[2. Consider action on a final plat of Lots 1-12, Block 1 Nicole Court Addition consisting of 12 lots with one lot being a private drainage & utility easement being 2.46 acres out of the A.J. Woodson Survey being a replat of Lots 42 and 43 J.R. Murphy Addition within the City of Bedford, Tarrant County, Texas. The property is generally located approximately 880 feet north of Bedford Road and west of Murphy Drive, commonly known as 2505 Murphy Drive. (PLAT-23-4)]

SO. AGAIN, OUR CONCERN AND I WON'T SPEAK FOR EVERYBODY, BUT OUR CONCERN AND OUR MOTION WAS THAT ANY DEVELOPMENT OR CHANGE OF GRADE TO THE NORTH THEN TOTALLY NEGATES YOUR PLAN FOR SHEETING TO THE NORTHWEST WITHOUT AN EASEMENT.

SO YOU'RE SAYING AREA A ONE SOMEBODY TO THE NORTH CAN BUILD AND BLOCK ALL THAT WATER? YEP. WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT? BECAUSE THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.

I MEAN, WHAT IF THEY CHANGED THE GRADE THERE? WHAT IF THEY PUT IN A WALL? WELL, WHAT IF THEY DECIDED TO PUT.

WE DON'T KNOW.

AS A COMMISSION. WE WERE TRYING TO PLAN AHEAD.

RIGHT. RIGHT.

SO YOU'RE SO YOU'RE GOING TO STOP ALL DEVELOPMENT IN THE TOWN BECAUSE SOMEBODY BUILDS A DAM ON THEIR PROPERTY? NO, WE WERE ASKING THE QUESTION AND WE ONLY ASKED FOR TO DEVISE AN EASEMENT IN WHAT IS DESIGNED TO BE A DRAINAGE THING.

THAT WAS OUR MOTION.

SO THE. SO WHERE WOULD YOU PUT THE EASEMENT ON OUR PROPERTY? HUH? ON OUR PROPERTY.

NO, I'M CONFUSED.

I DON'T. I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU WOULD WANT AN EASEMENT.

OKAY. YOUR NORTHWEST CORNER.

IF YOU GO DIRECTLY NORTH FROM THAT CORNER.

RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE? CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

A LITTLE FARTHER NORTH IN THERE, THERE IS A CONCRETE CULVERT.

THAT'S DRAINAGE.

THAT'S NOT WHERE THIS WATER GOES.

OKAY. I FEEL LIKE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

AND IF I CAN TRY TO MEDIATE A LITTLE BIT HERE, I THINK AND KEITH, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

I'M SORRY, MR. HAMILTON, THE THE OFF-SITE DRAINAGE INLET THAT I BELIEVE THE CHAIRMAN IS TALKING ABOUT FURTHER DOWN ON THE NORTHEAST.

THAT IS WHAT KEITH IS SAYING OR SORRY, MR. HAMILTON IS SAYING THAT THE WATER DOES NOT GO TO THAT OFF-SITE EASEMENT OR THAT OFF-SITE DRAINAGE INLET.

I ALSO THINK AND MR. CHAIRMAN, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS IF SOMEONE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THIS TO THE ON LOT 44, THE LOT IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH WERE TO BUILD A WALL OR TO, AS YOU SAY, DAM UP THE THE PROPERTY, WHAT'S STOPPING THEM FROM DOING THAT? I FEEL LIKE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

IS IS THAT RIGHT? AM I HEARING THAT RIGHT? YES, IN THAT WE THOUGHT IF THERE WAS A WAY TO DO SOME KIND OF A NARROW EASEMENT BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY AND NORTH THAT WOULD ALLEVIATE ANY FUR, IF THERE'S AN EASEMENT THERE, NOBODY CAN BUILD SOMETHING THERE RIGHT IN THAT BACK CORNER, WHETHER IT'S TEN FOOT WIDE OR WHATEVER, IS AN APPROPRIATE EASEMENT.

WE JUST THOUGHT WE WANTED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO TO HAVE IN THE DESIGN, A WAY TO NOT TOTALLY BLOCK THE WATER FROM GOING TO THE NORTH ON THIS PROPERTY.

THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.

AND WE DON'T SEE WE DIDN'T SEE INITIALLY A WAY TO KEEP IT FROM GOING IF IF THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH THAT LOT SOMEBODY DECIDES TO RAISE THE GROUND OR PUT IN A DRIVEWAY OR ANYTHING THAT ELEVATES THAT PARTICULAR PART OF THE GROUND.

THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS DESIGN THAT MITIGATES THAT CHANGE IN A IN THE CURRENTLY NATURAL DRAINAGE.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE WERE KIND OF LOOKING FOR.

OKAY. WELL, I DON'T THINK I DON'T THINK I DON'T THINK THAT'S POSSIBLE.

IF YOU GET AN EASEMENT LIKE A STRIP, ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS BUILD SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF THAT STRIP FURTHER DOWNSTREAM TO BLOCK IT.

OKAY. SO I DON'T I DON'T THINK THAT'S POSSIBLE.

AND FOR COMMISSIONERS, I KNOW EVERYBODY DID THEIR PACKET, BUT JUST TO PUT IT OUT THERE, THE THE REPORT FROM HAFEN ASSOCIATES CONSULTANTS WAS THEY BASICALLY DEFERRED TO THE ENGINEERING DESIGN ENGINEER ON THIS PROJECT.

THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY.

IT WON'T WORK. BUT THERE WERE CERTAIN WORDS OF UNCERTAIN AND UNDETERMINED AS TO WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY HAPPEN TO THE DRAINAGE IN THEIR ASSESSMENT, IN THEIR THREE POINTS, IN THEIR REVIEW. BUT THEY DEFERRED IN ALL THREE CASES TO THE DESIGN ENGINEER FOR THIS PROJECT.

JUST THAT'S THE BACKGROUND ON THE THE NEW INFORMATION.

SO ANYBODY ELSE GOT ANY QUESTIONS NOW THAT I'VE BEEN TALKING? CAN I SAY SOMETHING? SURE. THAT LETTER, WE'VE WE'VE GONE BEYOND THAT LETTER.

THAT LETTER WAS FROM A FEW WEEKS AGO.

WE'VE ADDRESSED THOSE CONCERNS AND WE'VE HEARD NOTHING BACK.

AND I MADE A I MADE AN EMAIL TO EVERYONE SAYING, HEY, I'M ADDRESSING THIS.

WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME.

UNLESS I HEAR SOMETHING BACK, I FEEL LIKE EVERYBODY'S IN AGREEMENT AND I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING BACK.

OKAY. DIDN'T KNOW THAT. OKAY.

ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING? THANK YOU, SIR. ANYTHING TO ADD, STAFF? MR. JACOBS? WELL, I WAS LOOKING AT THE THE LETTER AGAIN.

[00:10:03]

THIS IS THE AUGUST 28TH LETTER, AND I GOT TO ADMIT, I AM CONFUSED BECAUSE IT APPEARS TO ME, AGAIN, LOOKING FIRST AT THE INITIAL FLOW DIAGRAM THAT WE WERE FIRST PRESENTED WITH, THAT THE ENGINEER HAS BASICALLY CHANGED ALL THE PARAMETERS OR ATTEMPTED TO CHANGE ALL THE PARAMETERS IN THE LETTER THEY REFER TO.

WELL, MAYBE THE ONE FOOT INTERVAL CONTOURS DO NOT ALWAYS PROVIDE AN ACCURATE DEPICTION OF THE WATER FLOW.

OKAY, SO THAT'S A I'M NOT.

THAT'S A MAYBE IT'S SAYING, WELL, MAYBE WHAT WE FIRST SAID IS NOT TRUE.

THE SECOND ONE IS, WELL, THERE ARE MINOR DIFFERENCES IN THE OVERFLOW SITE AREA FOR 100 YEAR FLOWS.

AND IT APPEARS THAT THESE DIFFERENCES ARE DUE TO THE ROUNDING DIFFERENCES.

AND THEN FURTHER, THEY TALK ABOUT ABOUT THE ISSUE OF OF A FENCE AND HOW IT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT AFFECT THE FLOW.

AND TO ME, MY BACKGROUND IS IN ECONOMIST, I'M USED TO DEALING IN MATTERS OF UNCERTAINTY.

WHAT I FIND IS THIS EXPLANATION OF CHANGED ASSUMPTIONS FROM AN ENGINEERING FIRM TO BE ASTONISHING.

AND QUITE FRANKLY, THIS DOES NOT, IN MY MIND, SEEM TO FIT THE BILL IN TRYING TO EXPLAIN THIS, THIS DESCRIPTION. I THINK YOU'VE TRIED TO CHANGE THE RULES OF THE GAME.

IN MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT I'M READING HERE IN THIS AUGUST 28TH LETTER.

YES, SIR. THAT'S NOT MY LETTER.

THAT'S THE. THAT'S THE REVIEW ENGINEER'S LETTER.

YES, I UNDERSTAND.

AND HE'S HE'S.

YEAH, I AGREE. IT'S A IT'S A PRETTY WEIRDLY WORDED LETTER.

I AGREE. SO I GUESS WE'RE LEFT WITH TWO.

BACK TO YOUR POINT.

WE'RE LEFT WITH TWO VASTLY DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT ACTUALLY MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN.

AND QUITE HONESTLY, I DON'T THINK I'VE GOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE A DECISION.

I THINK THAT'S A VERY FAIR POINT.

AND I'M JACOB HAYES IS THE PERSON WHO WROTE THE LETTER AND HE'S IN THE AUDIENCE.

SO I DEFINITELY GIVE HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME UP AND AND EXPLAIN HIS CASE.

BUT I THINK THAT'S THE WAY STAFF FEELS.

MR. JACOBSEN, IS THAT THE INFORMATION WE'VE BEEN GIVEN, WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF UNKNOWNS.

AND SO AND JACOB, IF YOU WANT TO COME UP AND SAY ANYTHING TO THAT POINT, PLEASE FEEL FREE .

IN JUST A MOMENT BEFORE YOU COME UP JACOB, WHILE THE DESIGNERS HERE.

HELP US TO UNDERSTAND THE NEW STRUCTURE IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER WHERE IT DESIGNATES PROPOSED DETENTION, POND B OUTFALL AND A OUTFALL ON THAT NORTH, NORTHWEST AND WESTERN SIDE.

HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS.

WHAT WE DID THAT'S NEW.

IT IS. WE HAD IT POINTING NORTH.

AND REALLY, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE NEW DRAINAGE AREA MAP, THE C TEN, YOU CAN SEE EVERYTHING THAT A1 I THINK WENT NORTH AND THEN WE IDENTIFIED A TWO AND A THREE AS GOING WEST.

SO THAT'S WHY WE TURNED THE STRUCTURE.

AND WE HAVE TWO OPENINGS AND WE HAVE A SPREADER AT THE BACK OF THE OUTFALL.

IT'S 83.5FT LONG TO MAKE THAT THING GO BACK TO SHEET FLOW SO THAT THE WATER GOES TO NINE, TEN AND 11 AND SHEET FLOW MANNER AND ALL THE NUANCES ON THE PROPERTY THAT KIND OF RELATE BACK TO THE LETTER.

I'VE WALKED THE PROPERTY.

I'VE TAKEN PHOTOS.

BELIEVE ME, THIS PROPERTY MEETS ALL THE CITY OF BEDFORD'S GUIDELINES, ALL STATE OF TEXAS WATER CODE.

IT MEETS IT ALL, WITHOUT A DOUBT.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND.

HELP ENLIGHTEN US.

JACOB HAYES 8709 MADRID STREET, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS.

SO AS WAS INDICATED BY MR. HAMILTON, I AM THE REVIEW ENGINEER FOR THE CITY OF BEDFORD ON DEVELOPMENTS SUCH AS THIS WITH HALF ASSOCIATES.

SO THERE WERE THREE CONCERNS THAT YOU RAISED, MR. JACOBSEN, OR THREE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAD.

I'LL ADDRESS KIND OF THE VERY FIRST ONE, WHICH WAS THE ROUNDING ISSUES.

HYDRAULICS IS BY ITS NATURE, A SOMEWHAT SUBJECTIVE FIELD.

SO IN MY OPINION, ROUNDING DIFFERENCES OF A 10TH OF A CFS ARE WELL WITHIN REASON FOR DEVELOPMENTS SUCH AS THIS.

AND THAT COULD BE BECAUSE THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT PARAMETERS THAT GO INTO THE DETERMINATION OF FLOWS FROM A SITE SUCH AS THIS.

THE SECOND QUESTION OR THE SECOND COMMENT THAT WAS RAISED WAS OUR CONCERNS OR OUR EXPRESSION OF AMBIGUITY ABOUT THE SITE.

WHENEVER WE ARE REVIEWING A DEVELOPMENT SUCH AS THIS, WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY GOING OUT TO THE PHYSICAL SITE.

[00:15:02]

SO THEREFORE WE TYPICALLY HAVE TO RELY ON THE ENGINEER OF RECORDS JUDGMENT TO DETERMINE WHAT THE FLOW PATHS ON THE SITE ARE.

AS I INDICATED, ONE FOOT CONTOURS ARE THEY DON'T ALWAYS TELL THE FULL STORY.

SO A LOT OF TIMES WE HAVE TO RELY ON THAT ENGINEERING JUDGMENT THAT THE ENGINEER OF RECORD UTILIZES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DRAINAGE AREA MAPS AND THE INFORMATION PROVIDED.

THEREIN IS WHAT WE WILL REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE LOCAL CRITERIA THAT MR. HAMILTON REFERENCED.

SO THAT IS THE SECOND QUESTION.

AND THEN THE THIRD QUESTION, AS MR. HAMILTON RAISED ABOUT THE FENCE, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT WALKING THE SITE WHENEVER WE'RE DOING THESE REVIEWS.

SO WE SEE A FENCE LINE ON THE PLANS.

WHENEVER WE SEE A FENCE LINE ON THE PLANS, WE DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS A MASONRY SCREEN WALL OR IF IT IS A WROUGHT IRON FENCE THAT HAS A LOT OF POROSITY THAT CAN BYPASS THE WATER.

MR. HAMILTON LAST WEEK WALKED THE SITE, PROVIDED SUPPLEMENTAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BOUNDARY FENCES THAT EXIST AS OF RIGHT NOW ALONG THE SITE. AND IT APPEARS THAT THEY DO HAVE THE POROSITY TO BYPASS THE WATER IN THE MANNER THAT IS SHOWN IN THE PLANS.

SO I BELIEVE THOSE WERE THE THREE QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED IN REGARDS TO OUR LETTER FROM APPROXIMATELY TWO WEEKS AGO.

WELL, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU THEN, SIR.

IN HERE, GIVEN THE DIRECTIONS OF THESE NEW STRUCTURES AND THE SHIFTING DIRECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN INDICATED TONIGHT AND MAYBE EVEN, WHY IS THERE A DETENTION POND IF THE WATER'S NOT GOING THERE? WELL, THE REASON THAT YOU HAVE DETENTION PONDS IS TO ENSURE THAT PRE VERSUS POST FLOWS TO EACH INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY ARE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO EXISTING CONDITIONS.

SO WHENEVER YOU ARE ADDING IMPERVIOUS SURFACES TO THE SITE, THAT INCREASES THE RUNOFF.

THAT IS ONE OF THE PARAMETERS THAT GOES INTO A RUNOFF CALCULATION OR A FLOW DETERMINATION.

SO THEREFORE, IF YOU'RE ADDING ROOFTOPS AND CONCRETE AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, THAT IS AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE WHICH WILL INCREASE RUNOFF DOWNSTREAM.

SO THEREFORE YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DETENTION POND OR SOME OTHER WAY TO ATTENUATE OR SLOW DOWN THAT WATER ON SITE.

SO THAT WAY YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT PEAK LEAVING THE SITE.

SO THEREFORE YOUR FLOWS ARE NEVER INCREASED DOWNSTREAM.

AND THERE'S AGAIN A LOT OF SUBJECTIVITY AND ENGINEERING JUDGMENT THAT GOES INTO THAT.

FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT, THE INTRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL NON POROUS HARDSCAPES TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL CHANGE THE ENTIRE SHEETING DRAINAGE OF THIS PROPERTY, WILL IT NOT? SO WITH THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION AREA, A ONE IS DIRECTED TO THE NORTHERN PROPERTY AS PART OF OUR ANALYSIS.

WE REVIEWED THE EXISTING DRAINAGE AREAS TO THE NORTHERN PROPERTY AND THE PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREAS TO THE NORTHERN PROPERTY AND THEY APPEAR OR DO NOT APPEAR BASED ON THE CALCULATIONS AND INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE PLANS TO INCREASE RUNOFF TO THE NORTHERN PROPERTY WITH THE NEW OUTFALL CONFIGURATION.

THOSE RUNOFF OR THOSE FLOWS WILL THEN BE DIRECTED TO THE WESTERN THREE PROPERTIES LOT NINE, TEN AND 11, WHICH PER THE EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA MAP AND THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THERE MATCH THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AS BEST WE CAN TELL.

SO THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOT LOTS TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE WILL WHICH ARE THE NORTHERN LOTS WILL RESTRICT THE FLOW, CURRENT FLOW OF THE WATER TO THE NORTH WILL GO INTO THE STREET, COME DOWN TO THE DESIGN DRAINAGE INTO THE CUL DE SAC AND OUT THROUGH THE OPENING TOWARDS THE DETENTION POND.

THAT WAY, THAT WATER FROM ONE, TWO, THREE AND FOUR WILL GO.

THE NORTHERN LOTS, BASICALLY THE ROOF LINES, ANYTHING THAT FALLS SOUTH OF THE ROOF LINES OR THE MID LINES OF THE OR THE STRUCTURES WILL GO INTO AREA A TWO, WHICH IS DEPICTED IN THE DRAINAGE AREA MAP, AND THEN IT WILL RUN INTO THE CUL DE SAC AND INTO THE DETENTION POND THROUGH THE THROUGH THE OPENING IN THE CUL DE SAC.

YES, SIR. DESIGNED NORTHERN.

THE NORTHERN CORNER OF THE CUL DE SAC.

GOT IT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

SO, A3 AND EIGHT FOUR ARE THE ONLY TWO THAT ARE.

UP AGAINST THE NATIVE YEARS.

SO AREAS A3 AND A4 ARE AREAS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE DETENTION POND STRUCTURE.

SO BETWEEN THE EXISTING FENCE AND THE DETENTION POND OUTFALL STRUCTURE.

SO THOSE WILL CONTINUE TO SHEET FLOW AS THEY CURRENTLY DO.

[00:20:02]

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.

I APPRECIATE IT. HARD STUFF THAT PUT DOWN.

IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE THE SIGN.

I KNOW. SOMEBODY WALK PAST THESE GUYS.

THE HARD STUFF. SO WE'RE DISCUSSING THE RETENTION POND AND THE FLOW AND EVERYTHING.

SO WE HAVEN'T GOT TO THAT YET.

YEAH. WELL, AND HOW THEY'RE RUNNING.

OR WE'RE JUST DISCUSSING THE TECHNICAL DETAILS OF WHEN YOU PUT HOUSES ON THESE PROPERTIES AND DO A SLAB AND DO A GRADE.

WHERE'S THAT FUTURE WATER GOING? AND I REALIZE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND THE FACT THAT THIS THE CURRENT DRAWING THAT SHOWS DRAINAGE ON THIS PLAT OF C 111 IS EXISTING ONCE IT'S BUILT, THIS EXISTING DOESN'T EXIST.

IT'S ALL HARDSCAPE, IT'S ALL IT'S BUILDINGS.

THAT WATER IS NOT GOING TO MELT FLOW TO THE NORTH.

IT'S ALL GOING TO BE PRESSED TO ONE END.

SO WE WERE JUST THAT'S HERE AGAIN, WE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, WE THOUGHT, YES, THE MOVEMENT AND THE SHEETING DRAINAGE IS GOING TO CHANGE WHEN IT GETS BUILT.

AND WE WERE JUST TRYING TO ENSURE THAT DOWN THE ROAD THERE'S SOMEPLACE FOR THAT WATER TO GO.

WE FULLY BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO GET FORCED THROUGH THE DETENTION POND IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER.

BUT WE'RE NOT ENGINEERS.

IT JUST LOOKS LIKE WE DON'T ADDRESS THIS.

WE'RE GOING TO GET FIVE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD AND ALL THE WATER FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO END UP SOMEWHERE WHERE NOBODY TOLD IT WAS GOING TO GO.

SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR.

THAT'S THAT'S OUR CONCERN.

WE KNOW THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO GO TO THE NORTH BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE HOUSES THERE.

NO, YOU HAVE SOME WATER GOING TO THE NORTH FROM AREA A ONE.

RIGHT. THAT GOES NORTH.

A TWO GOES TO THE POND, B ONE, B TWO, GO TO THE STREET.

A FIVE GOES SOUTH WEST.

85. YEAH.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

EVERYBODY, I'VE BEEN DOING THIS A LONG TIME.

THIS IS WHAT I DO FOR MY THIS IS MY LIFE.

I THINK JACOB FROM HALF SORRY, JACOB HAYES FROM.

HE GOT UP HERE.

OKAY. HE'S AN ENGINEER.

I THINK YOU COULD WHEN HE DEPARTED SPEAKING.

I THINK YOU COULD, WE COULD ALL SAY THAT HE AGREES WITH THIS.

I CAN SAY THAT.

OR HE WOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING NEGATIVE OR MADE A POINT.

THIS THING COMPLIES WITH ALL THE RULES.

IT'S NOT LIKE THIS IS.

THIS HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE.

THIS THING'S FINE.

I PROMISE.

WELL, THANK YOU. OKAY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANY NEW INFORMATION FROM STAFF THAT WE NEED TO KNOW.

NOT UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME.

LET ME SAY SOMETHING. AND BECAUSE I KIND OF GET THE FEELING THAT THERE'S SOME STRUGGLE AS TO KIND OF WHAT TO DO.

SO IF I CAN TRY TO SUMMARIZE, I THINK I THINK THERE ARE SOME UNKNOWNS WITH WITH THIS DESIGN.

I KNOW THAT DURING THE LAND USE AND WHY I KNOW A LOT OF YOU ARE STRUGGLING DURING THE LAND USE DRAINAGE WAS REALLY DISCUSSED.

STAFF DOES NOT DISAGREE WITH MR. HAMILTON'S ASSESSMENT THAT THIS MEETS ALL OF OUR ORDINANCES.

WE AGREE WITH THAT.

BUT WE ALSO KNOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN ISSUES IN THE PAST THAT HAVE THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH, THAT DEVELOPMENTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED OF THIS SIMILAR NATURE, THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH THOSE ISSUES AS WELL TODAY.

ON THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT.

THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY A REASON TO.

DENY OR DISABLE ACTION ON THE PLOT.

I THINK ULTIMATELY IT COMES DOWN TO THE DESIGN ENGINEERS.

HE'S THE ONE STAMPING AND SEALING THESE PLANS, AND I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHERE CITY STAFF AND CONSULTING ENGINEERS HAVE LEFT.

THIS IS IT'S ULTIMATELY UP TO THE DESIGN ENGINEER TO DEFEND THEIR OWN AND TO STAMP AND SEAL THEIR OWN PROJECT.

AND THAT'S WHAT I APPRECIATE THAT THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING.

SO THANK YOU, SIR, FOR FOR BEING HERE.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET UP FOR BOTH OF YOU.

COMING. ON YOUR QUESTION? OH, JUST FOR PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE.

CAN YOU TELL ME. EXCUSE ME.

AS JUST AS PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE.

CAN YOU TELL ME, IS THERE EVER A CIRCUMSTANCE WHEN YOU AS THE ENGINEER REVIEWING THIS, THAT YOU WOULD FEEL A SITUATION IS SO IN QUESTION THAT YOU WOULD GO AND

[00:25:10]

WALK THE SITE? YES, IN A LOT OF CASES WE WOULD MAKE THAT REQUEST.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT'S A RELATIVELY SIMPLE SITE.

IT WAS ZONED AS A LARGE RESIDENTIAL LOT.

I THINK IT HAD TWO STRUCTURES ON IT, ONE ON THE NORTHERN PORTION AND ONE ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION.

THAT'S RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

BUT AGAIN, THERE COULD BE TROUGHS AND FURROWS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE ON THE EXISTING SITE THAT ARE EARTHEN, THAT AREN'T ALWAYS DEPICTED IN THE TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS.

SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT THE ROOT OF THAT COMMENT WAS, IS THAT THERE IS SOME AMBIGUITY.

BUT BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, I DO BELIEVE THAT THE DRAINAGE AREAS THAT HE DEPICTS ARE AT LEAST FOR THE EXISTING CONDITIONS, ACCURATE AND FOR PROPOSED CONDITIONS AS WELL. SO AGAIN, IF YOU FELT THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING SERIOUS, YOUR FIRM WOULD GO OUT THERE AND DO A WALK.

THAT IS CORRECT.

YEAH. I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE A DISCUSSION WITH US AND STAFF AS TO WHETHER WE WANTED TO MAKE THAT.

BUT THIS THIS IS A RELATIVELY SIMPLE SITE IN TERMS OF TOPOGRAPHY.

THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF HILLS AND VALLEYS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE THAT WOULD OR THERE'S NOT ANY RETAINING WALLS OR PONDS OR THINGS OF THAT NATURE THAT ARE THAT ARE ON THE EXISTING SITE THAT MIGHT LEAD US TO.

QUESTION WELL, DOES IT REALLY OVERTOP AND GO TO THE NORTH OR DOES IT TRULY GET ACTIVATED AND HEAD TO THE SOUTH OR THE WEST? SO I DON'T PERSONALLY FEEL LIKE A SITE WALK WOULD BE NECESSARY ON A SITE LIKE THIS.

THERE IS ALWAYS THAT AMBIGUITY.

JEREMY SO, SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. SO WE APPRECIATE THAT, BOTH OF YOU.

ENGINEERING GENTLEMEN HAVE COME HERE THIS EVENING.

WE MAYBE ARE A LITTLE BIT SIMPLER COMMISSION THAN WE LOOK LIKE ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.

BUT TWO THINGS THAT I'LL SAY IS THAT, ONE, WE ARE A PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO LOOK FORWARD BEYOND WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US.

AND THERE'S CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, NORTH OF THIS.

SECONDLY, WE WERE A LITTLE SURPRISED THAT WHEN WE APPROVED THE FINAL PLAT WITH THE CONDITIONS FOR THE EASEMENT, THAT THAT ENDED UP NOT HAPPENING.

SO THAT'S PIQUED OUR INTEREST AND OUR ATTENTION TO THIS ITEM THAT IT DIDN'T CONTINUE TO PROCEED PAST FINAL PLAT AS WE HAD HAD VOTED AND APPROVED.

OKAY. THAT BEING SAID, I APPRECIATE YOU COMING AND ADDRESSING AND AND MAKING SOME TWEAKS TO THE PLAN AND EXPLAINING YOUR SITUATION TO US.

SO WITH WITH THAT.

MR. GALLENSTEIN, DID YOU HAVE A OH, BY THE WAY, BECAUSE OF YOUR WE'VE SWORN IN THE THE ALTERNATES FOR THIS EVENING, SO UNFORTUNATELY, YOU WILL NOT BE VOTING.

OKAY. BUT WE HAD A COMMENT, ASKED A QUESTION.

PLEASE EXCUSE ME FOR BEING LATE.

I HAD AN EMERGENCY CROP UP AND CONTACTED THE CHAIRPERSON.

CHAIRMAN, WHEN I READ THE REPORT AND I'M ASSUMING THAT GENTLEMAN IN THE BACK IS FROM HALFDANSSON, IT KIND OF SOUNDED LIKE, WELL, I'M TRYING TO PUT THIS THE BEST WAY I CAN.

IT'S REALLY KIND OF FALLING ON THE APPLICANT.

IT LOOKS LIKE IT'LL MAKE IT.

I DIDN'T WALK AWAY WITH WARM FUZZIES.

NOW I DIDN'T HEAR YOUR PRESENTATION.

AND PLEASE EXCUSE ME BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, I HAD AN EMERGENCY CROP UP AS HE DID ADDRESS THAT TO US.

WE'VE UNFORTUNATELY BEFORE WE WEREN'T SURE YOU WERE COMING AT ALL SO AND SO.

BUT WE WE GOT THAT INFORMATION IN THE RECORD, SO.

GREAT. OKAY. SO.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, THEN I'M GOING TO TAKE IT UPON MYSELF TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE PLAT.

JUST. THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, SIR.

THIS IS A PRESENTATION BY THE DEVELOPER AND STAFF.

THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM ONE.

ITEM. ITEM TWO FOR THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

AGAIN, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE PLAT 23 FOR THE LOTS ONE THROUGH 12 BLOCK ONE THE COLE COURT ADDITION THE PLANS SUBMITTED IN TONIGHT'S PACKET.

SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND.

OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO DO A ROLL CALL VOTE TONIGHT.

PROOF. RIGHT.

PROVED. APPROVE.

APPROVED. COUNT.

ITEM HAS BEEN APPROVED.

THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.

APPRECIATE IT. VARIABLES.

[00:30:13]

WELCOME, COMMISSIONER GALLENSTEIN.

THANK YOU. WE'RE SORRY YOU HAD A PROBLEM.

WE'RE GLAD YOU'RE HERE. I'M SORRY I HAD THE PROBLEM MORE SO THAN WE ARE.

OUR SECOND. OUR THIRD ITEM TONIGHT IS WE ARE CONTINUE OUR PUBLIC HEARING THAT WE SUSPENDED OUR LAST MEETING TO CONSIDER MAKING A RECOMMENDATION ON CHANGE OF ZONING FROM OUR 7500 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED TO MD FOUR.

THIS IS CASE PD 20 3-3.

OR OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION TRACKS 33D TO RIGHT OFF OF FOREST RIDGE.

STAFF. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. COMMISSION MEMBERS.

THIS JUST AS A RECAP FROM TWO WEEKS AGO.

THE PROPERTY IS BEING REQUESTED TO REZONE TO MEDIUM DENSITY FOR FOR ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY, THAT IS TOWNHOMES.

THE WE STILL GOT THE BACKGROUND HERE.

AGAIN, JUST A REAL QUICK RECAP.

ORIGINALLY WAS OR MOST RECENTLY IT WAS PLANNED IN 2020 FOR CLUBHOUSE OR SPECIAL NEEDS.

SINCE THAT TIME THE PROPERTY IS OR THE PROPERTY OWNERS COMING IN AND ASKING FOR A ZONING CHANGE.

IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED R 75, WHICH IS SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED AND AGAIN THEY'RE REQUESTING MD FOR MEDIUM DENSITY.

THE PLAN HAS CHANGED A LITTLE BIT SINCE YOUR LAST TIME, SO IT'S NOW REQUESTING TO ALLOW 29 TOWNHOMES, FIVE OPEN SPACE LOTS WITH A OVERALL DENSITY OF A LITTLE OVER TEN UNITS PER ACRE.

REAL QUICK. SO AT OUR LAST MEETING, WE HEARD FROM PUBLIC COMMENT.

WE WE HEARD VARIOUS CONCERNS FROM THE COMMISSION.

THE APPLICANTS RESUBMITTED A PLAN.

AND I'M JUST GOING TO REAL BRIEFLY TOUCH ON THOSE CHANGES.

AGAIN, REDUCING THE OVERALL NUMBER OF UNITS FROM 32 TO 29.

THEY'RE PRESERVING THREE ADDITIONAL TREES, INTERIOR TO THE LOT.

GO TO THAT REAL QUICK AND SHOW YOU.

THERE WE GO, THREE ADDITIONAL TREES, INTERIOR TO THE LOT, FOUR ADDITIONAL TREES ALONG BEDFORD ROAD.

AND THEN THEY'RE ADDING THREE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES, PRIMARILY DUE TO THE CONCERNS OF THE THE NEIGHBOR.

THEY DID MEET WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION TO THE NORTH OR REALLY SURROUNDING THE SITE.

AND SO THEY MET WITH THEM APPROXIMATELY A WEEK OR WEEK AND A HALF AGO.

OTHER THAN THAT, NO OTHER REAL CHANGES TO THE SITE DEVELOPED.

REANALYSIS STAYS THE SAME.

THEY ARE PROVIDING MORE PARKING SPACES NOW.

THEY STILL SAME FENCING, SAME SCREENING REQUIREMENTS.

THEY ALSO DID PROVIDE A AND I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE IT HERE, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE I MIGHT, BUT THEY ARE PROVIDING A CHANGE.

THEY HEARD FROM THE COMMISSION THAT THEY WERE SOME CONCERN ON LANDSCAPING, SO THEY PROVIDED SOME DIFFERENT TREE SPECIES TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS.

SPECIFICALLY, THEY REMOVED THE PINES THAT WERE LISTED ON THE PREVIOUS PLAN AND REPLACED THEM WITH CEDAR MS, RED OAKS AND CRAPE MYRTLES AND LITTLE GEM MAGNOLIAS.

WITH THAT, I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

THE APPLICANT'S HERE AS WELL AND THEY CAN GIVE ANY PRESENTATION YOU'D LIKE TO THEM AS WELL.

IS THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT HERE? YES. YES.

I JUST WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THAT PERSON FIRST, SIR.

I WILL GET OUT OF THEIR WAY.

WELCOME, SIR. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS CURTIS YOUNG WITH THE SAGE GROUP.

WE'RE AT 1130 NORTH CARROLL AVENUE IN SOUTHLAKE, AND WE PREPARED THE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT.

AND WHAT WE HEARD FROM LAST TIME WAS THAT THERE WAS SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE ELDARICA PINE AS A SPECIES IN HERE.

SO WE SWITCHED THAT OUT.

IT'S ON THE CITY'S APPROVED TREE LIST.

BUT WE UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF PINES ON THE PROPERTY ALREADY, BUT WE THOUGHT THAT MIGHT BE CONSISTENT.

BUT IF THERE'S A CONCERN ABOUT THAT, WE SWITCH THAT OUT AND AND NOW HAVE LITTLE JAM MAGNOLIAS IN THERE.

MR. GALLENSTEIN COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO DEFER TO YOU FOR THE FIRST QUESTION OF THE HOUR.

OKAY. I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT YOU DID THAT.

I'M SURPRISED THOSE ARE ALSO KNOWN AS AFGHAN PINES, THAT YOU'RE PROBABLY AWARE AS A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.

AND THEY DO WELL HERE FOR A FEW YEARS.

AND THEN WHEN WE GET OUR NORMAL RAINFALL, WHICH IS IN THE 30 INCH RANGE, THEY DIE.

OUR HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION SPENT OVER $15,000 REMOVING THEM.

[00:35:04]

YOU'RE PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH NEIL SPERRY.

HE HAD AN ARTICLE A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, MY SIX BIGGEST MISTAKES IN 50 YEARS IN THE HORTICULTURE BUSINESS, AND THAT WAS PLANTING THOSE PINES.

SO I'M VERY GLAD THAT YOU'VE REMOVED THOSE.

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO REPLACE THOSE WITH SINCE THOSE ARE EVERGREEN? ARE YOU GOING TO GO IN WITH, LET'S SAY, LITTLE GEM MAGNOLIAS?

[3. Continue the public hearing and consider making a recommendation on a change of zoning from R-7,500 (Single-Family Residential Detached District) to MD-4 (Medium-Density Single-Family Attached District) for a proposed 30 Residential Townhome Lot and five (5) Open Space Lot subdivision on Tracts 3 and 3D2, Abstract 12 of the Allen, W.R. Survey. The 2.852 acres site is located on the north side of Bedford Road, approximately 350 feet southwest of Forest Ridge Drive, and is commonly known as 1525 Bedford Road. (PUD-23-3)]

CORRECT. OKAY.

OKAY. GLAD TO HEAR THAT.

GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME? WELL, WE APPRECIATE YOU ADDRESSING THAT.

WE MISSED YOU AT OUR PREVIOUS MEETING.

BUT BUT THANK YOU FOR I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING HERE.

OH, THAT'S OKAY. JUST AS A AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

AND WE APPRECIATE YOU WORKING ON THE CITY WE COMMISSIONED AS WELL AS CITY COUNCIL JUST APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED A NEW TREE PRESERVATION PLAN.

AND SO SOME OF THE COMMENTS AND THE THINGS THAT YOU MAY HAVE SEEN IN THE NOTES FROM THIS MEETING DEALT WITH A LOT OF THAT AS A PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARD. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO YEAH, WE ALSO PREPARE THE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN AND AS AS WAS MENTIONED, THERE'S MANY ADDITIONAL TREES BEING SAVED.

SO WE APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU.

SO THANK YOU. IS A DEVELOPER HERE.

A NEW FACE. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME.

WELCOME, SIR. GOOD EVENING.