Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:11]

GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE MARCH 22ND MEETING OF THE GARLAND PLANNING COMMISSION.

AS IS OUR CUSTOM WE COMMISSIONERS START OUR MEETING WITH A PRAYER AND A PLEDGE.

TONIGHT'S PRAYER AND PLEDGE WILL BE LED BY COMMISSIONER WELBORN.

LET US PRAY. OUR LORD AND DEAR HEAVENLY FATHER, WE THANK THEE FOR THIS DAY AND WE THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING YOU'VE GIVEN US.

DEAR LORD. BE WITH US TONIGHT AS WE DISCUSS THE BUSINESS OF THE CITY.

DEAR LORD, GO WITH US NOW AND GUIDE US AND PROTECT US THIS WEEK.

IN YOUR NAME WE PRAY.

AMEN.

PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.

ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

PERFECT UNISON, GENTLEMEN. THANK YOU.

AND IF YOU ARE WATCHING AND WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING, THE LINKS THAT YOU FOUND, YOU CAN ALSO SIGN UP AT THAT SAME LINK.

SO GO AHEAD AND DO THAT AND YOU CAN JOIN IN ON THE MEETING.

WE WILL START OUR MEETING WITH OUR CONSENT AGENDA.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

AND THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE ITEMS THAT THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE REVIEWED AND WILL BE VOTING ON IN ONE MOTION TO APPROVE.

ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS WHO WISH FOR AN ITEM TO BE REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA CAN.

IF SOMEBODY IN THE AUDIENCE, WISHES AN ITEM TO BE REMOVED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, THEY CAN DO THAT, TOO.

LET ME GO AHEAD AND READ THESE AS WE START.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 1A CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES FOR MARCH 8TH, 2021 MEETING.

ITEM 2AP21-11 ROWLETT PLAZA FINAL PLAT.

ANY COMMISSIONERS WANT THAT ITEM REMOVED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? AND I'M NOT HEARING ANYTHING AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WANTS IT REMOVED.

SHALL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MR. CHAIR? COMMISSIONER DALTON? WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE SECOND.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DALTON.

WHERE DID I HEAR THE SECOND FROM? WELBORN. WELL, COMMISSIONER WELBORN.

OK, GOOD. ALL IN FAVOR? THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

ALL RIGHTY. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

NOW APPLICANTS WILL BE GIVEN FIFTEEN MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR CASE.

OTHER SPEAKERS WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

WE ASK EVERYBODY WHO COMES ON TO SPEAK, IF YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS INTO YOUR MICROPHONE.

THAT WAY WE HAVE IT ON THE RECORD.

AND SO LET ME GO AHEAD AND START WITH ZONING CASE 3A.

[Items 3.a - 3.c]

AND THIS IS A THREE PARTER.

WE'LL PUT THEM ALL TOGETHER FOR ONE VOTE.

BUT IF WE NEED TO SEPARATE THEM, WE WILL DO THAT.

ITEM 3A CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION RODOLFO V.

HERRERA ELIZALDE REQUESTING APPROVAL OF CHANGING ZONING FROM SINGLE FAMILY SF7 TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR SINGLE FAMILY SF7 USES.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED 1544 FLORES DRIVE.

ITEM 3B CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION OF RODOLFO V.

HERRERA ELIZALDE REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC USE PROVISION FOR GUEST HOUSE AND PROPERTY ZONE SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN.

ITEM 3C CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF RODOLFO HERRERA ELIZALDE REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A DETAILED PLAN FOR A GUEST HOUSE.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED 1544 FLORES.

STAFF PRESENTATION? THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING.

THIS CASE IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, A SPECIFIC USE PROVISION AND A PLAN FOR A GUEST HOUSE USE. AND HERE'S THE CASE INFORMATION.

THE ACREAGE IS APPROXIMATELY .415 ACRE.

AND THIS IS THE CITYWIDE LOCATION MAP.

THE RED STAR ROUGHLY IDENTIFIES THE LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THIS IS THE LOCATION MAP, THE BLUE COLOR OUTLINE REPRESENTS, OUTLINES THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING ZONING ARE ALL MAINLY SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN DISTRICTS AND DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE ENVISION GARLAND PLAN DESIGNATES THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

[00:05:06]

AND THIS IS THE NARRATIVE, TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOODS ARE CURRENTLY FOUND THROUGHOUT GARLAND AND PROVIDES AREAS FOR LOW TO MODERATE DENSITY, SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL HOUSING, AND THE PROPOSED USE COMPLIES WITH THE ENVISION GARLAND PLAN.

AND HERE ARE SOME OF THE PHOTOS.

LEFT IS VIEW OF THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE GUEST HOUSE.

THE TOP RIGHT IS LOOKING AT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM FLORES DRIVE.

THE BOTTOM LEFT IS LOOKING NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE BOTTOM RIGHT IS LOOKING EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

AND THIS IS THE SITE PLAN WHICH SHOWS THE EXISTING HOUSE.

THIS IS 1309 SQUARE FEET.

AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE GUEST HOUSE AND IT WILL BE 698 SQUARE FEET.

THERE IS ALSO A PROPOSED WALKWAY TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE GUEST HOUSE USE.

THE GUEST HOUSE REQUIRES A SPECIFIC USE PROVISION PER THE GDC, AND THE APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES A PLAN DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW A GREATER SQUARE FOOTAGE WHERE THE GUEST HOUSE MAXIMUM OF 30 PERCENT IS ALLOWED FOR THE GUEST HOUSE.

AND PER THE CALCULATION, 393 SQUARE FOOT IS ALLOWED AND THEY ARE PROPOSING 698 SQUARE FEET. THE GDC ALSO REQUIRES TWO PARKING SPACES FOR THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, WHICH IS THIS ONE AND ONE PARKING SPACE FOR THE GUEST HOUSE USE, AND THE SITE DOES SHOW THREE PARKING SPACES ON SITE.

AND HERE ARE THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS.

THIS IS THE WEST ELEVATION.

THIS IS THE SOUTH, AND THEY COMPLY WITH THE BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS.

THE NORTH ELEVATION AND THE EAST ELEVATION.

AND THIS IS THE SUMMARY TABLE OF THE DEVIATION, AND THE ONLY DEVIATION IS FOR THE BUILDING AREA, THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED IS 393 SQUARE FEET.

PROPOSED IS698 SQUARE FEET.

AND THE APPLICANT HAS USABLE SPACE ON THE LOT AND WOULD LIKE TO BUILD A LARGER GUEST HOUSE TO INVITE RELATIVES.

THE APPLICANT REQUEST THE SUP TO BE IN EFFECT FOR AN INDEFINITE TIME PERIOD.

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE PROPOSED GUEST HOUSE CONFORMS TO THE GDC MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT, THUS ELIMINATING THE NEED FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.

THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE ZONING CHANGE FROM SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN DISTRICT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN USE.

APPROVAL OF THIS SPECIFIC USE PROVISION FOR THE GUEST HOUSE AND APPROVAL OF A PLAN WHERE THE GUEST HOUSE USE ON A PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN DISTRICT SUBJECT TO CONFORMANCE WITH THE GDC MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT WHERE THE GUEST HOUSE.

AND WE DID MAIL OUT66 LETTERS AND WE ONLY RECEIVED ONE RESPONSE, WHICH WAS WITHIN THE NOTIFICATION AREA AND AGAINST THE REQUEST.

AND THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN? COMMISSIONER ROSE? DON'T RECALL SEEING WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE COMPOSITION OF THIS GUEST HOUSE? FOUR BEDROOMS, ONE BEDROOM, THREE BATHS, ONE BATH? WHAT? I BELIEVE IT'S TWO BEDROOM, BUT THE APPLICANT WOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT BETTER.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER OTT? AND UNMUTE, PLEASE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND 393 SQUARE FEET IS A REALLY SMALL AUXILIARY SPACE.

BUT IS THAT CALCULATION, THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPERTY OR IS THAT THE HABITABLE SPACE LIKE IF THEY MADE A TWO STORY STRUCTURE? WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO DO THAT? SO THE CALCULATION IS 30 PERCENT OF THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT.

THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE IS 1309, AND SO THAT 30 PERCENT IS FROM THAT 1309 FOOTPRINT.

OK, SO THEY COULD ACTUALLY HAVE SOMETHING.

THEY COULD GET THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THEY WANTED IF THEY HAD A TWO STORY HOUSE OR A TWO STORY AUXILIARY PROPERTY ON THERE.

CORRECT? UM.

[00:10:04]

YOU KNOW, I WONDER IF WE COULD VERIFY THAT, BECAUSE I THOUGHT IS BASED UPON SQUARE FOOTAGE, NOT NECESSARILY THE FOOTPRINT.

SO IF THE EXISTING HOUSE WERE TWO STORY HAD 2,600 SQUARE FEET, IT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THAT. VERSUS JUST A 1300 SQUARE FOOT FIRST FLOOR.

, I THINK. OK,I COULD TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

WILL'S LOOKING INTO IT RIGHT.

I CAN SEE HIM. MADLY GOING THROUGH HIS GDC HERE.

OK. GOOD QUESTION. THAT'S THEN THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. AND WHILE HE'S LOOKING IT UP, COMMISSIONER WELBORN? COULD YOU TELL ME OR I MIGHT HAVE MISSED IT? HOW MANY SQUARE FEET'S IN THE PRESENT HOUSE THAT'S IN FRONT OF IT? 1309.

1509? 1309.. OK.

AND MR. CHAIRMAN. YEAH, THE REGULATION IT ISN'T A DEFINITION OF GUEST HOUSE.

IT DOES SAY IT SHALL NOT EXCEED 30 PERCENT OF THE FLOOR AREA OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE.

OK, THAT WOULD BE IN REGULAR ARCHITECTURAL RESIDENTIAL TERMS, THE LIVING SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHICH INCLUDES FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS.

YEAH. AND I HAVE A QUESTION THAT JUST POPPED IN, AND YOU MAY OR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER TO THAT ONE PICTURE LOOKED LIKE THEY'RE JUST GOING TO BE SITTING IT ON THE GROUND AND LOOKED LIKE THEY HAD A POST SITTING ON SOME KIND OF WOOD PLATE, I GUESS, THAT'S TO THE APPLICANT TO FIND OUT WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE ON PIERS OR SLAB.

THE APPLICANT WOULD BE ABLE TO BEST ANSWER THAT.

OK. PART OF THE REASON I MENTIONED IT SO THEY COULD ADDRESS IT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? ALL RIGHTY.

AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE.

LET'S SEE? YEAH, MR. HERRERA? YES, SIR. YEAH, GO AHEAD AND NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR MISPRONOUNCING YOUR LAST NAME. I TOOK FRENCH AND I JUST DON'T GET IT.

AND HOW ARE YOU DOING, SIR? OH, OK.

SO THE ADDRESS IS 1544 FLORES DRIVE.

OK. YOU MAY HAVE HEARD SOME OF THE QUESTIONS AND THE PRESENTATION.

DO YOU HAVE ANY INPUT FOR US? WELL ACTUALLY THE, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE BUILDING IS GOING TO BE SITTING ON TOP OF PIER AND BEAM. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ON WOOD OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

IT'LL BE SITTING ON TOP OF WHAT SIR? ON PIER AND BEAM. ON, PIER AND BEAM, OK, GOOD.

PIER AND BEAM AT 12 INCHES AROUND AND TWO FEET DEEP.

YEAH, GOOD.

OK. BUILDING INSPECTION WOULD REQUIRE THAT ANYHOW.

THANK YOU, SIR.

SQUARE FEET, ONLY ABOUT 400 FEET BE ALLOWED.

AND TO MAKE IT A TWO STORY? NOW, I THINK WE JUST CLARIFIED THAT IT WOULD BE FOUR HUNDRED SQUARE FEET OF TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S A TWO STORY AND ADDS UP TO 400 SQUARE FEET, FINE, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY'D QUITE BE HAPPENING.

SO IT MIGHT BE ABOUT 20 BY 20.

SPACE FOR. IT'S THIS RECOMMENDATION.

OK, SIR. WHAT WERE THE REST OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS WERE ASKING? LET'S SEE, WE HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE GOING INTO THAT.

COMMISSIONER ROSE HAS A QUESTION AND YOUR EXISTING HOUSE IS ABOUT THIRTEEN HUNDRED SQUARE FEET, CORRECT? YES, SIR.

OK, THAT WAS ONE OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER ROSE? WHAT'S THE COMPOSITION OF THIS GUEST HOUSE? IS IT GOING TO BE THREE BEDROOMS, ONE BEDROOM, ONE GREAT BIG ROOM WITH A BATHROOM? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO BE PUTTING IN THERE? THERE WILL BE TWO BEDROOMS, SIR.

AND A BATH? AND A BATH.

AND A KITCHEN AREA? NO. IT'S JUST TWO BEDROOMS AND A BATH? YES AND A LIVING ROOM AREA.

AND A LIVING AREA? YES, SIR.

AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS GUEST HOUSE IS FOR WHAT, AGAIN? FOR WHEN FAMILY MEMBERS COME INTO TOWN OR THEY'RE TRAVELING, THEY CAN HAVE A PLACE TO STAY. OK.

RIGHT. AND YOU DO UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT ALLOWED TO BE RENTED AT ALL? YES, SIR. OK.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN?

[00:15:02]

COMMISSIONER DALTON? WHY WERE YOU ASKING FOR AN ISSUE, AN SUP, INSTEAD OF JUST LETTING IT GO ON THE SF7? UNLESS IT'S REQUIRED FOR ANY GUEST HOUSE.

PARDON? AN SUP I BELIEVE IS REQUIRED FOR ANY GUEST HOUSE, CORRECT? YES, SIR.

YEAH, OK.

THANK YOU. THAT'S CORRECT, MR. CHAIRMAN. ALL RIGHT.

COMMISSIONER ROSE? I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE, YOU'VE GOT TWO BEDROOMS AND A BATH.

THAT MIGHT TAKE THREE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET OR SO.

WHY DO YOU NEED SUCH A BIG LIVING AREA IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SEVEN, ALMOST 700 FEET? I MEAN, JUST THINKING ABOUT.

WELL, IF ALL THEY'RE GOING TO DO IS SLEEP THERE WHILE THEY'RE VISITING YOU, WHY DO THEY NEED SUCH A HUGE SPACE? WELL, WE WOULD NEED A BIGGER AREA FOR THE KIDS, BEDROOMS FOR KIDS AND ADULTS.

JUST SO EVERYBODY CAN HAVE ENOUGH SPACE TO STAY SOMEWHERE.

BUT HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU ANTICIPATE STAYING THERE AT ONE PARTICULAR TIME? IT COULD VARY FROM THREE TO FOUR.

OK, IT'S.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I SHOW NO OTHER SPEAKERS IN THIS ITEM.

EXCUSE ME, CHAIRMAN ROBERTS? YES, THE SECOND GENTLEMAN THAT WAS SPEAKING, CAN WE PLEASE GET HIS NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? OK, GOOD.

THERE WERE TWO OF YOU ON THE LINE.

IF I COULD GET BOTH YOUR NAMES AND ADDRESSES FOR THE RECORD.

WE WOULD APPRECIATE IT.

UH, RODOLFO.

OK, AND YOUR ADDRESS, 2802 JORDAN VALLEY ROAD.

DALLAS, TEXAS, 75253.

OK, GREAT, THAT GETS BOTH OF THEM, I THINK.

ALL RIGHTY.

OK, I SEE NO OTHER INPUT, SO COMMISSIONERS, I TURN IT BACK TO YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

COMMISSIONER WELBORN? MR. CHAIRMAN I'D LIKE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TURN IT OVER TO THE COMMISSION FOR A DISCUSSION OF MOTION.

OK A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WELBORN AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ALL IN FAVOR? AND THAT IS UNANIMOUS, WE ARE IN DISCUSSION MODE.

I'LL SPEAK UP FIRST THIS IS IN DISTRICT FIVE.

YEAH, I'LL BE VOTING OR MAKING A MOTION TO DENY THIS.

THE GDC, ID DOESN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GDC AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT IT'S THE PROPER PLACE OR PROPER LAND USE FOR THE AREA.

AND I WILL BE DENYING IT.

COMMISSIONER ROSE? I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE SIZE S700 SQUARE FEET VERSUS, YOU KNOW, NOT QUITE A FOUR HUNDRED FEET.

IF ALL THEY'RE DOING IS PROVIDING A SPACE FOR FAMILY TO STAY THERE FOR TWO OR THREE NIGHTS. A 400 FEET TWO BEDROOMS AND A BATH OUGHT TO BE MORE THAN ENOUGH.

BUT 700 FEET, YOU KNOW, ARE THEY GOING TO RENT IT OUT TO LIKE, A LOT OF OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS, PEOPLE BUY A HOUSE AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY'RE TWO OR THREE KIDS LIVING THERE BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO COLLEGE.

AND WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, THE SIZE. ALL RIGHTY.

COMMISSIONER OTT? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I TOO, I ECHO WHAT COMMISSIONER ROSE IS SAYING IS THAT THE SIZE OF IT, I THINK THAT THE GDC SPELLS OUT QUITE WELL HOW TO HAVE AN AUXILIARY PROPERTY AND FOUR HUNDRED SQUARE FEET. WELL, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT IS AN INCREDIBLE SIZE.

IT'S YOU CAN GET A LOT WITH 400 SQUARE FEET AND THEIR PURPOSE IS TO HAVE A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN JUST SLEEP AND BE ABLE TO HAVE A BATHROOM.

AND I THINK THEY CAN EASILY DO IT WITHIN THAT, WITHOUT HAVING TO HAVE WHAT WOULD BE SOME WOULD CALL SPOT ZONING, WHERE WE HAVE TO GETNEIGHBORHOOD TO TRY AND CARVE SOMETHING OUT THAT REALLY I DON'T THINK IS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE, BUT I AM COMFORTABLE ENOUGH WITH THE AUXILIARY RESIDENTS THERE.

[00:20:01]

WITH FOUR HUNDRED SQUARE FEET.

AND, YOU KNOW, I WOULD BE VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON IT.

ALL RIGHTY.

ANYTHING ELSE? AND JUST FOR A LITTLE HISTORY, AND IT'S IF Y'ALL RECALL DURING THE GDC PROCESS, WHICH IS WHEN THIS WAS ADDED TO OUR GDC, EVERYBODY WAS CALLING THEM GRANNY SUITES IN WHICH, YOU KNOW, ELDERLY PARENTS OR SOMEBODY WOULD LIVE THERE.

SO BE LIKE ONE BEDROOM, A LITTLE LIVING AREA AND KITCHEN, THAT KIND OF THING.

AND 700 SQUARE FEET'S A SMALL HOUSE.

AND I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT, YOU KNOW, WE COULD GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THE FOUR HUNDRED FEET, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE PREPARED TO DO THAT AND THAT WOULD JUST LINGER ON THE PROPERTY FOR ANYBODY TO DO.

WITHOUT KIND OF A PLAN GOING IN.

A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT JUST LEAVING IT THERE.

ALL RIGHT.

SHALL I ENTERTAIN A MOTION? I SEE NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.

CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

I HAVE A QUESTION, FIRST. COMMISSIONER ROSE. HAS ONE COMMENT FIRST AND THEN.

WELL, YOU SAY YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT APPROVING IT FOR 400 FEET AND THEN IT JUST SITS THERE. WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE? JUST TO DENY THE WHOLE THING? MM HMM. AND I BELIEVE THAT'S WHERE COMMISSIONER WELBORN'S HEADING.

I UNDERSTAND. I JUST WAS WONDERING WHAT, WHERE YOU'RE AT.

AND WE HAVE A THREE PART, JUST TO REMIND YOU, COMMISSIONER WELBORN, IT'S A THREE PARTER.

IT'S THE CHANGE IN ZONING TO THE PD.

IT'S THE SUP AND THE PLAN.

SO.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ALREADY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY ALL THREE REQUESTS ON THIS PROPERTY.

SO. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WELBORN AND I SAW A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS AND DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.

THE MOTION IS TO DENY THE REZONING TO A PD, TO DENY THE SPECIAL USE PROVISION, AND TO DENY THE PLAN. AND THE PLAN WOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MEET THE GDC IN TERMS OF SQUARE FOOTAGES. CHAIRMAN ROBERTS, CAN I ADD SOMETHING TO IT? YES.

WELL, I SEE THAT MOST OF THE CHAIRMAN'S CONCERNS ARE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AREA, KEEP IN MIND, THIS IS ONLY GOING TO BE A SPACE WHERE FAMILY THAT'S TRAVELING OR IT'S IN THE HOLIDAY SEASON IS ONLY COMING IN.

SO WHEN FAMILIES TRAVEL, IT'S A GOOD AMOUNT THAT INVOLVES SIX, SEVEN PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, VARIOUS PEOPLE. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO HAVE A LOCATION FOR THEM TO STAY.

SO KEEP IN MIND, IF YOU ONLY KEEP IN FIVE, SIX, SEVEN PEOPLE IN THE FOUR, 400 SQUARE FOOT AREA, THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE PRETTY MUCH BUNCHED UP AND PACKED.

WE BELIEVE THAT SEVEN HUNDRED SQUARE FEET IS A GOOD AMOUNT TO PUT FIVE TO SIX OR X AMOUNT OF PEOPLE IN THERE. JUST FOR VACATIONS OR TRAVELING PURPOSES.

ALL RIGHTY. THANK YOU.

WE ARE A LITTLE LESS FORMAL IN THE ZONE, SO I LET HIM GO AHEAD AND SPEAK.

WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO DENY.

AND THE SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THE MOTION IS TO DENY ALL IN FAVOR.

OK, THAT PASSES 7-2 WITH COMMISSIONERS JENKINS AND OTT IN OPPOSITION.

ALL RIGHTY.

NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA, AND THIS ONE IS A TWO PARTER.

ITEM 3D CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION OF ALLIANCE ARCHITECTS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A

[Items 3.d & 3.e]

SPECIFIC USE PROVISION FOR HIGH RISK USE ON PROPERTIES ZONED INDUSTRIAL.

THIS PROPERTY'S LOCATED AT 1600 SOUTH JUPITER.

ITEM 3E, CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION OF ALLIANCE ARCHITECTS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A PLAN FOR A HIGH RISK USE.

AND THIS IS LOCATED AT 1600 SOUTH JUPITER.

GOOD EVENING.

THIS IS THE REQUEST, THE STATED ZONE IN CASE 2103.

THIS IS THE CASE INFORMATION, THE PROJECT AS AN ACREAGE OF 11.947 ACRES AND IS IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.

THIS IS THE CITYWIDE MAP, THE STAR REPRESENTS THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THIS PROJECT.

THIS IS THE LOCATION MAP.

THE PROPERTY IS OUTLINED TEAL AND THIS IS SOUTH JUPITER.

THIS PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND TO THE WEST IS ZONED LIGHT

[00:25:06]

COMMERCIAL, WHICH IS CONSIST OF A RESTAURANT AND A FITNESS GYM.

THE REMAINING PROPERTIES AROUND THIS REQUEST IS ZONED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND IS CONSIST OF MANUFACTURING COMPANIES.

THIS IS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH IS FOR INDUSTRIAL CENTER FOR THIS LOCATION.

THIS IS FOR THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE PROPOSAL CONTRIBUTES TO THE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT SECTOR.

THESE ARE THE PHOTOS OF THE AREA.

THIS IS THE AREA OF REQUEST.

THIS IS THE LIGHT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT THAT IS TO THE WEST IS DEVELOPED WITH RESTAURANTS AND A FITNESS GYM, I STATED BEFORE.

TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH, THERE ARE TWO OTHER DISTRIBUTION CENTERS.

THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED THEY ARE REQUESTING A HIGH RISK USE TO RECEIVE, STORE, AND DISTRIBUTE HAND SANITIZER IN AND OUT OF THIS EXISTING BUILDING.

THE FACILITY WOULD OPERATE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY FROM 8 A.M.

TO 12:30 A.M.

AND THE PARKING IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GARLAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

ADDITIONAL PARKING IS NOT REQUIRED BY A HIGH RISK USE.

LANDSCAPING CURRENTLY EXISTS ON THIS SITE.

THE APPLICANT IS NOT REQUESTING A BUILDING EXPANSION NOR A PARKING LOT EXPANSION.

THEREFORE, THE LANDSCAPING IS NOT TRIGGERED BY THIS REQUEST.

SO THIS IS THE FLOOR PLAN OF THE BUILDING, STORAGE AREA, AND THE REMAINING BUILDING IS OUTLINED HERE. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT HAVE REVIEWED THIS REQUEST AND HAS NO OBJECTIONS.

WITH THIS PROJECT, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS REQUIRED TO HAVE AN ANNUAL INSPECTION BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THE APPLICANT REQUESTS A SPECIFIC USE PROVISION TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30TH OF 2019, WHICH IS THE LENGTH OF ECOLAB PROPERTY CURRENT LEASE FOR THIS FACILITY AT 1600 SOUTH JUPITER ROAD.

THE APPLICANT IS NOT REQUESTING ANY DEVIATIONS FOR THIS REQUEST, AND IT'S ONLY FOR A SUP.

WE MAILED OUT FOUR HUNDRED.

I MEAN, I'M SORRY, 104 NOTIFICATION LETTERS, ONE IN FAVOR WITHIN THE AREA AND ONE WITHIN THIS AREA IS AGAINST.

TOTAL NOTIFICATION LETTERS.

WAS TWO.

THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO PASS IT OVER TO CHIEF LOVETT TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS REQUEST.

ALL RIGHTY. WELCOME.

WELL, GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN ROBERTS AND COMMISSIONERS.

SO WE'VE REVIEWED ECOLAB PLAN AND THEY MEET THE CODE REQUIREMENTS.

THEY ARE DEALING WITH FINISHED PRODUCTS.

SO AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE MIXING ANYTHING OR PROCESSING ANYTHING. THEY'RE SIMPLY STORING THEM IN THE CONTAINERS IN WHICH THEY COME IN AND IN WHICH THEY'RE RECEIVED.

AND AS SHE SAID, MOST OF THESE PRODUCTS OR THESE PRODUCTS ARE HAND SANITIZERS.

AND AS WE'VE LEARNED IN THE PAST, LAST TIME THAT I CAME HERE, HAND SANITIZERS ARE PRIMARILY A FIRE HAZARD.

SO THEY ARE FLAMMABLE PRODUCTS.

IN OUR DEALINGS WITH THE ECOLAB.

THEY'VE ADDRESSED OUR FIRE, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S CONCERNS AND I WAS GONNA SAY IN REGARD TO THE DETAILS OF THEIR PROJECT, I'LL DEFER TO THE APPLICANT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS FAR AS THAT'S CONCERNED.

AND I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION.

WE HAD SOMEBODY SAY IT'S NOT SAFE, IS IT AN EXPLOSION RISK AT ALL OR JUST A FLAMMABLE RISK? WELL, I MEAN, IT'S A FLAMMABLE RISK IS WHAT THEY SHOWED ME.

OK. ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? YEAH COMMISSIONER ROSE, YOU MOVED OVER THERE.

THIS BUILDING HAVE A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN IT? YES, IT DOES.

[00:30:02]

THE WAREHOUSE ITSELF HAS AN EFSR SPRINKLER SYSTEM.

SO IT'S EARLY SUPPRESSION, FAST RESPONSE.

AND AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH PRIOR SPRINKLERS, I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'RE NOT FAST RESPONSE EARLY SUPPRESSION.

SEEMS LIKE THOSE ARE BACKWARDS, BUT YEAH.

SO THERE IS A SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN THE WAREHOUSE ITSELF.

AND THEN IN THIS PROPOSED PROJECT, WHERE THEY'RE BUILDING THE ROOM, THEN INSIDE THE ROOM WILL HAVE CEILING SPRINKLERS ALSO AND THEN THERE WILL BE RACKS INSIDE THERE AND THE RACKS WILL HAVE SPRINKLERS ALSO.

SO. SECOND QUESTION. YES SIR.

YOU DO AN ANNUAL INSPECTION THAT GETS THE REPORT THAT YOU? MAKE UP AFTER THE INSPECTION.

WHERE IS THAT? WHERE DOES THAT REPORT GO? IT JUST STAYS HERE WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT UNLESS SOMEBODY REQUESTS THE REPORT.

SO WE DON'T THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOESN'T GET THAT TO STAY ON TOP OF THE FACT THAT THEY NEED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR DESIRES? I MEAN, I GET, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY ON THAT.

ALL I KNOW IS THAT WHEN WE DO THE REPORT, WE HAVE IT HERE AND ANYBODY CAN REQUEST IT.

REQUESTING IT AND BEING AWARE OF NONCOMPLIANCE.

FOR INSTANCE, IF THEY'RE NON-COMPLIANT, YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING ANYWAY.

SURE. I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD IF THE REPORT SINCE THIS IS A CONDITION OF THE REQUEST.

THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SOMEWHERE, SOME PLACE GETS THIS REPORT IN ADDITION TO YOU ALL PUTTING IN YOUR FILE.

THAT'S JUST MY INPUT.

OK. AND THEN I'LL HAVE TO DEFER TO YOU GUYS, WHATEVER YOU WANT THERE.

ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER DALTON.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIR, THANK YOU CHIEF. ISN'T THIS SIMILAR, IF NOT THE SAME COMPANY, WE PASSED A MUCH SMALLER STORAGE AREA HERE SOME TIME BACK? I DON'T RECALL, IT WAS.

WELL, I THINK WHAT YOU MIGHT BE TALKING ABOUT, WE DEALT WITH ECOLAB IN THE PAST FOR A TANK OUTSIDE, BUT THEN WE DID.

OH, MY GOSH, I JUST FORGOT THE NAME.

COSMAX WAS THE ONE DOING THE HAND SANITIZERS.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? YES, THAT'S ONE.

NOW COSMAX IS NEXT DOOR, SO THEY'RE PRETTY CLOSE TO THEM.

BUT YES, THEY WERE ACTUALLY DOING A PROCESS WHERE THEY WERE TAKING IT OUT OF TANKS AND PUTTING THEM IN THE BOX.

RIGHT. YEAH, I THOUGHT THERE WAS SOMETHING SIMILAR, BUT NOT QUITE THE SAME.

YES SIR. YES SIR.

SO THE DIFFERENCE IN THAT IS THEY WERE ACTUALLY PUMPING THEM OUT OF BIG CONTAINERS AND PUTTING THEM IN THE LITTLE HAND SIZE BOTTLES.

WHERE THESE FOLKS ARE JUST BRINGING PRODUCTS, STORING AND THEN SHIPPING IT OUT TO WHEREVER IT GOES.

SO THEY'RE ENCLOSED CONTAINERS, THEY'RE NOT DOING ANY PROCESSES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

YES, SIR. COMMISSIONER OTT THEN COMMISSIONER WELBORN.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN, MY QUESTIONS WAS JUST ANSWERED BY COMMISSIONER DALTON.

I WAS THINKING ABOUT THAT OTHER I WASN'T SURE IF IT WAS RELATED, MY MEMORY JUST DIDN'T RECALL, BUT THAT'S BEEN ANSWERED.

THANK YOU. HAND SANITIZER SEEMS TO BE A BIG, BIG ITEM NOWADAYS.

YEP.

WONDER WHY.

COMMISSIONER WELBORN.

IS THIS GOING TO BE SANITIZER OR OTHER CHEMICALS? A MAJORITY OF IT WAS HAND SANITIZER.

I'LL HAVE TO LOOK UP.

I THOUGHT THERE MIGHT BE ONE OTHER PRODUCT IN THERE, BUT A MAJORITY OF IT WAS DEFINITELY HANDS SANITIZER. WELL, YOU HAVE.

REFERRED TO THAT APPLICANT ON THAT.

WE HAVE FOOD COMPANIES IN THE GARLAND AREA THAT SELLS CHEMICALS AND THEY HAVE RACKS OF CHEMICALS IN THEM. THEY HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH THEIR CHEMICALS.

SO I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THIS, MYSELF.

IT LEADS ME TO ANOTHER QUESTION THAT PROBABLY MR. GUERIN WILL HAVE TO ANSWER.

IS THIS SPECIFIC USE PROVISION TO ALLOW HIM TO PUT ANY HIGH RISK CHEMICAL IN THERE OR JUST THE CHEMICALS THAT THEY'VE SUBMITTED FOR THIS SPECIFIC USE PROVISION? LOOKING AT THE.

YEAH, IT'S MORE SPECIFIC TO THE MATERIAL.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I'VE GOT THE CONDITIONS PULLED UP HERE, DRAFT CONDITIONS, OF COURSE, BUT THE REFERENCES HAND SANITIZER, 80 PERCENT ALCOHOL, ANTISEPTIC.

WE TRY TO BE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC AND TO THE AREA IN QUESTION, IF POSSIBLE, 34 FLOOR PLAN. I THOUGHT SO. THAT'S WHY I READ IT AS.

SO I'M JUST MAKING SURE YEAH.

THANK YOU. GOOD QUESTION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALRIGHTY. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF POTENTIAL APPLICANTS HERE, SO IF THEY WANT TO BRING SOMEBODY ON OR.

[00:35:01]

TRACY WILL DO THAT FOR US.

YOU KNOW, TOM OR CARLOS.

OK, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW. OH, FANTASTIC, HI I'M.

YES, SIR. I'M CARLOS HUNDRED NORTH COLLINS BOULEVARD, SUITE ONE THOUSAND IN RICHARDSON, TEXAS.

ANYTHING TO ADD OR.

OR YOU'RE JUST HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS? NO, SIR. IN CASE YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, I'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO MY BEST AND ANSWER THEM. AND WE HAVE JIM WITH US HERE FROM ECOLAB THAT IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS THAT MAY COME UP WITH, SPECIFICALLY WITH THE PRODUCT OR WHAT THEY DO WITH IT AND THEIR STORAGE, WE CAN ANSWER THAT ALSO.

OK. ANY QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN? SEEING NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING OUT.

I'LL ASK TRACY, IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS? THERE IS NOT, SIR.

OK, COMMISSIONERS, I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL WE HAVE AT THIS MOMENT, SO MOTION DISCUSSION.

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. I LIKE A MOTION WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE REQUEST AS PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

I'LL SECOND THAT. OK, SO THAT BE FOR BOTH THIS SPECIFIC USE PROVISION AND THE PLAN, CORRECT? YES, SIR.

ALRIGHTY, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS TO APPROVE THIS SPECIFIC USE PROVISION AND THE PLAN.

AND COMMISSIONER WELBORN, I THINK YOU DID THE SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE VOTE.

THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

ALL RIGHTY, THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.

OK, NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA AND IN JUST A NOTE ON OUR SCHEDULE, THIS WILL BE OUR LAST PUBLIC HEARING ITEM BECAUSE ITEMS 2G AND 2H THE REQUESTS FROM GOOD SAMARITANS, THEY'VE

[Items 3.g & 3.h]

ASKED THAT THAT BE POSTPOSED TILL OUR APRIL 12TH MEETING.

SO THIS NEXT HEARING WILL BE OUR LAST ONE FOR TONIGHT.

AND THAT IS ITEM 2F CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION MVAH PARTNERS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF

[3.f. Consideration of the application of MVAH Partners, requesting approval of a Change in Zoning from Community Office (CO) District and Industrial (IN) District to Multi-Family (MF) District. This property is located at 1102 North Shiloh Road. (District 8) (File Z 21-04 - Zoning)]

A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM COMMUNITY OFFICE DISTRICT AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ONE ONE ZERO TWO NORTH SHILOH.

GOOD EVENING AGAIN. GOOD EVENING.

YEP WE SEE IT. THIS REQUEST IS A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM COMMUNITY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT.

HERE IS THE CASE INFORMATION AND THE ACREAGE IS APPROXIMATELY ELEVEN POINT EIGHT NINE ACRES. THE CITYWIDE LOCATION MAP AND THE RED STAR IDENTIFIES THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

IS THE LOCATION MAP AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S OUTLINED IN THIS TEAL BLUE COLOR.

THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH ARE ZONED PLAN DEVELOPMENT NINETY SEVEN DASH ZERO EIGHT FOR SINGLE FAMILY, MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT AND SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN DISTRICT.

AND THESE PROPERTIES ARE DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, AN APARTMENT AND A CHURCH.

THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST OR ZONED PLAN DEVELOPMENT NINETY SEVEN DASH THIRTY EIGHT, AND IT'S DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

THE PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH ARE ZONED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND COMMUNITY OFFICE DISTRICT, AND THEY'RE DEVELOPED WITH THE MANUFACTURING USE AND MEDICAL FACILITIES AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST.

ACROSS NORTH SHILOH ROAD ARE ZONED SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN DISTRICT AND THEY ARE DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE ENVISION GARLAND PLAN, DESIGNATED SUBJECT PROPERTY AS BUSINESS CENTER. AND THIS IS THE NARRATIVE.

BUSINESS CENTERS ARE GENERALLY LOCATED AT INTERSECTIONS OF MAJOR AND OR SECONDARY ARTERIAL STREETS OR SIGNIFICANT TRANSIT AREAS.

AND HERE ARE SOME OF THE PHOTOS, THE TOP LEFT IS VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM NORTH SHILOH ROAD. THE TOP RIGHT IS LOOKING NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND THAT'S THE APARTMENT COMPLEX.

THE BOTTOM LEFT IS LOOKING WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THESE ARE THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES

[00:40:06]

AND THE BOTTOM RIGHT IS LOOKING SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THIS REQUEST IS A TRADITIONAL REZONING WITHOUT A PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

A DETAILED PLAN IS NOT NOT REQUIRED FOR THIS REQUEST, IT WILL FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS FROM THE GARLAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT IS AN ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT INTENDED TO PROMOTE STABLE, QUALITY, ATTACHED OCCUPANCY, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND LIVABLE, SUSTAINABLE AND COMPACT RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES AT A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 18 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

INTENT OF THE REQUEST IS FOR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.

FURTHERMORE, THIS DEVELOPMENT IS IN THE MEDICAL DISTRICT STUDY AREA, AND ALTHOUGH THE STUDY IS IN THE PROCESS, THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE PRESENTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR VETERANS AND HOUSING FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE NEARBY VA HOSPITAL.

AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CHANGE FROM A COMMUNITY OFFICE DISTRICT AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT.

WE DID MAIL OUT SEVENTY SIX NOTIFICATION LETTERS AND ONE WAS WE ONLY RECEIVED ONE RESPONSE AND IT WAS WITHIN A NOTIFICATION AREA AND AGAINST THE REQUEST.

THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.

ALRIGHTY. THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? MS. ALLMENDINGER I WANT TO CONTINUE ON WITH THE LETTER THAT I SENT YOU EARLIER.

OH, COMMISSIONER OTT, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. ONE QUESTION I HAVE IS THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT 18 DWELLINGS PER ACRE ON THE DENSITY.

HOW DOES THAT COMPARE TO WHAT WE WERE JUST WE APPROVED OVER OFF OF AVENUE B AND GARLAND ROAD? CHAIRMAN, I'LL WEIGH IN ON THAT, AS I JUST PRESENTED THAT TO COUNCIL LAST WEEK.

SO IT'S FRESH ON MY MIND.

I BELIEVE THAT WAS A MUCH DENSER DEVELOPMENT.

I BELIEVE ABOUT 40, 40 ACRES PER UNIT AND, OF COURSE, A DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT.

IT IS NATURALLY A BIT MORE OF A DENSE THAN DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THEY WHAT THEY PLANNED FOR THAT AREA? I KNOW THEY'RE NOT PRESENTING DETAILED PLAN.

BUT IS THERE SOME SORT OF AN IDEA OF WHAT THE THOUGHT IS THAT'S GOING INTO THIS? YEAH, LIKE YOU SAID, WE DON'T HAVE A DETAILED PLAN INCORPORATED OR WITH THIS APPLICATION ACCOMPANYING IT, SO WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO REVIEW OR LOOK AT, AT THIS TIME THIS EVENING. I KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS RELATION TO WITH THE CITY COUNCIL, OF COURSE, WITH THE TAX CREDIT PROGRAM, OF COURSE.

SO THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME THOUGHTS.

I'LL PROBABLY DEFER FURTHER TO THE APPLICANT TO KIND OF GET INTO REALLY THEIR PLAN AND THEIR VISION FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.

ALRIGHT THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? AGAIN FOLLOWING UP. I DID A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH, AS YOU CAN TELL.

I LOOKED AT THE FEMA MAPS AND IT LOOKS LIKE ABOUT A THIRD TO A HALF OF THAT BACK PROPERTY PIECE IS GOING TO BE FLOODPLAIN.

SO IT LOOKS LIKE THEY WOULD HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF HAVING AN EFFECT OF 20 PLUS 20, 30 UNITS PER ACRE UNBUILDABLE PART.

AND ALSO NOTICED IN THE TAX MAPS THAT ARE TWO DISTINCTIVE OWNERSHIPS THERE, ONE IN THE BACK, I THINK WAS CALLED CC AND THE ONE IN THE FRONT WAS A BAYLOR OWNERSHIP.

AND I WAS WONDERING IF WE ALSO GOT TO SIGN OFF ON FROM BAYLOR FOR THE REZONING OF THOSE TWO STRIPS FOR MULTIFAMILY, BECAUSE THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TWO OWNERSHIP'S PROVIDING PERMISSION.

AND ALONG THOSE SAME LINES, IF FOR SOME REASON THIS DOESN'T GO, BAYLOR WOULD BE LEFT WITH PART ZONED INDUSTRIAL, PART ZONED MULTIFAMILY, AND I'D BE MORE INCLINED TO LEAVE THOSE LEGS OFF THE REZONING.

SO IF SOMETHING SHOULD HAPPEN, THE FRONT PROPERTY OWNER HAS MORE CONTIGUOUSLY ZONE PIECE OF LAND. AND AGAIN, THIS PURE LAND USE, BEING ABLE TO DEVELOP WHATEVER THEY PROPOSE DOES NOT GO. SO AS WANTING TO MAKE SURE WE GOT THE PERMISSION TO REZONE THAT BAYLOR PIECE OF LAND TOO. AND THEY'LL PROBABLY BE SOMETHING TO VERIFY BEFORE IT GOT TO COUNCIL.

COMMISSIONER OTT.

MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST TO CLARIFY, THAT IF THEY TAKE THOSE TWO LEGS OFF, DOESN'T THAT CUT OFF

[00:45:03]

THEIR ACCESS TO SHILOH ROAD OR? WELL, ARE THEY, WELL THE APPLICANT CAN PROBABLY CLARIFY THIS FOR ME.

ARE THEY IN THE PROCESS OF PURCHASING THOSE TWO LEGS? IF I RECALL, WE HAD AN ASSISTED LIVING DEVELOPMENT A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO, PROBABLY EIGHT OR MORE WANTING TO GO BACK IN THERE.

AND WE PASSED IT.

AND I WAS SURPRISED WHEN THIS WAS STILL COMMERCIAL OR WHATEVER.

I FORGET WHAT THE ORIGINAL USE IS, BUT BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT HAD GONE ALL THE WAY THROUGH COUNCIL, BUT APPARENTLY IT DIDN'T.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I CAN ACTUALLY CLARIFY THAT I SAW YOUR EMAIL EARLIER AND ACTUALLY KIRA AND I DID A LITTLE DIGGING. WELL, FOR ONE, THE CURRENT ZONING IS CORRECT.

IT IS COMMUNITY OFFICE.

THAT'S THE ZONING APP IS CORRECT AND STAFF'S REPORT IS CORRECT.

BUT YES, YOU'RE CORRECT AS WELL.

IT WAS IN 2010, THERE WAS A ZONING CHANGE FROM INDUSTRIAL, I BELIEVE I1 SPECIFICALLY TO HEALTH SERVICES DISTRICT FOR SOME TYPE OF ASSISTED LIVING USE THAT APPEARS TO HAVE MADE IT THROUGH COUNCIL. IT WAS APPROVED.

BUT IN 2015, WITH THE GDC ADOPTION OF THE NEW ZONING MAP, THE HEALTH SERVICES DISTRICT ESSENTIALLY WENT AWAY AND BECAME COMMUNITY OFFICE.

AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THIS YEAH. NO, NO, YOU'RE NOT.

OK, THANK YOU. AND IF I RECALL, I THINK THEY ONLY HAD THE ONE ACCESS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAD THE TWO OR NOT.

THAT IT WAS AN INTERNAL LOOP ROAD.

BUT I LOOKED I THOUGHT THERE WAS A PLAN THAT I HAD KEPT BECAUSE I DO ALSO DESIGN ASSISTED LIVING. AND I THOUGHT I KEPT GOING PRETTY NICE.

BUT I OK, THANK YOU. AND IF WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE? WHICH WOULD BE, OH, WE GOT FOUR TO CHOOSE FROM, SO I'LL LET Y'ALL CHOOSE WHICH ONES YOU WANT TO BRING FORWARD. AND THEN WE'LL ALSO HAVE A CITIZEN, MR. GARCIA, LATER.

HELLO, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN, AND NAME AND NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.

JUSTIN GREGORY.

AND THIS IS AN OHIO ADDRESS.

IT'S NINETY ONE HUNDRED CENTERPOINT DRIVE, WEST CHESTER, OHIO.

AND IF I MAY SHARE MY SCREEN, I THINK I'D AT LEAST BE ABLE TO ANSWER SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS ON EXACTLY WHAT OUR CONCEPT PLAN IS RIGHT NOW.

ALRIGHTY.

OK, ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE THAT? YES, WE CAN.

OK, SO I THINK I CAN ANSWER AT LEAST SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS.

THE FIRST ONE IS THAT THE WE ARE UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE OTHER PARCEL THAT YOU IDENTIFIED FROM BAYLOR, SCOTT AND WEISS.

THAT IS FOR ACCESS.

AND I DO BELIEVE THAT AT ONE POINT THERE HAVE BEEN PROPOSALS THAT HAD A SINGLE POINT OF ACCESS. WE ACTUALLY HAD A MEETING WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL AND THAT IS WHAT LED TO THE SECOND PROPOSED ACCESS POINT.

WE WERE ASKED TO DO THAT FOR FIRE REASONS, AND THAT IS WHY WE WENT UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE BAYLOR, SCOOT AND WEISS FOR THAT OTHER PARCEL.

AND I DO NOT BELIEVE WE WILL HAVE SUFFICIENT ACCESS WITHOUT THAT PARCEL.

HOWEVER, OUR BUILDING AND ALL OF OUR AMENITY SPACE, AS YOU CAN SEE, IS ON THE THE MAIN PARCEL. AND WE ALSO LAID OUT OUR BUILDING IN CONNECTION WITH THE TEAM YOU IDENTIFIED.

MY CIVIL ENGINEER, BGE CAN SPEAK TO THE SPECIFIC CONCERNS THERE.

WE ALSO HAVE OUR ARCHITECT ON THE LINE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THERE.

BUT JUST TO GIVE SORT OF AN OVERVIEW, WE DID MEET WITH THE CHURCH WHEN WE WERE LAYING OUT EVERYTHING TO THE NORTH ON THEIR SUPPORT OF THE DEAL.

AND WE SORT OF, YOU KNOW, LAID OUT OUR ACCESS TO THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE MIGHT BE AN OPPORTUNITY AT THE TIME WITH THEIR ACCESS.

BUT THAT'S COMPLETELY UP WITH THEM.

ALSO, AS YOU CAN SEE, WE ARE SETTING ASIDE MAJORITY OF THE THE OTHER PORTION OF THE BECAUSE WE REALLY ONLY NEED THE BACK AREA.

AND THEN ALSO, AS STAFF DISCUSSED, WE REALLY THINK THAT WE'LL BE DRAWING FROM THE VA HOSPITAL TO THE SOUTH.

THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AND GOOD THAT WE'RE IN THE SORT OF MEDICAL CORRIDOR THERE.

WOULD BE FOR HOSPITAL WORKERS AND THEN ALSO VETERANS.

SO I BELIEVE THAT THOSE WERE THE MAJORITY OF THE CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED.

BUT BEFORE, YOU KNOW, I PIVOT TO CIVIL ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT, I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THERE ARE ANY SORT OF OTHER HIGH LEVEL CONCERNS LIKE THAT ANSWER FOR YOU?

[00:50:06]

ANY QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN? I THINK YOU KIND OF ANSWERED MINE.

SO YOU'RE ALL IN CONTRACT FOR THAT WHOLE FRONT PARCEL, NOT JUST THE ACCESS ROADS? YES. SO WHAT WE DID IS WE UNDER CONTRACT FOR THE WHOLE PARCEL.

SO WE DIVIDE IT INTO TWO SORT OF CONTRACTS AND WE WILL BE BUYING THEM BOTH.

AND THE WHOLE IDEA IS SO THAT WE COULD HAVE OUR ACCESS ROADS WHILE ALSO MAINTAINING THAT OUT PARCEL FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE WE REALLY THINK THAT THAT OUT PARCEL WOULD BE GREAT FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND NOT FOR OUR USE.

AND MY OTHER QUESTION WAS, AND I GUESS YOUR CIVIL CAN TALK TO THIS, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE RECLAIMING SOME OF THE FLOODPLAIN IN ORDER TO PUT THE PARKING AND DRIVEWAY AROUND.

BUT IT STILL LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE A FEW HUNDRED FEET EASILY, PROBABLY THREE TO FIVE HUNDRED FEET FROM THE NEAREST HOUSE ACROSS THE CREEK THERE.

CORRECT. AND WE DID MEET WITH PRESIDENT HOA THERE.

AND I THINK HE WAS CONCEPTUALLY IN SUPPORT.

BUT THERE IS THAT NATURAL BARRIER.

AND I APOLOGIZE.

ONE LAST THING THAT STAFF DID ALLUDE TO.

WE HAD BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS WITH COUNCILMAN ROBERTS OR SORRY COUNCILMAN SMITH, AND WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH SORT OF THE TAX CREDIT PROCESS WITH THE CITY GOT THEIR SUPPORT AND THEY HAVE SEEN THE SAME PLAN THAT YOU'RE SEEING NOW.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? SEEING NONE. ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D CARE TO PRESENT THAT THAT JUST IT? YEAH I.

YEAH, I THAT'S REALLY THE EXTENT OF MY PRESENTATION UNLESS THERE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE UNITS OR ANYTHING ELSE.

OTHERWISE, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR DAVID GREER, BDE, HE'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

I DON'T SEE ANY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THAT'S THE APPLICANT AND WE HAVE A CITIZEN SPEAKER, DENNIS GARCIA.

WE BRING HIM ABOARD HERE.

HELLO. HELLO, MR. GARCIA, I NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

OK. DENNIS GARCIA AND MY ADDRESS IS ONE TWENTY TWO COUNTRY VIEW LANE GARLAND, TEXAS.

BUT I'M HERE AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF ST.

BARNABAS, WHICH IS THE CHURCH THAT IS JUST NORTH.

AND THE ADDRESS OF THE CHURCH IS TWELVE HUNDRED NORTH SHILOH GARLAND, TEXAS, SEVEN FIVE ZERO FOUR TWO. AND OK, WHOEVER DID THE PRESENTATION, YOU KIND OF CUT ME OUT OF THAT PRESENTATION WAS GOING ON.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY SAID.

BUT ANYWAY, I WAS JUST HERE BECAUSE I HAVE HAD A MEETING WITH THE PARTNERS CORPORATION THAT WANTS TO DO THIS AND WE HAVE HAD A MEETING AT THE CHURCH AND WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING ON DOING.

ALRIGHTY. GOOD.

ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. GARCIA? APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME TO COME OUT AND TALK TO US.

THANK YOU. EARLIER, YOU WERE COMMENTING ABOUT THE SENIOR CITIZEN PLACE THAT WAS HAD BEEN PLANNED ON BEING THERE.

WE HAD ALSO MET WITH HIM BACK AND SEVERAL YEARS AGO.

AND, YES, WE THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS ALSO TAKING PLACE.

THAT'S WHY WE WERE SURPRISED WHEN WE GOT NOTIFICATION FROM THE PARTNERS GROUPS AND THAT THEY HAD BACKED OUT AND THAT THEY WERE COMING IN.

AND AGAIN, LIKE I SAY, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING.

OK. GREAT. THANK YOU.

TRACY, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK? WE DO NOT, SIR.

ALRIGHT, GENTLEMEN, I'LL ENTERTAIN THAT WE ONLY GET ONE VOTE ON THIS ONE.

AND THIS IS FOR TO CHANGE THE ZONING, SO.

ANYBODY? COMMISSIONER OTT.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. WELL.

THIS LOOKS LIKE A REALLY GOOD PROJECT FOR THIS AREA.

IT'S EXCITING TO SEE THAT THERE'S GOING TO START AND WE'LL LIKELY SEE DIRT TURNING FAIRLY SOON. SO I WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND PASS THIS CHANGE IN ZONING AS PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OTT, FIRST SECOND WAS BY COMMISSIONER JENKINS.

[00:55:01]

ANY MOTION ON THE DISCUSSION, THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE CHANGE IN ZONING? ALRIGHTY, ALL IN FAVOR.

AND ALRIGHTY THAT IS UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. ALL RIGHT, THAT WAS THE LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA.

SO UNTIL OUR MEETING OF APRIL 12TH, WE ARE ADJOURNED.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU EVERYONE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.