Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:06]

2020 REGULAR MEETING OF THE GARLAND CITY COUNCIL.

[Call to Order]

OBVIOUSLY, WE ARE STILL MEETING IN A VIRTUAL FORMAT AND ALL PARTICIPANTS WILL BE MUTED UNTIL IT IS THEIR TURN TO SPEAK.

IF YOU NEED TO BE RECOGNIZED, YOU CAN USE THE RAISE YOUR HAND, RAISE HAND FEATURE ON THE ZOOM PLATFORM AND WE'LL COVER THIS LATER.

APPLICANTS WILL BE GIVEN 10 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION AND THEN THREE MINUTES FOR ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS.

BUT IT IS THE CUSTOM AND TRADITION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO HAVE AN INVOCATION AND RECITAL OF THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF OUR MEETINGS.

THIS HAS ALWAYS LED BY ONE OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS.

TONIGHT, WE WILL BE LED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HEDRICK FROM DISTRICT SEVEN, SIR.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. CARE TO JOIN ME IN PRAYER? HEAVENLY FATHER, AS WE COME OUT OF THE THANKSGIVING SEASON, WE HAVE SO MUCH TO BE THANKFUL FOR. WE THANK YOU FOR OUR HEALTH AND FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF A CORONAVIRUS VACCINE IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

WE THANK YOU FOR THE DOCTORS AND NURSES, THE FIRST RESPONDERS AND FRONTLINE WORKERS WHO CONTINUE TO LABOR DURING THIS PANDEMIC.

WE'RE ALSO THANKFUL FOR THIS GREAT NATION, STATE AND CITY THAT WE LIVE IN.

AND FOR ALL THE CITIZENS, RESIDENTS AND WORKERS IN THE CITY OF GARLAND.

WE ASKED YOU TO BE WITH US TONIGHT AND GRANT THIS CITY COUNCIL WISDOM AS WE STRIVE TO MAKE THE BEST DECISIONS FOR THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF GARLAND.

LORD, WE ASK THAT YOU BLESS US AND KEEP US, MAY YOUR FACE CONTINUE TO SHINE UPON US AND BE GRACIOUS TO US. LIFT UP YOUR FACE TO US AND GRANT US PEACE.

IN YOUR NAME, AMEN. IF YOU'D JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE.

OF ALLEGIANCE] THANK YOU, SIR.

WE WILL GO AHEAD AND GET UNDERWAY HERE.

AND THE FIRST ITEM EXCUSE ME, THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS OUR AGENDA ITEMS UNDER THIS

[Consent Agenda]

SECTION ARE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY A SINGLE MOTION OF COUNCIL WITHOUT DISCUSSION.

COUNCIL HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW EACH OF THESE ITEMS AT OUR PREVIOUS WORK SESSION. AND APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AUTHORIZES THE CITY MANAGER TO IMPLEMENT EACH ITEM. I WILL ANNOUNCE THE AGENDA AND PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE OR THE CITY COUNCIL TO REQUEST AN ITEM BE REMOVED AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.

AT THIS POINT, I DON'T HAVE ANY REQUESTS TO HAVE ANY ITEMS PULLED, BUT LET ME GO AHEAD AND READ THROUGH THE AGENDA.

ITEM ONE, CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 17TH, 2020 REGULAR MEETING, ITEM TWO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING BIDS, TWO A REPLACEMENT PURSUIT INTERCEPTORS FOR GARLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, 2B, GGPNL AND TEMPA UNITS AND METERS, 2C ANNUAL SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE FOR GPNL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, 2D GPNL PUMP REPAIR AND RECONDITIONING SERVICE, 2E SECURITY CAMERAS AND ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEMS, 2F GPNL CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT AND FIELD PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 2G SUBSTATION DISCONNECT SWITCHES.

2H OAKLAND TO MCCREE OPGW CONSTRUCTION.

2I ROWLETT CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, SECONDARY CLARIFIERS AND TRICKLING FILTERS EVALUATION PROJECT.

ITEM 2J DESIGN SERVICES FOR RIDGEWOOD VISTA, CELESTE ALLY, AND FOREST BROOK WASTEWATER MAIN REPLACEMENT.

2K DESIGN SERVICES FOR FORD AND BELMONT ALLY WASTE WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT.

2I GPNL OLINGER, TO WYLIE E, ONE THIRTY EIGHT KB TRANSMISSION LINE UPGRADE.

ITEM THREE, PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY FOR FIRE STATION NUMBER SEVEN AND FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS WERE PREVIOUSLY CONDUCTED FOR THE FOLLOWING ZONING CASE.

COUNCIL APPROVES A REQUEST AND INSTRUCTED STAFF TO BRING FORTH THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION.

ITEM 4A, ZONING FILE Z20-21 DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LLC IN DISTRICT THREE. AND THAT IS THE CONSENT AGENDA THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US THIS EVENING.

AND IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN ITEM PULLED AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY? WITH THAT, I SEE NONE.

COUNCIL MEMBER HEDRICK. YES, MR. MAYOR, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE KACIN AGENDA AS STATED.

I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AND A SECOND BY DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM VERA TO

[00:05:06]

APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED.

WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, COUNCIL, PLEASE VOTE.

THOSE VIRTUAL BACKGROUNDS ARE ROUGH ON THESE SIGNS.

THAT ITEM IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

EITHER YOUR SIGN DISAPPEARS OR YOUR FACE DISAPPEARS OR BOTH OR SOMETHING.

ALL RIGHT. WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST OR ON AN AGENDA ITEM OBVIOUSLY I WAS GOING TO SAY FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD, BUT YOU NEED TO REGISTER ONLINE THROUGH THE LINK AND WE WILL RECOGNIZE SPEAKERS.

AND AGAIN, FOR OUR APPLICANTS THAT ARE HERE TONIGHT, YOU WILL HAVE 10 MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION. ANY SUBSEQUENT SPEAKERS WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

AND ON ZONING CASES, IF NECESSARY, WE WILL GIVE TIME TO THE APPLICANTS AT THE END FOR REBUTTAL. THE FIRST ITEM IS ITEM FIVE, HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING, FIVE A HOLD A

[5A. Public Hearing to expand the boundaries of TIF #1 and revise the Project and Financing Plan]

PUBLIC HEARING TO EXPAND THE BOUNDARIES OF TIF NUMBER ONE AND REVISE THE PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN.

AND TIF ONE IS IS MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE FOREST-JUPITER.

AND WE DISCUSSED THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS.

AND ESSENTIALLY WE ARE LOOKING AT EXPANDING THE BOUNDARIES OF TIF ONE TO INCLUDE MONTGOMERY PARK.

IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? I HAVE NO ONE IN THE QUEUE FOR THIS ITEM, SO WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HERE.

ITEM FIVE, B IS CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE EXPANDING THE BOUNDARIES OF TIF NUMBER ONE AND

[5B. Consider an ordinance expanding the boundaries of TIF #1 and revising the Project and Financing Plan]

REVISING THE PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN.

COUNCIL. COUNCILMAN HEDRICK? THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AN ORDINANCE TO THE CITY GOVERNMENT ADOPTING THE REVISED PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN FOREST-JUPITER TAX INCREMENT FINANCING REINVESTMENT ZONE TIF ONE, ENLARGING THE BOUNDARIES, INCREASING THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF THE ZONE TO INCLUDE MONTGOMERY PARK GENERALLY LOCATED AT EDGEWOOD DRIVE, INTERNATIONAL ROAD AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

VERY GOOD SIR. AND I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER HEDRICK AND A SECOND BY COUNCILOR MORRIS TO APPROVE THIS ITEM.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, COUNCIL, PLEASE VOTE.

THERE WE GO. THAT ITEM IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

ALL RIGHT, NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR ZONING CASES FOR THE EVENING AND JUST A QUICK REMINDER, A POINT OF REFERENCE.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE FOUR ZONING CASES.

EACH ONE OF THEM HAS TWO PARTS.

AND SO JUST FOR SIMPLICITY'S SAKE, WE WILL CONSIDER BOTH PARTS AT THE SAME TIME.

AND SO WHEN YOU GO TO MAKE YOUR MOTIONS ON THESE ITEMS, IF YOU COULD PLEASE REMEMBER AND INCLUDE BOTH BOTH SECTIONS.

SO ITEM FIVE C, CONSIDER A ZONING REQUEST BY MONK CONSULTING ENGINEERS TO BUILD A CHURCH

[Items 5C & 5D]

AT 2201 E MILLER ROAD AND 2214 E CENTERVILLE ROAD IN DISTRICT TWO.

THE SECOND PART OF THIS, FIVE D, IS TO CONSIDER THE DETAILED PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT.

GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING.

HERE IS THE REQUEST.

AND HERE'S THE CASE INFORMATION, THE LOCATION IS AT 2201 E MILLER ROAD AND 2214 E CENTERVILLE ROAD.

ACREAGE IS APPROXIMATELY THIRTY EIGHT POINT FOUR ACRES.

AND THE EXISTING ZONING IS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, 13-01.

AND HERE'S THE LOCATION MAP, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S OUTLINED IN THIS TEAL BLUE COLOR, AND THIS IS EAST MILLER ROAD.

THIS IS EAST CENTERVILLE ROAD.

AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH ARE ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 15, DASH 19 FOR LIGHT COMMERCIAL USE. AND IT IS DEVELOPED WITH A SELF-STORAGE FACILITY.

[00:10:01]

PROPERTY TO THE EAST IS ZONED AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT AND IT IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED.

PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH ACROSS E MILLER ROAD ARE ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 14-11 FOR SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN USE, AND A PORTION OF IT IS DEVELOPED WITH A RANCH AND THE REMAINING PORTION IS UNDEVELOPED.

AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST ACROSS EAST CENTERVILLE ROAD ARE ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZERO ONE, DASH 17 AND AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT.

AND IT IS DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

THE CHURCHES ARE ALLOWED IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS.

HOWEVER, THIS PARTICULAR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 13-01 ONE, PERMITS ONLY SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN DEVELOPMENT. ADDITIONALLY, A DETAILED PLAN IS REQUIRED.

AND HERE ARE SOME OF THE PHOTOS, THE TOP LEFT IS VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM E MILLER ROAD.

THE TOP RIGHT IS SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM E MILLER ROAD.

BOTTOM LEFT IS WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE BOTTOM RIGHT IS EAST OF THE SUBJECT.

AND HERE IS THE PHASING PLAN, WHICH SHOWS TWO LOTS AND LOTS, ONE WILL REMAIN UNDEVELOPED AT THIS TIME, BUT IT WILL REQUIRE A DETAILED PLAN IN THE FUTURE PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT.

LOT 2 WILL BE DEVELOPED IN TWO PHASES, PHASE ONE IS FOR THE CHURCH USE AND PHASE TWO IS FOR THE ATHLETIC FACILITY.

AND HERE IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR LOT TWO PHASE ONE, WHICH SHOWS THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE CHURCH.

THIRTY EIGHT THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY FOUR SQUARE FEET AND ACCESS WILL BE FROM EAST MILLER ROAD AND E CENTERVILLE ROAD.

PER THE GDC, THE PARKING CALCULATION, THERE'S THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY PARKING SPACES THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR PHASE ONE AND THE SITE DOES SHOW THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY PARKING SPACES.

WHEN PHASE TWO HAS DEVELOPED, THEY'LL PROVIDE MORE PARKING SPACES.

THERE IS THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN, WHICH DOES COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING STANDARDS PER THE GDC.

AND HERE IS THE NORTH ELEVATION, IT DOES THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT THAT'S ALLOWED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN DISTRICT IS THIRTY FIVE FEET.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT TO 40 FEET AND ONE AND ONE INCH OR BETTER VISIBILITY FROM E CENTERVILLE ROAD AND E MILLER ROAD.

IT DOES CONFORM WITH ALL OTHER BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS.

THIS IS THE EAST ELEVATION.

THIS IS THE WEST ELEVATION.

DURING PLANNING COMMISSION, THE APPLICANT REQUESTED TO DEVIATE AND NOT ALLOW THE HORIZONTAL ARTICULATION.

HOWEVER, PER THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION, THE APPLICANT RESUBMITTED THE ELEVATIONS AFTER PLANNING COMMISSION, AND IT DOES COMPLY WITH THE HORIZONTAL ARTICULATION AND ALL OTHER BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS.

AND HERE'S A SUMMARY OF THE DEVIATION, WHICH IS ONLY FOR THE BUILDING HEIGHT.

THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR THE GDC IS THIRTY FIVE FEET AND PROPOSED IS 40 FEET AND ONE AND ONE EIGHT INCH. THE DEVIATION IS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT IN ORDER FOR THE BUILDING TO BE VISIBLE FROM EAST CENTERVILLE ROAD AND EAST MILLER ROAD.

RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST ON NOVEMBER NINE.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY A VOTE OF NINE TO ZERO, RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST.

PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED THE APPLICANT TO ADD THE HORIZONTAL ARTICULATION, BUT TO THE WEST FACADE.

AND SINCE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE APPLICANT RESUBMITTED THOSE ELEVATIONS TO COMPLY WITH THE RECOMMENDATION.

OK, COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? AND ONE THING I THINK MAYBE I DID, YOU GIVE US THE INFORMATION ON THE NOTIFICATIONS THAT WERE SENT OUT? SORRY ABOUT THAT.

IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WAS A PIECE OF THE PUZZLE, THERE'S A NATURAL FLOW IN MY HEAD WHEN I

[00:15:04]

HEAR THIS. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

WE DID SEND OUT FORTY THREE NOTIFICATION LETTERS AND ONE WAS OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION AREA IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST.

AND IT WAS A TOTAL OF ONE RESPONSE.

OK, COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? I SEE NONE, THANK YOU.

I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE WITH THIS.

IF YOU COULD GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU'LL HAVE 10 MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION, SIR.

YOU'LL NEED TO UNMUTE YOURSELF.

SORRY. YES, GERALD MONK, TWELVE HUNDRED WEST STATE STREET, GARLAND, TEXAS, WE'RE THE ENGINEERS FOR THE PROPERTY, SO I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD OTHER THAN WHAT WAS ALREADY PRESENTED.

SO WE ARE HERE--THE MAIN DIFFERENCE IS THAT DEVIATION FOR THE ELEVATION IS THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION OF THAT CHURCH WAS PROBABLY GOING TO BE ABOUT 10 FEET BELOW THE ELEVATION OF CENTERVILLE AND MILLER ROAD BOTH.

SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THE EXTRA HEIGHT, BECAUSE THAT THAT'S A VERY DIFFICULT SITE. SO IT ALL FALLS DOWN TOWARDS SO THAT'S THE MAIN REASON FOR THAT.

OK, JUST AS A SIDE NOTE, I DO INTERIOR STORE LAYOUT, PLANNING, RETAIL STORE AND I OFTEN PLACE PICTURES.

I GIVE OUR INSTALLERS DIMENSIONS THAT OFTEN INCLUDE THEY'RE NOT JUST SIX FEET, SEVEN FEET, 10 FEET. THERE'S OFTEN A ONE FOOT ONE AND A HALF INCH, AND IN YOUR CASE, AN EIGHTH OF AN INCH. AND I KNOW THE INSTALLERS LAUGH AT ME WHEN THEY GET THE PLANS, BUT I APPRECIATE THE DETAIL.

THE ARCHITECT WAS PART OF THAT, SO HE WAS INSISTENT ON THAT.

SO, YEAH, WELL, USUALLY SO AM I.

AND LIKE I SAY, I KNOW MY INSTALLERS JUST KIND OF CHUCKLE.

BUT ANYWAY, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ON THIS ITEM? I SEE NONE.

THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL?. COUNCILOR MORRIS.

THERE YOU GO. ARE YOU READY FOR A MOTION AT THIS POINT? YES, MA'AM. OK, AND WE'RE DOING BOTH OF THEM TOGETHER, CORRECT? THAT WORKS FOR ME, IF IT WORKS FOR YOU.

WORKS FOR ME. OK, IN THAT CASE, MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE CONSIDER A ZONING REQUEST AND DETAILED PLAN REQUEST BY MONK CONSULTING ENGINEERS TO BUILD A CHURCH AT TWENTY TWO ZERO ONE E MILLER ROAD AND 2214 EAST CENTERVILLE ROAD.

AND SINCE THEY'VE ALREADY INCORPORATED THE ADDITION OF THE HORIZONTAL ELEMENTS AS PER THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THEN I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT IT AS PRESENTED.

SECOND, MR. MAYOR. OK, I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL LADY MORRIS AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS TO APPROVE THESE ITEMS AS PRESENTED WITH THE MODIFICATIONS THAT WERE MADE FROM PLANNING COMMISSION.

COUNCIL MEMBER AUBIN, GO AHEAD, SIR.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE GET--I THOUGHT I HEARD THE LANGUAGE SAID THAT WE MOVE TO CONSIDER AND I THINK THE COUNCIL MEMBER MEANT TO MOVE TO APPROVE, BUT MAYBE I MISHEARD.

OK. SO THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE? YES. OK, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? IF NOT, PLEASE VOTE.

AND THAT ITEM IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU, SIR, WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEMS 5E AND F.

[Items 5E & 5F]

FIVE E IS CONSIDER A ZONING REQUEST BY SPIARS ENGINEERING TO MODIFY AN EXISTING PYLON SIGN AT THREE FOUR ONE FOUR BROADWAY BOULEVARD IN DISTRICT THREE.

AND FIVE F IS CONSIDER A DETAILED PLAN REQUESTED BY SPIARS ENGINEERING TO MODIFY THE EXISTING PYLON SIGN AT THE SAME ADDRESS UNDER THE SAME ZONING FILE.

HELLO AGAIN. HERE'S THE REQUEST STATED.

AND HERE'S THE CASE INFORMATION.

THE LOCATION IS AT 3414 BROADWAY BOULEVARD, THE ACREAGE IS TWO POINT NINE SIX FOUR ACRES

[00:20:02]

AND THE EXISTING ZONING IS COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT.

AND HERE'S THE LOCATION MAP, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN THE TEAL BLUE COLOR, AND THE AREA OF REQUEST IS THE SHADED NAVY BLUE AREA.

AND THIS IS BROADWAY BOULEVARD AND THIS IS COLONEL DRIVE.

AND THE AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE MAINLY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

AND HERE ARE SOME OF THE SITE PHOTOS, THE TOP LEFT IS VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM BROADWAY BOULEVARD.

THE TOP RIGHT IS SOUTHEAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE BOTTOM RIGHT.

THE BOTTOM IS WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM BROADWAY BOULEVARD.

AND HERE IS THE SITE PLAN, WHICH SHOWS THE PROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING PYLON SIGN, IT IS A NON CONFORMING SIGN AND IN ORDER TO MODIFY THE SIGN, IT MUST CONFORM TO ALL OF THE GDC STANDARDS.

AND DEVELOPMENT IS THE ONLY WAY THAT ALLOWS THIS TO HAPPEN.

THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO INCREASE THE SIGN AREA FROM THREE HUNDRED FOURTEEN SQUARE FEET TO THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY FOUR SQUARE FEET TO ADD A PANEL SIGN FOR THE SCOOTER'S COFFEE SHOP, WHICH IS LOCATED OVER HERE.

AND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WILL ALSO ALLOW THE HEIGHT TO BE ESTABLISHED LEGALLY, THE EXISTING HEIGHT IS THIRTY NINE FEET AND THE MAXIMUM THAT IS ALLOWED IN THE GDC IS TWENTY TWO FEET. I ALSO WANT TO CLARIFY, THIS IS JUST A PYLON SIGN, THE APPLICANT IS NOT PROPOSING ANY ELECTRONIC SIGN AT THIS TIME.

AND HERE IS THE ELEVATION.

THIS RIGHT HERE SHOWS THE ELEVATION TODAY, AND THIS IS WHAT THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING THE HANDLE FOR THE SCOOTER'S COFFEE SHOP.

THE GDC STATES THAT A PYLON SIGN MUST BE ARCHITECTURALLY COMPATIBLE AND ALL SUPPORT POLES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF MASONRY MATERIAL.

THE APPLICANT WILL PAINT THIS SIGN, BUT DOES NOT INTEND TO RECONSTRUCT WITH MASONRY AND MATERIALS. AND HERE'S THE SUMMARY OF THE DEVIATION, THE REQUIRED SIGN AREA, THE MAXIMUM THAT'S ALLOWED IN THE GDC FOR A PYLON SIGN IS ONE HUNDRED FIFTY SQUARE FEET. THE EXISTING IS THREE HUNDRED FOURTEEN POINT NINE SQUARE FEET.

THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT THAT'S ALLOWED IN THE GDC IS TWENTY TWO FEET EXISTING IS THIRTY NINE FEET AND THREE AND A HALF INCHES.

THE APPLICANT DOES NOT INTEND TO CHANGE THE HEIGHT.

THE SUPPORT POLES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF MASONRY MATERIAL.

THE POLES ARE CURRENTLY MADE OF METAL AND THE APPLICANT WILL NOT PAINT THE POLE, WILL PAINT THE POLES, BUT NOT RECONSTRUCT THE POLES TO ADD MASONRY MATERIAL.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST ON NOVEMBER NINE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BY A VOTE OF FIVE TO FOUR, RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE CHANGE OF ZONING FROM COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OR COMMUNITY RETAIL USE, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY A VOTE OF NINE TO ZERO RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE DETAILED PLAN.

THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED A PD CONDITION TO PROHIBIT THE ELECTRONIC PROGRAMABLE SIGN, AND WE DID SEND OUT NOTIFICATION LETTERS, THERE WAS FORTY SEVEN THAT WAS MAILED OUT AND ONE WAS OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION AREA AND IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST.

AND WE RECEIVED A TOTAL OF ONE RESPONSE, AND THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.

GOOD. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. GOOD EVENING.

JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

THIS REQUEST IS APPROVED--CURRENTLY, IT IS A NON CONFORMING SIGN, CORRECT? YES OK, IF THIS REQUEST IS APPROVED, DOES THAT STATUS CHANGE AT ALL? IT WILL JUST ALLOW THE PYLON SIGN TO EXCEED HOW IT IS ESTABLISHED CURRENTLY.

SO THE EXISTING HEIGHT IS ABOUT THIRTY NINE FEET, WHICH WILL ALLOW THE PYLON SIGN TO BE

[00:25:03]

THIRTY NINE FEET AND TO ALLOW IT TO INCREASE THE SIGN AREA TO THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR.

BUT IT REMAINS LEGALLY NON CONFORMING, IS THAT CORRECT OR NOT? IT'LL BE LEGALLY CONFORMING FOR THE PYLON SIGN.

OK, LEGALLY CONFIRMING FOR THE PYLON SIGN, FOR THE ADDITION? YES.

I THINK, MAYOR, I MAY BE ABLE TO CLARIFY THAT A TAD, IF THAT'S OK, BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING. YEAH, YES, SIR.

IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE ALLOWED BY ORDINANCE VIA THE PD, BUT IT WOULD STILL BE LEGALLY NONCONFORMING, PER THE GDC.

SO IT WOULD NOT SUDDENLY BECOME IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE.

IT'S JUST A SPECIAL PD REQUEST AND IT WOULD JUST SIMPLY BE APPROVED PER THAT ORDINANCE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. OK, THANK YOU, MR. G., BECAUSE THAT WAS THERE WAS SOME DEBATE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT APPROVAL OF THIS WOULD WOULD TAKE IT OUT OF THE LEGALLY NONCONFORMING CATEGORY.

I DIDN'T THINK IT SORT OF REACHING BACK.

IT'S BEEN A WHILE, BUT MY PLANNING COMMISSION DAYS.

I DIDN'T THINK SO. SO I JUST WANT TO I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR THAT UP.

MY SECOND QUESTION IS.

YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE'S ONLY ONE BUSINESS ADDITION, AND THAT'S A COFFEE SHOP, SO THERE WILL BE NO ADVERTISING ON THIS SIGN OF OFF PREMISES BUSINESS, IS THAT CORRECT OR NOT? THAT'S CORRECT. I WAS WAITING FOR NABIA TO SEE IF SHE WAS GOING TO RESPOND FIRST.

YES, SIR. THE INTENT IS SCOOTER'S COFFEE WOULD BE THE ADDITIONAL SIGN.

THAT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING AND I BELIEVE WHO THE APPLICANT IS REPRESENTING.

OK. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, SIR.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. OK.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM VERA.

THIS IS FOR STAFF.

HOW COME THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THE SIGN WITH MASONRY AND ALL THAT? DID THEY SAY WHY? I BELIEVE THERE'S SOME FINANCIAL COST ASSOCIATED TO THAT, AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT CAN ANSWER THAT BETTER, BUT THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND.

IT'S THE COST. OK.

I WANTED TO ASK THE APPLICANT.

OK, WE'LL GET TO THE APPLICANT.

OK. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER AUBIN. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN ADDRESS THE CONFORMING AND NONCONFORMING AND THEN ALSO SPECIFICALLY THE ISSUE, BECAUSE WE'VE HAD SOME CHANGES, IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN IT, AND WE ACTUALLY DEALT WITH THIS IN SOME RESPECTS A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN TO COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS KIND OF THE CHANGE IN THE LAW WITH RESPECT TO A PREMISE ON PREMISE, IT'S NOT CLEAR THAT WE CAN MAKE THAT DISTINCTION ANYMORE AT ALL.

SO IF YOU WOULD, MR. N.. THAT'S CORRECT.

AS FAR AS THE EXCUSE ME, ON PREMISE, OFF PREMISE, WE DON'T GET INTO THAT DISTINCTION.

WE TRY TO USE NOW OTHER TOOLS TO CONTROL THE SIZE AND IN THE PLACEMENT AND THAT SORT OF THING OF SIGNS.

BUT THE LAW HAS CHANGED AND IT'S VERY RECENT WITHIN THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS.

IT'S STILL IN A STATE OF FLUX.

WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO WAS A CASE OUT OF AUSTIN.

I CHECKED LAST WEEK TO SEE THE STATUS OF THAT CASE.

LAST I COULD SEE THERE, THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE THE QUESTION TO THE U.S.

SUPREME COURT SO WE DON'T HAVE A FOREVER PERMANENT ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION ON PREMISE, OFF PREMISE DISTINCTION.

WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT TO SEE WHAT THE U.S.

SUPREME COURT DOES WITH IT.

BUT AS IT STANDS IN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT IN WHICH TEXAS IS LOCATED, WE DON'T LOOK AT THE CONTENT OF A SIGN FOR ANY PURPOSE.

AS FAR AS LEGALLY NONCONFORMING, I WON'T GET INTO ALL THE INTRICACIES OF STATE LAW WITH RESPECT TO NONCONFORMING SIGNS AND HOW THEY COULD BE MADE TO CONFORM.

IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT STANDARD THAN WHAT YOU WOULD SEE IN A TYPICAL ZONING.

SO IF A BUILDING WAS NONCONFORMING, FOR EXAMPLE, AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SET OF RULES APPLY IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE THAN THEY DO WITH A SIGN BECAUSE THE STATE LAW IS DIFFERENT.

[00:30:05]

I DON'T THINK FOR OUR PURPOSES THAT DISTINCTION IS ALL THAT IMPORTANT.

THE DIFFICULTY OF COMPLYING WITH STATE LAW AS FAR AS FORCING A NON CONFORMING SIGN TO SUBSEQUENTLY COMPLY WITH CHANGES AFTER IT WAS BUILT AND IT WAS BUILT IN A CONFORMING STATUS TO BEGIN WITH, THOSE DIFFICULTIES MAKE IT NONCONFORMING AND CONFORMING REALLY DON'T MAKE THAT MUCH DIFFERENCE.

I THINK, THOUGH, THE BEST WAY TO DO THIS IS IT'S A PERMANENT, IF YOU WILL, APPROVAL OF THE CHANGES IN A SIGN OR THE STATUS OF THE SIGN.

THAT'S THE WAY I WOULD DO IT.

AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY WAY AND WE'VE NEVER TRIED TO COME IN AND MAKE A NON-CONFORMING SIGN CONFORM TO CURRENT STANDARD BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTIES PROVIDED BY STATE LAW.

THEY'RE SIMPLY OVERWHELMING IN THIS SENSE.

AND SO I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE OR SHOULDN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO IN YOUR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT, THAT SIGN IS GOING TO BE WHERE IT IS IF THEY CHANGE THE FACE OUT OR NOT.

IT'S ESSENTIALLY PERMANENT AS IT STANDS NOW.

REGARDLESS OF THE DECISION OF COUNCIL TONIGHT.

THANK YOU, MR. N. WELL, I SEE SOME SHAKING HEADS AND I--.

YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION, I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS IS FEELING GOOD NOW, TOO.

SO WE'RE GOOD.

I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU, MR. N. THANK YOU, MAYOR. OK.

THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT, ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE APPLICANT? OK, WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE WITH US, IF YOU COULD GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU WILL HAVE 10 MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION.

HELLO, EVERYONE. I HOPE YOU ALL HAD A WONDERFUL THANKSGIVING.

WE APPRECIATE YOU HAVING US TONIGHT.

MY NAME IS MARK EWING WITH SPIARS ENGINEERING ADDRESS OF SEVEN SIX FIVE CUSTER ROAD SUITE ONE HUNDRED, PLANO, TEXAS.

ZIP CODE IS SEVEN FIVE ZERO SEVEN FIVE.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE SCOOTER'S TEAM.

WE HAVE A COUPLE OTHER SCOOTER'S TEAM MEMBERS HERE AS WELL WHO WILL SPEAK AFTER MYSELF.

AND WE ARE REQUESTING YOUR CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL FOR OUR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

WE ARE PROPOSING THIS PD LIKE NABIA SAID TO ADD A SMALL AMOUNT OF SCOOTER'S SIGNAGE TO THE EXISTING NONCONFORMING PYLON SIGN AND SCOOTER'S IS WHAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER A NON DESTINATION LOCATION.

SO THE CUSTOMERS AT SCOOTER'S ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE DRIVING TO WORK, RUNNING THEIR ERRANDS, THAT KIND OF THINGS, AND ARE JUST GETTING THEIR MORNING FIX OR JUST A GOOD CUP OF JOE.

AND SO WE'RE REALLY HOPING TO GET AS MUCH EXPOSURE AS POSSIBLE.

AND THE EXISTING SITE AND IT'S ORIENTED PERPENDICULAR TO BROADWAY AND IS SLIGHTLY CLOSER TO THE RIGHT OF WAY. SO WE'RE HOPING WITH THIS ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE, CUSTOMERS WILL SEE SCOOTER'S SOONER AND HAVE THAT MUCH MORE TIME TO SEE SCOOTER'S, ACKNOWLEDGE IT, PULL OVER AND GET THEIR COFFEE AND BE ON THEIR WAY.

AND WE ALSO SEE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO FIX THE EXISTING SIGN, AS YOU ALL SAW IN NABIA'S PRESENTATION.

AND IT'S CURRENTLY JUST PRETTY WORN DOWN OVER THE YEARS OF WEATHER AND EVERYTHING.

AND SO WE'RE HOPING TO GIVE IT A GOOD FACELIFT AND GIVE IT THE CARE IT REALLY NEEDS.

WE'RE DOING IT FOR OR HOPING TO DO IT FOR THE LANDLORD.

WE JUST SEE IT AS A BIG BENEFIT TO THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT.

AND SO THIS DESIGN, WE THINK, WOULD BE A BIG BENEFIT TO SCOOTER'S AND ITS POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS AND ALSO JUST HOPEFULLY BRING MORE CUSTOMERS TO THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT AND MAKE IT JUST A MORE ENJOYABLE EXPERIENCE AND EASIER ON THE EYES.

SO WITH THAT, I'LL GO AHEAD AND PASS IT ON TO ANY OF THE OTHER SCOOTER'S TEAM MEMBERS, AND WE'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE HERE SHORTLY.

AND IF YOU CAN JUST GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

HI, I'M MEGAN BOYCE. I'M AT 2201 WOLF STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS, SEVEN FIVE TWO ZERO ONE.

I REPRESENT SCOOTER'S, COFFEE.

I OPERATE OUR STORES HERE IN DALLAS.

MARK DID A REALLY NICE JOB, KIND OF SUMMARIZING WHAT WE'RE HOPING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THIS SIGN. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE OWN, BUT WE'RE WILLING TO TAKE ON THE EXPENSE AND THE COST OF KIND OF UPDATING THE ENTIRE SIGN IN ORDER TO GET A PIECE OF IT FOR OURSELVES AND KIND OF HAVE THAT THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYONE.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HERE.

[00:35:01]

OK. DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND GO THROUGH? I SEE WE HAVE ANOTHER-- YEAH. THIS IS ADAM C., 3414 BROADWAY BOULEVARD, GARLAND, TEXAS, SEVEN FIVE ZERO FOUR THREE. I'M ACTUALLY OWNER OF THE SCOOTER'S COFFEE THERE.

AGAIN, WANTED TO ECHO EVERYTHING THAT MARK WITH SPIARS ENGINEERING PUT FORTH.

BUT WE'RE GLAD TO BE HERE AND HOPE THAT YOU'LL CONSIDER OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT LOCATION.

I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYONE'S FAMILIAR WITH THE CENTER THERE.

THAT'S A BRAND NEW FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY SQUARE FOOT DRIVE THRU COFFEE BUILDING THAT WE ERECTED AND OPENED IN JULY THERE.

SO PART OF THIS IS TO JUST FINALIZE THAT WHOLE PROJECT WITH INCREASED VISIBILITY FOR US, AS WELL AS CONTINUE TO CLEAN UP, I GUESS I SHOULD SAY, CLEAN UP THE CENTER, BUT MAKE THE OVERALL APPEARANCE OF THE OVERALL CENTER BETTER.

OK. ALL RIGHT, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD YET? I WANT TO GIVE YOU ALL--YOU'VE GOT ABOUT SIX AND A HALF MINUTES.

OR DO YOU WANT TO GO TO QUESTIONS? ADAM, IF YOU'RE GOOD, I THINK I'M GOOD.

YEAH, NO, I'M GOOD. LIKE I SAID I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S TIME AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT I. ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR INTEREST.

AND I'VE BEEN BY THERE FEW TIMES, SO I THANK YOU FOR YOUR YOUR INVESTMENT IN GARLAND.

AND MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS THERE ARE A NUMBER OF SCOOTER'S AND BEFORE WHERE WE ARE NOW I'VE BEEN TO SCOOTER'S. CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT.

SOME OF YOUR OTHER SIDE'S OPTIONS AND SOME OF YOUR OTHER LOCATIONS, HOW MANY DO YOU HAVE OTHER SIGNS OR ON A SIMILAR SORT OF BACKBOARD TYPE SIGN ON A MAIN THOROUGHFARE, PAST, I'VE NOT SEEN THOSE.

CAN YOU TALK--SO CAN YOU SHARE WITH US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME OF YOUR OTHER OPTIONAL DESIGNS THAT YOU HAVE WITH SOME OF YOUR OTHER LOCATIONS? YEAH, THIS IS ADAM.

I CAN SPEAK TO THAT.

FIRST AND FOREMOST.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE A GENERAL STANDARD FOR SIGNAGE.

I HATE TO SAY IT, BUT WE TAKE WHAT WE CAN GET FOR SIGNAGE.

OUR NUMBER ONE PRIORITY AS WE MOVE FORWARD IS WE'VE REALIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A MONUMENT SIGN IN FRONT OF OUR BUILDINGS TO ATTRACT CUSTOMERS AS THEY'RE PASSING BY.

AS MARK POINTED OUT, WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE.

AND SO SOONER THAT OUR CUSTOMERS OR PEOPLE PASSING BY CAN SEE US THE BETTER.

SO KIND OF LOOKING AT ALL OF OUR CURRENT STORES IN THE MARKET THERE, THERE REALLY IS NO RHYME OR REASON TO OUR SIGNAGE.

I WILL SAY, MOVING FORWARD, ALL OF OUR NEW STORE DEVELOPMENTS WHERE WE'RE HEAVILY SEEKING TO HAVE OUR OWN MONUMENT SIGN IF THE SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS PERMIT IT, AND IF WE'RE NOT ABLE TO DO THAT, WE'RE GOING TO DO EXERCISES LIKE THIS TO COME IN AND TRY TO UTILIZE WHATEVER EXISTING SIGNAGE WE COULD COME UP WITH.

OK, SO IN THIS AT THIS LOCATION, YOU DID NOT CONSIDER THAT OPTION.

AND I'M TALKING IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT PROCESS, THE MONUMENT SIGN, BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO INCORPORATE, BLEND IN WITH THE EXISTING BUSINESSES THAT ARE IN THE AREA.

IS THAT LOGICAL? IS THAT YOUR THINKING THERE, IF YOU'RE NOT, HELP ME.

YEAH, NO. YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT.

WE DID NOT CONSIDER A MONUMENT SIGN AT THE TIME WHEN WE PUT FORWARD THIS PROJECT.

IN HINDSIGHT, WE MAY HAVE CONSIDERED A MONUMENT SIGN, BUT I DON'T KNOW SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE DOABLE AT THIS POINT.

SO OUR THOUGHT PROCESS IS LET'S MAKE THE BEST OUT OF WHAT AVAILABLE OPPORTUNITY THERE IS.

AND I'LL ADD ON TO WHAT ADAM SAID, I DO BELIEVE LOOKING THROUGH THE GDC, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'D BE POSSIBLE TO GET A MONUMENT SIGN ON THE FRONTAGE OF SCOOTER'S IS ON ANYWAYS BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING PYLON SIGN DUE TO SETBACKS THAT SIGNS HAVE TO HAVE FROM ONE ANOTHER. SO THIS SEEMED LIKE THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION.

OK. ALL RIGHT, THANKS VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU, SIR.

EXCUSE ME, COUNCIL MEMBER NICKERSON'S.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANK YOU, FOLKS, FOR COMING IN THIS EVENING, PRESENTING YOUR IDEAS ON THIS, SIGNAGE IS ALWAYS A TOUGH ISSUE HERE.

AND WHEN WE'RE INTO AN EXISTING OLDER RETAIL DEVELOPMENT THAT HAD PYLON ON OR POLE SIGNS FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME, WE'RE CONFLICTED IN WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH THEM.

WHEN WE GET THE OPPORTUNITIES.

[00:40:02]

WE WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE TO.

I KNOW I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MOST OF THEM REPLACED, IF POSSIBLE, WITH A MORE MODERN STYLE AND A CLEANER LINES OF A MONUMENT SIGN.

BUT WE ARE WHERE WE ARE.

THE ONLY REAL QUESTION I HAVE MAYBE MORE TO MARK THAN ANYONE HERE AT THE MOMENT.

I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THE PICTURE THAT WAS PRESENTED OF THE SIGN IS INDICATIVE OF WHAT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE DONE TO THE EXISTING SIGNS SO THAT WE ARE IMPROVING THAT EXISTING SIGN, GETTING RID OF ALL OF THE FADED SIGNAGE THAT'S THERE AND THEN ADDRESSING THE STEEL AND THE REPAINTING IN THE MANNER YOU'VE DEPICTED.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IS YOUR PLAN AND AS PRESENTED, WE'LL SEE NEW SIGNAGE ALONG THAT ENTIRE PYLON REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RETAILERS THAT ARE THERE IN THE DEVELOPMENT.

OF COURSE. YEAH, A VALID QUESTION.

WE ARE 100 PERCENT PLANNING ON CONSTRUCTING AND REVAMPING WHAT WE'RE DEPICTING ON THE SIGNAGE ELEVATION.

AND OUR INTENT IS WE I MEAN, AT MOST WE FOR SURE WANT THE SCOOTER SIGNAGE, BUT WE DO HOPE TO MAKE THE OVERALL APPEALING TO THE EYES INSTEAD OF SCOOTER'S STICKING OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB BECAUSE IT'S SO NEW COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE SIGNS.

YES, THE REST OF THE DESIGN WILL BE REVAMPED, AS IS DEPICTED.

AND THE SIGN WORK THAT YOU WANT TO DO HERE, YOU'VE DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE OWNER OF THE OF THE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT.

AND WHAT WAS HIS COMMENT OR THOUGHTS IN YOUR DISCUSSION WITH HIM ABOUT IT, IF YOU CAN RECALL? YEAH, I GUESS, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, HE SAID, IF YOU GUYS CAN GET IT DONE, KNOCK YOURSELF OUT. HE'S NOT PUTTING ANY MONEY ON IT.

WE'RE GOING TO SPEND ALL THE DOLLARS TO CLEAN THIS UP BECAUSE FRANKLY, IT'S A SIGN THAT IT'S OLD, IT'S DILAPIDATED.

EVERY YEAR IT GETS A LITTLE MORE RUNDOWN.

OUR BUILDING IS BRAND NEW.

IT'S A NICE LOOKING BUILDING.

IT JUST KIND OF, THE SIGN'S EYESORE RIGHT NOW.

AND SO WE'RE GOING TO PAY TO CLEAN UP THE OLD SIGN ON OUR OWN AND OUR LANDLORD'S NOT CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING TO IT.

AND FRANKLY, I THINK IF WE'RE NOT ABLE TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT, HE HAS ZERO INTENTIONS OF HIMSELF PROACTIVELY DOING ANYTHING WITH IT.

YEAH, I'VE DISCUSSED SEVERAL TIMES WITH HIM HOW HE MIGHT SPRUCE UP HIS DEVELOPMENT AND DON'T GET MUCH POSITIVE INSIGHT FROM HIM ON IT.

SO IN THAT REGARD, I WELCOME THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE SIGN IN THIS WAY.

IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH A PYLON SIGN LIKE THIS AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE WILL.

SO FAR I LIKE WHAT I SEE.

ANYTHING WE CAN ADD MAKES IT LOOK A LITTLE NEWER IN THESE AREAS I'M WILLING TO CONSIDER.

SO THAT'S REALLY ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.

I GUESS THE OTHER ONE IS, DO YOU HAVE INTENTIONS TO START THIS FAIRLY SOON OR WHAT'S YOUR SCHEDULE? I MEAN, IF WE GOT IT APPROVED TONIGHT OR WHENEVER IT'S OFFICIALLY APPROVED, WE'D BE OUT THERE WITHIN AS I GUESS AS SOON AS WE CAN.

THERE'S A COUPLE OF COMPONENTS TO IT.

AS SOON AS WE GET THE PAINTING CREW OUT THERE TO PAINT IT.

AND THEN WE'VE GOT TO GET ALL OF THE NEW FACE PLATES AND EVERYTHING ORDERED AND OUR BANNER ORDERED.

BUT THAT'S FOUR TO SIX WEEKS.

WE NEED TIME FOR PRODUCTION OF ALL THE ADS.

I MEAN, WE COULD BE MIDDLE OF JANUARY, IT'S PROBABLY COMPLETE.

ONE MORE QUESTION, MAYBE, MARK, ON THE SIGN ITSELF, IS THERE POWER IN THAT SIGNAGE IN THAT POLE AND SO.

OH, SORRY ABOUT THAT.

THERE IS POWER WITH THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE AND THE REVAMP WE ARE PROPOSING TO REPLACE MY BULBS BECAUSE I'M PRETTY SURE ALL OF THOSE HAVE BEEN OUT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.

SO, YES, WE ARE PLANNING ON MAKING THAT LIGHT UP ONCE AGAIN.

OK, AND THESE ARE BACKLIT SIGNAGE.

I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT EXTERIOR LIGHTS.

YES. IT'S A VERY SUBTLE INTERNAL LIGHTING, NOTHING EXTERNAL.

SO WE WON'T HAVE A LOT OF LIGHT POLLUTION FAR FROM THAT SIGN AT ALL.

SO IT'LL BE A SOFT LIGHT.

OK, THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.

THANK YOU, SIR.

AS FAR AS YOUR SCHEDULE, A COUPLE OF GUYS WITH A COUPLE OF CUPS OF COFFEE AND A BUCKET OF PAINT. AND JUST.

JUST WANTED TO MAKE CLEAR, I THINK, WHAT STAFF HAD MENTIONED THAT YOU ALL WOULD AGREED THAT THIS WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO BECOME A DIGITAL SIGN AT ANY POINT.

DO WE KNOW THAT THE OWNER IS OK WITH THAT? I CAN SPEAK TO THAT.

THAT IS CORRECT. THERE IS A CONDITION IN THE PD THAT WILL NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO, IN THE

[00:45:05]

FUTURE, CONVERT IT TO AN ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD SIGN.

ADAM CAN SPEAK MORE TO-- I MEAN, AGAIN, FROM THE OWNER'S PERSPECTIVE, HE HAS ZERO INTENTION OF DOING ANYTHING WITH THE SIGN. SO HE'S GIVEN US THE APPROVAL TO GET WHATEVER DONE.

WE CAN GET DONE. OK, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE OWNER OR SOMEBODY DOESN'T COME BACK. IN A COUPLE OF YEARS AND BE LIKE, OH, MY GOD, I CAN'T BELIEVE THOSE PEOPLE SAID NO DIGITAL SIGNS, I NEVER READ THAT.

YEAH, I WE'LL PROVIDE HIM A COPY WITH IF SOMETHING'S APPROVED HERE TONIGHT, AND I WILL PROVIDE HIM COPY WITH EXACTLY WHAT HAS BEEN APPROVED.

BUT IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM, AGAIN, IF WE'RE NOT HERE TODAY PRESSING THIS FORWARD, YOU GUYS ARE NEVER GOING TO HEAR FROM HIM AND HE'S NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING WITH THE SIGN. OK, I GUESS QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, ARE YOU GUYS GOOD WITH THAT? DOES THAT WORK FOR US OR DO WE NEED SOMETHING MORE SPECIFIC FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER? IT'S BINDING ON THE PROPERTY OWNER.

WHAT TO DO TONIGHT, WHETHER HE SPEAKS AS A WITNESS OR NOT, IS STILL BINDING.

OK, THANK YOU.

AND I GUESS THE OTHER QUESTION I'D ASK IS, I DON'T SEE MR. VERA IN THE QUEUE DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM.

HE HAD A QUESTION AND I DID AS WELL ABOUT THE ABOUT BASICALLY CONVERTING IT TO MORE OF A MONUMENT SIGN, BRICKING AROUND IT, THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED BY THE GDC.

IF THERE'S ANY PARTICULAR REASON THAT YOU ALL WERE NOT INTERESTED IN DOING THAT OR WILLING TO DO THAT.

I MEAN, I GUESS I'LL TAKE THAT.

AT A CERTAIN POINT IT BECOMES COST EFFECTIVE FOR US.

I MEAN, I THINK THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO BE ANYWHERE FROM TEN TO FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR US. WE'VE ALREADY EXPENDED ABOUT SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND TO ERECT AND OPEN OUR BUILDING AND BRING THAT BUSINESS TO THE CENTER.

SO I HAVE A SUSPICION WE HAVEN'T STUDIED THE COST OF PUTTING MASONRY IN AND BRICKING IT.

BUT I'M GOING TO GUESS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD THAT DOUBLES THAT COST.

AND AT A CERTAIN POINT IT LOSES THE EFFECTIVENESS, THE COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR US.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU, SIR. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? WE BELIEVE WE'VE CLEARED THE QUEUE, I WILL SAY.

I CAN APPRECIATE THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SIGN.

YOU KNOW, FOR MANY YEARS THERE WAS A BOX TRUCK SORT OF WEDGED BETWEEN THE TWO POLES THERE, I BELIEVE IT WAS FOR THE FURNITURE STORE OR WHATEVER THERE.

SO NOT SEEING THAT BOX TRUCK THERE, WHICH I THINK MOST OF THE TIME WAS SITTING ON FLAT TIRES AND THEN CLEANING THIS SIGN UP, I SEE IT AS AN IMPROVEMENT.

SO BUT I BELIEVE WE'VE CLEARED THE QUEUE.

COUNCILMAN NICKERSON. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I THINK AFTER REVIEW AND DISCUSSION, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST, BUT THIS ZONING AND THE ASSOCIATED DETAILED PLAN REQUEST FOR FILE NUMBER Z20-30, LOCATED AT THIRTY FOUR 14 BROADWAY BOULEVARD.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COUNCIL MEMBER NICKERSON AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL LADY MORRIS. ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION, IF NOT COUNCIL, PLEASE VOTE.

AND THAT ITEM IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL.

WE APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEMS,

[Items 5G & 5H]

FIVE G AND FIVE H, FIVE G IS CONSIDERED A ZONING REQUEST BY MASTER PLAN TO BUILD AN APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH FORTY EIGHT DWELLING UNITS AT FIFTY SEVEN FIFTY ONE MARVIN LOVING DRIVE IN DISTRICT THREE AND FIVE H IS TO CONSIDER THE DETAILED PLAN FOR THE REQUEST AS WELL. AND YOUR STAFF PRESENTATION.

HELLO AGAIN. HELLO.

HERE IS THE REQUEST, AS STATED.

AND THE LOCATION IS AT FIFTY SEVEN FIFTY ONE MARVIN LOVING DRIVE, THE APPROXIMATE ACREAGE IS ONE POINT NINE FIVE ACRES AND THE EXISTING ZONING IS MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT.

AND HERE IS THE LOCATION MAP, THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES OUTLINED IN THE TEAL BLUE COLOR.

THIS IS MARVIN LOVING DR.

AND THIS IS LAKE HUBBARD PARKWAY.

BROWNING ZONING ARE ALL MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT AND THEY ARE DEVELOPED WITH MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS. AND HERE ARE SOME OF THE PHOTOS, THE TOP LEFT IS VIEW OF THE SUBJECT

[00:50:03]

PROPERTY FROM MARVIN LOVING DRIVE.

THE TOP RIGHT IS NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM MARVIN LOVING DRIVE.

THE BOTTOM LEFT IS EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE BOTTOM RIGHT IS WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND HERE IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN, WHICH SHOWS TWO BUILDINGS.

THIS IS BUILDING, ONE OVER HERE IS BUILDING TWO, AND IT WILL BE DEVELOPED IN PHASE WITH A TOTAL OF FORTY EIGHT UNITS.

THE AVERAGE REQUIRED DWELLING UNIT SIZE PER THE GDC IS SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE SQUARE FEET. THIS IS EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY ONE SQUARE FEET, THE REQUIRED ONE BEDROOM UNIT SIZE IS SIX HUNDRED FIFTY SQUARE FEET AND PROPOSE IS EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY ONE SQUARE FEET AND SQUARE FEET. THEY DO COMPLY WITH THE DWELLING UNIT SIZE.

GDC ALSO HAS A REGULATION THAT MULTIPLE MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURES REQUIRES AT LEAST 50 PERCENT OF THE BUILDINGS TO BE AT A 30 DEGREE ANGLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY.

AND IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE MARVIN LOVING DRIVE.

AND DUE TO A SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT PROPOSE TO POSITION THE BUILDING AT A 30 DEGREE ANGLE.

THE REQUIRED DENSITY IS 18 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, AND THE APPLICANT REQUESTS TO INCREASE THAT TO TWENTY FIVE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE DUE TO THE LIMITED SIZE OF THE SITE AND PER THE GDC, THE PARKING CALCULATION IS EIGHTY FOUR PARKING SPACES AND THE SITE DOES SHOW EIGHTY FOUR PARKING SPACES.

ADDITIONALLY, 50 PERCENT OF THOSE PARKING SPACES MUST BE COVERED AND THEY HAVE TO CARPORT STRUCTURES HERE. ONE IS OVER HERE AND OVER HERE IS A PARKING GARAGE.

THERE'S ALSO REGULATION THAT EACH CARPORT STRUCTURE CANNOT HAVE MORE THAN 10 PARKING STALLS, AND IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE COVERED PARKING REQUIREMENT, TWO OF THE CARPORT STRUCTURES, WHICH ARE LOCATED ALONG MARVIN LOVING DRIVE, HAVE 12 PARKING STALLS FOR EACH CARPORT STRUCTURE. THERE'S ALSO SOME AMENITIES THAT ARE REQUIRED WITHIN A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. ONE OF THEM IS A SWIMMING POLE THAT MUST HAVE EIGHT HUNDRED SQUARE FEET OF SURFACE WATER AND THE APPLICANT REQUEST TO DEVIATE AND NOT ALLOW A SWIMMING POLE DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE SITE.

AND ANOTHER AMENITY THAT'S REQUIRED IS A CLUBHOUSE THAT HAS TO BE A MINIMUM OF TWENTY FIVE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET.

AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING TO DEVIATE AND NOT PROPOSE A CLUBHOUSE AT THIS TIME.

AND THE OTHER AMENITY THAT'S REQUIRED IS A LEISURE AREA WHICH MUST BE A MINIMUM OF ONE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.

AND THEY ARE SHOWING THE LEISURE AREA, WHICH DOES EXCEED THE MINIMUM REQUIRED AREA BY PROPOSING GAZEBOS, A DOG PARK WHICH IS OVER HERE.

THIS IS THE GAZEBO AND THERE'S PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT.

AND THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER BARBECUE PIT WITH OUTDOOR SEATING HERE.

AND HERE IS THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN.

IT DOES COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING STANDARDS PER THE GDC, AND ALTHOUGH SCREENING IS NOT REQUIRED, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A SIX FOOT ORNAMENTAL METAL FENCE ALONG MARVIN LOVING DRIVE, WHICH IS RIGHT HERE, AND SIX FOOT SOLID WOOD FENCE AROUND THE REMAINING PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY.

HERE ARE SOME OF THE AMENITIES; THIS IS THE GAZEBO, THE BARBECUE GRILL AND DOG SPA TRASH RECEPTACLE. HERE IS THE BENCH AND PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT.

AND HERE IS THE ELEVATION FOR BUILDING ONE, IT DOES COMPLY WITH THE BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS, OF THE GDC.

AND HERE'S THE ELEVATION FOR BUILDING TWO.

HERE'S THE ELEVATION FOR THE CARPORT STRUCTURE AND THE PARKING GARAGE.

GDC STATES THAT THE CARPORT POLES MUST BE ARCHITECTURALLY COMPATIBLE TO THE MAIN BUILDING AND IN THIS CASE, THE POLES SHOULD BE MADE OF MASONRY, BUT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO IMPOSE METAL MATERIAL FOR THE POLES.

ADDITIONALLY, THERE WILL BE MASONRY CLADDING ALONG THREE SIDES OF THE CARPORT STRUCTURE,

[00:55:05]

WHICH WILL BE APPROXIMATELY FOUR AND A HALF FEET HIGH.

AND HERE'S THE SUMMARY OF THE DEVIATIONS, THE FIRST ONE IS BUILDING PLACEMENT, AND IT STATES THAT WHEN THERE IS MULTIPLE MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURES, MINIMUM OF 50 PERCENT OF THOSE INTEND TO PLACE A BUILDING AT A 30 DEGREE ANGLE, AND THAT'S DUE TO THE PROPOSED SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT, THE BUILDINGS WILL NOT BE RELATIVELY LONG.

THE SECOND ONE IS THE DENSITY, THE MAXIMUM THAT'S ALLOWED IS 18 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

THE PROPOSED IS TWENTY FIVE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, AND THE APPLICANT REQUESTS TO INCREASE THE DENSITY TO TWENTY FIVE UNITS PER ACRE, GIVEN THE LIMITED SIZE OF THE SITE.

THIRD ONE IS CARPORT SECTION TWO POINT SIX ZERO EIGHT FOUR OF THE GDC STATES THAT CARPORT MUST BE SUPPORTED BY COLUMNS THAT ARE ARCHITECTURALLY INTEGRATED AND ARE SIMILAR TO THE COLORS OF THE MAIN BUILDING.

AND THE APPLICATION PROPOSES METAL COLUMNS AND THEY REQUESTED AND TO ALLOW METAL WITH NO MASONRY COLUMNS TO MAXIMIZE SPACE FOR MOTORISTS AND TO AVOID MAINTENANCE ISSUES FROM 10 PARKING STALLS FOR EACH ROOF STRUCTURE AND THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A TOTAL OF THREE CARPORT STRUCTURES, TWO OF THEM WILL HAVE 12 PARKING STALLS AND THIRD ONE WILL HAVE NINE PARKING STALLS AND THIS DEVIATION IS REQUESTED IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE COVERED PARKING, WHICH IS MINIMUM 50 PERCENT.

NEXT ONE IS CLUBHOUSE, A MINIMUM OF TWENTY FIVE HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT CLUBHOUSE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED ON SITE AND THE APPLICANT WILL NOT PROPOSE A CLUBHOUSE.

GIVEN THE LIMITED SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT, THERE WOULD NOT BE AN ONSITE CLUBHOUSE OR LEASING OFFICE. IN MOST OFFICE, CORRESPONDENCE AND SERVICE WILL BE HANDLED ONLINE, EXCEPT THERE WOULD BE AN ONSITE RESIDENT MANAGER TO HANDLE DAY TO DAY ISSUES AND ROUTINE MAINTENANCE.

IT MUST BE A MINIMUM OF EIGHT HUNDRED SQUARE FEET OF SURFACE WATER, THE APPLICANT WILL NOT PROPOSE A SWIMMING POLE AT THIS TIME.

AND THIS REQUEST TO DEVIATE AND NOT PROVIDE A SWIMMING POLE, THERE ARE LEISURE AREAS THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING.

MOREOVER, THE LIMITED SCALE DEVELOPMENT MAKES ALTERNATIVE AMENITIES MORE PRACTICAL THAN PROVIDING A SWIMMING POOL.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST.

ADDITIONALLY, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPLICANT TO PAINT THE CARPORT POLES TO MATCH THE MAIN BUILDING. ON NOVEMBER 9TH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY A VOTE OF NINE TO ZERO. ADDITIONALLY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO ADD A PRECONDITION FOR THE ACCESS POINT TO THE NORTHWEST OF THE PROPERTY TO BE EMERGENCY PURPOSES ONLY.

AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED TO ADD A CONDITION OR ON SITE MANAGEMENT TO BE AVAILABLE ON SITE AND TO SHIFT THE GAZEBO FURTHER AWAY FROM THE DUMPSTER, TO ADD MORE LANDSCAPING AROUND THE DUMPSTER AND TO ADD PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING.

AND SINCE PLANT COMMISSION, THE APPLICANT HAS RESUBMITTED PLANS TO REFLECT ALL OF THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS.

AND WE DID SEND OUT NOTIFICATION LETTERS, ONE HUNDRED FIFTY SEVEN THAT WERE SENT OUT, FIVE WERE WITHIN THE NOTIFICATION AREA AND IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST.

SIX WERE WITHIN THE NOTIFICATION AREA AGAINST THE REQUEST.

ONE WAS OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION AREA IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST.

ONE WAS OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION AREA AND AGAINST THE REQUEST.

AND WE RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 13 RESPONSES.

AND THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COUNCIL MEMBER HEDRICK? THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. HAS THE FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEWED THIS PLAN WITH THE EMERGENCY ACCESS, THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION? YES, OK. IS THERE A, I SAW ON THEIR SITE PLAN, THEY HAVE A MUTUAL ACCESS EASEMENT, IS THAT ALREADY IN PLACE OR IS THAT AGREEMENT NEED TO BE FINALIZED BEFORE THE CONSTRUCTION OCCURS? I BELIEVE IT IS FINALIZED, BUT THE APPLICANT WILL BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT.

OK. AND I ASSUME THAT THE LAKE COLONY CONDOMINIUMS THEN WOULD BE OK WITH HAVING THAT

[01:00:06]

ACCESS THROUGH THERE, SINCE IT WOULD BE GOING ON OFF SITE TO THE TO THE SOUTH AND THE WEST SIDE THEN. YES, THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY.

THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU, SIR.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM VERA.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. HAVE THEY STATED HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO BE BEFORE THEY DO THE FENCING AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE? WHEN THEY WILL INSTALL THE FENCE? NO, HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO BE BY THE TIME THEY FINISH IT.

I'M NOT ABLE TO ANSWER THAT, BUT I'M SURE THE APPLICANT WILL BE ABLE TO.

OK, THANK YOU, SIR.

ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? I SEE WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT QUEUED UP, IF YOU CAN GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

MAYOR, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS, MAXWELL FISHER WITH MASTER 2201 MAIN STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS, SEVEN FIVE TWO ZERO ONE REPRESENTING AWAN CAPITAL.

DANIYAL AWAN IS ALSO HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT I CAN'T ANSWER.

WELCOME BACK COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS TO THE COUNCIL.

THANKS, SIR. GOOD TO SEE YOU.

GOOD TO SEE YOU. I DO HAVE A PRESENTATION IF I COULD SHARE MY SCREEN . CAN THE SCREEN BE SEEN? NO, SIR. OH, PROBABLY BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HIT SHARE YET.

I'M GOING TO SAY THOSE TWO THINGS ARE PROBABLY RELATED.

YES. ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. NABIA DID A GREAT JOB EXPLAINING SHE SAID, BUT WE FEEL WE HAVE A PROPOSAL FOR MULTIFAMILY THAT FITS IN WITH THE LAND USE PATTERNS AND DENSITIES AROUND US ON A PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN UNDEVELOPED FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

A COUPLE OF PICTURES OF THE SITE, THE SITE DOES SLOPE FROM EAST TO WEST, SO WE'RE WORKING WITH ENGINEERING ON OUR GRADING AND DRAINAGE AND WORK DILIGENTLY ON THAT.

WE ARE PROPOSING FORTY EIGHT UNITS AND TWO BUILDINGS.

WE WOULD HAVE OUR MAIN ACCESS OFF MARVIN LOVING WITH THE EMERGENCY ACCESS WITH THE MUTUAL ACCESS EASEMENT. THE MUTUAL ACCESS EASEMENT HAS BEEN AGREED TO WITH THE WITH THE CONDOMINIUMS TO OUR WEST.

SO WE BOTH HAVE MUTUAL ACCESS AND UTILITY ACCESS AGREEMENTS FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS PURPOSES. WE ARE PROPOSING OVER 50 PERCENT COVERED PARKING IN A COMBINATION OF CARPORTS AND GARAGES.

WE ALSO HAVE SEVERAL AMENITIES ON OUR PROPERTY.

I'LL BE HAPPY TO GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL UNANIMOUSLY.

THEY HAD A FEW GOOD RECOMMENDATIONS.

ONE IS TO SHIFT SOME OF OUR GAZEBOS AND AMENITY AREA TO THE WEST AWAY FROM THE DUMPSTER, WHICH WAS A GOOD RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN TO ADD SOME SHRUBS AROUND THE DUMPSTER.

AND WE'VE ALSO ADDED SOME PEDESTRIAN LIGHTS AT OUR AMENITY AREAS AT DIFFERENT POINTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT. ELEVATION'S AS SHOWN, ALL OF OUR ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT WILL BE SCREENED BY OUR PARAPETS.

WE'RE PROPOSING BRICK STUCCO AND SOME CEMENT AND THE ELEVATION OF THE SMALLER BUILDING.

HERE'S SOME OF OUR AMENITIES WE ARE PROPOSING: GAZEBO DOG WASHING CENTER, A NUMBER OF BARBECUE STATIONS, AND OUR PICTURE OF OUR WROUGHT IRON FENCE.

WE'RE PROPOSING WROUGHT IRON FENCE ALONG THE FRONT WITH LANDSCAPING AND A SOLID WOOD FENCE ALONG OUR COMMON PROPERTY LINES IN THE SIDE.

THERE WERE SOME NOTIFICATION LETTERS OR REPLIES THAT CAME IN, SOME OF THOSE WERE AGAINST . THE ONES THAT READ THAT I READ THAT WERE AGAINST WERE MAINLY FROM LANDLORD OR PROPERTY OWNERS. THEY DON'T NECESSARILY LIVE NEXT DOOR AS NEIGHBORS.

AND THEY DIDN'T GIVE A REASON FOR BEING AGAINST.

THERE'S A COUPLE THAT DID AND A FEW THAT DIDN'T.

WE BELIEVE MANY OF THOSE ARE COMPETITOR BASED REASONS OF BUILDING MORE APARTMENTS OR THE FACT THAT MAYBE SOME PEOPLE HAVE BEEN USING IT FOR LIKE A PARK, BUT IT'S OBVIOUSLY PRIVATE PROPERTY. WE DID REACH OUT TO THE MARINA DEL SOL CONDOMINIUMS. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM CLOSELY ON UTILITY AND MUTUAL ACCESS REQUIREMENTS.

THE HOA BOARD FOR BOTH MARINA DEL DEL SOL AND THE HILL POINT ARE IN SUPPORT OF OUR DEVELOPMENT. I THINK THERE'S SOME SUPPORT LETTERS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.

[01:05:05]

I THINK I'LL STOP THERE AND BE HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST SUPPORT FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.

VERY GOOD. IF YOU CAN UN-SHARE YOUR SCREEN FOR ME.

YES, YES. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM VERA.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. HOW ARE YOU DOING, MAXWELL? ALL RIGHT. HOW ARE YOU? GOOD. DO YOU HAVE A TIME WHEN YOU DO THE WROUGHT IRON FENCE AND WOODEN FENCE.

YEAH, IT WILL BE DONE WITH THE MAIN CONSTRUCTION OF THE FLAT WORK, AND AS WE MOVE INTO THE BUILDING, PAD WORK, BUT IT WILL BE DONE AT THE SAME TIME.

THE CITY WON'T ISSUE THE CO UNTIL OUR FENCES ARE UP AND INSPECTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY. OK, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. AND I'M SORRY, I BELIEVE YOU SAID YOU HAVE SOMEONE ELSE FROM THE APPLICANTS. YEAH.

THE DEVELOPER DANIYAL AWAN IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS I CAN'T ANSWER.

I DON'T KNOW THAT HE WANTS TO ADD ANYTHING.

THE REASON IT FLAGGED YOU IS BECAUSE HE'S USING THE RAISE YOUR HAND FEATURE.

SO I--. OH, MAYBE I NEED TO SHUT UP AND LET HIM TALK A LITTLE LOUD; WOW, MAYBE I SAID SOMETHING WRONG.

COUNCILOR WILLIAMS, I SEE YOU IN THE CUMI.

LET ME GO OVER TO THIS APPLICANT REAL QUICK HERE.

MR. AWAN. I HAVE, YES.

IF YOU CAN GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. DANIYAL AWAN FROM AWAN CAPITAL PARTNERS 6116 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY #700.

I AM THE DEVELOPER OF THE PROPERTY AND I JUST WANTED TO CONCUR WITH WHATEVER MAXWELL AND NABIA HAD TO SAY, FABULOUS PRESENTATIONS.

AT THAT TIME DURING THE PRESENTATION.

I JUST WANTED TO ADD TO THE QUESTION BY THE DEPUTY MAYOR ABOUT THE FENCE.

WE WOULD HAVE THAT IN PLACE AS SOON AS OUR EQUIPMENT IS ON THE SITE FOR CONSTRUCTION WORK, JUST TO ENSURE THE PRIVACY OF THE NEIGHBORS AND THE CONDOMINIUMS RIGHT NEXT TO US, BECAUSE WE ARE IN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE RESIDENTS OF THOSE UNITS AND WE WOULD LIKE TO RESPECT THEIR PRIVACY.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD DO IN THE FIRST MONTH THAT LAND. OK, THANK YOU, SIR.

ALRIGHT, I'M SORRY. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS, YOU'RE NEXT IN THE QUEUE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. GOOD EVENING AGAIN.

MAXWELL, GOOD TO SEE YOU.

I'M NOT SURE WHETHER YOU OR THE DEVELOPER CAN ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, SO I'M GOING TO GO DOWN THE LIST AND THEN YOU CAN JUST TAKE THEM OFF.

YOU'RE GOOD AT THIS.

THERE WERE SEVERAL THINGS. ONE, THE COLUMNS AND THE PARKING MEDAL RATHER THAN MASONRY.

AND I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN THAT CHOICE.

THE OTHER THINGS ARE OK.

THERE'LL BE NO ON SITE MANAGEMENT IF I HEARD THE STAFF REPORT CORRECTLY, THE TENANTS WOULD USE SOME ONLINE SYSTEM IF THEY HAD ISSUES LIVING IN THIS COMPLEX.

THERE'D BE NO POOL, BUT THERE WOULD BE A I'M NOT SURE WHAT EXACTLY WOULD YOU CALL IT, DOG WATCHING A DOG BATHING AREA.

THE DENSITY OF THE DENSITY UPGRADE AND MY LAST AREA OF CONCERN HAS TO DO WITH--QUESTION IS--WILL ALL OF THESE BE MARKET RATE UNITS OR IS THERE A VARIETY IN HERE? START WITH THAT QUESTION, WILL THESE UNITS BE A MARKET RATE, ARE THEY BEING SUBSIDIZED OR WILL IT BE A MIXTURE OF IT? IF SO, WHAT'S THE BREAKDOWN? I BELIEVE THIS WILL BE FULL MARKET RATE.

[01:10:01]

I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY AFFORDABLE COMPONENT WITH THIS REQUEST, UNLESS DANIYAL HAS OTHER INFORMATION, THIS WILL BE A MARKET RATE DEVELOPMENT.

OK, ALL RIGHT, OK.

NOW CAN YOU GO BACK AND ADDRESS THAT? AND THERE'S NO ON-SITE OFFICE, THAT'S RATHER UNUSUAL.

I KNOW IT'S A SMALL DEVELOPMENT.

MY CONCERN THERE IS FOR THE FOLKS WHO ARE GOING TO LIVE THERE.

AND THAT THERE'S NO ONSITE OFFICE, THEY HAVE TO USE ONLINE TO VOICE A COMPLAINT KIND OF THING, SO THAT GIVES ME A BIT OF CONCERN, MAX, THAT YOU DON'T HAVE.

SO CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT DECISION IN THIS LAYOUT? SURE. SO WE'RE HANDLING THE DAY TO DAY MANAGEMENT TWO WAYS.

ONE IS, YES, ONLINE THERE'LL BE AN ONLINE PORTAL FOR CERTAIN THINGS, BUT WE WILL ACTUALLY HAVE AN ONSITE RESIDENT MANAGER.

SO ON ONE HAND, IT'S ACTUALLY BETTER THAN A TYPICAL APARTMENT COMPLEX WHERE THEY MAY JUST HAVE AN OFFICE MANAGER THERE DURING THE DAYTIME OPERATING HOURS.

IN THIS CASE, SOMEONE WILL BE LIVING ON THE PROPERTY AND THEY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ANY RESIDENT COMPLAINT, COMMENTS, QUESTIONS.

THEY'LL BE ON THE SITE. SO EFFECTIVELY, WE WILL HAVE AN ONSITE MANAGER; IT JUST WON'T BE IN THE SENSE OF AN OFFICE.

LIKE THERE WON'T BE A CLUBHOUSE WITH AN OFFICE AS WHAT YOU MIGHT BE CUSTOMARILY USED TO.

SO WE WILL HAVE THAT AND AN ONLINE SYSTEM AND YOU KNOW, THE WAY THINGS HAVE GONE AND YOU KNOW, WITH TECHNOLOGY, THE ONLINE SYSTEM WORKS REALLY WELL AND PARTICULARLY WITH COVID IT REDUCES THE CONTACT.

BUT THERE WILL BE AN ONSITE RESIDENT AND EVERYONE THAT LIVES IN THE COMPLEX WILL BE AWARE OF WHO THAT IS AND HAVE THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION AND CAN TALK TO THEM WHENEVER THEY NEED TO. AND THEN DANIYAL MAY HAVE MORE TO ADD.

HE KNOWS A LOT MORE ABOUT THE PROPOSED OPERATION, THE DAY-TO-DAY OPERATION.

DANIYAL, YOU HAVE ANYMORE TO ADD? DANIYAL AWAN HERE, ABSOLUTELY.

SUBMIT MAINTENANCE REQUESTS, THEY CAN SUBMIT THEIR RENT AND THEY CAN HAVE A LEDGER SYSTEM ONLINE TO REVIEW ANY TIME OF THE DAY.

ALSO, HAVING, LIKE MAXWELL SAID, HAVING A RESIDENT MANAGER, IT'S GOING TO BE MORE CONVENIENT FOR A SMALLER DEVELOPER AND IT'S GOING TO BE MORE CONVENIENT FOR THE RESIDENTS BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE PRESENT 24/7.

THEY WON'T HAVE THE WEEKENDS OFF.

THEY WILL BE THERE WHENEVER THEY NEED IT.

SO THE RESIDENT MANAGER WILL BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE TENANTS 24/7? YES, SIR. OK, ALL RIGHT, OK, TALK WITH ME ABOUT YOUR DECISION NOT TO HAVE A CLUBHOUSE OR A GATHERING PLACE, AND I GUESS, I'M GOING POST COVID HERE, GOVERNING PLACE FOR THE TENANTS HERE.

CAN YOU TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR DECISION THERE, PLEASE? YEAH, SINCE THIS IS JUST A FORTY EIGHT UNIT DEVELOPMENT, IT'S ABOUT HALF THE SIZE OF ANY OF THE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS THAT I'VE WORKED ON IN A NUMBER A NUMBER OF YEARS, IT JUST DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH UNITS TO SUPPORT A FULL CLUBHOUSE.

NOT ONLY THAT, THE SITE IS FAIRLY SMALL.

IT'S AN INFILL SITE THAT HAS HAD SOME CHALLENGES THERE.

SO IT JUST DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO HAVE A CLUBHOUSE HERE.

AND SO THAT'S WHY WE WENT THE WAY WE DID.

ON THE POOL, AGAIN, IT'S A SMALLER DEVELOPMENT.

A POOL HAS ONGOING MAINTENANCE.

A POOL IS OF PREFERENCE.

SOME PEOPLE LIKE POOLS; SOME PEOPLE HATE THEM; SOME PEOPLE LOVE AND HATE THEM.

SO WE DID TRY TO MEET THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE MULTI-FAMILY STANDARDS BY PROVIDING EXCESS NUMBER OF AMENITIES.

ANYTHING FROM OUR DOG WALK OR DOG STALL.

WE HAVE BENCHES. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF GAZEBOS.

WE HAVE A PLAYGROUND AREA FOR CHILDREN AND A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT PATIO AREAS.

SO WE TRIED TO PROVIDE OTHER TYPES OF AMENITIES THAT WOULD MEET THE HAVING A POOL, GIVEN THE LIMITED SIZE OF OUR DEVELOPMENT.

OK, WOULD YOU TALK ABOUT THE PARKING COLUMNS? I'VE BEEN TO A NUMBER OF UNITS, NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS, AND OVER TIME, YOU AND I BOTH KNOW WHAT HAPPENS TO USUALLY HAPPENS TO THESE METAL POLES AND APARTMENT COMPLEXES.

THEY BECOME DRIVING TARGETS.

I GUESS PEOPLE DO OBSTACLE COURSES AND ALL KINDS OF THINGS TO THOSE METAL POLES AND THEY END UP EVERYWHERE. SO THAT'S A CONCERN OF MINE THAT I'D PREFER

[01:15:07]

SEEING MASONRY COLUMNS. I THINK IT'S NOT ONLY ESTHETICALLY PLEASING, BUT I THINK IT'S MORE DOABLE. AND SO HOW WILL THAT IMPACT YOUR SPACING, YOUR PARKING SPACE? SO CAN YOU TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT? I CAN AND CAN I ALSO SHARE MY SCREEN ONE MORE TIME TO SHOW THE EXHIBIT AS I TALK ABOUT IT? GO AHEAD. CAN YOU SEE THE CARPORT? YES.

OK, SO I'LL START WITH THE GARAGE.

SO THE GARAGES HAS MASONRY COLUMNS IN BETWEEN EACH GARAGE DOOR, WHICH I KNOW IS IMPORTANT BASED ON PAST COMMENT.

SO THE GARAGE WILL HAVE THAT.

NOW, THE CARPORT, WHAT WE WANTED TO DO IS WE DO HAVE A MASONRY WALL THAT WRAPS AROUND THE CARPORT AND SO THE END COLUMNS AND THE BACK OF THE CARPORT.

SO ESSENTIALLY THE EXTERIOR PARTS OF THE CARPORT, WHICH IS REALLY WHAT HAS A VISUAL IMPACT, ALL THOSE WILL HAVE MASONRY.

AND SO WE'RE NOT JUST DOING WHERE YOU JUST WRAP THE COLUMNS, BUT WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING A MASONRY WALL AROUND THAT THAT CARPORT UP TO A CERTAIN HEIGHT, THREE OR FOUR FEET, IT LOOKS LIKE. SO THE ONLY PART WHERE WE CAN HAVE METAL POLES THAT DON'T HAVE ENCASED BRICK IS THE INTERIOR SECTIONS RIGHT HERE, HERE, HERE.

ABOUT SIX NOT A LOT OF ROOM TO BE ABLE TO PULL IN AND OPEN YOUR DOOR.

AND IT DIDN'T REALLY PROVIDE THE VISUAL OR THE ESTHETIC VALUE THAT DIDN'T OUTWEIGH THE ISSUES OF THE PRACTICALITY OR THE LACK OF THE ISSUE OF FUNCTIONING, OF BEING ABLE TO GET IT OUT OF YOUR CAR AND THAT SORT OF THING.

AND NOT TO MENTION I'VE SEEN THOSE ARE THEY GET HIT AND THEN YOU HAVE BRICKS JUST LAYING ON THE SIDE. NOW IT'S JUST AN ONGOING MAINTENANCE ISSUE AND IT HAD TO BE CONSTANTLY REPLACED. BUT WE FEEL WE'VE MET THE SPIRITED INTENT.

AND AS YOU LOOK AT THIS THING FROM THE BASICALLY ANYWHERE AROUND IT, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THAT BRICK WALL THAT TIES INTO THE MAIN BUILDINGS.

HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

OK, OK, ANOTHER.

ANOTHER CHALLENGE AROUND MULTIFAMILY HAS TO DO WITH VISITOR PARKING.

DO YOU HAVE ANY SPACES THAT ARE GOING TO BE DESIGNATED FOR VISITORS? AND IF SO, CAN YOU SHOW THOSE SPACES TO US? AND HOW MANY WILL YOU HAVE? SURE. YEAH, SO WE'VE PROGRAMMED IN TO COMPLY WITH YOUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS. WE HAVE EIGHTY FIVE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED AND WE YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY WE ONLY NEED ABOUT ONE POINT THREE PARKING SPACES PER UNIT.

IN THIS CASE, WE'RE BASICALLY REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ONE AND A HALF FOR ONE BEDROOM AND TWO FOR TWO BEDROOM UNITS. SO WE WE'RE ACTUALLY FAR EXCEEDING WHAT OUR PARKING REQUIREMENT NEEDS ARE FROM A RESIDENT STANDPOINT.

AND SO THAT ADDITIONAL SURPLUS, TYPICALLY THE INDUSTRY STANDARD IS ABOUT IT'S GOOD TO HAVE ABOUT ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EVERY FOUR UNITS.

SO WE'VE PROGRAMMED IN ABOUT 12, 12 GUEST PARKING SPACES AS PART OF OUR DEVELOPMENT OF THE OVERALL EIGHTY ONE THAT WE HAVE PROPOSED SO ABOUT ABOUT ABOUT SIXTY NINE FOR RESIDENTS AND 12 WOULD BE FOR GUESTS WILL YOU HAVE SIGNAGE DESIGNATING VISITOR PARKING? I DON'T KNOW; I SUSPECT WE COULD WE COULD DO THAT IF THAT'S SOMETHING THE COUNCIL WISHED.

WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVE ENOUGH PARKING WHERE WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE THAT, SINCE THERE'S ALSO NOT A CLUBHOUSE, IT WOULD BE DONE ONLINE.

WE COULD DO THAT. AND MAYBE THAT CAN BE DONE POSSIBLY NEAR THE MANAGER'S RESIDENCE.

SO IT MAKES SENSE. IT WOULD BE NEAR THE PERSON THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO TALK TO OR WHO THEY'D BE MEETING OUT THERE TO LOOK AT A UNIT.

DANIYAL, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO CONSIDER OR MAYBE HAVE A SPACE OR TWO FOR VISITORS? THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS A VERY GOOD POINT THAT COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS RAISED AND WE CAN DEFINITELY IF THE CITY IS FINE WITH IT, WE CAN DEFINITELY ADD LABELS ON A FEW PARKING SPOTS AND DEDICATED THAT AS VISITORS PARKING BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE AN EXTRA PARKING REQUIRED.

SO I DON'T SEE THAT AS A CHALLENGE.

IF THAT IS DEEMED NECESSARY, THEN WE CAN ADD THAT.

OK, THANK YOU, BECAUSE THAT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO SEE, BECAUSE I KNOW OF

[01:20:02]

INSTANCES WHERE OUR FIRST RESPONDERS NEED ACCESS TO UNITS AND CARS ALL OVER THE PLACE AND IT CREATES CHAOS AND IT ENDANGERS THEM AND THE TENANT.

SO THAT'S A FEATURE THAT I'D LIKE TO SEE DONE IN THIS PROPOSAL.

THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, FOR THE TIME.

THANK YOU, SIR. MAXWELL, IF YOU COULD UN-SHARE YOUR SCREEN FOR ME.

ALL RIGHT. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SORRY, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, REAL' QUICK.

THE SIGNS FOR VISITOR PARKING, DOES THAT NOT FALL UNDER THE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS TO THAT? I KNOW IN SOME INSTANCES WE'VE HAD DIRECTIONAL SIGNS OR WHATEVER, WILL ADDING THOSE SIGNS PUT THEM IN CONFLICT WITH ANY OF OUR SIGN ORDINANCE ISSUES? I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK ON THAT; THEY WOULD NEED SEPARATE SIGN PERMITS FROM BUILDING INSPECTIONS, BUT I'LL HAVE TO CHECK AND SEE IF THERE ARE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS OR NOT.

THERE ARE CERTAIN--AND WILL MAY JUMP IN--SIGNS LIKE I THINK WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO THAT DON'T REQUIRE A PERMIT.

WELL, THAT'S WHAT I WASN'T SURE.

I JUST WANTED TO I DIDN'T WANT US TO RUN IN.

YOU AGREE TO SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO RUN YOU INTO AN ISSUE, ESSENTIALLY.

AND I GUESS WE PROBABLY NEED CLARIFICATION ON WHETHER THEY'D BE SMALL POLE SIGNS IN FRONT OF THE PARKING SPACE OR WOULD IT BE ON THE PAVING ITSELF? WELL, THAT'S SORT OF MY QUESTION.

I DON'T WANT YOU TO END UP BACKING INTO AN ISSUE.

SO WE MAY HAVE TO DO SOME G. YOU HAVE-- WELL, MAYOR, WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK INTO IT.

I DON'T SEE ANY CONFLICT.

IF WE'RE REALLY JUST TALKING ABOUT A POLE SIGN AT THE END OF THE PARKING SPACE OR ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CURB SAYING VISITOR PARKING.

I THINK THE DIRECTIONAL SIGN REGULATIONS OF THE GDC KIND OF MORE ABOUT DIRECTING DRIVE THROUGH THIS WAY, THIS WAY, THAT SORT OF THING.

SO WE CAN CERTAINLY CONFIRM THAT.

BUT IF THAT'S REALLY JUST WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, JUST CAN'T THINK OF A BLATANT CONFLICT, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S COUNCIL'S MOTION.

GOOD. OK, THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER AUBIN.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I JUST WANTED TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ABOUT THAT. WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS IN THE PAST ABOUT HOW FAR WE CAN GET ON THE ZONING CASE.

WE'RE AT A ZONING CASE NOW.

CAN WE GET INTO THINGS LIKE THESE KINDS OF SIGNS AND OTHER DETAILS ON THAT, OR IS THAT PERMISSIBLE ON THE DETAILED PLAN? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE DO DOESN'T VIOLATE WHAT WE'RE NOW PERMITTED TO DO WITH RESPECT TO THESE ZONING CASES, WITH THE CHANGES THAT CAME IN THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

MY ADVICE ALWAYS ON ZONING WOULD CALL THAT WE ZONE THE LAND, NOT PEOPLE OR OTHER THINGS.

AND WHAT WE TRY TO AVOID IS MICRO ZONING, WHERE WE GET INTO TOO MUCH DETAIL ON OPERATIONAL ISSUES OR THINGS THAT "IT WOULD BE BETTER IF." WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THE LAND USE. AND AS TO THE DETAILED PLAN, THE STRUCTURE, THE ELEVATION, THE LAYOUT, HOW IT'S GOING TO FIT IN, WILL IT HAVE NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON SURROUNDING LAND, USES, STREETS, THAT SORT OF THING? I DON'T THINK WITH ALL RESPECT, IT'S GOING TO MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE WHETHER THEY PUT A VISITOR PARKING ON THE CURB OR UP ON SOME POST OR ANYTHING.

THAT'S MORE OF AN OPERATIONAL ISSUE THAT I RECOMMEND AVOIDING GETTING TOO MUCH INTO DEPTH ON.

CERTAINLY WORTH WONDERING ABOUT IT AT TIMES, BUT IT'S NOT TRULY A LAND USE ISSUE AT THE HEIGHT OF REVIEW THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT.

OK. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT, AS WE GET INTO SOME OF THE HEAVY DETAIL HERE, THAT WE'RE NOT ABOUT SIGNS OR WHATNOT, THAT WE'RE OK, THAT WE'RE NOT CROSSING ANY.

WE'RE NOT CROSSING ANY THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE CLEARED THE QUEUE ON THIS ITEM.

[01:25:03]

IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OTHERWISE.

COUNCILMAN NICKERSON, THIS IS IN YOUR DISTRICT, SIR.

YEAH, I JUST I THINK A POINT OF CLARIFICATION FOR MYSELF BEFORE I WOULD MAKE A MOTION HERE, IF WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE THIS AND THE DETAILED PLAN TOGETHER, DO WE WANT TO REVIEW THAT DETAIL? DOES ANYONE WANT TO REVIEW THAT DETAIL PLAN AT THIS TIME? BEFORE I MAKE ANY KIND OF MOTION, I WOULD APPEAR TO ME THAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING A VERY DETAILED REVIEW.

YES, WE HAVE. THEREFORE, I WOULD LIKE THEN TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS ZONING AND ITS RELATED DETAIL PLAN REQUEST FOR FILE NUMBER Z19-31 AT 5751 MARVIN LOVING DRIVE.

THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE IMPROVEMENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DISCUSSED HERE THAT WERE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PLANS.

AND THAT'S THE MOTION.

I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER NICKERSON TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR ZONING CHANGE, AS WELL AS THE DETAILED PLAN WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PUT IN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I HAVE A SECOND BY DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM VERA.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION--SORRY, COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO GET MY CLARIFICATION.

I DO THINK THE ISSUE ON THE PARKING IS WITHIN OUR SCOPE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION.

SO TO MAKE A MOTION, COUNCILMAN AND NICKERSON, DOES THAT INCLUDE AND STAFF HAS INDICATED THAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO SOME RESEARCH TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE LAYOUT, BUT I WOULD LIKE FOR THAT PIECE TO BE A PART OF YOUR MOTION.

SO WHEN YOU MENTIONED DISCUSSION HERE TONIGHT, ARE YOU INCLUDING THAT PIECE, THE ISSUE ON ON THE DESIGNATED VISITOR PARKING? I'M JUST ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION.

YES. MY MOTION WOULD INCLUDE THAT DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD ABOUT THE VISITOR PARKING AS LONG AS IT'S PER THE NO CONFLICT WITH THE ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE THAT WAS DISCUSSED BY MR. G.. OK.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILMAN.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, SIR. WITH THAT, COUNCIL, LET'S VOTE.

OK, HANG ON, HANG ON, HANG ON, HANG ON, HANG ON.

COUNCILMAN AUBIN. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT I SUPPORT THE PROJECT, BUT I'M CONCERNED, GIVEN WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS TOLD US, THAT HAVING THOSE CHANGES IN THERE IS NOT LEGAL.

IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ZONING.

AND I'M NOT SURE IT QUALIFIES UNDER THE DETAILED PLAN.

SO I'M GOING TO BE VOTING NO, BUT I WOULD SUPPORT IT WITHOUT THAT.

OK. OK, MR. N., I MIGHT BE ABLE TO SETTLE SOME OF THIS.

IF WE'RE GOING TO ASK THE APPLICANT, MAXWELL, DESIGNATING VISITOR PARKING IN SOME FORM, WE'LL LEAVE IT TO THE DEVELOPER.

THAT'S OK WITH THE APPLICANT SETTING ASIDE THE SITE, THE PARKING SPOT FOR AS VISITOR PARKING. YES, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO SO.

OK, AND WE CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN.

WE'LL LEAVE THE SIGNAGE UP TO GOOD DISCRETION.

WE DON'T NEED TO DESIGNATE WHAT KIND OF SIGNAGE, HOW IT LOOKS, BUT THE POINT OF AT LEAST SETTING ASIDE SOME VISITOR PARKING IS OK WITH THE APPLICANT.

AND I'M SATISFIED WITH THAT ANSWER.

OK, COUNCIL MEMBER, AUBIN, ARE YOU GOOD WITH THAT? YES, I THINK AS LONG AS WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE, I'M OK WITH THAT.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. I JUST WANT TO KEEP-- OOPS, SORRY I HIT THE MUTE.

SORRY.

WE'RE ALL GOOD.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE WHERE WE NEED TO BE ON THE LAW.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER HEDRICK.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. NOT TO BELABOR THE ISSUE, BUT FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS, WE PUT A PROVISION LIKE THAT. DOES THE ENFORCEMENT FOLLOW UP ON OUR BUILDING OFFICIALS OR IS IT ON THE PROPERTY MANAGER TO ENSURE THAT ONLY PEOPLE WHO ARE GUESTS USE THAT GUEST PARKING AREA.

MAY I ANSWER, MAYOR? YES, SIR, PLEASE.

I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS DIRECTED AT ME, BUT WE AREN'T GOING TO ENFORCE THAT WHETHER A

[01:30:07]

VISITOR PARKS THERE OR AN OCCUPANT OF THE APARTMENT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE LOOKING AT.

THE BEST WE CAN DO, AND THE APPLICANT'S AGREED IS TO AT LEAST DESIGNATE BY SOME KIND OF SIGNAGE THAT THOSE SPOTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR VISITOR PARKING AND I TRUST COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS CONCERNED THAT AT LEAST WE POINTED TO SOME PLACE WHERE VISITORS CAN PARK AND THERE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE TOWED OFF OR WHATEVER FOR PARKING IN THE WRONG SPOT. BUT WE AS A CITY WOULDN'T ENFORCE THAT.

WE WOULD JUST CHECK AND BUILDING INSPECTION WHEN THEY GO THROUGH AND DO FINAL SAY, HEY, IF YOU SET ASIDE THESE SPACES FOR VISITOR PARKING.

YES, WE DID. AND THEY'LL CHECK THAT OFF AND WE'LL MOVE ON FROM THERE.

BUT AS FAR AS ACTUAL ENFORCEMENT, WE WOULD NEVER TOUCH IT.

OK, THANK YOU. BECAUSE I THINK THAT THIS TYPE OF AS COUNCIL MEMBER AUBIN HAD THAT WE HAD THE APPLICANT EXPLAIN THE RATIOS ON PARKING AND THEY HAVE THE NUMBERS THAT SAY YOU NEED X NUMBER OF SPACES PER SITE AND WE'RE PROVIDING AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT.

I DON'T HAVE A CONCERN THAT THE GUESTS WILL NOT HAVE A PLACE TO FIND PARKING ON THIS SITE. I THINK THAT THIS LEVEL OF MICROMANAGEMENT IS A LITTLE A LITTLE TOO MUCH FOR ME, BUT I DON'T WANT TO HOLD UP THE ZONING CHANGE OVER THAT ISSUE.

THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

OK, LET'S SEE HERE, AS WE HAVE, WE'VE CLEARED THE QUEUE, SO WE'LL GO BACK TO YOUR MOTION SIR, THAT.

YOUR ORIGINAL MOTION WAS TO APPROVE BASED ON THE PRESENTATION AND THE CHANGES MADE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION, AND WE HAD A SECOND BY DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM VERA, BUT THEN WE ALSO HAD THE PARKING ISSUE INCLUDED INTO YOUR MOTION.

THAT'S CORRECT. WHICH WHICH I THINK IN OUR OUR DISCUSSIONS ARE PROBABLY, ACCORDING TO OUR LEGAL STAFF, PROBABLY NOT APPROPRIATE.

THEN I WOULD REQUEST I COULD TAKE ANOTHER SHOT AT IT.

SO LET ME TRY THIS AGAIN, THEN.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING AND DETAILED PLAN REQUEST FOR FILE NUMBER Z19-31 ONE, LOCATED AT 5751 MARVIN LOVING DRIVE AND TO INCLUDE THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED.

DOES THE SECOND CONCUR? ALL RIGHT. ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION, IF NOT, OH, HANG ON, COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS. YEAH, MAYOR, JUST PUT THIS KIND OF PUT THIS THIS HORSE TO SLEEP.

WELL, I'M TRYING AS BEST I CAN SIR.

ON THE ADVICE OF CITY ATTORNEY.

IF THE CITY ATTORNEY IS SO DETERMINED THEN I WITHDRAW THAT RECOMMENDATION, EVEN WITH THE APPEARANCE OF VOLUNTARY WILLINGNESS TO DO THIS SO THAT WE CAN MOVE THIS CASE OUT, IF THAT'S AN ISSUE FOR JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.

ALL RIGHT. OK.

THE SUGGESTION HAS BEEN REMOVED AS WELL AS THE AMENDMENT.

SO. ALL RIGHT.

AND WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, PLEASE, COUNCIL, IF YOU COULD, PLEASE VOTE.

AND THAT ITEM IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL GOOD NIGHT.

THANK YOU, MR. FISHER. THANK YOU.

WE'LL TALK ABOUT YOUR ARTWORK IN THE BACKGROUND LATER.

ALL RIGHT, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEMS 5I AND 5J.

[Items 5I & 5J]

5I IS CONSIDER A ZONING REQUEST BY NATIONWIDE CONSTRUCTION TO BUILD A CHURCH AT 1706, 1710 AND 1714 PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD IN DISTRICT ONE AND ITEM 5J IS TO CONSIDER THE DETAILED PLAN FOR THE ABOVE ZONING REQUEST.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THIS IS THE REQUEST AS STATED.

THE CASE INFORMATION, THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 1706, 1710 AND 1714, PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD AND THE PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY THREE ACRES.

THE PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN TEAL WHICH IS ZONED PD 0742, AND IS SURROUNDED BY

[01:35:02]

AND PD 0052, WHICH ARE BOTH DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

TO THE WEST IS ZONED AGRICULTURE AND WAS RECENTLY APPROVED FOR A GUEST HOUSE AND ALSO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

TO THE NORTH IS ZONED PD 9453 AND IS ZONED FOR RETAIL, RESTAURANTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES, AND THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED.

THIS IS PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD.

THESE ARE PHOTOS OF THE AREA.

THIS IS THE SUBJECT SITE, AND THIS IS TO THE NORTH ON THAT UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY INTO THE EAST AND THE WEST OR OTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING, THEY'RE PROPOSING A TEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWENTY THREE SQUARE FOOT CHURCH BUILDING.

THE APPLICANT IS MEETING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AS PER THE GDC.

AND THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING A SIX FOOT HIGH MASON WALL THAT STOPS HERE.

AND THE REMAINING OF THE SIDE, THE APPLICANT IS KEEPING A THREE INCH FOOT CHAIN LINK.

THE APPLICANT IS MEETING THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS AS PER THE GDC, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE LANDSCAPING IS ON THE EXTERIOR PART OF THE PROPERTY . PER PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION, THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING TO THE WEST PART OF THE SITE, SCREENING THE PROPOSED BENCHES.

FROM THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS ON AGRICULTURE, IN ADDITION TO THE APPLICANT, IS ALSO PROVIDING DARK SKY LIGHTING FOR THE PROPOSED PARKING LOT TO AVOID A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

THESE ARE THE ELEVATIONS THAT THE APPLICANT IS.

PROVIDING THE NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION.

THE SOUTH ELEVATION AND THE EAST ELEVATION.

THE APPLICANT IS MEETING THESE SIX ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS ON THE FRONT STREET FACING.

ELEVATION, WHICH IS THE NORTH ELEVATION.

AND ALSO THE EAST ELEVATION, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING DEVIATIONS FROM THE OTHER TWO ELEVATIONS, HOWEVER, THEY ARE PROVIDING ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS SUCH AS DIVIDED LIGHT W INDOWS BENCHES AND AWNINGS ON THOSE THE SOUTH AND WEST ELEVATION.

THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT IS TWENTY FOUR FEET TO THE HIGHEST DECORATIVE FEATURE, THE BASE ZONING IS A NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE, WHICH REQUIRES A MAXIMUM OF 20 FEET TO THE HIGHEST DECORATIVE FEATURE AS PER THE GDC.

HOWEVER, THE PD HAS A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF ONE STORY AND THE PROPOSED CHURCH BUILDING IS ONE STOREY ALSO PROVIDED A PD CONDITION WHICH IS DRAFTED, LIMITING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO THE TWENTY FOUR FEET TO THE HIGHEST DECORATIVE FEATURE.

THE APPLICANT IS NOT PROPOSING A SIGNAGE AT THIS TIME, HOWEVER, IF THE APPLICANT P A SIGN IN THE FUTURE, IT MUST MEET THE GDC REQUIREMENTS.

THESE ARE THE DEVIATION SUMMARY THAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER IN THE PRESENTATION, THE GDC REQUIRES 20 FEET TO THE HIGHEST DECORATIVE FEATURE AND THE APPLICATION IS PROPOSING TWENTY FOUR FEET TO THE HIGHEST DECORATIVE FEATURE.

THE GDC REQUIRES SIX ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS OF ALL ELEVATIONS, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING SIX ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS ON THE FRONT STREET FACING BUILDING FACADE AND THE EAST FACADE.

[01:40:06]

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

APPROVAL OF ONE, AN AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 0742 TO ADD A CHURCH OR PLACE OF WORSHIP AND TWO A DETAILED PLAN FOR A CHURCH OR PLACE OF WORSHIP ON A PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 0742.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON NOVEMBER 9TH RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A VOTE OF NINE TO ZERO RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL.

IN ADDITION, THE COMMISSION FURTHER RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING AROUND THE EXISTING BENCHES TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY AND LOW LEVEL LIGHTING TO PROTECT THE SURROUNDING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

AND AS SHOWN IN THE PRESENTATION, THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED REVISIONS REFLECTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

WE MAILED OUT 80 NOTIFICATION LETTERS, FIVE ARE IN FAVOR INSIDE THE NOTIFICATION AREA, ONE ARE AGAINST INSIDE THE NOTIFICATION AREA, AND TWO ARE IN FAVOR OUTSIDE THE NOTIFICATION AREA. THE TOTAL RESPONSE WAS EIGHT.

AND THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.

VERY GOOD THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? I SEE NONE, I BELIEVE WE HAVE THE APPLICANTS A LIMB HERE. I'VE OPENED THE LINE ON OUR END.

MR. JOHN. YES, I AM.

AND MY NAME IS A IN SACHSE, 75048.

I AM THE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT OF THE I BELIEVE THE NATIONWIDE I THINK THEY ARE. I DON'T KNOW THEY WILL BE DIALING IN TO TALK MORE ABOUT PLAN AND THEY SHOULD BE A MORE MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MATTERS.

ANY OTHER QUESTION? IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTION, I CAN EXPLAIN AS MUCH AS I CAN.

I ALSO HAVE GINA MCLEAN.

YES.

YES, I'M AVAILABLE.

I'M WITH NATIONWIDE CONSTRUCTION AT S721 S FIFTH AVENUE, MANSFIELD, TEXAS.

I AM THE APPLICANT FOR THE CHURCH.

OK, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER DETAILS YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE US WITH? BASICALLY, I THINK KIMBERLY COVERED IT VERY WELL.

WE HAVE AGREED TO ALL OF THE CHANGES THAT THE THAT WERE RECOMMENDED TO US, THE AG SINGLE FAMILY TO THE NORTH OF US.

HE DID STEP UP DURING P&Z ALSO STATED HE AGREES WITH THIS, THE FENCE TO GO BETWEEN THOSE TWO PROPERTIES HE'S AGREED TO SUPPLY BECAUSE HE WANTS IT TO COMPLEMENT HIS HOUSE ON THAT SIDE. SO WE WORKED THAT OUT WITH HIM VERSUS A CROSS ACCESS WE ACTUALLY HAVE WITH HIS PROPERTY. SO I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE MAJORITY OF OUR CONVERSATION AT THE MEETING.

ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE FOR US? LET ME SEE.

DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM VERA.

YES. ARE YOU PLANNING TO DO ANY KIND OF SIGNAGE? THAT WOULD BE A BETTER QUESTION FOR I FIGURE IN THE FUTURE THEY WILL WANT SOMETHING ON FOR THEIR BUILDING OR OUT THERE.

AT THIS TIME, WE HAVE NOT PROPOSED ANYTHING, BUT.

OK, THANK YOU. YOU BET.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THIS APPLICANT, COUNCIL MEMBER NICKERSON? THANK YOU. AND MAYBE A LITTLE MORE FOR THE STAFF AS WELL, I GUESS, KIMBERLY, HAS TRANSPORTATION LOOKED AT THIS AS FAR AS TRAFFIC ENTERING AND EXITING FROM THE SITE ON

[01:45:02]

PLEASANT VALLEY THERE.

WHAT DID THEY HAVE TO SAY? TRANSPORTATION DID REVIEW IT AND THEY DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS.

OK, IS THERE A IS THERE A MEDIAN IN THE ROAD AT THAT POINT? I CAN'T I COULDN'T TELL FROM THE PICTURES, BUT DO YOU KNOW, KIMBERLY? I BELIEVE THERE IS A MEDIAN.

YEAH, I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THERE WAS A CUT THROUGH OR A BREAK IN THE MEDIAN SO THAT PEOPLE COULD ACCESS THE STREET FROM THE SITE IF THEY WANTED TO GO LEFT OR OR SO ON OUT OF THE. OUT OF THE SITE, BECAUSE IT COULD POSE SOME TRAFFIC CONGESTION AT THE RIGHT TIMES WHEN THE CHURCH MAY BE LETTING OUT OR SO ON, AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF TRANSPORTATION HAD TAKEN THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

I'M NOT QUITE SURE IF THEY TOOK THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

OK. MR. YEAH, WELL, I CAN'T SPEAK REAL INTIMATELY TO THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE, BUT I KNOW THAT IS SOMETHING THEY DEFINITELY LOOK AT.

IF THE TRAFFIC WARRANTS IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING MEDIAN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEY'LL DEFINITELY COMMENT ON THAT AND REQUIRE THAT.

AND OFTENTIMES YOU'LL SEE THAT REFLECTED IN THE SITE PLAN.

SO LIKE I SAID, I DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS OF THAT EXACT ISSUE, BUT TRANSPORTATION IS CERTAINLY VERY DILIGENT AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK SO.

AND AS IN ANY DETAILED PLAN, IT DOES GO THROUGH THEM ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS, AND WE DON'T MOVE IT FORWARD UNTIL THEY GIVE THEIR THUMBS UP AND THEY REVIEW IT AND STUDIED IT. SO THEY'VE PROVIDED NO COMMENT OR CONCERN IN THAT REGARD AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW. CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, KIMBERLY.

THANK YOU, SIR. COUNCIL, UNLESS THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, WE HAVE CLEARED THE QUEUE AND THIS IS IN DISTRICT ONE, COUNCIL LADY MORRIS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. IN THE ABSENCE OF OUR DISTRICT ONE COUNCIL, SINCE IT'S IN VIRTUALLY IN THE NEXT SEAT, I'LL BE HAPPY TO MAKE THIS MOTION.

PLEASE DO. OK, THEN I MOVE TO APPROVE PLEASE NOTE THE ZONING REQUEST AND DETAILED PLAN REQUEST BY NATIONWIDE CONSTRUCTION TO BUILD A CHURCH AT 1706, 1710 AND 1714 PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD AND TO INCLUDE ALL RECOMMENDATIONS PUT FORTH BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

A MOTION BY COUNCIL LADY MORRIS TO APPROVE THIS ITEM, AS PRESENTED WITH THE ADDITION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND I HAVE A SECOND BY DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM VERA.

AND THIS WILL BE FOR THE ZONING REQUEST AND THE DETAILED PLAN AS WELL, AND WITHOUT ANY, UNLESS THERE'S ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION COUNCIL, PLEASE VOTE.

AND THAT ITEM IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. AND THAT WAS THE LAST ZONING CASE WE HAD BEFORE US THIS EVENING.

THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER SIX, CITIZEN COMMENTS.

[6. Citizen Comments.]

PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS ISSUE NOT ON THE AGENDA MAY HAVE THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS COUNCIL AT THIS TIME.

COUNCIL IS PROHIBITED FROM DISCUSSING ANY ITEM NOT POSTED, ACCORDING TO THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT. AND WHEN I RECOGNIZE YOU, IF I CAN GET YOU TO GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. JOSHUA GARCIA.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, . 75043 YOU HEAR ME? I HEARD SOME NOISE.

NO, YOU'RE GOOD. GO AHEAD.

OH. OK, SORRY.

YEAH, I WAS, GOING TO SAY THAT I WANTED TO SAY DISTRICT ONE YESTERDAY THAT I HEARD THE INTERVIEWS, IT WAS A REALLY GREAT, REALLY GREAT JOB. I WANT TO WISH THEM LUCK TO THEM.

I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT IT WAS AN HONOR AND A PLEASURE TO HAVE A COUNCIL MEMBER GIBBONS IN THE COUNCIL. I ENJOYED TALKING AND SEEING HIM IN PERSON.

I WISH I COULD JUST SHAKE HIS HAND, BUT UNFORTUNATELY I CAN'T WITH THIS COLD WEATHER, I'M MISSING EVERYBODY.

[01:50:01]

AND, YOU KNOW, I WISH HIM THE BEST IN HIS NEW JOB.

SO. SO, YEAH, I WANTED TO TALK TO YOU GUYS ABOUT THE GOOD CANDIDATES, WHICH MEANS LIKE RESPONSIBLY SERVE THE CITIZENS LIKE WELL, PERSON FOR THE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE LIKE I WOULD SAY THEY HAVE TO BE IN DISTRICT ONE. AND ALSO I'VE BEEN HEARING LIKE YOU GUYS WHEN YOU GUYS DO THE OATH OF OFFICE, LIKE THE FACT. JOSH, ARE YOU STILL THERE? YOU'LL NEED TO UNMUTE ON YOUR END, JOSH, YOU'VE GOT ABOUT A MINUTE LEFT.

YEAH, AND THEN ALSO THE AND PROFESSIONALS LIKE GOOD, GOOD APPEARANCE AND OTHER DEMONSTRATIONS LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE THIS EXAMPLE, THE LEADERS DEMONSTRATE LIKE LEADERSHIP.

AND LET ME TELL YOU, I'M GOING TO NEED YOU TO SUM UP PLEASE.

OK, WITH THAT, THAT'LL BE IT.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, SIR.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL THIS EVENING? SEEING NONE AT 8:50, WE ARE ADJOURNED.

THANK YOU, EVERYONE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.