PARKING LOTS POLLUTANTS, AND THE LIKE.
[00:45:09]
>> WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING?
>> WHAT EXACTLY WAS THE REQUEST, EXCUSE ME? WE HAVE OUR FIRST RUNOFF TREATMENT METHODS.
>> WOULD YOU CONSIDER DOING BIO SWELLS OR ANYTHIN OF THAT NATURE AND THOSE OPEN GREEN AREAS, THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO AT LEAST KNOW, THAT YOUR PESTICIDES AND INSECTICIDES AND SPILLED OIL OR DIESEL OR ANYTHING THAT COMES OFF OF THAT SIDE, INCLUDING NEWSPAPERS AND PAPER CUPS AND BEER CANS.
THINGS IN THE NATURE, AND GOING STRAIGHT INTO THE LAKE, AND WE HAVE THE TRI-CITIES CLEANUP, WE WILL BE OUT THERE IN KAYAKS, DIGGING THE STUFF OUT OF THERE.
>> I'M HONESTLY NOT WELL-VERSED IN WHAT YOU ARE REQUESTING, SO I CAN'T EVEN COMMENT ON WHAT THAT WOULD ENTAIL OR HOW IT WOULD BE INSTALLED OR DONE. THE COMMISSIONERS WERE HERE TO FOCUS ON A PLAT. AND THIS IS A ZONING CASE, AND WE HAVE ESTABLISHED AND ADDRESSED THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS, WE ARE GOING TO INCREASE TRAFFIC AND, TAKING AWAY THOSE ADDRESS POINTS, WE HAVE STUDIED IT SIGNIFICANTLY FROM A TRAFFIC STANDPOINT TO MAKE SURE THE LANES ARE UP TO TXDOT STANDARDS, WE HAVE MET THE CODE AND WE ARE EXCITED TO START THE PROJECT IN LESS THAN THREE DAYS AND THIS IS THE PLOT THAT WE NEED TO GET DONE. I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S TIME, I DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THAT.
>> MISS WILSON. >> I FEEL LIKE IT IS A RELEVANT TO INCREASE THE REQUIREMENTS RIGHT NOW FOR THE APPLICANT.
THAT IS JUST MY OPINION, TO ME, THEY HAVE MET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO APPLY FOR THIS, SO I FEEL LIKE THAT IS JUST OVERREACHING AT THIS POINT, THIS IS MY OPINION.
>> MR. FRISBY, BIO SWELLS, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT CUTTING IN IS WELL TO THE NORTH OF THE PARKING LOT, PRIOR TO THE
MUDDY CREEK >> I WILL SAY THAT I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF OVERREACH YOU BUT I THINK IT'S IN THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO SAY, AND THESE BIO SWELLS BASICALLY ARE MANY DETENTION POINTS. AND THEY DO SLOW DOWN THE WATER A LITTLE BIT. AND WHAT THEY ARE MEANT TO DO, IS TO CATCH ENOUGH OF THE RUNOFF, AND GIVE THINGS LIKE TRASH, AND ORGANIC WASTE AND A PLACE TO SIT, BEFORE THEY HIT THE STREAM, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO LOOK FOR A COMPROMISE AND TWO, TO GIVE IT AWAY HOW. AND, IF THIS WAS A SLAMDUNK, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN OUT OF HERE A LONG TIME AGO. AND CLEARLY THE BODY AND ITS REGULATORY BODY HAS SOME CONCERNS, WE ARE JUST TRYING TO DIGEST HOW TO GET YOU PAST THIS IMPASSE.
>> SO, ALEX, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN HAVE, IF THE APPLICANT WOULD WANT TO PUT IN HIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT. OR JUST HAVE IT ON THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. I MADE IT HIS WORK
BASICALLY. >> A BIO SWELL DOES REQUIRE SOME DEGREE OF DESIGN. MORE THAN JUST SHAPING IT. BUT, YEAH, IT IS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE ADDED TO THE CIVIL PLANS AND THE LANDSCAPE PLANS, IT COULD BE.
>> SO MR. FRISBY, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION.
>> I THINK IT GOES BACK TO OUR QUESTION ABOUT WHAT CARDS WE HAVE TO PLAY WITH HERE, WE CAN EITHER DENY, WHICH WAS MENTIONED BEFORE, AND IT WAS STALLED BASED ON TECHNICAL PREREQUISITES. WE CAN CERTAINLY MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. IF IT HAS THE VOTES. AND OR, THE QUESTION THAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO ASK IS, CAN WE MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CONDITIONALLY. OR IS THAT EVEN A CARD THAT WE HAVE
AVAILABLE TO US? >> I BELIEVE WE HAVE ON A PLAT APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN CONDITION
[00:50:02]
IT. YOU CAN -- >> SO BASICALLY OUR CHOICES ARE WE VOTE TO DENY, WITH A SPECIFIC REASON AS IS REQUESTED. OR APPROVE. SO, HOW DO YOU FEEL?
>> WELL I FEEL LIKE I WOULD LIKE A MOTION. MISS WILSON?
>> I MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS ITEM.
>> MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLAT AS PRESENTED.
>> A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLAN. WITH A SECOND AND COMMISSIONERS, ANY FURTHER DEBATE? LET'S CALL THE VOTE.
AND IT PASSES, 5-1. AND WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.