Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:01]

WELCOME TO THE GARLAND PLANNING COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER 9TH MEETING, AND I'D LIKE TO

[Additional Item]

INTRODUCE EVERYBODY TO OUR NEW PLAN COMMISSIONER FROM DISTRICT IS IT 4.

DISTRICT 2 THAT'S RIGHT.

COMMISSIONER JENKINS, WELCOME ABOARD, SIR.

WE'RE GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE.

AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO A LONG TIME TOGETHER AND WONDERFUL INPUT FROM YOU.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

THANK YOU. ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC WHO IS STREAMING IT NOW AND WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE. YOU CAN GO TO THE GARLAND WEB SITE AND IN THE MIDDLE AND BOTTOM, IS I THINK A ROUND DOT, IT SAYS MEETINGS AND AGENDAS.

CLICK ON THAT. GO TO THIS MEETING AGENDA AND THERE'LL BE A LINK FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE AGENDA.

SO GO AHEAD AND DO THAT.

WE COMMISSIONERS START OUR MEETINGS WITH A PRAYER AND A PLEDGE.

TONIGHT'S PRAYER AND PLEDGE LED BY COMMISSIONER LET'S PRAY. FATHER GOD WE COME BEFORE YOU HUMBLY SEEKING YOUR GUIDANCE TO HELP DIRECT THE CITY OF GARLAND IN ITS FUTURE.

WE ASK THAT YOU LOOK AFTER AND THE UNITED STATES AND TAKE CARE OF THE CITIZENS BECAUSE WE'RE IN A VERY UNSTABLE TIME.

WE ASK THIS IN YOUR NAME.

AMEN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

AND AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYBODY TO OUR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS OUR CONSENT AGENDA.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

AND THE CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF ITEMS THAT COMMISSIONERS HAVE PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED AND WILL BE VOTING ON IN ONE VOTE TO APPROVE.

NOW, AFTER I READ THE LIST OF ITEMS IF ANY COMMISSIONER WANTS AN ITEM REMOVED, OR IF ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WANTS AN ITEM REMOVED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, JUST LET US KNOW AND WE WILL DO THAT.

I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND READ WHAT'S ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

ITEM NUMBER 1A CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES BEFORE OCTOBER 12TH 2020.

AND THESE WERE AMENDED AND MAILED OUT AGAIN, I BELIEVE, TODAY.

PLATS 2A P 20-27 CREEK VALLEY ADDITION NUMBER TWO PHASE ONE, FINAL PLAT.

ITEM 2B P 20-28 PARKER SUTTON AND BRANT EDITION, FINAL PLAT.

PLAT 2C.

P 20-29 HTEAO NUMBER 1 FINAL PLAT AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEM 3A REVIEW OF THE IMPACT FEE REPORT.

ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE THIS MOVED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

AND TRACY, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY CHIMING IN PROBABLY NOT.

WE DO NOT SIR.

OKAY. CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ROSE.

AND A SECOND, I SEE FROM COMMISSIONER WELBORN.

AND A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ROSE AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WELBORN TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

ALL IN FAVOR OUR USUAL THUMBS UP.

AND THAT APPEARS TO BE UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, ONTO OUR ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, AND DURING THIS TIME, I

[4.a. Consideration of the application of Masterplan, requesting approval of a Change in Zoning from Multi-Family (MF) District to a Planned Development (PD) District for Multi-Family Use. This property is located at 5751 Marvin Loving Drive. (District 3) (File Z 19-31 - Zoning)]

ASK ANY SPEAKER TO PLEASE GIVE THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS IN THE MICROPHONE FOR OUR RECORDS, AND WE ALLOW APPLICANTS 15 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR CASE.

WE ALLOW OTHER FOLKS THREE MINUTES.

BUT IF YOU'RE SPEAKING FOR A GROUP, SAY, LIKE THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, WE DEFINITELY ALLOW YOU MORE TIME.

AND NAME AND ADDRESS, NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE.

FIRST ZONING ITEM. CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION OF MASTER PLAN, REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT TO PLAN DEVELOPED DISTRICT FOR MULTIFAMILY USE. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 5751 MARVIN LOVING.

AND HERE WE HAVE STAFF REPORT.

GOOD EVENING. SO THIS IS THE REQUEST AS STATED.

AND HERE'S THE LOCATION, IT'S AT FIFTY SEVEN FIFTY ONE MARVIN LOVING DRIVE, THE ACREAGE IS APPROXIMATELY ONE POINT NINE FIVE ACRES AND THE EXISTING ZONING IS MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT.

AND HERE IS THE LOCATION MAP.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN THE TEAL BLUE COLOR, AND THIS IS MARVIN LOVING DRIVE AND THIS IS LAKE HUBBARD PARKWAY.

[00:05:04]

AND SURROUNDING ZONING ARE ALL MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT AND THESE ARE ALL MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. HERE'S SOME OF THE PHOTOS, THE TOP LEFT IS VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM MARVIN LOVING DRIVE.

THE TOP RIGHT IS NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM MARVIN LOVING DRIVE.

BOTTOM LEFT IS EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE BOTTOM RIGHT IS WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND HERE IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN, WHICH SHOWS TWO BUILDINGS, AND IT WILL BE BUILT IN ONE PHASE AND A TOTAL OF 48 UNITS.

THE REQUIRED AVERAGE DWELLING UNIT SIZE IS SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE SQUARE FEET PER THE GDC AND THE PROPOSED IS EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY ONE SQUARE FEET.

THE REQUIRED ONE BEDROOM UNIT SIZE IS SIX HUNDRED FIFTY SQUARE FEET AND PROPOSED IS EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY ONE SQUARE FEET.

THE REQUIRED TWO BEDROOM UNIT IS EIGHT HUNDRED SQUARE FEET AND PROPOSED IS NINE HUNDRED AND SEVEN SQUARE FEET.

THEY DO COMPLY WITH THE DWELLING UNIT SIZE.

THE GDC ALSO REQUIRES WHERE THERE IS MULTIPLE MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURES, A MINIMUM OF 50 PERCENT OF THOSE BUILDINGS MUST BE POSITIONED AT A 30 DEGREE ANGLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE. AND IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE MARVIN LOVING DRIVE.

HOWEVER, DUE TO THE SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT REQUESTED PROPOSE TO POSITION THE BUILDING AT A 30 DEGREE ANGLE.

THE MAXIMUM DENSITY PER THE GDC IS 18 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, AND THE APPLICANT REQUEST TO INCREASE THAT TO TWENTY FIVE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE DUE TO THE LIMITED SIZE OF THE SITE AND PER THE GDC CALCULATION, A TOTAL OF EIGHTY FOUR PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED AND THEY ARE SHOWING EIGHTY FOUR SPACES.

ADDITIONALLY, 50 PERCENT OF THOSE PARKING SPACES MUST BE COVERED PARKING.

SORRY, CAN YOU HEAR ME? OH, YES. OK, I GOT MUTED ACCIDENTALLY.

SO THEY ARE SHOWING THE COVERED PARKING WITH THREE CARPORT STRUCTURES, SO TWO ARE HERE AND ONE IS OVER HERE AND THIS IS THE PARKING GARAGE WITH 12 UNITS.

THE GDC ALSO STATES THAT A MAXIMUM OF 10 PARKING STALLS CAN BE IN ONE CARPORT STRUCTURE.

BUT IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE COVERED PARKING REQUIREMENT, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 12 PARKING STALLS IN THESE TWO COVERED CARPORT STRUCTURES AND THEN NINE OVER HERE, WHICH IT WILL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT.

THERE ARE ALSO SOME AMENITIES THAT ARE REQUIRED WITH THIS, A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, A SWIMMING POOL WITH A MINIMUM EIGHT HUNDRED SQUARE FEET OF SURFACE WATER IS REQUIRED, BUT DUE TO THE SIZE, THE APPLICANT REQUEST RELIEF FROM THAT REQUIREMENT BY NOT PROPOSING THE SWIMMING POOL. AND A CLUBHOUSE, A MINIMUM OF TWENTY FIVE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET IS ALSO REQUIRED AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO NOT INCLUDE THAT WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, A LEISURE AREA WITH A MINIMUM OF THOUSAND SQUARE FEET IS REQUIRED AND THEY ARE EXCEEDING THE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.

THEY ARE PROPOSING LEISURE AREA THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY.

THERE WILL BE A TOTAL OF THREE GAZEBOS WHICH WILL BE HERE.

AND THERE'S PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT TWO BARBECUE GRILL STATION ONE IS HERE.

AND THE OTHER ONE IS HERE.

THERE ARE SOME OUTDOOR SEATING BENCHES AND A DOG PARK OVER HERE.

THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN, IT DOES COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING STANDARDS FOR THE GDC, ALTHOUGH SCREENING IS NOT REQUIRED, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SIX FOOT ORNAMENTAL FENCE ALONG MARVIN LOVING DRIVE AND SIX FOOT SOLID WOOD FENCE AROUND THE REMAINING PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY.

[00:10:01]

AND HERE ARE SOME OF THE AMENITIES.

THIS IS THE GAZEBO, THE TRASH RECEPTACLE, BARBECUE GRILL, DOG SPA.

AND THIS IS THE BENCH AND PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT.

HERE IS THE ELEVATION FOR BUILDING ONE, AND IT DOES COMPLY WITH THE BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS PER THE GDC.

THE ELEVATION FOR BUILDING TWO, AND THAT ALSO COMPLIES WITH THE BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS, THE GDC. THE ELEVATIONS FOR THE CARPORT STRUCTURE AND THE GARAGE . GDC STATES THAT THE POLES OF THE CARPORT STRUCTURE MUST BE ARCHITECTURALLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE MAIN BUILDING AND IN THIS CASE, MASONRY IS REQUIRED.

THE APPLICATION IS DEVIATING AND PROPOSING METAL POLES, BUT THEY ARE PROPOSING THE MASONRY CLADDING ON THREE SIDES OF THE CARPORT STRUCTURE, WHICH IS ABOUT FOUR AND A HALF FEET HIGH. AND THAT MATCHES THE MAIN BUILDING.

HERE'S THE SUMMARY OF THE DEVIATION.

THE FIRST ONE IS FOR THE BUILDING PLACEMENT, WHICH WHEN THERE IS MULTIPLE MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURE 50 PERCENT AND THE APPLICANT DOES NOT INTEND TO PLACE THE BUILDING AT A 30 DEGREE ANGLE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. TO THE PROPOSED SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT, THE BUILDINGS WILL NOT BE RELATIVELY LONG. THEREFORE, IT SHOULD NOT CREATE THE EXTERNAL APPEARANCE OF LONG AND MONOTONOUS.

SECOND ONE IS DENSITY.

THE REQUIRED IS 18 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

THAT'S A MAXIMUM ALLOWED AND PROPOSED IS TWENTY FIVE UNITS PER ACRE AND INCREASES DUE TO THE LIMITED SIZE OF THE SITE.

THIRD ONE IS THE CARPORT.

THE GDC STATES THAT CARPORT MUST BE ARCHITECTURALLY INTEGRATED TO THE AND IT MUST BE SIMILAR COLOR TO THE MAIN BUILDING AND THE APPLICANT ALSO REQUESTED MAXIMIZE SPACE FOR MOTORISTS AND AVOID MAINTENANCE ISSUES FROM DAMAGED MASONRY.

WELL, AS THE CARPORT STRUCTURE CAN NOT HAVE MORE THAN 10 PARKING STALLS AND THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A TOTAL OF THREE CAR PORT STRUCTURES, TWO OF THEM WILL HAVE 12 PARKING STALLS AND THE THIRD ONE WILL HAVE NINE PARKING STALLS.

AND THIS DEVIATION IS REQUESTED IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE COVERED PARKING, WHICH IS A MINIMUM OF 50 PERCENT.

AND ONE OF THE OTHER AMENITIES THAT'S REQUIRED IS THE CLUBHOUSE, WHICH MUST BE A MINIMUM OF TWENTY FIVE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET.

THE APPLICANT WILL NOT PROPOSE A CLUBHOUSE, GIVEN THE LIMITED SCALE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

THERE WILL NOT BE AN ONSITE CLUBHOUSE OR LEASING OFFICE.

MOST OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE AND SERVICES WILL BE HANDLED ONLINE, EXCEPT THAT THERE WILL BE ONSITE RESIDENT MANAGER TO HANDLE ANY DAY TO DAY ISSUE AND ROUTINE MAINTENANCE.

LAST ONE IS SWIMMING POOL, A MINIMUM OF EIGHT HUNDRED SQUARE FEET OF SURFACE WATER IS REQUIRED FOR EACH MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

WILL NOT PROPOSE A SWIMMING POOL.

THEY ARE PROPOSING ADDITIONAL LEISURE AREA EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS GRILLING STATION SHADED STRUCTURE ONTO THE SITE LAYOUT.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST, ADDITIONALLY STAFF RECOMMENDS THE CARPORT POOLS TO MATCH THE MAIN BUILDING.

THEY ALSO MAILED OUT ONE HUNDRED FIFTY SEVEN NOTIFICATION LETTERS FOUR FOR WITHIN THE NOTIFICATION AREA, AND FOR THE REQUEST, FIVE WERE WITHIN THE NOTIFICATION AREA.

ONE WAS OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION AREA AND AGAINST THE REQUEST, AND WE RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 10 RESPONSES, AND THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.

ALRIGHTY ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF MS. AHMED. AS USUAL, I HAVE ONE THAT WE GOT A RESPONSE THAT BROUGHT UP A COUPLE OF ISSUES THAT I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'VE BEEN ADDRESSED.

ONE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF THEIR MUTUAL ACCESS EASEMENT GOING AWAY.

AND WITHOUT THAT, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT WOULD BE VIABLE.

AND THE SECOND BEING THE DRAINAGE ISSUE.

[00:15:01]

APPARENTLY, THERE WERE PROMISES MADE THAT WOULD NOT DRAIN ACROSS THERE PROPERTY HERE, BUT I DON'T RECALL SEEING ANY DETENTION ON THE SITE ITSELF.

IS THERE DETENTION? I DON'T BELIEVE SO, THE APPLICANT IS AWARE OF THOSE CONCERNS AND HE IS READY TO ANSWER SOME OF THOSE QUESTION.

I DID TALK TO THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND THEY DID DO A DRAINAGE STUDY, POSSIBLY FLOOD STUDY, BUT THEY WERE COMFORTABLE WITH LETTING THIS MOVE FORWARD.

AND THERE WILL BE SOME ADDITIONAL STUDY DONE AT THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN PHASE WHEN THEY ARE SUBMITTED. OK, SO THE ENGINEERING THINKS IT'LL WORK, BUT THE DETAILS WILL HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT IN THE FUTURE AS IT SHOULD BE.

OKAY THANK YOU. CORRECT. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MS. AHMED. THANK YOU.

WELL DONE. WE WERE HEARING YOU WERE JUST SO WRAPPED UP IN YOUR PRESENTATION AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE.

MR. FISHER. CHAIRMAN ROBERTS, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. COMMISSIONERS.

MAXWELL FISHER WITH MASTERPLAN 2201 MAIN STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS, 75201.

WE ARE REPRESENTING A1 CAPITAL.

DANIEL, A1 SHOULD ALSO BE ON TONIGHT.

IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS THAT I CAN'T ANSWER, HE'S THE DEVELOPER.

CAN YOU ALL SEE MY SCREEN? WE HAD IT FOR A SECOND AND NOW WE'RE BACK INTO PEOPLE MODE, SO IF YOU WANT TO SHARE YOUR SCREEN, START DOING THAT AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S COMING UP.

WE CAN SEE IT NOW. OK, LET'S SEE IF I CAN TOGGLE.

HERE WE GO. OK.

ALL RIGHT, NABIHA DID A GREAT JOB ON ALL THE DETAILS, INCLUDING A DEVIATION THAT WERE ASKING FOR SO I'LL TRY TO NOT DUPLICATE EVERYTHING, BUT ESSENTIALLY THIS IS A SITE THAT'S BEEN UNDEVELOPED FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND THAT'S AMID OTHER MULTIFAMILY UNITS BOTH.

SO WE'RE PROPOSING SOMETHING THAT WE BELIEVE IS COMPARABLE TO WHAT'S AROUND US AND ALIGNS WITH THE PATTERN AND DENSITY AND FORM OF WHAT'S AROUND US.

THE SITE IS SLOPED.

IT SLOPES FROM EAST TO WEST.

SO THERE'S SOME GRADE CHALLENGE, OF COURSE, THAT WE'RE WORKING THROUGH.

AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE QUESTIONS ON DRAINAGE AT THE END IF THERE ARE SOME.

WE ARE PROPOSING TWO BUILDINGS AT THE SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT, HENCE SOME OF THE NEED FOR SOME OF THE VARIANCES THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.

ESSENTIALLY, THIS IS FORTY EIGHT UNITS, THREE STORIES, HALF ONE BEDROOM, HALF TWO BEDROOMS. WE BELIEVE WE'VE PROVIDED, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT PROPOSING A POOL AND CLUBHOUSE, WE BELIEVE THAT WE'RE PROVIDING A NUMBER OF OTHER AMENITIES AND INCLUDE A DOG WALK, DOG SPA BENCH FOR OUTDOOR SEATING, SOME GAZEBO AREAS, A DOG SPA AREA, AND THEN JUST PLAY EQUIPMENT AND A PATIO.

SO A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WE BELIEVE WHAT WILL SERVE OUR RESIDENTS WELL, GIVEN THE LIMITED SCOPE AND SIZE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE MUTUAL ACCESS POINTS WE DO HAVE, MUTUAL ACCESS THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO THE WEST.

THAT'S MARINA DEL SOL CONDOS.

WE HAVE THAT SECURED.

THAT WILL BE EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY.

SO OUR RESIDENTS WILL NOT BE USING THAT ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS.

THAT WILL ONLY BE MADE AVAILABLE AT THE A KNOCKS BOX LOCK.

SO IT'LL BE GATED AND LIMITED ACCESS.

OUR DEVELOPMENT WILL ESSENTIALLY JUST BE INTERNAL WITH BOTH EGRESS AND INGRESS OCCURRING FROM MARVIN LOVING DRIVE.

WE ARE PROPOSING COVERED PARKING IN THE FORM OF ONE GARAGE AND A FEW COVERED PARKING SPACES. I'M SORRY A FEW CANOPIES.

WE ARE ASKING FOR AN INCREASE IN THE CANOPY LENGTH FROM 10 SPACES TO 12 JUST BECAUSE IT'S EFFICIENT TO KEEP THOSE TOGETHER WHERE WE'RE ONLY HAVING THREE CARPORTS VERSUS FOUR AND HAVING A LONGER CARPORT ON THE ONE THAT HAS NINE BY BUILDING ONE INTERFERES WITH THE ADA HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE AREA.

SO WE WANT TO STAY AWAY FROM THAT DOING THAT.

HERE'S OUR LANDSCAPE PLAN.

I'M HAPPY TO GO OVER THE LANDSCAPING, IT COMPLIES WITH THE LANDSCAPING STANDARDS OF THE CITY.

REAL QUICKLY ON THE FENCE.

WE'RE PROPOSING AN ORNAMENTAL FENCE ALONG MARVIN LOVING ALONG WITH LANDSCAPING, AND THEN WE'RE PROPOSING A SOLID SIX FOOT WOOD FENCE AROUND THE PERIMETER OF DEVELOPMENT.

[00:20:01]

HERE ARE THE ELEVATION'S THESE ALSO COMPLY WITH YOUR STANDARDS, WE'RE DOING A COMBINATION OF BRICK STUCCO AND HARDY BOARD.

HAPPY TO GO BACK TO THOSE.

NABIHA MENTIONED THE AMENITIES, THE SAME ONES YOU'VE SEEN THERE'S A FEW LETTERS OF OPPOSITION IN THE PACKET AND WE WENT THROUGH THOSE, MOST OF THOSE ARE FROM LANDLORDS.

THEY'RE NOT FROM PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR NEXT DOOR, AND WE THINK THAT THERE WASN'T A LOT OF REASON FOR BEING IN OPPOSITION, SO WE BELIEVE IT TO BE A COMPETITION BASED AND THAT THEY DON'T LIVE THERE.

THEY DON'T HAVE A LOT OF WHAT WE THOUGHT TO BE VALID CONCERNS.

THERE WAS ONE COMMENT THAT ONE PERSON, ONE NEIGHBOR WANTED THE PROPERTY TO STAY VACANT.

WELL, THAT ONLY HAPPENS IF IT'S A PARK OR YOU OWN IT YOURSELF AND YOU WANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY, ESSENTIALLY. WE DID REACH OUT.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING FOR SEVERAL MONTHS WITH THE HOA.

THERE'S HILLPOINT HOA. AND THERE'S A MARINA DEL SOL CONDOS BOTH ON EACH SIDE OF US, WHICH ARE THE CLOSEST TO THE DEVELOPMENT.

THEY ARE BOTH IN SUPPORT OF OUR DEVELOPMENT.

AND OF COURSE, MARINA DEL SOL HAS ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH US ON ACCESS AS WELL AS SOME UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS.

SO WE WORK WITH THEM CLOSELY.

THEY'RE AWARE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING AND THEY'RE IN FAVOR.

THERE WAS ONE THAT FROM THAT MARINA DEL SOL.

HEAR ARE A FEW OF THE LETTERS THAT WERE IN SUPPORT THAT INCLUDED THOSE.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON DRAINAGE.

I KNOW THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT, OH, YOU'RE DEVELOPING THE SITE AND YOU'RE ADDING ALL THIS PAVING AND YOU'RE INCREASING THE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT.

WELL, THIS PLAN, IF YOU CAN STILL SEE IT SHOWS THAT WE WILL BE DEVELOPING AND ADDING PAVEMENT, BUT WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE IMPROVING THE DRAINAGE SITUATION.

RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THE PROPERTY SLOPES IT ACTUALLY WATER, AS YOU KNOW, WITH CLAY SOILS, WATER RUNS DOWNHILL ONTO THE DEVELOPMENT TO OUR WEST.

AND WITH THIS PROPOSAL, WE WOULD ACTUALLY BE CAPTURING ALL OF OUR ONSITE DRAINAGE IN THE FLUMES THAT ARE SHOWN IN THE BLUE CIRCLES.

AND THEN IT WOULD IN TURN AND GO INTO A PIPING SYSTEM SHOWN IN ORANGE ARROWS UNDERGROUND, AND IT WOULD EXIT OUT UNDERGROUND ALL THE WAY OUT TO LAKE RAY HUBBARD PARKWAY.

AND SO WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE PIPES IN LAKE RAY HUBBARD PARKWAY GREATER THAN WHAT'S THERE TODAY.

SO WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ADDRESSING AN ISSUE THAT EXISTS WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT AND SITE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED OUR SITE SCHEMATICS SITE ENGINEERING PLANS.

AND THEY'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH OUR CIVIL ENGINEER THAT WILL ACTUALLY BE IMPROVING THE SITUATION THERE. I UNDERSTAND THERE'S SOME PONDING OF WATER THAT ACTUALLY BUILDS UP NEXT TO A COUPLE OF UNITS ON THE PROPERTY NEXT TO US.

THIS WILL DEFINITELY NOT MAKE THAT WORSE, AND IT MAY HELP IT.

SO WE WANT TO MAKE YOU ALL AWARE OF THAT.

I THINK I'LL STOP THERE AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION OF SUPPORT.

AND WHERE IS THE REFUGE CONTAINER? I MISSED THAT.

YEAH. THE REFUGE CONTAINER IS LOCATED NORTH OF BUILDING TWO RIGHT HERE.

IT'S ACTUALLY A DOUBLE CONTAINER.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE MY CURSOR OR NOT.

WE CAN SEE IT BARELY.

OK. WE HAD COMMISSIONER WELBORN, WE HAD QUITE THE CHALLENGE ON LOCATING THAT DUMPSTER, THAT DUMPSTER HAS BEEN ALL OVER THIS SITE PLAN, AND WE HAD TO FIND A PLACE THAT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH SEVERAL OTHER SITE ELEMENTS.

AND THAT WAS ABOUT THE ONLY LOCATION THAT IT WORKED AFTER MOVING IT AROUND SEVERAL TIMES.

WILL THE TRUCK BE ABLE TO GET IN THERE.

YEAH, WE HAD TO SHOW OUR FORTY OR FORTY FIVE FOOT BACKUP AREA AND ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE THAT A TRUCK COULD GET IN THERE.

BUT IT DOES IT DOES MEET THE WASTE. THEY JUST REVIEWED IT RECENTLY FOR THE LAST TIME.

IS ALL OF THE UTILITIES UNDERGROUND.

YES, YES, ALL THE PROPOSED UTILITIES ARE UNDERGROUND.

[00:25:03]

YES. OK, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS MAXWELL. WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE REFUGE CONTAINER AND IT MADE ME LOOK AT THE DISTANCE TO THE GAZEBO THAT'S RIGHT BEHIND IT.

THAT IS ONE OF THE YOU GOT THREE OF THEM, LIKE IN A TRIAD RIGHT THERE, CORRECT? YES. BEING CLOSER TO THE DUMPSTER THAN BEING CLOSER TO THE FENCE WAS THAT BECAUSE OF LANDSCAPING OR WHAT'S THE REASONING BEHIND THAT? WELL, COMMISSIONER OTT, YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT.

NOBODY WANTS TO HANG OUT BY TRASH.

I THINK WE COULD LOOK AT AT LEAST SLIDING THE GAZEBOS OVER A BIT TOWARDS THE FENCE.

THERE ARE SOME UTILITIES THAT ARE THERE.

POSSIBLY A WALL CONTAINING WALL, BUT WE COULD DEFINITELY LOOK AT ADJUSTING, SLIDING THAT OVER FOR COUNCIL, IF THAT'S THE WISH OF THE COMMISSION.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE WORTHY OF DOING.

ONE THING I DO LIKE THAT YOU DID WAS THE SIDEWALK PATH THAT YOU HAVE AROUND BUILDING ONE THAT GOES OVER TO THE FIRE PIT AND THE BARBECUE AREA OVER THERE.

THAT LOOKS LIKE A PRETTY GOOD USE OF THAT UNUSED SPACE OVER THERE AND NICE INGRESS AND EGRESS. AND IT LOOKS REALLY NICE.

THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAD.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER OTT. COMMISSIONER ROSE.

YEAH, UNMUTE, PLEASE.

THERE YOU GO. IF YOU MOVE THE PAVILION AREA OVER, COULD YOU NOT PLANT SOME BUSHES ON THE BACK SIDE OF THOSE DUMPSTERS IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE YOU HAVE ANYTHING THERE.

MAYBE A TREE OR TWO, BUT THAT'S IT.

YEAH, I THINK WE CAN.

LET ME GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SOMETHING ON THE SITE PLAN HERE. WELL THAT HAS IT, YES, BUT THE LANDSCAPING PLAN DOESN'T HAVE THOSE.

YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT. YEAH, DEFINITELY.

WE COULD ADD SOME SHRUBS THERE.

WE COULD JUST MAKE SURE WE ALIGN THE SITE PLAN WITH THE LANDSCAPING ON THE SHRUBS AROUND THE DUMPSTER. OK.

THE OTHER THING IS WHAT'S THE TIMING ON THIS PROJECT? ARE YOU GOING TO START IT AFTER COUNCIL APPROVES IT.

THEY'RE GOING TO START IT IN TWO YEARS, OR THEY ARE JUST GONNA SELL IT.

SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO DEVELOP AND OPERATE THEY'RE GOING TO BE LONG TERM HOLDERS. THEY'RE NOT MERCHANT BUILDERS.

DANIEL MAY BE ABLE TO CONFIRM THAT, BUT THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

WELL, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH, AS YOU KNOW, PLATTING AND PERMITTING.

SO I WOULD SUSPECT WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T BREAK GROUND UNTIL SOMETIME LATER THIS YEAR, BUT I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY DELAY.

IT TOOK QUITE A WHILE TO GET TO THIS POINT WITH SOME CHALLENGES.

SO WE WILL BE MOVING FULL STEAM AHEAD IF THE COUNCIL AND COMMISSION VOTE IN FAVOR.

CHAIRMAN ROBERTS? YES.

I SURE WOULD LIKE TO STICK WITH THE GDC ON THE BRICK, THE COLUMNS ON THE CAR PORTS TO MA SONRY INSTEAD OF JUST THE METAL PIPES, IF EVERYBODY MAKES A MOTION.

OKAY. I THINK ONE OF THE ISSUES MAY BE ON THAT, THOUGH, IS WHEN YOU PUT UP A BRICK COLUMN IN THERE, ABOUT A FOOT BY A FOOT OR 16 INCHES BY 16 INCHES, AND SO THEY PROBABLY LOSE SOME PARKING.

YEAH, SO ABSOLUTELY, SO ANY TIME YOU TRY TO PUT THE BRICK COLUMNS ON THE INTERIOR CARPORT COLUMNS, THAT'S WHAT PRESENTS A BIG PROBLEM, AND PEOPLE HITTING THEM WITH THEIR CARS OR JUST NOT HAVING ENOUGH ROOM.

AND SO WHAT WE TRIED TO DO IS BY NOT HAVING WELL WE'RE HAPPY TO PAINT THOSE COLUMNS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY.

BUT WHAT WE HAVE DONE AND TO COMPENSATE IS WE'RE DOING A MASONRY WALL, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL, ALMOST FOUR FEET AROUND THE BACKSIDE OF THE CARPORTS.

AND THEN ALSO WE HAVE SOME THE END COLUMNS ARE ENCASED IN BRICK.

SO I THINK WE'VE AT LEAST ATTEMPTED TO MEET THE SPIRIT AND INTENT WITHOUT DISRUPTING THE INTERIOR PARKING SPACES.

WE'D PROBABLY LOSE A SPACE IF WE HAD TO PUT THOSE COLUMNS IN THERE, IT WOULD DISRUPT WHAT WE HAVE HERE.

BUT WE'RE HOPING WE THINK THAT THE WAY WE'VE DONE IT IS IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE CARPORT

[00:30:02]

FROM ANYWHERE ON THE SITE, IT WILL LOOK LIKE AN ARCHITECTURALLY MATCHING STRUCTURE, BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THE OUTSIDE THE BACK OF THAT AND THE SIDES, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE. THE POLES ARE JUST GOING TO BE PAINTED.

IN FACT, SOMETIMES POLES PAINTED ONLY IT'S KIND OF BLEND IN MORE THAN TRYING TO BOX THEM OUT AND MAKE THEM BIGGER TOO.

TO COMMISSIONER WELBORN'S POINT THOUGH.

YOU MAY EVEN WANT TO CONSIDER, AGAIN, DEPENDING UPON ON THE NUMBERS OF BAYS AND EVERYTHING SPANNING LONGER, PUTTING FEWER COLUMNS IN.

A COLUMN EVERY 9 FEET, THAT MAYBE EVERY 18 FEET.

AGAIN, THAT DEPENDS WHETHER YOU HAVE EVEN OR ODD NUMBER OF BAYS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

BUT THAT YEAH, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG COMMISSIONER WELBORN BUT LOOK AT RIGHT. THANK YOU.

YEAH. NO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. FISHER, I CAN'T SEE EVERYBODY, SO I NEED YOU TO CHIME IN IF YOU GOT A QUESTION.

COMMISSIONER JENKINS. YES, MR. FISHER, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ALL HAVE DONE A LOT OF FORETHOUGHT OR THE INGRESS AND EGRESS.

IF YOU DON'T MIND, KIND OF WALK ME THROUGH YOUR THOUGHTS ON TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND FLOW THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE WITH ONE ENTRANCE AND EXIT WITH THAT MANY UNITS IN THAT FEW UNITS IN A VERY SMALL SPACE.

WELL, WE DO ONLY HAVE FORTY EIGHT UNITS, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT, A COUPLE OF HUNDRED TRIPS A DAY SPREAD OUT THROUGHOUT THE DAY, OF COURSE, DURING MORE TRAFFIC, DURING NON COVID TIME, BUT EVEN LESS NOW.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THIS DEVELOPMENT'S BEEN REVIEWED BY ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION AND THEY FOUND THE ONE MAIN ACCESS POINT TO BE SUFFICIENT BECAUSE IT'S NOT A LARGE DEVELOPMENT. YOU'RE FORTY EIGHT UNITS.

IT'S MUCH SMALLER THAN YOUR TYPICAL APARTMENT, WHICH IS USUALLY AROUND ONE EIGHTY TO TWO HUNDRED FIFTY OR THREE HUNDRED UNITS, DEPENDING ON SCALE.

BUT SO, I MEAN, WE HAVE ALL OF OUR PARKING SPACES ARE ACCESSIBLE BY THE INTERNAL DRIVE THAT WE HAD PLANNED WITH PLENTY OF BACKUP AREA.

OUR FIRE LINE IS TWENTY SIX FEET WIDE.

SOMETIMES THOSE ARE ONLY TWENTY TO TWENTY FOUR DEPENDING ON THE CITY.

SO WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVE ADEQUATE INGRESS AND EGRESS DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

OK, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER JENKINS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I'VE GOT ONE MORE QUESTION.

COMMISSIONER OTT. MAXWELL TELL US ABOUT LIGHTING, WHAT KIND OF LIGHTING IS HERE. WELL, WE'LL HAVE SOME BUILDING WALL PACK LIGHTING TO PROVIDE SECURITY ON THE SITE.

WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE A LOT OF LIGHTING, ANY LIGHTING THAT WOULD OF COURSE SPILL OVER INTO OUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY OR ON THE STREET.

SO THERE'LL BE SOME WALL PACK LIGHTING.

I SUPPOSE WE MAY HAVE SOME LIGHTING IN THE PARKING LOT.

OF COURSE, WE DON'T WANT THAT TO BE A DARK, DANGEROUS SITUATION.

SO WE'LL HAVE SOME LIGHTING IN THE PARKING LOT.

IT WON'T BE THAT TALL BECAUSE WE HAVE IT'S IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

SO THERE'S LIMITATIONS ON THE HEIGHT AND HOW BRIGHT THOSE LIGHTS ARE GIVEN THE DISTRICT.

DO YOU THINK THAT THERE'LL BE ANY LIGHTING IN THE COMMON AREAS AROUND THE GAZEBOS OR THE FIREPIT AREA ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OR NORTHWEST CORNER.

YEAH, YEAH. WE'LL HAVE A PEDESTRIAN SCALED LIGHT A COUPLE OF LIGHTS IN OUR AMENITY AREA.

WE WANT THOSE TO BE SAFE AND HAVE PEOPLE TO FEEL SAFE EVEN DURING EVENING HOURS ONCE IT GETS DARK. SO WE'LL DEFINITELY HAVE THAT AND WE'RE HAPPY TO COMMIT TO DOING THAT, AS PART OF OUR ZONING ORDINANCE.

EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS, I'VE GOT A COUPLE.

AND AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO BRING UP MY PACKET BECAUSE I'M OUT OF TOWN.

I DON'T HAVE THE TWO SCREENS LIKE I NORMALLY DO.

BUT YOU MENTIONED ABOUT THAT ONE EXIT BEING EMERGENCY ONLY.

IS THAT WRITTEN IN THE PD CONDITION? IS THAT ACTUALLY WRITTEN INTO THE PD CONDITION? I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT IN THERE TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORS THERE.

YEAH, I DON'T THINK WE WOULD BE OPPOSED, TO THAT.

THAT'S WHAT WE'VE COMMITTED TO.

OUR AGREEMENT WITH THE NEIGHBOR LIMITS US TO EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY.

SO THAT WOULD BE FINE IF IT'S IN OUR ORDINANCE.

I WOULD THINK WE'D NEED SOME CITY TEETH BEHIND IT, TOO.

AND LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE MUTUAL ACCESSES.

BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF THAT TO UTILITIES, TOO, IF YOU'RE

[00:35:03]

BRINGING UNDERGROUND WATER DOWN THEIR DRIVEWAY AND EVERYTHING.

SO YOU'LL HAVE THAT TO AND ALSO, YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT ON SITE MANAGER THAT LIVES THERE.

IS THAT PART OF THE PD CONDITIONS TOO.

THAT LEADS TO MANAGEMENT BEING THERE, AND I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WOULD PROBABLY PREFER, YEAH THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM.

WE'LL HAVE A MANAGER ON SITE THAT WILL LIVE ON SITE.

IT'S NOT A LOT DIFFERENT THAN ODDLY CERTAIN INDUSTRIAL OR STORAGE USES WHERE YOU MAY HAVE A CARETAKER'S QUARTER, JUST KIND OF SIMILAR IN THAT SOMEONE WOULD LIVE ON SITE.

THEY WOULD TAKE CARE OF THE DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS IF THERE'S ANY ISSUES WITH REPAIRS OR ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM OUR RESIDENTS THAT WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM.

YOU MAY WANT TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE PD TOO.

SO WE'VE GOT A FULL PACKAGE THERE AND I HAVE NO CONCERNS OVER THE POOL IN THE CLUBHOUSE.

SOME OF THAT IS A HARBINGER BACK TO GARDEN STYLE APARTMENT DAYS.

AND IF WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THIS AFFORDABLE BY ADDING SOME OF THOSE AMENITIES WE'RE JACKING UP THE PRICE SO THAT YOU CAN SPEND MORE MONEY, HOPEFULLY ON THE BUILDINGS, MAKE THEM NICER UNITS.

YOU CAN DO IT THAT WAY, ESPECIALLY ON RIGHT. APPRECIATE THAT.

TRACY, IS THERE DO WE HAVE ANY OH COMMISSIONER ROSE.

SINCE THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IS FENCED IN, HAVE YOU CONSIDERED GATING THIS DEVELOPMENT SO THAT STRANGERS CAN'T JUST DRIVE IN THEIR.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I'VE SPOKEN TO THE DEVELOPER ABOUT DIRECTLY ON WHETHER IT WOULD BE GATED WE'RE NOT SHOWING A GATE.

BUT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IS FENCED IN, SOLID FENCE.

IF THAT'S SOMETHING I HAVE TO ASK, I DON'T KNOW IF DANIEL'S ON HERE OR NOT.

YES.

HELLO, COMMISSIONER ROSE. GOOD EVENING TO EVERYONE.

DANIYAL GIVE YOUR NAME YEAH GO AHEAD.

DANIYAL AWAN FROM AWAN CAPITAL PARTNERS, 6116 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY, DALLAS, TEXAS, I AM THE DEVELOPER OF THE PROPERTY AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

SO BASICALLY, SIR, THE ISSUE WITH HAVING A GATED, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A GATE OVER THERE. WE WENT BACK AND FORTH WITH THE DESIGN TEAM A NUMBER OF TIMES, BUT THERE JUST ISN'T ENOUGH SPACE IN FRONT OF THE DOG PARK THAT WE HAVE FOR US TO HAVE A PROPER GATE AND TO GATE IT OUT.

WE DO HAVE A FENCE AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS FOR PRIVACY OF THE RESIDENTS, BOTH OUR NEIGHBORS AND OUR RESIDENTS OUR OWN TENANTS.

BUT HAVING A GATE THERE, WE TRY TO FIT THAT IN.

BUT IT JUST WASN'T WORKING WITH A LOT OF ISSUES WITH THE THE TURNING RADIUS FROM MARVIN LOVING.

THAT JUST WASN'T POSSIBLE.

SO WE HAD TO LET THAT OPTION GO.

IF I MAY ASK STAFF FOR A LITTLE CLARIFICATION ON AN INSTANCE LIKE THIS, WOULD IT BE REQUIRED ONLY 20 FEET OF STACKING OR 40 FEET OF STACKING OFF OF THE STREET BEFORE THEY GET TO THE GATE. THAT WOULD BE MORE OF A TRANSPORTATION, I BELIEVE.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYONE FROM TRANSPORTATION TO ANSWER THAT.

YEAH I THINK THEY COULD PROBABLY ACCOMMODATE A GATE AT 20 FEET BACK, BUT I'M NOT CERTAIN IF IT WENT TO 40 FEET, THEY'D BE ABLE TO DO IT.

OK, THANK YOU, MR. I WAS ABOUT TO JUMP IN AND JUST SAY IT THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT DID A REVIEW.

YOU'RE ON THE RIGHT TRACK. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE STACKING.

BUT FOR WHAT WAS PROPOSED, IT WAS DEEMED MEETING THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT PER TRANSPORTATION. SO I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS IF THERE WERE A GATE TO BE ADDED. BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU PRETTY MUCH HAD IT STRAIGHT.

OK, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? AND IF WHO WANTED TO CHIME IN ON THIS, ANY SPEAKER SIGNED UP.

NOT FOR THIS CASE, SIR.

OK. WE HAVE NOBODY ELSE IN THE PUBLIC.

[00:40:01]

IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO EITHER CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION OR A STRAIGHT UP MOTION.

IS THAT YOU COMMISSIONER EDWARDS RAISING YOUR HAND.

UNMUTE YOURSELF, PLEASE, SIR.

THERE YOU GO. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

I THOUGHT IT WAS UNMUTED. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR MULTIFAMILY'S.

AND SHOULD I GO ON AND MAKE ANOTHER MOTION FOR THE YEAH, WE ARE TYPICALLY HANDLING THOSE SEPARATELY.

OK. FROM LEGAL OTHERWISE WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO IT BECAUSE IT'S ADVERTISED THAT WAY.

OK, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE PER STAFF RECOMMENDATION? AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ROSE.

ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER OTT.

MR. CHAIRMAN WOULD THIS ALSO INCLUDE ALL OF THOSE FRIENDLY ACCOMPANIMENTS THAT WE MENTIONED ABOUT THE LIGHTING AND ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE DID ALL THOSE OTHER ITEMS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. YES, THAT'S A FRIENDLY MOTION TO ADDRESS THE LIGHTING, THE LOCATIONS, THE PD REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BACK GATE AND A LIVE IN MANAGER . DUMPSTER SHRUBS.

YES. OKAY, YES.

IS EVERYBODY CLEAR ON THE MOTION.

CAN YOU PLEASE RESTATE IT, PLEASE.

THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION OF CHANGE IN ZONING FOR MULTIFAMILY, TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR MULTIFAMILY WITH THE INCLUSION THAT THE SHRUBS BEHIND THE DUMPSTER BE ADDRESSED, THAT THEY LOOK AT THE LOCATION OF THE GAZEBO BEHIND THE DUMPSTER, THAT A PD CONDITION SAYING THAT THE BACK DRIVER IS FOR EXIT PURPOSES ONLY AND THAT THERE WILL BE A LIVE IN MANAGER.

AND THAT'S IT. EMERGENCY PURPOSE NOT EXIT.

EMERGENCY PURPOSES.

THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION THERE.

THAT'S EVEN BETTER. ALL RIGHT.

AND THAT APPEARS TO BE UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OUR NEXT ITEM IS KIND OF A CONTINUATION OF THIS CONSIDERATION OF THE

[4.b. Consideration of the application of Masterplan, requesting approval of a Detail Plan for Multi-Family Use. This property is located at 5751 Marvin Loving Drive. (District 3) (File Z 19-31 – Detail Plan)]

APPLICATION OF A MASTER PLAN REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A DETAILED PLAN FOR MULTIFAMILY USE.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT FIVE SEVEN FIVE ONE MARVIN LOVING DRIVE.

WE'VE SEEN THE PRESENTATION ON IT AND I THINK MOST OF YOU KNOW, OUR OPTIONS ARE TO APPROVE.

DID YOU HAVE A SECOND ON THAT LAST MOTION? YES, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER ROSE HAD SECONDED IT AND THEN WE WENT INTO DISCUSSION AND THEN PLANS TO APPROVE OUT RIGHT TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY STATING THE CONDITIONS OF THE DENIAL. AND COMMISSIONER EDWARDS, I THINK YOU WERE HALFWAY THERE TO BEGIN WITH.

YES, YES, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DETAILED PLAN AS PRESENTED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SECOND.

WELL I SAW COMMISSIONER DALTON WITH THE FIRST SECOND THERE, SO MOTION TO APPROVE THE DETAILED PLAN AS MEETS ALL TECHNICAL STANDARDS, ACCORDING TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DALTON.

ANY DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER ROSE? WILL THAT INCLUDE THE CONDITIONS THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT.

THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE ZONING ITSELF? THIS IS STRICTLY PLAN, WHICH IS A SEPARATE ISSUE.

IT'S JUST THE DRAWING.

OK, BUT YEAH THAT ZONING, YOU WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING. YES.

OH, I SEE YOUR POINT, SIR.

SINCE THEY WEREN'T IN THERE, IT HASN'T BEEN DONE YET.

SO TECHNICALLY, COMMISSIONER EDWARDS, WE NEED TO APPROVE IT SUBJECT TO ALL THE CONDITIONS ADDED IN.

OK. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ROSE.

YOU GOT ME ON THAT ONE. THANK YOU.

OK, SO THE MOTION IS TO COMMISSION DALTON. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER EDWARDS, ALL ANY DISCUSSION ALL IN FAVOR.

[00:45:08]

IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. THANK YOU, HAVE A GOOD EVENING.

YOU, TOO. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, ANOTHER ZONING CASE.

[4.c. Consideration of the application of Monk Consulting Engineers, requesting approval of a Planned Development (PD) District to allow a Church or Place of Worship on a property zoned Planned Development (PD) 13-01 for Single Family-7 Uses. This property is located at 2201 East Miller Road and 2214 East Centerville Road. (District 2) (File Z 19-40 - Zoning)]

CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF MONK CONSULTING ENGINEERS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO ALLOW A CHURCH OR PLACE OF WORSHIP ON PROPERTY ZONED PLAN DEVELOPMENT PD THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2201 E MILLER ROAD AND 2214 EAST CENTERVILLE ROAD.

HELLO AGAIN.

HELLO AGAIN. SO THIS IS THE REQUEST AS STATED.

YOUR STATE CASE INFORMATION LOCATION IS AT 2201 EAST MILLER ROAD AND 2214 EAST CENTERVILLE ROAD, THE ACREAGE IS APPROXIMATELY THIRTY EIGHT POINT FOUR ACRES AND EXISTING ZONING IS PD 13-01.

AND HERE IS THE LOCATION MAP, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN THE TEAL BLUE COLOR.

THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH ARE ZONED PD15-19, FOR LIGHT COMMERCIAL USES, AND THERE IS AN EXISTING SELF-STORAGE FACILITY, THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST IS AGRICULTURE AND IT IS UNDEVELOPED. PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH ACROSS EAST MILLER ROAD ARE ZONED PD 14, DASH 11, AND A PORTION OF THAT IS UNDEVELOPED AND THE REMAINING PORTION IS A RANCH.

AND PROPERTIES TO THE WEST, ACROSS EAST CENTERVILLE ROAD ARE ZONED, PD-07-17 AND AGRICULTURE AND THEIR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS HERE.

AND THE EXISTING ZONING PD 13-01, ALLOWS ONLY A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, TYPICALLY A CHURCH USE IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT.

BUT BECAUSE OF THIS CONDITION, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THAT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING.

HERE ARE SOME OF THE PHOTOS, THE TOP LEFT IS VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM EAST MILLER ROAD. THE TOP RIGHT IS SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM EAST MILLER ROAD.

BOTTOM LEFT IS WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE BOTTOM RIGHT IS EAST OF THE SUBJECT LOT 2.

LOT 1 WILL REMAIN UNDEVELOPED AT THIS TIME, BUT THERE WILL BE A DETAILED PLAN REQUIRED PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT.

AND LOT TWO WILL BE DEVELOPED IN TWO PHASES.

PHASE ONE IS FOR THE CHURCH AND PHASE TWO IS FOR THE ATHLETIC FACILITY.

AND THAT WILL REQUIRE A DETAILED PLAN PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT.

AND HERE IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR A LOT TWO PHASE ONE, AND THIS IS THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE CHURCH, WHICH IS A THIRTY EIGHT THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY FOUR SQUARE FEET. THERE WILL BE ACCESS FROM EAST MILLER ROAD AND ALSO EAST CENTERVILLE ROAD.

THERE'S ALSO THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY PARKING SPACES REQUIRED PER THE CALCULATION, AND THE SITE DOES SHOW THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY PARKING SPACES FOR PHASE ONE, WHICH IS FOR THE CHURCH. AND WHEN PHASE TWO IS DEVELOPED, THERE WILL BE MORE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED.

AND HERE IS THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN, WHICH DOES COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING STANDARDS FOR THE GDC.

HERE IS THE NORTH ELEVATION, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT THAT IS ALLOWED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT IS THIRTY FIVE FEET, BUT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO BE 40 FEET AND ONE AND ONE EIGHTH INCH.

FOR BETTER VISIBILITY FROM EAST CENTERVILLE ROAD AND EAST MILLER ROAD.

HERE IS THE EAST ELEVATION.

THE WEST ELEVATION, WHICH IS MORE VISIBLE FROM EAST CENTERVILLE ROAD AND THE GDC STATES THAT WHEN A FACADE IS VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC STREET AND MUST BE ARTICULATED HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICALLY, THEY DO MEET THE VERTICAL ARTICULATION, BUT THEY ARE REQUESTING RELIEF FROM THE HORIZONTAL ARTICULATION.

IT IS FURTHER DISTANCE FROM THE PUBLIC STREET AND WHEN THE WEST PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED,

[00:50:03]

IT WILL ALSO MINIMIZE THE VISIBILITY OF THAT FACADE.

AND HERE IS THE SUMMARY OF THE DEVIATIONS REQUESTED, THE FIRST ONE IS THE BUILDING HEIGHT IN MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS THIRTY FIVE FEET.

THAT'S ALLOWED IN THE GDC PROPOSED IS 40 FEET AND ONE AND ONE EIGHTH INCH.

AND THE DEVIATION IS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT IN ORDER TO FOR THE BUILDING TO BE VISIBLE FROM EAST CENTERVILLE ROAD AND EAST MILLER ROAD.

THE SECOND ONE IS HORIZONTAL ARTICULATION FOR WEST FACADE, THE REQUIRED IS THAT EACH FACADE MUST BE ARTICULATED HORIZONTALLY AND THEY ARE NOT PROPOSING THE HORIZONTAL ARTICULATION. THE WEST FACADE WILL BE LESS VISIBLE FROM EAST CENTERVILLE ROAD WHEN THE ADJACENT PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST AND WE DID SEND OUT ONE WAS OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION AREA AND FOR THE REQUEST, AND WE ONLY RECEIVED ONE RESPONSE. AND THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? SEEING NONE.

COMMISSIONER JENKINS.

I DO. DO WE HAVE A TOPOGRAPHY MAP AVAILABLE? I THINK IF WE HAD SOME WAY TO REFERENCE WHY THEY WERE ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE IN BUILDING HEIGHT AND CONSIDERATION OF THE SURROUNDING LAND, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THAT CONSIDERATION. I KNOW DRIVING ON MILLER ROAD, THERE IS A HUGE HILL AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT, SO I DON'T SEE HOW FIVE FEET AND ONE EIGHTH INCHES WOULD BE TOO BIG OF A VARIANCE GIVEN THE HUGE HILL THAT'S IN FRONT, UNLESS THEY'RE PLANNING ON REMOVING IT IN DEVELOPING THE SITE, NOT FROM THE PRESENTATION DID I GATHER THAT.

SO DO WE HAVE SOME SORT OF WAY TO TELL WHAT THE ELEVATION OF THE LAND IS SURROUNDING THAT AREA? WE DON'T HAVE ONE THAT'S AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT WAS PRESENTED TO ENGINEERING AND THEY DID REVIEW THAT.

I'M NOT SURE IF THE APPLICANT HAS ONE RIGHT NOW, BUT THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO.

CAN'T GET ON.

ALRIGHTY I'LL ASK IF THE APPLICANT'S HERE.

NOW, I IMAGINE HE'S TRYING.

YEAH, I'M TRYING. WELL, WE CAN HEAR YOU.

WE JUST CAN'T SEE YOU. AND I IMAGINE YOU HAVE SOME STUFF YOU WANT TO SHOW US, RIGHT? TRYING CAN YOU HEAR ME, SCOTT? YEAH, I CAN HEAR YOU.

I CAN'T GET ON. ZOOM IS A WONDERFUL THING WHEN IT WORKS.

WELL, THERE WE GO.

WE CAN SEE YOU NOW.

CAN WE TURN OFF THIS VIDEO AGAIN? NO, I'M JUST KIDDING.

WE CAN'T HEAR YOU NOW. YOUR MUTED.

WE CAN SEE YOU BUT NOT HEAR YOU.

THERE YOU GO. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW.

YES HEAR AND SEE YOU. THANK YOU. OK, THAT SITE IS VERY DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP.

THE AREA WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO PUT THE FACILITY IS PROBABLY 15 TO 20 FEET BELOW THE ELEVATIONS OF THE STREET ON EITHER SIDE.

IT IS A VERY BECAUSE ALL OF THAT AREA DRAINS STRAIGHT INTO THE CITY OF DALLAS, DRAINAGE EASEMENTS FOR THE LAKE. SO IT IS ALL FALLING VERY QUICKLY TO THE LAKE.

AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE ONLY DEVELOPING THAT PORTION THAT WE'VE DESCRIBED SO FAR.

JUST BECAUSE THE REST OF IT IS GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT IT'S GONNA BE A LOT OF FILL INVOLVED. IT MAY HAD A LOT OF TREES AS WELL.

SO IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT SITE.

AND THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW, I GUESS WHEN THEY TRIED TO BUILD THE HOUSES THERE, THEY FINALLY FIGURED OUT THAT THAT WASN'T GOING TO WORK BECAUSE IT WAS A VERY DIFFICULT SITE.

IT'S ON AN OLD LANDFILL, WHICH WE'VE DONE ALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND WE'RE CLEAR THERE. BUT IT'S STILL A DIFFICULT SITE.

SO WE'RE PICKING THE PRIME PART OF THE LAND THAT WE CAN GRADE ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO PUT THE CHURCH AND MAKE IT WORK FOR THEM.

AND THE REST OF IT WILL BE A DIFFICULT CHALLENGE IF THEY EVER DECIDE TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT. BUT I CAN'T SEE THAT HAPPENING AT THIS POINT.

I'M SO SORRY, GERALD MONK.

I'M THE ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT TWELVE HUNDRED WEST THANK YOU. DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER.

[00:55:06]

OK, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. MONK? COMMISSIONER OTT.

MR. MONK, THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN AND PRESENTING THIS.

QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU IS ABOUT THE ARTICULATION, THE HORIZONTAL ARTICULATION, THE REQUEST FOR A DEVIATION ON THAT.

IT'S NOT COMMON THAT WE GET A ENTIRE SITE PLAN THAT IS ASKING FOR EVERYTHING TO HAVE NO HORIZONTAL ARTICULATIONS, I SHOULD SAY.

AND COULD YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE REASONING BEHIND THAT? AND PERHAPS WOULD IT BE SOMETHING THAT HOW MUCH OF A HARDSHIP WOULD IT BE TO HAVE THE TWO SIDES FACE THE STREETS BE ARTICULATED? I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

I'M NOT THE ARCHITECT ON IT.

WE'RE JUST THE ENGINEERS. BUT I WILL PASS THAT WORD TO THEM, AND I'M SURE THAT WILL HAPPEN. I MEAN, IF WE NEED TO HAVE HAPPEN THE OTHER TWO SIDES FACE THE LAKE AND THEY FACE THAT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, WHICH IS A MINI STORAGE.

SO IF WE NEED THE FIRST TWO SIDES, I'M SURE THE ARCHITECT WILL MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

WE CAN MAKE THAT WORK.

THAT'S PROBABLY THE ONLY THING THAT REALLY GAVE ME MUCH TROUBLE WITH IT.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO SEE WHETHER THAT WAS SOMETHING.

I THINK PART OF THE ISSUE IS.

YEAH, WELL, I THINK PART OF THE ISSUE IS YOU CAN'T SEE IT FROM THE STREET.

DO YOU HAVE A ROUGH IDEA OF HOW FAR THAT ONE SIDE IS FROM CENTERVILLE? OH, GOSH, WE'RE AT LEAST THREE HUNDRED FEET OFF EACH DIRECTION.

EASY, EASY.

A FULL FOOTBALL FIELD.

SO WE MAY NOT EVEN SEE THE ARTICULATION OF IT'S DOWN, IT DROPPED PROBABLY YEAH, IT PROBABLY DROPS 15 TO 20 FEET FROM EITHER STREET.

SO IT'S A TOUGH ELEVATION.

WE HAD TO GET HIM TO ARTICULATE THE ROOF CAUSE THAT'S ALL WE WILL BE SEEING.

ALL RIGHT. THAT'S A GOOD DEAL SCOTT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. MONK? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING OUT.

TRACY, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? NO SIR WE DO NOT.

SO THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONERS UP TO Y'ALL.

A MOTION DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER DALTON.

CHAIR I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE, AS PRESENTED WITH THE ADDITION OF ARTICULATION, WILL BE REQUIRED ON THE TWO ELEVATIONS FACING CENTERVILLE ROAD AND MILLER ROAD.

THEY WILL BE VERTICAL THE PD WITH ARTICULATION REQUIREMENTS AND COMMISSION ROSE YOU HAVE A COMMENT? WELL, AND TO CLOSE THE HEARING.

OH, NO. YEAH, YES.

TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THANK YOU. NO.

READY. SO WE HAVE MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROVE THE ZONING REQUEST WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE ARTICULATION IS REQUIRED BY THE GDC FOR EACH OF THE ROADS BE INCLUDED. IN MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DALTON AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OTT.

ANY DISCUSSION, SEEING NONE PLEASE VOTE.

THAT APPEARS TO BE UNANIMOUS AGAIN.

THANK YOU. NOW GOING ONTO THE DETAIL.

[4.d. Consideration of the application of Monk Consulting Engineers, requesting approval of a Detail Plan for a Church or Place of Worship Use. This property is located at 2201 East Miller Road and 2214 East Centerville Road. (District 2) (File Z 19-40 – Detail Plan)]

CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION OF MONK CONSULTING ENGINEERS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A DETAILED PLAN FOR CHURCH, A PLACE OF WORSHIP USE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2201 EAST MILLER ROAD AND 2214 EAST OF CENTERVILLE ROAD.

WE HAVE SEEN THE PRESENTATION OF DETAILED PLAN HEAR OUR NEED FOR ANY FURTHER INPUT OR MOTION.

MR. CHAIR.

COMMISSIONER DALTON.

MAKE A MOTION, WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVE AS IT MEETS THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN THE PRIOR APPROVAL CONCERNING ALL RIGHT. AND I SEE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WELBORN, SO WE HAVE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DALTON, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WELBORN TO APPROVE THE DETAILED PLAN AS IT MEETS THE GDC WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT IT MEETS THE ARTICULATION IS CALLED FOR IN THE ZONING THAT WAS PASSED. ANY DISCUSSION.

PLEASE VOTE. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

[01:00:04]

COMMISSIONER DALTON I DIDN'T SEE YOUR THUMB YOU MAY HAVE BEEN COVERING IT I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE VOTING FOR IT. YOU FROZE ON ME.

OK, THERE IT IS, YOUR PICTURE FROZE.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, GUYS.

APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. YOU'RE WELCOME.

NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA, CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION OF NATIONWIDE CONSTRUCTION,

[4.e. Consideration of the application of Nationwide Construction, requesting approval of an Amendment to Planned Development (PD) District 07-42 to add a Church or Place of Worship. This property is located at 1706, 1710, and 1714 Pleasant Valley Road. (District 1) (File Z 20-25 - Zoning)]

REQUESTING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 07-4.

WE GOT THAT PASSED.

AT A CHURCH OR A PLACE OF WORSHIP.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1706, 1710 AND 1714 PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD.

GOOD EVENING. THIS IS THE REQUEST, AS STATED.

THIS IS THE CASE INFORMATION, THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 1706, 1710 AND 1749 PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD, THE ACREAGE IS APPROXIMATELY THREE ACRES.

THIS IS THE LOCATION MAP, THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 9453 AND IS FOR RETAIL, RESTAURANTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES AND THE SITE IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED.

THE PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH AND EAST, ARE ZONED SINGLE FAMILY.

AND THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST IS ON AGRICULTURE AND WAS RECENTLY APPROVED FOR A GUEST HOUSE AND ALSO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND FURTHER TO THE WEST IS ON PLAN DEVELOPMENT ZERO ZERO FIFTY TWO AND IS DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY ON DETACHED HOMES.

AND THIS IS THE OUTLINE OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN IN TEAL.

THESE ARE PHOTOS OF THE AREA.

THIS IS THE PROPOSED SUBJECT AREA.

ACROSS THE STREET IS THE UNDEVELOPED LOT FOR PD 9453.

TO THE EAST AND THE WEST IS THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING.

THEY ARE PROPOSING A 10000 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH BUILDING AND THE APPLICANT IS MEETING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PROPOSAL.

DUE TO THE LOCATION NEAR THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, IT IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A SCREENING WALL BETWEEN THE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS.

SO THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING A SIX FOOT MASONRY WALL ALONG THE EASTERN PART OF THE PROPERTY. AND THEY WILL ALSO KEEP THE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE ALONG THIS PROPERTY LINE, WHICH WRAPS AROUND THE WESTERN PART OF THE SITE.

THE APPLICANT IS MEETING THE GDC REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDSCAPING.

THEY ARE PROVIDING PERIMETER SITE LANDSCAPING FOR THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A FEW DEVIATIONS, SO THE APPLICANT IS MEETING THE SIX ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS FOR THE EAST AND ALSO THE NORTH ELEVATION.

THIS IS THE NORTH ELEVATION, WHICH FACES PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD.

AND THIS IS THE EAST ELEVATION, THEY ARE PROVIDING SIX ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS HOWEVER THEY ARE REQUESTING A DEVIATION FOR THE SIX ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS NOT TO BE INCLUDED ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION.

AND ALSO THE WEST ELEVATION.

HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS SUCH AS DIVIDED LIGHT WINDOWS BENCHES AND AWNINGS.

THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT IS 24 FEET TO THE HIGHEST DECORATIVE FEATURE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE DISTRICT REQUIRES A MAXIMUM OF 20 FEET TO THE HIGHEST DECORATIVE

[01:05:02]

FEATURE AS PER THE GDC.

HOWEVER, THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HAS A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF ONE STORY, AND THE PROPOSED CHURCH BUILDING IS ONE STORY.

A PD CONDITION IS DRAFTED LISTING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO 24 FEET TO THE HIGHEST DECORATIVE FEATURE. THESE ARE THE DEVIATIONS THAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER IN REGARDS TO THE HEIGHT THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 24 FEET AND THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT, THE APPLICANT IS ONLY PROVIDING SIX ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS ON THE FRONT FACADE, WHICH IS THE NORTH AND ALSO THE EAST FACADE.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF ONE, AN AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 0742 TO ADD A CHURCH OR A PLACE OF WORSHIP AND TWO A DETAILED PLAN FOR A CHURCH OR PLACE OF WORSHIP ON A PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 0742.

WE RECEIVED SIX NOTIFICATIONS THAT ARE FOR INSIDE THE NOTIFICATION AREA, TWO THAT ARE FOR OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION AREA AND THE TOTAL RESPONSES WE RECEIVED NINE.

AND THAT'S THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COMMISSIONER OTT. KIMBERLY, I THINK YOU MENTIONED IT, I JUST ZONED OUT, BUT WHAT IS THE HEIGHT OF THE SCREENING WALL THAT THEY'RE BEING REQUIRED? WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THAT WE RECENTLY APPROVED A HOME THAT'S GOING TO BE RIGHT NEXT TO THIS. HOW HIGH IS THE SCREENING WALL GOING TO BE? THE SCREENING WALL WILL BE SIX FEET.

SIX FEET OKAY.

AND LIGHTING ON THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT KIND OF LIGHTING THEY'RE PROPOSING? THE APPLICANT DIDN'T STATE WHAT TYPE OF LIGHTING THEY'RE PROPOSING.

OK I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT.

THANK YOU. MAY ASK.

I'M SORRY TO JUMP IN HERE.

MAY I ASK. COMMISSIONER JENKINS GO AHEAD.

FOR CLARIFICATION ON COMMISSIONER OTT'S QUESTION.

THE IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ON THE WEST SIDE WE WERE LOOKING AT A CHAIN LINK FENCE THAT WRAPPED AROUND FROM THE BACK END AND ON THE EAST SIDE WHERE THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WHERE WE WERE LOOKING AT THE SIX FOOT CONSTRUCTION.

IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. OK, SO THE BUFFER THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES IS JUST A CHAIN LINK FENCE, CORRECT? THANK YOU. MR. CHAIRMAN. PERHAPS I CAN PROVIDE A LITTLE GO A LITTLE BIT EXTRA, PROVIDE MORE CLARIFICATION. SO.

YES, SIR, THAT IS CORRECT.

THE SCREENING WALL IS REALLY ON THE EAST SIDE AGAINST THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

THE GDC IS NOT REALLY EXPLICIT ON THE WEST PROPERTY, WHICH IS ACTUALLY ZONED AG ON THE GDC REFERENCE IS SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED BOUNDARIES.

SO IT'S NOT REALLY EXPLICIT WHETHER THAT APPLIES TO AG.

THE APPLICANT MAY BE ABLE TO SPEAK MORE TO THIS, BUT I BELIEVE THE PROPERTY OVER TO THE WEST AND THE APPLICANT HAVE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS ON A FENCE THAT THE NEIGHBOR ON THE WEST MAY BE PROVIDING VOLUNTARILY, OF COURSE, IT'S NOT REALLY A CITY REQUIREMENT, BUT THEY HAVE SOME SORT OF CIVIL THEY'VE HAD SOME CIVIL DISCUSSIONS.

AND I THINK FURTHERMORE, KIMBERLY, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK THE CHAIN LINK FENCE THAT SHE MAY BE ABLE IF YOU LIKE SHARE A SCREEN AND SHOW THE CHAIN LINK.

IT GOES UP ONLY TO A CERTAIN POINT ALONG THE WEST, THEN KIND OF ZIGZAGS OVER IT KIND OF WRAPS AROUND THE SOUTH PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND COMES UP TO THE WEST.

BUT I BELIEVE IT STOPS A LITTLE SHORT.

IS THAT RIGHT? IT'S GOING TO BE KIND OF HARD TO SEE.

YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

THE CHAIN LINK STARTS FROM RIGHT HERE AND IT WRAPS AROUND THE PROPERTY.

IT COMES UP AND IT STOPS RIGHT HERE.

AND THIS CHAIN LINK IS ON THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.

WE CAN'T SEE WHERE YOU'RE POINTING WITH YOUR ARROW.

OH, I'M SORRY.

CAN YOU SEE MY ARROW NOW? NO, I CAN'T.

I CAN'T. NO.

YOU CAN?. NO, NO.

IT SEEMS TO BE FADED.

[01:10:01]

WELL THAT'S JUST A SLIDE.

OH, SO I THINK IT'S BEST YOU CAN DO.

OK. SO MR. THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A WALL BETWEEN THAT USE AND SINGLE FAMILY ZONING OR SINGLE FAMILY USE? I BELIEVE IT SAYS ZONING, SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED ZONING BOUNDARIES.

WELL, WITH THE ZONING IN PLACE THAT JUST WENT IN FOR THE GUEST HOUSE AND A HOUSE DOES THAT NOT CONSTITUTE ZONING OR WAS THAT JUST A VARIANCE OR.

YOU SEE WHAT I'M GETTING AT? YES, SIR. YEAH, IT WAS AN SUP THAT THE ZONING IS STILL AG, BUT AN SUP WAS GRANTED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE GUEST HOUSE ON THE REAR OF THAT PROPERTY.

SO THERE IS A ZONING AND MR. SO THERE IS A ZONING INSTRUMENT AN SUP SPECIAL USE PROVISION CREATING A RESIDENTIAL USE THERE, A GUEST HOUSE.

SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING Y'ALL ARE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK OUT AND ANALYZE AS TO WHETHER A WALL IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE REQUIRED ON THAT SITE, TOO, BECAUSE THERE'S NOW.

AGAIN, A ZONING LEGISLATION RESIDENTIAL ZONING.

SO I CAN'T ANSWER THAT BECAUSE LIKE I TOLD YOU BEFORE, I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY OR NOR DO I PLAY ONE ON TV, SO.

WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK INTO THAT AND WHEN IT'S TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK, THEY MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION ON THE CONVERSATIONS I BELIEVE THEY ALLUDED TO KIM ABOUT THAT NEIGHBOR, THAT THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF PLAN FOR A FENCE, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECT. CAUSE, COMMISSIONER JENKINS BROUGHT UP A GOOD POINT THERE.

AND AGAIN, YOU AND I HAVE A DISAGREEMENT ON THE ARTICULATION REQUIREMENTS, WE CAN HOLD THAT FOR ANOTHER DAY THAT SHOULD ONLY BE REQUIRED ON THE FRONT, THE WAY IT'S WORDED AGAIN, I THINK WE NEED SOME LEGAL LOOKING AT THE WORDING ON THAT TOO.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF.

OH, I DO HAVE ONE, AND MAYBE THE APPLICANT CAN ASK IS I NOTICED THEY'RE ASKING FOR ZONING ON THE FULL LAND AND YET IT'S BROKEN DOWN INTO LOT 1 AND LOT 2.

AND I SEE THERE'S MUTUAL ACCESS EASEMENT BUT IN ESSENCE, IT'S A LANDLOCKED PIECE OF LAND LOCKED TOO. HAVE THEY GIVEN ANY INDICATION AS TO WHAT THEY MIGHT BE USED FOR.

I BELIEVE IT'S FOR.

SO I GUESS THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

AND WE'LL LET HIM OR HER ADDRESS THAT.

AND ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

ALL RIGHT, TRACY, IF WE CAN BRING THE APPLICANT ON.

THE APPLICANT AND OWNER IS HERE.

HELLO, THIS IS GINA MCCLAIN.

I'M REPRESENTING NATIONWIDE CONSTRUCTION AN THE CHURCH FOR THIS PROJECT WE ARE AT 721 S FIFTH AVENUE IN MANSFIELD.

AND YOU'RE CORRECT, WE ARE LOOKING AT REPLATTING THAT PROPERTY INTO TWO LOTS IN THE FUTURE OR AS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, WE HAVE NOT SUBMITTED THAT YET BASED ON WAITING ON APPROVAL OF THE ACTUAL PROJECT.

PART OF IT IS FOR RELIEF FROM HAVING THE APPLICANT BUILD THAT WALL AROUND THE WHOLE PROPERTY AT THIS TIME FINANCIALLY THAT WOULD END THEIR PROJECT.

SO THAT IS ONE REASON WE ARE REPLATTING IT AND GIVING HIM THAT ACCESS TO THE BACK SO AS NOT TO LIMIT WHAT THEY COULD DO WITH IT IN THE FUTURE, AS WELL AS GIVING THE ACCESS EASEMENT AS PART OF THAT REPLATTING IN THE FUTURE.

AS FAR AS THE WALL GOES ON THE WEST SIDE WHERE Y'ALL HAVE RECENTLY DID THE SUP, WE HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE OWNER.

THIS USED TO BE THREE LONG LOTS, AS WAS PREVIOUSLY SHOWN.

THE LOT ADJACENT TO THAT AG PROPERTY DOES HAVE AN ACCESS EASEMENT DATING BACK TO 1969 BECAUSE IT WAS LANDLOCKED.

PART OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THIS OTHER OWNER WAS THAT WE WILL NOT ASK FOR ACCESS TO HIS DRIVEWAY AS RELIEF FOR HIM HELPING BUILD A FENCE IF HE DOES NOT WANT TO SEE OUR CHURCH ADJACENT TO HIS NEW GUEST HOUSE IS THE DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD DIRECTLY WITH HIM.

AND I DIDN'T CATCH DID YOU GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? YES, IT'S GINA MCCLAIN, NATIONWIDE CONSTRUCTION AT SEVEN TWENTY ONE S FIFTH AVENUE,

[01:15:02]

MANSFIELD, TEXAS.

OK, THANK YOU. YOU BET.

AND ANY OTHER INPUT FOR US OR.

I STARTED TO SAY, OTHER THAN AS FAR AS THE RELIEF WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU.

WE DID MAKE ALL THE ELEMENTS FACING THE STREET AND THE ARTICULATIONS AND STUFF NOTED THERE. WE DID INCLUDE THREE TO FOUR ITEMS ON THE OTHER TWO SIDES THAT WE DO NOT HAVE SIX.

BUT BASED ON HOW THE CODE READ, WE TOOK IT THAT THE PRIMARY ELEVATION WHICH FACED THE STREET WOULD BE WHERE THOSE SIX ELEMENTS WERE REQUIRED.

ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? THERE WAS ONE.

OH GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER OTT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. GINA, THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN AND PRESENTING THIS TO US.

ONE OF THE THINGS I'M LOOKING AT THE WEST SIDE OF THE CHURCH, AND IT'S FAIRLY CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE FROM WHAT I SEE, THE CHAIN LINK FENCE, THAT'S GOING TO BE THERE.

TALK TO US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE LIGHTING THAT YOU EXPECT FOR THIS PROJECT IF IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE CHAIN LINK UNLESS HE DECIDES TO PUT UP A WOODEN FENCE TO SHIELD HIMSELF FROM IT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT A BURDEN ON HIM, THAT HE'S IMMEDIATELY GOING TO HAVE LIGHTING THAT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT HE DOESN'T LIKE.

AT THIS TIME, WE ARE ONLY PROVIDING THE LIGHTING, PARKING LOT THAT'S REQUIRED BY CODE, WE HAVE SOME WALL PACKS ALONG THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND STUFF JUST FOR SECURITY REASONS.

BUT AGAIN, WE WILL PRACTICE DARK SKY REQUIREMENTS ON THIS PROPERTY TO NOT INTRUDE ON HIS SPACE AS WELL AS THE TREES AND STUFF THAT WILL BE PLANTED IN SHRUBS AND LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS ON THAT BORDER BETWEEN US AND HIM AS WELL TO TRY TO MITIGATE ANY LIGHT INTRUSION ON HIS PROPERTY.

OK, AND IT'S SHOWING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A TRIO OF BENCHES ON THAT ONE ON THE WEST SIDE ALSO THAT ARE FAIRLY CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

WILL THE SHRUBS AND THE LANDSCAPING THAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING BE BETWEEN THE BENCHES? AND I'M ASSUMING THIS AND THERE WILL BE SOME SORT OF A BUFFER SO THAT IF PEOPLE ARE CONGREGATING AND BEING LOUD, THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME SORT OF A NOISE RELIEF FOR HIM ALSO. IF I DO NOT SHOW ANY, I WILL DEFINITELY GET SOME BUSHES ADDED IN BETWEEN THE TWO OF US PER Y'ALLS RECOMMENDATION.

THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM.

WE DID THE BENCHES AS PART OF THE ELEMENTS THAT THE GDC REQUIRES FOR THE SIX ELEMENTS ON THE SIDES OF YOUR BUILDING.

AND THAT'S ONE REASON WE HAVE THE BENCHES AT THAT LOCATION.

NO, I LIKE THE ELEMENT IT'S NICE TO HAVE OPTIONS LIKE THAT, BUT AND IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A STANDARD SIDEWALK THAT'S IN FAIRLY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THOSE BENCHES.

THEY MAKE SENSE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GIVE HIM AS MUCH RELIEF AS POSSIBLE TO NOT MAKE HIM HAVE TO BUILD A FENCE IMMEDIATELY.

RIGHT AND THE SIDEWALKS, PRIMARILY FOR EXITING REQUIREMENTS TO GET PEOPLE OUT OF THE BUILDING IN CASE THERE WAS A FIRE OR SOMETHING.

SO THAT'S THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THAT SIDEWALK, NOT NECESSARILY DAILY ACCESS.

IT'S AN EMERGENCY EXIT FOR US.

SURE. BUT IT LEADS TO THE MAIN PATHWAY UP IN THE FRONT.

CORRECT. THAT'S RIGHT.

THAT'S GOOD. OK, THANK YOU.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW. YOU BET.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT.

YOU COVERED THE ONE I WAS GOING TO MENTION ABOUT LIGHTING THANK YOU.

SEEING NONE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING OUT.

TRACY, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? I BELIEVE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WANTED TO SPEAK.

OK, IF HE'S AVAILABLE, HE DID PUT THREE OR FOUR QUESTIONS IN WHICH HAVE BEEN WELL, ACTUALLY, ONE QUESTION THAT WAS ADDRESSED ABOUT THE CONSIDERATION OF THE TYPES OF EXTERIOR LIGHTING IN THE PARKING LIGHTING.

AND HE SAID THAT CHAIN LINK FENCE IS EXISTING AND ON HIS PROPERTY RIGHT NOW.

AND ONE NOTE ON THE CHAIN LINK FENCE, IT DOES START AT THE BACK OF OUR BUILDING, ONCE YOUR PAST THE DRIVEWAY AND STUFF WE ARE BLOCKING, PUTTING THE FULL HEIGHT SIX FOOT UP ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING ALL THE WAY TO THE REAR OF THE BUILDING.

SO THE CHAIN LINK FENCE WILL NOT BE ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING.

THE FULL BUILDING ON THAT SIDE WILL BE BLOCKED BY THE NEW WALL AND LANDSCAPING.

I WILL ASK.

I AM THE OWNER ON 1620 PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD, BOB

[01:20:03]

THE TWO HOUSES TO THE WEST OF WHERE THE CHURCH IS GOING.

SO I THINK I CAN ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT EVERYONE WAS TALKING ABOUT.

THE FENCE THAT'S IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THAT ONLY COMES UP PARTIALLY ALONG OUR PROPERTY LINE, THAT'S ACTUALLY MY FENCE.

THAT FENCING IN MY STORAGE BUILDING.

THAT IS IN THAT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE DRAWING.

SO THAT IS MY PIECE OF FENCE THAT IS RIGHT THERE.

WE ARE PLANNING ON GOING FROM THAT FENCE UP TO PLEASANT VALLEY WITH A SPLIT RAIL TYPE FARM FENCE. WE ARE AGRICULTURAL.

WE WANT TO KEEP THAT FIELD.

MY CONCERN WAS EXACTLY WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS SAID BEFORE ABOUT LIGHTING.

MY BIGGEST CONCERN WAS THE PARKING LOT LIGHTING THAT'S UP BY PLEASANT VALLEY.

AS LONG AS THAT WE USE FIXTURES THAT ARE DESIGNED FOR DARK SKY, WE SHOULD BE HAVING A LIGHT FACING DOWN, NOT OUTWARD.

SO I SHOULDN'T GET TOO MUCH SPILLOVER.

BUT THAT WAS A CONCERN FOR ME AS WELL AS ANY PACK LIGHTING THAT MAY BE ON THE WEST SIDE BY THE EMERGENCY EXIT DOOR THAT SEEMS TO BE ON THE WEST SIDE.

SO THAT WAS MY ONLY CONCERN WITH LIGHTING.

AS FOR THE FENCE, WE DID AGREE THAT WE WOULD BE PUTTING UP A SPLIT RAIL FENCE OR OTHER TYPE OF FENCE ALONG THERE EVENTUALLY.

SO I WAS OK WITH THAT.

GOOD. WE LOVE IT WHEN DEVELOPERS AND NEIGHBORS WORK IT OUT BEFORE IT GETS TO US.

THANK YOU. IT HAPPENS SOMETIMES.

BUT YES, THAT WAS MY ONLY CONCERN, WAS THE LIGHTING TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS IN PLACE AND TO MAKE SURE THAT I NOTICED HERE IN THE WEST SIDE OF THEIR DRIVEWAY, WHICH IS MORE OF THE TURNAROUND DRIVEWAY, THAT YOU DID HAVE COMMERCIAL STOPS IN THE DRIVEWAY SO THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE AN ACCIDENT BY A CAR OVERRUNNING AND COMING IN TO OUR YARD.

SO THAT WAS MY ONLY OTHER REQUEST.

AND I SEE IT WAS COVERED HERE BY COMMERCIAL CAR STOPS.

OK, THANK YOU. AND JUST IF IT WASN'T CLEAR ON THE RECORDING IF THIS IS BOB FISHBAIN.

RIGHT. AND HE GAVE HIS ADDRESS.

ALL RIGHT, I HAVE A QUESTION OF STAFF.

AND IN THE GDC, IS IT REQUIRED THAT PARKING LOTS HAVE POLE LIGHTING OR WOULD HE BE ABLE TO DO KIND OF A MODIFIED PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING CHURCH, WHICH IS LOW AND TO THE GROUND? I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE THAT ANSWER RIGHT ON HAND, BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE A REASONABLE IF THAT'S SOMETHING THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO DO, MAY BE A REASONABLE PD CONDITION.

AS FAR AS LOWER LIGHT, THE HEIGHT OF THE LIGHT STRUCTURES, IN OTHER WORDS.

YOU KNOW, ALMOST WALKWAY LIGHTING ALL AROUND THERE WOULD PROVIDE SOME ILLUMINATION, BUT IT WOULDN'T BE UP IN THE SKY WHERE IT COULD BLEED OUT OVER, I'M THINKING OF THE NEIGHBORS ON BOTH SIDES. I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

I COULD DEFINITELY SPEAK WITH MY ENGINEERS AND DESIGN SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE MORE NEIGHBOR FRIENDLY. YEAH, THAT WOULD BE GOOD.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS AND THE NEIGHBOR WOULD BE LOOKING FOR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? SEEING NONE. CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

SIR. YES, WE HAVE OTHER CITIZENS THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.

OH THE ONE TIME I DON'T ASK THEY'RE HERE, OK? YEAH, BRING THEM ON. LOVE TO HAVE THEM.

OK, WE HAVE A AND FORGIVE ME IF I MISPRONOUNCE THIS RINA MAHO.

THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.

GO AHEAD AND UNMUTE YOURSELF AND BRING YOUR CAMERA ON IF YOU WISH.

AND NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.

SHE'S TRYING I'M CERTAIN.

THEY STILL SEEM TO BE THERE, TRACY.

THEY ARE THERE, SIR.

I CAN TAKE THEM BACK OUT AND WE'LL BRING THEM BACK IN IF THEY WISH TO SPEAK.

I DON'T SEE THEM HERE.

WELL, IS THERE ANOTHER SPEAKER WHILE MAYBE THEY'RE TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT.

OH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M SEEING IN THE Q&A, SAYS, NO, RINA DOES NOT WANT TO SPEAK.

[01:25:05]

SHE WAS VIEWING THE MEETING.

OH OKAY.

YES, SIR. GOT ALL THESE SCREENS GOING, AND I'M DOING ALL RIGHT.

AND THAT CONCLUDES THE SPEAKERS FOR THIS CASE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT GENTLEMEN.

MOTION DISCUSSION. THIS IS IN DISTRICT ONE AND I'M GOING TO GET MOTIONS IN DISTRICT 1.

COMMISSIONER OTT. MR. CHAIRMAN, THEN I WILL PROUDLY MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND THAT WE PASS THIS AS PRESENTED, BUT WITH THE MODIFICATIONS THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, ABOUT THE SHRUB'S ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE BENCHES TO THE WEST, ABOUT THE LIGHTING MODIFICATIONS AND THAT AND I BELIEVE THAT'S IT.

I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGES WE HAD.

ALRIGHTY. AND I SEE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DALTON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OTT AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DALTON TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THERE BE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS BY THE BENCHES AND THAT THEY LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITY OF A LOW LIGHTING AND NOT LOW LEVEL, BUT THE HEIGHT OF THE LIGHTING IS LOW TO PROTECT NEIGHBORS.

ANY DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION? SEEING NONE ALL IN FAVOR.

IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM IS THE DETAILED PLAN CONCERNING

[4.f. Consideration of the application of Nationwide Construction, requesting approval of a Detail Plan for a Church or Place of Worship. This property is located at 1706, 1710, and 1714 Pleasant Valley Road. (District 1) (File Z 20-25 – Detail Plan)]

CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION OF NATIONWIDE CONSTRUCTION, REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A DETAILED PLAN FOR A CHURCH OR PLACE OF WORSHIP.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1706, 1710 AND 1714 PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD.

WE'VE HEARD THE PRESENTATION, WHICH INCLUDED INFORMATION ON THE DETAIL PLAN.

COMMISSIONER OTT. MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS AND ALSO RECOMMEND THAT WE PASS THIS WITH CONDITIONS, THE TWO CONDITIONS.

ALL RIGHT. AND I SAW A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WELBORN MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OTT SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WELBORN TO APPROVE THE DETAILED PLAN WITH THE CONDITIONS OF LANDSCAPING BY THE BENCHES OF THE WEST SIDE.

AND THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS STATED.

SEEING NO DISCUSSION PLEASE VOTE.

UNANIMOUS AGAIN. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. YOU'RE VERY WELCOME.

NEXT ITEM IS CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION OF SPIARS ENGINEERING, REQUESTING THE

[4.g. Consideration of the application of Spiars Engineering, requesting approval of a Change in Zoning from Community Retail (CR) District to a Planned Development (PD) District for Community Retail Uses, to allow deviations for the existing nonconforming Pylon Sign. This property is located at 3414 Broadway Boulevard. (District 3) (File Z 20-30 - Zoning)]

APPROVAL OF A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT TO A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR COMMUNITY RETAIL USES TO ALLOW DEVIATIONS FOR AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING PYLON SIGN. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 3414 BROADWAY BOULEVARD.

HELLO AGAIN. SO HERE'S THE REQUEST AS STATED AND THIS IS THE CASE INFORMATION THAT'S LOCATED AT 3414 BROADWAY BOULEVARD AND THE ACREAGE IS APPROXIMATELY TWO POINT NINE SIX FOUR ACRES.

AND THE EXISTING ZONING IS COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT.

HERE IS THE LOCATION MAP.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN THE TEAL BLUE COLOR AND THE AREA OF REQUEST IS THE NAVY BLUE COLOR.

AND SURROUNDING A DEVELOPMENT IS MAINLY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL.

HERE ARE SOME OF THE SITE PHOTOS, THE TOP LEFT IS VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM BROADWAY BOULEVARD.

THE TOP RIGHT IS SOUTHWEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM BROADWAY BOULEVARD.

THE BOTTOM LEFT IS NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM COLONEL DRIVE, AND THE BOTTOM RIGHT IS EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM COLONEL DRIVE.

AND HERE IS THE EXISTING SITE PLAN.

THIS IS THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE PYLON SIGN AND IT IS A NON CONFORMING SIGN AND IN ORDER TO MODIFY THE SIGN, IT MUST CONFORM WITH ALL THE GDC PYLON SIGN STANDARDS.

AND THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT IS THE WAY TO TO ALLOW THAT.

THE APPLICANT WANTS TO INCREASE THE SIGN AREA FROM THREE HUNDRED FOURTEEN SQUARE FEET TO THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR SQUARE FEET TO ADD A PANEL FOR THE SCOOTERS COFFEE SHOP, WHICH IS LOCATED OVER HERE.

AND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WILL ALSO ALLOW THE HEIGHT, WHICH IS NON CONFORMING TO BE LEGALLY ESTABLISHED.

THE EXISTING HEIGHT IS THIRTY NINE FEET AND THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED IN THE GDC IS TWENTY TWO

[01:30:05]

FEET. AND IT DOES CONFORM WITH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

AND HERE IS THE ELEVATION, THIS RIGHT HERE IS THE EXISTING SIGN, AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED WITH THE PANEL FOR THE SCOOTER'S COFFEE SHOP.

THE GDC ALSO STATES THAT A PYLON SIGN MUST BE ARCHITECTURALLY COMPATIBLE AND ALL THE SUPPORT POLES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF MASONRY MATERIAL.

THE APPLICANT WILL PAINT THE STRUCTURE AND IMPROVE THE CONDITIONS OF THE SIGN, BUT DOES NOT INTEND TO RECONSTRUCT WITH MASONRY MATERIALS AT THIS TIME.

AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST, AND WE DID MAIL OUT FORTY SEVEN NOTIFICATION LETTERS AND ONE WAS OUTSIDE OF THE NOTIFICATION AREA AND FOR THE REQUEST AND WE RECEIVED A TOTAL OF ONE RESPONSE AND THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF.

SEEING NONE. DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT? YEAH, THE APPLICANT IS HERE SIR.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT, LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET THIS VIDEO TO WORK.

PERFECT. HOW ARE YOU ALL DOING TONIGHT? OH, PRETTY GOOD. THANK YOU.

GOOD. WELL, THANK YOU ALL FOR HAVING ME.

MY NAME IS MARK SEVEN SIX FIVE CUSTER ROAD SUITE ONE HUNDRED IN PLANO, TEXAS, THE ZIP CODE OF SEVEN FIVE ZERO SIX NINE. WE ARE REQUESTING YOUR CONSIDERATION OF OUR PD APPLICATION.

I THINK NABIHA DID A GREAT JOB AT SUMMING UP WHAT WE WANT TO DO, BUT I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU ALL MAY HAVE.

ANY QUESTIONS? OK, I DO HAVE ONE IN PARTICULAR, I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE APPLICATION FOR THE BUILDING BACK IN OCTOBER, I BELIEVE IT WAS.

AND WHAT'S INTERESTING TO ME IS THIS PYLON SIGN IS VIRTUALLY RIGHT UP NEXT TO YOUR BUILDING. SO THE SIGN ITSELF IS GOING TO BRING ATTENTION TO YOUR BUILDING.

AND THE SIGN YOU'RE THE BANNER YOU'RE PLANNING ON PUTTING THERE ACTUALLY OBSTRUCTS YOUR BUILDING AS YOU'RE COMING FROM NORTHWEST DOWN BROADWAY BOULEVARD.

WITH THAT PANEL RIGHT THERE, IT'S AT THE 15 FOOT LEVEL, THE TOP YOUR BUILDING WHERE YOUR SIGNAGE IS, IS ALSO AT THE 15 FOOT LEVEL.

AND SO PEOPLE WILL BE LOOKING AT THE SIGN WILL BE BEYOND BEFORE THEY EVEN SEE YOUR BUILDING BEING THERE.

SO I'M NOT CERTAIN IF YOU'RE ACTUALLY GAINING ANYTHING FROM THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT IS AN EXCELLENT POINT THAT WE HAVEN'T REALLY THOUGHT OF.

I KNOW THAT A LOT OF OUR NEW SCOOTER SITES MOVING FORWARD WE'RE THE CIVIL ENGINEER FOR SCOOTERS, A LOT OF THE NEW SCOOTERS THAT'S MOVING FORWARD, CORPORATE IS PUTTING MORE REQUIREMENTS ON HAVING SIGNAGE NECESSARY WHENEVER FRANCHISEES DEVELOP SCOOTERS.

SO IT MIGHT BE SORT OF A CORPORATE DIRECTION FOR THEM.

THAT IS AN EXCELLENT POINT.

I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW.

MY MIND WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS, BUT, IT CAUGHT MY EYE.

YEAH, THAT'S AN EXCELLENT POINT.

I'M HONESTLY SURPRISED THAT THE OWNER HADN'T ACTUALLY BROUGHT UP THAT, BUT I DO KNOW THAT THEY'RE WANTING AS MUCH SIGNAGE AS POSSIBLE, WHETHER I WOULD HOPE IT WOULD ADD MORE FROM MULTIPLE DIRECTIONS.

BUT ULTIMATELY, THAT'S UP TO THE APPLICANT.

GREAT QUESTION, THOUGH. AND I ALSO LOOKED AT, AGAIN, THE APPLICATION FROM LAST OCTOBER AND THEIR SIGNAGE ON EACH OF THE SIDES OF THE BUILDING, AGAIN, AT THE SAME LEVEL AS THE SIGN COULD BE A SMALLER SIGN, QUITE FRANKLY, ON THE FRONT.

BUT THE SIDE SIGN.

SO IF YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN BROADWAY EACH WAY AND WHERE YOU HAD THAT BIG PYLON SIGN THAT'LL BRING YOUR EYE TO THEIR BUILDING, THEY'VE GOT SIGNAGE ON THERE ANYHOW SO I'M NOT SEEING THE ACTUAL PURPOSE.

AND I THINK PART OF IT WAS HE'S I MEAN, AS MUCH SIGNAGE AS THEY CAN GET.

BUT I KNOW THE LANDLORD TO SWEETEN THE POT IS THE FRANCHISEE FOR SCOOTERS WITH ADDING THE SIGN WAS GOING TO GO AND SPRUCE THE SIGN UP ANYWAYS.

THAT WAY, WHENEVER PEOPLE ARE DRIVING BY, THEY DON'T JUST SEE, I MEAN, THE SIGN IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD DETER SOME PEOPLE.

IT DEPENDS ON HOW BADLY THEY WANT THEIR COFFEE.

BUT I DO KNOW THAT WAS PART OF THE MOTIVATION FOR HIM.

IT WAS TWO BIRDS IN A SENSE.

AND THIS IS MORE FOR COMMISSIONERS' AND BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF OUT OF YOUR CONTROL.

AND I'LL ASK MR. HINES TO LISTEN IN TO WHAT I'M SAYING, TO MAKE SURE I'M GETTING IT RIGHT.

BUT RECENTLY, THE 5TH CIRCUIT COURT IN A LAWSUIT INVOLVING AUSTIN RULED THAT IF YOU HAVE

[01:35:09]

TO LOOK AT A SIGN TO REGULATE IT, IN OTHER WORDS, THAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT'S WRITTEN ON THE SIGN TO REGULATE IT.

YOU CAN'T. AND SO WE HAVE A PROVISION ABOUT ON SITE, OFF SITE SIGNAGE.

SO IF YOU HAVE A SIGN IT'S ADVERTISING SOMETHING OFF SITE, YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

THIS CIRCUIT COURT REVERSED OUR ABILITY TO RULE THAT, AND THERE'S GOING TO BE A CHANGE COMING TO US ON THE GDC TO REFLECT THAT.

NOW, STEMMING FROM THAT, IF WE APPROVE THIS, THIS EXISTING NONCONFORMING PYLON SIGN BECOMES A CONFORMING SIGN.

WITH AN AREA OF THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR FEET.

AND THE COUNCIL RECENTLY ADDRESSED SOMETHING LIKE THIS THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM IN THE FUTURE TO CONVERT THAT SIGN TO AN ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD SIGN THEY'D BE ABLE TO SELL ADVERTISING ON IT. AND SO I'VE GOT A CONCERN ABOUT THAT.

THESE ARE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE WORKED OUT AND I'M PERSONALLY NOT WILLING TO CREATE A LEGAL CONFORMING POTENTIAL BILLBOARD SIGN OF 364 FEET.

AGAIN, IT'S NOT THE APPLICANTS FAULT, AND THE LANDOWNER MAY NEVER PLAN ON DOING THAT.

BUT WE CAN'T CONTROL WHAT THE NEXT LANDOWNER DOES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

THAT'S AN ISSUE I WANT TO BRING UP AND MR. HINES DID I GET THAT PRETTY MUCH RIGHT IN GENERAL.

YOU GOT DEFINITELY THE FIRST PART RIGHT.

ESSENTIALLY WITH ANY SIGN, IF YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CONTENT THAT YOU CAN'T YOU CAN'T SAY I LIKE THIS SIGN BECAUSE IT'S FOR KROGER'S, BUT I DON'T WANT THE TATTOO SIGN HERE.

YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT.

I'M LOOKING AT THE PORTION ABOUT BEING ABLE TO CONVERT IT LATER TO A PROGRAMABLE ELECTRONIC SIGN, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE GDC AND I'M FRANKLY RIGHT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

DO THAT. YEAH, WELL, THEY'D HAVE TO COME AND THIS IS BEYOND ME.

AGAIN, THIS IS LEGAL STUFF.

AND AGAIN, IT'S INTERPRETATION.

THE PD WOULD PUT TWO REQUIREMENTS ON A SIGN MAXIMUM HEIGHT MAXIMUM AREA.

DOESN'T TALK ABOUT CONFIGURATION OF THE SIGN.

AND BY THE GDC, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO REFACE THE SIGN.

SO THOSE ARE SOME ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE WORKED OUT THAT I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH CREATING THE POSSIBLE CONDITION RIGHT NOW, BUT THEN AGAIN, I ATTEMPT TO LOOK TOO MUCH IN DETAIL ON SOME OF THESE THINGS. BUT IT'S AN ISSUE THAT'S COME UP VERY, VERY RECENTLY.

NABIHA I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, IS THERE SOMETHING BECAUSE I KNOW IN OUR REQUEST LETTER WE'RE SPECIFYING THE PYLON SIGN, BUT IS THERE SOMETHING TO VET THAT OUT TO WHERE SOMEONE COULDN'T NECESSARILY COME IN, IN THE FUTURE AND TRY TO UTILIZE OUR PD AMENDMENTS TO DO THAT? WELL, AGAIN, I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT I THINK YOU YOU COULDN'T RESTRICT THE NEXT PERSON DOWN THE ROAD ON A LEGAL CONFORMING SIGN, THEIR ABILITY WOULD DO GOTCHA. OK, NOW.

I'VE BEEN HANGING AROUND THESE ATTORNEY TYPES TOO LONG.

I KNOW JUST ENOUGH TO BE DANGEROUS.

YEAH.

BUT I'LL LET THEM FIGURE THAT OUT.

IT'S CLEAR AS MUD IN THE GDC, THAT'S AN ISSUE WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO ADDRESS IN IT.

I CAN SEE ARGUMENTS GOING EITHER WAY.

WHAT I WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT IS IF RIGHT NOW ONE COULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT, YES, YOU CAN CONVERT IT TO AN ELECTRONIC SIGN WITHOUT HAVING COME BACK BEFORE PLANNING PERMISSION, SO LONG AS YOU ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH FOUR POINT SEVEN EIGHT ZERO, WHICH IS THE GOVERNING PORTION OF THE GDC REGARDING ELECTRONIC SIGNS.

I COULD SEE AN ARGUMENT THAT IT WOULD BE A GRANDFATHER CONDITION IN FOR THIS SIGN WERE IT APPROVED.

I DON'T KNOW THAT ARGUMENT'S GOING TO GET VERY FAR.

BUT I YEAH. AGAIN, I'M PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE HERE, AND AS YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A POTENTIAL.

YEAH, THERE IS AND IT'S SIMPLY BECAUSE WE'RE NOT REAL CLEAR IN THAT PORTION OF THE GDC.

AND AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE TO THE APPLICANT FOR DUMPING THIS ON.

BUT AGAIN, TOTALLY OUT OF YOUR CONTROL.

OF COURSE. QUITE FRANKLY OUT OF OUR CONTROL TOO.

ALL RIGHT. TRACY, DID WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE ON THIS ITEM.

[01:40:05]

WE DO NOT, SIR. OK, SO COMMISSIONER JENKINS.

I'M SORRY. I'VE GOT A QUESTION ACTUALLY FOR STAFF, IF YOU WERE WILLING TO ANSWER.

MA'AM, YOU SAID THAT THERE WOULD BE NO MASONRY USE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PYLON SIGN IS THAT CORRECT. YES, CURRENTLY, I BELIEVE IT'S METAL AND THE GDC REQUIRES FOR THE NEW PYLON SIGN TO HAVE MASONRY CONSTRUCTION AND THE EXISTING IS METAL.

SO THEY WOULD NOT RECONSTRUCT TO ADD MASONRY MATERIAL.

ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

NONE. I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION OR MOTIONS.

MR. CHAIR. I MISSED THAT WHO WAS THAT? THAT'S ME. OH, COMMISSIONER DALTON, I'M SORRY.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS IF THEY WERE NOT ADDING THIS SPECIFIC SCOOTER'S SIGN BEING DISPLAYED HERE AND ADDING SQUARE FOOTAGE, THEY COULD SIMPLY REFACE THAT SIGN AS IT STANDS WITHOUT HAVING TO COME TO US OR COUNCIL OR ANYONE ELSE, THEY COULD SIMPLY REFACE THAT SIGN AND MOVE ON DOWN THE ROAD.

IT'S ADDING THE SCOOTER'S PORTION THAT'S BRINGING THEM TO HAVE TO BRING IT TO US AT THIS POINT, MAKING IT THAT MUCH BIGGER.

YEAH. THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CONVERT IT TO A DIGITAL SIGN THOUGH.

THEY COULD REFACE IT.

THAT'S MY POINT THEY COULD SIMPLY RESURFACE THE SIGN THEY HAVE.

RIGHT. AND DO NOTHING ELSE PAINT IT.

WHAT HAVE YOU. IT'S ADDING THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE SCOOTER SIGN THAT HAS BROUGHT IT TO US, CREATING THIS CHANGE TAKING PLACE.

OK, THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

NABIHA THIS MIGHT BE A CLARIFICATION I HAVE FOR YOU, WOULD RESURFACING THE SIGN REQUIRE A NEW SIGN PERMIT. EITHER WAY, YOU WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO GO THROUGH BUILDING INSPECTIONS TO GET A SIGN PERMIT.

YES. SO IF WE HAVE TO GET A NEW SIGN PERMIT SINCE IT'S STILL A NONCONFORMING SIGN, WOULD WE STILL HAVE TO GET A PD. SO THIS IS GOING THROUGH THE ZONING STAGE, BUT YOU'LL STILL HAVE TO AFTER THIS, IF THIS IS APPROVED, YOU WILL STILL HAVE TO GO TO BUILDING INSPECTIONS FOR A SIGN PERMIT.

OH SORRY I WAS ADDING ON TO THE CHAIRMAN'S QUESTION.

AS FAR AS IF WE WEREN'T DOING THE SCOOTERS AND JUST RESURFACING THAT IT COULD GO DIRECTLY TO BUILDING INSPECTIONS.

BUT WOULD THAT BE THE CASE? BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED A NON CONFORMING SIGN AND NEED A PD, IS THAT CORRECT? TO RESURFACE THE SIGN.

YEAH, IF WE WERE TO SAY TO NOW HE'S NOT INTERESTED IN JUST RESURFACING THE SIGN BECAUSE IT'S THE SCOOTER'S FRANCHISEE WHO'S DOING IT FOR THE LANDLORD, THE LANDLORD'S NOT INTERESTED IN DOING IT ANY TIME SOON OR FRANKLY AT ALL, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE WANTING TO DO IT FOR THE COMPLEX.

THE QUESTION IS, IF WE WEREN'T TO DO THE SCOOTER SIGNAGE AND JUST RESURFACE IT, WOULD IT STILL REQUIRE THE PD SINCE IT'S NONCONFORMING? NO. NO, YOU'RE NOT ADDING SQUARE FOOTAGE IF YOU'RE JUST CHANGING OUT TENET NAMES.

GOTCHA. THAT MAKES SENSE.

AS FAR AS THAT TOPIC, THOUGH, THE SCOOTERS FRANCHISEE WOULDN'T BE RESURFACING IT WITHOUT ITS KIND OF A DEAL OR NO DEAL THING.

AND I KNOW THE LANDLORD ISN'T INTERESTED IN PAYING TO DO IT, SO IT'S UP TO THE FRANCHISEE TO DO IT. ALL RIGHT OKAY COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS I'LL ENTERTAIN THEM.

MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING, AND DISCUSS IT ALTHOUGH THERE REALLY HASN'T BEEN MUCH OF A PUBLIC HEARING WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT IN ANY CASE.

DID YOU RAISE YOUR HAND, COMMISSIONER EDWARDS? OK, YOU'LL NEED TO UNMUTE, SIR.

DIDN'T THINK IT WAS GOING TO DO IT.

LET'S CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, LET'S DO SOME DISCUSSION ON THIS.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I SEE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OTT.

THIS IS JUST TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSIONS.

ALL IN FAVOR OF JUST CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND IT IS UNANIMOUS.

IT IS NOW OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.

I KNOW I DUMPED A BUNCH ON YOU.

YEAH, I'VE GOT ALL THE HARD ONES TONIGHT.

YEAH.

[01:45:01]

BEGIN WITH.

LET ME ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF, I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER.

IS THIS IN A SHOT CLOCK.

THIS DETAIL PLAN.

WELL. TO CLARIFY, IT WAS NOT SUBMITTED AS A 30 DAY APPLICATION.

HOWEVER, ONCE THE PROCESS STARTS, AND LETTERS GO OUT AND IT'S GOING TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL IT DOES FOLLOW THOSE SHOT CLOCK RULES.

YES, SIR. PRE FILING THE NONE SHOT CLOCK OPTION IS JUST ALLOWING FOR THAT UP FRONT STAFF REVIEW SUBMIT AN APPLICATION.

DOES THAT MAKES SENSE. YEAH SO WE REALLY DO NOT HAVE THE OPTION OF POSTPONING IT FOR FURTHER STUDY THAN DO WE.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO VOLUNTARILY DO THAT.

THE CITY COULDN'T. BUT THAT'S JUST FOR TWO WEEK DON'T HAVE RIGHT NOW. YEAH.

OK, SO MUCH FOR THAT IDEA MR. CHAIRMAN. OK.

DO WE? LET ME BACK UP.

IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS AS IT'S PRESENTED.

WITH RESURFACING THE TOP PORTION, ADDING TO SCOOTERS, WHICH BRINGS IT INTO AND GIVING IT LEGAL COMPLIANCE STATUS.

IF THEY WANTED TO CONVERT TO DIGITAL, WOULD THEY HAVE TO COME BACK TO US? YES OR NO? IF IT WERE LEGAL NON DETERMINE LEGALLY, IF IT'S BECOME A LEGAL CONFORMING SIGN AND IF THE CRITERIA IS HEIGHT AN AREA ONLY, THEY COULD RECONFIGURE THE SIGN TO PUT IT DIGITAL ON THERE.

AGAIN THAT'S MY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE ARGUMENT.

THERE'S ARGUMENTS EITHER WAY ON THAT AND IT'S NOT CLARIFIED IN THE GDC CERTAINLY ISN'T SPECIFIED IN THE GDC THAT THE ELECTRONIC SIGN IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT KIND OF SIGN AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SEPARATE PLAN FOR IT.

AND I SEE THE ARGUMENT FOR BUT IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY AND EXPLICITLY SET FORTH IN GDC.

AND AGAIN, EITHER WAY WE VOTE THIS WOULD PROBABLY GO TO COUNCIL.

THEY WOULD HAVE FINAL DECISION ON IT.

AND THE ISSUE HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP.

AND MR. CHAIRMAN, TO BE CLEAR, JUST WHAT IS IN THE GDC THAT MR. HINES READ CORRECTLY, THAT TO CONVERT TO DIGITAL, THE SIGN HAS TO BE BROUGHT INTO GDC CONFORMANCE IN THE CASE OF A PYLON SIGN WHAT THAT MEANS IS IT WOULD HAVE TO BE BROUGHT DOWN TO TWENTY TWO FEET IN HEIGHT.

THE MASONRY OR THE COLUMNS HAVE TO BE MASONRY CLAD AND I BELIEVE THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE IS ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY SQUARE FEET, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO THOSE ARE TIME LIMITATIONS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE ON OTHER SIGNS.

THAT'S CORRECT. AND THAT'S WHERE MY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE COMES IN APPROVING THIS, IT BECOMES A LEGAL CONFORMING SIGN ACCORDING TO THE GDC THROUGH SEPARATE INSTRUMENT OF PD. SO THOSE ARE THINGS TO BE LOOKED AT IN THE FUTURE.

SO. BUT AS WE CONSIDER BOTH ARGUMENTS THERE AND BEING AN ARCHITECT AND HAVING BEEN IN DEVELOPMENT, WE LOOK FOR THE ANGLES.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT I DO HERE TRY TO SEE WHAT CAN GO WRONG.

COMMISSIONER ROSE.

YES SIR.

QUESTIONS HERE AND WE HAVE DEALT WITH THIS KIND OF AN APPLICATION SOME TIME AGO THAT THE COUNCIL REJECTED.

MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE THIS APPLICANT AND THE PRIOR APPLICANT SIT DOWN WITH THE STAFF AND TRY AND REWORK THE GDC SO THAT IT'S LESS COMPLICATED AND IT'S MORE EASILY UNDERSTOOD.

AT THIS POINT I'M JUST NOT IN FAVOR OF IT.

I CAN SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, WE WOULD LIKE TO WE'D BE WILLING TO TABLE THIS IN ORDER TO WORK OUT THOSE CONCERNS WITH STAFF.

BEFORE I GET TO COMMISSIONER OTT MR. HINES, I THINK WE'RE STUCK, THOUGH, RIGHT.

THE SHOT CLOCK THAT IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN IN WRITING BEFORE WE STARTED THE ISSUE.

I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.

THE REMEDY WOULD BE TO LET ME LOOK AT SOMETHING REAL QUICK, AND THESE ARE JUST RAMIFICATIONS OF THE TWO LAWS

[01:50:01]

PASSED BY THE STATE LAST YEAR AND ONE TWENTY SEVEN 465 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

YEAH.

IT USE TO BE A WHOLE LOT EASIER FOLKS.

BUT. WE APPRECIATE THE OFFER AND WE WOULD LOVE TO TAKE IT IF WE LEGALLY CAN.

OF COURSE.

AS MR. HINES LOOKS AT THAT I'LL KIND OF, MR. CHAIRMAN, THROW OUT ANOTHER QUESTION, IT MAY BE A LEGAL QUESTION OR IF IT'S SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE ALREADY CONSIDERED, BUT IF IT'S POSSIBLE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO HAVE A PD CONDITION THAT PROHIBITS THE DIGITAL SIGN CONVERSION OR THE SIGN FROM BEING DIGITAL.

THE APPLICANT IS KIND OF NODDING HIS HEAD.

I KNOW MR. HINES IS LOOKING INTO THIS ISSUE, BUT THAT MAY BE ANOTHER QUESTION.

IF THAT HELPS AT ALL.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS TONIGHT, FOLKS.

SO COUNCIL'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE THE ULTIMATE DECIDER ON THIS AND THEY'LL BE PLENTY OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN THEM VOICED. YEAH, I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIND THE ANSWER ON THIS EXCEPTIONALLY QUICKLY.

YEAH, I THINK THAT AS TO THE ISSUE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RAISED ABOUT INCLUDING THAT AS A CONDITION. I THINK THAT WOULD HELP.

I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW BINDING IT'S GOING TO BE.

I MEAN, IT WOULD HELP AN ARGUMENT LATER IF SOMEONE TRIED TO CONVERT AND THE CITY WANTED TO SAY NO, BUT.

IT'S NOT POSITIVE OF IT.

I THINK THE BETTER APPROACH WOULD BE TO AMEND THE GDC, BUT THEN WE COME INTO THE GRANDFATHERING ISSUES WE DISCUSSED EARLIER.

YOU KNOW, I'D BE WILLING TO VOTE FOR SOMETHING WITH THAT CONDITION IN IT KNOWING IT IS GOING TO COUNCIL, THERE'LL BE MORE TIME TO DISCUSS IT AND WORK WITH IT.

THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT YEP. YEP.

SO IF WE APPROVE IT.

AND SEND IT TO THE COUNCIL AND THE COUNCIL THAT GIVES THEM TIME TO GO THROUGH AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY CAN DO BEFORE THEY GO TO COUNCIL.

WELL, I THINK ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OR YOU WOULD HAVE TO PUT AN AMENDMENT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK MR. SO THAT'S CORRECT.

SO, YOU KNOW, A PD AMENDMENT, A CONDITION NOT BEING ABLE TO CONVERT IT TO DIGITAL.

SO YOU CARE TO FORM A FULL MOTION THEN SIR.

I WILL.

YOU JUST MADE THE MOTION FOR ME.

WE'LL FOLLOW THAT YOUR WORDING ON IT.

OK, COMMISSIONER EDWARDS HAS MADE THE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH THE ADDITIONAL PD RESTRICTION, THAT THAT PYLON SIGN NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE CONVERTED TO DIGITAL. COMMISSIONER DALTON, IS THAT A SECOND? OK, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER EDWARDS AN A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DALTON TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH THE ADDITIONAL PD DIGITAL IN THE FUTURE.

HEARING NO DISCUSSION.

DOES THE ATTORNEY APPROVE OF THAT. APPROVE.

I DON'T APPROVE OF ANYTHING.

HONESTLY, IT'S GOING TO DEPEND I THINK YOU AT LEAST CAN GIVE SOME LATER WE LOST YOU, BUT LET'S NOT PUT HIM IN THE POSITION OF TRYING TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF A LEGAL POINT RIGHT NOW AND THAT, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL DOESN'T NECESSARILY LOOK AT OUR VOTES, YAY OR NAY, BUT THEY LOOK AT THE ISSUES THAT WE BRING UP.

AND WE HAVE BROUGHT THIS.

YES. OK, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.

CAN I MAKE A FRIENDLY.

GO AHEAD FOR THE DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER WELBORN.

I WANT A FRIENDLY CHANGE IN MOTION FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

AND WHAT WOULD THAT BE? WELL, I WOULD NOT APPROVE IT.

OK, WELL, I DON'T THINK THAT WILL BE TAKEN AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

SO WE NOW HAVE A SECOND MOTION TO DENY IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION.

SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSE.

[01:55:01]

AND WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THIS ONE BEFORE WE GO TO THE NEXT ONE, TO THE MAIN MOTION, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WELBORN AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ROSE TO DENY THE PD APPLICATION. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT, TRACY I MAY NEED SOME HELP IN DETERMINING WHO VOTES WHICH WAY I'M ON A LITTLE BITTY SCREEN HERE.

OK. ALL RIGHT.

ALL IN FAVOR TO DENY.

GIVE ME THE THUMBS UP.

WE HAVE TO MAKE.

OK, WE HAVE COMMISSIONER EDWARDS, COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. COMMISSIONER JENKINS, COMMISSIONER ROSE AND COMMISSIONER WELBORN VOTING TO DENY THE APPLICATION. AND ALL OPPOSED TO THE DENIAL.

APPROVE BEFORE? YEAH, WERE YOU CLEAR ON THAT? ARE YOU JUST MOTION TO DENY THE APPLICATION RIGHT NOW.

I MEAN, VOTING TO DENY.

I'M NOT. NO.

WELL COMMISSIONER EDWARDS WERE YOU CLEAR ON THAT? YES.

OK. SO YOU'RE, IN ESSENCE, WITHDRAWING YOUR MOTION BY VOTING THAT WAY GOT IT.

AND THEN ALL OPPOSED SAME SIGN.

AND THAT IS COMMISSIONERS ROBERTS, O'HARA, OTT AND DALTON IN OPPOSITION TO THE DENIAL.

THE DENIAL PASSES.

OKAY. AND YOU CAN STILL TAKE THIS STRAIGHT OUT TO COUNCIL AND HOPEFULLY THERE'LL BE SOME RESOLUTIONS ON SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS BEFORE THAT.

OK. ALL RIGHT.

NEXT ITEM IS THE DETAIL PLAN FOR THIS.

[4.h. Consideration of the application of Spiars Engineering, requesting approval of a Detail Plan, to allow deviations for the existing nonconforming Pylon Sign. This property is located at 3414 Broadway Boulevard. (District 3) (File Z 20-30 – Detail Plan)]

CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS SPIARS ENGINEERING, REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A DETAILED PLAN TO ALLOW DEVIATIONS FOR AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING PYLON SIGN.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED 3414 BROADWAY BOULEVARD.

AND WE'VE HEARD THE REPORT IN THE DETAILED PLAN AND STAFF, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

THE DETAILED PLAN, BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS VOTE DOES NOT MEET TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS.

THAT'S CORRECT, SIR. THAT'S CORRECT.

SO WE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY.

COMMISSIONER ROSE. AND UNMUTE PLEASE.

I MOVE TO DENY.

DENY THE DETAILED PLAN.

DO I HEAR A SECOND. A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OK, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO DENY THE DETAILED PLAN SINCE IT DOES NOT MEET THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS.

ALL IN FAVOR OF THE DENIAL OF THE DETAILED PLAN.

AND THAT APPEARS TO BE UNANIMOUS.

ALL RIGHT.

EXCUSE ME CHAIRMAN ROBERTS.

YES, I CAN NOT SEE COMMISSIONER O'HARA'S VOTE.

HE VOTED TO DENY.

ALL RIGHT, GENTLEMEN, WE'VE HAD AN INTERESTING MEETING, BUT WE ENDED OUR AGENDA.

AND AGAIN, WELCOME COMMISSIONER JENKINS.

WE'VE HAD MEETINGS AS SHORT AS A MINUTE.

FIFTY SEVEN SECONDS.

YOU HAD NO SUCH LUCK TONIGHT.

SO UNTIL OUR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 23RD WE ARE ADJOURNED.

BYE. THANK Y'ALL.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.