Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:08]

GOOD EVENING. WELCOME TO THE APRIL 11TH PLAN COMMISSION MEETING.

[Plan Commission Pre Meeting]

THIS PORTION OF OUR MEETING IS OUR WORK SESSION PORTION.

AND AFTER THROUGH WITH THIS, WE WILL RECESS UNTIL THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION AT 7:00.

GO AHEAD. GOOD EVENING.

FIRST, I'D LIKE TO GO OVER THE CONSENT AGENDA.

THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT.

NO? OKAY. SO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE Z 2201.

THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A MULTI-TENANT RETAIL RESTAURANT BUILDING, WHICH INCLUDES A DRIVE THRU RESTAURANT. AND THIS IS A DETAILED PLAN FOR A RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE THRU RESTAURANT USE AND RETAIL USE ON A PROPERTY ZONE.

PD 19-07 FOR COMMUNITY RETAIL USES.

HERE'S THE CASE INFORMATION.

THE ACREAGE IS APPROXIMATELY 1.35 ACRES.

THE CITYWIDE LOCATION MAP AND THE RED STAR SHOWS THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS IS THE LOCATION MAP AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN THIS TEAL BLUE COLOR. IT IS ZONED PD 19-07 AND SURROUNDING ZONING ARE ALL MAINLY COMMUNITY RETAIL USE.

AND THIS PD 19-07 DOES ALLOW THE RETAIL USE RESTAURANT AND RESTAURANT WITH THE DRIVE THRU, BUT IT DOES REQUIRE A DETAILED PLAN.

SO THE APPLICANT HAS BROUGHT FORWARD A DETAILED PLAN.

THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE ENVISIONED GARLAND PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY AS COMMUNITY CENTERS, AND THE PROPOSED LAND USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

HERE ARE SOME OF THE SITE PHOTOS.

THE TOP LEFT IS VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM NORTH GEORGE BUSH.

AND THEN THE TOP RIGHT IS LOOKING SOUTHWEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

AND THAT'S WHERE THE GAS STATION IS.

AND THE BOTTOM LEFT IS EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND THAT'S THE RETAIL BUILDING.

AND THEN THE BOTTOM RIGHT IS NORTH OF SUBJECT PROPERTY.

HERE'S SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION.

THIS IS THE APPROVED CONCEPT PLAN FROM PD 19-07, AND IT DOES SUBDIVIDE INTO THREE DIFFERENT TRACKS.

THERE WAS A MEDICAL OFFICE EXISTING AT THAT TIME AND THEY'VE DEMOLISHED THAT.

AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN THE RED COLOR.

AND OVER HERE THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH MURPHY OIL GAS STATION AND AT THE HEART CORNER IT IS WAS APPROVED FOR A RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE THRU.

SO RAISING CANE'S WHICH IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

AND HERE'S THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN, WHICH SHOWS ONE BUILDING AND HAS TWO TENANT SPACES.

THIS ONE OVER HERE, WHICH IS PROPOSED BUILDING TWO, THAT'S FOR A RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE THRU AND THEN FOR BUILDING ONE THAT IS A FOR A RETAIL OR A RESTAURANT USE.

AND THE SITE DOES COMPLY WITH THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

AND THE PRIMARY ACCESS IS FROM NORTH GEORGE BUSH HIGHWAY.

AND THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THIS BUILDING IS 4914.

THIS IS THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN AND IT DOES COMPLY WITH THE LANDSCAPING STANDARDS.

THIS IS THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND IT COMPLIES WITH THE BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE GDC. THE DUMPSTER ELEVATIONS.

THE PROPOSED RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE THRU RESTAURANT AND RETAIL USES ARE ALLOWED PER PLAN DEVELOPMENT 19-07.

HOWEVER, A DETAILED PLAN IS REQUIRED.

NO DEVIATIONS HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE REQUEST MEETS ALL TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS. AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE DETAILED PLAN FOR MULTITENANT BUILDING, INCLUDING A RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE THRU USE.

AND WE MAILED OUT 46 LETTERS AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ALL RIGHTY. ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER ROSE? DO YOU KNOW, TIMING WISE? ARE THEY GOING TO START IF THIS IS APPROVED BY COUNCIL? ARE THEY GOING TO START RIGHT AWAY OR IT'S GOING TO BE TWO YEARS OUT OR WHAT? I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT WILL BE ABLE TO ANSWER.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THE APPLICANT MIGHT BE ABLE TO LET US KNOW WHAT RESTAURANT IT'S GOING TO BE, BECAUSE WE'VE GOT ABOUT SEVEN WITHIN A HALF A MILE THERE SO.

[00:05:01]

BELIEVE SO. THAT A SEAT, WHAT DIFFERENT TYPE CAN THEY BRING US? SO THANK YOU.

OKAY. GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN. COMMISSIONERS.

GOOD EVENING. SO THERE WERE A COUPLE OF DISCUSSION ITEMS THAT WERE SENT BY THE CITY COUNCIL, REFERRED TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

IT CONSISTS OF THREE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO GO OVER DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATORY TYPE ITEMS RELATED TO ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT.

SO TWO OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE RECENTLY DISCUSSED BY THE COMMITTEE WERE CELL TOWER REGULATIONS. THEY TOOK A LOOK AT OUR CURRENT GDC REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE AS WELL AS MULTIFAMILY COVERED PARKING.

SO I'LL START WITH THE CELL TOWERS DISCUSSION HERE.

AND BASICALLY THEY WANTED TO LOOK AT THE CURRENT REGULATIONS AND SEE IF WE NEEDED TO EASE ANY PARTICULAR RESTRICTIONS, JUST GIVEN THAT EVERYONE RELYING ON CELL PHONES AND DEVICES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, SEE IF WE NEED TO KIND OF TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT OUR REGULATIONS, WHICH HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR SOME TIME IN TERMS OF CELL TOWERS.

SO THE COMMITTEE BROUGHT IN A RECENT CELL TOWER APPLICANT THAT WENT THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS A FEW MONTHS BACK AND GOT TO HEAR FROM AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD AND KIND OF GET HIS THOUGHTS AND HIS FEEDBACK AS WELL.

SO THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL.

AND THEY ALSO TOOK A LOOK AT SOME REGULATIONS THAT OTHER CITIES IN THE REGION HAVE AS WELL. SO SO THESE CHANGES ARE LARGELY BASED ON KIND OF CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER CITIES IN THE DALLAS-FORT WORTH AREA.

SO BUT OVERALL, THEY'RE NOT TOO FAR OFF, JUST A FEW THINGS.

BUT I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION.

THE BLACK PRINT IS ALL EXISTING GDC.

SO I'M JUST GOING TO KIND OF FOCUS ON THE RED ON WHAT HAS ACTUALLY BEING PROPOSED TO CHANGE, WHAT IS RECOMMENDED BY THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL, WHO REVIEWED THIS THROUGH A COUPLE OF MEETINGS OR A SERIES OF MEETINGS TO START WITH RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS CURRENTLY COMMERCIAL ANTENNA ARE PROHIBITED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. SO REALLY, WITH A COUPLE OF EXCEPTIONS, UTILITY STRUCTURES SUCH AS WATER TOWERS AND THE LIKE, AS WELL AS A TRULY STEALTH DESIGN.

SO IF IT'S INSIDE A BUILDING OR PERHAPS WITHIN A SOME SORT OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, BUT IT'S IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, OBVIOUS OR VISIBLE, REALLY, BUT THOSE ARE REALLY THE ONLY EXCEPTIONS. OTHERWISE THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL IF SOMETHING IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL. SO THE ONLY WAY TO ALLOW THAT WOULD BE THROUGH AN ENTIRE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROCESS TO ALLOW IT THROUGH THAT MECHANISM.

SO WHAT THE COMMITTEE PROPOSED IS TO AT LEAST ALLOW IT BY SUP A SPECIFIC USE PROVISION WHICH STILL REQUIRES AN APPROVAL PROCESS THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL. BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY A CASE BY CASE BASIS AND CASE BY CASE BASIS AND REVIEW, AND IT WOULD STILL BE SUBJECT TO CURRENT DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS.

AS FOR NON RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE DISTRICTS, CURRENTLY THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT A TOWER, A NEW FREESTANDING TOWER THAT IS CANNOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT. SO FOR EXAMPLE, COMMUNITY RETAIL HAS A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 35 FEET, SO IT COULDN'T EXCEED 35 FEET.

COMMONLY YOU SEE TOWERS THAT ARE MUCH MORE THAN THAT, OF COURSE.

SO SO TAKE A LOOK AT SOME OTHER CITIES IN THE METROPLEX.

85 FEET WAS A PRETTY COMMON HEIGHT KIND OF THRESHOLD THAT THEY HAD FOR THEIR CELL TOWERS.

SO ULTIMATELY, THE COMMITTEE IS RECOMMENDING AND I'M SORRY THAT CURRENTLY THE REGULATION IS IF IT EXCEEDS THE BUILDING HEIGHT, IT NEEDS AN SUP.

SO WHAT THE COMMITTEE IS PROPOSING IS ANYTHING LESS THAN 85 FEET IN HEIGHT, ANY TOWER, CELL TOWER THAT IS WOULD BE ALLOWED BY.

RIGHT. AND ANYTHING IN EXCESS OF 85 FEET IN A COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE DISTRICT WOULD NEED AN SOP THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL PROCESS.

AGAIN, IT WOULD STILL BE SUBJECT TO OTHER DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FROM OTHER TOWERS, FROM RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS AND THE LIKE AND ONE OTHER.

THIS IS KIND OF MORE OF A LANGUAGE CLEANUP REALLY AS SOMETHING I SPOKE WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY ABOUT AND WE BROUGHT TO THE COMMITTEE'S ATTENTION WHILE WE'RE KIND OF GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, BUT THE NEXT SET OF RED LINES THERE IS THE SENTENCE THAT STARTS WITH A SITE WITH A PREVIOUSLY ISSUED AND CURRENT ACTIVE SUP SHALL NOT REQUIRE A NEW SUP UNLESS THE HEIGHT OR FOOTPRINT OF THE ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE HAS CHANGED.

IT SEEMS TO INSINUATE THAT YOU SIMPLY DON'T NEED AN SUP RENEWAL, THAT AN EXISTING CELL TOWER IN A COMMERCIAL MIXED USE DISTRICT THAT IS WOULD NOT NEED A RENEWAL AS LONG AS

[00:10:01]

THEY'RE NOT CHANGING THE HEIGHT OR BUILDING FOOTPRINT.

THE LANGUAGE IS A LITTLE CLUMSY IN OUR OPINION AND THAT THE WORDS CURRENTLY ACTIVE SUP WEREN'T SURE IF THAT MEANT TIME PERIOD OR JUST THAT THE USE THE ANTENNA IS STILL ACTIVE.

SO JUST A LITTLE LANGUAGE CLEANUP THERE BUT THIS WOULD CLARIFY THAT WE BROUGHT IT TO THE COMMITTEE'S ATTENTION AND THEY CONCURRED WITH THE INTENT OF THIS.

AND THE CITY ATTORNEY SEEMED TO BELIEVE OR RECALL THAT THAT WAS THE INTENT TO NOT REQUIRE.

RENEWALS FOR IF A TIME PERIOD EXPIRES FOR AN EXISTING CELL TOWER IN A NONRESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE DISTRICT. SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS DOES IS KIND OF TAKES THE TIME PERIOD ASPECT OUT OF AND MAKES THEM SORT OF AN INDEFINITE TIME PERIOD, WHICH WE DO SEE A LOT OF ACTUALLY IN LOOKING AT A LOT OF THOSE OLD SUBS, NOT NECESSARILY OLD, BUT JUST A LOT OF PREVIOUS SUP ORDINANCES FOR CELL TOWERS.

A LOT OF THEM ARE INDEFINITE TIME PERIODS.

SO THAT'S THAT'S REALLY INTENT.

THERE JUST KIND OF A LANGUAGE CLEANUP.

ONE OF THE, MR. CHAIRMAN, ONE DIFFERENT CELL TOWER APPLICANT ASKED IF THE CITY IS CONSIDERING RESIDENTIAL MAKING THE SAME REQUIREMENT IN THERE.

THIS IS, OF COURSE, JUST CLEANING UP THE EXISTING LANGUAGE, WHICH IS SPECIFIC TO NON RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE DISTRICTS.

BUT JUST AN INTERESTING QUESTION FROM A CURRENT CELL TOWER APPLICANT THAT WE DID HAVE.

THE OTHER REQUIREMENT IS FOR MULTIFAMILY COVERED PARKING.

THE REASON THIS WAS SENT TO COMMITTEE WAS THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER COVERED PARKING OR IF MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT MANAGERS, IF THEY WERE REQUIRING HIGHER RENTS, PRICING FOR COVERED PARKING, AND IF THAT WAS PUSHING FOLKS TO NOT USE IT AND KIND OF PUSHING THAT OUT INTO THE STREET AND OTHER AREAS.

SO THAT'S CREATING PARKING ISSUES, CODE COMPLIANCE LOOKED INTO IT PARTICULAR SEVERAL PARTICULAR APARTMENT COMPLEXES THAT WERE KIND OF THE IMPETUS FOR THESE QUESTIONS AND ULTIMATELY DIDN'T FIND IT TO BE A PARTICULAR ISSUE THERE.

THEY KIND OF BROKE DOWN THE DATA OF HOW MANY COVERED SPACES WERE BEING UTILIZED VERSUS NOT. AND SO ULTIMATELY THE COMMITTEE DECIDED NOT TO MAKE ANY CHANGES WITH THE COVERED PARKING REQUIREMENT, WHICH CURRENTLY IS THAT AT LEAST 50% OF THE PARKING REQUIRED BY MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT MUST BE COVERED.

THAT MAY BE A CARPORT OR GARAGE, TUCK IN A GARAGE PARKING STRUCTURE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT AT LEAST 50% NEEDS TO BE COVERED.

SO THE COMMITTEE DIDN'T RECOMMEND ANY CHANGES TO THAT.

HOWEVER, ONE CHANGE THAT THEY DID RECOMMEND WAS KIND OF ANOTHER CLEANUP ITEM THAT STAFF BROUGHT TO THEIR ATTENTION A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.

SOME OF YOU MAY RECALL MR. OAK AND I AND MR. HINES BROUGHT FORWARD A QUITE A LIST OF GDC AMENDMENTS, AND IN IT WE INTENDED TO REMOVE THIS LANGUAGE, WHICH WAS IN A SEPARATE SECTION OF THE CODE AS FAR AS THIS THIS STRIP THROUGH LANGUAGE THAT SAYS, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT EACH UNIT MUST HAVE AT LEAST ONE COVERED PARKING SPACE.

REALLY THE 50% THAT'S IN THE LAND USE MATRIX WHERE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE, THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE CONSISTENT REQUIREMENT THAT IT'S BEEN ENFORCED.

IT'S IN LINE WITH A FEW OTHER CITIES.

THERE'S OTHER LANGUAGE WE MEANT TO REMOVE.

WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE IN THE CODE AND INSTEAD IT ACCIDENTALLY GOT DUPLICATED INTO THE LAND USE MATRIX.

SO WE'RE PROPOSING TO JUST SIMPLY REMOVE THAT AND KEEP THE KEEP THE REQUIREMENT AS IS, WHICH IS 50% SHOULD BE COVERED.

BUT WITH THAT COMMITTEE, I MEAN, SORRY, COMMISSION.

I'LL OPEN UP ANY QUESTIONS.

ARE YOU TRYING TO GET IN, COMMISSIONER ROSE? YES, THEY ARE. WELL, OK, YOU'RE LIVE NOW.

OK, IT SAID 50%.

IS THAT 50% OF THE COVER OR 50% OF THE NUMBER OF CARS IN THE PARKING LOT? 50% OF THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT ARE.

COVERED? YES, SIR. YOU MIGHT WANT TO CLEAR THAT UP, I THINK.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING. OKAY.

SURE. YEAH.

YEAH. SO THEN I HAVE A QUESTION TO YOU.

BACK TO THE CELL TYPE CELL TOWER AND THE ANTENNA.

I KNOW YOU SURVEYED A FEW CITIES JUST TO GET A GAUGE OF KIND OF WHAT THEIR REQUIREMENTS ARE. WHAT JUST ONE QUICK NUGGET OF THE SCOOP.

DID THEY GIVE ANY GUIDANCE AROUND THE THE AVERAGE SUP APPROVAL TIME? IF THERE IS AN EXCEPTION AND IT'S BY SUP, DID THEY HAPPEN TO GIVE? I KNOW WE TYPICALLY HAVE BETWEEN 20 TO 30 YEARS, BUT WERE THERE ANY OTHER LEARNINGS FROM THAT ON SUP? NOT FROM THE OTHER CITIES.

WE LOOK AT A TIME PERIODS.

ALL RIGHT. THANKS.

APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. AGAIN, YOUR LIVE.

OKAY. SO ON THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITH THE CELL TOWERS, ARE THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS THE SAME AS THEY WOULD BE THE 85 FEET? OR IS THERE A LIMIT TO THAT? IT WOULD BE A SHORTER TOWERS IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA.

THERE'S THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN OR PROPOSED IS NO, THERE WOULDN'T BE A HEIGHT THRESHOLD.

[00:15:04]

IT WOULD JUST BE AN SUP REGARDLESS OF THE HEIGHT BEING PROPOSED.

SO ANY FREESTANDING COMMERCIAL TOWER PROPOSED IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THAT? THAT WOULD BE CASE BY CASE? CORRECT. BUT THEY COULDN'T GO OVER THE 85 FEET? SEEMS KIND OF TALL FOR A RESIDENTIAL AREA.

SURE. WELL, THERE'S NOT AN 85 FOOT MAXIMUM PROPOSED IN THE RESIDENTIAL.

THE ONLY, THE 85 FOOT REFERENCE IS UNIQUE TO THE NON RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE.

THAT'S JUST THE THRESHOLD OF WHETHER IT'S ALLOWED BY.

RIGHT. WHICH IS IF IT'S UNDER 85 FEET OR BY SUP.

IF IT'S OVER THAT. OKAY.

YES, MA'AM.

COMMISSIONER DALTON.

SO DOES THAT MEAN ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO APPROVE ANY HEIGHT THAT GOES INTO A RESIDENTIAL AREA? RIGHT. ANY HEIGHT WOULD BE WOULD GO THROUGH THAT SUP PROCESS REGARDLESS OF HEIGHT.

SO EACH ONE WILL BE TREATED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE NEXT.

YES, SIR. THANK YOU.

I SHOULD MENTION, AS A SIDE NOTE, I THINK THERE'S A LITTLE BIT IN OUR EMAIL EXCHANGE EARLIER, MR. CHAIRMAN, BUT ONE I THINK YOU HAD ACTUALLY RAISED A GREAT POINT THAT SOME OF THE LANGUAGE AND THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS.

CURRENTLY SAYS A CELL TOWER FROM A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE.

SO IF THIS WERE APPROVED WE PROBABLY WANT TO CLARIFY THAT DISTANCE, A MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM RESIDENTIAL DWELLING IF IT'S IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE, JUST TO KIND OF CLEAN THAT UP A LITTLE BIT. YEAH. OKAY.

COMMISSIONER ROSE? THIS IS FOR NEW TOWERS ONLY? IT'S NOT FOR EXISTING TOWERS? THAT'S CORRECT.

THAT'S REALLY HOW REALISTICALLY WE APPLY IT, HOW WE'VE KIND OF BEEN TREATING THESE, BECAUSE YOU'VE SEEN A COUPLE OF SUP RENEWALS COME THROUGH THE PROCESS WHERE IT'S EXISTING AND THEY WERE BUILT PRIOR TO THE 5000 FOOT REQUIREMENT OR SOME OF THE OTHER DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS. SO WE STILL TREAT IT AS A SIMPLE SUP RENEWAL.

BUT WHAT WE TYPICALLY DO IS STAFF IS NOTE THAT IN THE STAFF REPORT WE SAY, WELL, THE GDC DOES CURRENTLY REQUIRE THIS JUST FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.

HOWEVER, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IT WAS BUILT PRIOR TO THAT.

SO YEAH.

YES, SIR. COMMISSIONER DALTON? SO WE ARE MAINTAINING THE 5000 FOOT LIMITATION OF TOWER? AS DRAFTED THAT STAYS AS IS.

YES, SIR. THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED, LOOKED AT SOME OTHER CITIES.

SOME OF THEM HAVE THE SAME REQUIREMENT.

SOME OF THEM HAVE A 5000 OR ONE MILE REQUIREMENT, BUT FOUR TOWERS OVER 180 FEET IN HEIGHT. SO EACH CITY IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

BUT WE DID FIND, I THINK, AT LEAST ONE OR TWO OTHERS THAT HAVE THE SAME REQUIREMENT.

ANYWAY, IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS LOOKED AT AND DISCUSSED THROUGH THE COMMITTEE LEVEL, BUT THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO CHANGE.

SO YEAH, AND THE REASON I'M ASKING IS BECAUSE WITH THREE CARRIERS, FORMALLY FOUR, YOU COULD THEORETICALLY HAVE FOUR TOWERS RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER TO GET COVERAGE FOR EACH ONE OF THE CARRIERS.

THERE'S ACTUALLY A PLACE IN DALLAS THAT I DROVE BY.

THERE WERE FOUR TOWERS RIGHT WITHIN PROXIMITY OF EACH OTHER THAT EACH ONE WAS A SINGLE CARRIER. OF COURSE, WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE CARRIERS SHARE A TOWER.

THEREFORE WE GET ONE TOWER WITH THREE CARRIERS IN IT.

IT'S A LOT, IT'S A LOT LESS TOWERS, BUT IT'S A LITTLE MORE CLUTTERED WHEN YOU LOOK AT A TOWER, BECAUSE NOW YOU'VE GOT THREE ARRAYS OF ANTENNAS UP THERE IN SOME CASES, PLUS 5G BEING A DIFFERENT SET OF ANTENNAS.

THE ONE THING THAT WORRIES ME IN A RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT, YOU GET INTO AN AREA LIKE WHERE I LIVE, WHERE THEY COULD PUT A TOWER UP ON ONE OF THE POWER LINES, THE ONCOR MAIN TRANSMISSION LINES ACROSS THE LAKE.

BUT WHEN THEY GET FURTHER NORTH OVER A MILE AWAY, 5000 FEET, THERE'S ONLY RESIDENTIAL.

THERE'S ONLY RESIDENCES, THERE'S NO PLACE TO PUT A TOWER UNLESS THEY GO BACK AND PUT IT UP ON TOP OF ANOTHER STRUCTURE.

I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THEM TRYING TO PUT TOWERS ON WOOD STRUCTURE, WOODEN POLES, IN DEFERENCE TO PUTTING THEM ON METAL TRANSMISSION LINES OR ON THE TOP OF WATER TOWERS.

THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT WORRIES ME A LITTLE BIT.

ON THE WAY WE WRITE THIS, WE'VE GOT TO BE CAREFUL TO OR WE'RE GOING TO HAVE CITIZENS GOING, WE CAN'T GET CELL RECEPTION.

[00:20:01]

IT'S THE CITY'S FAULT BECAUSE THEY WON'T LET THEM PUT TOWERS UP.

THEN THE CITIZEN NEXT DOOR SAYS, I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU LET THEM PUT A TOWER UP IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WE'RE KIND OF CAUGHT BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE A LITTLE BIT ON SOME OF THESE PARTICULAR ISSUES.

I'M GLAD WE'RE WATCHING, KEEPING IT TO THE SUP, SO WE CAN HAVE THAT OPEN DISCUSSION WHENEVER ONE COMES ACROSS.

THANK YOU. YEAH.

I TRIED TO BRING MYSELF UP TO SPEED IN THE WEEKEND TO ALL THE WORK THAT THEY WERE DOING FOR MONTHS. IT'S NOT EASY.

AND I DID LISTEN TO THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND EVERYTHING.

AND TO YOUR POINT, AND I BROUGHT THIS UP IN OUR EMAILS ABOUT CLUSTERING, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS. AND THE CONSULTANT SAID SOME OF THOSE GUYS JUST DON'T WANT TO TALK TO EACH OTHER, SO THEY DON'T EVEN WANT TO BE IN THE SAME TOWER.

AND YOU'RE ALSO SAYING THAT A LOT OF THE CITIES HAVE ALLOWANCES FOR WELL OVER 100 FOOT TOWERS BECAUSE THEY LIKE TO BE AT 75 FEET OR ABOVE TO GET PROPER COVERAGE.

65 FEET JUST DOESN'T CUT IT.

AND IT'S A CONSTANTLY CHANGING TARGET, TOO, WITH TECHNOLOGY.

I EVEN READ AN ARTICLE ABOUT LOW ORBITING SATELLITES MAY TAKE OVER FROM TOWERS, AND THAT BROUGHT UP ONE THING IF TOWERS GO AWAY.

AND SOME OF MY COMMENTS ARE JUST AS MUCH FOR COUNCIL AS THEY ARE FOR US, LIKE WE DO WITH GAS STATIONS.

IF TOWER IS ABANDONED, DO WE MAKE THEM TAKE IT DOWN.

IN GAS STATIONS? IF IT'S ABANDONED, WE MAKE THEM TAKE OUT THE TANKS AND BRING THE LAND BACK SO WE COULD TEN, 20, 30 YEARS END UP WITH, YOU KNOW, 50 TOWERS AROUND WITH NOTHING ON THEM. SO I KIND OF LIKE TO SEE THAT CLEANED UP IN THE FUTURE AND IN TERMS OF RESIDENTIAL. TO ME, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MULTIFAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY MULTIFAMILY. THE BUILDINGS ARE TALLER.

THE TOWERS ARE MORE IN LINE WITH THAT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT.

SO DO WE MAKE ANY AND AGAIN FOR COUNCIL CONSIDER ANY DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY? AND ARE THERE ANY RULES MAYBE SHORT OF TOWERS AND SINGLE FAMILY? AND ALONG WITH THAT, DO WE REDUCE THE SPACING? TO YOUR POINT THAT, OKAY, THEY'VE GOT A TOWER OVER HERE NEXT ONE 5000 FEET AWAY IS IN RESIDENTIAL. IF WE REDUCE THE SPACING, MAYBE WE CAN SCATTER TOWERS AROUND THE RESIDENTIAL ? GET ALL THE COVERAGE, AND IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE COVERAGE.

THE ENGINEER AGAIN SAID IT'S CAPACITY.

YOU KNOW, WE EACH HAVE 20 TO 50 APPS ON OUR PHONE AND IT'S A CAPACITY.

THE COVERAGE IS THERE. IT'S JUST THE BANDWIDTH GETTING IN.

SO YEAH, THE SINGLE FAMILY VERSUS RESIDENTIAL AND IT BRINGS UP SOME POSSIBILITIES HERE THAT WE MAY OR MAY NOT WANT TO CONSIDER.

WE'VE GOT AND WE'VE JUST APPROVED SOME LARGE SOME HOUSES ON SOME LARGE ACREAGE.

COULD THAT INDIVIDUAL HOUSE, IF THEY MEET THE RULES CONTRACT TO GET A TOWER PUT IN THEIR LAND BRINGING IN 5000 A MONTH.

CAN HOAS DO THIS IF THEY WANT TO? TO BRING IT IN. SO THESE ARE SOME THINGS THAT COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN THAT MAY MAY REQUIRE SOME THOUGHT TO DO.

AND WE ALSO HAVE A DISTANCE BETWEEN A TOWER AND THE BORDERLINE OVER.

HOW MUCH IS THAT? WAS THAT A COUPLE HUNDRED FEET OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? I'M SORRY. WHAT? THE DISTANCE BETWEEN A TOWER AND THE BORDER OF THE RESIDENTIAL? YES, IT'S A 3 TO 1 RATIO.

SO THE HEIGHT OR EXCUSE ME, THE DISTANCE WOULD BE THREE TIMES THE HEIGHT OF THE.

THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH, WE ADJUSTED THAT.

SO THAT'S NOT THAT BAD.

BUT IF YOU LET THEM CLOSER MIGHT HELP.

AND THEN WE HAD THE QUESTION ABOUT, AND I THINK THIS MAY BE A LANGUAGE THING ABOUT A UTILITY STRUCTURE, MAXIMUM 50 FEET HIGH OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND THAT NEEDS TO BE CLEARED UP. OKAY.

AND THE ONLY OTHER DEAL I HAD WAS ON THE PARKING AND IT WAS ABOUT THE RENTED PARKING.

AND I LOOKED AT SOME OF THE NUMBERS YOU SENT ME AND YOU SAW MY EMAIL BACK.

THERE WAS ONE APARTMENT COMPLEX WHERE I THINK 72% OF THE GARAGES HAD BEEN RENTED AND 53% OF THE COVERED PARKING HAD BEEN RENTED.

SO THAT'S AN AVERAGE OF, SAY, 60% OF THE COVERED PARKING IS RENTED, AT LEAST 40% UNRATED.

ARE THEY NOT ALLOWED TO USE THAT? AND IF THAT'S HALF, THAT MEANS 20% OF THE PARKING IN THE APARTMENT COMPLEX IS UNAVAILABLE. SO IF ISSUES OCCUR WHERE THERE'S PARKING GOING OUT IN THE STREET, SHOULD THE CITY HAVE A WAY TO GO IN AND SAY, HEY, MAKE THEM AVAILABLE? WE DON'T WANT YOU PARKING ON THE STREET.

AND THEY'RE DOING IT TO GATHER MONEY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME YOU COULD PUT PARKING ON THE

[00:25:04]

STREET OF PEOPLE RENT.

20% IS QUITE A BIT OF A PARKING AND THAT WAS JUST ONE THE OTHERS THAT THEY QUOTED, THEY WERE LIKE 93, 95% RENTED.

IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE.

SO THOSE ARE JUST TOPICS I BRING UP.

AGAIN, PROBABLY MORE SO FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THAT FOR US TO TRY TO WORK INTO A MOTION.

AND IN TERMS OF THE I'M SORRY, THE RENEWAL OR IF I'M, I HAVEN'T READ THE THE LEGAL PART OF SECTION 40, 6409 OF THE SPECTRUM ACT, BUT IT SAYS CITIES CAN'T INTERFERE IF THEY WANT TO ADD A 10% TO THE HEIGHT OF A TOWER.

NO MORE REVIEWS.

SO IF YOU WERE TO READ THAT CORRECTLY AND YOU COULD IMPLY THAT YOU CAN'T MAKE THEM TAKE IT DOWN IF THEY'RE NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES JUST BECAUSE THE TIME RUNS OUT.

SO THAT WOULD BE A NICE LEGAL ARGUMENT FOR YOU GUYS TO IF YOU SAY, WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO RENEW AN SUP AND THEY'D PROBABLY GO TO THIS AND GO.

SO THAT MAY BE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER, TO JUST GO AHEAD AND ALLOW ANYWHERE IN PERPETUITY FOR THE RENEWALS UNTIL THEY ABANDON IT AND YANK IT OUT.

SO THAT'S MY WEEKEND WISDOM.

AND COMMISSIONER DALTON AND COMMISSIONER ROSE.

I'M GOING TO SPEAK MORE FROM EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE.

I DON'T SEE TOWERS GOING AWAY ANY TIME SOON.

THERE ARE TECHNICAL RESTRICTIONS THAT OCCUR UTILIZING SATELLITE KNOWN AS LATENCY.

SIMPLY PHYSICS IS IT TAKES A RADIO SIGNAL, A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD GO FROM EARTH TO A GEOSYNCHRONOUS SATELLITE SOMEWHERE NEARBY.

AND IF YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED, WHEN YOU TALK TO SOMEONE ON ONE OF THESE WHO'S CLOSE BY, THERE'S LATENCY BETWEEN THE TWO.

THIS LATENCY WOULD BE APPRECIABLY GREATER WHEN YOU GO TO A SATELLITE TYPE ENVIRONMENT.

SO I DON'T SEE THESE TOWERS GOING AWAY ANY TIME SOON WITH THE SATURATION OF CELL PHONES.

5G BAND 14 WITH THE POLICE AND FIRE.

WE'RE JUST ADDING MORE AND MORE THINGS TO THESE TOWERS.

AND AGAIN, YOU MENTIONED A WHILE AGO THE BANDWIDTH OF A TOWER.

A TOWER IS ONLY CAPABLE OF HANDLING SO MANY SIMULTANEOUS CELL PHONE CALLS, ONLY SO MANY.

I KNOW WHEN THEY FIRST STARTED, IT WAS LIKE 150 WAS ALL THEY COULD PUT ON ONE TOWER AND YOU COULD BE DRIVING DOWN LBJ FREEWAY AND BE DISCONNECTED BECAUSE YOU LEFT A TOWER THAT HAD SPACE AND DROVE INTO A TOWER THAT HAD NOTHING, AND YOU WOULD LOSE CONNECTION THAT WAY. AND I THINK THERE ARE OTHER UP TO 330 OR 660 NOW SIMULTANEOUS CALLS TO A SINGLE TOWER THAT'S PER CARRIER.

AND IT JUST KEEPS GROWING.

IT JUST KEEPS GROWING.

I'M INVOLVED IN PUTTING IN EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO SYSTEMS IN STRUCTURES THAT POLICE AND FIRE RADIOS DON'T WORK INSIDE OF ANYMORE.

AND MANY TIMES I'M ASKED TO PUT CELL PHONE SYSTEMS IN THERE CALLED AN E DAS OR A C DAS, E FOR EMERGENCY, C FOR CELLULAR.

IT'S GROWING AND GROWING.

IT'S JUST GOING TO GET WORSE.

SO WE'VE GOT TO BE PREPARED TO TAKE CARE OF THESE COVERAGES AS BEST WE CAN WITHOUT MAKING IT TOO OBTRUSIVE.

I MEAN, I MIGHT THINK ABOUT IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE COULD ENCOURAGE STEALTH TOWERS IN SOME WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, OR ENCOURAGE THEM TO PUT UP STEALTH INSTEAD OF A MONOPOLE WITH A TRIANGULAR ARRAY ON TOP FULL OF ANTENNAS.

THEY'RE OUT THERE.

CHURCH STEEPLES, MONOPOLES.

JUST GET THEM TO DO THAT MORE WOULD BE GREAT.

I THINK THAT'S ALL.

THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

COMMISSIONER ROSE? WHAT'S THE PROCESS? THIS IS GOING TO BE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL NEXT WEEK OR WHAT? YES, OR SO. IT WENT THROUGH COMMITTEE.

AND THEN THE COUNCIL, THE FULL COUNCIL WAS BRIEFED AT THEIR LAST WORK SESSION BY COUNCILMAN HEDRICK, WHO CHAIRS THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE.

SO HE KIND OF BRIEFLY WENT OVER THESE CHANGES.

BUT BUT NOW IT'S KIND OF GOING THROUGH THE FORMAL AMENDMENT PROCESS.

SO OBVIOUSLY PLANNING COMMISSION TONIGHT AND I BELIEVE I'VE GOT IT SCHEDULED FOR NOT NEXT WEEK, BUT THEIR MAY 3RD, THE FIRST MEETING IN MAY.

[00:30:03]

YES, SIR. WELL, I THINK THERE'S SOME INTERESTING POINTS BROUGHT UP TONIGHT THAT OUGHT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL.

AND I JUST WOULD I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO DO THAT.

PERHAPS. THANK YOU.

ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. I THINK THAT'S THE LAST IN OUR BRIEFING PORTION.

SO UNTIL 7:00, WE ARE IN RECESS.

OH, YEAH. OH, NO.

WE GOT ONE MORE ITEM.

YOU GUYS DON'T WANT TO CHANGE YOUR TIMES ON THE MEETING'S, DO YOU? ON THURSDAY. WELL, OKAY.

SATURDAY MORNING. YEAH.

GO AHEAD. OKAY. EITHER THAT OR I CAN SIT WITH SOME OF THE ISSUES WE'VE HAD ON MEETING ON WEDNESDAYS. WE PUT OUR HEADS TOGETHER AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE CAN GO BACK TO MONDAY MEETINGS. WE VOTE FOR IT.

THAT'S WHAT IT'LL BE.

WHAT ABOUT THE CONFLICTS IN? IT'LL BE THE WAY IT USED TO BE THAT.

WE'RE MEETING. IT'LL BE THE SAME WAY IT USED TO BE.

THEY'LL PROBABLY MEET OVER THERE.

WE'LL MEET OUT HERE. THEY'LL BE TELEVISED, WE'LL BE DELAYED.

OR IF FOR SOME REASON AND WE'VE DONE THIS BEFORE, THEY'LL MEET OUT HERE.

WE MEET IN THERE AS LONG AS IT'S RECORDED AUDIALLY IT'S LEGAL.

WE DO NOT HAVE TO BE TELEVISED.

SORRY TO TAKE YOUR THUNDER THERE.

TWO PARTICULAR MEETINGS THAT WE WOULD UPDATE THE 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR ON.

IT WAS OCTOBER AND YES, SIR.

MOVING OCTOBER 12TH TO OCTOBER 10TH MONDAY AND THEN MOVING DECEMBER 14TH TO MONDAY, DECEMBER 12, AND THEN 2023.

WE WOULD JUST GO BACK TO NORMAL.

THERE'S STILL SOME CONFLICTS THAT WHERE WE KIND OF HAD TO MOVE SOME DATES, BUT WE AT LEAST WANTED TO MOVE THE WEDNESDAYS, WHICH WE KNOW HAVE BEEN PROBLEMATIC FOR THE COMMISSION TO MONDAYS.

WE SIGNED UP FOR MONDAY JABS.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

WE'RE IN RECESS UNTIL SEVEN.

THANK YOU, SIR. HOPEFULLY YOUR NAME WILL APPEAR ON MY SCREEN AND I CAN CALL YOU DOWN TO

[Call to Order]

SPEAK. WE ASKED SPEAKERS TO GET THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS INTO THE MICROPHONE.

WE NEED THAT FOR THE RECORDS.

APPLICANTS ARE GIVEN 15 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR CASE.

OTHER SPEAKERS WE ALLOW THREE.

IF YOU'RE SPEAKING FOR A GROUP SUCH AS A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, WE DEFINITELY ALLOW MORE. AND AFTER WE HEAR ALL THE PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH PROBABLY WON'T BE MUCH TONIGHT, WE DO CALL THE APPLICANTS BACK.

FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS A CONSENT AGENDA.

[Consent Agenda]

THESE ARE ITEMS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN BRIEFED ON AND WE'LL BE VOTING IN ONE MOTION TO APPROVE. IF ANYBODY ON THE COMMISSION WANTS AN ITEM REMOVED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION OR ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WANTS AN ITEM REMOVED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, JUST LET ME KNOW AFTER I READ THEM AND WE'LL DO THAT.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 1A, CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES FOR THE MARCH 28TH, 2022 MEETING.

ITEM 2A, PLAT 22-06 PARKER, SUTTON AND BRANT ADDITION FINAL PLAT.

ITEM 2B PLAT 22-07 BY VALUE FIRST REPLAT.

ITEM 2C, CONSIDERATION CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION OF ERIC L DAVIS ENGINEERS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A SIDEWALK DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 3926 ZION ROAD.

ALL RIGHTY. THAT'S THE ITEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

ANYBODY WANT ANY ITEMS REMOVED? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE? GO AHEAD. I MOVE THAT WE, UH, ACCEPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS HAS BEEN PRESENTED.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PARRISH.

I SEE COMMISSIONER DALTON CHIMING IN FOR A SECOND, I PRESUME? YES. ALL RIGHTY.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PARRISH.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DALTON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

PLEASE VOTE.

AND IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU. ALREADY ON TO OUR ZONING CASES.

[3A Consideration of the application of Claymoore Engineering, requesting approval of a DetailPlan for a Multi-tenant Retail/Restaurant building, including a Restaurant with a Drive-Through Use. This item may include amendments to Planned Development (PD) District19-07 for Community Retail Uses. This property is located at 5345 North President GeorgeBush Turnpike. (District 1) (File Z 22-01 – Detail Plan)]

ITEM 9A CONSIDERATION THE APPLICATION OF CLAYMORE ENGINEERING REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A DETAILED PLAN FOR A MULTI-TENANT RETAIL RESTAURANT BUILDING, INCLUDING A RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE THRU USE.

THIS ITEM MAY INCLUDE AMENDMENTS TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 19-07 FOR COMMUNITY RETAIL USES. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 5345 NORTH PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE TONIGHT.

CARE TO SAY ANYTHING? GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY.

GOOD EVENING. CLAYMORE ENGINEERING 1903 CENTRAL DRIVE, BEDFORD, TEXAS.

[00:35:04]

STAFF DID A GOOD JOB PRESENTING JUST A LITTLE BIT EARLIER TODAY.

SO JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I WANTED TO ADD, BECAUSE I KNOW THERE WAS A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. ONE WAS REGARDS TO SCHEDULE.

SCHEDULE IS IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE PUTTING KIND OF LIKE EVERYBODY THE PEDAL TO THE METAL. SO IF YOU ARE SO APPROVED, IF YOU GUYS SO FEEL THE MOTION TO TO LET US MOVE FORWARD TODAY, WE WILL BE MOVING FORWARD WITH PERMITS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

REASON BEING IS THAT WE DO HAVE AN EXECUTED LEASE ON HALF THE BUILDING WITH RIGHT WHITE RHINO, WHICH IS, I THINK WHAT YOU GUYS ARE ASKING ON WHO IS GOING TO BE THERE COMING IN.

AND THEN WE ARE VERY CLOSE.

THEY SAID WE COULD WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING EXECUTED RIGHT NOW.

SO IT'S NOT 100%, BUT MOD PIZZA IS WHO THAT WE'D BE LOOKING FOR TO FILL THE THE SECOND PART OF THE SPACE THAT WE HAVE PRESENTED SO FAR TODAY.

AND SO THAT'S THAT'S MOVING FORWARD.

THEY SAID WE COULD PRESENT THE NAME, BUT WE JUST DON'T HAVE THAT 100%.

BUT WITH ANYTHING ELSE, IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ANY OTHER COMMENTS, I'M VERY HAPPY TO HANDLE THOSE AT THIS TIME.

ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANKS, DAN. WE APPRECIATE IT.

ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WNAT TO SPEAKING THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE. COMMISSIONERS, MOTION? DISCUSSION? MR. CHAIR? COMMISSIONER DALTON? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED.

A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DALTON AND COMMISSIONER ROSE.

SECONDING TO APPROVE.

SEEING NO DISCUSSION. PLEASE VOTE.

AND THAT PASSAGE UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHTY.

[4A Consider amending in part Chapter 2, “Land Use Matrix”; Section 2.64, “Districts Allowed,”of Chapter 2, Article 5, “Use Regulations”; and Section 4.24(A), “Multifamily Developments”,“Covered Parking, Attached or Detached” of the Garland Development Code.]

OUR NEXT CASE IS A MISCELLANEOUS ITEM.

CONSIDER AMENDING.

AMENDING IN PART.

CHAPTER TWO LAND USE MATRIX SECTION 2.6 FOR DISTRICTS ALLOWED OF CHAPTER TWO.

ARTICLE FIVE USE REGULATIONS AND SECTION 4.24A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT'S COVERED PARKING ATTACHED OR DETACHED OF THE GROUND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

NOW, THIS WAS AN ITEM OF SOME GDC REVISIONS THAT WERE BRIEFED ON DURING THE WORK SESSION.

I WON'T ASK STAFF TO GO THROUGH A WHOLE PRESENTATION AGAIN, AND I SEE NOBODY'S LEFT IN THE AUDIENCE, SO I'M ASSUMING THERE'S NOBODY HERE TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM.

SO I WILL ASK THE COMMISSIONERS IF ANY MOTION OR DISCUSSION.

COMMISSIONER ROSE I THINK THERE WAS SOME VERY GOOD, SOLID POINTS BROUGHT UP IN OUR DISCUSSION AND I WOULD HOPE IF WE MOVE THIS ON TO COUNCIL THAT THOSE POINTS ARE PRESENTED AND OR INCORPORATED INTO THE PRESENTATION THAT IS MADE TO COUNCIL.

I SEE AN AGREEMENT DOWN HERE FROM MR. GUERIN AND SOME OF THE STUFF I'M CERTAIN I'VE ALREADY THOUGHT ABOUT.

BUT IT NEEDS TO BE IN WRITING AND AS PART OF THE DOCUMENTATION.

SURE. MR. CHAIR, I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT.

OF COURSE, AS FAR AS, LIKE THE MINUTES OR A FORMAL MOTION, IT MAY NOT SHOW UP THERE.

BUT BUT CERTAINLY I HAVE NOTES FROM THE PRE MEETING WHICH I CAN RELAY, SO I JUST WANT TO KIND OF DIFFERENTIATE THE TWO.

BUT RIGHT. THAT'S WHY I SAID EARLIER, PROBABLY DOESN'T NEED TO BE IN A MOTION BUT JUST LET AWARE OF OUR CONCERN.

ANY IDEAS? BUT IT SHOULD BE A FORM OF A MOTION TO THE COUNCIL OR THE COUNCIL BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT'S CHANGING THE I'M TRYING TO MAKE IT EASIER ON STAFF SO THEIR MOTION TO SAY THAT THEY ASK THAT THEY REVIEW THE DISCUSSION AND I'M THINKING OF WHAT THE COUNCIL WILL ULTIMATELY VOTE ON NOT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON.

RIGHT. OKAY.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER ROSE? NO, I'M DONE.

OH, OKAY. I WAS TURNING IT OFF.

ALL RIGHT. MOTION, ANYONE? MR. CHAIR? COMMISSIONER DALTON? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE FORWARD THIS TO COUNCIL WITH OUR RECOMMENDATION AND WITH THE COMMENTS MADE DURING OUR WORK SESSION.

SIR, ALREADY I HEARD A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DALTON WAS THE SECOND BACK COMMISSION ROSE TO FORWARD THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE GDC, TO THE COUNCIL, ALONG WITH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS.

PLEASE VOTE. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THE LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS CONSIDER THE REVISED 2022 PLAN COMMISSION

[4B Consider 2022 Plan Commission meeting date changes]

MEETING DATES.

MEETING DATE CHANGES.

SO WE'RE CHANGING SOME OF OUR MEETINGS FROM WEDNESDAY BACK TO MONDAY, SINCE NOBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WANTED TO COME OUT FOR OUR WEDNESDAY MEETINGS.

[00:40:01]

SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION.

OKAY, MOTION BY.

WELL, YOU ACTUALLY CHIMED IN.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PEARS AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ROSE TO CHANGE OUR MEETING DATES BACK TO MONDAY.

ALL RIGHT. PLEASE VOTE.

YEAH. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

THIS IS ONE OF OUR SHORTER MEETINGS AGAIN.

SO UNTIL OUR MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, NO.

MONDAY, APRIL 25TH, WE ARE ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.