Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[Plan Commission Pre Meeting]

[00:00:08]

GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE JUNE 27TH MEETING OF THE GARLAND PLAN COMMISSION. THIS IS OUR WORK SESSION PORTION OF OUR MEETING WHERE WE GET BRIEFINGS FROM STAFF AND WE DISCUSS THINGS. AND THEN AFTER THAT, WE WILL TAKE A BREAK AND COME BACK AT SEVEN O'CLOCK FOR THE PUBLIC HERE AND CARING, NOT HEARING HEARING PORTION OF THE MEETING. ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD. EVENING GOOD EVENING SAID. LIKE TO GO OVER THE CONSENT AGENDA. ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT? GENDER? NOPE. THE NEXT ITEM IS THE 22-24 THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITH 344 DWELLING UNITS, AND THIS IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND SORRY DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT AND A DETAILED PLAN FOR MULTI FAMILY USE OUR PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT 18 33. FOR THOSE WHO MAY BE WATCHING AND MAY HAVE AN OLD AGENDA ITEM. ZONING CASE.

20-24 DETAILED PLAN BY SPIRES ENGINEERING. THEY'VE REQUESTED THAT THAT BE HEARD OF THE LATER DATE TO BE DETERMINED. AND HERE'S THE CASE INFORMATION. THE ACREAGE IS APPROXIMATELY 13.83 ACRES. CITY CITY BY LOCATION MAP. AND THE RED STAR SHOWS THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND IT IS NEAR THE FIRE WHEEL TOWN CENTER. YOUR SKI LOCATION MAP THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES OUTLINED IN THIS TEAL BLUE COLOR AND THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS SO IN PD 18 33, AND IT'S DEVELOPED WITH A AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AND THEN THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST. IS NOW ZONE PD 22 DEATHS HERE OF THREE AND IT'S BEEN RECENTLY APPROVED FOR A APARTMENT COMPLEX AND THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST IS THE NPD 18 33, AND IT'S CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED. AND BACK IN 2018, THERE WAS A CONCEPT PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED FOR FOUR TRACKS WITHIN THIS PD 18 33 AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN TRACKED FOR AND IT WAS. APPROVED FOR MULTIFAMILY AND IT REQUIRED A DETAILED PLAN. SO NOW THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED THE DETAILED PLAN FOR MULTI FAMILY USE. THE FEATURE LAND USE MAP OF THE ENVISION GARLAND PLANT AS IGNATZ, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS REGIONAL CENTERS. HERE ARE SOME OF THE SITE PHOTOS. THE TOP LEFT IS VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THE TOP RIGHT IS LOOKING SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE BOTTOM LEFT IS EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND BOTTOM RIGHT IS NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND HERE IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. IT SHOWS A TOTAL OF SEVEN BUILDINGS AND 344 UNITS AND THE ACCESS WILL BE, UM UM, THIS 50 FT PRIVATE ROAD. WHICH WILL EVENTUALLY CONNECT TO FAR WHEEL PARKWAY AND THAT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. UM AND THE SITE ALSO COMPLIES WITH THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. HOWEVER THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A DEVIATION ON THE COVERED PARKING, WHICH I WILL GO OVER IN JUST A MOMENT. AND THE SITE ALSO OVERLAP COMPLIES WITH THE AMENITIES THAT ARE REQUIRED, WHICH INCLUDES A CLUBHOUSE, SWIMMING POOL AND LEISURE AREA. HERE IS THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN. THE APPLICANT REQUEST A DEVIATION ON THE REQUIRED TREES WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE NORTH GEORGE BUSH HIGHWAY. OTHER THAN THAT, UM, THIS THIS LANDSCAPE PLAN COMPLIES WITH ALL THE OTHER LANDSCAPE STANDARDS. HERE ARE THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS, AND IT DOES COMPLY WITH THE BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE GDC. THIS IS FOR BUILDING TYPE B.

BUILDING TYPE C. THIS IS THE CLUBHOUSE ELEVATION. THIS IS THE TRASH AND CLOSURE. AND HERE'S THE SUMMARY TABLE AND THE APPLICANT REQUEST A TOTAL OF TWO DEVIATIONS. THE FIRST ONE IS FOR THE COVERED PARKING. THE GDC REQUIRES 50% OF THOSE, UH, REQUIRED PARKING TO BE COVERED.

AND FOR THE CALCULATION, 291 SPACES ARE REQUIRED. AND THE PLAN SHOWS 20% OF THE SITE TO BE OF THE PARKING SPACES TO BE COVERED, WHICH IS 116 SPACES. TT PROPERTY LINES OF THE SIDE ARE ENTIRELY ENCUMBERED BY EASTMAN. IT'S COVERED PARKING MAY NOT BE PLACED WITHIN EASEMENTS, AND

[00:05:05]

THIS RESULT IS THAT APPROXIMATELY HALF OF THE SITES TOTAL PARKING IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO OR WITHIN EASEMENTS. MEANING THAT THOSE PARKING SPOTS CANNOT BE COVERED. THE REMAINING PARKING SPOTS ARE CENTRALLY LOCATED AND CONVENIENTLY ACCESSIBLE TO MOST FUTURE RESIDENTS. THE SECOND DEVIATION IS ON THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER. THE GDC REQUIRES ONE LARGE CANOPY TREE PER EVERY 30 FT, ALONG WITH SEVEN SHRUBS, AND FOR THAT CALCULATION, 45 LARGE CANOPY TREES AND 315 STRIPS ARE REQUIRED. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A TOTAL OF THREE LARGE CANOPY TREES. 115 SMALL ORNAMENTAL TREES AND 709 SHRUBS ON THE LANDSCAPE EFFORT. AND THIS DEVIATION IS A NECESSARY DUE TO THE STATE VISIBILITY ISN'T IT IN PLACE FOR THE EXISTING ELECTRONIC SIGN, AND THERE IS A LIMITATION ON THE ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO 18 33 AND APPROVAL OF THE DETAILED PLAN FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. AND WE MAILED OUT 33 NOTIFICATION LETTERS AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES.

BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS? COUPLE DOCUMENTATION, BUT THEY'RE, UH MEETING BEFORE OR MEETING BEFORE THAT WE APPROVED THE APARTMENTS JUST TO THE EAST. AND THEY SHOWED A CONNECTION AND ON THE DRAWINGS HERE, I SEE THERE'S A CONNECTION PROPOSED, BUT IT CUTS INTO THEIR PARKING LOT. THEY'RE SHOWING A LITTLE NOT A LITTLE BIT OF A FIRE LANE TURN AROUND.

BUT I DON'T SEE WHERE IT'S BEEN DESIGNED THE CONNECTION YET THERE'S JUST A GENERAL NOTE TO BE DONE. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE NAILED DOWN BEFORE IT GETS TO CITY COUNCIL? DO YOU THINK OR WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING FOR THE APPLICANT? THAT IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE CAN DISCUSS WHAT THE APPLICANT AND I UNDERSTAND THE THIS APPLICANT IS WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPER TO THE EAST TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN, BUT CERTAINLY WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT. ALL RIGHT? AND YOU SAID THE REASONS TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE NORTH AND TO THE WEST AND THE SOUTH. THERE IS A 35 FT EASEMENT THAT I SAW TWO NORTH. I THINK THERE'S A 15 FT EASEMENT THAT GOES THROUGH PART OF THE PARKING SPACES. A IN. I DON'T KNOW IF IT UH IF THE ORDINANCE IS SUCH THAT AN OVERHANG CAN'T BE OVER THERE BECAUSE THE POLLS CAN BE OUTSIDE THE EASEMENT THAN THE PARKING STRUCTURE COULD OVERHANG THE REST OF THE SPACE AND MY RUDIMENTARY LAW AND EASEMENTS IS ACTUALLY CAN BUILD ON EASEMENTS ALL YOU WANT. IT'S JUST THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE ANYTHING DOWN IF THEY HAVE TO SERVICE IT. SO AS WARNING WHY THAT MIGHT NOT WORKING ON THE WEST SIDE. I DON'T SEE ANY REFERENCE TO AN EASEMENT ON THE DRAWINGS HERE, SO THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY HAS A SITE PLAN WITH THESE SIEMENS MARKED UP. PROBABLY SHOW YOU SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT BETTER. OKAY? AND I THINK THAT'S IT FOR NOW. THANK YOU. AND SO THAT, UH, FINISHES ARE BRIEFING ON. TONIGHT'S CASES AND WE WILL BE IN RECESS UNTIL SEVEN O'CLOCK.

[Call to Order]

GOOD EVENING. WELCOME TO THE JUNE 27TH MEETING OF THE GARLAND PLAN COMMISSION IS THIS OUR CUSTOMARY COMMISSIONERS START OUR MEETING WITH THE PARENT PLEDGE. YOU'RE INVITED TO JOIN US, WHETHER YOU JOIN US OR NOT, IN NO WAY AFFECTS THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION. OR YOUR RIGHTS IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION NEVER HAS NEVER WILL . TONIGHT'S PARENT PLEDGE WILL BE LED BY COMMISSIONER ROSE THAT'S BALLOT HEADS, PLEASE. FATHER GOD BECOME BEFORE YOU ASKING FOR YOUR GUIDANCE AS WE WORK TO ASSIST THE CITY OF GARLAND IN IN PROGRESS. WE ASKED FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND LEADING FOR ALL OF OUR FIRST RESPONDERS. THEY NEED YOUR ASSISTANCE.

GREATLY. WE ASK ALL THIS IN YOUR NAME? AMEN. PLEDGE YOUR AGENTS TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVIDUAL WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO OUR MEETING. A LITTLE BIT OF CLEANING UP OF THE HERE FOR THE EASTERN HILLS COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT, WHICH IS ASPIRES ENGINEERING. THE

[00:10:04]

REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT AFTER THE NOTIFICATION LETTERS WENT OUT, SO WE WILL NOT BE HEARING THAT CASE TONIGHT. THEY HAVE ASKED FOR A POSTPONEMENT AND WE DO NOT KNOW WHEN I'LL BE BACK YET, BUT I THINK STAFF SAID THAT THEY WILL BE SENDING OUT NEW NOTIFICATIONS WHEN IT DOES COME BACK. SO IF ANYBODY'S HERE FOR THAT ONE ENJOY THE SHOW OR GO HOME EITHER WAY. ALRIGHTY. AH! ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSIONER. NIGHT PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THE MICROPHONE. WE ALLOW, UH, APPLICANTS 15 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR CASE. OTHER SPEAKERS THREE MINUTES IF YOU'RE SPEAKING FOR A LARGE GROUPS, SUCH AS A HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION AND DO ALLOW MORE TIME. AND IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK, WE HAVE SIGNED UP. DEALS OUT THERE. THE LITTLE KIOSKS WHERE YOU CAN SIGN UP BUT IF YOU DECIDE TO SPEAK, THEN YOU CAN FILL OUT A CARD OR SIGN UP

[CONSENT AGENDA]

LATER, TOO. SO WE'RE PRETTY FLEXIBLE AROUND HERE. FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS A CONCERN AGENDA, THE CONSENT AGENDA OR ITEMS THAT THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE REVIEWED AND WILL BE VOTING ON IN ONE MOTION TO APPROVE. AND I WILL READ OUT THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS AND ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE OR COMMISSION WHO WANTS AN ITEM REMOVED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. JUST LET ME KNOW, AND WE WILL DO SO. CONCERNING SIERRA CONSENT AGENDA. ITEM ONE. A CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES FROM JUNE 13TH 2022 MEETING. BY ITEM TO A PLANT 22 DAYS. 16 STRIKER MARQUEE CONVENES PLAN. ANYBODY WANT AN ITEM REMOVED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? SEEN NONE. DO I HEAR A MOTION? MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PAIRS TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. IN THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ALRIGHTY. ITEM THREE A AGAIN THE

[3a. Consideration of the application of Spiars Engineering, requesting approval of 1) a Detail Plan for Single-Family Detached Homes and 2) an Alley Waiver. This property is located at 3000 South Country Club Road. (District 3) (File Z 20-24 – Detail Plan) (The applicant requests postponement of this case to a future Plan Commission meeting. The postponement date is unknown at this time. New notification letters will be mailed out when it is ready to move forward.)]

APPLICATION ASPIRES. ENGINEERING HAS BEEN BEEN POSTPONED TO A FUTURE DATE UNKNOWN AT THIS

[Items 3B & 3C]

TIME. ITEM THREE B AND THREE C ARE WARNING ABOUT THE SAME CASE ITEM THREE B CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION INSPIRES ENGINEERING REQUESTING APPROVAL AND AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. 18-33 THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 26 98 NORTH PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE. AN ITEM. THREE C CONSIDERATION THE APPLICATION OF SPIRES ENGINEERING REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A DETAILED PLAN FOR MULTI FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. SAME ADDRESS. IS THE APPLICANT HERE.

ALREADY CARE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION OF ALL OR AND TO PRESENT ALRIGHTY. WE'LL GET THAT UP AND RUNNING HERE FOR YOU. ARE GOOD. LET ME GUESS YOU'RE ASPIRES. ENGINEERING SPIRES. WE HAVE EVERY AGENDA ITEM TONIGHT. I REALIZED WHEN I GOT HERE, SO I'M NOT INVOLVED IN THE MY POSSIBILITIES. DEAL, SO HOLD THAT ONE AGAINST ME. OKAY DAVID BOND, ASPIRES ENGINEERING 7 65 CUSTER ROAD IN PLANO HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF LEON CAPITAL GROUP WITH THIS SITE PLAN AND UM, DETAILED PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENT KIND OF OVERALL THAN THE ONE HERE. UM. THIS SLIDE WE PREPARED IS KIND OF IN PREPARATION FOR SOME OF THE REMARKS THAT YOU HAD, SIR, DURING, UH, DURING THE PRE SESSION ABOUT THE EASEMENTS TO THE SOUTH. OBVIOUSLY, THE BILLBOARD IS THERE. UM THE OWNER OF THE BILLBOARD RETAINS VISIBILITY EASEMENT THAT'S ACTUALLY A NO BUILD LINE. UM KIND OF THE ANGULAR AREA THERE ALONG THE SOUTH. ONE OF OUR ADDITIONAL REQUEST TONIGHT IS FOR, UM, A TREE SWAMP. I CALL IT YOU KNOW MORE SMALLER TREES INSTEAD OF BIG TREES WITHIN THAT AREA. YOU PROBABLY NOTED THAT IN YOUR PACKET. TO THE NORTH ALONG THAT ROAD EXTENSION. UM THERE'S A GARLAND POWER AND LIGHT EASEMENT UNDERGROUND THERE A 15 FOOTER THAT RUNS LET ME SEE IF I CAN POINT ON THE SCREEN. I CAN UM, RUNS RIGHT HERE AND THEN TURNS NORTH AND THE FOLKS TO OUR EAST HAVE AGREED ON THIS LOCATION, BUT THEY WERE WAITING TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY UNTIL THEY UPDATED THEIR PLAN. AND SO THAT WE'VE BEEN IN COORDINATION WITH THEIR ENGINEERS AND THEIR OWNERS. UM FOR SIX PLUS MONTHS AT THIS POINT. WE'RE STUDYING THEM IN WATER LINE. RIGHT IN HERE IS WHY YOU SEE THAT EASEMENT AND RED BUT THEN THE ONE YOU HAD MENTIONED, SIR TO THE WEST. WE ACTUALLY HAVE A WATER LINE BEING STUBBED TO THE

[00:15:01]

REMAINDER PIECE HERE AS WELL. WE TOOK THIS BOX TOO FAR NORTH, THOUGH, ON THIS EXHIBIT, SO IT REALLY SHOULDN'T WIN. ENCOMPASS THE SOUTHERN BAY HERE WHERE WE HAVE THAT WATERLINE GO INTO THE WEST AND YOU KNOW TO YOUR POINT. AND IT THERE'S NOT AN EASEMENT ON THIS BIT OF 12 RIGHT THERE.

THAT WAS AN ERROR IN THE IN THE EXHIBIT. UM I DON'T HAVE ANY ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FOR YOU OTHER THAN WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THE PROJECT, LOOKING FORWARD TO GET TO GET MOVING AND GOING ON IT.

UM, ALSO HAVE NASH THOMAS WITH LEON CAPITAL GROUP HERE AS WELL, IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPER. OTHERWISE WOULD BE EXCITED TO GET YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL THIS EVENING AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. LOOKS LIKE IT'S ME AGAIN. UH AND YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS ONE. BUT UM, ONE OF THE REASONS WE PUT 50% COVERED PARKING AND ONE IS TO INCREASE THE VALUE AND SECOND IS TO PROVIDE SHADE FOR THE CARS. AND UH, IN YOUR STATEMENT HERE IS TO REASON. WHY IS LET'S SEE THAT. THE REMAINING PARKING SPOTS ARE CURRENTLY CENTRALLY LOCATED AND CONVENIENTLY ACCESSIBLE TO MOST FUTURE RESIDENTS. WHICH LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE CHARGING FOR THE COVERED PARKING AND YOU DON'T WANT TO PUT THE COVERED PARKING, WHERE PEOPLE UH, AND IN FRONT OF THEIR UNITS BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT PEOPLE MAD AT YOU, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T PARK IN FRONT OF THE UNIT WITHOUT PAYING FORWARD SO THAT IT'S REALLY NOT A JUSTIFICATION IN IN MY OPINION. BUT THERE MAY BE AN ALTERNATIVE. SOME CITIES IN FLORIDA AND SOME CITIES IN CALIFORNIA, POSSIBLY OTHER PLACES HAVE SHADE REQUIREMENTS WHERE 50% OF THE PARKING LOT HAS TO BE IN SHARED WITHIN. HEARD AS LITTLE AS 5 TO 15 YEARS. WHICH WOULD INVOLVE MORE CANOPY GROWTH WITH CANOPY GROWTH. AND I'VE GOT A SAMPLE ONE FROM SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA, AND THEY EVEN HAVE A LISTING OF TREES AND WHAT THEIR GROWTH IS AT 15 YEARS, AND THEY PUT TOGETHER A SHADE PLAN. NOW. SINCE HALF THE PURPOSE IS TO SHADE CARS, AND I THINK THIS PAST WEEKEND WE'VE GOT A PRIME EXAMPLE AS TO WHY WOULD THERE BE SOMETHING YOU'D ALL CONSIDER IS A SHADING 50% SHADING FUNCTION. OF PARKING FOR, YOU KNOW, WITHIN ABOUT 10 YEARS OR SO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, TO PART ANSWER ON THAT THE FIRST PART SPECIFICALLY TO THE TREES. I THINK THE GDC REQUIRES A TREE WITHIN EVERY WITHIN 65 FT OF EVERY PARKING SPACE, RIGHT? I BELIEVE THAT'S THE NUMBER AND SO WE'RE ADDRESSING THAT WE'RE PROVIDING IT WITH THAT ROUTE NOW TO THE EXACT GROWTH. SPECS AND WHATNOT . I'D HAVE TO CHECK WITH OUR LANDSCAPE ORCHID RIGHT TO SEE AND THEN TO THE PROGRAMMATIC THINGS GONNA LET NASH ANSWER THAT, BECAUSE HE HE DOES THAT SIDE OF THE BUSINESS FOR A LIVING. HE WILL BE BETTER. OKAY, POSITION TO DO THAT FOR YOU.

HEY, GOOD EVENING COMMISSION. HOW ARE YOU? UH, TO YOUR POINT, SIR. MY NAME IS NASH, THOMAS 3500. MAPLE DRIVE DALLAS TO YOUR POINT. THE INDUSTRY STANDARD IS THAT COVERED PARKING IS PAID FOR I WON'T BE THE FUTURE OWNER. SO IN TRYING TO CONTEMPLATE HOW THIS IS USED DOWN THE ROAD IS ONE OF THE JUSTIFICATIONS. I DO THINK IT'LL JUST REDISTRIBUTE THE PARKING, MAKING IT LESS CONVENIENT. WE CAN PROVIDE SOME MORE PARKING AGAIN. MY WORRY IS THAT OUR FUTURE OWNERS ARE GOING TO BE CHARGING 50 TO 150 BUCKS A POP. THAT'S UPWARDS OF TWO GRAND A YEAR, MAYBE BETTER SPINNING VIRAL TILE CENTER, SEEING A MOVIE HAVING A BITE TO EAT. I LIKE THE SHADE IDEA. I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY A COMPROMISE TO BE HAD I WOULD HATE TO PUSH ALL OF THE PARKING OUT TO THE AREAS OF THE SITE WHERE IT'S LEAST CONVENIENT TO THE MOST PEOPLE. SO IT'S NOT REALLY A OPERATION SIDE FOR ME. I DON'T HATE THE COVERED PARKING, BUT I DO ACCEPT THE REALITY OF WHAT'S GOING TO COME. SO CERTAINLY OPEN TO DISCUSSION ON THAT POINT, BECAUSE THIS IF THIS WERE QUOTE VARIANCES IS LEGALLY DEFINED, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GRANT A VARIANCE JUST BASED UPON THE FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION. YES, SIR. ABSOLUTELY COMPLETELY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AND JUST TO BE FAIR TO YOU. I'M AN ARCHITECT BY TRADE. THAT'S WHY SPOT THIS KIND OF STUFF AND I HAVE WORKED IN DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES SO AND I APPRECIATE THAT. ALRIGHTY. WELL, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER JENKINS.

YOU'VE GOT. I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION. I'M SORRY FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES. THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT THE NUMBER OF KENNETH CANOPY TREES THAT WERE TO BE PROVIDED. I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE DEVIATION REQUESTED, UM WAS THAT YOU WOULD ONLY PROVIDE THREE TOTAL CANOPY TREES, SO I SINCERELY APPRECIATED. UM THE CHAIRMAN'S QUESTION REGARDING SHADING BECAUSE I THINK THREE CANOPY TREES IS A LOT LESS THAN 100. EXCUSE ME 45 TOTAL ONLY WITHIN THAT SIGHTLINE EASEMENT FOR THE YOU KNOW THE BIG BILLBOARD SIGN OUT THERE THAT YOU CAN SEE FOR 16 MILES IN EITHER DIRECTION. THE TOTAL LOT. IT'S JUST A LOT. OKAY. IT'S JUST ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE SOUTH THERE. OKAY THANK YOU. SORRY ABOUT THAT. NO, NO PROBLEM.

OTHERWISE, THEY'VE GOT TREES AND THOSE BIG I FINALLY FIGURED IT OUT THOSE BIG CIRCLES AROUND THE

[00:20:03]

TREES THAT SEAN PROXIMITY TO THE PARKING SPACES. BECAUSE IF YOU WERE GOING TO TELL ME, YEAH.

BECAUSE AT FIRST I THOUGHT, OKAY , IS THAT WHAT THEY'RE CLAIMING TO SHADE IS NO TREES. DON'T GO OUT. 120 FT. NO. ALL RIGHT, SO THAT'S THE SHOW THE OVERLAP RIGHT THAT REQUIREMENT, BUT YOU CAN KIND OF SEE HERE. THAT'S THERE'S THREE WITHIN THE AREA THAT THE CHAIRMAN MENTIONED. AND THEN I THINK IT'S LIKE 100 AND 15 OR SOMETHING WHEN YOU REPLACE THOSE OKAY. ALRIGHT. DID THAT.

ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SIR. YEAH IT IS. I'VE DEALT WITH THIS BEFORE SITE EASEMENTS WERE UH, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BLOCK THE VIEW OF A BUILDING AND I THINK WE'VE GOT SOME OF THAT BY THE MALTA AND WE DEALT WITH THAT ON A HOTEL THAT CAME THROUGH. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE Y'ALL WOULD BE A MINUTE MORE WORKING WITH STAFF, SEEING IF SOMETHING COULD BE WORKED OUT TO GET MORE SHADE THERE, OKAY? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE, WHICH IS SPEAKING THIS ITEM. COME ON DOWN. DIDN'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS. DID I? AND IT FEELS STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND MICROPHONE, PLEASE. MICHAEL DYER WAS PRETTY BEHIND ME WHO LIVE WITH 3900 GREAT BIO MILLS PARKWAY AND GREAT BAND APARTMENT 5 23. AND. WE OF COURSE, SOME OF THE PROPERTY ON THE EAST OF THIS PROPERTY THAT LEON CAPITAL HAS AND WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE APARTMENTS AND THINK WOULD BE A GOOD THING. HOWEVER WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE EASEMENT, UH TO OUR PROPERTY FROM A FIRE WHEEL PARKWAY. WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ORDINANCES ARE ENFORCED BY THE CITY TO ALLOW OUR EASEMENT. UH HAVE GIVEN I THINK YOU ALL HAVE COPIES OF THE, UH, PERTINENT EASEMENT THINGS HERE, BUT I HANDED OUT THE FIRST IS WHICH IS OWNING POWELL 94. THAT'S SIX, WHICH STATES THAT AT THE TIME TRACK ONE A, WHICH IS THE LEON TRACKED AND THE RETAIL TRACK BELOW IT. IS PLANTED ACCESS WILL BE GRANTED TO CRACK 17. THAT'S OUR LOCATION, BUT EITHER REPUBLIC DEDICATED RIGHT AWAY OR MUTUAL ACCESS EASEMENT, DEPENDING ON THE LAND USES PLAN. AND THEIR NEED FOR CIRCULATION. BLACK WAS FILE 18 33 IN EXHIBIT B UNDER CONDITIONS UNDER FUTURE ACCESS STATES IN THE EVENT THAT THE REAL PROPERTY BUDDY TRACK TWO ON THE EAST, THAT'S OUR PROPERTY. IS DEVELOPED IN THE FUTURE, THEN THE OWNERS OF THE PORTION OF PRACTICE TO SOUTH OF LOT ONE. THAT'S THE WAY ON PROPERTY AND THE RETAIL. SHELL COOPERATE WITH THE CITY OF GARLAND AND THE THEN OWNER OF OUR TRACK TO PROVIDE THE LOCATION FOR AN APPROPRIATE ACCESS EASEMENT ACROSS SUCH PORTION OF TRACK, TOO. SO AS LONG AS ALL CONDITIONS, LIGHTING MAGNETS AND SUCH ACCESS IS DONE PER PROVIDING CITY STANDARDS. SO THAT'S THE BILE 18 33 REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING AS THE 94 DAYS. SIX BACK IN 1914 94 . HELLO, 2014. I REQUESTED CLARIFICATION FROM THE CITY ABOUT THIS ACCESS. IF YOU YOU KNOW, EMAILED NATO RUSSELL MAN WHO I BELIEVE IS THE HEAD OF THE PLANNING AT THE TIME, AND SHE RESPONDED IN PART QUOTE. YOU ARE CORRECT THAT EXCESS WOULD HAVE TO BE PROVIDED THROUGH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY WHEN IT DEVELOPS UNQUOTE. SO ACTIVE ACTING UPON HER CLARIFICATION. WE LISTED OUR PROPERTY AND AS THEY ARE UNDER CONTRACT IT THROUGH MODEL AND REALLY, REALLY DO APPRECIATE THAT. BOTH OPINIONS E IN THE CITY COUNCIL ACTUALLY APPROVED THEIR DEVELOPMENT PLANS. POINT. THE LIVELY APARTMENTS WERE BUILT.

THEY PROVIDED ACCESS TO WHAT WILL BE THE PART MAINTENANCE ROAD. YEAH, THAT'S SO IT'S LOGICAL FOR THAT, TO ALSO BE OUR INGRESS IN THE U. S PATH. LIKE THE LEON POP PROPERTY SHOWS ON THEIR THEIR DRAWING, UH TO THE FIRE WHEEL PARKWAY. THEY'RE PLAYING CHILL PROVISIONS FOR OUR CONNECTION. TO THE AMAZEMENT. SO WE'RE JUST REQUESTING THAT THESE EASEMENT REQUIREMENTS ARE BEING ENFORCED DURING THIS PROCESS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU ANY QUESTIONS? I JUST WANT TO ADD A LITTLE BIT TOO MORE TO WHAT MIKE SAID. THIS IS KIND OF HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY. IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING. THE CONVERSATION FROM OUR BAR WHO HAD A CONVERSATION WITH JACK GROGAN THAT HE IS NOT GOING TO GRANT OUR BUYER. THROUGH MY PROPERTIES. ACCESS THROUGH HIS PROPERTY BECAUSE HE DOESN'T THINK IT'S THE RIGHT USE FOR THE PROPERTY. AND THAT'S WEIRD, BECAUSE JUST TWO WEEKS AGO WE WERE SITTING IN THEIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER SAID ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT IS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF OUR PROPERTY.

[00:25:04]

AND THEN, UH, BACKING UP A LITTLE FURTHER ON FEBRUARY 11 2019 MIKE AND I CAME TO THE PNG MEETING WHEN MR GROGAN WAS STANDING RIGHT HERE BEFORE Y'ALL. AND HE WAS REQUESTING ZONING CHANGE FOR HIS PROPERTY. AND DURING THAT MEETING, WE HEARD HIM PROMISE THIS P AND Z AND US THREE DIFFERENT TIMES THAT HE WOULD GRANT US ACCESS ONCE WE HAD A BIT OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO HE WOULD KNEW HE WOULD KNOW WHAT KIND OF ACCESS HE NEEDED TO GRANT. HE MADE THE PROMISE WHILE IN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE, UM WHEN HE NEEDED US FAVOR, AND NOW HE'S UNWILLING TO GRANT THAT ACCESS. IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT TO ME FOR A DEVELOPER WHO LIVES IN DALLAS TO DETERMINE WHAT IS THE RIGHT USE FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY AND GARLAND. NOR DID IT SEEM RIGHT FOR HIM TO MAKE PROMISES IN FRONT OF THIS. COMMISSION AND THEN GO BACK ON HIM AFTER HE WAS GRANTED THE RULING THAT HE SOUGHT AND IT WAS FOR THE EXACT SAME TYPE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. BUT AFTER THAT MEETING WE WERE VERY ENCOURAGED AND BASED UPON OUR FAITH IN MR GROGAN'S PROMISED US INTO THIS PEOPLE COMMISSION WE PROCEEDED TO FIND ABOUT HER AND LIKE, MIKE SAID. WE AND AS YOU ALL KNOW, WE HAVE A BUYER. AND WE'RE THRILLED. THAT TRUE MIGHT GROUP AND GRIFFIN NEIL, WE'RE WILLING TO TAKE ON THE CHALLENGE OF OUR VERY DIFFICULT BUT BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND YOU KNOW, AS YOU'VE SEEN THEIR PLANS AND MADE IT INTO A FIRST CLASS APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING TO BENEFIT THE CITY AND MANY OTHERS, INCLUDING OUR FAMILY, AND WE'RE SO GRATEFUL AGAIN. I WANT TO REITERATE TO Y'ALL AND THE CITY COUNCIL FOR UNANIMOUSLY APPROVING THEIR PLANS. AND BY THE WAY, MR TRUE, MR O'NEILL WOULD BE HERE TONIGHT , BUT HE'S ON HIS HONEYMOON, SO IT'S GOT A GOOD EXCUSE. UM. SO AFTER ALL THE CITY APPROVALS, THINGS WERE GOING VERY WELL FOR US, AND WE'VE BEEN STEWARDING THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY FOR 23 YEARS. AND SO WE THOUGHT THAT WE WERE ON OUR WAY TO CLOSING. AND THEN WE FOUND OUT FROM OUR BAR THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO FIRE REAL PARKWAY. THEY MR GROGAN PROMISED TO GIVE US THREE TIMES 2019. SO YOU CAN IMAGINE HOW SHOCKED AND DISAPPOINTED THAT WE ALL ARE NOW. THEN HE WENT BACK ON HIS WORK. I JUST DON'T HAVE A CATEGORY FOR WHY SOMEONE WOULD NEEDLESSLY WITHHOLD A BLESSING. AND LEON CAPITAL. WE DON'T HAVE YOUR STUFF LOOKS GOOD. FROM WHAT I CAN SEE. I DON'T SEE VERY FAR, BUT IT LOOKS GOOD AND WE'RE EAGER FOR YOU TO GET YOUR LAND GOING DEVELOPED AND FOR ALL OUR OTHER NEIGHBORS. FOR THIS PROPERTY EAST OF THEM ALL. IT'S GOOD FOR THE CITY. AND COMMISSIONERS SO. WE WISH THEM WELL, WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM.

GENERALLY WITH THEIR PLANS. AND WE WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ACCESS TO OUR PROPERTY FROM FIRE WILL PARKWAY. THROUGH THESE ORDINANCES THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND, BUT HE JUST READ, BUT SO I REALLY APPEALED TO YOU TO PLEASE ENFORCE STATE THAT FOUND 94-6 AND FILE 18-33. AND I REALLY APPRECIATE Y'ALL LISTENING TO ME AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. UH YOU KNOW, DO WE GET YOUR NAME AND WE GOT PENNY DIRE AND I LIVE AT 3900 GRAPEVINE MILLS PARKWAY. GRAPEVINE TEXAS JUST FOR THE RECORD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ALRIGHT UH, LET ME ASK THE APPLICANT BACK UP. SO IF YOU CAN ADDRESS ANY OF THAT, AND THE THING IS, I KNOW YOU. YOU GUYS ONLY HAVE OPERATIONAL CONTROL OVER YOUR PROPERTY, NOT SEGMENT BETWEEN YOUR PROPERTY AND FIRE WHEEL PARKWAY. THAT'S THAT'S CORRECT. AND I'VE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH GRIFFIN. NEIL REGULARLY. WE'VE HAD COFFEE, AND SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING TOGETHER TO ESTABLISH EASEMENTS ACROSS OUR SITE TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE CONNECTIVITY AS DAVID TALKED ABOUT THE WATER STUBS. SO WE'LL DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO COMPLY. AS YOU STATED, MR ROBERTS. WE DON'T HAVE THE ACCESS FROM THE COMMERCIAL TRACKED TO THE INTERSECTION. THERE MAY BE SOMETHING YOU CAN KIND OF PUSH. BUT YOU CAN'T I WILL. MR GROGAN IS MY SELLER. UM AND I WILL PUSH AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. WE'VE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT AND SO BECAUSE I SEE THE ONE OF THE ACCESS IS HERE IS IMPLIED BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS. LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A DRIVEWAY CONNECTING TO THE DEAL TO THE EAST, BUT THAT WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO BE IN AN EASEMENT TO IT WILL BE THAT THAT WILL BE FIRE EXCESS. YEAH THAT'S WHAT I FIGURED. THAT'S CORRECT, BUT WE NEED SOMETHING OFF THAT COLDER SACK AND AGAIN WE'VE ALREADY WE'VE ALREADY TREATED EASEMENT DOCUMENTS. AND SO I SUSPECT WHEN MR NEIL GETS BACK FROM HIS HONEYMOON WILL WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON ALL RIGHT.

OKAY ANYTHING ELSE? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. YOU LET ME ASK STAFF BOTH PLANNING AND LEGAL. WHAT IS OUR STATUS ON THIS? THAT YOU KNOW OF? LET ME LET ME GET YOU. WHERE ARE YOU?

[00:30:10]

THAT YOU? YES, SIR. UM MR CHAIRMAN YET, REALLY, AS YOU STAYED IN THE APPLICANT STATED JUST A LITTLE WHILE AGO. THE UH THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION TONIGHT AND THE PROPERTY OF THE EAST HAVE BEEN WORKING TOGETHER TO PROVIDE THAT ACCESS ACCORDINGLY. I THINK THE ISSUE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP WAS REALLY REGARDING THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY IS OFF SITE AND NOT UH, UNDER CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING, SO THAT'S A JUST A SEPARATE ISSUE THAT WILL NEED TO BE KIND OF WORKED OUT FROM A CIVIL MANNER, CIVIL MATTER, BUT BEYOND THAT, I'M NOT REALLY AWARE OF AN UPDATE. SAME THINGS. IF THERE'S ANY PRESSURE THE CITY COULD BRING TO BEAR. SEE WHAT THIS IS. THIS IS A CIVIL MATTER THAT WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER HERE.

OKAY, UH, TRY THAT. IT'S ONE. THERE YOU GO NOW, SIR. YES, I WOULD JUST REMIND THE COMMITTEE THAT THIS IS NOT ON THE AGENDA. THIS SEPARATE ITEM, SO OUR DISCUSSION SHOULD PROBABLY SEES AT THIS POINT ABOUT THAT ALREADY. IT'S KIND OF WHERE I WAS HEADING AND WE REALLY CAN'T ADDRESS IT. ALRIGHTY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALREADY. MOTION DISCUSSION. AND SEEING AS HOW THIS IS IN DISTRICT ONE, AND COMMISSIONER DALTON IS THE ONE WHO USUALLY MAKES THOSE MOTIONS.

IT'S ANYBODY'S GAME. WERE YOU TRYING? OKAY, COMMISSIONER PAIRS GO AHEAD. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PARIS SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THIS IS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ONLY. PLEASE VOTE. ALRIGHTY. WE ARE IN DISCUSSION MODE. BECAUSE THEY PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MM. I THINK YOU HAVE HURT. YOU KNOW, I'VE GOT NO PROBLEM WITH IT. I'D JUST LIKE TO MORE. THE PARKING LOT COVERED. COMMISSIONER ROSE SO TECHNICALLY, THERE IS NO PRESSURE. THE CITY CAN PUT ON THE OTHER OWNER TO PROVIDE ACCESS, AS HE AGREED TO DO ORIGINALLY. THIS WELL, I UNDERSTAND, BUT I'M JUST ASKING . I'M STILL OFTEN HEAR MR. YOU SHOULD. YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO JUST TURN YOURS ON COMPUTER RESTARTED. OKAY ALRIGHT, I'M SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH. BUT I GOT YOU LIVE NOW WHETHER THERE IS OR ISN'T IT ISN'T FIRST TO DISCUSS TONIGHT BECAUSE IT WENT ON THE AGENDA, SO WE JUST NEED TO MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA GETS ON YOUR AND WE DO IT AT THAT TIME. WE CAN'T EVEN DISCUSS THAT. AH! I THINK WE'VE SHOWN OUR HEARTS IN THE RIGHT PLACE AND JUST FIGURED OUT HOW TO GET IT THERE, OKAY? ALRIGHTY.

A COMMISSIONER JENKINS AND COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS REGARDING REGARDING THE DISCUSSION ON SHADE. UM COVERING WHERE DID THAT FALL ANYWHERE IN PARTICULAR ? I DIDN'T HEAR A RESOLUTION TO THAT. AND I ASKED BECAUSE TERMS OF CLARIFICATION. I DON'T THINK IT CHANGES ANY MOTION TO APPROVE THIS PARTICULAR ITEM OR NOT. I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTOOD WELL. THEY WERE ASKING FOR A DEVIATION FROM THE COVERED PARKING AND IT WOULD BE MAYBE AN OPERATING SOLUTION. TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEVIATION WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT FOR 50% SHADE. AND. I DID PULL UP THIS ONE, THIS ONE FROM SUNNYVALE JUST SOUTH OF US, BUT IT'S IN CALIFORNIA SOMEPLACE. AND THEY LAY OUT THAT YOU HAVE TO DO A SHADING PLAN AND OKAY, AND THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TREES LISTED AND WHAT THEIR CANOPY IS AND 15 YEARS. JUST ONE WAS BASED ON 50% COVERAGE IN 15 YEARS. AND SO IF WE WERE TO MAKE A MOTION, IT'S WE COULDN'T NAIL ANYTHING DOWN. WE WOULD ASK. UM AS STAFF TO WORK WITH THEM TO COME UP WITH A SHADING PLAN. THE THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR SOME CLARITY REGARDING THAT LANGUAGE , BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT READS TO ME THAT THERE COULD ONLY BE A REQUIREMENT FOR THREE TOTAL CANOPY TREES. UM, AS OPPOSED TO THE BECAUSE THERE'S 115 SMALL AND 709. THAT'S INCLUDED AS WELL . SO THERE'S JUST THAT'S WHERE I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE WE ARE ON THAT. CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT ONE? OKAY YES, MR CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONER JENKINS? YEAH, THE THREE CANOPY TREES THAT WAS IN

[00:35:04]

REFERENCE TO THE OTHER DEVIATION REGARDING THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER. UM NOT THE CARPORT STRUCTURES, SO THOSE ARE JUST TWO DIFFERENT DEVIATIONS BELIEVE THAT ONE HAD TO DO WITH THE SIGNAGE AND OBSTRUCTION THERE. SO YEAH, I KNOW THE APPLICANT OVERALL IN THE TOTAL SIDE WILL BE MUCH MORE THAN THREE CANOPY TREES THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND THEY'D BE SUBSTITUTING A NUMBER OF CANOPY TREES FOR ORNAMENTAL TREES. YES, SIR. SURE. YEAH, THEY DON'T HAVE ACCOUNT ON THEIR TREES. BUT THERE PROBABLY SAY 80 CANOPY TREES. JUST GUESSING COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION IF WE'RE FINISHED DISCUSSING IT. GO AHEAD, SIR. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. WE APPROVE THE REQUEST. PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AND I FEEL LIKE THE APPLICANTS WILL BE IN GOOD FAITH ON THE SHADE AND CANOPIES. AND WE CAN PRAY THAT MAN COMES SO HE GIVES THEM THEIR EASEMENT. SO. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH THE REQUEST THAT THEY WORK WITH STAFF TO COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF SHADE OF SHADES RESOLUTION. AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ROSE. ANY DISCUSSION TO PROVE.

SEEN NONE. PLEASE WILL. MHM. THERE PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THAT WAS THE LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA.

SO UNTIL OUR MEETING OF JULY

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.