[6. Consider an ordinance amending Chapter 33, "Transportation," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Garland, Texas to provide a parking offense for certain parking on public property; providing a penalty under the provisions of Sec. 10.05 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Garland, Texas; providing a Savings Clause and a Severability Clause; and providing an effective date.]

THREE TRANSPORTATION OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF GARLAND, TEXAS, TO PROVIDE A PARKING OFFENSE FOR CERTAIN PARKING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY, PROVIDING A PENALTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION TEN POINT ZERO FIVE OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BERLIN, TEXAS, PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

COUNCIL MEMBER AUBIN. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I WANTED TO PULL THIS FOR A SEPARATE VOTE, I KNOW THAT WE DISCUSSED THIS A FEW WEEKS AGO AND COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH AND I WERE IN THE MINORITY ON GOING FORWARD.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED NECESSARILY A LONG DISCUSSION.

AS YOU KNOW, I OPPOSE THIS ORDINANCE AS I THINK IT CONTRAVENES WHAT OUR INITIAL IDEAL WAS FOR THE PARKING ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM BEING GEARED TOWARD SAFETY ISSUES.

I KNOW IT'S SINCE BEEN SAID THAT WE WOULD ONLY ENFORCE THIS WITH AN EFFORT TO REDUCE THE OPERATION OF BUSINESSES THAT BRING A LOT OF THESE VEHICLES IN.

AND I OPPOSE CODIFYING A WHAT IS REALLY A SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT CHOOSING TO RIGHT AT THE OUTSET TO SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THIS ORDINANCE.

SO I OPPOSE IT.

AND THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT.

I THINK SOMEONE ELSE WILL [INAUDIBLE] I DON'T THINK I WANT TO [INAUDIBLE] THIS TIME MAKING A MOTION TO DENY IT.

SO I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANK YOU, SIR.

IS THERE ANYONE EXCUSE ME, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? I SEE NONE.

DEPUTY MAYOR PRO-TEM. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM SIX AS PRESENTED.

OK, I HAVE A MOTION BY DEPUTY MAYOR PRO-TEM MORRIS AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER HEDRICK TO APPROVE ITEM SIX AS PRESENTED.

I SEE NO OTHER DISCUSSION.

COUNCIL, PLEASE VOTE. AND THAT ITEM IS APPROVED SIX TO THREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS

[00:10:10]

AUBIN, SMITH AND VERA IN OPPOSITION.

MAYOR, I VOTE--GO AHEAD.

SO, I BELIEVE COUNCIL MEMBER VERA DID YOU INTEND TO VOTE YES.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING TO ME? YOU'RE ON MUTE. YES, SIR, I WORKED HARD ON THAT PROJECT.

OK, MADAM SECRETARY, IF YOU COULD SHOW THE VOTE ON THAT ITEM SEVEN TO TWO WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS, AUBIN AND SMITH IN OPPOSITION? YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT.

AND WE WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH OUR ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

ITEMS UNDER THIS SECTION, WE WILL HAVE TIME FOR APPLICANTS AND PUBLIC SPEAKERS.

APPLICANTS WILL BE GIVEN 10 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION.

THEN ANY SUBSEQUENT SPEAKERS WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES.

IF NEEDED, AT THE END OF COUNCIL QUESTIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENT, WE WILL OFFER TIME TO THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS THAT COME UP DURING THAT SECTION.

ITEM TWELVE IS A TWO PART CONSIDERATION 12A CONSIDER A ZONING REQUEST BY MANHARD

[12A. Consider a Zoning [Planned Development] request by Manhard Consulting to construct an apartment complex with 63 dwelling units on a site currently zoned Multi-Family District. The existing church building located at the northwest of the subject property, currently zoned Community Retail District, would be acquired, remodeled and used as an amenity for the proposed multi-family development. This property is located at 1214 and 1302 West Miller Road in District 5.]

[12B. Consider a Detail Plan request by Manhard Consulting to construct an apartment complex with 63 dwelling units on a site currently zoned Multi-Family District. The existing church building located at the northwest of the subject property, currently zoned Community Retail District, would be acquired, remodeled and used as an amenity for the proposed multi-family development. This property is located at 1214 and 1302 West Miller Road in District 5.]

CONSULTING TO CONSTRUCT AN APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH SIXTY THREE DWELLING UNITS ON A SITE CURRENTLY ZONED MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT.

THE EXISTING CHURCH BUILDING, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT, WOULD BE ACQUIRED, REMODELED AND USED AS AN AMENITY FOR THE PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1214 AND 1302 TO WEST MILLER ROADS IN DISTRICT FIVE.

AND THE SECOND PIECE TO THIS ONE IS CONSIDER A DETAILED PLAN REQUEST.

AND THIS IS BY THE SAME APPLICANT AT THE SAME REGISTERED PROPERTY.

AND MR. GUERIN.

YES, MAYOR, COUNCIL, GOOD EVENING.

SO THIS IS A REQUEST FOR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX COMPRISING OF SIXTY THREE DWELLING UNITS.

THIS IS THE CASE INFORMATION, THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 1214 AND 1302 WEST MILLER ROAD.

THE SITE IS TWO POINT THIRTY SIX ACRES AND THEY'RE ACTUALLY TWO ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATIONS ON THE PROPERTY, MULTIFAMILY AND COMMUNITY RETAIL.

I'LL PULL UP A ZONING MAP HERE IN A FEW SLIDES TO SHOW THAT FURTHER.

HERE'S A MAP SHOWING THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHERE THE RED STAR IS.

AND HERE IS A MORE SPECIFIC LOCATION THAT THE SUBJECT SITE IS OUTLINED IN TEAL HERE.

AND THE MAJORITY OF THE SITE, AS YOU CAN SEE BY THIS KIND OF BROWNISH ORANGE-ISH COLOR, IS MULTIFAMILY ZONING.

SO THE MAJORITY OF THE SITE IS ALREADY ZONED MULTIFAMILY AND ALLOWS FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. AND ACTUALLY THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL WHERE THE ACTUAL DWELLING UNITS WOULD GO WOULD BE ON THE MULTIFAMILY LAND.

BUT INCLUDED IN THE SUBJECT SITE IS THIS COMMUNITY RETAIL PIECE HERE SHOWN IN RED.

IT INCLUDES A FORMER VACANT CHURCH BUILDING THAT WOULD BE ACQUIRED AND INCORPORATED INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT. THE BUILDING WOULD BE REMODELED AND USED AS THE CLUBHOUSE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IDENTIFIES THE SUBJECT SITE AS URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND THE PROPOSAL.

COMPLIES WITH THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS DESIGNATION, URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS ESSENTIALLY TRANSLATES TO HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND THE PROPOSAL ALSO REPRESENTS INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL.

I SHOULD MENTION THAT THE SUBJECT SITE IS THE FORMER SITE OF THE MILLER GARDENS APARTMENTS. THOSE WERE DEMOLISHED SOME YEARS AGO, I BELIEVE, IN 2009-2010, AND THE MULTIFAMILY SITE AT LEAST HAS REMAINED VACANT.

HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT SITE, THE SUBJECT SITE SPECIFICALLY IS THIS ONE ON THE TOP LEFT. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S MOSTLY UNIMPROVED AND THEN THE BUILDING OVER TO THE RIGHT HAND SIDE WOULD BE REMODELED AND USED AS THE CLUBHOUSE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.

TO THE WEST IS A GAS STATION AND CONVENIENCE STORE.

LOOKING NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ACROSS MILLER ROAD IS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AS WELL AS A CEMETERY. AND TO THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A CARWASH FACILITY.

[00:15:08]

HERE'S THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN OF THE APPLICANT.

I HIGHLIGHTED THE BUILDINGS IN THIS KIND OF BROWNISH COLOR HERE JUST TO MAKE IT EASIER ON THE EYES; IT'S EASIER TO SEE.

THE TWO LONG BUILDINGS, THIS IS BUILDING A, THIS IS BUILDING B, THESE ARE THE PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS, THREE STORIES IN HEIGHT.

UP HERE, THIS BUILDING HERE IS THE EXISTING CHURCH BUILDING TO BE USED AS A CLUBHOUSE.

AND OVER HERE, HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE IS THE AMENITY AREA THAT INCLUDES A SWIMMING POOL, A SHADED STRUCTURE WITH SEATING, AS WELL AS A BARBECUE GRILL AREA.

YOU CAN SEE TWO DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS PROPOSED, INTO AND OUT OF THE SITE, ALONG MILLER ROAD.

AND HERE'S THE LANDSCAPE PLAN I HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN WHERE THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING WOULD GO. THE SITE MEETS THE GDC LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.

HERE ARE JUST SOME SPECS OF THE AMENITIES.

LIKE I SAID, THERE'D BE A BARBECUE GRILLING AREA.

HERE'S SOME OF THE FENCING SPECS AROUND THE SITE, AROUND THE POOL, I MENTIONED EARLIER THERE'D BE A SHADED STRUCTURE, SOME PICNIC TABLES AND THE LIKE.

HERE ARE THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS OF THE MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS.

AND THE ELEVATIONS COMPLY WITH THE GDC.

AND HERE'S THE CLUBHOUSE, ESSENTIALLY, IT WOULD JUST BE KIND OF REMODELING, REHABILITATING THE EXISTING BUILDING ON-SITE.

AND THE PROPOSAL WOULD COMPLY WITH THE COVERED PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND OF COURSE, THERE WOULD BE A DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE PER USUAL PER CODE.

THERE ARE A FEW DEVIATIONS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED WITH THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. ONE IS A REQUIREMENT IN THE MULTIFAMILY STANDARDS REGARDING BUILDING PLACEMENT. A MINIMUM OF 50 PERCENT OF THE STRUCTURES THAT ARE LOCATED WITHIN ONE HUNDRED FEET OR VISIBLE FROM ANY PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY MUST BE POSITIONED AT AN ANGLE AT LEAST 30 DEGREES TO THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY LINE.

DUE TO SITE CONSTRAINTS, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES NOT TO HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THAT.

THERE IS, I SHOULD NOTE, THERE IS SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THE GDC FOR THIS TO ALLOW APPLICANTS TO WORK WITH STAFF ON ALTERNATIVES.

BUT SINCE THIS IS GOING FORWARD THROUGH THE HIRING PROCESS, ALL THE WAY TO COUNCIL, WE JUST WANTED TO KIND OF NOTE THAT, TECHNICALLY AS A DEVIATION.

DENSITY, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A LITTLE BIT HIGHER DENSITY.

THE MAXIMUM IN THE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT IS 18, PROPOSING TWENTY EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE.

AND THAT REQUEST IS DUE TO LIMITED SIZE OF THE SITE AS A REMINDER OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS IS SIXTY THREE.

SO JUST GIVEN THE SMALL AREA OF THE SITE, THE NATURE OF IT, THE DENSITY IS A LITTLE BIT HIGHER. GOING TO THREE STORIES OF COURSE, BUT ALL IN ALL, AT SIXTY THREE UNITS TOTAL, THIS IS A MUCH SMALLER MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

MORE SO ON THE SMALLER SIDE OF WHAT WE'RE ACCUSTOMED TO SEEING COME THROUGH AND PARKING, THEY'RE JUST ONE PARKING SPACE SHORT, THEY'RE PROVIDING ONE HUNDRED PARKING SPACES.

THE GDC PROSCRIBES HUNDRED AND ONE.

THAT'S AGAIN, DUE TO THE LIMITED SIZE OF THE SITE, BUT ALSO TO ENSURE THAT THEY COULD COMPLY WITH ALL THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH THEY DO.

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF REQUEST, BOTH THE CHANGE IN ZONING TO A PD AS WELL AS A DETAILED PLAN. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AS WELL, AN EIGHT TO ZERO VOTE, BOTH REQUESTS.

FURTHERMORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL LIGHTING AROUND THE BACK SIDE OF BUILDING B AND ON THE AMENITIES AREA.

AND THE APPLICANT HAS ADDED THAT LIGHTING TO THE PLANS.

NOTIFICATION LETTERS WERE MAILED OUT, FORTY SEVEN NOTIFICATION LETTERS, AND THERE WERE FOUR IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST WITHIN THE NOTIFICATION AREA, ONE IN OPPOSITION WITHIN THE NOTIFICATION AREA AND TWO IN OPPOSITION OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION AREA.

AND WITH THAT, MAYOR, I'LL STOP SHARING.

THANK YOU. THERE ARE TWO PARTS TO THIS CASE.

AND WHILE I DIDN'T ASK COUNCIL MEMBER AUBIN, HE HAS INDICATED TO ME THAT HE IS GOOD WITH CONSIDERING BOTH ITEMS TOGETHER.

SO LET'S SEE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

COUNCILMAN VERA. YOU'RE ON MUTE, SIR.

[00:20:01]

MR. GUERIN, IS THIS THE ONE THAT WAS GOING TO BE WHAT THEY CALL IT? THEY CHANGE IT FROM.

.. I WENT BLANK NOW.

THEY WERE NOT GOING TO BE APARTMENTS, THEY WERE GOING TO BE THE CONDOS.

IS THIS THE ONE THAT'S GOING TO BE CONDOS AND THEY CHANGED IT TO APARTMENTS? I'M NOT SURE.

AS FAR AS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT GOES AND AS FAR AS APPLICATIONS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED WITHIN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, THIS IS THE ONLY ONE I'M AWARE OF ON THE SITE, AT LEAST DATING BACK TO THE LAST FIVE, SIX YEARS OR SO.

DID THEY STATE WHY THEY DON'T WANT TO COMPLY WITH WHAT YOU SAID THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO DO? YES, SIR.

THEY MOSTLY HAD TO DO WITH THE LIMITED SIZE OF THE SITE.

IT'S A RELATIVELY SMALL SITE, SO THE APPLICANT NEEDED A LITTLE BIT MORE DENSITY, A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY ON THE BUILDING PLACEMENT AND IN THE PARKING SPACE.

THAT WAS ONLY ONE SPACE SHORT.

THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THEY COMPLIED WITH ALL THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.

SO THAT CAUSED THEM TO LOSE ONE SPACE TO HAVE ONE HUNDRED SPACES INSTEAD, ONE HUNDRED AND ONE. BUT ALL IN ALL, IT GOES BACK TO THE SIZE OF THE SITE, YES, SIR.

OK, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. YES, SIR.

EXCUSE ME, COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS. THANK YOU, MAYOR. GOOD EVENING, MR. GUERIN, JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

I NOTICED IN THE BACK UP THERE WERE A NUMBER OF RESPONSES FROM OUTSIDE THE AREA.

IT WAS A LISTING. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THOSE THE LIST OF NAMES.

CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? OH, YES, SIR, WAS THERE KIND OF A YELLOW BACKGROUND? YEAH, KIND OF A YELLOW BACKGROUND.

AND IT WAS ATTACHED AND THERE WAS JUST A LONG LIST.

THEY APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN STAMPED OUTSIDE THE AREA, BUT THERE SEEM TO BE SEVERAL PAGES OF OF THOSE. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? YES, SIR. THAT'S EXTRACTED FROM THE NEW INTERACTIVE ZONING PAGE THAT WE LAUNCHED ONLINE.

SO CITIZENS HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO IN THERE AND COMMENT.

SO WHAT WE DO IS JUST PULL THOSE STRAIGHT FROM THE WEBSITE.

AND THAT'S JUST KIND OF HOW IT LOOKS.

ONCE WE, I GUESS, EXTRACT IT [INAUDIBLE] TO A PDF.

SO THAT'S WHERE THOSE CAME FROM, YES, SIR.

IT LOOKS LIKE AT LEAST 90 PERCENT OF THOSE WERE STAMPED OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION AREA.

I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT; I DID SEE A NUMBER OF THOSE THAT WERE STAMPED THAT WAY.

SO BECAUSE ANYONE REALLY CAN GO ONLINE AND SEE ANY OF THE ZONING CASES AND [INAUDIBLE], WHETHER THEY'RE WITHIN OR OUTSIDE THE NOTIFICATION AREA.

OKAY, MY SECOND QUESTION IS, HAS TO DO WITH DENSITY, IT LOOKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S WELL WITHIN WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TALKS ABOUT AS FAR AS DENSITY, YOU KNOW, IT'S 12 UNITS AND UP.

BUT WHEN YOU GO BACK TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, IT'S 18.

AND GOING FROM EIGHTEEN TO TWENTY EIGHT, THAT'S 40 PLUS PERCENT, THAT'S A BIG ONE.

CAN YOU TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT THE FLEXIBILITY, WHAT YOU FEEL IS THE FLEXIBILITY OF THE SPREAD AND APPLYING THAT BASED ON THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND I KNOW THE RATIONALE IS BECAUSE IT'S A SMALL SITE.

THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT JOB.

SO CAN YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ON STAFF'S POSITION ON THAT AND THE FLEXIBILITY SORT OF HELP MY COMFORT LEVEL WITH WITH THAT, PLEASE.

YES, SIR. SO THE ACTUAL REQUIREMENT PER THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE MAXIMUM DENSITIES, 18 UNITS PER ACRE, AS YOU INDICATED, THAT'S JUST IN THE STREET MULTIFAMILY ZONING DISTRICT.

SO ANYTHING ABOVE THAT WOULD NEED A DEVIATION OF SOME KIND.

AS YOU MENTIONED, THEY'RE GOING TO TWENTY EIGHT.

THE NUMBER KIND OF DOES JUMP QUICKLY BECAUSE REALLY RELATIVELY THE NUMBERS ARE RELATIVELY LOW. SO IN OTHER WORDS, I BELIEVE TO MEET THE 18 UNITS PER ACRE, THE COMPLEX WOULD NEED TO BE NO MORE THAN 40 OR 41 UNITS TOTAL.

IN THIS CASE, IT'S SIXTY THREE.

ALL IN ALL, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, SIXTY THREE IS STILL A RELATIVELY SMALL MULTIFAMILY

[00:25:01]

DEVELOPMENT COMPARED TO WHAT WE'VE SEEN COME THROUGH OFTEN, WHICH IS MORE OFTEN IN THE HUNDREDS, SOMETIMES TWO HUNDREDS OR EVEN AROUND THREE HUNDRED UNITS TOTAL.

SO REALLY KIND OF JUST DOING THAT JUMP FROM SAY FORTY OR FORTY ONE UNITS TO SIXTY THREE.

THAT'S WHERE YOU KIND OF GET FROM 18 UNITS PER ACRE TO THE TWENTY EIGHT.

AGAIN KIND OF EXPAND ON THE SMALLNESS OF THE SITE.

SOME APARTMENT COMPLEXES DO MEET THAT 18 UNITS PER ACRE AND OBVIOUSLY THE SITE IS LARGER, BUT THERE'S MORE OPEN SPACE TO WORK WITH.

THERE'S NOT REALLY A LOT OF EXCESS OPEN SPACE WITH THIS.

SO IT'S RELATIVELY COMPACT AND CONDENSED SITE.

BUT THAT'S JUST KIND OF THE NATURE OF IT.

IT IS AN INFILL SITE.

IT IS SURROUNDED BY OTHER DEVELOPMENT.

OF COURSE, THEY ARE ACQUIRING ADDITIONAL PIECE TO MAKE THE LAND A LITTLE BIT LARGER, WHICH THEY NEEDED IN ORDER TO MEET THAT.

THAT'S ANOTHER THING TO KIND OF CLARIFY IN ORDER TO MEET THE AMENITY REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS HAVING A SWIMMING POOL, CLUBHOUSE, THOSE SORTS OF THINGS, WHICH ARE GDC REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIFAMILY.

THEY NEEDED TO ACQUIRE THAT.

THAT PIECE WHERE THE CHURCH WAS ONCE LOCATED AND REMODELED THAT BUILDING.

SO THAT WAS KIND OF ANOTHER THING THAT THEY KIND OF DID WHAT THEY COULD IN TERMS OF ACQUIRING LAND TO MAKE IT WORK AND MEET MEET AS MUCH OF THE GDC AS THEY COULD.

SO. OK, AND IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION, YOU DON'T FEEL THAT THE THAT THE DEFENSE, THE DEVIATION IN ANY WAY ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE OVERALL QUALITY OF THE PROJECT AS FAR AS AMENITIES, I NOTICED [INAUDIBLE].

ARE YOU COMFORTABLE THERE? THE TWENTY EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE IS PRETTY IN LINE WITH A LOT OF THE PROPOSALS WE'VE SEEN COME THROUGH. OFTENTIMES, THEY ARE WELL INTO THE 20S, UPPER 20S, AND OF COURSE, WE HAD ONE DOWNTOWN, A FEW MEETINGS BACK, WHICH WAS AROUND, I BELIEVE, 40 UNITS PER ACRE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. OF COURSE, THAT'S DOWNTOWN.

BUT THE TWENTY EIGHT IS NOT OUT OF LINE WITH A LOT OF THESE THAT WE'VE SEEN.

OF COURSE, WHEN YOU DO GET TO THAT DENSITY LEVEL, IT DOES REQUIRE THAT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE FULL PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.

SO THAT'S KIND OF HOW IT ALLOWS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL TO GET THEIR EYES ON IT AND MAKE SURE IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THIS AREA AND THE SITE.

THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER HEDRICK. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MR. GUERIN, WAS THE APPLICANT REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A LIGHTING PLAN WITH HIS APPLICATION? [INAUDIBLE] GDC AND THERE IS A 700 CHAPTER FOR A LIGHTING PLAN REQUIREMENT.

YES, WE DO ASK FOR LIGHTING PLANS NOW, IT'S MAINLY TO MAKE SURE THAT LIGHTING IS NOT ADVERSELY IMPACTING SURROUNDING SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

SO THAT WAS A GREAT OBSERVATION THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD KIND OF LOOKING AT IT TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS SUFFICIENT LIGHTING ON-SITE PEDESTRIANS AND RESIDENTS.

SO THAT WAS A GREAT OBSERVATION.

AND THAT'S WHY I ASKED THAT, IS THAT IT SEEMS WHERE OUR ORDINANCE IS GEARED TOWARDS LIGHTING THAT SPILLS OVER THE PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN SETTING MINIMUM LEVELS.

I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAD TO SUBMIT ONE, FIRST OF ALL, AND IF SO, DID IT MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR GDC? I BELIEVE SO.

I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND CHECK WITH THE STAFF ON THE HISTORY OF THE LIGHTING PLAN, HOW THAT LOOKED, BUT I KNOW THAT DID NOT COME ABOUT AS NOT MEETING IT.

BASICALLY, WE JUST CONFIRM IN A LIGHTING PLAN, THE LIGHTING IS SHINING DOWNWARD AND THE APPLICANT JUST KIND OF CONFIRMS IN THE DOCUMENTATION THAT IT WILL MEET THE GDC REQUIREMENTS. SO BUT THAT IS A GREAT POINT AS FAR AS MAKING SURE WE ALSO PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO MAKE SURE THERE'S SUFFICIENT LIGHT ON-SITE FOR THE RESIDENTS.

SO FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT, CERTAINLY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

VERY GOOD, SIR. COUNCIL MEMBER BASS.

YES, I WILL APOLOGIZE, I'M NOT THAT FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA DOWN THERE, BUT THE DENSITY DIFFERENCE BEING 40 PERCENT GREATER THAN THAN IT SHOULD BE.

I KIND OF LOOK AT THAT AND I'M LOOKING AT THE GREEN SPACE AND IT TALKS ABOUT HAVING A GREEN SPACE AREA OF ABOUT A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.

SO CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT WHAT OTHER GREEN SPACES AVAILABLE NEARBY THERE FOR RESIDENTS? SEE, ON-SITE, THAT IS OR? WELL, NOT NECESSARILY ON-SITE, BUT I MEAN ADJACENT, LOOKING AT THE MAP ON YOUR

[00:30:04]

PRESENTATION, I CAN'T TELL IF THERE'S ANY OTHER PARK OR PUBLIC GREEN SPACE NEARBY, BECAUSE WITH THAT AMOUNT OF DENSITY, AND JUST SUCH A SMALL AMOUNT OF GREEN SPACE FOR THE RESIDENTS, THAT WOULD BE MY CONCERN.

I'D LIKE TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT.

SURE. YEAH, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE'S AN IMMEDIATE, A GREEN SPACE ADJACENT TO THE SITE, FURTHER TO THE EAST, ACTUALLY FURTHER TO THE EAST.

I GUESS YOU GET TO RICK ODEN PARK THAT'S NOT NOT DIRECTLY ADJACENT, BUT, YES, SIR, RICK ODEN PARK IS JUST TO THE EAST AS YOU CROSS GLENBROOK.

LOOKS LIKE THAT WOULD BE THE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE IN THAT DIRECTION.

YES, SIR. OK, THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE THAT. AND COUNCIL MEMBER AUBIN.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT DENSITY, I GUESS, PLANNING IS NOT TAKING THE POSITION THAT DENSITY DOESN'T MATTER FOR SMALLER PROJECTS, DOES IT? NO, SIR, I THINK THE VIEWPOINT WAS.

REALLY, JUST GIVEN THAT AS AN NFL SITE, THE APPLICANT ACQUIRED ADDITIONAL LAND IN ORDER TO BECAUSE IF THEY HAD TO MAKE THE ACCOUNT HIGHER WITH A SMALLER SIDE, OF COURSE, THAT WOULD HAVE UPPED THE DENSITY LEVEL.

SO I THINK WAS JUST KIND OF RECOGNIZING THAT AS MUCH LAND WAS ACQUIRED FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS POSSIBLE TO KIND OF KEEP THAT DENSITY LEVEL REASONABLE.

TWENTY EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE HAS BEEN FAIRLY COMMON, CERTAINLY SITE BY SITE.

IN SOME AREAS DENSITY IS GOING TO BE MUCH MORE EXPECTING THAN OTHERS, CERTAINLY.

DID YOU GUYS LOOK AT THAT INCREASED DENSITY WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE CONGESTION ON MILLER BETWEEN AND JUST IN THAT AREA THAT INTERSECTION'S, I THINK THE SATURN MILLER INTERSECTION IS PROBABLY THE WORST INTERSECTION IN THE CITY BETWEEN SATURN, GARLAND MILLER, THE RAILROAD PROBABLY RUNNING OUT OF SOME COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH OR DEPUTY MAYOR PRO-TEM MORRIS HAVE A FEW OTHERS, GLENBROOK.

SO DID YOU ALL LOOK AT THAT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE CONGESTION IN THAT STRETCH? SO THE PLAN WAS [INAUDIBLE] TRANSPORTATION, MR. LUEDTKE AND HIS TEAM DID LOOK AT IT, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT GIVEN THE SMALL NATURE OF THE SITE OR SMALL NUMBER OF UNITS, SIXTY THREE, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT IT WOULD NOT ADD A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT RELATIVE TO THE EXISTING TRAFFIC ALREADY ON MILLER.

SO, IT DID NOT TRIGGER A FULL TRAFFIC STUDY BECAUSE OF THAT LOW IMPACT.

BUT IN ADDITION, THEY ARE PROVIDING THE TWO DRIVEWAYS, WHICH I THINK WAS ONE.

WELL, IT'S A FIRE REQUIREMENT ANYWAY, TWO WAYS IN AND OUT.

BUT THAT WAS ANOTHER KIND OF FACTOR IN DETERMINING THAT THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT GAVE THE THUMBS UP. AND REALLY WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO IS THE SMALL NATURE OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS WAS NOT SEEN AS ADVERSELY IMPACTING MILLER ROAD IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC.

OK, NO, WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION RECENTLY ABOUT ANOTHER PROPERTY ON MILLER, BUT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT STRETCH OF MILLER AND THAT ALSO HAD THEIR OTHER EXIT I THINK WENT OUT TO, ULTIMATELY S GARLAND AVENUE.

SO I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THERE, PARTICULARLY IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE EITHER OF THOSE PROPOSED EXITS, IF YOU'RE MAKING A LEFT ONTO WESTBOUND MILLER.

GIVES ME A LOT OF CONCERN, AND I REALLY DON'T WANT TO YOU KNOW, I WOULDN'T WANT TO HAVE TO PUT ANOTHER I WOULD NOT AGREE TO PUT IN ANOTHER LIGHT THERE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I ALREADY GET, AND I THINK THE DEPUTY MAYOR PRO-TEM MORRIS CAN TELL YOU ABOUT, THE VERBAL BEATING THAT WE RECEIVE, ABOUT TURNING ONTO MILLER AND TURNING OFF OF MILLER AND THINGS LIKE GLENBROOK AND OTHER STUFF RIGHT IN THAT STRETCH.

SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE APPLICANT? I SEE NONE. THANK YOU, MR. GUERIN. THANK YOU.

AND I BELIEVE, I THINK I SEE THE APPLICANT IN HERE.

IS THAT THE APPLICANT, DARREN SMITH? NO, OK.

HERE WE GO, SORRY. I HAVE BRYAN BRIDGEWATER AND RAVI MEHTA

[00:35:07]

. YES, SIR, CAN YOU ALL HEAR US? YES, I'VE OPENED THE LINE ON OUR END.

GO AHEAD. OK, AND I'LL LET--RAVI, ARE YOU ON? WE'RE THE CIVIL ENGINEER, RAVI'S THE ACTUAL OWNER AND DEVELOPER.

BOTH OF YOU ARE ON. I'M HERE, BRYAN.

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

MY NAME'S RAVI MEHTA 125 E JOHN CARPENTER FW, IRVING, TEXAS, 75062.

AND BRYAN BRIDGEWATER WITH MANHARD CONSULTING.

ITS ADDRESSES 12225 GREENVILLE AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS, 75240.

OK, GO AHEAD. OK, I BELIEVE BRYAN IS JUST GOING TO LOAD UP A PRESENTATION FOR US REAL QUICK.

I DON'T HAVE A WAY TO--THERE'S NOT AN OPTION TO PRESENT.

I BELIEVE WE NEED TO MOVE YOU OVER, AT LEAST I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE THEM FROM ATTENDEE TO PANELIST TO ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT.

OK. WE'VE.

WE'VE MOVED YOU OVER INTO PANELIST; YOU SHOULD HAVE THAT OPTION NOW TO DO A SHARE SCREEN, OK, RAVI, DO YOU WANT ME TO SHARE MINE OR DO YOU HAVE TO SHARE A SCREEN BUTTON? LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET THIS GOING FOR YOU.

OK, ARE YOU GUYS ABLE TO SEE THE POWERPOINT? YES, IF YOU COULD GO TO THE FULL SCREEN, THAT WAY WE CAN MAKE IT AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY CAN. PERFECT.

OK, I'LL JUST KEEP THIS BRIEF.

JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU GUYS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MYSELF AND THE PROJECT WE HAVE GOING ON HERE AT 1214 WEST MILLER ROAD.

WE'RE LONG TERM OWNERS WITH HISTORY OF IMPROVING COMMUNITIES.

WE CONCENTRATE MOSTLY ON WORKFORCE HOUSING TYPE ENVIRONMENTS.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE FILL A DEMAND THAT'S DEFINITELY NEEDED IN THIS AREA.

WE LOOKED AT THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AS WELL.

WE DID GET A BRIEF TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DONE.

SO I'LL SHOW IT TO YOU GUYS AS WELL, JUST SO YOU KIND OF SEE WHAT'S GOING ON THERE.

WHAT WE DO IS WE SELF-OWN AND MANAGE OUR ASSETS.

WE'RE NOT THE TYPE OF DEVELOPERS THAT COME IN, BUILD AND SELL OFF TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER.

AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN DEFINITELY ENSURE THAT YOU HAVE CONTINUED TENANT QUALIFICATION STANDARDS AT THE PROPERTY.

AND LET'S SEE OVER HERE SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST.

WE'VE DONE A COUPLE OF PROJECTS IN GRAND PRAIRIE JUST SHOWING YOU THE TYPE OF OWNERSHIP WE HAVE FROM LONG TERM 2011-2013.

HERE'S A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION FROM CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE HOUSING.

THEY LOVE WHAT WE DID OUT THERE WITH THE COMMUNITIES THAT WERE IN VERY BAD SHAPE THAT WE CAME IN AND COMPLETELY IMPROVED.

HERE'S TWO MORE PROJECTS WE'VE DONE OUT IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, AND WE CURRENTLY OWN AND MANAGE THESE PROPERTIES STILL AS WELL, 2013, 2016.

THAT PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY ABOUT TO BE CONDEMNED.

AND SO WE HAD TO WORK WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY ON THAT ONE TO GET THAT PUT TOGETHER.

AND HERE IS A LETTER FROM CITY ATTORNEY APPROVING EVERYTHING THAT WE DID AND APPRECIATING THE WORK THAT WE DID OUT THERE.

SOME PROPERTIES DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS SITE HERE, THE MARISOL VILLA APARTMENTS AND THE PARK RIDGE COMMUNITY, THOSE PROPERTIES WE BOUGHT IN 2014 AND 2015.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS ARE AWARE OF THE SITUATION THAT WAS GOING ON THERE, BUT THAT WAS A COMPLETE MESS OUT THERE THAT WAS ALSO ON THE VERGE OF BEING CONDEMNED.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOTTOM PORTION OF THAT SCREEN, YOU'LL SEE HOW MANY VIOLATIONS, CODE VIOLATIONS THERE WERE PER PROPERTY FOR THOSE YEARS AND WHAT IT IS IN 2019.

2020, OF COURSE, BECAUSE OF COVID, THERE WAS NO ANNUAL INSPECTION DONE.

BUT WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO IMPROVE THOSE FIGURES.

AND SO THAT JUST KIND OF SHOWS YOU THE TYPE OF OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE WE HAVE, THE KIND OF MANAGE WE LIKE TO DO, AND HOW WE TAKE CARE OF OUR PROPERTIES.

HERE IS A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION THAT I RECEIVED TODAY FROM LANCE POLSTER OVER CODE COMPLIANCE IN CITY OF GARLAND.

I'LL JUST READ THE SECOND PARAGRAPH FOR YOU.

CODE COMPLIANCE APPRECIATES ALL THE TIME AND MONEY MEHTA HAS INVESTED IN MARISOL VILLAS AND PARK RIDGE COMMUNITY.

SINCE TAKING CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY IN 2014, WE HAVE SEEN A DRAMATIC DROP IN THE AMOUNT OF HOUSING VIOLATIONS AT THE PROPERTIES AND THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS HE HAS COMPLETE MANY

[00:40:04]

PROACTIVE PROJECTS LIKE [INAUDIBLE], PAINTING, INSTALLATION OF WROUGHT IRON FENCING, NEW ROOFS, INTERIOR REMODELS AND NEW DECKING.

MR. MEHTA AND HIS MANAGEMENT STAFF ARE RESPONSIVE QUICK TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES REPORTED TO THEM. WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THEM ON FUTURE PROJECTS IN GARLAND.

AND SO I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WE DO CARE ABOUT OUR RESIDENTS.

WE ARE HERE AND WE'RE GOING TO DO THE SAME FOR THIS FUTURE ASSET, AS WELL.

A COUPLE OTHER PROJECTS, NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT WE'VE RECENTLY DONE JUST TO SHOW YOU THE TYPE OF QUALITY THAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IN OUR PROJECTS.

HERE'S A FORTY HOUSE SUBDIVISION WE JUST COMPLETED OUT IN PECOS, TEXAS, JUST KIND OF GIVING YOU SOME PICTURES OF THE EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR OF THAT PROJECT, A LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION FROM CITY OF PECOS AS WELL.

HE BASICALLY SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING THAT WE SAID WE WOULD COME IN AND DO, WE DID. AND SO WHEN I SAY THAT I'M GOING TO DO SOMETHING, I DO IT THE RIGHT WAY.

SO THAT'S THERE.

A COUPLE OTHER WORKFORCE HOUSING PROJECTS WE'VE RECENTLY DONE AS WELL.

HERE ARE THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THAT WE RECEIVED.

IN HERE, WE ACTUALLY DID A SIXTY FIVE COUNT, WHICH WAS, WHEN WE WERE STILL PLAYING WITH THE FIGURES, IT'S ACTUALLY COME DOWN TO SIXTY THREE UNITS CURRENTLY AND EVEN SHOWING YOU AT SIXTY FIVE UNIT COUNT THAT AM PEAK WE HAD FOUR CARS COMING IN, 10 CARS GOING OUT.

SO A TOTAL OF 14 CARS BEING ADDED TO THE PEAK HOUR IN THE MORNING BEFORE THE PEAK.

WE HAD 12 CARS COMING IN AND EIGHT CARS GOING OUT, SO A TOTAL OF 20 CARS ADDED TO AN INTERSECTION THAT HAS, LET'S SEE, MILLER AND SATURN ROAD AS A DAILY TRAFFIC COUNT AT PEAK HOURS OF [INAUDIBLE].

TO THAT, WE ARE NOT ADDING VERY MUCH TRAFFIC COUNT AT ALL.

SO THIS COMMUNITY OF 63 WON'T IMPEDE TRAFFIC MUCH AT ALL.

THIS AREA DEFINITELY NEEDS NEW CONSTRUCTION.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE NEW UPCOMING HOUSING STARTS COMING UP FOR MULTI-FAMILY IN THE VICINITY, THERE'S NOTHING OFF OF ANYWHERE CLOSE TO THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF GARLAND.

NORTH GARLAND ROWLETT DO HAVE A LOT OF DEVELOPING MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES COMING UP.

BUT THIS AREA IS IN DRAMATIC NEED OF NEW HOUSING.

AND SO I THINK THIS WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WILL FILL THE NEEDS OF A LOT OF THE WORKFORCE, HOUSING COMMUNITY RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THE AREA.

THIS JUST GOES FURTHER INTO SOME OF THE NEW PROPERTIES THAT ARE BEING BUILT IN THE SURROUNDING AREA AS WELL.

AND FINAL SLIDE SAYING, I THINK WHEN WE BRING THIS PROJECT TO THIS FACILITY, IT'S JUST GOING TO IMPROVE THE ENTIRE AREA BECAUSE CONSTRUCTION FLOURISHES WITH NEW DEVELOPMENTS THAT COMES IN, AND SO IF WE DO THIS DEVELOPMENT, OTHER PEOPLE WILL FOLLOW, EVEN IF THEY DON'T DO NEW CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE OF LACK OF LAND, AT LEAST SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WILL WANT TO IMPROVE THEIR SITE AS WELL.

SO I THINK THIS IS DEFINITELY AN IMPROVE THE ENTIRE AREA AS MUCH NEEDED.

IT'S GOING TO IMPROVE THE STANDARD OF LIVING FOR THE COMMUNITY.

WE'VE GOT SEVERAL AMENITIES THAT INCLUDE A LEISURE AREA, A SUN DECK, A SPARKLING POOL, A BARBECUE GRILL AREA AND AN ARBOR.

AND LIKE I SAID BEFORE, I CURRENTLY LIVE AND OWN PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF DFW OR IN THE DFW METROPLEX AND WE ARE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RESIDENTS WE BRING IN, THEY ARE GOOD RESIDENTS THAT WILL BRING THE COMMUNITY UPWARDS.

SO WE DO PROPER BACKGROUND CHECKS.

WE DO EVERYTHING THAT'S NEEDED TO BE DONE, AND WE'RE LOCAL, SO WE KEEP OUR EYES AND EYES ON THE PROPERTY AND MAKE SURE THE PROPERTY IS FULLY UPKEPT.

THAT ENDS MY PRESENTATION, AND IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, OF COURSE, I'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE AT THIS TIME.

IF I CAN GET YOU TO UN-SHARE YOUR SCREEN FOR ME.

AND NOW WE'LL MOVE TO QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. GOOD EVENING, SIR, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE THIS EVENING.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU HEARD MY CONVERSATION WITH MR. GUERIN REGARDING A DENSITY DEVIATION.

IT'S ABOUT A 40 PERCENT SPREAD FOR WHAT'S REQUIRED BY THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR DENSITY OVER THERE AND WHAT IS YOUR NORM ON PROJECTS SIMILAR TO THIS? BECAUSE YOU SAY THAT THE REASON FOR THE DEVIATION REQUEST IS BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY.

SO, CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DEVIATION REQUEST AND WHAT'S YOUR BUSINESS

[00:45:06]

PRACTICE ON DEALING WITH ISSUES LIKE THAT AND I'M TRYING TO GET A COMFORT LEVEL ON THAT PARTICULAR DEVIATION, SO CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT REQUEST, PLEASE, SIR? ABSOLUTELY. YEAH, SO IT'S A SMALLER PROJECT, OBVIOUSLY, IT'S ON ONLY TWO POINT TWO SIX ACRES OF LAND.

SO, DUE TO THAT, I MEAN, WE HAD TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT TIGHTER THAN WE WOULD LIKE TO.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF FACTORS THAT PLAY INTO ACCOUNT WITH THAT.

OF COURSE, THERE'S A FINANCIAL ASPECT OF IT TO WHERE, IF WE GO TOO SMALL, THEN IT ALTERS THE FINAL FINISHED PRODUCT AS WELL.

WE WANTED TO BRING IN THE CHURCH BUILDING AS WELL, BECAUSE AS FAR AS THE CHURCH BUILDING, AS YOU KNOW, I'M RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, THAT BUILDING HAS BEEN A BIT OF AN EYESORE FOR THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

IT CAUSES A LOT OF LOITERING. THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT PICK UP THE BEERS AND COME AND DRINK THERE AT THE SITE. AND SO WE WANT TO TRY TO AVOID THAT.

THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO BRING THAT PROPERTY INTO THIS INTO THIS FACILITY AS WELL.

AND BY DOING SO, WE WERE ABLE TO INCREASE THE UNIT COUNT A BIT BECAUSE WE WERE ABLE TO ADD ADDITIONAL AMENITIES TO THE SITE, ADD EVERYTHING THAT WE NEEDED TO THERE.

THE DENSITY, THE NUMBERS JUST HAVE TO MAKE SENSE FOR ANY PROJECT.

OF COURSE, AS YOU GUYS KNOW WITH THE CITY OF GARLAND, IF IT'S IN THE RED, THEN IT'S TOUGH FOR YOU GUYS TO DO PROJECTS AS WELL.

SAME SCENARIO HERE.

IF THE NUMBERS DON'T MAKE SENSE, THEN IT'S HARD FOR A DEVELOPER TO DEVELOP A PROJECT AND IMPROVE THE AREA WITHOUT PROPER CASH FLOW.

AND SO WE WANT TO TAKE EVERYTHING INTO ACCOUNT, ALTHOUGH AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE NUMBERS HAVE TO MAKE SENSE.

WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WORKED WITH THE TRAFFIC FLOW, IT WORKED FOR THE COMMUNITY, MAKING SURE WE WERE NOT BRINGING TOO MANY UNITS TO THE MARKET WHEN IT COMES TO A CASE OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND IN TERMS OF OCCUPANCY.

WE TOOK ALL THOSE FACTORS INTO ACCOUNT AND EVERY DIRECTION WE LOOKED, IT ALL MADE SENSE TO WHERE THE ADDITIONAL DENSITY WASN'T IMPACTING NEGATIVELY TO THE COMMUNITY AT ALL.

SO, LET ME UNDERSTAND, SO AS YOU WERE LOOKING AT THIS, I THINK SIXTY FIVE IS YOUR NUMBER.

SO AT ANY POINT, DID YOU CONSIDER ANYTHING BUT ANY MEDIUM NUMBER? ANYTHING LESS THAN SIXTY FIVE OR WAS AT SIXTY FIVE PRETTY MUCH ABSOLUTE? THE SIXTY THREE NUMBER SIXTY THREE, I SAW SIXTY FIVE, AND I THINK IT WAS TRAFFIC STUDY, SO IS IT SIXTY THREE OR SIXTY FIVE? I SAW SIXTY FIVE NUMBER.

CORRECT. YES. SIXTY THREE THE THIRD PARTY COMPANY THAT PUT THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TOGETHER FOR US, THEY HAD 65 IN THERE, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY 63.

NOW, WE WE INITIALLY STARTED THE PROJECT, WE NEVER DID THE CONDOS THAT YOU HAD ASKED ABOUT ORIGINALLY.

THAT WAS NEVER OUR GOAL OR PLAN.

IT HAD ALWAYS BEEN MULTIFAMILY.

ORIGINALLY, WE BOUGHT THE ACRE THE ACREAGE JUST FOR THE MULTIFAMILY SITE, WHICH WAS AROUND ONE POINT EIGHTY FIVE ACRES.

AND WE WERE GOING TO JUST DO A PROJECT ON THERE.

BUT ONCE WE REALIZED WE NEEDED THE ACCESS, THE SECOND ACCESS FROM THE CHURCH, WE APPROACHED THE CHURCH OWNER AND THEY WERE WILLING TO SELL AT THAT TIME.

AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT, WE INCREASED FROM THE ORIGINAL COUNT WE HAD TO THE SIXTY THREE UNIT THAT WE HAVE TODAY. OK, AND MY LAST QUESTION IS, THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT YOU SHOWED US, YOU SAID THAT WAS DONE BY ONE OF YOUR CONSULTANTS, CORRECT? THAT'S A THIRD PARTY COMPANY.

THAT'S NOT ONE OF MY CONSULTANTS.

THAT'S JUST A THIRD PARTY VENDOR THAT WE USE FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS STUDIES.

OKAY.

AND THAT WAS SUBMITTED AND REVIEWED BY CITY STAFF, CORRECT? NO, SIR, THAT JUST WAS RECEIVED TODAY.

SO I CAN SEND THAT OVER TO CITY STAFF.

THEY'VE THEY'VE DONE THEIR OWN IMPACT ON OUR STUDIES AND SO THEY DID NOT REQUIRE ME TO DO ONE ON THIS PROJECT.

BUT I DID IT REGARDLESS JUST FOR OUR OWN GRATIFICATION, JUST TO SEE WHERE WE STOOD.

OK. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERA. EXCUSE ME.

THANK YOU, MAYOR OF.

YOU'RE HAVING AN OUTLET TO GLENBROOK, RIGHT? AS FAR AS THIS PROPERTY? YES. THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT.

IT ONLY HAS OUTLET TO MILLER ROAD.

[00:50:02]

OH, MILLER ROAD ONLY? CORRECT. THEY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT WHEN THEY FINISH ODEN PARK, THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE TRAFFIC THERE? WHEN THEY FINISH THE PARK.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT--ON THAT CORNER ON MILLER ROAD AND GLENBROOK.

AND SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TOOK INTO ACCOUNT, I'M ASSUMING THEY DID, BUT ALSO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT AS WELL.

OK, THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU, SIR.

COUNCIL MEMBER AUBIN. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT YOU PUT BEFORE US DID THESE FOLKS ACTUALLY COME OUT TO THE SITE, OR THEY JUST KIND OF LOOK AT WHAT YOUR PLANS ARE AND WHAT THE STREET COUNTS ARE? THEY LOOKED AT THE RAW DATA.

THEY DID NOT VISIT THE SITE.

THIS WAS JUST A VERY PRELIMINARY STUDY THAT WAS DONE IN A MATTER OF 24 HOURS.

OK, AND THEY.

IT'S. AND I GATHER FROM THE TRIP NUMBERS SAY THAT, HOW MANY TOTAL TRIPS A DAY DO THEY EXPECT OUT OF [INAUDIBLE]. I DON'T THINK THEY EXTRAPOLATED THAT DATA [INAUDIBLE] BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF 14 SEEMS PRETTY LOW.

AND RAVI, THIS IS BRYAN BRIDGEWATER.

I'LL JUMP IN. USUALLY WHAT THE TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS LOOK AT ARE STRICTLY PEAK HOUR TRIPS.

SO THE TOTAL TRIPS PER DAY, IT'S PRETTY INSIGNIFICANT FOR MULTI-FAMILY COMPARED TO, SAY, RETAIL. BUT WHAT CAUSES CONGESTION ARE REALLY THE PEAK HOUR TRIPS.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS AND EVEN THE CITY ENGINEERS LOOK AT.

RIGHT. WELL, WE HANDLED A CASE ON MILLER ROAD MAYBE TWO MONTHS AGO, THAT WAS A MILE OR TWO WEST OF HERE THAT INVOLVED A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON 14 ACRES WITH I THINK IT WAS SEVENTY TWO HOMES.

AND THEY ESTIMATED, I THINK IT WAS NINE TRIPS PER DAY PER HOUSEHOLD.

SO, CLOSE TO 700 TRIPS.

BUT THAT WAS SPLIT ALONG A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ROADWAYS, SO THE NUMBER 14, IT SEEMS LOW, BUT WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT AND SO THEY JUST DID IT BASED ON WHAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE, THE QUESTION JUST ASKED ABOUT RICK ODEN, SO IT'S NOT BASED ON ANY FUTURE PROJECTIONS OR ANY ACTUAL INVOLVEMENT WITH THE SITE, IS THAT CORRECT? NO, SIR, IT'S JUST A STANDALONE SITE.

I KNOW WHEN THE CITY EVENTUALLY LOOKS AT THE SIGNALS EAST AND WEST OF HERE, THEY'LL LOOK AT THE DAILY VOLUMES AND TIME SIGNALS ACCORDINGLY.

OK, SURE. NO, I THINK WE'RE A LITTLE, MR. LUEDTKE'S HERE, I THINK WE'RE A LITTLE LIMITED ON TIME JUST BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT EAST-WEST ROAD CROSSING THE STATE HIGHWAY RIGHT THERE.

YOU MENTIONED ABOUT THE KNOCK ON EFFECTS THAT YOU BELIEVE THIS WILL HAVE ON OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA.

IT IS JUST SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO CAUSE YOU GUYS TO REDEVELOP OR REBUILD OR DO ANYTHING WITH YOUR PROPERTIES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MILLER? WE'VE DONE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF REHAB ALREADY.

WE'VE GOT EVERYTHING FROM A TO Z THAT CAN BE DONE TO A 70S VINTAGE PROPERTY.

AND SO THOSE ARE FULLY UPGRADED PROPERTIES FROM INTERIOR TO EXTERIOR.

THANK YOU.

THAT'S ALL I HAD. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

OK. THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS? AND COUNCIL MEMBER AUBIN, I AGREE THOSE TRAFFIC COUNTS DON'T SEEM TO BE IN LINE WITH THAT AT PEAK HOURS, SIXTY THREE UNITS WOULD ONLY CREATE 14 TRIPS.

I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT COMPARED TO OTHER TRAFFIC STUDIES.

SO COUNCIL MEMBER HEDRICK? MR. MAYOR, I WANTED TO ADD ONE MORE POINT TO THAT.

ACCORDING TO THE ITE TRIP GENERATION MANUAL, IT'S ABOUT .44 TRIPS PER DWELLING UNITS.

THAT PUTS IT ABOUT TWENTY SEVEN, ABOUT DOUBLE WHAT THEY'RE SHOWING.

SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ALWAYS GOOD TO HAVE AN ENGINEER ON STANDBY.

ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL, ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS BEFORE WE MOVE TO PUBLIC

[00:55:07]

COMMENTS? SEEING NONE.

IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, IF YOU COULD USE TO RAISE YOUR HAND FEATURE OR STAR NINE IN THE ZOOM PLATFORM? WE'LL GET YOU QUEUED UP. AND WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS I WILL OPEN THE LINE ON OUR END.

YOU'LL NEED TO UNMUTED ON YOUR END.

AND THEN IF YOU COULD GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. AND OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS THE HONORABLE JOHN WILLIS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU TONIGHT.

MY NAME IS JOHN WILLIS, 2116 PATRICIA LANE HERE IN GARLAND.

MANY OF YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW, BUT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THIS SITE SINCE, WELL, ROUGHLY TWO THOUSAND SEVEN WHEN THE FORMER APARTMENTS AT THE SITE WERE REALLY, REALLY ATROCIOUS.

I TOURED THAT THOSE BUILDINGS AND THEY REALLY WERE BAD.

PREVIOUS COMPLEX WENT INTO RECEIVERSHIP.

THE OWNERS WERE IN CALIFORNIA AND DIED, HAD A COURT APPOINTED RECEIVER, AND THEN THERE WAS A FIRE. AND IT TOOK A LONG TIME TO GET THAT THING SETTLED OUT AND FINALLY DEMOLISHED INTO THE OWNERSHIP OF GHFC.

I WAS UNSURE HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS ISSUE WHEN I FIRST NOTICED IT ON THE AGENDA.

I TRIED TO BE CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC ABOUT IT.

BUT THE MORE I LOOKED AT IT AND THOUGHT ABOUT IT, THE LESS SANGUINE I WAS REGARDING THIS ISSUE.

THAT PART OF MILLER ROAD IS UNIQUE FOR A ROAD IN THE ENTIRE STRETCH OF THE CITY FROM ROWLETT TO DALLAS.

THAT PART OF MILLER ROAD CARRIES FROM A TRAFFIC CAM SEVERAL YEARS AGO, TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND VEHICLES A DAY.

THE LANES ARE VERY NARROW AND IT'S A VERY SHORT SECTION BETWEEN GLENBROOK AND SOUTH GARLAND AVENUE [INAUDIBLE] LIKE THIS, THE SITE [INAUDIBLE] WILLIAMS OWNED THE 14 ACRES WHERE WE WERE DISCUSSING THAT PREVIOUSLY, THAT PART OF MILLER ROAD ONLY CARRIES SIXTEEN THOUSAND CARS A DAY. SO IT'S A MUCH LOWER TRAFFIC DENSITY.

BUT THIS PART OF THE ROAD RIGHT HERE BETWEEN GLENBROOK AND SATURN IS UNIQUE.

ALL IT TAKES TO BACK TRAFFIC UP THERE IS ONE PERSON TURNING LEFT.

THERE WILL BE NO SIGNAL LIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STRETCH OF MILLER.

IT WOULD BE TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE, ESPECIALLY FOR ONE APARTMENT COMPLEX.

THERE WILL BE NO TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES.

THERE'S NO DIVISION THERE.

THERE ARE NO PROTECTED LEFT TURNS.

ONE PERSON TURNING LEFT STOPS TRAFFIC.

THIS WAS A RECENT DISCUSSION ON GARLAND TEXAS FACEBOOK GROUP MILLER AND GLENBROOK ABOUT TRAFFIC LIKE THERE AND HOW MUCH OF A PROBLEM THAT IS AND PEOPLE GET INTO ACCIDENTS.

I'D LIKE TO REITERATE THAT PART OF MILLER ROAD IS NOT UNDER EXPANSION.

THE CONSTRUCTION THAT'S GOING ON OUT THERE IS AT MILLER AND S GARLAND, AND SATURN AS A BOTTLENECK IMPROVEMENT? I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE DENSITY AS WELL.

TWENTY EIGHT IS ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY FIVE PERCENT OF 18, IT'S NOT A 40 PERCENT INCREASE, IT'S ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY FIVE PERCENT.

AND THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT JUMP.

WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF TRIPS THAT THIS WILL GENERATE DAILY, THE NUMBER OF LEFT TURNS GENERATED FROM MILLER ROAD INTO THE SITE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN THAT VERY UNIQUE PART OF THE ROAD. TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND CARS A DAY.

ONE PERSON TURNING LEFT IS ALL IT TAKES.

I'VE GROWN UP IN THIS AREA MY WHOLE LIFE.

I'VE BEEN HERE FOR FIFTY FIVE YEARS.

THAT PART OF MILLER ROAD HAS ALWAYS BEEN A PROBLEM AND THAT MUCH ADDITIONAL DENSITY RIGHT THERE IS GOING TO DO NOTHING BUT CREATE ADDITIONAL CONGESTION AND HEADACHES AND WHAT IS ALREADY A NIGHTMARE OF AN INTERSECTION, GARLAND , S GARLAND, MILLER AND SATURN AND RAILROAD, AND GLENBROOK.

THEN YOU ADD IN RICK ODEN PARK.

AND WHEN IT GETS FINISHED AND ALL THE ADDITIONAL TRIPS THAT'S GOING TO GENERATE.

TRAFFIC ON THAT PART OF MILLER IS GOING TO BALLOON.

UNLESS THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, I THINK THAT'S ABOUT IT, MAYOR.

THANK YOU. I HOPE I KEPT IT UNDER THREE MINUTES.

MAYBE A LITTLE OVER, BUT I THINK--I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION.

I THINK THAT WAS MAINLY WHEN YOU ADMITTED TO HOW OLD YOU ARE AND WE WERE ALL TAKING THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. [LAUGHTER] THOSE OF US WHO'VE KNOWN YOU FOR A WHILE.

SO ANY IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER?

[01:00:03]

I SEE NONE. THANK YOU, SIR.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM OF.

I SEE NONE.

NO ONE HAS QUEUED UP.

I DON'T KNOW.

I THOUGHT I SAW MR. LIEDTKE IN THE QUEUE, IF WE HAD ANY IF WE HAD ANY TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC QUESTIONS, COUNCIL MEMBER AUBIN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO GO BACK TO ANY OF THAT OR IF WE'RE GOOD TO MOVE FORWARD. I THINK I'M GOOD TO MOVE FORWARD.

OK, JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE-CHECK.

GO AHEAD.

BUT IF SOMEONE ELSE WANTS TO ASK QUESTIONS, BY ALL MEANS.

OK, COUNCIL, OUR TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR HAS JOINED US ON THE MEETING, IF ANYBODY HAD ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THAT AND IF NOT, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ANY ISSUES WERE RAISED.

I MEAN, I BELIEVE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE DENSITY INCREASES AND THE SPEAKER DID BRING UP SOME PERCENTAGE QUESTIONS.

SO I THINK THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY ADDRESSED THEIR NEED FOR THE DENSITY OR THE DENSITY THAT THEY'VE REQUESTED.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NECESSARILY NEED TO GO BACK TO THE APPLICANT.

SO WITH THAT, THE QUEUE IS CLEAR.

COUNCIL MEMBER, AUBIN, THIS IS IN YOUR DISTRICT.

HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROCEED? THANK YOU, MAYOR. COUNCIL, AS YOU'VE PROBABLY DETERMINED, I'VE GOT SOME REAL CONCERNS ABOUT THE DENSITY HERE, AND IT'S REALLY RELATED TO THE STRETCH OF WHERE IT IS THAT WE'RE PUTTING ALL OF THIS ONTO MILLER.

AND IT'S THIS 900 FOOT STRETCH BETWEEN GLENBROOK AND SATURN, THAT IS THE PROBLEM, AND THEN AS YOU GO FURTHER EAST, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS SOME WORK BEING DONE ON THAT INTERSECTION THERE WITH GARLAND AVENUE, THAT'S ACTUALLY TO REDUCE CONGESTION, GARLAND AVENUE, TO PROVIDE RIGHT TURN LANES AND OTHER TRAIN LINES TO REDUCE CONGESTION.

AND SO I THINK I'M JUST A LITTLE BIT TOO CONCERNED ABOUT THE DENSITY HERE, RECOGNIZING, HOWEVER, THAT THIS PROPERTY IS ALREADY ZONED OR MOST OF THE PROPERTY, THE ORIGINAL PART OF THE [INAUDIBLE] IS ZONED FOR MULTIFAMILY FOR A DENSITY OF 18.

AND SO I THINK THAT MY SUGGESTION OR MY MOTION, MAYOR, AND IF SOMEONE HAS A BETTER WAY TO FRAME THIS, I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT.

YOU KNOW, I'D BE ALL RIGHT WITH APPROVING A PD THAT WAS 18, BUT THEN THE DETAIL, BECAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE IS 18 EXCEPT FOR THE FORMER CHURCH FACILITY.

BUT I DON'T REALLY WANT TO DESIGN.

I THINK WE MAKE BAD CHOICES WHEN WE TRY AND GET PEOPLE TO DESIGN ON THE FLY AND TELL US HOW THINGS WOULD LOOK DIFFERENT OR THIS OR THAT.

AND SO OBVIOUSLY THE DETAIL PLAN WOULDN'T FLY EITHER.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO DENY, BUT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO COME BACK WITH, IF I COULD CHANGE THE ZONING, I DON'T THINK I CAN MAYBE THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN TELL ME, THE WAY THE APPLICATION IS SET UP. I DON'T THINK WE CAN APPROVE 18 TONIGHT ON, WE CAN'T GET A STRAIGHT ZONE THE CHURCH PROPERTY TO 18 OR CREATE A PD WITH THE CHURCH AT 18 MULTIFAMILY.

SO MY INCLINATION IS THE BETTER PART OF VALOR IS TO DENY.

GO AHEAD, BRAD.

I REALLY THINK THAT'S YOUR ONLY OPTION HERE.

I MEAN, THE MESSAGE HAS BEEN SENT TO THE APPLICANT, THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ON CHURCH, THE 18TH. BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO MAKE A BETTER PRODUCT WITHOUT HAVING IT COME BACK AS A OLD PRODUCT AND INDICATING THAT, YES, WE'RE WILLING TO REZONE A CHURCH TRACT, INCORPORATE THAT INTO A CRACK AS A WHOLE, YOUR MOTION IS TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

BUT IF THE APPLICANT IS UNAWARE, IT MEANS YOU DON'T HAVE TO WAIT THE YEAR STAND DOWN PERIOD THAT WE OTHERWISE HAVE APPLICABLE IN THE GDC.

AND SO PERHAPS IF THEY'RE WILLING, THEY CAN COME BACK WITH A REDESIGNED PRODUCT THAT IT

[01:05:05]

COULD BE CONSIDERED TOO.

THAT SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT.

SO MY MOTION IS TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND INVITE THEM TO COME BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT WOULD INCORPORATE THE CHURCH PROPERTY SHOULD THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO.

AND I HAVE A SECOND.

OK, I'VE GOT COUNCIL MEMBER BASS HAS COME INTO THE QUEUE.

SIR. THANK YOU.

YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT REAL QUICK, IF THEY WERE TO CHANGE IT FROM THREE STORIES TO TWO STORIES, THEY WOULD BE RIGHT AT THAT 18.

WE WILL LET THEM DO THE DESIGN WORK.

THE DESIGN WORK AND MATH IS NOT OUR BUSINESS.

COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS. YES, MAYOR, I JUST WANT TO I'M JUST GOING TO SECOND A COUNCILMAN AUBIN MOTION.

OK, VERY GOOD, SIR.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO I HAVE A MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND THANK YOU, MR. NEIGHBOR, FOR GIVING US THE EXPLANATION OF THE WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU TO ELABORATE ON THAT.

AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? AND AGAIN, THE MOTION IS TO DENY.

COUNCIL, PLEASE VOTE.

AND THE MOTION TO DENY IS, YES, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT, UNANIMOUS.

SORRY, COULDN'T FIND THE RIGHT WORDS.

OK. AND MR. GUERIN, I WILL ASK IF YOU CAN REACH OUT TO THE APPLICANTS IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AS FAR AS THE MOTION AND WHAT THEIR FUTURE CHOICES MAY BE.

YES, SIR, WILL DO.

THANK YOU. AND THAT WILL BRING US TO ITEM 12 C, CONSIDER A REQUEST BY MVAH PARTNERS TO

[12C. Consider a request by MVAH Partners to re-zone the property to allow an apartment complex. This property is located at 1102 North Shiloh Road in District 8.]

REZONE THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1102 NORTH SHILOH ROAD IN DISTRICT EIGHT.

HEY, MAYOR AND COUNCILMAN, THANK YOU.

THIS IS A PROPOSAL FOR A STRAIGHT ZONING CASE TO REZONE A PROPERTY TO MULTIFAMILY.

IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED COMMUNITY OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL.

THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 11 02 NORTH SHILOH ROAD.

THE SITE IS JUST UNDER 12 ACRES IN SIZE.

HERE'S THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

AND HERE IT IS ZOOMED IN OUTLINE IN TEAL.

IT IS LOCATED JUST NORTH OF THE VA HOSPITAL, LOCATED KIND OF DOWN HERE WHERE MY CURSOR IS SHOWING.

THE SITE IS LARGELY UNIMPROVED.

BUT AGAIN, IT'S OUTLINED HERE SOME OF THE SURROUNDING USAGE.