Jun 22, 2026 Plan Commission

[00:00:08]

JUNE 22ND MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THIS IS OUR CUSTOM. WE COMMISSIONERS START OUR MEETING WITH A PRAYER AND A PLEDGE. YOU'RE INVITED TO JOIN US WHETHER YOU DO OR NOT, IN NO WAY AFFECTS THE DECISIONS OF THIS COMMISSION OR THE RIGHTS AND PRESERVATION.

TONIGHT'S PRAYER AND PLEDGE WILL BE LED BY COMMISSIONER BARTON. TO JOIN ME, A GRACIOUS AND LOVING HEAVENLY FATHER, WE COME BEFORE YOU WITH OPEN HEARTS. WE THANK YOU, FATHER, FOR THE BLESSINGS THAT YOU'VE BESTOWED UPON US INDIVIDUALLY AND THROUGH OUR CITY. WE THANK YOU FOR THE BEAUTIFUL DAYS THAT YOU GIVE US, THE WARM EVENINGS, THE REFRESHING SHOWERS. WE THANK YOU, FATHER, FOR ALL THOSE THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THIS CITY, THE FIREFIGHTERS AND THE POLICE, AND ALL THOSE THAT SERVE TO MAKE THIS A WONDERFUL CITY IN THE STATE. WE THANK YOU, FATHER, FOR THE VISITORS IN OUR COUNTRY RIGHT NOW. WE ASK THEM THAT THEY HAVE A SAFE AND ENJOYABLE TIME HERE IN A SAFE JOURNEY WHEN THEY RETURN HOME. FATHER, WE THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE GIVEN US. WE ASK YOU TO BLESS US. LET US DO RIGHT BY THE CITIZENS AND OUR CITY. IN JESUS CHRIST'S NAME I 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. GOOD EVENING. AND IT'S GOOD TO SEE A LOT OF FOLKS OUT HERE BEING PART OF THE SYSTEM. I HAVE A FEW SPEAKER CARDS ALREADY. IF YOU CARE TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM. IF YOU WANT TO FILL OUT ONE OF THESE SPEAKER CARDS AND HAND IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY, THEN WE CAN CALL YOUR NAME. AND WHEN YOU DO, WHEN YOU COME UP TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. WE NEED THAT FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD. APPLICANTS WILL BE GIVEN 15 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR CASE. OTHER SPEAKERS WILL BE ALLOWED THREE MINUTES. BUT AS USUAL, IF YOU'RE SPEAKING FOR A GROUP LIKE A HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION, WE WILL DEFINITELY ALLOW MORE TIME. AFTER EVERYBODY HAS SPOKEN, WE'LL ASK THE APPLICANT TO BACK UP TO ADDRESS ANY ISSUES THAT HE CARES TO THAT WERE BROUGHT UP DURING THE OTHER TESTIMONY. AND AGAIN,

[a. June 8, 2026 Plan Commission Minutes]

AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JENKINS. I WOULD LIKE TO MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED AND SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JENKINS. COMMISSIONER DUCKWORTH, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? I THINK THERE'S A MINOR AMENDMENT ON THE RANGE DRIVE. I THINK THE MINUTES READ THAT MY MOTION WAS TO USE DROUGHT RESISTANT PLANTS. I DIDN'T INTEND IT TO MEAN THAT IT MEANT THE OPTION TO USE DROUGHT RESISTANT PLANTS. OKAY. WOULD THE MAKER OF THE MOTION IN THE SECOND OKAY, LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT THAT CHANGE AND MAKE HER THE MOTION.

COMMISSIONER ABEL AND COMMISSIONER JENKINS A SECOND CONCUR. SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. CAN YOU ENTER THE MOTIONS AGAIN? IN A SECOND. IT DISAPPEARED. PLEASE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH, I HIT THE CLEAR BUTTON. SORRY ABOUT THAT. OKAY. ALL RIGHTY. AND PLEASE VOTE. DID YOU CLEAR IT AGAIN, SIR? I SHOULDN'T DO THAT. WE'RE WORKING WITH A RELATIVELY NEW SYSTEM HERE. AND, COMMISSIONER JENKINS, IF YOU'LL SECOND IT AGAIN. OKAY. DO WE NEED TO VOTE AGAIN? YES, SIR. PLEASE. AND I KEEP MY HAND OFF THE BUTTON. IS IT SHOWING UP ON EVERYONE'S SCREEN? NO. THE VOTE. NO. HERE. I'M KEEPING MY HANDS HERE. IT'LL GO OFF ON ITS OWN

[a. Z 26-11 Lone Star Green Homes (District 2)]

[00:05:03]

THE EAST IS THE GARLAND FIRE STATION NUMBER EIGHT ZONED PD 85-52. AND TO THE SOUTH IS A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION ZONED PD 04-09 WITH A BASE ZONING OF SF SEVEN AND TO THE WEST ACROSS SOUTH COUNTRY CLUB ROAD IS THE. GARLAND IS THE EDUCATION CENTER ZONED COMMUNITY RETAIL AS WELL.

OVERALL, THE PROPOSED USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS COMPACT NEIGHBORHOODS DESIGNATION, WHICH SUPPORTS A MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED AND DETACHED HOUSING, ENCOURAGES COMPATIBILITY, COMPATIBLE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT. THE REQUEST DOES NOT INCREASE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DENSITY UNDER PD 22-26 AND EXPANDS THE HOUSING OPTIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. HERE, WE GOT SOME PHOTOS OF THE SITE TAKEN BOTH FROM EAST MILLER ROAD AND SOUTH COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, AS REQUIRED BY THE EXISTING PD. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE FRONTAGE INCLUDES 28 CANOPY TREES ALONG THE REQUIRED WROUGHT IRON SCREENING FENCE WITH MASONRY COLUMNS. THIS EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT AND IN WHICH CASE IN THIS CASE WOULD BE 15 CANOPY TREES. IN THESE, TWO PICTURES WERE TAKEN FROM WITHIN THE PROPERTY, AND THE IMAGE TO THE LEFT IS FACING SOUTH AND SHOWS THE REQUIRED PLAYGROUND AMENITY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN INSTALLED. THEN THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT FACING WEST SHOWS THE INTERNAL RIGHT OF WAY LEADING TO THE SOUTH COUNTRY CLUB ROAD FRONTAGE, WHERE THE REQUIRED GAZEBO AND SEATING AREA HAVE ALSO BEEN INSTALLED. THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S CONCEPT PLAN, WHICH SHOWS THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY, ZERO LOT LINE HOMES IN ORANGE ALONG EASTILLER ROAD AND TO THE EAST ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING FIRE STATION. THE LOCATION OF THE ZERO LOT LINE HOMES WAS INTENTIONALLY PLACED AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBORING SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES BECAUSE THESE ARE PROPOSED AS THREE STORY BUILDINGS, RETAINING THE ALREADY APPROVED TWO STORY TOWNHOMES ALONG THE SINGLE FAMILY ADJACENCY ENSURES THOSE NEIGHBORS ARE NOT ADVERSELY IMPACTED BY THE REQUESTED AMENDMENTS. THE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE LOTS WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED, EXCEPT FOR THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SIDE SETBACK FOR THE ZERO LOT LINE HOMES. THE STANDARD UNDER THE GDC WOULD BE TEN FEET, AND HE IS REQUESTING TO REDUCE THAT TO THREE FEET. THESE ARE SOME OF THE REFERENCE ELEVATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT FOR THE THREE STORY, ZERO LOT LINE HOMES, WHICH FEATURE A DESIGN ELEMENTS SUCH AS DORMERS, GABLES, PANED WINDOWS AND A FRONT PORCH WITH A RAILING AND A COLUMN. THE APPLICANT'S PD AMENDMENT REQUEST INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS. DWELLING ZERO LOT LINE IS ADDED AS A PERMITTED USE WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 35FT. EACH ZERO LOT LINE HOME SHALL PROVIDE TWO CANOPY TREES WITHIN THE LOT, AT LEAST ONE OF WHICH SHALL BE LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARD. THE APPLICANT ALSO REQUESTS TO REDUCE THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM THE STANDARD TEN FEET UNDER THE GDC TO THREE FEET, AND TO SATISFY CONCERNS FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES THAT FIRE SPRINKLER INSTALLATION BE REQUIRED IN ALL ZERO LOT LINE HOMES. THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPACT

[00:10:07]

AND SO I'M WONDERING HOW THAT COMPLICATES OR MIGHT, YOU KNOW, MAKE THE MAKE THE LOTS MUCH MORE CONDENSED THAN THEY MIGHT OTHERWISE BE. GOTCHA. SO I'M SORRY, JUST TO CLARIFY. SO ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT THE FEASIBILITY OF TREES OR TWO CANOPY TREES PER EACH? YEAH.

OKAY. GOTCHA. YEAH. THAT SO THAT IS REALLY JUST BASED OFF OUR STANDARD REQUIREMENT. AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS BROUGHT UP TO THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT REALLY DIDN'T HESITATE MUCH TO AGREE TO, TO PROVIDING THAT. SO I DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC CONCERNS. OF COURSE, IF THERE WAS, WE DO HAVE SOME OPTIONS FOR SUBSTITUTING INSTEAD OF A CANOPY TREE, IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, THREE SMALLER ORNAMENTAL TREES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IF IT WAS AN ISSUE IF. BUT WITH THAT, I THINK I'LL KIND OF SPEAK. I'LL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO WHETHER THAT IS FEASIBLE OR NOT BASED ON THIS PROJECT. OKAY. TO TO ASK TO DRILL DOWN JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE. YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES TO THE TWO CANOPY TREES. THEY COULD, AND THE ALTERNATIVE OFFER ORNAMENTAL TREES OF SOME SORT? WOULD THAT BE. WOULD THAT DEVIATION REQUIRE THEM TO SEEK ADDITIONAL CONSENT FROM DEVELOPMENT. OR COULD THEY JUST DO THAT? YEAH. SO THAT WOULD BE THROUGH AN ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE PROCESS THAT WOULD BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONER MIRANDA. THERE YOU GO. THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING. I GOT ONE QUICK CLARIFICATION. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE. SO IT LOOKS LIKE THE APPLICANT REQUESTED DECREASE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT. BUT CAN YOU SHOW ME I GUESS MAYBE I DON'T KNOW, THE CURSOR KIND OF LIKE WHERE LIKE HOW THAT'S GOING TO LOOK IF THEY SHOWED IT IN THEIR. YEAH. SO THE SIDE SETBACK IS ONLY GOING TO APPLY FOR THE NEW PROPOSED ZERO LOT LINE HOMES. RIGHT. SINCE THE TOWNHOMES RIGHT. DON'T HAVE ANY SIDE SETBACK. SO I KNOW IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE HARD TO SEE THERE. BUT IN THE ORANGE ONES THERE IS A DOTTED LINE THAT RUNS PRETTY CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE HERE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE. AND THAT'S KIND OF THAT THREE FOOT SETBACK THAT MAKES A LITTLE ALLEY. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO GET A LITTLE VISUAL. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER DUCKWORTH? THANK YOU SIR. IN READING THROUGH THIS, I MADE SOME NOTES JUST FOR CLARIFICATION FOR THE PUBLIC AND AND OUR COMMISSION AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT. I BELIEVE IN THE READING IT. THE LOT SIZES ARE 1750FT■S. THAT'S CORRECT. AND DO WE HAVE ANYTHING THAT TELLS US WHAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE THREE STORY RESIDENCE MIGHT BE? I DON'T

[00:15:05]

THERE'S THREE HERE BY THE BY THE DETENTION POND. AND THEN THERE'S SIX BY THE PLAYGROUND.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S. ANYBODY ELSE. I'VE JUST GOT ONE QUICK QUESTION. IN THE LETTER THAT WE GOT BACK SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THEY THOUGHT IT HAD BEEN ZONED FOR SELF STORAGE OR SOMETHING, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IT EVER WAS IN MY RECOLLECTION. YES. I SAW THAT. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT EVER HAS BEEN, BUT DEFINITELY THE CURRENT ZONING DOES NOT ALLOW FOR SELF STORAGE, RIGHT? WE DO READ THE LETTERS, FOLKS. COMMISSIONER JENKINS AND THEN COMMISSIONER DUCKWORTH.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, FOR THE SECOND GO AROUND HERE. I IT'S THE IT'S THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT'S REPRESENTED ON THE CONCEPT PLAN, THAT BEING THE CUT THROUGH FOR TRAFFIC. WHAT'S ACTUALLY THERE? YES. OKAY. SO SO THERE ARE THOSE THAT EXIT FROM STAR ROAD ONTO MILLER HAVE TO GO DOWN MILLER SOME DISTANCE, AND THEN THEY CAN MAKE A U-TURN. AND THEN CONVERSELY, THAT THOSE THAT MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN TURNING IN HAVE TO HAVE TO COME ABOUT AT SORT OF A ROUNDABOUT WAY AS WELL. IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH. YEAH, THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER DUCKWORTH. SORRY, YOUR QUESTION WAS ABOUT TRAFFIC INTO THE OPPOSITE LANE THAT THAT'S NEXT TO THE PROPERTY. SO THERE IS NO DIRECT CROSS, IS THAT RIGHT? OKAY. I KNOW, I'M SORRY. ONE OF MY NOTES HERE IN THE IN THE WRITE UP, THERE WAS A NOTATION ABOUT 2HOA LOTS. CAN YOU IDENTIFY THOSE? AND I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND WHY THERE'S 2HO LOTS. OR IS THIS ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT GOING TO BE HOA? YEAH. SO I BELIEVE THE TWO LOTS ARE GOING TO BE A DEDICATED FOR THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE FRONTAGES AND THEN THE WHEREVER THE PLAYGROUND IS IN THE SOUTH

[00:20:03]

THANK YOU. ALRIGHTY. I'VE GOT A FEW SPEAKER CARDS IN THIS. I'VE GOT LET'S SEE THE OWNER, MR. SHAHID. ALTAF. OR. BOBBY ROLLINS, WHOEVER WANTS TO SPEAK FOR BOTH OF YOU. I'M GETTING A LITTLE HARD OF HEARING. I'M BOBBY RAWLINGS. OH, WELL, I LIVE AT THREE, TWO, TWO, ONE SAINT GEORGE'S DRIVE IN PLANO, TEXAS. I'M HERE REPRESENTING OR ASSISTING THE OWNER IN THIS ZONING RECLASSIFICATION. I THINK THE MAIN OVERVIEW. WE ORIGINALLY HAD 37 TOWNHOUSE LOTS ON THIS SITE. AND JUST TO BUSINESS DECISION AND MARKET FLUCTUATIONS, THE OWNER WOULD LIKE TO BUILD A LITTLE LARGER PRODUCT THAN THE TOWNHOUSE ONES. THE TOWNHOUSE RANGED IN ABOUT 1750FT■S. THE ZERO LOT LINE UNITS WILL BE AROUND 2300FT■S. I'VE HEARD YOU ASK SOME QUESTIONS. I'LL TRY TO COVER SOME OF THEM HERE. THE THE BLUE. I DON'T SEE THE THE THE PROPOSED PLAN. THE BLUE UNITS ARE THE TOWNHOUSE UNITS BACK UP TO. OH, I'M SORRY, DID I HIT.

WE'VE GOT A SCREEN HERE WHERE IT SHOWS UP. YEAH. THERE WE GO. WE'LL START WITH THIS. THE BLUE UNITS ARE TOWNHOUSE UNITS AND THEY WERE IN THE ORIGINAL PLANS. THEY ARE NOT CHANGING. THESE ARE THE SAME UNITS THAT WOULD HAVE BUILT IF WE BUILT ALL 37 IN TOWNHOUSE. THESE WOULD HAVE BEEN A PORTION OF THAT, 16 OF THOSE 37. BUT THE OWNER WOULD LIKE TO DO IS CONVERT THE OTHER 21 LOTS FROM A TOWNHOUSE LOT, WHICH HAS COMMON WALL CONSTRUCTION. THOSE YOU HAVE A BUILDING OF FIVE UNITS, ANOTHER BUILDING OF FIVE UNITS, AND A BUILDING OF SIX UNITS. THERE IS NO. THE WALLS ARE A COMMON WALL BETWEEN THEM. WE'RE ON A ZERO LOT LINE. YOU'RE BUILDING AND I'M NOT TRYING TO EDUCATE, BUT I'M JUST A. YOU KNOW, WE'RE BUILDING RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE ON ONE SIDE, BUT THREE FEET OFF THE PROPERTY LINE ON THE OTHER. SO THE UNIT, THEY DON'T ADJOIN A UNIT. THERE'S IT'S A FREESTANDING SINGLE FAMILY TYPE UNIT AS OPPOSED TO A TOWNHOUSE UNIT. YOU ASKED ABOUT THE HOA. THERE IS HOA. ALL RESIDENTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO JOIN THE HOA. THE HOA LOTS. IT'S HARD TO TELL, BUT VIRTUALLY ALL THE GREEN SPACE IS HOA OWNED AND MAINTAINED, AND THOSE ARE DESIGNATED ON THE PLAT AS A SPECIFIC LOT. JUST LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY LOT IS THOSE HOA LOTS, AND THE WAY WE COMBINE THEM BACK BEHIND THE LOTS, THERE WERE ONLY TWO OF THEM NECESSARY WHEN WE PLATTED IT WITH THE CITY. WHEN WE PUT A LOT DESIGNATION ON THEM. I'M SORRY, I'M TRYING TO THINK SOME OTHER QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

BASICALLY, THE OWNER IS JUST TRYING TO BUILD A LITTLE LARGER UNIT THAN HE HAD BEFORE. THEY ARE GOING TO THREE STORY, BUT THESE THREE STORIES WILL NOT BACK UP TO ANY SINGLE FAMILY.

RESIDENTIAL WILL BACK UP. THEY WILL THEY WILL BACK TO MILLER ROAD. AND YOU TALKED ABOUT TRAFFIC INGRESS, EGRESS. YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU EXIT ONTO COUNTRY CLUB, YOU CAN ONLY GO NORTH AND THEN YOU'RE AT THE LIGHT AT MILLER ROAD. YOU EITHER GO EAST OR WEST. WHEN YOU EXIT ONTO MILLER ROAD, DOWN NEAR THE FIRE STATION, YOU CAN ONLY GO EAST ON THAT. BUT THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE. THAT'S ALL YOU COULD HAVE DONE WITH THE 37 TOWNHOUSE LOTS. I DIDN'T MEAN TO IGNORE. THAT'S ALL YOU COULD HAVE DONE WITH A 37 TOWNHOUSE LOTS IS GO EAST OUT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. OUR ORIGINAL ZONING WAS APPROVED THROUGH THE PNC AND THROUGH CITY COUNCIL. WE'VE. I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THIS PROJECT A LITTLE OVER TWO YEARS. I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THAT'S A LONGER TIME THAN I NORMALLY SPEND ON A PROJECT OF THIS SIZE.

WE'VE GOTTEN DOWN. IT IS. YOU'VE SEEN THE PICTURES OF IT. IT HAS BEEN INSPECTED BY THE CITY WATER. ALL UTILITIES AND PAVING HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE CITY. IT'S ACTUALLY READY TO GO VERTICAL ON CONSTRUCTION. BUT WITH THIS BUSINESS CHANGE OR THIS DECISION TO CHANGE AND TRY TO ADD A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PRODUCT, ALONG WITH THE TOWNHOUSES, WE'RE COMING BACK BEFORE PNC BECAUSE THAT'S THE STEPS WE'VE GOT TO TAKE, AND THEN T TO CITY COUNCIL TO TRY TO GET THIS AMENDMENT TO THIS PD, AND HOPEFULLY THIS COMMISSION WILL LOOK FAVORABLY UPON THAT.

IF I CAN ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I'M SURE TRY TO DO SO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER JENKINS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. GOOD EVENING, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING

[00:25:03]

YOU WERE VERY ORDERLY IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS. YOU CAN THANK THE CITY FOR THAT. THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S THEM KEEPING YOU HONEST. WELL, THANK YOU ALL. AS I WAS SAYING, WE WERE I WAS EXCITED ABOUT THIS BEFOREHAND. I REMAIN EXCITED ABOUT IT. I JUST AGAIN, WANT WHATEVER IS ON THAT PAPER THAT PD TO BE WHAT IS REPRESENTED ON THE. I'M NOT GOING TO TURN MY BACK ON YOU.

I'M GOING TO LOOK AT THE OWNER AND SEE WHAT IF HE HAS SOMETHING HE WANTS TO SAY. HE'S ANTICIPATED THIS. EYES IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD AND NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

ABOUT THE TWO TREES, I THINK. SO WE CAN GO BACK TO OUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND COME BACK AND WE'LL TRY OUR BEST. I AGREE TO YOU, WE DON'T WANT TO OVERPROMISE, BUT I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE THAT WE CAN ADD. DEFINITELY WE HAVE TO ADD ONE TREE. I THINK WE WHAT WE ARE WE HAVE ON THE CONDITIONS IS ONE TREE IN THE FRONT. AND ONE OF THOSE TWO REQUIRED. ONE HAS TO BE IN THE FRONT AND THE OTHER ONE CAN BE IN THE REAR. SO THEY'RE NOT BOTH AT THE SAME LOCATION. SO WITH THAT WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE, BUT WE CAN DOUBLE CHECK WITH THE APPLICANT AND HIS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BEFORE CITY COUNCIL. AND I NOTICE YOU AO HAVE LIKE I ALSO DO CUSTOM HOMES. WE DO GET OPPORTUNITIES TO PUT LIKE EVERGREEN TREES. THEY ARE LIKE, LIKE SIX INCHES. THEY STAY SIX INCHES ALL THE TIME. SO THERE ARE OPTIONS TO ADD TREES WITH MINIMIZING THE, THE, THE GROWTH OF THE, THE TRUNK SIZE. SURE. AND THAT'S, THAT'LL BE GREAT THAT YOU'VE GOT THOSE OPTIONS. YEAH. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT I'M THINKING FRENCH STYLE. THE LARGE STRAIGHT UP IN THE AIR RIGHT TYPE TREES. I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE QUALIFY AS CANOPY TREES PER SE, BUT I'M NOT COMPLAINING EITHER WAY. JUST I'M HAPPY TO SEE IT MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, STAFF. I KNOW THE STAFF AS WELL HAS OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE TAKING ISSUE WITH. WE JUST WANT TO SEE IT, YOU KNOW, COME COME TO FRUITION. SO THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. AND I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. YEAH.

AND I APPRECIATE THE COMMENT. WE DEFINITELY HAVE TAKEN A, YOU KNOW, SOME EXTRA TIME TO COME FINISH UP THIS DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS KIND OF, AS BOBBY WAS SAYING, IT'S IT'S DONE AND COMPLETED. AND WE HAVE TRIED OUR BEST TO ENHANCE THE DEVELOPMENT BY, AS YOU'VE SEEN, LIKE WE HAVE ENHANCED THE, THE BRICK, THE COLOR OF THE BRICK TO BROWN AND USING THE WHITE MORTAR. AND ALSO WE HAVE ENHANCED THE, THE COLUMNS BETWEEN, I BELIEVE YOU SEE.

YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. IF YOU CAN SEE THE THE COLUMNS, THEY WERE NOT REQUIRED. SO THEY, WE HAVE INCREASED ENHANCED. OH, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN. OKAY. YEAH. THE WHITE COLUMNS BETWEEN THE BRICKS AND ALSO ON THE MILLER ROAD. THAT'S WHERE WE E HAVE UPGRADED THE QUALITY. AND WE

[00:30:06]

YEAH. ANY OTHER QUEIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS. FIRST OF ALL, I LIKE THE FACT THAT YOU'RE PUTTING A MIX OF PRODUCT IN THERE 1750 1750 AND 2300. I LIKE THAT, AND I'M GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTRARIAN HERE. I'M NOT CRAZY ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF THE HOUSES BEING THREE FEET APART. WHAT'S GOING TO BECOME OF THAT THREE FOOT BY 45 FOOT ALLEY? IS IT JUST GOING TO BECOME STORAGE OR IS IT GOING TO COLLECT TRASH? AND I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

AND YOU DO REALIZE THE BEDROOMS AND STUFF WILL BE LOOKING OUT ONTO A WALL FROM HERE TO THE

[00:35:05]

IF S ONE SIDE TECHNICALLY IS ZERO AND THE OTHER SIDE IS THREE FOOT. SO THE THE ADJACENT HOMEOWNER IF NEEDS TO DO A SOME KIND OF A REPAIR ON HIS WALL ON THE SIDE, THEN THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE. SO THAT'S KIND OF, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. THAT KIND OF AVOIDS ANYBODY TO, YOU KNOW, MISUSE THAT THREE FOOT THAT COULD BE KEPT CLEAN. SO YOU'RE YOU'RE SAYING THERE WILL BE NO GATE, NO NOTHING FROM THE HOUSE TO BETWEEN HOUSES OR ANYTHING BLOCKING THEM. YEAH, I BELIEVE SO. I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK ON THAT, BUT AS IT'S GOING TO BE AN EASEMENT. AND SO THE CONCEPT WAS TO DETACH THEM. SO THEY HAVE THEIR OWN SINGLE LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE WINDOWS. NOW ON THIS ONE SIDE, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE WINDOWS IN THEIR BEDROOMS AND ALL BRINGS THEM MORE LIGHT AND ENHANCE THE LIVING SPACE. SO THAT WAS THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF DETACHING THEM AND THEN DOING THE THREE FLOOR. IF I CAN INTERJECT ZERO LOT LINE PRODUCT, A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T LIKE A COMMON WALL. YOU KNOW, THE ONLY, THE ONLY UNITS THAT WOULD HAVE ANY SIDE WINDOWS WOULD BE IN UNITS ON A TOWNHOUSE CONCEPT, RIGHT? AND WHERE THIS ONE WITH THE THERE ARE NO ATTACHED WALLS. YOU ACTUALLY HAVE. I KNOW IT JUST SOUNDS LIKE THREE FEET. IT GOES THREE FEET OF HOUSE, THREE FEET OF HOUSE, JUST STAIR STEPS ALL THE WAY DOWN WHERE THESE THESE HOUSES ARE NOT ATTACHED. AND IT DOES ALLOW FOR A LITTLE MORE WINDOW. YOU CAN ADD MORE WINDOWS IN DIFFERENT ROOMS. YEAH, I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT.

I'VE DESIGNED ABOUT 8 OR 9 ZERO LOT LINE SUBDIVISIONS AND JUST ABOUT AS MANY TOWNHOMES PROPERTIES. AND, AND HAVING A SIDE WINDOWS DOES HELP, BUT I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE THREE FOOT COLLECT TRASH. KIDS WILL HANG OUT THERE. IT'S JUST. AND THE VISUAL EFFECT OF THE NARROW BUILDING BEING ALL GARAGE. AND THE DESIGN IS PRETTY FLAT UP AND DOWN WITH LITTLE MAYBE PIECE STICKING OUT. SO I, I DO VISUALLY HAVE SOME CONCERNS, BUT I LOVE THE FACT THAT YOU'RE PUTTING A MIXED PRODUCT IN THERE. SO I'M A LITTLE BIT TORN THERE. OKAY. TO ELIMINATE YOUR CONCERN ABOUT THE NOT ELIMINATE, BUT TO OFFSET. CAN WE CAN PLAN COMMISSION, CONSIDER SOME DECORATIVE ELEMENTS TO BE INCORPORATED WITHIN THE GARAGE, IF THAT'S OKAY WITH THE APPLICANT, Y'ALL CAN. WELL, IDEALLY, THE GARAGE WOULD BE SET BACK FIVE FEET ACCORDING TO OUR STANDARDS, BUT THAT'S. YEAH, THIS PRODUCT DOES NOT REALLY COMPLY WITH OUR GDC REQUIREMENT. BUT FOR THE VISUAL IMPACT, IF THERE'S SOMETHING DECORATIVE THERE THAT CAN OFFSET SOME OF THE IMPACT, NOT REALLY DOING AN UPSCALE PRODUCT THERE. OF COURSE, YOU HAVE TO THINK OF HOW IT WOULD LOOK FROM ACROSS THE STREET. IF WE UPGRADE THESE, WE'D PROBABLY WANT TO UPGRADE THE DOORS ON THE TOWNHOMES TOO. SO IT'S A SIMILAR LOOK, WHETHER IT'S A CARRIAGE DOOR STYLE OR SOMETHING, OR A MIX OF SOME WITH WINDOWS, SOME WITHOUT.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION CAN CONSIDER. BUT MY BASIC CONCERN IS THE SEPARATION.

IT'S MORE LIKE A NEW YORK CITY APARTMENTS LOOKING OUT ONTO A BRICK WALL. COMMISSIONER DUCKWORTH, BUT I STILL THINK I'LL GO THROUGH. GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. JUST JUST TO KEY ON YOUR YOUR THOUGHT. A THREE FOOT EASEMENT MEANS IT DOESN'T BELONG TO EITHER HOMEOWNER.

RIGHT. IT BELONGS IT'S INDIVIDUALLY PLATTED LOT. IT WOULD BE AN ACCESS EASEMENT FOR THE HOA TO MAINTAIN. NOW THEY COULD STILL GATE IT AS LONG AS THE GATES OPEN TO WHERE THE HOA COULD GET IN THERE AND MAINTAIN IT. TYPICAL ZERO LOT LINE HOME IS DONE IN ONE OF TWO WAYS. THE HOUSE WAS EXACTLY ON THE ZERO, AND THEN YOU'D HAVE TEN FEET ON THE OTHER SIDE WITH A THREE FOOT EASEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE HOUSE AT ZERO. OR IS IT THREE AND SEVEN? MY SUGGESTION, MY THOUGHT WAS, SHOULD THIS MOVE FORWARD, THAT PUTTING IN YOUR HOA AGREEMENTS THAT PEOPLE

[00:40:03]

NOBODY, NOBODY. NO ONE CAN STORE WHATEVER THEIR TOYS, LADDERS, ETC. YOU KNOW, NOT A STORAGE BECAUSE WE'RE RUNNING INTO THAT RIGHT NOW IN OUR CODE COMPLIANCE THAT WE'RE FIXING TO GO THROUGH IN THE AREA I LIVE IN, I HAVE THREE NEIGHBORS THAT BACKYARDS SEVERELY AFFECT THE PRICE OF MY HOME BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY'VE DONE IN THEIR BACKYARD. SO, AND WE'RE, WE'RE GOING TO BE A VERY THOUGHTFUL CITY AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT. BUT LOOKING AHEAD WOULD PROBABLY BE GOOD FOR YOUR DEVELOPMENT TO PROTECT THAT FROM HAPPENING. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER DALTON. THANK YOU. WHERE WOULD THE UTILITIES ENTER THE ZERO LOT LINE? HOUSES ON THE BACK, ON THE SIDE. ELECTRIC GAS COMMUNICATIONS, THE THE ELECTRIC METER USUALLY IS IN THE FRONT. THE AC UNIT CAN GO IN THE BACK. THEY'RE GOING TO ENTER THROUGH THE FRONT. UTILITIES WILL COME IN THROUGH THE FRONT. SO YEAH, WE HAVE NO NO GAS. IT'S ALL ELECTRIC. SO YEAHAH, T THE WATER, THE METER, THE METER CAN BE IN THE FRONT AND THE, THE AC UNIT CAN BE IN THE BACK. WELL I'M LOOKING AT YOUR, YOUR PERSPECTIVE RENDERINGS AND I DIDN'T SEE A PLACE FOR METER TO BE. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING. YEAH. USUALLY WE, WE DON'T WE, WE DON'T, WE DON'T SHOW THE UTILITIES ON THE RENDERINGS. BUT THAT CAN BE ADDED. USUALLY IN TOWNHOMES, THE THE METERS ARE IN THE FRONT. SO WE'RE RIGHT. BUT THESE ARE A DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION. YOU'RE SHOWING LESS WALL SPACE ON THE FRONT FOR A METER BASE TO BE PLACED BY UTILITY OR FOR A. IF THEY WERE TO COME IN WITH FILES OR SOMETHING WHERE THERE HAS TO BE AN ENTRY POINT, THERE HAS TO BE SOME CONNECTING POINT THERE. YEAH. AND MOST OF THEM, LIKE AT MY HOME IS ON THE SIDE. YEAH. MOST OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IS ON THE SIDE. THAT'S WHY WE'LL MAKE A NOTE OF IT. AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE EASEMENT, THREE FOOT EASEMENT TO KIND OF ACCOMMODATE THIS KIND OF NEEDS. YEAH. FOR A METER BASE, THAT'S A PRETTY TIGHT SPACE WITH TO BE WALKING THROUGH THERE WITH THE LAWNMOWER OR WHAT HAVE YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. STAFF MAY WANT TO CHECK WITH G, P, AND L ABOUT THE REQUIRED SPACING AND MANEUVERING AROUND A PANEL. I HAVE NO IDEA OR METER BASE, SO WE WILL WE WILL DEFINITELY HAVE TO MAKE SURE THOSE GO IN AND COMPLY WITH ALL OUR REGULATIONS. IT'S TYPICALLY NOT DONE AT THE ZONING STAGE BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT THE CONCEPT PLAN. BUT BEFORE ANY PERMIT IS RELEASED, ENGINEERING WILL DEFINITELY MAKE SURE THOSE ARE IN PLACE. IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT IS YOU DON'T WANT ANY METERS ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I SEE NO OTHER QUESTIONS. WE HAVE ANOTHER SPEAKER AND THEN I'LL CALL YOU BACK UP IF WE NEED TO.

THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, CHARLES VOIGT. OH TWO B I'M SORRY, IT COULD BE AN A OR B, I'M A LOUSY READER. OKAY. NEVER MIND. WELL, WE I'LL ASK IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO CARE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE. SEEING NONE. COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER JENKINS. AND LET ME GET YOU GOING THERE. HERE WE GO. MR. CHAIRMAN. MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF. OKAY, WELL, I'LL JUST DECLARE THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED, COMMISSIONER. AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ABEL. ALL RIGHT. TO CLOSE THIS IS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ONLY. AND I HAVEN'T TOUCHED THE CLEAR BUTTON. WHOSE IS. ALL RIGHT? PASSES? LET'S SEE. WE'RE 8 TO 1 WITH COMMISSIONER HILLIARD IN OPPOSITION. I'M

[00:45:07]

I APPRECIATE THEM COMING BACK WITH THE LARGER ZERO LOT LINE SIZES OVER AND ABOVE THE WHAT WAS IT, 1700, I BELIEVE, ON ALL OF THE OTHERS. THIS GIVES US A LITTLE STEP UP PRODUCT IF SOMEONE WANTS IT, BUT IT GIVES THEM THE OPPORTUNITY OF HAVING A MUCH SMALLER PRODUCT, IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT WHEN THEY SHOW UP AT THIS LOCATION. SO I'M IN FAVOR OF IT, ALONG WITH THE SOME TYPE OF DECORATIVE ORNAMENTATION, SOMETHING THAT BREAKS UP THE MONOTONY IN THE FRONT. I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. SO I'M, I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS. ANYTHING ELSE? I'M PROBABLY GOING TO VOTE FOR IT. MOSTLY LIKE COMMISSIONER ABEL SAYS, I THINK THE OVERRIDING FACTORS FOR GETTING LARGER HOMES IN A. IN A VARIETY. INSTEAD OF SOMETHING SIMPLE, AND I JUST HOPE I'M PROVEN WRONG ABOUT MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE THREE FOOT. AND I HOPE THEY GET THE HOA TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES. COMMISSIONER MIRANDA. YEP. I JUST WANTED TO ADD. SO I'M ALSO I'M MOVING MORE TOWARDS IN FAVOR JUST SAME REASONS COMMISSIONER DALTON MENTIONED. I GUESS JUST SO WE'RE ALL CLEAR. SO WE HAVE THE WE HAVE OUR A GOOD MOTION COMING UP. IT SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE IN AGREEMENT OF ADDING AN ORNAMENTAL. AND I WANT TO CLARIFY ON THE TREE PART. I BELIEVE THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT THE TWO LARGE CANOPY TREES THAT IS CURRENTLY SEEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS REQUEST. ARE WE WANTING TO PUT. PUSH THAT BACK TO STAFF TO SEE IF THAT IS A POSSIBILITY AND OR ONE CANOPY TREE REQUIREMENT PLUS OPTION.

[00:50:02]

YES. WE LOVE OUR DOGS. OKAY. AND I BELIEVE THAT'S THE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JENKINS. SO AS I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHICH INCLUDES THE DOG PARK AND TREES. AND NOW IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION JUST FOR THE ZERO LOT LINES ARE ALL HOMES FOR ONE CANOPY TREE AND ONE ORNAMENTAL TREE. I THINK ALL HOMES, BECAUSE OF THE TOWNHOMES BEING SO CLOSE TOGETHER AND WORK ON DECORATIVE DECORATION VIA GARAGE DOORS OR SOMETHING SIMILAR. SOME FRONT END DESIGN ELEMENT. OKAY, AN UNDERSTANDABLE MOTION. I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. OKAY, WE HAVE MOTION. AND A SECOND CONCURS. MY SUMMARY OF THE MOTION. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. PLEASE VOTE.

JUST LIKE WAITING ON A BAD INTERNET CONNECTION. WE NEED THAT LITTLE CIRCLE THING ON THE SCREEN. YEAH. IS EVERYTHING OKAY OR SHOULD I GO FOR A SHOW OF HANDS? EVERYONE VOTED IN.

COMPUTER. THAT IS NOT WHAT IT WAS. OH, OKAY. COMMISSIONER HILLIARD, WERE YOU VOTING FOR OR ABSTAINING OR. I HAD QUESTIONS REGARDING THE. IN FACT, THAT WE. MAYBE WE GOT IT WHEN. 3.0. YEAH, THE ONLY THE TWO STORIES BACK UP TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLUS NEIGHBORHOOD HAS DROPPED DOWN. SO YEAH. OKAY. LET ME GO BY. SHOW OF HANDS. ALL IN FAVOR. LET THE RECORD SHOW IS UNANIMOUS DECISION. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHTY. NEXT ITEM O OUR AGENDA IS THE ITEM

[b. Z 26-14 Omega Shipping Ex. Inc. (District 5)]

HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER THEHE APPLICATION OF OMEGA SHIPPING X INC REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC USE PROVISION FOR TRUCK BUS REPAIR USE ON PROPERTY ZONED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND A CONCEPT PLAN FOR TRUCK BUS REPAIR USE. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 2430 LONGACRE DRIVE. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. THIS IS PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF GARLAND. APPLICANT REQUEST FOR SUB FOR TRUCK OR BUS REPAIR USE IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE.

PROPERTY. SO THE SITE HAS AN AREA ABOUT LIKE 2.61 ACRES. AND THE CURRENTLY SITE HAS AN

[00:55:01]

THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG THE DRIVE WITHIN AN ESTABLISHED INDUSTRIAL AREA, AS THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS DEVELOPED WITH A HEAVY MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY ON THE EAST, IT HAS A CONTRACTOR OR OFFICE WITH A STORAGE YARD AND THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, ACROSS THE RAILROAD AND ON THE WEST IS. BOTH OF THEM ARE UNDEVELOPED PARCELS, BUT ALL OF THEM ARE ZONED INDUSTRIAL. THE PROPOSED TRUCK. THE. THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ESTABLISHED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND THE FUTURE LAND USE OF THE COMP PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED FOR INDUSTRIAL CENTER USE. THE CENTERS PROVIDE AREAS FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY THAT MAY INCLUDE LIKE SEMI TRUCK TRAFFIC, LOADING AREAS, OUTDOOR STORAGE AND ETC. SO. THESE ARE SOME SITE PICTURES. YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING PRESENT CONDITIONS OF THE SITE. IT'S JUST IT'S BEEN JUST PAVED FOR NOW. YEP. THIS IS THE CONCEPT PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, WHICH SHOWS THE PROPOSED 3200 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF MAINTENANCE OR SERVICE BUILDING ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE CONCRETE PAVING 24FT. FIRELINE TRUCK PARKING SLIPS, FENCING, LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE DRIVE AND THE LOCATION OF DUMPSTER. ALL THESE ARE THE NEW IMPROVEMENTS. THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED AS A PART OF THIS REQUEST, AND THE PLAN ALSO SHOWS A NEW ACCESS POINT FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHEREAS THEY ARE TRYING TO THEY'RE PROPOSING TO CLOSE THE EXISTING ACCESS POINT, WHICH IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER RIGHT NOW. AND THE CONCEPT PLAN ALSO SHOWS THE 33 TRUCK PARKING SLIPS AND TEN PARKING SPACES FOR THE VEHICLES.

AND THESE PARKING SPACES, TEN PARKING SPACES MEETS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE GDC. AND HERE ARE THE FLOOR PLANS PROVIDED AS A PART OF THIS SUB SHOWS THE 3200FT■S OF FIRST FLOOR AND APPROXIMATELY 640 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF MEZZANINE AREA INSIDE THE BUILDING. THE FIRST FLOOR INCLUDES THREE SERVICE BAYS, OFFICE AREAS, RESTROOMS AND ENTRY POR, AND THE MEZZANINE AREA INCLUDES STORAGE, BREAKROOM FUNCTIONS. THE BUILDING IS APPROXIMATELY 20FT IN HEIGHT AND THE PROPOSED OPERATION FOR THIS BUILDING CONSISTS OF TRANSPORTATION, INSPECTION, STATE VEHICLE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE, AND SERVICE WORK FOR COMNY OWNED VEHICLES ONLY. HERE ARE SOME ELEVATIONS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. THE PROPOSED BUILDING WILL BE WILL INCORPORATE SIX ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS AND THESE ELEMENTS WILL BE REVIEWED DURING THE BUILDING PERMITTING PROCESS. AFTER THE APPROVAL OF THIS SUV AND ALSO OVERHEAD OR ROLL UP SERVICE BAY DOORS MAY NOT FACE PUBLIC STREETS, ACCORDING TO THE TWO POINT SECTION 2.5 TO A OF GDC, UNLESS THEY CAN BE ALLOWED BY THE ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE REQUEST, AND THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO SUBMIT AN AC REQUEST TO ALLOW THE SERVICE BAY DOORS TO FACE THE DRIVE. AND AS A PART OF THIS REQUEST, THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A MURAL ON THE STREET FACING ELEVATION OF THE PROPOSED SERVICE BUILDING, AND THE MURAL IS REQUIRED TO COVER A MINIMUM OF 25% OF THAT ELEVATION. THE APPLICANT WILL ALSO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SHRUBS AND ORNAMENTAL PLANTINGS WITHIN AND ALONG THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO HELP SCREEN THE TRUCK PARKING AREA AND ALSO THE SERVICE BUILDING AND ALSO THE

[01:00:03]

USE. OUTDOOR REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PROHIBITED. ADDITIONAL SHRUBS OR ORNAMENTAL PLANTINGS SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND THE MURAL ON THE STREET FACING ELEVATION OF SERVICE BUILDING AND THE HOURS OF OPERATION SHALL BE LIMITED TO MONDAY TO FRIDAY FROM 7 A.M. TO 6 P.M. AND SATURDAY FROM 8 TO 2, AND THE BUSINESS SHALL BE CLOSED ON SUNDAYS. WE HAVE MAILED OUR ABOUT 37 NOTICES TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS.

WE RECEIVED NOSSES. WITH THIS, I'M OPEN TO QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER JENKINS? THANK YOU CHAIR. GOOD EVENING AGAIN, SIR. FIRST QUESTION I'VE GOT FOR YOU IS REGARDING THE HOURS OF OPERATION. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES HOURS, WHETHER THOSE ARE STAFF RECOMMENDED HOURS. IT WAS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT ITSELF. WAS THE WAS THE MURAL ALSO PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT? THAT WAS THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF AS A PART OF THE ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE REQUEST. OKAY. HOW DOES STAFF HAVE ANY CONCERNS? THIS IS A TRICKY QUESTION. DOES STAFF HAVE CONCERNS REGARDING THE CONTENT OF THE MURAL? CAN THE MURAL BE ANYTHING? SO THE MURAL IS DEFINED BY THE G D. SO WE'LL HAVE TO JUST COMPLY WITH THAT DEFINITION. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. I'M FEELING THE THE THE HOT FIRE GAZE FROM YOU'RE FEELING THE FIRST MEN. MINORITY CITY ATTORNEY OVER THERE. OKAY. BUT WE HAVE A CLEAR DEFINITION WITHIN THE GDC AS TO THE MURAL. RIGHT? YES. WE WILL NOT GET INTO SUPREME COURT DISCUSSIONS.

WE WILL NOT MAKE IT. I WILL NOT, NO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND AND FANTASTIC JOB STAFF ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS GENERALLY IN FAVOR OF THEM. I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND UNDERSTAND A COUPLE OF THEM. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER DUCKWORTH. THANK YOU SIR. YOU TALKED ABOUT THE THE EXISTING SUP WHAT IS THE END. WHEN DOES THAT'S U P END. IT'S GONNA END LIKE THE EXISTING SUP. YES. I DID ASK THAT. IT'S GOT 16 YEARS LEFT. IT WAS A 20 YEAR'S U P STARTED IN 2022. IT WAS APPROVED IN 20 2042. OKAY. AND ARE THE USES OF THIS NEW FACILITY JUST FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER OWNER? YES. ONLY THE PROPERTY OWNER. SO ALL THE VEHICLE THE STORAGE VEHICLE PLACE ARE FOR OMEGA? YES. ONLY. OKAY. I DON'T THINK. SO. I DON'T THINK SO. OKAY. I THINK THAT GETS IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CHIMING IN WITH HIM. I THINK IT'D BE APPROPRIATE FOR US AND MAYBE HELPFUL TO THE APPLICANT IF WE APPROVE THIS, TO HAVE THIS ISSUE BE RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH THE EXISTING SUP. SO THEY BOTH END AT THE SAME TIME. AND I HAD A QUESTION IN TERMS OF THE MURAL, ARE YOU WOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO PAINT OVER ON THE GARAGE DOORS INTO. SO IT IT'LL BE 25% OF THE ENTIRE ELEVATION, WHICH INCLUDES THE GARAGE DOORS? YEAH. AND HOPEFULLY THAT A LOT OF THAT WILL GET COVERED BY PLANTING. SO WE MAY WANT TO CONSIDER THE SOUTH ELEVATION AS YOU'RE PULLING UP. IT WOULD BE A BLANK ONE AND MAYBE ALLOWING A MURAL TO WRAP AROUND THE CORNER SO OFTEN THAT SIDE AND EVEN COME DOWN. SO THOSE ARE MAYBE SOME THINGS FOR STAFF TO CONSIDER AND WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT. YEAH. SEE THE SOUTH SIDE HERE IS ALL BLANK AND WRAP IT AROUND. AND THE OTHER END IS GOOD. COMMISSIONER JENKINS. MR. CHAIR, I WANTED TO PIGGYBACK ON YOUR QUESTION. SO THE CEO THAT

[01:05:03]

THANK YOU. DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? I CAN TRY AGAIN. IT SOUNDS MESSY THOUGH, BUT YES, YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTION. SO PROPERTY BECAUSE BOTH USES THE SEPARATELY REQUIRE AN SUP, BUT IN TERMS OF FUNCTIONALITY THEY ARE. THIS USE. THE REPAIR USE CAN BE CONSIDERED ACCESSORY TO THE OTHER USE, BUT THAT'S NOT HOW IT'S DEFINED. I, I, I UNDERSTAND. IT JUST SOUNDS MESSY. YEAH. IT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING. THEY'RE NOT LEGALLY CONNECTED WOULD PROBABLY BE THE TERM. THEY'RE ON THE SAME SITE. SO IT IS IN MY OPINION WE CAN CONSIDER THE FUNCTIONALITY. BUT NO, WE'RE ONLY CONSIDERING THE REPAIR USE TODAY. LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION THOUGH. THE EXISTING SUP HAD SOME CONDITIONS WITH IT. HAVE ALL THOSE BEEN MET FOUR YEARS INTO IT? NOT REALLY. BECAUSE THE APPLICANT THEY WERE STILL GOING THROUGH THE BUILDING PERMITTING PROCESS UNTIL LIKE MARCH OR APRIL, LIKE VERY RECENTLY. AND BEFORE THEY START THE CONSTRUCTION OR MAKE THESE IMPROVEMENTS, THEY HAD THIS PROPOSAL TO GET A MAINTENANCE FACILITY TO BE PART OF THAT. SO YES, WE COULD PROBABLY ADD A CONDITION THAT BEFORE THEY GET A CO IN A NEW BUILDING, THAT THEY MUST COMPLY WITH ALL CONDITIONS FROM BOTH S, U, P S OR RISK BOTH. WELL, I JUST ADDED THE LAST TWO WORDS. WELL, THAT'S A GIVEN ANYWAY. THEY WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THAT'S U P AND THIS SUP. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER DUCKWORTH. MAYBE I DIDN'T MAYBE I DIDN'T HEAR EVERYTHING. REFRESH ME.

THE EXISTING SUP WHICH WAS APPROVED FOUR YEARS AGO. THEY HAVE NOT MET THE CONDITIONS OF.

THAT'S U P NOT YET. THEY WERE WORKING BUT THEY'RE STILL GOING THROUGH THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS. OH ARE THEY RIGHT. YES. BUT HOW WOULD GOING THROUGH THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS STOP THEM FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINES OF THE SUP BECAUSE IT'S BEFORE THEY GET A CO AND ACTUALLY OCCUPY THE BUILDING. THAT'S WHEN THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS. SO THEY RECEIVED AN SUP TO STORE VEHICLES WITH CONDITIONS. AND THEY HAVEN'T FULFILLED THOSE CONDITIONS BECAUSE THEY STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN THEIR CEO. THEY DON'T HAVE A CEO YET. NOT YET.

SO THEY HAVE TO FINISH THEIR BUILDING PERMITTING PROCESS TO GET A CEO AND START THE CONSTRUCTION AND GO THROUGH THE INSPECTIONS, THROUGH THE BUILDING. AND THAT'S WHEN THEY ISSUE THE CEO. SO WHEN DID THEY START THE, THE, THE PROCESS FOR THE BUILDING? I'M NOT SURE YOU CAN ASK THE APPLICANT ALL THAT AND CLEAR IT UP AT THAT STAGE. I MEAN, I KNOW COUNCIL HAS DISCUSSED THIS SAME SUBJECT. OKAY. I SEE NO OTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. CHARLES VOIGHT. ONLY CARD I HAVE. SO LLOYD, 1200 WEST STATE STREET, GARLAND, TEXAS. VOIGHT CONSULTANTS. I DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. OKAY. I DO HAVE A LOT OF OPINION ON THE ON THE LAST ONE, THOUGH. JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU AND EVERYTHING. IT IS AN SUP THAT WAS ORIGINALLY FOR THE STORAGE OF MOTOR VEHICLES. I MEAN THE TRAILERS AND

[01:10:02]

HAVE YOU BEEN OPERATING THIS BUSINESS THERE FOR FOUR YEARS? NOT THAT. THAT'S NOT MY. NO, SIR. NO, BECAUSE THE BUSINESS THE CIVIL ENGINEERING HASN'T BEEN COMPLETED YET. I THINK THEY'VE HAD SOME TRAILERS ON THERE WHICH THEY'VE ASKED TO BE REMOVED. YOU KNOW IT HASN'T BEEN IN OPERATION ON THAT SITE YET. SO SO IT'S A NON-OPERATING. OMEGA IS NOT OPERATING OFF OF THIS PROPERTY. OFF OF THIS PROPERTY. YES. OKAY. SO THIS BARE LAND BEEN SITTING THERE FOR FOUR YEARS. IT'S BARE LAND THAT'S BEEN SITTING THERE FOR FOUR YEARS. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. WE DIDN'T GET INVOLVED UNTIL ABOUT NINE MONTHS AGO. THIS PROJECT, WHEN THEY CHANGED THE CONCEPT FROM A MAINTENANCE FACILITY JUST TO FOR THEIR TRUCKS AND EVERYTHING, TO A COMBINATION OF REPAIR AND THAT FACILITY. SO IT'S BEEN SITTING THERE FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS. OKAY. FOR FOUR YEARS, I GUESS. SO THEY DON'T HAVE A CEO. SO THEY SHOULDN'T BE. THEY DON'T BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A BUILDING UP AND THEY HAVEN'T GOT A CEO. THEY HAVEN'T GOT A BUILDING PERMIT YET. OKAY. BUILDING PART OF IT. SO OKAY. THANK YOU. I BELIEVE THE ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS FOR A SMALL COUPLE HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AT MAX. THAT'S CORRECT. YES. TO GO WITH IT. I SEE NO OTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THIS CASE? SEEING NONE. COMMISSIONERS. DISCUSSION.

MOTION. COMMISSIONER JENKINS. CHAIR. MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. AND THEN FOR THE 15 YEAR'S U. P AS WELL. I GUESS THE QUESTION I'VE GOT BEFORE THE MOTION CONCLUDES IS IF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION INCLUDES THE WRAPAROUND OF THE MURAL ON THE BUILDING, AS WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE CHAIR. OKAY. THE MOTION ISO APPROVE OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING APPROVED FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH AN SUP. OKAY. AND THAT WAS FOR 15 YEARS.

YEAH. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ABEL. I WOULD ASK IF YOU WOULD MAKE A CONCURRENT TO. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. MAKER OF THE MOTION, AS AMENDED AS MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. THAT INCLUDES THE SIX ITEMS LISTED FOR PERIOD TO RUN CONCURRENT WITH THEIR EXISTING SUP, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 16 YEARS. AND I SEE THIS MAKER IN THE SECOND CONCUR WITH THE SUMMATION. ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE VOTE.

PARDON THE MOTION. OKAY. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. IT'S JUST NOT SHOWING UP IN THE

[c. Z 26-18 Lyle Allen and Associates (District 5)]

YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS OR GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. STEWART, STORY PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF GARLAND. THE APPLICANT REQUESTS AN AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

PD DISTRICT 82-20 TO CHANGE THE UNDERLYING BASE ZONING FROM NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE AND DISTRICT TO COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT, ALLOWING FOR CR USES, ALONG WITH A CONCEPT PLAN FOR PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1015 WEST CENTERVILLE ROAD

[01:15:04]

THESE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE ADDITIONAL CANOPY TREES ALONG BOTH STREET FRONTAGES AND THROUGHOUT THE PARKING LOT. REPLACEMENT OF GRAVEL LANDSCAPED AREAS WITH LIVE PLANT MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION OF CONTINUOUS SHRUB ROWS OF SHRUBS ALONG WEST CENTERVILLE ROAD AND MARKETPLACE DRIVE. NO DEVIATIONS FROM THE GARLAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ARE REQUESTED.

THE APPLICANT'S PD AMENDMENT REQUEST INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS TO ALLOW ALL USES PERMITTED UNDER THE COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT TO INSTALL AND MAINTAIN THREE CANOPY TREES AND 21 SHRUBS ALONG WEST CENTERVILLE ROAD, WHERE ONLY ONE CANOPY TREE CURRENTLY EXISTS. SEVEN CANOPY TREES AND 49 SHRUBS ALONG MARKETPLACE DRIVE, WHERE ONLY TWO CANOPY TREES CURRENTLY EXIST, AND TEN ADDITIONAL CANOPY TREES DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE PARKING LOT, WHERE ONLY FIVE CANOPY TREES CURRENTLY EXIST. ADDITIONALLY, ALL REQUIRED LANDSCAPE ISLANDS AND BUFFERS WILL BE PLANTED WITH LIVING PLANT MATERIAL, ELIMINATING THE EXISTING GRAVEL AND LANDSCAPING. I'M SORRY, THE EXISTING GRAVEL, LANDSCAPING AND BRINGING THE SITE INTO COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT STANDARDS. THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE VISION FOR THE CENTERVILLE MARKETPLACE CATALYST AREA.

REZONING THE PROPERTY FROM NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE TO COMMUNITY RETAIL BETTER ALIGNS THE SITE WITH THAT VISION AND THE ESTABLISHED COMMERCIAL CHARACTER OF THE CORRIDOR.

ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TOO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT LANDSCAPING STANDARDS AND NO DEVIATIONS FROM THE GARLAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ARE REQUESTED.

AS SUCH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PD AMENDMENT REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. THAT CONVENIENCE STORE, SELF-SERVICE, LAUNDROMAT AND FURNITURE, HOUSEHOLD FURNISHING AND APPLIANCE SALE SLASH RENTAL USES SHALL BE PROHIBITED ON THE PROPERTY IN THE SECOND CONDITION IS FOR ANY GROCERY SLASH. SUPERMARKET USE SHALL BE LIMITED TO A NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE ESTABLISHMENT NOT EXCEEDING 5000FT■S, AND SHALL OTHERWISE CONFORM TO THE DEFINITION CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT. WE SENT OUT A TOTAL OF 81 NOTIFICATION LETTERS AND RECEIVED NO RESPONSEE IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST. I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. I SEE NO QUESTIONS. DO YOU KNOW IF THE APPLICANT AGREEABLE WITH

[01:20:11]

WELL, COME ON, IF YOU CARE TO SPEAK. OKAY. NAME AND ADDRESS IN THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE. AND FILL ONE OF THESE OUT LATER. AND I APPRECIATE THAT. MY NAME IS HERBERT GEARS. I'M AT FOUR, FIVE, TWO SIX WILD BRIER DRIVE IN IRVING AND WE'RE OKAY. STAFF HAS DONE A WONDERFUL JOB WORKING WITH US. WE'RE NOT REALLY MAKING A LOT OF CHANGES THAT WE WANT TO UPGRADE THE LOOK AND PUT IN A LOT MORE LANDSCAPING. BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE HAVING ANY OTHER CHANGES. AND BY THE WAY, I JUST WANT TO COMPLIMENT YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE. I KNOW THIS DOESN'T MATTER, BUT I WAS BLESSED AS A MUCH YOUNGER MAN ABOUT 35 YEARS AGO TO SERVE ON THE IRVING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. AND IT'S WONDERFUL NOW, AS AN OLDER GUY, TO GET TO SEE THE DECISIONS WE MADE AND WHAT IMPACT THEY HAD IN THE COMMUNITY AND ALL THAT. SO I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND ASK FOR YOU TO SUPPORT THE CHANGE. THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? NOTHING. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THIS CASE? SEEING NONE. COMMISSIONERS. MOTION. COMMISSIONER JONES, LET ME GET YOU THERE. YOU'RE LIVE. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE THE REQUEST PRESENTED AND RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. ALRIGHTY. AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JENKINS. WE HAVE A MION BY COMMISSIONER JONES AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JENKINS. ANY DISCUSSION? YES. COMMISSIONER DALTON. NO DISCUSSION. TRYING TO MAKE MOTION. OH, YEAH, A LITTLE SLOW. US OLDER FOLKS ARE A LITTLE SLOWER. YOU KNOW, I KNOW. ANY DISCUSSION? NO. OKAY.

LET ME RESTATE THE MOTION. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER JONES. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JENKINS.

TO APPROVE THIS APPLICATION PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS LAID OUT. SEEING NO DISCUSSION, PLEASE VOTE.

AND THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. GOOD. ALRIGHTY. NEXT ITEM ITEM TWO D ZONING

[d. Z 26-20 City of Garland (District 7)]

CASE NUMBER Z26-20. REQUEST TO CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO PD 84-96. ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THIS SLIDE, WE CAN SEE WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED. IN THE CITY LIMITS.

YOU CAN SEE IT'S THERE ON HOLFORD ROAD, KIND OF SOUTHWEST OF THE TOLLWAY. EXACT ADDRESS IS 1471 HOLFORD ROAD. THE CITY IS THE OWNER AND THE APPLICANT FOR THIS PROPERTY. IT'S A LITTLE LESS THAN HALF AN ACRE. AND LIKE I SAID, IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED AG. HERE IS THE ZONING MAP SHOWING THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE PROPERTY. THIS THIS LITTLE TRIANGULAR PIECE HERE IN THE CENTER OF THE SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE IT ABUTS PD 84-96 TO THE NORTH. TO THE WEST IS ANOTHER PD THAT'S CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A MULTIFAMILY USE. BUT MOST OF THE PROPERTY AROUND HERE ARE ALSO ZONED AG, CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED, AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP KIND OF HAS A SPLIT DESIGNATION FOR THIS PROPERTY. MOST OF IT IS THIS BUSINESS CENTER FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY. THAT'S OBVIOUSLY MORE FOR PURELY COMMERCIAL USES. THERE'S A LITTLE SLIVER THAT'S ALSO ZONED URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS, THAT'S MORE FOR HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, LIKE MULTIFAMILY.

THAT'S MORE IN LINE WITH THE ULTIMATE REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY. IT'S PROPOSED TO BE SORT OF ADDED TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH AND DEVELOPED AS MULTIFAMILY. SO SOME SITE PHOTOS. THESE FIRST TWO ARE OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF. THIS IS ON HOLFORD ROAD LOOKING

[01:25:03]

IT'S JUST TO REZONE THE SITE TO ALIGN WITH THE ZONING OF THAT ADJACENT PD, SO THAT LARGER AREA CAN BE COHESIVELY DEVELOPED. AND IF THE REQUEST IS APPROVED, ANY KIND OF DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL THE STANDARDS OF THE GDC, INCLUDING OUR RECENTLY UPDATED MULTIFAMILY STANDARDS. SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ONE IS APPROVAL OF A ZONING CHANGE FROM AG DISTRICT TO PD D 8496. AND BEFORE I STOP TALKING, WE'LL GO THROUGH THE RESPONSE LETTERS. WE MAILED OUT 11 NOTICES TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS ON THIS ONE, AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES. SO WITH THAT, I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. I SEE NONE, COMMISSIONER DUCKWORTH. YES, SIR. FOR THE COMMISSION AND FOR THE PUBLIC MIGHT BE LISTENING. I THINK THIS IS A RESULT OF A RECENT SWAP OF A SWAP OF TWO TRACTS OF LAND. THAT IS CORRECT. CITY IN SPRING. SPRING CREEK. YES. THE THE CHURCH WHICH CURRENTLY OWNS THE LARGER PARCEL, THEY HAVE A SMALL TRIANGULAR PORTION THAT WOULD BE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE FUTURE EXTENSION OF NAAMAN FOREST ROAD, WHICH IS KIND OF DOING A SWAP WITH THAT PROPERTY OWNER TO KIND OF ALLOW SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS A GREAT DEAL FOR THE CITY AND FOR THE CITIZENS. SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS AS A GREAT MOVE TO TO ROUND OUT A DEVELOPMENT AREA. YES, SIR. THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU.

NOTHING ELSE. AND PLANNING WISE IT MAKES SENSE TOO, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY'S EVER TRIED TO LAY OUT SOMETHING ON A TRIANGULAR PIECE OF LAND. ONCE YOU HAVE THE SETBACKS DONE, YOU GOT NOTHING. SO INCORPORATING IT AND MAKING THEIR LIVES A LITTLE BIT EASIER MAKES SENSE.

ALRIGHTY. GOOD TO GO. THANK YOU FOLKS. WE'LL ASK IF THERE'S ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WHO CARES TO ADDRESS THIS CASE. NOPE. OH, NO. ASK A QUICK COMMISSIONER JENKINS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MOTION TO APPROVE. MOTION TO APPROVE. RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND COMMISSIONER ABLE.

SECOND. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER JENKINS. SECOND. BY COMMISSIONER ABLE TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST. PLEASE VOTE. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. GOOD JOB. NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS ITEM

[e. GDC Amendment 25-09]

[01:30:05]

WE'RE JUST PROPOSING TO DO AWAY WITH THAT HEIGHT RESTRICTION. SO ANY WALL SIGN DOWNTOWN IS NOW WOULD WOULD NOW BE ALLOWED A MAX AREA OF 30FT■S, REGARDLESS OF THAT HEIGHT. AND THEN FOR THE DOWNTOWN WAIVER PROCESS. SO CURRENTLY ANY DEVIATION TO A SIGNS ALLOWABLE SIZE REQUIRES A WAIVER IN THE IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. SO ANY KIND OF DEVIANCE DEVIATION TO A SIGN SIZE HAS TO GO ALL THE WAY THROUGH AND BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL. WE'RE PROPOSING TO MAKE THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD. SO ANY SIGN THAT'S CONSTRUCTED UP TO THE CITY WIDE STANDARDS, RATHER THAN JUST THE DOWNTOWN STANDARDS, COULD BE ALLOWED JUST WITH A MINOR WAIVER WHICH IS ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED. THIS COULD, YOU KNOW, INCREASE PREDICTABILITY FOR SIGN CONTRACTORS FOR BUSINESS OWNERS OR SHORTEN THOSE PROCESS TIMELINES. WE ALL LIKE THAT. AND THEN ANY DEVIATIONS BEYOND THE CITY WIDE STANDARDS WOULD STILL REQUIRE A MAJOR WAIVER. SO WE STILL HAVE SOME CONTROL OVER THOSE SIGN REGULATIONS, JUST KIND OF MAKING THINGS A LITTLE EASIER FOR FOLKS. AND THEN AS FAR AS USER FRIENDLINESS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SIGN CODE TODAY, IT'S A LOT OF TEXT, A LOT, A LOT OF TEXT.

WE'VE CONDENSED NEARLY ALL OF THAT TEXT INTO A TABLE FORMAT IN THE COLUMNS OF THOSE TABLES QUICKLY, VERY BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS, SIZE RESTRICTIONS, PLACEMENT. SO THAT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, WHERE AN ATTACHED SIGN HAS TO BE PLACED ON A FACADE WHERE A FREE STANDING SIGN SIGN NEEDS TO BE PLACED ON A SITE, STUFF LIKE THAT. ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SIGNS, AND THEN IF A PERMIT IS REQUIRED, AND THEN WE STILL HAVE SORT OF A SPECIAL STANDARDS COLUMN THAT WOULD HAVE ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR SOME OF THE SIGN TYPES FOR CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, LIGHTING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO ANOTHER TABLE WE'VE ADDED DENOTES WHICH ZONING DISTRICTS PERMIT THE VARIOUS SIGN TYPES. WE'VE CONDENSED THAT INTO A TABLE FORMAT, WHICH WAS PRETTY TRICKY TO FIGURE OUT BEFORE WITH ALL THIS TEXT. ALL OF THIS, YOU KNOW, JUST MAKES THE REGULATIONS EASIER TO READ AND COMPREHEND FOR, YOU KNOW, BUSINESS OWNERS, SIGN CONTRACTORS, FOLKS WHO WOULD BE USING THIS SECTION OF CODE. AND THIS LAST SECTION IS PRETTY COOL TO ALLOW SIGNS THAT STRENGTHEN THE CHARACTER AND IDENTITY OF GARLAND. THE PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDES A NEW PROCESS FOR THE DESIGNATION OF WHAT WE'RE CALLING ICONIC SIGNS. THESE ARE INTENDED FOR SIGNS THAT ENHANCE THE SENSE OF PLACE, WALKABILITY, DISTINCTIVENESS OF GARLAND'S DESTINATIONS LIKE DOWNTOWN OR CULTURAL DISTRICTS OR COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS. IT'S A GREAT PHOTO OF THE GARLAND SHOPPING CENTER SIGN THAT WAS RESTORED IN THE PAST FEW YEARS. GREAT EXAMPLE OF A SIGN THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE DESIGNATED ICONIC. THERE'S A PROCESS FOR THIS, OF COURSE. IT WOULD REQUIRE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CULTURAL ARTS DEPARTMENT AND THEN ULTIMATELY APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL. BUT WE'VE KIND OF INTENTIONALLY WRITTEN THE REGULATIONS FOR THIS SIGN TYPE TO BE VERY BROAD. WE WANT TO ALLOW A GREATER DEGREE OF CREATIVITY AND ARTISTRY FOR ANY

[01:35:03]

CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, I CAN HEAR YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF YOUR MICS ON, BUT I CAN HEAR YOU.

SCOOT CLOSER. OKAY. I READ THE REPORT AND THOUGHT IT WAS. NOT THE MOST ENGAGING THING THAT I'VE EVER READ. SO I'M HOPING THAT YOU CAN. I WON'T TAKE OFFENSE TO THAT. THANK YOU. I, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THOUGH T WAIVER ISSUES. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING WE'RE GETTING RID OF THAT. SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING EFFECTIVELY IS THAT THERE IS NO D T ISSUE. IT'S ALL GOING TO BE JUST EFFECTIVELY WHATEVER THE CITY STANDARD IS OR WILL BE. NO. SO A SIGN DNTOWN COULD STILL POTENTIALLY BE ALLOWED UP TO THE CITYWIDE STANDARDS IT THROUGH A MINOR WAIVER RATHER THAN A MAJOR WAIVER. SO BEFORE ANY KIND OF DEVIATION TO DOWNTOWN SIDE STANDARDS WAS A MAJOR WAIVER, THAT'S THE FULL PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS THAT GOES ALL THE WAY TO COUNCIL.

NOW, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS THE SIGN COULD STILL GO UP TO CITYWIDE STANDARDS, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO RECEIVE A MINOR WAIVER. SO THAT WOULD BE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. BUT IT WOULDN'T JUST BE APPROVED OUTRIGHT. AND THE MINOR WAIVER IS DISCRETIONARY, BUT IT'S DISCRETIONARY BY STAFF. CORRECT. AND WE THINK OF IT AS ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE. WE IT'S NOT JUST OH I'M ASKING FOR IT. SO STAFF JUST APPROVE IT. THERE HAS TO BE REASONING. THERE HASPD STAFF LOOKS AT THE FEASIBILITY OF IT AND APPLICABILITY OF IT FOR THAT PURPOSE. SO I DON'T WANT TO SAY DISCRETIONARY BECAUSE THAT'S USUALLY USED FOR COUNCIL DECISIONS, B BUT IT'S FR PROVIDING FLEXIBILITY IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL BASED ON REASONINGS AND FEASIBILITY OF A REQUEST BASED ON ARTICULABLE REASONING THAT IS CURRENTLY IN THE CODE SOMEWHERE. THE DOWNTOWN CODE DOES HAVE THE SECTION THAT IDENTIFIES WHAT MINOR WAIVERS COULD BE. IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE A CRITERIA THAT, OH, ONLY IF IT'S THIS YOU CAN APPROVE IT. IT'S MORE OF A STAFFOLICY THAT NO, IT CANNOT JUST BE, OH, I WANT THIS WAIVER. SO YOU GIVE IT TO US. IT'S THROUGH A PROCESS, JUST LIKE ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE. AND JUST, JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT, THIS IS NOT STAFF'S IDEA NECESSARILY. THIS DID COME FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE. THEY KIND OF LOOKED AT THE, THE, THE REQUESTS THAT WE WERE HAVING IN DOWNTOWN AND WANTED TO KIND OF PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY TO THE BUSINESS OWNERS. SO THIS REQUEST OR THIS PARTICULAR SOLUTION WAS DISCUSSED WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE, AND THAT'S WHERE THEY AGREED. CAN WE GO BACK TO THE EPIPHANY EXAMPLE, IF WE IF WE COULD. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A ALLOWING OR PERMITTING THE SIGNAGE TO TO COVER THE, THE FACADE FACADE TO BASICALLY COVER THE ENTIRETY OF THE, OF THE FRONT. RIGHT. SO ALL WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO IS ELIMINATE THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION ON ALLOWABLE AREA.

SO CURRENTLY, IF A SIGN IS LESS THAN 12FT ABOVE GRADE, IT CAN ONLY BE TEN SQUARE FEET MAX, WHICH IS REALLY SMALL FOR A PRIMARY WALL SIGN FOR A BUSINESS. AND THEN IF IT'S 12FT OR MORE ABOVE GRADE, YOU CAN GO UP TO 30FT■S. ALL WE'RE DOING IS ACCENTING THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION, SO ANY WALL SIGN DOWNTOWN CAN GO UP TO A MAX HEIGHT OF A MAX AREA, EXCUSE ME, OF 30FT■S, EVEN IF THAT THAT IS IN EXCESS OF THE WALL THAT'S THERE, THAT'S THERE. THAT WOULD I MEAN, THAT WOULD STILL BE A RESTRICTION ON THE AREA OF A SIGN. THAT'S FOR FREE. OKAY.

YOU'RE WE'RE IN THE BALLPARK. AND I JUST, AGAIN, WANTED TO BE CERTAIN THAT I UNDERSTOOD THE PROCESS AS IT WAS BEING PROPOSED. SO FOR THIS PARTICULAR ONE, FOR EXAMPLE, MOST OF THE MOST OF THE DOWNTOWN BUILDINGS ARE ALREADY THERE. SO THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY THERE ARE SOME NEW CONSTRUCTIONS, BUT FOR THIS EPIPHANY, THAT BUILDING IS ALREADY THERE AND IT IS LESS THAN 12FT. SO THEY WERE LIMITED TO TEN SQUARE FOOT. AND THEY HAD TO COME THROUGH CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL, AND EVERYONE

[01:40:01]

THEREE WAS A RECENT EVENT CAME UP, I THINK PROBABLY MOST OF US SAW ON THE NEWS ABOUT A MURAL IN DALLAS THAT GOT PAINTED OVER. AND THE MY QUESTION IS, WHO OWNS A MURAL PAINTING ON THE SIDE OF A BUILDING? THE BUILDING OWNER OR THE ARTIST? THAT'S BEYOND OUR SCOPE OF CONCERN. BUT I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. WELL, I DON'T I DON'T THINK SO. IF IT'S A SIGN, IT'S PAINTED ON THE SIDE OF A BUILDING. DOES DOES THIS DOES THIS APPROACH, THAT SUBJECT MURAL IS NOT A SIGN. SO THE CITY ATTORNEY WAS ABOUT THERE. THEY'RE DEFINED DIFFERENTLY.

MURALS ARE DEFINED DIFFERENTLY THAN SIGNS UNDER THE GDC. AND SO THEY'RE NOT THE SAME. THE LOOK THE SAME BUT NOT THE SAME. THEY'RE THEY'RE ALSO REFERRED TO AS ORIGINAL DISPLAY ART. SO THEY'RE REALLY ARTWORK SIGNS ARE TO PROMOTE A PRODUCT OR A BUSINESS MURAL IS PRIMARILY FOR ART PURPOSES. SO WITH THAT, A RECENT RECENT UPDATE ON THIS AMENDMENT IS THAT MURALS WERE ACTUALLY LOCATED WITHIN OUR SIGN SECTION. AND WITH THIS UPDATE, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE CLEANING THINGS UP. WE ACTUALLY REMOVED IT AND WE'RE GOING TO DEFINE IT IN OUR DEFINITION SECTION. BECAUSE MURAL MURAL IS NOT A SIGN. MURALS WERE IN THIS AND IT WAS TAKEN OUT RIGHT INCORRECTLY IN HERE, BUT IT WAS STILL DEFINED AS ORIGINAL DISPLAY ART. IT WAS JUST THE PLACEMENT OF THAT DEFINITION WAS WITHIN THE SIGN SECTION. OKAY. YEAH. OWNER OWNERSHIP OF THE CANVAS OR THE CREATION IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ITEM FOR US. NOT THAT THERE IS AN ANSWER. IT'S NOT A SIMPLE ANSWER. BUT THERE IS AN ANSWER TO THAT. BUT NOT FOR US.

DID I HEAR WE'RE WORKING ON THAT NOW? WE'RE WORKING ON MURALS. WE ARE TRYING TO

[01:45:07]

OKAY. YOU GOT THAT ONE. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. SO OWNERS OUT THERE, YOU KNOW, DON'T BE AFRAID. YOU KNOW, ANOTHER QUESTION I KIND OF SIGN. WE WOULD TYPICALLY THINK OF AS SOMETHING OLD AND EXISTING. COULD SOMEBODY COME FORWARD WITH AN INNOVATIVE DESIGN AND DECLARE IT TO BE ICONIC AND GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND GET IT APPROVED? OKAY. SHAMELESS PLUG FOR OH, SORRY. GO AHEAD. NO, YOU GO AHEAD. I WAS I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE THERE'S A CONCEPT THAT WAS OR HAS BEEN NOW PROPOSED IN OUR VERY RECENTLY ADOPTED HOUSING STRATEGY OF THE MID-CENTURY MILE, WHICH I'M A HUGE FAN OF. THAT'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF, OF GOOD INFORMATION TO GET OUT THERE AND MAY ENTICE PEOPLE FOR BETTER DESIGN IF THEY CAN GO, OH, ICONIC DESIGN, LET'S GO FOR IT. ABSOLUTELY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL I HAD. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OH, BY THE WAY, JOB WELL DONE. THANK YOU. I LOVE THE TABLES AND EVERYTHING. COMMISSIONER JENKINS. MR. CHAIR, I SPEAK ONLY TO SUGGEST THAT I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OR SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU MADE REGARDING AN APPEAL PROCESS FOR THE MINOR WAIVERS. SO WE CAN INCORPORATE THAT INTO A MOTION WHICH IS JUST BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER DUCKWORTH AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MIRANDA. AS YOU WERE TALKING, COMMISSIONER DUCKWORTH. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. YES, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS ITEM AS PRESENTED BY STAFF WITH THE ADDITION OF THE. ADDING THE WAIVER, MINOR WAIVER APPEAL PROCESS, APPEAL PROCESS.

YEAH. I'LL GIVE YOU AN OFFICIAL MICROPHONE. GO AHEAD. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I SECOND THAT. OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CHANGE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED BY STAFF WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT THAT THERE BE A PROCESS TO APPEAL MINOR WAIVERS. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I SEE NONE. GO AHEAD AND VOTE. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY AGAIN. JOB WELL DONE. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S THE LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA. AND SO OUR NEXT MEETING IS ON JULY 13TH. AND I WISH EVERYBODY A WONDERFUL AND SAFE 4TH OF JULY HOLIDAY. SO AS OF 819. WE ARE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.