Why wasn't a council committee requested for a plan with this many moving parts?
Why don't they want the First Texas Rentals parcel annexed but to receive wastewater services? (I see it's in Crystal Clear SUD for water.) And why would we be OK with that?
If not us, in whose wastewater CCN is this?
How would this be annexed? Contiguous where?
Do we usually do a "Pro rata reimbursement agreement...for any future connections by other property owners to the wastewater extension required for service of the property."
Why are we waiving impact fees?
Why are we eliminating Section 3.5.1.2.C totally?
Why no sidewalks anywhere?
Why the change in 3.5.2.3 regarding wastewater facilities?
Why delete 3.5.2.6 totally? Someday we may have bus service this far south and people may want to ride the bus to work. Can we at least have a space for a sheltered bus stop? This is how we got to where we are without enough space to put in shelters in existing developed areas.
Regarding 3.5.3.1 A. What is the source of a water well in this area?
What other entity would be governing that use?
Why is 3.5.3.1.B proposed to be deleted?
Regarding 3.6.2.3.A, will that fee-in-lieu-of be anywhere near enough to do those uses?
Do we plan to do this soon so that the fee might be close to enough?
Regarding 3.9.1.7.A.2, why are we taking on this responsibility?
Regarding 4.3.3.2.D.4, what good is a "setback" if there are this many allowed uses?
Regarding 4.3.5.2.A, why are we allowing this precedent to be set - the Alternative Compliance without PZC approval?
I'll have "I told you so" rights on 4.3.5.4 and 4.3.5.5 and 4.3.5.7.D.1.c and 5.1.3.2.B.2.d deletion when the adjoining properties develop.
Same for changes in 4.4.4.2, deletion of Chapter 4, Article 5, Division 3 (Corridor Overlays),
This is going to be close to the entry to our city. We have specifications for a reason. I can see the reasons for the changes I didn't address above, but what you see from IH 35 will be important. At least on the street frontage.
Please provide info on 6.1.1.1.A.4. a and b change requested.
Seeking info on the deletion of 6.1.2.5, 6.2.2.1, 6.2.2.2, 6.2.3.2,
For 6.2.4.1.A I get that this is to be industrial/heavy commercial, but to delete all tree requirements? See note above about entry to the city and what we see along IH 35.
For 7.1.2.1 eliminating bicycle parking. Why? As our city grows that way, and Trace is already in place, there could be people biking to work.
Regarding 7.1.4.2.H, where will this drain?
What is an example of wall mounted equipment in 7.2.5.2.B.1?
Why do we not have something that relates to heavy commercial to substitute in 7.2.6.3 rather than delete entirely?
Where does 7.5.2.1 fall into our usual light cannot flow into neighbor (can be a commercial neighbor) area? I see that 7.5.2.3 must still be met.
AND will our "dark sky" for new commercial development still be met? The uplighting requested in 7.5.2.4 new G. doesn't look good.
The Design Manual is out? I get that most of it may not apply but surely they have some main administrative offices?
I can't even begin to comment on the changes regarding the Storm Water Technical Design Code because I can't find it on our website using the department of Engineering site. Using the search I found a Stormwater Technical Manual from 2020 (and one from 2019). There must be a newer one because the section and page numbers from the 2020 version don't match the packet.
Is our Fire Dept really OK with the exceptions to the International Fire Code? And why is the 2015 version referenced when we have adopted the 2021 version?
