* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:29] SIX 30, SO, ALRIGHTY. WELL, FOR THE CAMERA, I WILL SAY HAPPY NEW YEAR AND WELCOME TO THE FIRST MEETING, UH, THE GARLAND PLAN COMMISSION OF 2023. IT'S JANUARY 9TH. THIS [ Plan Commission Pre Meeting] FIRST PORTION IS OUR WORK SESSION PORTION, AND, UH, WE WILL GET THE STAFF BRIEFINGS AND THEN ONCE WE'RE THROUGH AT THAT, WE'LL GO INTO RECESS AND IT'S SEVEN O'CLOCK. WE WILL HAVE OUR PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF OUR MEETING. SO GO AHEAD, SIR. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FOR THE, UH, CONSENT AGENDA? YEAH, LET ME GET YOUR PODIUM MIC ON. THERE WE GO. DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, COMMENTS FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA TODAY? NOPE. WE'RE ALL GOOD. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THE, UM, FIRST ZONING CASE TODAY IS, UH, 2268. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A SPECIFIC USE PROVISION FOR A PERSONAL SERVICES USE, UH, LICENSED MASSAGE THERAPY, AND AN EXISTING BUILDING. THE, UH, BUILDING IS LOCATED AT 3 33 NORTH SHILOH ROAD. UM, THE APPLICANT IS WARREN COHEN. UM, THE WHOLE SITE IS 1.273 ACRES, AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS COMMUNITY OFFICE DISTRICT. THIS IS WHERE THE BUILDING IS LOCATED. AND A MORE DETAILED, UH, MAP OF WHERE THE BUILDING IS LOCATED, UM, TO THE SOUTH, THAT IS MOSTLY A MEDICAL OFFICE. UM, ACROSS THE STREET IS, UH, I BELIEVE, UH, OFFICE SPACE AND THEN IN THE, UH, COMMUNITY RETAIL ZONING TO THE NORTH AND TO THE WEST. UM, LIVE VARIOUS USES, UH, SUCH AS RETAIL AND, UH, RESTAURANTS. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS THIS, UH, CURRENT BUILDING, UH, AS THE, UH, BUSINESS CENTER LAND USE. THE, UH, PROPOSED SEP FOR A PERSONAL SERVICE. LAND USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS A COMMUNITY OFFICE. LIES WITHIN THE, UH, BUSINESS CENTER FUTURE LAND USE. HERE ARE PHOTOS OF THE SITE. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT IS MOSTLY SURROUNDED, UM, BY OFFICE SPACE AND OTHER, UH, RETAIL SPACE. HERE IS THE SITE AND FLOOR PLAN. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE, UM, SUITE IS LOCATED IN THE, UH, BOTTOM LEFT OF THE FLOOR PLAN. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE AN EXISTING 1200 SQUARE FOOT TENANT SPACE FOR A MASSAGE THERAPY USE, WHICH IS CLASSIFIED AS A PERSONAL SERVICE USE IN THE G D C, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A 25 YEAR SPECIFIC USE PROVISION. THE S U P TIME PERIOD GUIDE RECOMMENDS A RANGE OF 20 TO 30 YEARS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC USE PROVISION FOR A PERSONAL SERVICES USE, AND THE APPROVAL OF A PLAN ON A PROPERTY ZONED COMMUNITY OFFICE DISTRICT FOR THIS CASE, 46, UH, NOTIFICATION LETTERS WERE SENT AND ZERO WERE RECEIVED. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN AND LADIES? UH, COMMISSIONER JENKINS, THEN COMMISSIONER ROSE. GOOD EVENING. HAPPY NEW YEAR. GOOD EVENING. HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU TOO. ONE QUESTION FOR YOU. UM, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT PROHIBITS LIMITING THE PARTICULAR, UH, REQUEST TO THE, UH, PROPOSED SPACE? THAT MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR COUNCIL SPECIFICALLY. SO AS OPPOSED TO HAVING THE S SEP APPLY TO THE ENTIRE REQUEST, JUST HAVING IT APPLIED TO THE TENANT OCCUPIED SPACE AND THEREBY POTENTIALLY DEEMED ABANDONED IF THE TENANT WERE TO VACATE THAT, THAT PARTICULAR AREA. THANK YOU. THAT'S MY ONLY QUESTION. I THINK IN THE PAST WE HAVE ISOLATED IT TO, OH, WE DO THAT FOR, UH, HERE'S THE, UM, INTER PARTY ROOMS AND STUFF LIKE THAT TO A CERTAIN SUITE. SO I THINK THE U COULD [00:05:01] PROBABLY BE DRAWING UP TODAY. YEAH, U IS LIMITED TO THE SUITE. OKAY, GOOD. AND, UH, COMMISSIONER ROSE, DO YOU THINK THERE'S SUFFICIENT PARKING TO ACCOMMODATE THIS TENANT AND ALL THE OTHER TENANTS IF IT EVER GETS A HUNDRED PERCENT OCCUPIED? UM, I BELIEVE SO. UM, WE DID THE CURRENT CALCULATION. UM, I WORKED WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR THIS AND, UM, WE DID IT FOR I THINK NINE OF THE 10 SUITES, UM, INCLUDING THIS ONE, UM, ARE OCCUPIED AND THERE'S DEFINITELY ENOUGH PARKING. UM, SO I'M VERY SURE THAT IF, UH, THE 10 SUITE WAS OCCUPIED, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE ENOUGH PARKING PER THE G TWO. OKAY. I THINK THAT'S IT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THE, UH, SECOND ZONING CASE TODAY IS, UH, 2271. UH, THE APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO SINGLE FAMILY 10 DISTRICT TO ALLOW A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 10 13 RY ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS ROXANA NAVA. THE SITE IS 4 43 ACRES AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. THIS IS WHERE THE SITE IS LOCATED. THIS IS A MORE DETAILED MAP. UM, IT IS SURROUNDED CURRENTLY BY, UH, SIMILARLY AGRICULTURALLY ZONED PROPERTIES. UM, THERE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO THE EAST AND WEST OF THE PROPERTY, UM, AND TO THE SOUTH ACROSS ETTE ROAD. THERE IS A CHURCH THAT IS, UM, CURRENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL AND, UM, ALSO SOUTH OF THE, UH, LOT ACROSS FROM RAIL LA ROAD AS A CURRENTLY VACANT, UH, COMMUNITY RETAIL LOT. UH, THIS IS WHERE THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOODS, UH, FUTURE LAND USE. UH, THE ZONING CHANGE TO SINGLE FAMILY TIN IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THESE ARE PHOTOS OF THE SITE. SO YOU CAN SEE IT'S MOSTLY SURROUNDED BY, UH, VACANT AGRICULTURALLY, ZONED LAND. AND, UH, THE CHURCH IS, UH, VISIBLE IN THE BOTTOM LEFT. PHOTO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE OF ZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO SINGLE FAMILY, 10 DISTRICT FOR THIS CASE, 41 LETTERS WERE SENT OUT. UM, ONE WAS RETURNED, UM, WITHIN THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AREA, AND IT WAS FOR THE ZONING CHANGE. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER PARIS? GOOD EVENING. I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION. I THOUGHT I HAD READ THAT THE G D C REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF TWO ACRES, AND THIS IS LESS THAN THAT MINIMUM. IS THAT A CORRECT ASSESSMENT? UH, YES, MA'AM. UM, IT'S A MINIMUM OF TWO ACRES FOR THE, UH, AGRICULTURAL SITE. SO THEY ARE ZONING DOWN TO SINGLE FAMILY 10. OKAY. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THAT. IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS A POSSIBLE DEVIATION FROM WHAT THE G D C HAS, BUT THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING THAT. MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTOOD THE WATCH, HOW IMPACT, OF COURSE. OKAY. I THINK THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE REDOING THEM, BRIEFING ON THE, UH, UH, SCREENING WALLS OR ANYTHING? YES. OH, OKAY. GREAT. STAND FOR YOU. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. YOU HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU. HOPPING FROM MEETING TO MEETING TONIGHT, STRAIGHT FROM NEXT DOOR, THE COUNCIL WAR ONE FROM PRESENTATION TO ANOTHER . ALL RIGHT. UH, IT'S A FAIRLY BRIEF PRESENTATION, BUT, UM, LET ME GET THIS IN THE RIGHT PRESENTATION MODE. HERE WE GO. UM, SO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE, THEY'VE PASSED ALONG A NUMBER OF GC AMENDMENTS AND, UH, TO, TO RECOMMEND, AND THIS'LL OF COURSE GO BACK TO THE FULL COUNCIL FOR FORMAL CONSIDERATION, BUT THESE ARE IN FRONT OF YOU FOR FORMAL RECOMMENDATION, UH, BACK TO THE COUNCIL. UM, BUT THE COMMITTEE LOOKED AT A COUPLE OF, UM, SCREENING PROVISIONS IN THE G C AND, UM, HAVE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ACCORDINGLY. I'LL JUST KIND OF RUN, RUN THROUGH 'EM HERE IN ORDER, STARTING WITH SECTION 4.39. UM, AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT WHAT THIS IS, IS, UM, FOR ANY REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING SCREENING, UH, FROM A COMMERCIAL SIDE OF A COMMERCIAL OR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, UH, FOR EXAMPLE, IS THERE AT A SCREEN AGAINST, UH, THEMSELVES AGAINST A, UM, UM, [00:10:01] SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD ADJACENT TO IT. UM, THIS PROPOSAL WOULD MAKE IT SO WHERE IF THEY, UM, IF THE OWNER, UM, OF THAT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT CHOOSES TO REMOVE THAT SCREENING, IT MUST BE REPLACED WITH A, LIKE, UH, MATERIAL LIKE SCREENING DEVICE. SO IN OTHER WORDS, IT COULD, A MASONRY WALL COULD NOT BE, UH, REPLACED WITH A, UH, TRANSPARENT METAL ORNAMENTAL FENCE. SO IT NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR. THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HELPED, UM, CRAFT THIS LANGUAGE, UH, SOME OF THE LANGUAGE AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, LEVEL OF SCREENING TO WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED AND MUST BE CONSTRUCTED THE SAME OR SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR BUILDING MATERIAL. UM, THIS WAS A COUNCIL INITIATED ITEM AS, AS I UNDERSTAND, THERE WAS A, UH, EXAMPLE IN A CERTAIN PART OF TOWN WHERE THIS, THIS HAPPENED. IT WAS KIND OF A LOOPHOLE AND, UM, THE CITY, UH, PERMITTING OFFICE COULDN'T REALLY DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF A SCREENING WALL, SO THIS WOULD KIND OF TIGHTEN THAT UP A LITTLE BIT. SO, UM, ANY QUESTIONS WITH THAT? OKAY. COMMISSIONER ROSE, MY NEIGHBORHOOD, THE WALLS AND THE PERIMETER ARE OWNED BY THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS. CAN YOU STILL ENFORCE THIS? IT'S NOT OWNED BY THE ORGANIZATION, IT IS OWNED BY THAT PROPERTY, RUTH. SO THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR 60 FEET OR WHATEVER WIDTH THEIR LOT IS. MM-HMM. , WELL, I BELIEVE THIS WOULD BE, THIS WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO SCREENING DEVICES THAT, THAT ARE FOR COMMERCIAL, LIKE NON-RESIDENTIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS. WELL, IT'S NOT RESIDENTIAL AND ORIENTED AT ALL. UH, CORRECT. THIS IS, THIS IS APPLICABLE FOR, FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY. WOULD, WOULD THIS ALSO INCLUDE ANY SCREENING WALL ADJACENT TO A STREET SUBDIVISIONS? AND I THINK THOSE ARE THE ONES HE'S TALKING ABOUT. RIGHT. OKAY. THIS IS NOT, THIS SPECIFIC SECTION IS REGARDING JUST SCREENING COMMERCIAL FROM RESIDENTIAL. THEN I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING LIKE WHAT YOU'RE JUST SAYING ADDED TO THIS. AND, AND JUST AS A REMINDER TO COMMISSIONERS, OUR JOB TONIGHT IS TO REVIEW THIS, ADD COMMENTS AND PASS IT ALONG BACK TO COUNCIL COUNCIL. RIGHT. I THINK THEY, IT OUGHT TO BE SOMETHING OUGHT TO BE INCLUDED TO, AND SO WHATEVER, THERE ARE A LOT OF, A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL WALLS AROUND STREETS. I MEAN, I CAME DOWN GLENBROOK AND THERE'S ONE RIGHT AT GLENBROOK IN, IN, UH, BELTLINE. MM-HMM. . YEAH. SO, UH, MR. GARIN WILL TAKE NOTES AND INCORPORATE 'EM INTO HIS REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL. OKAY. IT WAS A GOOD CALL. I MISSED THAT ONE. YEAH, THANK YOU. UM, I'LL MOVE ON TO SECTION 4.40, WHICH IS REGARDING, UM, THIS IS ACTUALLY APPLICABLE TO, UH, SINGLE FAMILY AS WELL AS TWO FAMILY, WHICH MEANS DUPLEX, UM, AS WELL AS, UM, THE MF ZERO, IF YOU REMEMBER THE KIND OF SINGLE FAMILY STYLE, MULTI-FAMILY OR HORIZONTAL MULTI-FAMILY. UM, THIS WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THOSE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT BACK UP TO A THOROUGHFARE TYPE D THOROUGHFARE OR LARGER, WHICH ARE, YOU KNOW, YOUR, YOUR MORE MAJOR ROADWAYS IN GARLAND. UM, CURRENTLY, UM, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UM, MUST PROVIDE SCREENING ALONG THE THOROUGHFARE THAT BACKUP OR THE SIDE AND REAR YARDS, FOR EXAMPLE, BACKUP TO THE THOROUGHFARE. UM, BUT DEVELOPERS HAVE THE OPTION OF EITHER PROVIDING A SOLID MASONRY WALL AND THERE'S SOME LANDSCAPING, SOME TREE PLANTING PROVISIONS AS WELL, BUT A MASONRY WALL OR A, AN ORNAMENTAL METAL FENCE, UM, THAT ALSO HAS SOME TREES AND LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS. UH, BUT THEY DO HAVE THE OPTION AS FAR AS THE SCREENING WALL ITSELF BETWEEN A MASONRY WALL OR AN ORNAMENTAL FENCE. THE, UH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE ORNAMENTAL FENCE OPTION BE REMOVED, UM, AND THAT IT, THE, THE REQUIREMENT IS SIMPLY A MASONRY WALL. HOWEVER, THEY, UM, WE LOOKED AT A PROVISION THAT THE, UH, CITY OF RICHARDSON HAS. THEY DO REQUIRE A, A MASONRY WALL AS, AS TO A NUMBER OF OTHER CITIES AS WELL. BUT RICHARDSON HAS ONE EXCEPTION THAT, UM, THE MASONRY WALL MUST OVERALL BE PROVIDED, BUT SECTIONS THAT LOOK INTO THE END OF A CUL-DE-SAC, FOR EXAMPLE, OR A LANDSCAPE AREA, UH, LANDSCAPE FEATURE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, UM, IN THOSE PARTICULAR SECTIONS, A METAL ORNAMENTAL FENCE CAN BE USED BETWEEN THE SECTIONS OF MASONRY WALL JUST TO PROVIDE A LITTLE TRANSPARENCY AND TO, YOU'RE NOT LOOKING INTO PEOPLE'S BACKYARDS. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE LOOKING INTO COMMON AREA, CUL-DE-SAC, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. UM, BUT OTHERWISE THEY, THEY WANTED TO SEE THE ORNAMENTAL FENCE, UH, OPTION REMOVED AND JUST GO WITH THE, UM, MASONRY WALL. SO THEY, UM, FELT THAT PROVIDES REALLY BETTER SCREENING. AND I THINK THERE WAS ONE EXAMPLE THAT WAS KIND OF DISCUSSED THAT THE BACKYARDS WERE KIND OF SHALLOW AND KIND OF LOOKING RIGHT INTO PEOPLE'S BACKYARDS AND WOULDN'T BE ON CENTERVILLE, WOULD IT? ? IT COULD BE , IT COULD BE. UM, SO YES, SIR, THAT, THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION ON THAT SECTION. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, THAT LANGUAGE, UH, COMMISSIONER ROSE. OKAY, HERE YOU'RE MASON. I FORGOT TO TURN IT OFF. ANYWAY, MASONRY WALL. DOES THAT INCLUDE, UH, BRICK WALLS? YES, SIR. BRICK OR [00:15:01] STONE? YES, SIR. MM-HMM. . OKAY. I'D GIVEN YOU ONE NOTE OF THOUGHTS ON THAT ONE. AND THIS IS GETTING INTO THE WEEDS FOLKS. SORRY ABOUT THAT. BUT THE ORDINANCE SAYS ANY STREET TYPE D OR MORE, MORE MAJOR A, B, C, AND D SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THIS. AND ALL THE D STREETS ARE EITHER 80 OR 82 FOOT RIGHT OF WAYS AND EITHER TWO OR FOUR LANES, AND THEY HAVE EASEMENTS IN EITHER SIDE. WELL, THERE'S A TYPE E STREET, WHICH IS ALSO AN 80 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY, AND FOUR LANES, TWO IN EACH DIRECTION. ONLY DIFFERENCE REALLY BEING ARE THE EASEMENTS. AND, UH, I THINK E SHOULD PROBABLY BE INCLUDED FOR SCREENING, UH, FOR THOROUGH AFFAIRS. SO I CAN CLEAN UP MY NOTES AND FORWARD 'EM TO YOU, OR I CAN DO IT THAT WAY FOR YOU, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO, THAT'D BE FINE. OKAY, I WILL DO THAT. BUT THAT WAS ONE RANDOM THOUGHT I'D HAD. OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. AND THEN THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION, THIS ACTUALLY DIDN'T COME OUTTA COMMITTEE, THIS WAS A STAFF INITIATED ONE, BUT JUST A LANGUAGE CLEANUP. UH, IT'S MAYBE MORE OF A SCRIBNER'S AREA THAN ANYTHING, BUT IF YOU RECALL, OR SOME OF YOU MAY RECALL IN 20, UM, 19 WHEN THE STATE LAW WAS, UM, ENACTED THAT NO LONGER ALLOWS CITIES TO REGULATE, UH, EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS. UM, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND STAFF WENT THROUGH, UM, AS THOROUGHLY AS WE COULD REMOVING ANY REFERENCE TO BUILDING MATERIALS, UM, FOR, FOR ACTUAL BUILDINGS AS THEY'RE DEFINED IN THE G. BUT, UM, WE, UM, FOUND ONE, UH, EXCEPTION THAT JUST WASN'T REMOVED. THERE'S, UH, IN SECTION 4.83 THAT, UM, AT THIS POINT REALLY IS REGARDING BUILDING DESIGN ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, UM, FENESTRATION, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. UM, THERE'S A, UH, REFERENCE TO SECTION 4.83 G AND 4.83 H, AND THOSE ARE, THOSE NO LONGER EXIST. THE, THE, WHAT THOSE SECTIONS SAID WAS THAT FOR INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS, YOU CAN HAVE SOME, UM, YOU HAVE A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY ON BUILDING MATERIALS, YOU CAN DO THIS OR THAT, AS OPPOSED TO JUST YOUR, YOUR, UM, MASONRY HARD MASONRY. SO THOSE SECTIONS NO LONGER EXIST. WE'RE JUST, UM, PROPOSING THAT THAT BE REMOVED. IT'S CAUSING A LOT OF CONFUSION FOR APPLICANTS AND, AND NEWER STAFF MEMBERS AS WELL. SO, UM, SO REALLY WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT. WELL, YOU KNOW, I HAD TWO MORE OBSERVATIONS AND I'LL DO IT HERE SO WE CAN GET OUTTA HERE SOONER TONIGHT. UM, AND ONE REFERS TO WHAT COMMISSION ROSE IS TALKING ABOUT WHEN THERE'S SEGMENTATION OF OWNERSHIP, NOW WE'VE GOT THAT COVERED FOR SINGLE FAMILY NOW AND THAT IT HAS TO BE AN EASEMENT GOVERNED BY AN HOA FOR PROPER MAINTENANCE. I THINK THAT PROVISION SHOULD SOMEHOW GO TO, UH, COMMERCIAL TOO, BECAUSE WE'RE SEEING PROPERTIES COME IN AND REPLAT 'EM INTO SEPARATE PROPERTIES SO THAT IN ESSENCE THERE MAY BE A WALL THERE CREATING TWO OWNERSHIP. SO I THINK WALLS OF, UH, SCREENING WALLS SHOULD BE IN AN EASEMENT AND THERE SHOULD BE SOME MECHANISM FOR A SINGLE OWNERSHIP OR SINGLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING IT. SO THAT MAY BE SOMETHING TO BE CONSIDERED. UM, ALSO, THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE ABOUT SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED BEING SCREENED FROM SINGLE FAMILY AND SOME OF THE TOWN HOMES, SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHER TOWN HOMES CAN GET BIG ENOUGH THAT THEY ARE LIKE APARTMENT COMPLEXES. APARTMENT COMPLEXES ARE REQUIRED TO BE SCREENED FROM SINGLE FAMILY. SO I THINK IT SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED IF YOU WANNA PUT A LIMIT ON ANYTHING OVER 12 OR 15 UNITS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO WE HAVE THAT TOO. SO THESE ARE JUST THOUGHTS TO PASS ON TO COUNCIL AND SEE IF THERE CAN DO OPAQUENESS OF EVERGREENS AND WHAT IS OPAQUENESS AND IS THAT AFTER THREE YEARS? AND, UM, I'LL JUST LEAVE THAT THERE CUZ THAT'S, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF YOU CAN RIDE AN ORDINANCE TO THAT . SO THAT'S ALL THE INPUT I HAD, JUST THOSE POINTS. OKAY. ALL RIGHTY. THAT'S THE LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA. SO WE ARE IN RECESS FOR ANOTHER 12 MINUTES TILL SEVEN O'CLOCK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SIX 30. SO, ALL RIGHTY. [Call to Order] ALL RIGHTY. WELL, GOOD EVENING. HAPPY NEW YEAR TO EVERYBODY AND WELCOME TO THE FIRST MEETING OF THE GARLAND PLAN COMMISSION. IT'S JANUARY 9TH, AND THIS IS OUR PUBLIC, UH, PORTION OF THE MEETING. SO WE LIKE TO START OUR MEETINGS WITH THE PARENT PLEDGE. YOU'RE INVITED TO JOIN US, WHETHER YOU DO OR NOT, NO WAY AFFECTS THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION OR YOUR RIGHTS IN FRONT. IF YOU'LL CARE TO JOIN ME. DEAR HEAVEN, FATHER, WE THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE THIS CITY, AND PLEASE GIVE [00:20:01] US AND THE COUNCIL WHO'S MEETING NEXT DOOR, THE WISDOM TO MAKE THE BEST DECISIONS POSSIBLE FOR OUR CITY AND FOR THE APPLICANTS. AND WE ASK THAT YOU WATCH OVER ALL OF US WHO WATCH OVER US, THE POLICE, THE FIRE ARM SERVICES, AND THEIR FAMILIES WHO HAVE TO DEAL WITH EVERYTHING THAT THEY DO, PLEASE GIVE US THE WISDOM TO CONTINUE FORTH AND KEEP US SAFE THROUGH THE YEAR. IN YOUR NAME WE PRAY, AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. ALMOST DID IT. ALMOST I'VE IT ONCE. WHOA. THERE WE GO. WELL, GOOD EVENING AGAIN. AND, UH, FOR THOSE WHO WISH TO SPEAK TONIGHT, WE HAVE SPEAKER CARDS THAT YOU CAN FILL OUT AND WE GIVE APPLICANTS 15 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR CASE. OTHER SPEAKERS, WE ALLOW THREE MINUTES. IF YOU'RE SPEAKING FOR A GROUP, WE DEFINITELY ALLOW MORE TIME, BUT ANYBODY SPEAKING TO US TONIGHT, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THE MICROPHONE. WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT FOR THE RECORD. ALL RIGHT. LET'S [CONSENT AGENDA] START TONIGHT'S AGENDA WITH OUR CONSENT AGENDA. CONSENT AGENDA ARE ITEMS THAT THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE REVIEWED AND WILL BE MOVING TO APPROVE. WE'LL BE VOTING TO APPROVE WITH ONE VOTE. I WILL READ THROUGH THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. ANYBODY OR COMMISSIONER WANTS AN ITEM REMOVED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, LET ME KNOW AND WE WILL CONSIDER IT SEPARATELY. OKAY. CONSENT AGENDA ITEM ONE A, CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES FOR THE DECEMBER 12TH, 2022 MEETING. ITEM TWO, A PLA 22 DASH 41 RINCON EDITION. FINAL PLAT ITEM TWO B PLAT 22 DASH 42 BRAND EDITION. FINAL PLAT ITEM TWO C. UH, SIDEWALK WAIVER 22 2 BRAND EDITION. ITEM TWO D PLAT 22 DASH 43 PARKHOUSE FIRE WHEEL, FINAL PLAT ITEM TWO E, SIDEWALK WAIVER 22 DASH ZERO THREE PARKHOUSE. ANYBODY CARE FOR AN ITEM? REMOVE YOUR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. SEEING NONE SHALL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. JUST, UH, COMMISSIONER PARIS. CHAIRMAN, I MOVED THAT WE ACCEPT THE AGENDAS. READ SECOND AND MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PARIS IS SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DALTON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. YEP. ALL RIGHTY. GO AHEAD AND VOTE AND JUST BRING THE VOTE FORWARD AT ANY TIME THAT IT'S READY. OKAY. I'M NOT KIDDING. AND THAT PASSES UNANIMOUS. WHOOP. NO, IT DOESN'T SHOW YET. OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THE BUTTONS DON'T SEEM TO BE WORKING AND THAT MAY BE BECAUSE COUNCIL'S OVER THERE. SO TONIGHT WE'RE GONNA VOTE BY A SHOW OF HANDS. ALL IN FAVOR. THIS IS FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. RIGHT HAND OR LEFT HAND? DOESN'T MATTER. OKAY. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY UNLESS, UH, COMMISSIONER JENKINS WAS ABSTAINING BECAUSE HE WASN'T HERE AT THE LAST MEETING, BUT IT'S STILL KIND OF CONSIDERED AN APPROVAL ANYHOW. . ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. ZONING [Items 3A & 3B] CASES. OUR FIRST ZONING CASE IS A TWO-PARTER. ITEM THREE, A CONSIDERATION THE APPLICATION OF WARREN COHEN C BBC CONSULTING AND LICENSING, REQUESTING A APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC USE PROVISION FOR A PERSONAL SERVICE USE ON PROPERTY ZONE COMMUNITY OFFICE DISTRICT. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 30 33 NORTH SHILOH ROAD, SUITE 1 0 1 B, AND ITEM THREE B, CONSIDERATION THE APPLICATION WARREN COHEN, CBC CONSULTING AND LICENSING, REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A PLAN FOR PERSONAL SERVICE USE IS ON PROPERTY ZONED COMMUNITY OFFICE DISTRICT, AND SAME ADDRESS IS THE APPLICANT HERE TONIGHT. UM, OKAY. UH, COMMISSIONERS THE APPLICANTS HERE. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT BEFORE WE MAKE HER COME DOWN AND SAY A BUNCH OF STUFF? QUESTION? NOPE, SHE'S, I SEE NO QUESTIONS. UH, LET ME ASK IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE. WE SHOULD JUST SPEAK ON THIS CASE. SEEING NONE, CHAIR, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. MR. CHAIR, COMMISSIONER JENKINS, MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE AS PRESENTED. SECOND MOTION BY COMMISSIONER JENKINS IS SECOND BY COMMISSIONER AUB TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION, BOTH, BOTH ITEMS A AND B, THE SPECIFIC USE PROVISION. AND THE PLAN MOTION [00:25:01] IS TO APPROVE. AND LET'S USE THE SHOW OF HANDS AGAIN. OH, HEY, IT'S WORKING. DON'T WORK. IT'S YES. OH. ALL RIGHTY. SAY HOW WE VOTED. IT JUST SAID WE VOTED. YEAH, IT'LL, IT'LL POP UP. AND THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. WELCOME AND GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR BUSINESS. ALL RIGHTY. NEXT ITEM. ZONING [3.c. Consideration of the application of G. Roxana Novoa, requesting approval of a Change of Zoning from Agricultural (AG) District to Single Family-10 (SF-10) District. This property is located at 1013 Rowlett Road. (District 4) (File Z 22-71)] CASE THREE C. CONSIDERATION THE APPLICATION OF G R SAN ANNOVA, UH, REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO SINGLE FAMILY. 10. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 10 13 ROLLETT ROAD AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE. UH, ANYBODY CARE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT? ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? I DIDN'T THINK THERE WOULD BE. SO, , YOU HAVE ANYTHING? IF YOU CARE TO SAY SOMETHING, PARDON ME? DID YOU CARE TO SAY SOMETHING OR, OH, NO, I'M GOOD. OKAY. HE, HE WAS HERE AT THE PRE-MEETING. ALL RIGHTY. AND SOON AS THERE'S NOBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE, UH, CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR WHATEVER. THANK YOU. OKAY. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, MAKE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. GO AHEAD. THOSE WITHOUT OPPOS, THE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. HEARD THE FIRST, UH, A SEC. FIRST. SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER ALBIN CUZ HE'S CLOSER IN SOUND TO APPROVE THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE. YES. SHE'S RESETTING IT. WAIT A SECOND. AND I'M SORRY, CHAIR, WOULD YOU MIND REPEATING THE MOTION? OKAY. UH, THE MOTION WAS, UH, BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ALBIN TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE APPLICATION. AND COMMISSIONER JOHN, I MAY ASK COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. YEAH, I'M SORRY. UH, THERE WE GO. HOLD ON. WELL, IT'S, IT. OKAY. EVERYBO, I TAKE IT. THAT WAS UNANIMOUS FOR YES, BOTH OF YOU? YES. OKAY. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THE NEXT ITEM, [4.a. Consideration to amend in part Chapter 4, Sections 4.39 “Perimeter Screening Between Nonresidential, Multifamily, Single-Family Development”; Section 4.40 “Perimeter Screening Between Single-Family (Attached and Detached) and Two-Family Residential Development & Thoroughfares”; and Section 4.83 “Nonresidential & Multifamily Building Materials & Design” of the Garland Development Code.] OUR AGENDA IS A MISCELLANEOUS ITEM. THIS IS, UH, FOUR, A CONSIDERATION TO AMEND IN PART CHAPTER FOUR, SECTION 4.39 PERIMETER SCREENING BETWEEN NON-RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY, SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND SECTION 4.40 PERIMETER SCREENING BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED AND DETACHED, AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND THOROUGHFARES AND SECTION 4.83 NON-RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING MATERIALS AND DESIGN OF THE GARLAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THESE ITEMS WERE, UH, WE WERE BRIEFED IN OUR WORK SESSION AND WE HAD SOME INPUT ON IT AND I SEE NOBODY IN THE PUBLIC, UH, HERE TO SPEAK ON IT. SO CHAIRMAN ENTERTAINED A MOTION TO FORWARD THIS ON TO COMMISSION WITH, UH, OUR NOTES OR WHATEVER, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DO IT. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, ARE YOU STILL LIVE THERE? GO AHEAD. WHOOP, GO AHEAD. THAT'S FINE. THAT'S LEFT OVER. OKAY. THAT'S LEFT OVER. COMMISSIONER ALVIN. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. I MOVE THAT WE, UM, MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS, ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE MADE DURING THE WORK SESSION AND FORWARD THOSE TO COUNSEL. OKAY. A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ABIN AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JENKINS TO FORWARD THIS, UH, TO COUNSEL WITH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE HAD DURING OUR DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER ROSE DISCUSSION THAT INCLUDES ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS WE HAD IN THE DISCUSSION. YES. OKAY, GOOD. IT WAS MADE IN THE MOTION AND REITERATED. YEP. ALL RIGHTY. THAT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. THAT WAS LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA. SO UNTIL OUR MEETING OF JANUARY 23RD, WE ARE ADJOURNED. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.