[007 Consider a request of the applicant (Walmart) to withdraw the application for Case No. Z31-2025-077 requesting a change in zoning for 55.708± acres out of the John Early Survey, Abstract No. 1137, Lot 5, Block A, Walnut Grove 287, and Lot 2, Block 1, Turner Homestead Estates. The property is generally located at the northeast corner of South Walnut Grove Road and East US Highway 287 North. (Z31-2025-077) ]

THAT PASSES 6-0. WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE REGULAR AGENDA. ITEM ZERO ZERO SEVEN, CONSIDER A REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT WALMART TO WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION FOR CASE NUMBER Z31-202577. REQUEST A CHANGE FOR ZONING F FOR... LOT FIVE, BLOCK A, WALNUT GROVE, 287. AND LOT TWO, BLOCK ONE, TURNER HOMESTEAD ESTATES. THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH WALNUT GROVE ROAD AND U.S.

HIGHWAY 287 NORTH. DO I HEAR A MOTION?

[INDISCERNIBLE] >> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ALTMAN, AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MCDONALD. PLEASE VOTE.

[008 Consider and act upon an ordinance amending the development and use regulations of a 7.632+ acre portion of Planned Development District No. 179 (PD-179) by adopting a Detailed Site Plan. The property is generally located northwest of US Highway 287/US Highway 67 Loop and northeast of US Highway 287. (Z08-2026-014) CONTINUANCE REQUESTED TO JUNE 16, 2026, MEETING]

THAT PASSES 6-0. MOVE TO ITEM ZERO ZERO EIGHT.

CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE AND REGULATION OF ACRES IN THE PORTION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 179, BY ADOPTING A DETAILED SET PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY NORTHLAKE-- LOCATED NORTHWEST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 227, U.S. HIGHWAY 67, NORTHEAST-- U.S.

HIGHWAY 287. THE REQUEST TO THE CONTINUANCE

[00:10:02]

OF JUNE 16TH 2026. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO GRANT THE

CONTINUANCE. >> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MCDONALD. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BLAND.

PLEASE VOTE. THAT PASSES 6-0.

[009 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon on ordinance granting a Specific Use Permit for a Type 2 Communication Tower on property zoned Light Industrial (LI) and adopting regulations for the use and development of a 0.062± acre portion of Lot 2A, Block A, Fastenal Resubdivision, located at 545 Burk Hawkins Street. (SUP05- 2026-022)]

ALL RIGHT. WE WILL MOVE TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ITEM NUMBER 009.

CONSIDER A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON ORDINANCE GRANTING SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A TYPE C COMMUNICATION TOWER ON PROPERTY ZONED LOT INDUSTRIAL AND ADOPT REGULATIONS FOR THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF .062-ACRE PORTION OF LOT TWO A BLOCK A, THE SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 545 HAWKINS STREET.

>> DANIEL, SENIOR PLANNER, TO PRESENT.

THIS IS A REQUEST TO ALLOW 120-FOOT TYPE TWO COMMUNICATION TOWER ON THE LOTS OWNED. -- LOT ZONE.

STAFF FINDS A REQUEST INCONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE AS IT'S NONRESIDENTIAL USES LISTED ARE COMMERCIAL ENTERTAINMENT COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES.

THE PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN YELLOW WITH THE ADJACENT ZONING, LAND USES AND FUTURE LAND USES AT THE BOTTOM OF THE TABLE.

STAFF FINDS A REQUEST IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING ZONING, BUT INCOMPATIBLE WITH LAND USES TO NONCONFORMING HIGH RESTRICTIONS-- HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS.

THESE ARE THE REGULAR AND LARGE SITE PLANS WITH THE TOWER AREA OUTLINED. THE COMMUNICATION TOWER SITE PLAN FEATURES A GATED DRIVE, A MASONRY ENCLOSED TOWER IN CELERY EQUIPMENT, AND WORK IS NEEDED AS THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN MET. HERE AS THEY PROPOSE TOWER ELEVATION RENDERING, WHICH WILL REQUIRE A VARIANCE TOW TWO, EXCEEDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAXIMUM HEIGHT REGULATION BY 85 FEET. THE OCCUPANT HAS WORKED WITH STAFF TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT BY 3E TO ACCOMMODATE CARRIER COST OR-- COVERAGE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES, MAKING IT SHORTER THAN A 150-FOOT COMMUNICATIONS TOWER NORTH-- LOCATED ON EARTH SIX STREET, LOCATED 1.8 MILES AWAY, THE TOWER BELONGS TO THE ZONING AND LAND USE THE OVAL FOR THE FUTURE PLAN.

COMMUNICATION FOR THE TOWER SECTOR DOES ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL FOOT FOR EACH OF THE TWO SETBACKS.

THE PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED IN 1981 AND INITIALLY ZONED IN 1989.

STAFF FINDS A REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE GOAL BECAUSE IT EXPANDS COVERAGE, AND IT'S STRATEGY BECAUSE IT SUPPORTS COMMODITY INFRASTRUCTURE. THE GOAL IF APPROVED WILL HAVE LONG-TERM INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY, AND A STRATEGY FOR LONG-TERM INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FOR LONG-TERM GROWTH, AND THE POLICY BY SUPPORTING FUTURE CONNECTIVITY AND SERVICE NEEDS. IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH GOAL LEU FOUR BECAUSE THE TOWER EXCEEDS THE AREAS INTENDED HEIGHT, DOES NOT MAINTAIN ESTHETIC CONSISTENCY.

WITH GOAL CH TWO, OR MAIN STREET EXPOSURE, IT WOULD LESSEN THE IMPACT. ALOE-- IT'S STRATEGY FOR THE COMMUNITY AND IT'S PROXIMITY. PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY WERE GIVEN NOTICE AND NO OBJECTION HAS BEEN RECEIVED. A SIGN WAS PLACED ON THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS A NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE CITY NEWSPAPER.

STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE REQUEST DUE TO THE FOLLOWING REASONS, AND I'M OPEN TO QUESTIONS IN THE UPCOMING

REVIEW. >> QUESTIONS?

>> CAN YOU CLARIFY THE INTENT AND PURPOSE? IS THIS JUST FOR ACELLULAR-- CELLULAR NETWORK?

OR ARE THERE OTHER ITEMS? >> IT'S A CELLULAR NETWORK AND

FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES. >> AND THESE TOWERS THAT ARE WITHIN THE 1.36 MILES, ARE THOSE ALSO CELLULAR AND EMERGENCY SERVICES? OR DO THEY HAVE OTHER ASPECTS?

>> ONE IS FOR AT&T AND THE OTHER ONE IS FOR SOMETHING ELSE.

>> IS THIS TOWER GOING TO BE FOR AT&T?

>> I'M NOT AWARE OF THE SPECIFIC CELLULAR CARRIER OF-- THE APPLICANT MAYBE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT.

>> THANK YOU. >> IS THERE A DEFICIENCY IN THE

[00:15:04]

911 COVERAGE THAT WE WOULD NEED THIS TOWER FOR?

>> NOT THAT I AM AWARE OF. >> IS THE APPLICANT HERE? DO YOU CARE TO SPEAK? COME UP IN STATE YOUR NAME.

>> MY NAME IS DAVID. I AM THE APPLICANT ON THIS.

A LITTLE BACKGROUND, WE ARE HIRED EVERY YEAR BY THE WIRELESS CARRIERS TO FIND THE AREAS OF COVERAGE THAT ARE NEEDED FOR THEIR NETWORKS. WE GET A LIST EVERY YEAR OF 80 TO 100 LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT NORTH TEXAS.

AT THIS LOCATION IS IN THAT LIST RIGHT NOW.

IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT 911 WILL NOT WORK, GETTING COVERAGE IS JUST ONE OF THE TOP LOCATIONS THEY ARE FOR THEM.

SO THAT'S WHERE IT'S AT. WE GO OUT AND LOOK FOR AN EXISTING TOWER THAT MEETS THE COVERAGE.

A ROOFTOP, ANYTHING WE CAN FIND THAT GIVES THEM THE 150 FEET THEY NEED TO PROVIDE THIS COVERAGE.

IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE AREA.

SO FOUR YEARS AGO WHEN WE SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION ALONG 287 TO THE EAST, WE FOUND A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, WE WENT THROUGH THIS SAME PROCESS, RECEIVED STAFF APPROVAL FOR THAT ONE, AND THE TOWER HAS BEEN BUILT.

SO WE FOUND THIS LOCATION TO BE INDUSTRIAL, NOT AS RESTRICTIVE AS MAYBE A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WE HAVE HAD BEFORE, BUT THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WOULD BE A GOOD FIT FOR THIS.

IT SITS OFF THE ROAD A BIT AND IT MEETS THE OBJECTIVE FOR T-MOBILE. AND THEIR NEEDS.

WE ARE ALSO DESIGNING THIS SO IT CAN HOLD THREE CARRIERS.

AT&T, VERIZON, ANYONE ELSE WHO NEEDS THIS AREA, WHICH WE THINK THEY WILL. I HAVE A MAP THAT SHOWS THE TOWER REFERENCE ON NORTH SIX STREET.

T-MOBILE IS ON THAT TOWER WITH AT&T.

BUT IT IS OVER 1 MILE AWAY. WHEN I STARTED DOING THIS 27 YEARS AGO, THAT COULD BE 5 MILES APART, AND NOW THEY HAVE TO BE A QUARTER-MILE APART BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS A WIRELESS DEVICE.

THAT'S THE REASON WE ARE HERE. THAT'S WHY WE PICK THE SPOT.

WE HAD A FEW OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS ALONG MAIN STREET THERE, BUT WE FELT THOSE WERE COMMERCIAL, AND WE WANTED TO

PICK THIS SPOT. >> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE HEIGHT. I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE WORKED WITH STAFF TO REDUCE IT FROM 150 TO 120.

IS THAT GOING TO PREVENT IT'S ABILITIES IN ANY WAY?

>> WE WENT BACK TO THE ENGINEERS AND ASKED THEM THEIR PREFERENCE, IT WOULD BE 150. BUT THEY DID THEIR STUDIES AND THERE ARE HEAT MAPS THAT THEY DO.

AND 120 WILL GET THE COVERAGE THEY NEED.

IT ALSO PROVIDE SOME ROOM FOR OTHER CARRIERS.

THE 150 WOULD GIVE OTHER CARRIERS MORE ELEVATION TOO.

BUT 120 WOULD BE ENOUGH ROOM IF AT&T WANTS TO BEYOND THAT TOWER AND IT NEEDS COVERAGE THERE AS WELL.

>> JUST FOR FRAME OF REFERENCE, WHEN I THINK OF THE TOWERS WITH THE BIG RED LIGHT, WHAT'S THE HEIGHT ON THAT SORT OF TOWER.

>> THOSE ARE 1500 TO >> FROM A LANDSCAPE STANDPOINT, WITH THIS AT 20 FEET, HOW FAR AWAY WOULD I HAVE TO BE TO EVEN

NOTICE IT'S ON THE SKYLINE? >> IT WOULD BE PROBABLY A QUARTER-MILE AWAY? I AM GUESSING.

IF YOU GO DOWN TO THE ONE WE BUILT BEHIND BY THE CAR DEALERSHIP THERE, THE DEAL DEALERSHIP, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY EVEN NOTICES IT NOW. PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THIS BECAUSE WERE HAVING THIS MEETING. BUT THEY ARE THERE.

I DON'T KNOW WHEN PEOPLE NOTICE THEM FROM FAR AWAY.

AND THAT'S A 150-FOOT TOWER BY THE WAY.

>> OKAY., THANK YOU. MY LAST QUESTION IS YOU MENTION WHEN YOU STARTED DOING THIS SEVERAL YEARS AGO THEY WERE TYPICALLY 5 MILES APART. BUT WHEN THEY WERE 5 MILES APART, HOW MANY PEOPLE, HOW MANY PHONES WITH THAT SERVE?

>> A.

SITE CAN HANDLE 100 CONVERSATIONS AT A TIME.

THAT'S NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE KIDS DOING THE TICK-TOCK AND ALL THE THINGS THAT THEY DO. IF YOU AND I ARE ON A T-MOBILE NETWORK, THEN THAT'S OUT THERE, BUT THOSE STREAMING, WATCHING TV, ALL THOSE THINGS, THAT TAKES UP ALL THE BANDWIDTH AND THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE WITH MEETING. [INDISCERNIBLE] SITES CLOSER AND CLOSER TOGETHER.

IT'S A HIGHWAY AND THERE IS ONLY SO MUCH TRAFFIC.

[00:20:01]

>> THERE IS TWO OTHERS WITHIN 1.26 MILES.

HOW MANY OTHERS ARE THERE CURRENTLY.

>> WITHIN YOUR RING, THERE ARE 27 INSTALLATIONS OF CELL SITES THAT I KNOW OF. ONE IS UP ON NORTH SIX STREET, AND T-MOBILE, THE OTHER TOWER REFERENCED IS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND THAT IS NOT ACELLULAR INSTALLATION.

THAT IS MADE FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

AND THE OTHERS ARE EAST TO THE TOWER ON 287 OUT THERE.

>> EVEN IF THIS TOWER DID NOT GET BUILT, WOULD IT BE ENOUGH FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS? WITH THE GROWTH THAT WE HAVE, IN

YOUR OPINION? >> IN MY OPINION, YES, WE ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ACCOMMODATE THE OTHER CARRIERS.

IT SHOULD HANDLE COVERAGE FOR I THINK THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

YOU GUYS ARE GROWING. CONGRATULATIONS.

BUT THOSE ARE ALSO THE PAINS OF GROWING.

YOU TRY TO STAY AHEAD OF THE 911 PROBLEMS AND CONNECTIVITY.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK? ANY FURTHER QUESTION TO STAFF? MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC

HEARING? >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE

THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

PLEASE VOTE. >> THAT PASSES 6-0.

NO FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS TO STAFF.

OR I WILL TAKE A MOTION. >> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE AS PRESENTED. >> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER DONALD AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BLAND.

PLEASE VOTE. >> VOTE AGAIN, PLEASE.

EVERYBODY VOTE? THANK YOU.

THERE IT IS. TIED 3-3.

FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? >> I VOTED YES BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN IN DOWNTOWN SO MANY TIMES WHERE MY PHONE WOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT WORK. AND IT'S A RUNNING JOKE BETWEEN ME AND MY FAMILY THAT IF YOU'RE ON 5G PLUS THEN YOU MIGHT AS WELL NOT BE ON, BECAUSE IT STOPS WORKING.

>> WOULD YOU MIND LETTING US KNOW WHAT A 3-3 TIME MEANS? [INDISCERNIBLE] -- 3-3 TIE MEANS?

[INDISCERNIBLE] >> THANK YOU.

>> FURTHER DISCUSSION? YES.

IF ANYBODY WISHES TO-- >> I JUST WANT TO SAY THE REASON I'M AGAINST IT IS NOT JUST BECAUSE OF SERVICE ISSUES, ESTABLISHING THE ZONE LOAD INDUSTRIAL, OVERTIME WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THAT AREA IS WE HAVE A NICE HOTEL GO IN, A NICE RESTAURANT. AND THAT HAS DEVELOPED AWAY FROM THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL RETAIL GATEWAY TO THE COMMUNITY.

AND I THINK THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHER AREAS TO SERVE THE SAME AREA OFF MAIN STREET. AND PERHAPS OVER BY THE CAR

[00:25:07]

STORAGE AREA OR OTHER PARTS WHERE WE HAVE TRUE INDUSTRIAL USES THAT THE TOWER CAN BE PLACED IN.

NOT NEXT TO COMMERCIAL. >> THIS IS FURTHER DOWN?

>> IT IS STILL ON MAIN STREET. MAIN STREET HAS DEVELOPED IN THE LAST TEN, 15 YEARS TO GO AWAY FROM AN INDUSTRIAL BASE USED TO RETAIL. AND I THINK WITH THE HOTEL GOING IN AND THE INVESTMENT OF THAT HOTEL, I DON'T THINK THEY WANT TO DO THAT. WE HAVE OTHER LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREAS THAT ARE IN THE NORTH OF THIS.

I JUST LOOK AT THE MAP, THE ENTIRE NORTH PART OF THE MAP IS UNDEVELOPED. EXCEPT FOR THE CAR, THE BUSINESS WHERE THE CAR STORAGE IS. SO I THINK THERE ARE OTHER AREAS TO PUT THIS. AND THAT'S WHY I VOTED AGAINST.

>> THE ONLY THING I WILL SAY IS THAT I THINK THESE THINGS ARE SO COMMON THAT YOU DON'T EVEN NOTICE THEM.

>> THE REASON I VOTED TO APPROVE IT WAS THE FACT THAT IT WAS FAR OFF THE BACK MAIN AND THERE IS A HOTEL BETWEEN IT.

SORT OF HIDING BACK THERE. >> IF NOBODY IS WILLING TO CHANGE THE-- IT'S A DEAD AGENDA. WE CAN CALL FOR ONE MORE VOTE? LET'S TRY ONE MORE TIME. PLEASE VOTE.

[INDISCERNIBLE] >> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE HAVE

A REVOTE. >> OKAY.

THAT IS FINE. EVERYBODY IN FAVOR OF A REVOTE, RAISE YOUR HAND? DO WE ALL AGREE TO VOTE? ALL RIGHT. WE WILL TRY THIS ONE MORE TIME.

WE NEED A NEW MOTION? >> I'M MAKING A MOTION TO

APPROVE AS PRESENTED. >> MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL. PLEASE VOTE.

OKAY. YES.

YES. SORRY.

SORRY. ALL IN FAVOR.

IT IS STILL 3-3. ON TO THE NEXT ONE.

[010 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance granting a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a Secondary Dwelling Unit in an Agricultural (A) District, relating to the use and development of Lot 33, Sunshine Place, Phase II, located at 1833 Sunbeam Court. (SUP06-2026-024) ]

FAIR ENOUGH. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 10.

LET US SEE. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE GRANTING SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT IN THE AGRICULTURE DISTRICT RELATED TO THE USE OF DEVELOPMENT BLOCK 33, SUNSHINE PLACE, PHASE TWO LOCATED AT 1833 SUNBEAM COURT.

>> CHAIR... PRESENTING ITEM TEN.

THIS IS ALLOWING A SECONDARY TO-- DWELLING UNIT TO... FROM THE PRIMARY DWELLING THROUGH THE USE PERMIT.

THE LOT IS SO CULTURAL. IT'S DESIGNATED AS LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. STAFF FINDS THIS REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE.

SITE SHOWS THE PROPERTY OUTLINED IN YELLOW WITH THE ADJACENT ZONING LAND USES AND FUTURE LAND USES IN THE BOTTOM LEFT TABLE.

STAFF FINDS A REQUEST COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL LAND USES. THESE TWO SLIDESHOW THE FLOOR PLAN OF THE PROPOSED DWELLING. BESIDES THE METER VARIANCE, THE STRUCTURE IS CODE COMPLIANT AS IT DOES NOT EXCEED THE SIZE ALLOWANCE. LOT COVERAGE, ENCROACH AND REGULATION SETBACKS TWO PLUS ACRE LOTS ARE PERMITTED.

PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY WERE GIVEN NOTICE AND NO OBJECTION HAS BEEN RECEIVED.

A SIGN WAS PLACED ON THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS A NOTICE

[00:30:02]

PUBLISHED IN THE CITY NEWSPAPER. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF A REQUEST, WE ARE OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS

PRESENT AS WELL. >> QUESTIONS TO STAFF?

>> DO WE HAVE ANY EASEMENTS THAT WOULD RESTRICT THIS FROM

HAPPENING? >> NO.

>> DOES THE APPLICANT HERE WISH TO SPEAK? CAN YOU COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME?

>> MY NAME IS DAVID, AT EVENING. I LIVE IN THE CITY LIMITS AT THE ADDRESS INDICATED ABOVE. I AM ASKING THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A REQUEST.

THE SECONDARY DWELLING IS FOR OUR DAUGHTER TO LIVE IN OUR SAME LOT. AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR

ME, I'M WILLING TO ANSWER THEM. >> QUESTIONS?

>> GENERALLY WHEN WE HAVE A ADU, WE DON'T ALLOW A SEPARATE AND A-- SEPARATE SEPTIC AND ELECTRIC.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THE REQUEST TO HAVE IT SEPARATED?

>> THE REQUEST FOR THE ELECTRIC IS BASED ON THE MASTER ELECTRICIANS LUG-- REFERENCE LETTER.

THE MASTER ELECTRICIANS STATED THAT IT'S NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE TO RECONFIGURE OUR ELECTRICAL PANEL IN THE PRIMARY RESIDENTS. AND IT WOULD BE TO COSTLY TO RECONFIGURE AND WITH THE LOAD TO THE SECONDARY DWELLING, THEN IT MIGHT, TO ME, ALSO MIGHT BE DANGEROUS PULLING THAT MUCH FROM THE SECONDARY DWELLING. NOW TO YOUR SECOND QUESTION, THE SEPTIC, IN 357, IN SECTION A, IT DOES STATE THAT THEY ALLOW A TRACK WITH AN AREA OF LESS THAN 2 ACRES, BUT THE CITY'S SEWER SYSTEM IS ONLY DEVELOPED ONE SANITARY.

IT BUT SAYS LESS THAN 2 ACRES. OUR LOT IS 2.17.

SO IT SHOULD NOT EVEN APPLY IN THIS CASE.

>> HAVE YOU MET WITH A SEPTIC ENGINEER TO DETERMINE WHERE THAT

SEPTIC IS GOING TO BE? >> AT THE MOMENT I HAVE SPOKEN TO-- I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO ANY SEPTIC INSTALLER.

>> I NOTICED ON YOUR RENDERING YOU ARE PUTTING THE SECONDARY PROPERTY AT THE FAR DOOR SIDE OF YOUR PROPERTY.

THAT'S WHERE YOUR SEPTIC SQUARES ARE CURRENTLY LOCATED?

>> THEY ARE LOCATED TOWARDS THE WEST SIDE OF THE EXISTING ONES.

>> RIGHT. SO IF YOU PUT THE HOUSE ALL THE WAY FAR BACK, WHERE WILL YOUR SEPTIC BE IN RELATION TO YOUR

EXISTING SEPTIC? >> IS THERE A WAY WE CAN PUT THE MAP BACK UP THERE? AND DO WE HAVE A POINTER?

>> DO WE REQUIRE THAT WHEN THEY ARE DOING THIS?

[INDISCERNIBLE] >> IT LOOKS LIKE THIS REALLY GREEN AREA ON THE MAP IN THE OVERHEAD, THAT'S PROBABLY--

>> RIGHT HERE. >> SO IT'S FAR AWAY FROM WHERE

THE HOUSE WOULD BE? >> AND YOU POINT TO WHERE THE PROPOSED HOUSE WOULD BE? RIGHT.

SO THE HOUSE WILL BE RIGHT BY THIS SQUARE.

>> CORRECT. SO MY IMPRESSION IS THAT THE SQUARES COULD GO RIGHT HERE. AGAIN, I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO SOMEBODY THAT DOES SEPTIC. BUT, TO ME, IF I'M ASKING THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO APPROVE OUR REQUEST REGARDING

[00:35:01]

THE ELECTRIC METER, PRETTY SURE EVERYTHING ELSE WOULD BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH WHATEVER THE 357 WAS.

>> WHAT DECADE WAS THE ORIGINAL HOUSE BUILT IN?

>> 2016. >> OKAY.

>> FURTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, SIR.

WE HAVE ONE MORE SPEAKERS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.

JAMES HUNT, COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD,

PLEASE. >> YES.

I LIVE ON THE STREET THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS BEING SOUGHT ON.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, I OPPOSE ADDING MORE THAN ONE DWELLING ON A LOT. THE ORIGINAL SUNSHINE PLACE PHASE TWO HAD DEEPER EQUIP-- RESTRICTIONS.

AND IT STATED THAT THERE BE ONLY ONE DWELLING ON EACH LOT THAT IS EITHER A HOUSE, A MOBILE HOME, OR ANY OTHER DWELLING.

AND UNLESS HE CAN SHOW THAT THOSE RESTRICTIONS NO LONGER APPLIED, OR HAVE EXPIRED, THEN I BELIEVE THAT THIS SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED. GENERALLY THESE RESTRICTIONS WERE PUT INTO KEEP THE GROWTH OF THE AREA, OF MULTIPLE FAMILY HOMES ON EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT. AND THIS IS BASICALLY A RURAL AREA HERE, AND WE WANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY.

I HAVE-- PARTICULARLY I NOTICED IS SECONDARY DWELLING IS OVER 2000 SQUARE FEET, THAT'S A GOOD SIZED HOUSE.

AND I WOULD THINK THAT IF IT'S SOMETHING SMALLER THAT WOULD FIT IN WITH THE AREA, I WOULD NOT OBJECT TO IT.

BUT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I DO OBJECT TO IT.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> YOU ARE WELCOME TO COME BACK UP IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO.

>> YES, COMMISSIONER SKINNER. I MEAN, HE SAYS HE LIVES IN THE AREA, BUT HE DID NOT SAY WHERE HE IS BEING AFFECTED BY THIS SECONDARY DWELLING. THE AREA COULD BE ANYWHERE-- MR. HUNT, WHERE EXACTLY DO YOU LIVE? RIGHT HERE? THIS RIGHT HERE, IN THE CORNER RIGHT THERE? IS THAT THIS LOT RIGHT THERE? IS WHAT IT IS? OKAY.

I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT EFFECTS THIS HAS ON HIM.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

[INDISCERNIBLE] >> ALL RIGHT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, SIR. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO STAFF?

>> CAN YOU REMIND US, WHAT IS THE LIMIT ON USE FOR A PROPERTY

OVER 2 ACRES. >> 75%.

FOR THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. >> THANK YOU.

ONE OTHER QUESTION. SETBACKS.

IT LOOKS LIKE THE NEIGHBOR ON THE EAST SIDE, IN THAT CORNER WHERE THEY WANT TO PUT THE HOUSE HAS THE-- IS BUT SAYS THAT'S A SHOPPER RESIDENTS? WHAT IS THE SETBACK?

>> I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT SETBACK.

[INDISCERNIBLE] >> IS THAT IN THE ORDINANCE? I UNDERSTAND IT'S ON THE DRAWING, BUT IN ORDINANCE

ITSELF? >> IT WOULDN'T BE SPECIFICALLY

[00:40:05]

IN THE ORDINANCE. [INDISCERNIBLE]

>> OKAY. >> REGARDING THAT POINT BROUGHT

UP ON THE RESTRICTIONS-- >> ON THAT IT'S NOT THE CITY'S

JOB OR PLACE. >> OR JURISDICTION.

>> THEY CAN'T DO IT. IT'S NOT PART OF OUR DECISION

TONIGHT. >> DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE

THE PUBLIC HEARING? >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE

THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION TO CLOSE BY COMMISSIONER MCDONALD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALTMAN. PLEASE VOTE.

THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. FURTHER DISCUSSION.

I WILL HEAR A MOTION? >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE AS PRESENTED. >> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER MCDONALD. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALTMAN.

PLEASE VOTE. THAT PASSES 6-0, THANK YOU.

[011 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the development and use regulations of a 10.074± acres out of the William Hawkins Survey Abstract No. 465 and a portion of Lot 2, Block B, Proffitt Industrial Park, located north of East Main and west of South Midlothian Parkway. (Z09-2026-026)]

WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER 11. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT ON A NOTE-- ORDINANCE COMMENDING AND RECOMMENDING USE OF 10.074 PLUS ACRES OUT OF THE WILLIAMS HAWKINS SURVEY, ADDRESS FOR 65 PORTION OF LOT TWO, LOT B, LOCATED NORTHEAST OF MAINE AND WEST OF SOUTH MIDLOTHIAN

PARKWAY. >> GOOD EVENING.

THE NEXT ITEM IS A REQUEST TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 123 TO REVISE THE CONCEPT PLANNED LANDSCAPE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS FOR THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY. THAT PORTION IS 10.074 ACRES IN SIZE. AND REGARDING OUR FUTURE...

IT'S LOCATED NORTH OF EAST MAIN AND WEST OF SOUTH MIDLOTHIAN PARKWAY, AND ACCESS TO THE SITE WOULD BE OFF OF ASPEN PARKWAY.

THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW SHOWING THE SURROUNDING AREA.

AS YOU CAN SEE, NORTH IS UNDEVELOPED AND IT IS RIGHT ALONG HERE. THE SOUTH IS A MULTITENANT COMMERCIAL AND UNDEVELOPED. BUT THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE A FUTURE HOTEL. EAST OF THE SITE IS UNDEVELOPED AND AGRICULTURAL. AND TO THE WEST IS A CONTRACTOR YARD AND OTHER LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES.

APPLICANTS ARE PROPOSING ONE TIME THOUSAND SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING, WHICH IS LOCATED HERE. 14500 SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING, AND 106,000 SQUARE-FOOT BUILDINGS. THE BASE ZONING FOR THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 123 IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, AND THEY ARE PROPOSING 166 PARKING SPACES WITH ACCESS OFF OF MAINE AND ASPEN PARKWAY. THE APPLICANTS DID REQUEST TWO VARIANCES. ONE FOR DRIVEWAY SPACING AND MASONRY STANDARDS ORIGINALLY, BUT AFTER THE PACKETS CAME OUT, THEY REVISE THE SITE PLAN TO REMOVE THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE FOR THE DRIVEWAY SPACING. SO ORIGINALLY THEY HAD TWO DRIVEWAYS THAT WEREN'T POP-- ROUGHLY 48 FEET APART.

BUT THEY HAVE REVISED IT TO TAKE THAT DRIVEWAY OUT AND MAKE ADDITIONAL PARKING THERE. SO FOR A SECOND VARIANCE, IT'S FOR THE MASONRY REQUIREMENTS IN THE PD AND ZONING ORDINANCE.

THE ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWING BASICALLY A 43% MEDAL, ALONG THE

[00:45:05]

REAR OF THE STRUCTURES, IN THE FRONT FACADE IS SHOWING STONE, GLASS AND WOOD-- WOOD, AS LONG AS METAL ALONG THE ROLL-UP DOORS OF THE PROPERTY HERE. AND ALONG THE SIDE HERE.

SO THEY ARE SHOWING THE REAR PANELS TO BE IN THE AREAS IN BLACK. AND WHERE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT'S DISAGREE IS THESE THREE HERE, WHERE THEY WERE PROPOSING TO HAVE THE REAR FACING ASPEN PARKWAY.

HERE IS A RENDERING THAT THEY PROVIDED, WHICH IS SHOWING THE FRONT OF THE BUILDINGS FACING US ON THE PARKWAY.

SO WE SUPPORT THIS BASICALLY THIS IS THE AREA HERE.

AND THE RED, AREA, IT'S FRONT FACING.

SO IF THEY ARE PROPOSING THIS, WE SUPPORT THAT VARIANCE AS WELL. THEIR LANDSCAPING DOES MEET ALL THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS AND THEY ARE DOING THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING, WHICH IS AGRICULTURAL HERE. IT WAS ANNEXED IN 1981 AND ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WITH THE CITYWIDE ZONING, AND REZONED TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IN 2019.

IT IS CONSISTENT WITH TWO OF THE PLANNED GOALS, BUT NOT CONSISTENT WITH MAINTAINING THE ENHANCED LOCAL ESTHETICS, HOWEVER, DO, WITH THE CHANGE THAT IS PROPOSED WITH THE ASPEN PARKWAY, WE SUPPORT THAT AS WELL.

WE DID SEND 17 POSTCARDS. THERE IS A SIGN POSTED AND NOTICE WAITED-- WILL BE THERE AND WE HAVE RECEIVED NO OPPOSITION. SO WE DO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT TO THE PLANT DEVELOP A DISTRICT 123.

JUST NOT THE VARIANCE TO HAVE THE REAR BUILDINGS FACING US AS

A PARKWAY. >> THANK YOU.

DOES THE APPLICANT HERE WISH TO SPEAK?

>> STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE. >> GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS JAMES MARTIN. I LIVE AT 734 CORONATO AVENUE IN DALLAS TEXAS. I WANTED TO PROVIDE A BRIEF INTRODUCTION OF WHO WE ARE AND WHO WE ARE PARTNERING WITH.

OUR PARTNER ON THIS DEAL IS ACTUALLY THE LAND OWNER.

THEY CAME TO US, THEY'VE OWNED THIS PIECE OF LAND SINCE 2016, 2017. THEY HAVE GONE THROUGH SEVERAL ZONING'S, AS MARY JUST IDENTIFIED.

AND WE ARE HERE TO BRING THE PROJECT TO LIFE.

SO OUR SPECIALTY IS GROUND UP DEVELOPMENT IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL SPACE. WE DEVELOP CLASS A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, NOT JUST METAL SHEDS.

AND ASPEN HAS THAT ORIGINAL RETAIL CENTER AT THE FRONT OF THE SITE. AND TOGETHER WE FORM A GREAT TEAM AND FEEL WE CAN FINALLY GET THIS PROJECT OFF THE GROUND.

SINCE IT HAS BEEN SIX, SEVEN YEARS, SINCE THIS ORIGINAL PLAN WAS FORMED. SO, AND GOING THROUGH THAT EXERCISE, BRINGING THIS TO LIFE, WE NEEDED DETAIL TO ALLOW WHAT THE SITE PLAN LOOKS LIKE. THE ORIGINAL ONE DIDN'T REALLY ALIGN WITH HOW OUR VISION, WE THOUGHT IT COULD BE EVEN BETTER.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE JUST SHOWED YOU GUYS, TRYING TO LEVERAGE ASPEN PARKWAY IS MUCH AS WE CAN. MAKE THE BUILDINGS AND ASSOCIATED FACADES LOOK GREAT AND MAKE IT LOOK AND FEEL MORE LIKE A RETAIL, ALONG ASPEN PARKWAY.

AS PART OF THIS PROJECT, IN CASE YOU GUYS DID NOT KNOW, WE PLAN TO INSTALL ALL OF ASPEN PARKWAY AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES, CONNECT THAT EXISTING KNUCKLE THAT IS THERE AND CONNECTED TO MURRAY STREET. SO THAT IS THE PLAN RIGHT NOW.

SO THE VISION HERE IS TO BUILD A COHESIVE COMMERCIAL PARK THAT WE

[00:50:02]

THINK ACHIEVES THREE MAIN GOALS. BRINGING COMMUNITY USES TOGETHER AT A CONVENIENT LOCATION AND DRIVING SMALL AND MIDSIZE BUSINESS GROWTH. SO, AS MANY OF YOU ARE AWARE, THESE BUILDINGS CAN CATER TO A WIDE VARIETY OF USAGE.

AND SOME OTHER FACILITIES WE HAVE, GYMNASTICS, TENANTS THAT NEED A FULL 10,000 SQUARE-FOOT SUITE, A TAE KWON DO STUDIO, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. THAT IS PART OF THE PDN PLANNING WORK. HERE WITH MARIANNE.

WE PLAN AND INCORPORATE SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES OF ASPEN PARKWAY. THIS IS ADJACENT TO 287.

IT'S ACCESSIBLE TO A WIDE BASE HERE.

AND IT'S BUILT FOR SMALL TO MIDSIZE BUSINESSES.

AND I THINK THAT'S GOING TO DRIVE AND BE A KEY FACTOR, BE AN AREA OF GROWTH AND PRESENT THE CITY WITH A MEANINGFUL TAX BASE INCREASE. SO, OUR KEY AND GOING THROUGH THE DETAILED SITE PLANNING EXERCISE IS THE MAIN POINT I WANT TO DRIVE HOME IS THAT PD 123 IS NOT ASKING FOR ANY ZONING OR USE CHANGES, WE WANT TO COMPLY WITH THE WRITTEN PD.

SO SOME OF OUR REQUEST TO AMEND THE PD ARE KIND OF SITE PLAN SPECIFIC DETAILING. SO, ALONG ASPEN PARKWAY THERE IS, TO PROMOTE SOME OF THE CIRCULATION AND CONDUCTIVITY WITH THE MAIN DRIVE AND THE PARKING LOTS, WE NEEDED TO ENCROACH ON THAT LANDSCAPE BUFFER A BIT.

THERE ARE VARIOUS SPOTS ALONG THAT RED LINE.

AS MERRIAM MENTIONED, THE PRIOR PD IDENTIFIED CERTAIN DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS, AND THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN, ANYTIME YOU WANTED TO CHANGE THAT OR CHANGE THE LOCATION, OR CHANGE THE DETAIL FOR THAT MATTER, YOU NEEDED TO DO A FULL PREAPPROVAL WITH PNC AND CITY COUNCIL. ALSO WE ARE ASKING TO INCLUDE MINOR MODIFICATION LANGUAGE IN THIS PD, JUST SO EVERY TIME THAT WE GO THROUGH A MINOR ADJUSTMENT IN THE FUTURE, TO DETAIL IT OUT AND GET IT TO CITY STANDARDS, WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PLANNING AND ZONING AND CITY COUNCIL PROCESS, AND JUST WORK WITH STAFF IN THE BACKGROUND TO GET EVERYTHING PUSHED THROUGH. FOURTH IS SCREENING ALONG THE EAST SIDE. I BELIEVE THE ORIGINAL PD SETTING WAS A FULL MASONRY FENCE ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY, WHICH RIGHT NOW IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURE.

IT MAY GO RESIDENTIAL OR ANOTHER USE.

NOT QUITE SURE YET. BUT WE CAN-- OUR ASKED THERE IS FOR YOU GUYS TO BE FLEXIBLE. SO WE CAN DO SOME SORT OF METAL FENCING, OR WOOD FENCING WITH SOME FOLIAGE SCREENING.

WE WOULD BE OPEN TO SOME MORE COST-EFFECTIVE-- BUT A SEAT-- ACHIEVE THE SAME SCREENING GOAL THAT IS ON THAT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. KIND OF FOUR MAIN ASKS.

AND I WANTED TO TOUCH ON THE PURPLE DOTS HERE.

THE BUILDING FACADE THAT MERRIAM SHOWED YOU.

OUR GOAL HERE, AS MENTIONED HERE IN THIS PRESENTATION IS TO DELIVER A RETAIL FIELD TO THE FRONTS OF THESE BUILDINGS, BECAUSE THEY INTERACT WITH ASPEN PLACE SO MUCH.

WHEN YOU MOVE TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDINGS, WITH THE GREEN DOTS, THAT WILL BE A LOWER ALLOCATION OF STONE AND GLAZING.

AND THOSE FRONT OVERHEAD DOORS WILL BE ON THE FRONT SIDE OF THOSE BUILDINGS, AND DON'T HAVE THE DOORS AT THE BACK, GIVEN THE LAYOUT. BUT WE WANTED TO PRESENT YOU GUYS WITH AN ELEVATED FEEL ACROSS ASPEN PARKWAY, GET YOUR OPINIONS AND PEOPLES-- HOW THEY MIGHT VIEW OVERHEAD DOORS AND TRY TO SCREEN THOSE THE BEST WE CAN BY SLIDING THE OVERHEAD DOORS ON THE FRONTS OF THE BUILDING, SLIDE THOSE TO THE PERIMETER OF THE PLAN, AND PROGRAM THE SITE THAT WAY.

SO, ON THOSE PURPLE BUILDINGS IT WILL LOOK AND FEEL, TOGETHER BETWEEN BRICK AND STONE AT 25 PERCENT, AND 37% METAL

[00:55:05]

FACADE, AND 10% TO 15% GLAZING. SO WHEN YOU GO AROUND THE REARS OF THOSE BUILDINGS, THE DOORS AND BEYOND THAT SIDE, FACING ASPEN. WHICH WE BELIEVE WILL DRIVE HIGHER TENANT, HIGHER RENT RATE, NOT GET-- OUR GOAL HERE IS TO NOT HAVE YOUR AUTO BODY TYPE USES HERE.

THIS WILL BE A CLASS A LOOKING FIELD.

AND OUR RENT WILL DEMAND THAT. SO THIS JUST HIGHLIGHTS SOME OF THE PERCENTAGES THAT I TOUCHED ON.

OVERHEAD DOORS AT THE REAR, STONE, FAUX WOOD CLAD IN HERE.

AND THAT IS IT. I WILL OPEN IT UP THERE AND

ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT?

>> NO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES HERE?

>> THERE WILL BE-- IT'S A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BASED ZONING.

WE COULD HAVE YOUR TYPICAL MILESTONE ELECTRIC TYPE COMPANY THAT RENTS ONE OF THESE BUILDINGS.

>> LIKE A STOREFRONT TYPE OPERATION?

>> YES. ON ASPEN PARKWAY IT WILL BE STOREFRONT FEEL ON THE FRONT SIDE, AND THEN YOU WILL HAVE AN

OVERHEAD DOOR AT THE BACK. >> OKAY.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> YOU SHOW YOU ARE GOING TO WRAP THAT RODE AROUND, WHAT IS IT COMPARED WITH THE WIDTH OF ASPEN? IS AT THE SAME WIDTH?

SAME ROAD LINE? >> I MIGHT PULL UP SOME MORE

DATA FOR YOU. >> ACTUALLY, SO YOU ARE ASKING FOR THE SCHOOL SIZED STREET, MURRAY? THIS STREET HERE? IT JUST HAS--

>> THE RIGHT OF WAY, POSSIBLY THE RIGHT OF WAY.

BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE PAVING IS THE SAME ON ASPEN AND MURRAY, JUST BY LOOKING AT THE OVERHEAD.

MURRAY LOOKS MUCH MORE NARROW. >> IT DOES.

I APOLOGIZE. I DID NOT LOOK AT MURRAY.

I WAS SO FOCUSED ON ASPEN. >> I THINK ONE OF MY CONCERNS AS IF WE ARE GOING TO WRAP THAT AROUND AND MAKE THAT ANOTHER ACCESS POINT FOR EXIT, I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A ISSUE FOR ME. IS THERE ANY PLAN TO UPGRADE MURRAY AT ALL? OR IS IT JUST AN ACCESS POINT?

>> AT THIS TIME I BELIEVE IT'S JUST AN ACCESS POINT.

IT EXISTS TODAY. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

I THINK THE GOAL IS TO UTILIZE THE PARKWAY, THAT MAIN ACCESS POINT. WE COMPLETED THE FORM TO INFORM THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT IS GENERATED HERE.

AND THE PLAN ULTIMATELY IS FOR THAT ASPEN PARKWAY EXIT TO BE

THE MAIN CIRCULATION. >> ANYBODY ELSE?

>> WE COULD COMPLETE THE SIGN THAT SAYS NO YOUR TRAFFIC.

IT IS AN ACCESS POINT, BUT MAYBE SPEED BUMP, OR SOMETHING?

>> IT'S A 20-FOOT WIDE DRIVING PAVEMENT.

I'M NOT AGAINST THESE THINGS, BUT I WOULD NOT WANT TO PUT UP A GATE THERE. I GUESS YOU COULD MAKE IT POSSIBLY ONE WAY FROM THAT INTERSECTION SOUTH? WITHOUT REALLY LOOKING AT IT, I CAN'T TELL IF IT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION. [INDISCERNIBLE]

[01:00:14]

>> CORRECT. >> IF THEY BUILT THE ORIGINAL PD TODAY, THEY COULD TIE IN RIGHT NOW.

>> AND ACTUALLY JUST SPEAKING OF THE ORIGINAL PD, THERE WAS A WEIRD UNCLE AT THIS INTERSECTION THAT WE DID HAVE THEM REMOVED BECAUSE IT WAS EXTRA ROADWAY MAINTENANCE FOR NO REASON.

>> I GUESS I SHOULD HAVE ASKED THE APPLICANT.

TO THINK BUILDING THIS WILL HELP THE HOST BUILD FASTER? DO YOU THINK THAT IF YOU GET THIS APPROVED NSTAR CONSTRUCTION THAT THE HOTEL WILL GO UP A LITTLE BIT FASTER? OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I NEEDED.

THANK YOU. >> SO WHAT IS YOUR ETA ON THE HOTEL? ANYBODY ELSE? HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE HEARING?

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MCDONALD. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TILLMAN.

-- COMMISSIONER KILLIAN. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED, 6-0. MOTION?

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

>> MOTION APPROVED BY COMMISSIONER ALTMAN, SECONDED BY

COMMISSIONER BLAND. >> I WILL DRAW THE MOTION.

>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE COUNCIL IS SUPPORTIVE AS LONG AS THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE IN PURPLE WERE THE FRONT-- SO THE REORDER OF THAT BUILDING FACING THE TRAFFIC FLOW AREA, AND THE OTHER PART WAS THE CHAINING OF THE PARKING USE, CORRECT?

THOSE ARE THE TWO? >> YES.

>> I THINK I HAVE A QUESTION, ARE THOSE BUILDINGS BACK TO BACK? IS THE FRONT OF THOSE THREE BUILDINGS FACING ASPEN? OR IS THAT THE REAR?

>> ORIGINALLY THEY STATED THIS WOULD BE THE REAR.

BUT EVEN IN THEIR PRESENTATION THEY ARE STATING THIS IS GOING

TO BE THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT

WE ARE CLEAR ON NOT. >> WE ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT NOW.

>> AND STAFF HAD A GOOD RECOMMENDATION.

ORIGINALLY THERE WAS A LARGE KNUCKLE RIGHT HERE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PERMITTED AND APPROVED.

AND IT ACTUALLY PINCHED OUT. THAT KNUCKLE CAME OUT AND PINCHED OUT THIS FLOW-THROUGH AND PARKING AREA.

SO, WITH THIS BEING MARTHA, THIS FREED UP A BUNCH OF PARKING OUT FRONT, THAT WAY WE COULD-- WE CAN LEVERAGE THE FRONTS OF THESE BUILDINGS TO ACT MORE LIKE A TRADITIONAL RETAIL BUILDING WHERE YOU ENTER IN THE FRONT, STOREFRONT AND WINDOW, BUT IF YOU COME IN HERE AND DRIVE THROUGH THE REAR, YOU WILL SEE FOUR OVERHEAD DOORS, OR THREE OVERHEAD DOORS, DEPENDING ON THE TENANT AT THE REAR. SO YOU CANNOT SEE THAT FROM THE FRONT SIDE. ON THESE BUILDINGS, RIGHT HERE, THOSE OVERHEAD DOORS JUST GIVE THEM ENOUGH SPACE FOR THE FIRE LANE, SPACE BAR PARKING ON THE WEST SIDE OF THESE BUILDINGS, AND CONSIDERING BOUNDARIES HERE, WE HAVE TO PUT THE OVERHEAD DOORS AT THE FRONTS OF THESE BUILDINGS.

BUT THESE WILL MOSTLY BE SCREENED BY THESE BUILDINGS.

SO WHEN YOU DRIVE DOWN ASPEN AGAIN, THE GOAL IS YOU SEE THIS FRONT-- SORRY. THERE IS A BETTER IMAGE HERE SOMEWHERE. SORRY.

[01:05:09]

>> THERE YOU GO. >> YOU SEE THE STONE, 25 PERCENT, MORE OR LESS, THE ARTICULATION, ET CETERA.

AND THIS WILL NOT BE FACING THE FRONT OF ASPEN PARKWAY.

>> PERSONALLY I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT FACADE ON THOSE THREE BUILDINGS SPECIFICALLY WRAPAROUND.

SO WE HAVE THE FRONT ON THE EAST SIDE, THE EAST THREE BUILDINGS HAVE BADE DOORS, AND WE WILL HAVE ACCESS THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THEM. I THINK THE FACADE WOULD LOOK BETTER WRAPPED AROUND THE FRONT OF THOSE THREE BUILDINGS TO

MATCH. >> SO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS YOU

WANT DONE FRONT EDGE ON THESE-- >> I THINK IT WOULD LOOK BETTER.

IF WE ARE SHOWING BAY DOORS WITH THE FACADE ON THE OTHER THREE, ONE IN THE FRONT THREE WHERE YOU HAVE ACCESS TO BOTH SIDES.

>> I'M GOING TO THROW A WRENCH INTO EVERYBODY'S COG HERE.

WE CANNOT CONTROL ANY OF THOSE MATERIALS.

STATE LAW PROHIBITS US FROM CONTROLLING.

I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING.

AND IT'S A GREAT INTENTION AND EVERYTHING.

I JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO BE SURE THAT WE HAVE FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT THIS IS A PRETTY PICTURE. WHEN THIS IS APPROVED, THIS COULD ALL BE METAL CLADDING ACCORDING TO STATE LAW.

AND I FULLY BELIEVE THEY HAVE THE INTENTION OF DOING THIS.

BUT IF SOMETHING HAPPENS, THEY SELL-- I WANT EVERYBODY TO BE

AWARE OF THAT FACT. >> DO I HEAR A NEW MOTION?

>> LETS HAVE SOME DISCUSSION. I WAS PREPARING TO PRESENT THE MOTION WITH THE VARIANCE LIMITED TO TWO A, THE VARIANCE WOULD ONLY BE TO THE FRONT SIDE, THE ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING, MASONRY, NOT MASONRY MATERIAL, IS THERE ANOTHER VARIANCE IT WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN CONSTRUCTION? WITH THAT SAID, I WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE AND DENY ALL HER REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES, EXCEPT FOR WHAT IS MARKED AS TWO A, WHICH ALLOWS THE VARIANT TO USE MULTIPLE MATERIALS ON THE OUTER APPEARANCE, MASONRY, METAL OR OTHER MASONRY COMPONENTS ALONG THE FRONT AND SIDE ELEVATIONS OF THE BUILDING.

DID I READ THAT CORRECTLY? >> TWO A, BUT NOT TWO BE.

>> YOU DO SUPPORT-- OKAY. I WOULD ADD 2B FOR THE VARIANCE REQUESTED BUILDINGS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING AREA OR FACING FLOOD PLANE AND FOR THE REQUEST FOR BUILDINGS TO THE WEST IS PROPOSED TO BE SCREENED BY THE MASONRY WALL AND A 20-FOOT BUFFER AND NOT FACING A PUBLIC STREET.

DID YOU GET IT? >> YES.

>> GOOD. DESSIE MOTION I MAKE.

>> DO I HEAR A SECOND. A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER ALTMAN AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BLAND.

PLEASE VOTE. THAT PASSES 6-0.

[012 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a Contractor’s Shop, and Storage Yard (Electrical Transmission Repair and Service Center) for Lot 11, Block 1, Oncor Transmission Repair Center Addition, located at 4700 US Highway 67. (SP03-2026-027) ]

WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM 12. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING IT-- TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE CONSIDERING CONSISTENT USE FOR A CONTRACTOR'S SHOP AND STORAGE YARD, ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSIONS ARE PAIR OR SERVICE CENTER, FOR LOT 11, BLOCKED-- BLOCK ONE, ONCOR TRANSMISSION REPAIR CENTER ADDITION, LOCATED AT 4700 U.S. HIGHWAY 67.

>> DANIEL IS HERE TO PRESENT ITEM 12.

THIS IS AN SEP AMENDMENT TO INCORPORATE A NEW SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPING OF THE NEW PLAN ON THE LOT ZONE LII, DESIGNATED AS CORPORATE MODULE. STAFF FINDS REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE. HERE IS A SITE PLAN SHOWING THE PROPOSED RECONFIGURATION. THE PROPOSED CHANGES WOULD BE APPLIED TO THE BOTTOM PORTION OUTLINED IN RED, WHICH I WILL SHOW IN MORE DETAIL ON THE NEXT SLIDE.

[01:10:03]

THE CHANGES WILL FEATURE A SHALLOW ROAD LEFT TURN LANE AND GATED ENTRANCE. IS THAT BETTER? OKAY. HERE IS A CLOSER VIEW SHOWING...

>> THAT IS A NEW ONE. >> HERE IS A CLOSER VIEW SHOWING THE TRANSFORMER STORAGE AREAS, WITH FULL MASONRY SCREENING, AS WELL AS BALLISTIC WALLS FOR ADDED PROTECTION MEASURES.

THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE PROPERTY OUTLINED IN YELLOW WITH THE ADJACENT ZONING, LAND USES AND FEATURED LAND USES IN THE TABLE AT THE BOTTOM. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING INDUSTRIAL USES AND ZONING.

LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING PLANS WILL PROVIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFERING ALONG HIGHWAY 67, AS WELL AS SHILOH ROAD.

THE PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED IN 1987, INITIALLY ZONED LI IN 1989, AND THE EXISTING SUP FAR-- FOR A CONTRACTORS SHOP AND STORAGE YARD WAS ESTABLISHED IN 2020.

PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN A 200-FOOT RADIUS OF THE PROPERTY WERE GIVEN NOTICE AND NO OBJECTION HAS BEEN RECEIVED.

A SIGN WAS PLACED ON THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS NOTICE BEING PUBLISHED IN THE CITY NEWSPAPER AS PER TEXAS LAW COMPLIANCE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SUP AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU, AND I'M OPEN TO QUESTIONS, AND THE APPLICANT'S HERE AS WELL.

>> QUESTIONS TO STAFF? DOES THE STAFF WISH TO SPEAK? NO. OKAY.