Sep 09, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission

ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS WITHDRAWING A REQUEST FOR A PLAT REVISION ON SOUTHLAKE MEDICAL DISTRICT.

I THINK WE CAN TAKE ALL THESE ITEMS AT ONCE ON THE MEETING MINUTES.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THOSE WHO'VE ALL BEEN PROVIDED THOSE AHEAD OF TIME AND HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THEM? HEARING NOTHING, I BELIEVE UNLESS THERE'S QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THE OTHER TWO ITEMS, I THINK, MR. VICE CHAIRMAN, WE CAN TAKE A MOTION ALL AT ONCE.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEMS NUMBER FIVE, SIX AND SEVEN ON OUR AGENDA, WHICH INCLUDES THE MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 19 2021, TABLING ZA21-0057 AND WITHDRAWING ZA21-0074 OK, WE HAVE A MOTION.

OK, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE, PLEASE.

MOTION PASSES SEVEN ZERO.

THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.

NOW WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA.

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE OUR AGENDA IN ORDER THIS EVENING.

I'M NOT AWARE, AT LEAST AS OF THIS TIME OF ANYTHING WITHDRAWING FROM THE AGENDA.

SO AS OF NOW, WE'RE GOING TO HEAR ALL THESE ITEMS. AND THEN FOLLOWING THAT, WE'LL HAVE OUR SIGNBOARD MEETING.

SO IF YOU'RE HERE FOR THE SIGNBOARD, YOU'LL HAVE A LITTLE WHILE TO GO GRAB A COFFEE OR RESTROOM BREAK, SO WE'LL SEE HOW QUICKLY WE CAN WORK THROUGH THIS.

ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS A SITE PLAN FOR LOT SIX AND THE RIVER OAKS OFFICE BUILDING

[8. Consider: ZA19-0068, Site Plan for Lot 6, River Oaks Office Building]

DEVELOPMENT ON THE WEST SIDE OF TOWN.

WE ACTUALLY HEARD THIS CASE IN OUR WORK SESSION EARLIER IN A LOT OF DETAIL, AND SO I THINK GIVEN IT'S FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

APPRECIATE CITY STAFF TURNING TO THE SPECIFIC SITE ITSELF, I GUESS, DENNIS, ANY KIND OF QUICK COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS ON THIS ONE RELATIVE TO JUST A QUICK PRESENTATION? NO, MR. CHAIRMAN, SITE PLANNING CONFORMS WITH THE CONTROLLING CONCEPT PLANNING AND ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY.

THESE ARE THE ELEVATIONS PROPOSED WHICH ARE CONSISTENT WITH ONE OF THE ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATION STYLES THAT WERE AMENDED TO THE DISTRICT.

AND WITH THAT, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AND GO INTO ANY DETAIL THAT EITHER THE COMMISSION OR PUBLIC CARRYING COMMENTS MAY WARRANT.

SO CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE AND ZONING AND CONCEPT PLAN AND SITE PLAN WITH NO VARIANCES.

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ONE.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR THIS ITEM THIS EVENING.

I THINK WE'RE GOOD.

THANK YOU, DENNIS.

[00:05:01]

WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND COME ON UP.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

FOR THE RECORD, I'M NOT SURE WE'RE GOING HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BUT ALWAYS GOOD PROCESS TO LET YOU CHECK IN.

I'M SKIP BLAKE, BLAKE ARCHITECTS HERE AT 1202 SOUTH WHITE CHAPEL IS MY OFFICE IN SOUTHLAKE, AND I'LL SAVE YOU TIME IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR US.

IT'S LIKE, DENNIS SAID, WE'VE PRETTY MUCH FOLLOWED THE MASTER PLAN AND SO SHOULDN'T BE ANY ISSUES, BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS., ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ON THIS ONE? OK.

NOT AS OF NOW.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

ITEM NUMBER EIGHT ON OUR AGENDA DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARINGS, SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYBODY, THAT'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND COMMENT ON THIS ITEM AND SEEING NO ONE, I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION? OK.

I THINK WE'RE GOOD.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT ON OUR AGENDA ZA19-0068.

SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 3RD 2021 AND FURTHER SUBJECT TO THE PLANNED REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER THREE DATED AUGUST 13, 2021.

OK, WE HAVE A MOTION.

OK, LET'S GO AND VOTE, PLEASE.

HERE WE GO.

MOTION PASSES SEVEN ZERO, THANK YOU AND GOOD LUCK AT THE NEXT LEVEL AT CITY COUNCIL, I GUESS NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING IS SEPTEMBER 21ST.

NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER NINE, WHICH IS ALSO A SITE PLAN REQUEST ON LOT

[9. Consider: ZA19-0069, Site Plan for Lot 9, River Oaks Office Building]

NINE WITHIN THE RIVER OAKS OFFICE BUILDING PARK.

A VERY SIMILAR PRESENTATION HERE.

THIS IS ANOTHER ONE WE HEARD IN DETAIL IN OUR WORK SESSION.

I DO THINK THERE'S ONE OR TWO THINGS CITY STAFF WANTS TO POINT OUT THAT WE CAN MAYBE MENTION TO THE APPLICANT.

SO I GUESS, DENNIS, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU.

ONLY ISSUE IS UPON REVIEW OF THIS AND NOT SURE IF IT'S IN THE REPORT, BUT WE DISCOVERED THE SIDE IS ONE PARKING SPACE SHORT FROM WHAT THE CONCEPT PLAN CALLED FOR.

AND SO WE WOULD JUST ADD THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE THAT ADDITIONAL OR 17TH SPACE THAT IS REQUIRED ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE LOT.

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE.

OK, I THINK WE'RE GOOD.

DENNIS, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE APPLICANT SPRINTING BACK UP, RETRACING HIS STEPS HERE AND RENOUNCING HIS NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD FOR GOOD PROTOCOL, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

SKIP BLAKE, BLAKE ARCHITECTS 1202 SOUTH WHITE CHAPEL HERE IN SOUTHLAKE.

THE REASON THAT WE LOST ONE PARKING SPACE WAS WHEN THE MASTER PLAN WAS APPROVED, THE DUMPSTER WAS PLACED IN THE FLOODPLAIN IN A FLOOD ZONE, AND WE CAN'T PUT A DUMPSTER IN A FLOOD ZONE.

AND SO YOU CAN SEE, IN FACT, THAT LINE UP THERE SO.

SO WE SHIFTED EVERYTHING TO THE LEFT AND THERE WAS AN ISLAND THAT WAS REQUESTED.

AND SO BASICALLY WE TRIED TO JUST OMIT THE ISLAND AND PICK UP THE PARKING SPACE THAT WE LOST BY HAVING TO SHIFT THE DUMPSTER TO THE WEST.

SO THAT'S WHY WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE PARKING, BUT WE JUST WE CAN'T PUT THE DUMPSTER IN A FLOOD ZONE.

SO THAT'S WHY WE HAD TO ALTER THE MASTER PLAN ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.

OKAY, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT RELATED TO THAT OR ANYTHING ELSE? OK.

WE'RE GOOD FOR NOW.

ON ITEM NUMBER NINE, WE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, SO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANYBODY WHO'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD TONIGHT.

COMMENT ON THAT ITEM.

PLEASE FEEL FREE, SIR.

AND JUST IF YOU DON'T MIND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, AND TYPICALLY WE SAY KEEP IT TO THREE MINUTES, BUT WE'LL PUT YOU ON HONOR SYSTEM.

[CHUCKLING] IT'LL BE SHORTER THAN THAT.

I'M KEVIN [INAUDIBLE].

I LIVE IN SOUTHLAKE, MY HOUSE.

I'VE GOT AN OFFICE JUST TO THE SOUTH OF THIS ONE.

AND MY ONLY REQUEST IS YOU HAD TO TRY TO FIND SOME WAY TO GET IDEALLY A COUPLE MORE PARKING SPOTS BECAUSE IF THEY RUN OUT OF PARKING SPOTS, IT AFFECTS MY BUSINESS AND MY BUILDING BECAUSE MY PARKING IS GOING TO GET USED UP.

SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN GET MORE PARKING SPOTS WITH THE FLOODPLAIN THE WAY IT IS SHORT OF SHRINKING THE BUILDING OR MAKING SOME ADJUSTMENTS.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HOLD, YOU KNOW, THE BARE MINIMUM OF PARKING SPOTS AND I'D ALSO, I GUESS, ADD WITH THAT SITE PLAN, I THINK THEY CAN GO TO ONE HANDICAPPED SPOT INSTEAD

[00:10:03]

OF TWO.

I BELIEVE IF YOU'RE 25 OR LESS PARKING SPOTS, YOU CAN HAVE ONE HANDICAPPED SPOT AND THAT'LL FREE UP BASICALLY AN ADDITIONAL SPOT BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES THOSE HANDICAPPED SPOTS DON'T GET USED.

THAT'S ALL.

OK, WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND DULY NOTED FOR THE RECORD.

AND I'D BE REMISS, I GUESS, WHILE I'VE GOT THIS OPEN, EVEN THOUGH THIS WAS ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT, I THINK, FROM A NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST ABOUT BERMING, WHICH ISN'T TECHNICALLY REALLY IN OUR PURVEY.

BUT I GUESS I JUST ASK THE APPLICANT, MAYBE JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT ONE AND JUST SEE WHAT SPECIFICALLY THE ISSUE IS AND SEE IF THERE'S A WAY TO MAYBE HELP ADDRESS IT.

SO, ONE ITEM LATE FORGOT THAT, BUT JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT ON THE RUCKER, AT LEAST SOMEHOW .

PUBLIC HEARING'S STILL OPEN.

DOES ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO COME FORWARD AND COMMENT ON ITEM NUMBER NINE? OK.

SEEING NO ONE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER NINE AND I GUESS, YOU KNOW, OPEN TO SOME INPUT FROM THE COMMISSION HERE IN TERMS OF IF WE WANT TO REQUEST THE APPLICANT TO PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL, SEEING IF THEY CAN FIND THAT 17TH, I BELIEVE 17TH, 17TH PARKING SPOT IN ORDER TO BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING WHICH I THINK THEY HAVE BEEN SO FAR IN TERMS OF THE SITE PLAN AND CONCEPT PLANS CONTINUING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT AND FIND THAT 17 SPOT WOULD, WOULD COMMISSION BE AMENABLE TO THAT IN TERMS OF IF THIS IS PASSED ALONG? OK, OK.

SO I THINK WE'LL TRY TO ADDRESS YOUR COMMENT, SIR.

AND I GUESS THAT WILL GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO TRY TO, YOU KNOW, ADDRESS THE PUBLIC COMMENT WE HAD AND TRY TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.

SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION? OK? MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER NINE ON OUR AGENDA ZA19-0069 SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 8TH 2021 REVISED.

ALSO SUBJECT TO OUR PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER FIVE DATED SEPTEMBER 8TH 2021 AND NOTING THE APPLICANT'S WILLINGNESS TO EVALUATE THE ADDITION OF ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES OR OPTIONS, AND CLARIFYING AND EVALUATING THE REMOVAL OF ONE OF THE HANDICAPPED SPOTS.

OK, GOOD MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OK, GO AHEAD AND VOTE, PLEASE.

AND PASSES 7-0.

CONGRATULATIONS, GOOD LUCK AGAIN ON THE NEXT LEVEL AND APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THAT PUBLIC COMMENT INTO ACCOUNT.

[10. Consider: Resolution No. 21-037, (ZA21-0067), Specific Use Permit for Two Accessory Buildings]

SO NOW WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 10 THIS EVENING, WHICH IS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR TWO ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AT THE VERIZON BUILDING.

AND THIS IS ANOTHER ONE THAT WE HEARD IN MORE DETAIL DURING OUR WORK SESSION.

AND THIS INVOLVES KIND OF TWO REQUESTS, ONE OF WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY GRANTED.

BUT TIMING RAN OUT ON PULLING A PERMIT FOR IT AND THEN A SECOND REQUEST.

AND, YOU KNOW, I GUESS SAME REQUEST HERE, DENNIS.

IF YOU DON'T MIND JUST BRIEFLY SUMMARIZING WHAT WE SEE THE VISUAL ON HERE IN FRONT OF US.

CERTAINLY, THE PREVIOUS SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND SPECIFIC USE PERMIT ALLOWED FOR A CONTROLLED GUARD HOUSE AND ENTRY ON THE WEST DOVE DRIVE ACCESS.

AS YOU MENTIONED, THE PERMIT WAS NOT PULLED AND WORK COMMENCED ON THAT, SO IT EXPIRED AFTER A SIX MONTH PERIOD FOLLOWING THE APPROVAL.

THEY'VE RESUBMITTED THAT AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THIS GUARD HOUSE, THEY WISH TO ADD A SECOND GUARD HOUSE AT A CONTROLLED ENTRY SPACE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

IT'S NOW A REQUEST FOR TWO ACCESSORY BUILDINGS UNDER THAT SUP PROVISION.

THIS IS A LOCATION OF THE DOVE SECTION, AND THEN THIS IS THE ELEVATION FOR THAT.

IT DOES CONFORM WITH THE SUP REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL ACCESSORY.

AND THIS IS THE NORTH GUARD HOUSE.

AND THE LOCATION ON THE SITE.

AND ONCE AGAIN, THIS ALSO CONFORMS WITH THOSE STANDARDS.

DENNIS ON THE SOUTH GUARD, IS THERE A REASON WHY THE CURB CUT DOESN'T ALSO WIDEN TO KIND OF GO ALONG WITH THE WIDENING OF THE ACCESS? HOT IT JUST KIND OF TAPERS BACK IN KIND OF LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE TWO LANES GOING OUT ON THE LEFT SIDE AND THEN ONE ON THE INSIDE AND THEN WIDENS OUT.

[00:15:03]

JUST CURIOUS WHY THEY WOULDN'T WIDEN THAT WHOLE CURB CUT.

MAYBE IT'S JUST EXPENSE.

THE ONLY REASON I MIGHT SUSPECT IS THAT IT MAY ALREADY AND I DON'T HAVE A MEASUREMENT ON IT.

BUT THE MAXIMUM CURB CUT WIDTH'S 40 FOOT, AND IT MAY ALREADY BE PUSHING THAT 40 FOOT WIDTH LIMITATION.

AND THEY LIKELY AS THAT SINGLE ENTRY DRIVE MOVES IN, THEY JUST WIDENED IT TO GET THE TWO ACCESS LANES FOR GETTING PEOPLE IN AND OUT, OR GETTING PEOPLE INTO THE SITE.

MAKES SENSE, THANKS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE? WE'LL CALL IT BACK UP, WE NEED YOU HERE, DENNIS.

NOW WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL UP THE APPLICANT ON THIS ITEM IF YOU WOULD MIND.

GO AHEAD, IF YOU DON'T MIND, STATE NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

AND THEN I THINK YOU HEARD SOME OF THE QUESTIONS COMMENTS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE YOU CAN JUST KIND OF ADDRESS MAYBE THE QUESTIONS YOU'VE HEARD SO FAR AND WE CAN JUST DO Q&A.

MY NAME IS MASON GRIFFIN.

I RESIDE AT 6423 TULIP LANE IN DALLAS, AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING VERIZON WIRELESS ON THIS APPLICATION.

AND TO ANSWER TO THE QUESTION THAT'S BEEN RAISED SO FAR, FRANKLY, I DON'T KNOW.

THIS FACILITY HAS OBVIOUSLY BEEN AROUND FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE HOW THE DECISION WAS MADE TO JUST TO LIMIT THE ACCESS JUST TO THE THREE LANES.

BUT I DID WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE SOUTHERN OF THE TWO GUARD HOUSES THIS HAS BEEN MENTIONED WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN TWENTY EIGHTEEN AND VERIZON, JUST BECAUSE OF BUDGETARY REASONS, DIDN'T GET AROUND TO BUILDING IT IN TIME.

AND SO WE'RE BACK ON THAT.

THE NORTH GUARD HOUSE IS NEW, BUT WILL REST ENTIRELY WITHIN TWO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND ONLY BE VISIBLE FROM THE LOT TO THE NORTH, WHICH IS ALSO OWNED BY VERIZON.

SO CERTAINLY AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT ANYONE HAS AND SEE IF I CAN ADDRESS ISSUES, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THAT GUARD HOUSE? I MEAN, LIKE THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S JUST AN ALLEYWAY BETWEEN TWO BUILDINGS.

SURE, THE REASON FOR THAT IS I BELIEVE THAT A LOT OF DELIVERIES OCCUR IN THE BACK.

SO THERE'S MORE TRAFFIC THAN THAN YOU MIGHT USUALLY SUSPECT THERE.

AND SO THAT THEY WANTED TO JUST CONTROL ACCESS TO THAT POINT AS WELL.

BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S EVEN CLOSE TO ANYTHING.

IT'S JUST KIND OF LIKE IN AN ALLEYWAY WITH THE SIDEWALK.

SO UNLESS THEY'RE DELIVERING ON A MOTORCYCLE, I DON'T SEE--THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

YEAH, IT'S--WELL, I SHOULD POINT OUT THAT VERIZON IS WE'VE BEEN TO A SPIN MEETING ON THIS SEVERAL MONTHS AGO.

VERIZON DOES PLAN IN THE FUTURE TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, AND SO IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE TRAFFIC FLOW.

THERE WON'T BE THAT MANY WORKERS WORKING THERE, BUT THERE'LL AT LEAST BE SOME FOLKS WORKING OPERATING ON THE TRACT TO THE NORTH OF THE EXISTING TRACT.

SO WHAT IS THE REASON THAT WE NEED A GUARD HOUSE? I MEAN, ARE YOU GUYS GETTING MORE TRAFFIC, TURN AROUND TRAFFIC OR WHATEVER? GREAT QUESTION.

I PUT THIS TO THE CLIENT JUST THE OTHER DAY BECAUSE I SUBMITTED THIS APPLICATION.

AND YOU KNOW, I KNOW I'M GOING TO BE ASKED, WHY ARE WE EVEN DOING THIS AND REALLY WHAT THEY SAID IS THAT BACK IN TWENTY EIGHTEEN, WHEN THIS IDEA WAS INITIALLY PROPOSED, THEY WERE HAVING TO FRANKLY CHASE OFF SOME FOLKS THAT DIDN'T BELONG THERE.

THIS IS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY NATIONWIDE FOR VERIZON, IF YOU'RE NOT AWARE, AND THEY WERE HAVING PEOPLE ON THE PROPERTY ACTUALLY TAKING PICTURES OF THE BUILDING, WHICH OBVIOUSLY MAKES EVERYONE NERVOUS.

AND SO THEY THOUGHT THEY WOULD JUST CONTROL THAT TYPE OF PEDESTRIAN OR NOT, THAT KIND OF VEHICULAR TRAFFIC BY PUTTING UP THE GUARD HOUSE.

I THOUGHT MAYBE THEY HAD PEOPLE IN THERE SLIPPING IN TO CHARGE THEIR ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

[CHUCKLING] YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY.

I THINK WE'RE GOOD FOR NOW.

WE'LL CALL YOU BACK IF WE NEED ANYTHING.

ITEM NUMBER 10 ON OUR AGENDA DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANYBODY WHO'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND COMMENT AND SEEING NO ONE, I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS IS A SUP AGAIN FOR ONE IMPROVEMENT THAT WAS ALREADY PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AND ANOTHER ONE THAT'S FAIRLY HIDDEN, ALBEIT IT WAS KIND OF INTERESTING CONTEXT AS TO HEARING THE THOUGHT BEHIND IT.

AND AS USUAL, WITH THIS SUP, SINCE IT INVOLVES IMPROVEMENTS, IT'S UNLIMITED IN TIME, SO THEY'LL BE THERE FOR, YOU KNOW, FOREVER THEORETICALLY.

SO ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DELIBERATION ON THIS ONE.

ENTERTAIN A VOTE? NO, SIR.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 10 ON OUR AGENDA ZA21-0067

[00:20:01]

SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 3RD 2021 AND SUBJECT TO THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT REVIEW.

SUMMARY NUMBER THREE DATED AUGUST 31ST 2021 AND SUBJECT TO RESOLUTION NUMBER 21-037.

CONGRATULATIONS, GOOD LUCK AT THE NEXT LEVEL AT CITY COUNCIL.

VOTE PLEASE.

PASSES 7-0.

NOW WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 11 ON OUR AGENDA, TAKING

[11. Consider: ZA21-0068, Site Plan for Market by Macy's Patio on]

EVERYTHING IN ORDER THIS EVENING, WHICH IS A SITE PLAN FOR MARKET BY MACY'S PATIO.

THIS IS ANOTHER ONE THAT WE HEARD IN DETAIL IN OUR WORK SESSIONS, SO I THINK STAFF IS REALLY JUST GOING TO KIND OF PULL UP THE SITE PLAN IMPROVEMENTS OR MAYBE JUST SOMETHING THAT KIND OF MAYBE MORE OF A SIT PLAN AS WELL THAT SHOWS, YEAH, EXACTLY THAT SHOWS KIND OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THE TOP AND THEN PROPOSE CONDITIONS THERE ON THE BOTTOM IN TERMS OF REMOVAL OF THREE PARKING SPOTS AND EXPANSION OF THE PATIO AREA.

SO I GUESS, DENNIS, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE WE COMMENT ON ON THIS ONE? NO, MR. CHAIRMAN, BUT I'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

OKAY, ANY QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF RIGHT NOW? OK, WE'LL LET YOU KNOW IF WE HAVE ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE HOPEFULLY FOR THIS ITEM THIS EVENING? GO AHEAD AND COME ON UP.

IF YOU DON'T MIND, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

AND YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED A PRESENTATION.

I THINK MAYBE JUST SOME Q&A, AT LEAST FOR NOW.

IF WE NEED A PRESENTATION, WE CAN GET INTO IT, BUT WE CAN MAYBE SEE IF Q&A--[INAUDIBLE] WHAT MOST OF OUR PRESENTATION WITH SOME ENHANCEMENTS HERE.

MY NAME IS AMY RINK.

I'M WITH NELSON WORLDWIDE OUT OF CINCINNATI.

THE ADDRESS IS 311 ELM STREET.

I'M MARK STANDISH.

I'M THE DISTRICT VICE PRESIDENT FOR MACY'S IN HALF OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, DALLAS FORT WORTH AND I LIVE AT 3200 MCKINNEY AVENUE IN DALLAS, TEXAS.

OKAY, I GUESS ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM FOR THE APPLICANT? YEAH, COULD YOU KIND OF EXPLAIN TO ME, LIKE, WHERE'S THE KITCHEN GOING TO BE? WHAT'S YOUR HOURS OF OPERATION? WHO YOU'RE EXPECTING TO COME IN? SURE.

SO, YOU KNOW, THIS LOCATION IS AN EXISTING MACY'S RIGHT NOW THAT'S GOING THROUGH A REMODEL.

THE KITCHEN WILL WILL SHIFT DOWN TOWARDS THAT CORNER OF THE BUILDING RIGHT NOW.

IF YOU'RE AWARE IT IS IN BETWEEN, THERE'S A GAP IN BETWEEN SOME SALES AREA, SO THE BENEFIT TO MOVING IT DOWN IS TO HAVE BETTER ACCESS FOR THE CUSTOMER TO THE FLOW OF THE MERCHANDISE, AS WELL AS THEN BRING IT DOWN TO THAT CORNER OF THE BUILDING THERE, WHERE WE CAN EXIT THE BUILDING AND ACCESS, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF RE-ENERGIZING THAT SPACE AND TO CREATE THE PATIO THERE.

THE HOURS OF OPERATION ARE PLANNED JUST DURING STORE STORE OPENING HOURS.

SO I BELIEVE THAT RIGHT NOW IS 11 TO 7.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'LL CHANGE, BUT THAT'S THE CURRENT HOURS BEFORE WE CLOSED.

AND WHAT'S YOUR FARE GOING TO BE? I MEAN, LIKE, WHAT ARE YOU SERVING HERE, COFFEE, SANDWICHES? YEAH, COFFEE SANDWICHES, DRINKS.

IT'S GOING TO BE SIMILAR.

OK, I'M JUST CURIOUS FOR CONTEXT REASONS, WHAT WHAT THE REMODEL IS, IS IT A DIFFERENT SORT OF SORT OF ENVIRONMENT WITHIN THE STORE ITSELF? AND IS IT SIMPLY JUST TAKING WHAT WAS INSIDE AND MOVING IT OUTSIDE AND ADDING MORE OF A DIFFERENT FEEL OR SOMETHING FOR THE RESTAURANT ITSELF OR THE PATIO AREA OR OVERALL? WELL, I GUESS IT WAS KIND OF A BROAD QUESTION ON WHAT IS GOING ON INSIDE.

AND THEN IS THE PATIO RESTAURANT JUST BASICALLY BRINGING WHAT WAS ALREADY INSIDE OUTSIDE? YEAH, I MEAN, IT'S ENHANCING IT.

AND THE LOOK AND THE FEEL OF THE PATIO REFLECTS THE LOOK AND THE FEEL OF WHAT WE'RE DOING ON THE INTERIOR THERE.

AND I CAN EVEN SPEAK TO SOME OF THE INTERIOR REMODEL, BUT THE SPACE BEFORE THE REASON FOR THE REMODEL IS TO KIND OF OPEN UP THE SPACE TO BE MORE IN LINE WITH THE MERCHANDIZING CONCEPT THAT MACY'S HAS CURRENTLY TODAY.

DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK OF THAT? SO EXACTLY WHAT WE STARTED.

SO THE PURPOSE OF MOVING THE RESTAURANT OVER AND THEN NEEDING MORE SEATING SPACE AND THEN CAPITALIZING WHAT OUR CUSTOMERS HAVE EVEN ASKED IN THIS VENUE IN FUTURE MARKET BY MACY'S IS THIS WHOLE LIVE WORK PLAY OUTDOOR CONCEPT, OR I CAN BE A PART OF THE SOUTHLAKE COMMUNITY.

SO THE FIRST PART HERE WHEN WE SET THE STORE IS THEY HAD A WORKING KITCHEN,

[00:25:01]

WHICH WE WOULD HAVE NOW AND THEN COFFEE DRINKS WHILE YOU CAN SHOP AND THEN MORE OF AN INSIDE SITTING AREA BASED ON WHAT HAPPENED ONCE WE CAME THROUGH THE PANDEMIC.

THE ACTUAL AREA WAS NOT USABLE BECAUSE WE HADN'T REALLY USED A LOT OF OUR SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE STORE TO DRIVE OUR BUSINESS.

SO THAT BUSINESS MODEL WASN'T SUSTAINABLE FROM WHAT WE HAD IN THE STORE AND WHAT OUR BEST OFFERINGS AT MACY'S, ESPECIALLY FOR THE SOUTHLAKE CUSTOMER, WE DIDN'T HAVE IT.

SO BY MOVING IT DOWN, WE WOULD CREATE A BETTER EXPERIENCE BECAUSE THE WAY YOU WOULD BUY YOUR SHEETS OR YOUR COOKWARE BECAUSE OF THAT SPACE AND HAVE TO WALK THAT BACK THROUGH WITH SOMEBODY HAVING DRINKS OR PASTRIES OR COFFEE.

SO MOVING IT DOWN, WHICH ALLOWS US TO MOVE THE KITCHEN DOWN AND THAT PATIO ALLOWS US TO HAVE MORE SEATING SPACE FOR THE CUSTOMER.

AND THEY WERE ASKING FOR MORE OUTSIDE SEATING WHEN WE HAD THE MARKET OPEN FOR TWO MONTHS.

PRE-PANDEMIC, I JUST CAME INTO THE MARKET FROM ATLANTA [INAUDIBLE] THIS CUSTOMER LOVED IT.

SO WHAT THIS ALSO ALLOWS US TO DO BY RIGHT SIZING AND MOVE IN THE KITCHEN.

IT WILL ALLOW US TO BRING A TRUE BEAUTY DEPARTMENT WITH SKIN CARE AND FOUNDATION AND BETTER BRANDS WE DIDN'T HAVE IT.

IT ALLOWS US ALSO TO BRING IN FINE JEWELRY, WHICH IS APPROPRIATE FOR WHAT THIS CUSTOMER ASKED.

WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT AND IT ALLOWS US TO BRING SUNGLASS HUT FINISH LINE SOME OF OUR MOST SUCCESSFUL PRODUCT INTO A STORE, WHICH THEN ALLOWS US TO TAKE THE BEST OF WHAT HAPPENED HERE AT SOUTHLAKE IS MORE EVENTING AND COMMUNITY, JUST DOING MORE IN-STORE TO BRING CURATED PRODUCTS IN, AND WE LEARN WE DIDN'T GET THAT RIGHT WHEN WE OPENED UP AT WEST BEND.

SO THAT'S WHY WE SORT OF CLOSED THE AREA DOWN TO REPURPOSE OUR SPACE.

WE WEREN'T DRIVING THE PRODUCTIVITY NEEDED, AND WE WEREN'T CAPITALIZING ON WHAT SHE SAID SHE WANTED OVER HERE AS THE BEST OF MACY'S.

AND THEN SHE GAVE US FEEDBACK LIKE MOVING, LIKE HAVING AN INDOOR OUTDOOR SEATING AND MAINTAINING FOOD.

THAT'S A KEY DIFFERENTIATOR [INAUDIBLE] MANY OF OUR MACY'S DON'T HAVE THAT.

HMM.

COOL.

NICE.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ON THIS ONE? OK, I THINK WE'RE GOOD IF WE NEED YOU, WE'LL CALL YOU BACK.

ITEM NUMBER 11 ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARINGS, SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYBODY WHO'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SEEING NO ONE COME FORWARD, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

YOU KNOW, I THINK IN GENERAL, WE'VE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE ALL ELSE EQUAL, WE ALWAYS KIND OF LIKE ACTIVATION OF STREET SCENES, PARTICULARLY IN OUR IN OUR DOWNTOWN DISTRICT.

I GUESS KIND OF CURIOUS FROM STAFF, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT THIS THESE IMPROVEMENTS ARE DONE AND FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE TENANT MOVES OUT AND THE AREA IS KIND OF JUST SITTING THERE UNUSED, I GUESS, HOW DOES THAT WORK? I'M ASSUMING THEY HAVE TO JUST MAINTAIN IT IN DECENT CONDITION THE LANDLORD DOES.

OR JUST WHAT HAPPENS IN THAT CASE, BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE ATYPICAL FOR A TENANT SPACE OF THIS SIZE TO HAVE FOOD SERVICE.

SO IT WORKS FOR THEM, BUT IT MAY NOT WORK FOR THE NEXT TWO OR THREE TENANTS.

IT COULD BE USED AS AN OUTDOOR IF ANOTHER TENANT EVER OCCUPIED THE BUILDING IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE IT WAS APPROVED IN THE SITE PLAN.

IT COULD BE USED AS AN OUTDOOR PATIO AREA, DINING AREA OR COFFEE AREA, SO IT COULD BE UTILIZED, I ASSUME, TO BE UP TO IF THAT EVER HAPPENED, HOPEFULLY IT NEVER WILL.

BUT IF IT DID, IT WOULD BE UP TO THAT TENANT MOVING IN, WHETHER THEY WANT TO USE IT.

BUT THEY WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE IT BECAUSE OF THE APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN.

OR EVEN JUST SET OUT TABLES FOR PEOPLE TO SIT AT OR WHATEVER IT IS.

I MEAN THAT'S PART OF THEIR SITE PLAN.

HOPEFULLY IT'S USED PRODUCTIVELY IN SOME MANNER.

RIGHT.

OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DELIBERATIONS ON THIS ITEM? I GUESS THE ONLY THING I'D SAY, NUMBER ONE, I REALLY LIKE THE OUTSIDE ACTIVATION, LIKE YOU SAID, CHAIRMAN, I THINK THAT'S HELPFUL FOR DOWNTOWN.

IT'S HELPFUL FOR THE LIVELIHOOD OF DOWNTOWN AND THE ACTIVITY.

ALSO BUILDING ON YOUR POINT ABOUT HOW IS IT LEFT IF THEY ARE TO VACATE THIS SPACE? I GUESS THE ONLY I WONDER IF THERE'S SOME SORT OF TWEET WE CAN PUT AROUND IT WHERE IT SAYS YOU HAVE TO AT LEAST REMOVE THE RAILING OR SOMETHING SO THAT IF THEY MOVE OUT, YOU DON'T HAVE THIS JUST BOX OF A RAIL THAT LOOKS VERY ABANDONED.

INSTEAD, YOU JUST REMOVE IT AND THERE'S A CLEAN WALKWAY.

YOU COULD PUT THAT AS A CONDITION ON A SITE PLAN APPROVAL.

YOU KNOW IT IS IN THE, WE DO HAVE THIS ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT THAT WILL BE RUNNING CONCURRENTLY WITH IT, AND THERE MAY BE AN OPPORTUNITY WITHIN THAT ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT IF THE SPACE IS NOT BEING UTILIZED THAT WE CAN LOOK AT STRUCTURING THAT TO HAVE THOSE

[00:30:01]

RAILING MOVED SO IT WOULD OPEN UP THAT PEDESTRIAN INGRESS EGRESS.

AND I'M SURE I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE FOR RPAI, BUT THEY WOULD PROBABLY ALSO PREFER THAT IF THERE WAS NOT A A TENANT OCCUPY IN THE BUILDING.

YEAH.

WELL, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I WAS GOING WITH MY LINE OF QUESTIONING.

AND MAYBE WE CAN JUST NOTE THAT AS SOMETHING FOR THE APPLICANT TO CONSIDER HOW THEY WOULD POTENTIALLY WORD SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND HOW YOU KNOW WHAT COUNCIL WOULD WOULD DELIBERATE ON IN TERMS OF AGAIN.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING ABOUT.

IF IT'S A PROLONGED SITUATION WHERE IT'S JUST NOT BEING UTILIZED, DO WE REALLY WANT TO RAIL OFF ALL THAT WALKWAY AREA? I MEAN, I THINK THE PARKING SPOTS WE CAN PROBABLY LIVE WITHOUT, WITH THE STRUCTURE RIGHT BEHIND IT, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD JUST DIRECT CITY STAFF TO INSTRUCT THAT GOES INTO THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT.

YES, SO WE CAN LOOK AT THAT OPPORTUNITY.

RATHER THAN MAKING A CONDITION BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE CAN FORCE IT IN THE--YEAH, NO, I THINK YOU'RE CORRECT.

I THINK THAT DOESN'T FALL UNDERNEATH THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL IS PROBABLY MY UNDERSTANDING.

SO IT'S MORE JUST FOR THE NEXT LEVEL.

COMMISSIONER DYCHE THAT MAY BE THE MOST EXPEDIENT WAY TO ADDRESS IT.

I CONCUR.

I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER DYCHE; THERE, I'VE SAID IT.

I CAN'T REMEMBER HOW MANY TIMES HAVE SAID THAT.

[CHUCKLING] ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS ON THIS? HOPEFULLY, MR. VICE CHAIRMAN HAS A GENERAL IDEA HOW TO ADDRESS THAT.

ANYTHING ELSE? OK, WELL, THEN WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

DID WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING? WE DID HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.

CORRECT? YES, YES.

BUT I'M ALWAYS HAPPY TO HAVE THAT ASKED.

ALL RIGHT.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER ONE ON OUR AGENDA.

ZA21-0068 SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 3RD 2021 AND SUBJECT TO OUR SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER TWO DATED SEPTEMBER 3RD 2021.

AND WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT STAFF EVALUATE THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT TO CONSIDER THE REMOVAL OF RAILING OR FENCING IN THE EVENT THE TENANT VACATES THE SPACE OR THE SPACE BECOMES UNUSED AT SOME POINT.

GOOD MOTION.

OK AND MOTION PASSES SEVEN ZERO.

VOTE PLEASE.

CONGRATULATIONS AND GOOD LUCK AT THE NEXT LEVEL AND ALWAYS GREAT TO HAVE YOU IN TOWN SQUARE AND HOPE THINGS CONTINUE TO WORK OUT FOR YOU.

WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AND MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 12 ON OUR AGENDA, WHICH IS A ZONING

[12. Consider: Ordinance No. 480-657F, (ZA21-0070), Zoning Change and Concept/Site Plan for Kimball Park]

CHANGE AND CONCEPT SITE PLAN FOR KIMBALL PARK.

THIS IS GOING TO START THE REST OF OUR AGENDA WHERE WE DID NOT HEAR ANY OF THESE IN OUR WORK SESSIONS.

SO SOME OF THESE, I THINK, WILL GET A LITTLE BIT MORE EXTENSIVE PRESENTATION.

SOME OF THEM ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT MORE BRIEF.

BUT WE'LL TAKE IT ONE AT A TIME AND GO AHEAD AND LAUNCH INTO IT.

IF YOU COULD, DENNIS.

THIS IS A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING OR AMEND THE ZONING CURRENTLY IN PLACE ON THE KIMBALL PARK DEVELOPMENT.

MR. CHAIRMAN.

THIS IS SPECIFICALLY TO ADD A DISTRICT OF PERMITTED USES ON LOT FIVE WITHIN KIMBALL PARK.

LOT FIVE IS SHOWN IN RED ON THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH, IT IS A CONSTRUCTED BUILDING.

NO CHANGES TO THE BUILDING ARE PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS AMENDMENT.

LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE PROPERTY IS MIXED USE AND CURRENT ZONING IS S-P-2 GENERALIZED SITE PLAN DISTRICT [INAUDIBLE].

LOT FIVE, CURRENTLY, IT PERMITS C-2 USES WITH LIMITATIONS, AS WELL AS THE ABILITY TO REQUEST A CORPORATE TENANT USER FOR THE ENTIRE BUILDING WITH APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

THIS AMENDMENT IS TO PROPOSE ADDING O-1 DISTRICT USES AS A PERMITTED USE BY [INAUDIBLE] IN ADDITION TO WHAT'S THERE TODAY.

THIS IS THE APPROVED CONCEPT PLAN AND THE APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR LOT FIVE.

PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE EXISTING BUILDING.

AND THIS IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPOSED USES, IT LISTS THE USES THAT ARE CURRENTLY PERMITTED ON THAT LOT IN BLACK AND THEN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF USES TO BE ADDED.

AND THESE CHANGES ARE ONLY BEING APPLIED TO LOT FIVE HERE.

ALL OTHER USES REGULATIONS OF THE PARK VILLAGE DISTRICT AND DISTRICT 114 WOULD

[00:35:02]

REMAIN INTACT.

AND MODIFICATIONS RELATED TO THE REGULATIONS FOR THIS LOT SPECIFICALLY.

THIS IS A NOTIFICATION BOUNDARY FOR WHICH NOTICES WERE SENT BECAUSE THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE DISTRICT.

NOTIFICATIONS WERE SENT TO ALL OWNERS WITHIN THE DISTRICT BOUNDARY, AS WELL AS ANYONE WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE DISTRICT BOUNDARY.

AND WE HAVE RECEIVED NO RESPONSES AS TO DATE.

WITH THAT, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS POINT.

I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE SOME QUESTIONS AT SOME POINT, DENNIS, BUT I THINK WE'RE GOOD FOR NOW.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR THIS ITEM THIS EVENING? IF YOU DON'T MIND STATING YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND MAYBE JUST A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT BEHIND IT, IF YOU DON'T MIND, AND I DO REMEMBER WHEN THIS CASE CAME THROUGH ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, I'D HAVE TO SAY THAT WAS PROBABLY ONE OF MY MOST MISERABLE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETINGS EVER DONE OVER ZOOM, WHICH I HOPE WE NEVER HAVE TO REPEAT AGAIN.

SO WELCOME IN PERSON THIS TIME.

MY NAME IS PAUL MOSS AND I OFFICE AT 8821 DAVIS BOULEVARD, KELLER, TEXAS.

I AM THE OWNER OF LOT FIVE AND THE BUILDING THAT'S CONSTRUCTED THERE.

WE REALLY LIKE KIMBALL PARK, BUT WE'VE HAD ISSUE AFTER ISSUE GETTING A TENANT FOR OUR BUILDING.

COVID PLAYED A BIG PART IN THAT.

WE HAD A CORPORATE TENANT THAT WAS GOING TO TAKE THE ENTIRE BUILDING WAS APPROVED FOR THAT DURING COVID, THEY LOST THEIR FUNDING.

SO WE ARE BACK TO SQUARE ONE.

WE ARE WORKING WITH SOME OFFICE USE TENANTS THAT ARE INTERESTED IN OUR BUILDING, BUT THEY WOULD NOT TAKE THE ENTIRE BUILDING.

SO AT THIS POINT, WE'RE ASKING FOR THE O-1 ZONING SO WE CAN BRING IN MAYBE ONE OR TWO OR MAYBE EVEN THREE TENANTS FOR THE BUILDING.

AND IT'S I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S AN EYESORE, BUT IT'S A BUILDING IN SOUTHLAKE THAT NEEDS TO HAVE TENANTS IN THERE AND IT'S SITTING IN THE MIDDLE OF A BEAUTIFUL DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT'S NOT DOING MUCH GOOD FOR MYSELF OR THE SURROUNDING AREA HAVING AN EMPTY BUILDING.

SO WE'RE ASKING TODAY REQUESTING THIS CHANGE, NOT TO CHANGE THE ZONING, BUT JUST TO ADD THE O-1 TO WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.

WHEN I WENT INTO THE DEVELOPMENT ORIGINALLY, WE HAD A RESTAURANT THAT WAS GOING TO TAKE OVER HALF THE BUILDING.

THEY LOST THEIR FUNDING.

SO IT'S BEEN ONE THING AFTER ANOTHER.

BUT I THINK WE WOULD HAVE A REALLY GOOD CHANCE OF OCCUPYING THIS BUILDING IF WE COULD GET THE O-1 ZONING.

SO I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

AND JUST FROM A FINANCIAL STANDPOINT, IT COST ME ABOUT $200000 A YEAR TO SIT WITH AN EMPTY BUILDING LIKE THAT.

SO IT'S NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, NOT HAVING A TENANT IN THERE, BUT IT'S ALSO CREATING A FINANCIAL SQUEEZE.

AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT YOUR PORTFOLIO THERE, BUT I JUST WANT TO, YOU KNOW, LET YOU GUYS KNOW THAT.

SO I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS.

CAN I JUST OUT OF THE CHUTE, AND AGAIN, I KNOW WE HAD THIS HEARING ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, BUT OVER ZOOM, I THINK I STILL HAVE THE MIGRAINE FROM THAT MEETING.

BUT JUST MAYBE I HAVE MY OWN SUSPICIONS.

BUT IN YOUR OWN WORDS, WHY IS IT STRUGGLED IN TERMS OF A RETAIL USE IN TERMS OF GETTING RETAIL TENANCY IN THERE, WHICH I THINK WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT THERE IN THAT BUILDING? I GUESS, WHY DO YOU THINK IT STRUGGLED? WELL, THE ORIGINAL TENANT WE HAD WAS GOING TO BE A RESTAURANT AND THEN WE HAD ANOTHER RESTAURANT THAT ACTUALLY COULDN'T GET THEIR FUNDING, AND THEN WE HAD ARTFUL LIVING MEDIA, WHICH WAS GOING TO BE THEIR CORPORATE OFFICE THERE.

SO WE HAVE HAD, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE HAVE STEPPED UP TO SIGN A LEASE, BUT FROM A FUNDING STANDPOINT, THAT'S THE REASON WHY.

AND MAYBE THE WHOLE BUILDING ITSELF IS TOO LARGE FOR ONE TENANT.

SO IF IT WAS BROKEN UP INTO A SMALLER, SECTIONED OFF, MAYBE THREE TENANTS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, ALLOW US TO LEASE OVER THERE.

BUT I'VE GOT BUILDINGS ALL OVER ARLINGTON, FORT WORTH, KELLER, AND I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, THIS IS THE ONLY BUILDING THAT I CANNOT LEASE.

EVERYTHING ELSE I HAVE IN MULTIPLE BUILDINGS, AT LEAST 10 BUILDINGS, ARE FULLY LEASED IN EVERY CITY, AND THIS IS THE ONLY ONE.

I DON'T HAVE LEASED.

AND ONE OTHER QUICK FOLLOW UP QUESTION.

LAST TIME THERE WERE, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF THE ADJACENT OWNERSHIP, THERE WAS PRETTY STRONG OPINIONS ABOUT A REQUEST LIKE THIS, I GUESS HAVE YOU TALKED WITH ANY OF

[00:40:06]

THE I GUESS IT SOUNDED LIKE CITY STAFF HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY FEEDBACK YET IN TERMS OF PRO OR CON FROM ANY OF THE ADJACENT OWNERSHIP.

I GUESS IF YOU HAD ANY OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS OR NOT YET, OR? THERE'S ONLY TWO OWNERS IN THE CENTER AND ONE OF THEM, THE HOTEL IS BEHIND ME.

THEY THEY SUPPORT ME, BUT THEY DIDN'T FILL OUT ANYTHING TO SAY THAT.

AND THEN THE OTHER ONE I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM MR. MEDICI REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST, SO I'M ASSUMING IF HE WAS GOING TO BE AGAINST IT, HE WOULD BE HERE TONIGHT.

OKAY, IT MAY, IF THE HOSPITALITY SIDE OF IT ACTUALLY IS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS, IT MAY HELP YOU KNOW YOUR APPLICATION TO ACTUALLY HAVE THAT DOCUMENTED.

AND I THINK THAT COULD BE A POINT IN YOUR FAVOR.

BUT OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR THIS APPLICANT? MIND'S MORE A COMMENT, I THINK, AND CERTAINLY AGREE WITH YOU THAT AN EMPTY BUILDING ISN'T DOING ANYBODY ANY GOOD.

IT HELPED TO HAVE THE CONTEXT FOR ME AS TO WHAT YOU'VE TRIED TO HAVE IN THERE BECAUSE ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD, I WAS NOT AWARE THAT THE MEDIA COMPANY LOST THEIR FUNDING AND WAS NOT GOING IN THERE AT ALL.

SO THANK YOU FOR FOR PRESENTING THAT.

I THINK THIS SEEMS TO ME TO BE A VERY LOGICAL EXTENSION OF WHAT YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW IN TERMS OF OPENING OPPORTUNITIES FOR A DIFFERENT TYPE OF AN EXPANDED TYPE OF CLIENT BASE TO COME IN.

SO THANK YOU FOR THE CONTEXT THAT YOU OFFERED TO US.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FROM THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER SPRINGER? I'D SAY AS LONG AS HE DOESN'T MAKE IT AN EXTENDED EXTENDED VERSION OF THE GOLDEN CHICK, I COULD JUST SEE THAT IN THERE.

I THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE REALLY NICE.

[CHUCKLING] DULY NOTED, FOR THE RECORD.

I THINK COMMISSIONER DYCHE APPRECIATES THAT COMMENT.

SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING HE'D SAY [CHUCKLING].

ANY OTHER--THE TOTAL SIZE OF THE BUILDING IS WHAT, AGAIN? NINETY TWO HUNDRED SQUARE FEET.

OK, SO YOU'RE THINKING TWO OR THREE TENANTS AND HOW YOU SPLIT THAT JUST TO CORRIDOR DOWN THE MIDDLE? DENNIS, DO YOU MIND GOING TO THAT SITE PLAN? WE HAVE MULTIPLE EXTERIOR DOORS ON ALL THREE SIDES OF THE BUILDING, SO IT WOULD BE EASY TO BREAK IT UP INTO SEGMENTED PIECES.

I DON'T THINK I WOULD WANT ANY MORE THAN THREE, BUT WE HAVE LIKE SIX EXTERIOR DOORS, ONE ON THE PARKING SIDE, ONE ON THE FRONT SIDE WITH THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE IS AND THEN ONE ON THE NORTH SIDE.

I SEE IN THE PARKING SITUATION IS THAT ALL OF THIS ON THE SOUTH SIDE RIGHT HERE FOR IT.

WE HAVE THE PARKING ON THE SOUTH SIDE AS WELL AS THE NORTH SIDE.

I THINK WE HAVE, LIKE YOU REMEMBER HOW MANY PARKING SPACE ON THE NORTH SIDE, LIKE TWENTY TWO? ON THAT ROAD, ON THE ACCESS ROAD TO IT, SORT OF THE INTERIOR OF THE PROJECT? YEAH.

OK, GOT IT.

SO CURRENTLY, IT'S NOT BUILT OUT AT ALL, RIGHT, IT'S JUST A SHELL NOW, IT'S JUST A SHELL.

OK, SO IT CAN GO ANYWHERE IT NEEDS TO.

YES.

DO YOU MIND ME ASKING, WHO'S LEASING THIS FOR YOU? VISION COMMERCIAL.

VISION COMMERCIAL? IS IT A RETAIL GROUP OR AN OFFICE? YES, IT'S COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE COMPANY, AND THEY HANDLE ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF LEASING.

GOTCHA.

AND FROM A INTEREST LEVEL DEMAND, OBVIOUSLY, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'VE GOTTEN CLOSE ON A FEW.

IT HASN'T WORKED OUT, UNFORTUNATELY.

WHAT'S THE INTEREST LEVEL BEEN LIKE? I MEAN, ARE YOU HAVING LOTS OF INQUIRIES, AT LEAST THAT JUST AREN'T LANDING? AND FROM THOSE THAT AREN'T LANDING, THEIR FEEDBACK IS JUST TOO LARGE OR WHAT? WHAT ARE THEY SAYING? WE'RE CURRENTLY WORKING WITH A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT PROSPECTIVE TENANTS RIGHT NOW.

IN FACT, I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF LETTERS OF INTENT, BUT THEY'RE WAITING TO SEE HOW THIS ZONING CHANGE TAKES PLACE AND THE RESULT OF THAT.

BUT WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF OFFICE TENANTS THAT ARE LOOKING AT THE BUILDING RIGHT NOW THAT HAS LETTERS OF INTENT IN PLACE.

I SEE FOR BASICALLY A THIRD OF THIS? YEAH, ONE OF THEM IS ABOUT FOUR THOUSAND, AND ONE'S ABOUT THREE THOUSAND.

SO THAT WOULD BE ABOUT TWO THIRDS OF THE BUILDING.

GOT IT.

SO OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT.

OK, IF WE NEED YOU BACK UP HERE, WE'LL LET YOU KNOW WE'LL PROBABLY DELIBERATE AND IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, WE MAY FOLLOW UP WITH YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

BEFORE WE DELIBERATE, ITEM NUMBER 12 ON OUR AGENDA DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING, SO ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND COMMENT ON ITEM NUMBER 12, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COME ON UP.

SEEING NO ONE, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 12.

OPEN TO THOUGHTS, COMMENTS AND IDEAS FROM COMMISSIONERS ON THIS ONE.

I KNOW LAST TIME WE LOOKED AT IT AND I THINK IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, STAFF CAN

[00:45:02]

JUMP IN.

A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, I THINK THE REQUEST WAS FOR WHAT WAS THE SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR ORIGINALLY WHEN IT CAME TO US.

IT DID NOT INCLUDE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT CONTINGENCY TO IT.

IT WAS FOR WHICH CATEGORIES? [INAUDIBLE] THE OFFICE USE.

AND THEN IT WAS STRUCTURED SUCH THAT IT COULD BE A SINGLE USER AND CAME BACK THE SECOND TIME.

AND THAT'S WHEN THE CURRENT LANGUAGE WITH THE O-1 WITH THE SUP REQUIREMENT WAS ADDED TO THE ORDINANCE.

OK, SO SOMEWHAT SIMILAR REQUESTS LAST TIME KIND OF CARVED BACK TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTROL OVER IT RELATIVE TO BALANCING THAT.

I THINK AGAIN, IDEALLY EVERYBODY'D LIKED THIS TO BE A RETAIL OR RESTAURANT USE.

BUT YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY, TO SOME EXTENT, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE MARKET IS KIND OF SPEAKING TO THAT.

SO NOW THEY'RE BACK KIND OF WITH A MORE BROAD REQUEST.

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT PEOPLE THINK ABOUT THAT WAY IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER OR.

STRONG OPINIONS, NOT ALL AT ONCE.

WELL, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT IN A COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, SO MAYBE THIS IS AN ILL ADVISED STATEMENT.

I'LL MAKE IT ANYWAY.

IT SEEMS TO ME BASED ON WHAT I JUST HEARD, IF YOU'VE GOT ONE TENANT WHO HAS AN INTEREST IN TAKING ABOUT FOUR THOUSAND SQUARE FEET AND A SECOND ONE TAKING ABOUT THREE THOUSAND, BUT YOU HAVE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR TWO THOUSAND OF UNUSED AND UNREADABLE SPACE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A TARGET BELOW WHICH YOU CAN RENT IN THIS PARTICULAR OFFICE SETTING, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THIS WOULD BE BETTER SUITED, AND THIS ISN'T [INAUDIBLE] IT'S A BUSINESS DECISION, OBVIOUSLY.

IT SEEMS TO ME THEY'D BE BETTER SUITED FOR JUST TWO TENANTS TO GO IN THERE JUST AS AN OBSERVATION.

ANY OTHER VIEWPOINTS ON THIS ITEM? YOU KNOW, I HATE.

I THINK IT MAKES SENSE FOR THE CAMBRIA, THE HOTEL ACROSS THE STREET, RIGHT? MAYBE IT DRIVES SOME TRAFFIC FOR THEM ON THE RESTAURANT AND THEN, YOU KNOW, OFFICE VISITOR USERS.

I HATE TO CREATE MORE COMPETITION FOR WHAT'S UNDER DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NOW THERE, BUT I THINK THAT COMPETITION ALREADY EXISTS WITH THE LAST VOTE THAT OCCURRED AND IN FACT, PROBABLY ALLOWING A MULTI-TENANT SITUATION FOR THIS PROBABLY CREATES LESS COMPETITION FOR THE OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THEY'RE LARGER FLOOR PLATES AND THEY'RE GOING TO ATTRACT LARGER TENANTS AT THE FRONT OF THIS PARK THAN WHAT'S GOING IN HERE.

AND SO MAYBE IT FITS SORT OF A MICRO MARKET WITHIN THIS OFFICE PARK OR THIS THIS PARK THAT DOESN'T COMPETE WITH WHAT'S GOING UP RIGHT NOW.

JUST KIND OF SOME THOUGHTS THERE.

YEAH, OTHERS? ASSUMING MAYBE BY SILENCE, THAT MEANS GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OR AT LEAST NO OBJECTIONS BEING NOTED.

WELL, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT THEY'VE KIND OF WORN OUT ALL THE OTHER OPTIONS, AND SO IT WOULDN'T HURT TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, AN ALTERNATE LEASING PROGRAM IN PLACE.

YEAH, I THINK I AGREE THAT IT WOULD PROBABLY BE BETTER SERVED, ONLY HAVE TWO TENANTS IN THERE IF YOU CAN'T GET ONE.

SO UNLESS YOU WIND UP WITH SOME LITTLE, YOU KNOW, STALL TYPE BUSINESS, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT WOULD BE, BUT MAYBE A SMOOTHIE KING OR SOMETHING.

OK, I'M GOOD WITH IT, I THINK AN EMPTY BUILDING DOES NONE OF US ANY GOOD, SO IT'S BEEN EMPTY LONG ENOUGH AND I THINK THE CHANGE IS WARRANTED.

YEAH, NO, I MEAN, I THINK I CAN BE SUPPORTIVE KIND OF RELUCTANTLY.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S KIND OF WHAT WE WANT AND WHAT THE MARKET DICTATES.

AND AGAIN, IT DOESN'T PRECLUDE THAT THIS COULD BE RETAIL OR RESTAURANT AT SOME POINT.

IT JUST MEANS AS OF TODAY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S PROBABLY TENANT DEMAND FROM OTHER AREAS.

I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED, I GUESS I'D TELL THE APPLICANT THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE KIND OF THE SAME DIALOG AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL AS WELL.

I MEAN, NOT THAT I HAVE A MAGIC ANSWER FOR THAT, BUT I GUESS I'D JUST SAY I WOULD KIND OF KEEP THINKING ABOUT THAT.

AND MAYBE TO THE EXTENT, YOU KNOW, REACH OUT AHEAD OF TIME AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THEIR SIDE.

OBVIOUSLY IT'S BEEN FRUSTRATING.

I THINK FOR EVERYBODY, IT'S CLEARLY FOR YOU AND THE ADJACENT OWNERS AND CITY STAFF AND RESIDENTS, I MEAN, EVERYBODY THAT IT HASN'T WORKED OUT YET.

BUT SO I, YOU KNOW, I THINK I CAN RELUCTANTLY GO ALONG.

I GUESS WITH THAT, I GUESS THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS COMMENTS WE CAN CONSIDER A MOTION.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 12 IN OUR AGENDA

[00:50:01]

ZA21-0070 SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 3RD 2021 AND ALSO SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER TWO DATED SEPTEMBER 3RD 2021.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OK, GO AHEAD AND VOTE PLEASE.

AND PASSES SEVEN ZERO.

CONGRATULATIONS AND GOOD LUCK AT THE NEXT LEVEL AT CITY COUNCIL AND REALLY QUICKLY BEFORE WE START ITEM 13, I FORGOT AT THE BEGINNING I WAS GOING TO ONE OF THE CONSTITUENTS IN MY HOUSEHOLD ASKED THAT I GIVE A CONGRATULATORY SHOUT OUT TO THE LADY DRAGON VOLLEYBALL TEAM THAT UPSET NUMBER NINE IN THE STATE, PLANO WEST, ON TUESDAY NIGHT.

SO KUDOS TO THEM AND THEY PLAY AGAIN AT FIVE O'CLOCK ON FRIDAY NIGHT AT THE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL.

AND SO DOES THE FOOTBALL TEAM, I THINK, PLAYS AT SEVEN O'CLOCK AT PROSPER.

SO THERE'S YOUR LADY DRAGON AND CARROLL DRAGON ATHLETIC UPDATE FOR THE EVENING.

APOLOGIES, I DIDN'T DO THAT SOONER.

SO WITH THAT, WE'LL EXPEDITIOUSLY MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 13 ON OUR

[13. Consider: Resolution No. 21-038, (ZA21-0071), Specific Use Permit for a Commercial School, including Trade School]

AGENDA, WHICH IS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL SCHOOL, INCLUDING A TRADE SCHOOL.

I THINK OFF OF KIMBALL.

THIS IS ONE THAT I THINK WE WERE PLANNING ON COVERING OUR WORK SESSION BUT RAN OUT OF TIME.

BUT I THINK STAFF CAN PROBABLY GIVE US AN EXPEDITED PRESENTATION, GIVEN IT'S FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

THIS REQUEST IS LOCATED AT 2211 EAST CONTINENTAL BOULEVARD IN SUITE 150.

AND THAT PARTICULAR OFFICE BUILDING THIS IS JUST WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CONTINENTAL AND SOUTH KIMBALL.

IT'S LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ON OUR LAND USE PLAN, AND IT IS ZONED I-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AS WELL.

THIS IS SET UP FOR BOTH OFFICE WAREHOUSE OCCUPANCY.

I THINK RIGHT NOW IS PRIMARILY OCCUPIED AS AN OFFICE TYPE FACILITY.

YOU HAVE AN UPDATED STAFF REPORT DATED TODAY'S DATE SEPTEMBER 9TH.

THAT UPDATE INCLUDED THEIR WEEKEND HOURS THAT WERE OMITTED IN THE REPORT.

THIS IS A SMALL GROUP INSTRUCTIONAL GOLF CLASS TRAINING SITUATION, TYPICALLY THREE PEOPLE AT MOST.

THEIR TYPICAL BUSINESS HOURS ARE MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY 10 TO 8 AND SATURDAY 9 TO 6, SUNDAY 9 TO 1.

IT'S APPOINTMENT BASED WITH CLASS TIMES RANGE RANGING ANYWHERE FROM AN HOUR TO FOUR HOURS FOR THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS.

THEY REALLY ONLY REQUIRE A FEW PARKING SPACES.

IT'S ONE ONE SPACE FOR THREE STUDENTS, SO THERE'S MORE THAN ADEQUATE PARKING, GIVEN WHAT'S AVAILABLE TO THIS LEASE SPACE.

THIS IS THE SITE PLAN OF THE OFFICE BUILDING, AND THEY ARE LOCATED IN A SUITE TOWARDS THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE BUILDING.

AND WITH THAT, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM FOR STAFF? SO, DENNIS, I GUESS IF WE NEED ANYTHING ELSE, WE'LL LET YOU KNOW.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR ITEM 13, HOPEFULLY? DO YOU MIND JUST COMING FORWARD? JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, AND WE'LL SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.

EFFICIENT PRESENTATION.

YES, THE APPLICANT COULDN'T BE HERE BECAUSE HIS WIFE HAD AN ADVERSE REACTION TO THE CORONAVIRUS SHOT.

SO I WAS ASKED TO COME AND REPRESENT THEM.

MY NAME IS STACY STEWART; I OFFICE AT 1229 EAST PLEASANT RUN, SUITE 132 IN DESOTO, TEXAS, AND I MANAGE THE BUILDING.

ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING, WE ARE VERY ANXIOUS TO HAVE HIM IN HERE.

WE THINK IT WILL BE A GOOD MIX BY NOT USING A LOT OF THE PARKING SPACES BUT STILL HAVING THE BUILDING FULL.

I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT ELSE TO TELL YOU OTHER THAN I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

I THINK THAT'S A GREAT START, SO WE APPRECIATE IT.

I GUESS, YOU KNOW, ONE THING I FORGOT TO CLARIFY WITH DENNIS IS SPECIAL USE PERMITS TYPICALLY HAVE TIME PERIODS.

[00:55:01]

SO I THINK THIS IS ONE WHERE WE WOULD ENVISION THE TIME PERIOD FOR THE APPROVAL TO RUN WITH THE LEASE ON THE BUILDING.

I GUESS THE PRIMARY TERM IN ANY DOCUMENTED EXTENSIONS WITHIN THE LEASE.

NO PROBLEM, IN FACT, WE LIKE THAT.

KIND OF PUT THAT ON THE RUCKER.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT ON THIS ONE? OK.

I THINK WE'RE GOOD.

THANK YOU FOR SHOWING UP.

ITEM NUMBER 13 ON OUR AGENDA DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'LL GO AND OPEN UP PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ONE.

ANYONE WHO WANTS TO COMMENT CAN COME FORWARD.

SEEING NO ONE COME FORWARD, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE HEARING FOR ITEM 13 LOWER TRAFFIC INTENSITY USE HERE, SO I THINK IT LOOKS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS, THOUGHTS ON THIS ONE BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION? MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE.

ITEM NUMBER 13 ON THE AGENDA ZA21-0071 SUBJECT TO OUR STAFF REPORT REVISED SEPTEMBER 9TH 2021, SUBJECT TO THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT STAFF REVIEW NUMBER TWO DATED SEPTEMBER 3RD 2021 SUBJECT TO RESOLUTION NUMBER 21-012 AND NOTING THAT THE APPROVAL IS TIED TO THE APPLICANT'S LEASE TERM AND ANY RENEWALS.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE, PLEASE.

PASSES SEVEN ZERO, CONGRATULATIONS AND GOOD LUCK AT THE NEXT LEVEL, SO NOW WE'LL GO AHEAD AND HERE AT 7:35 P.M., I'M PROUD TO SAY WE'RE ALREADY MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 14.

[14. Consider: Ordinance No. 480-788, (ZA21-0072), Zoning Change and Concept/Site Plan for Zena Rucker Road Office Park]

SO GOOD WORK, EVERYBODY.

THIS IS A ZONING CHANGE IN CONCEPT SITE PLAN FOR ZENA RUCKER ROAD OFFICE PARK.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

THIS IS A REQUEST TO CHANGE ZONING FROM THE CURRENT S-P-2 GENERALIZED SITE PLAN DISTRICT ON THE PROPERTY TO A NEW OR REVISED S-P-2 GENERALIZED CYCLING DISTRICT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO JUST UNDER TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF MIXED MEDICAL GENERAL OFFICE USE ON THE PROPERTY.

IT'S LOCATED AT 731 ZENA RUCKER ROAD.

IT'S ON TWO POINT TWENTY FIVE ACRES.

THIS IS AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY.

AND THIS IS ALSO AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH HAS A DISTANCE MEASUREMENT TO THE TIMARRON NORTH PARK PHASE, IT'S JUST TO THE SOUTH OF IT RECENTLY DEVELOPED MATTHEWS COURT RESIDENTIAL THAT IS EXISTING ON THE EAST OF IT.

THIS IS ROCKENBAUGH ELEMENTARY JUST TO THE WEST AND SOUTH.

OF COURSE, THE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS OFFICE COMMERCIAL.

AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS S-P-2 GENERALIZED SITE PLAN DISTRICT.

THIS IS A VIEW LOOKING SOUTH ACROSS THE PROPERTY FROM ZENA RUCKER ROAD.

THERE IS A OPEN DETENTION RETENTION POND THAT WAS DEVELOPED TO HANDLE DEVELOPED CONDITIONS OF WHAT IS CALLED THE CONCRETE OFFICES, WHICH ORIGINALLY INCLUDED THIS PROPERTY, AS WELL AS PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OF ZENA ROAD.

VIEW LOOKING IN A SOUTHWESTERLY DIRECTION TOWARDS ROCKENBAUGH ELEMENTARY AND EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING JUST TO THE WEST.

AND ANOTHER VIEW LOOKING ON THE SOUTHEASTERN SOUTH DIRECTION ON THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY.

THIS IS AN OPEN CHANNEL AND SEPARATE OWNERSHIP THAT DIVIDES THIS PROPERTY FROM MATTHEWS COURT, WHICH IS JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS CHANNEL, THE EAST SIDE OF THE CHANNEL.

AND THIS IS A VIEW LOOKING TOWARDS ROCKENBAUGH ELEMENTARY.

THIS IS FROM [INAUDIBLE] PLACE AND TIMMARON.

THIS IS THE CITY'S MASTER TRIAL PLAN.

THERE IS A PLANNED EIGHT FOOT OR GREATER MULTI-USE TRAIL THAT IS EXTENDED TO EXTEND ALONG THIS CHANNEL AREA.

A PORTION OF THAT IS CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED WITH THIS LOT AND AS CURRENTLY SHOWN ON THEIR PLAN, THEY HAVE SHOWN TO REMOVE THAT AND POSSIBLY ABANDON WHAT WHAT IS

[01:00:06]

CURRENTLY A PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT WITH THAT.

WE HAVE A REVIEW COMMENT IN OUR STAFF REPORT FOR THEM TO SHOW THAT OR MAKE CLEAR WHAT THEIR INTENTION IS WITH REGARDS TO THAT.

YOU DIDN'T GET ANY FEEDBACK FROM THE APPLICANT ON THAT COMMENT.

NOT NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF TO DATE.

NO, THANK YOU.

THIS IS THE CURRENTLY APPROVED PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH THE S-P-2 ZONING IN PLACE ON THE PROPERTY TODAY.

IT INCLUDED THREE INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS TOTALING JUST OVER 17000 SQUARE FEET.

AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN UNDER THE NEW ZONING, IT PROPOSES JUST UNDER 25000 GROSS SQUARE FEET, OF WHICH APPROXIMATELY FIFTY SIX PERCENT OF THAT NET USABLE FLOOR AREA IN THE BUILDING WOULD BE USED FOR POSSIBLE MEDICAL OCCUPANCY.

AND WITH THAT, THEY'RE ASKING FOR ROUGHLY AN EIGHT PERCENT REDUCTION IN REQUIRED PARKING TO ACHIEVE THAT MAXIMUM 56 PERCENT OCCUPANCY OF MEDICAL USE.

HERE'S A COMPARISON CHART OF THE STANDARD O-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS.

THIS IS BEING PROPOSED FOR ZONING S-P-2 WITH O-1 USES WITH MODIFICATIONS TO REGULATIONS, AS NOTED IN THIS CHART.

TYPICAL IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE FOR AN O-1 OFFICE DISTRICT IS SIXTY FIVE PERCENT.

THEY'RE PROPOSING SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE.

ALSO, THE NOTED EIGHT POINT EIGHT PERCENT REDUCTION IN PARKING, WITH THE LIMITATION OF A MAXIMUM OF 56 PERCENT OFFICE OCCUPANCY AND THEN A STANDARD ZONING CLASSIFICATION UNDER O-1 WOULD TYPICALLY REQUIRE 70 PERCENT OF THE EXISTING TREE COVER TO BE PRESERVED.

THEY ARE PROPOSING UNDER THEIR S-P-2 ZONING A 63 PERCENT REDUCTION, EXCUSE ME, 63 PERCENT PRESERVATION OF THAT EXISTING TREE COVER.

THIS IS THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN.

THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF EXISTING TREE GROWTH ALONG THIS TREE LINE.

THEY INTEND TO PRESERVE THE MAJORITY OF THAT AND ARE PROPOSING IN ADDITION TO THAT LANDSCAPING SHOWN ON THIS PLAN.

THIS IS A TREE CONSERVATION PLAN ONCE AGAIN SHOWING THESE TREES THAT ARE EXISTING ALONG THAT TREE LINE ARE INTENDED TO BE PRESERVED.

THESE ARE THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS FOR THE BUILDINGS.

THIS IS BUILDING ONE.

IT'S WHITE PAINTED BRICK WITH BLACK COMPOSITION ROOF, AS WELL AS SOME METAL ROOF AND TRIM.

THIS IS THE SOUTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS ONCE AGAIN, BUILDING ONE AND BUILDING TWO SIMILAR MATERIAL OR ACTUALLY SAME MATERIAL AS BUILDING MORE.

AND ELEVATION OF THE TRASH ENCLOSURE WOULD BE MATCHING BRICK TO THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING.

THIS IS THE DRAINAGE AREA MAP.

AS YOU MAY NOTE, THE CURRENT RETENTION DETENTION POND IS PROPOSED TO BE RECONSTRUCTED TO AN UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM.

THE HATCHED AREA ON THE DRAINAGE PLAN SHOWS LOCATION OF THAT STRUCTURE.

AND THIS IS A UTILITY PLAN.

[01:05:09]

THESE ARE VARIOUS PERSPECTIVES OF THE PROPERTY FROM RUCKER ROAD.

THIS IS THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTED TRIAL THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER IN THE PRESENTATION.

WE'VE RECEIVED THREE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION FROM RESIDENTS IN MATTHEWS COURT, WHICH I DO BELIEVE YOU HAVE THOSE.

AND WITH THAT, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR REFER BACK TO ANY SLIDES YOU WISH TO LOOK AT CLOSER.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF? DENNIS, SO THAT SIDEWALK THAT'S PART OF THE TRAIL THAT'S EXISTING, IS THAT ONLY A LONG ZENA RUCKER ROAD OR DOES IT ACTUALLY GO DOWN THE CREEK? IT GOES DOWN THE CREEK, ITS ALONG RUCKER AND THE CREEK THE RUCKER IS TO REMAIN OR CURRENTLY THE EXISTING TRAIL IS NOT SHOWN ON THEIR PLAN.

SO WE JUST ASK FOR CLARIFICATION ON--SO IT'S JUST DEAD ENDS NOW? JUST DEAD ENDS RIGHT NOW.

YES.

ALL RIGHT, THANKS.

CURRENTLY, IT STOPPED SHORT OF THE BOUNDARY LINE AS WELL.

SO IF REQUIRED AND NOT GIVEN A WAIVER OF THAT, WE WOULD WANT IT CONSTRUCTED COMPLETELY TO THE BOUNDARY.

JANICE, I NOTICED THE PREVIOUS SITE PLAN WAS APPROVED IN WHAT, 2016? THAT'S CORRECT.

AND WHEN WERE THE HOMES ON MATTHEWS COURT DEVELOPED? 2018/2019.

OK, THANK YOU.

THAT'S WHEN THEY WENT THROUGH ZONING.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FOR NOW? OK.

I THINK WE'RE GOOD, DENNIS, WE'LL OBVIOUSLY REFER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO YOU AS NEEDED.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR THIS REQUEST THIS EVENING? IF YOU DON'T MIND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE, AND YES, WE COULD PROBABLY LAUNCH IN THE Q&A OR IF YOU HAVE SOME BRIEF SUMMARY, I'D LIKE TO GIVE US AS WELL.

ABSOLUTELY.

GOOD EVENING.

I'M KERRY CLARK WITH PECAN CREEK MEDICAL OFFICE CONDOS OFFICE AT 6449 NORTHPORT DRIVE IN DALLAS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THIS TO YOU THIS EVENING.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS, BUT I'VE ALSO BROUGHT MY ARCHITECT AND MY ENGINEER WITH ME TO ADDRESS SOME SPECIFICS WITH REGARDS TO PARKING AND DRAINAGE AND SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT MAY COME UP.

AS A DEVELOPER, I AM VERY SENSITIVE TO COMMUNITY INPUT AS WE DESIRE TO BE A VERY GOOD NEIGHBOR.

THAT'S ONE REASON WHY WE WENT THROUGH THE CORRIDOR PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING ON AUGUST 23RD TO GET COUNCIL AND PARK BOARD AND P AND Z FEEDBACK, AS WELL AS PRESENTING BEFORE THE SPIN GROUP NUMBER NINE ON AUGUST 24TH TO GET ANY KIND OF FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY.

THE THREE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION I DID NOT RECEIVE UNTIL THIS AFTERNOON.

RICHARD SHELL SENT THOSE TO ME WHEN I CHECKED IN YESTERDAY.

THERE WERE NO LETTERS OF OPPOSITION, SO I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED TO SEE THOSE TODAY.

AND AS MENTIONED, AS DESIROUS OF BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR, I HAVE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REACH OUT TO THOSE NEIGHBORS AND MEET WITH THEM SINCE THEY CAME SO LATE IN THE DAY TODAY.

BUT IT'S CERTAINLY MY INTENTION TO SET UP A MEETING WITH THEM AND SHOW THEM OUR PLANS AND REVIEW EVERYTHING AND ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS THEY MAY HAVE.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS REALLY DRIVING THE TAKING THE DRAINAGE UNDERGROUND IS REALLY A MATTER OF ECONOMICS IN TODAY'S BUSINESS CLIMATE, LAND DEVELOPMENT COSTS AND

[01:10:04]

CONSTRUCTION COSTS ARE EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE AND HAVE GONE UP FROM HISTORICAL LEVELS IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

AND AS A RESULT, AS A BUSINESSMAN, WE MUST BE EXTREMELY EFFICIENT WITH OUR UTILIZATION OF THE LAND TO MAKE THE ECONOMICS WORK.

AND SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE ARE TAKING THE DETENTION UNDERGROUND IS TO GIVE US A BIGGER FOOTPRINT FOR BUILDINGS.

THE OUR GOAL IS TO CREATE A VERY CAREFUL BALANCE OF BOTH MEDICAL AS WELL AS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE.

WE'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SERVE DOCTORS IN FAMILY PRACTICES BEING SO CLOSE TO BAYLOR, SCOTT AND WHITE, AS WELL AS OTHER PROFESSIONAL OFFICES.

THAT'S WHY WE'VE ARRIVED AT A 56 PERCENT MEDICAL AND 44 PERCENT GENERAL OFFICE, GIVEN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE SIZE PROPERTY WE HAVE.

IF WE WERE TO NOT EVEN REQUEST ANY KIND OF VARIANCE ON THE PARKING AND WENT JUST WITH A STRAIGHT PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, WE COULD PUT THIRTY TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE ON THIS PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD PROBABLY AMOUNT TO TWO TWO-STOREY BUILDINGS, AND I DON'T THINK THAT IS THE BEST USE FOR THIS PROPERTY, NOR DO I THINK IT WOULD BE THE BEST THING FOR THE COMMUNITY.

SO AGAIN, WE ARE TRYING TO BE VERY SENSITIVE TO WHAT WOULD BE BEST FOR THE COMMUNITY, AS WELL AS WHAT THE BEST NEEDS ARE IN THE AREA FOR FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.

AS FAR AS OUR PLANS FOR THE UNDERGROUND ATTENTION, I'M GOING TO LET CLAYTON COME UP HERE IN A MINUTE AND ADDRESS MORE SPECIFICALLY.

BUT I WILL TELL YOU, WE HAVE A VERY LARGE LINE ITEM IN OUR BUDGET TO DO THIS FIRST CLASS AND TO DO IT PROPERLY AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY IS COMPLETELY SATISFIED WITH WHAT WE ARE DOING.

I KNOW SEVERAL PLACES AROUND SOUTHLAKE THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN THE DETENTION UNDER GROUND VERY SUCCESSFULLY WITH NO PROBLEMS AT ALL.

THE ONES THAT COME TO MIND ARE BAYLOR, SCOTT AND WHITE AND MYER AND GROVE OFFICE PARK.

SO I KNOW IT CAN BE DONE RIGHT AND IT CAN BE DONE WITHOUT CREATING PROBLEMS. AND THAT IS CERTAINLY OUR INTENTION.

AND AT THIS POINT, I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

YOU KNOW, I GUESS I WOULD START WITH THIS, YOU KNOW, AND I APPRECIATE THAT YOU'VE KIND OF GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS TO DATE.

THAT'S VERY HELPFUL IN TERMS OF GETTING INITIAL FEEDBACK.

IT DOESN'T GUARANTEE ANYTHING FOR THIS DISCUSSION, BUT IT DOES KIND OF HELP, YOU KNOW, MOVE THINGS ALONG.

YOU KNOW, AND I THINK SOME OF WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY WAS CONSISTENT WITH SOME OF THE FEEDBACK YOU GOT EARLIER.

I MEAN, I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, IT'S CITY STAFF'S JOB IN TERMS OF AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE TO KIND OF WEIGH IN ON FEASIBILITY OF UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE OR NOT.

I MEAN, WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY HERE TO BECOME CITY ENGINEERS, BUT WE DO OPINE ON, I GUESS, THE RESULTS OF THAT WHICH IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, IT INCREASES THE INTENSITY OF USE ON THE PROPERTY.

SO THAT'S REALLY WHERE WE COME IN.

SO A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON THAT.

MAYBE STARTING WITH, YOU HEARD US KIND OF TALK ABOUT THE PATHWAYS MASTER PLAN ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE SITE.

AND THAT'S OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING THAT OUR RESIDENTS ARE VERY FOCUSED ON AND RESPOND BACK IN OUR CITY SURVEYS ALL THE TIME ABOUT KIND OF EVOLVING THAT.

SO I GUESS, CAN YOU CLARIFY, I GUESS WHAT YOUR REQUEST IS TO THAT ITEM? ABSOLUTELY, YOU KNOW, IT CURRENTLY HAS AN EIGHT FOOT TRAIL IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS ALONG THE EAST SIDE, AND THAT WAS PUT IN BY THE PRIOR DEVELOPER THAT I BOUGHT THE LOT FROM JOHN DREWS.

SO IT WAS EXISTING WHEN I ACTUALLY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY.

KNOWING THAT THERE IS NOT AN EXISTING TRAIL TO THE SOUTH THAT THIS WOULD CONNECT TO, WE DID NOT INCLUDE IT IN OUR CURRENT PLAN.

THAT SAID, IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE AMENDED TO IN ORDER TO ENSURE SUCCESS FOR THIS PROJECT, WE WOULD CERTAINLY BE OPEN TO ADDING THAT BACK IN.

WELL, I'LL JUST SPEAK FOR MYSELF, BUT I'D SAY IT IS.

BUT WE'LL GET FURTHER DELIBERATION IN A MINUTE.

I GUESS THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS IN THE CORRIDOR MEETING, I THINK IT WAS COMMISSIONER PHALEN ACTUALLY BROUGHT UP ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF EXISTING TREES AND WE TALKED ABOUT PRESERVING KIND OF, YOU KNOW, TREE PRESERVATION.

[01:15:01]

AND YOU KNOW, AND I NOTICED, YOU KNOW, STAFF KIND OF WENT THROUGH IT IN TERMS OF THE TREE PRESERVATION HERE IS PROPOSED TO BE LIGHTER THAN THAN WHAT'S CALLED FOR IN THE ORDINANCE.

ANY RESPONSE ON THAT ITEM, I GUESS, IN TERMS OF BETTER TREE PRESERVATION ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY? ABSOLUTELY, BOTH ON THE EAST, WEST AND SOUTHERN BORDERS.

WE'RE GOING TO SAVE EVERY TREE WE CAN.

TREES ARE EXTREMELY VALUABLE AND VERY IMPORTANT TO US, AND THERE IS NO PLAN TO TAKE OUT ANY OTHER TREES.

THE ONLY ONES THAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE OUT ARE THERE ARE IN THE ORANGE.

YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE SOME HACKBERRY AND ELMWOOD TREES THAT ARE VERY SICKLY THAT ARE IN THE WAY OF WHERE THE FIRE LANE WOULD BE, AND WE PLAN ON REMOVING THOSE.

BUT THE ONES ON THE WEST SIDE, AS WELL AS THE SOUTHERN SIDE, WHICH ARE SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND THEY'RE NOT SHOWN ON THE PLAN.

BUT THERE'S ALSO A BUNCH OF THEM ON THE EAST SIDE AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO DISTURB ANY OF THOSE.

WE VERY MUCH VALUE THOSE TREES.

SO YOU HAVE OUR ASSURANCE.

DENNIS, CAN YOU GO TO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN BRIEFLY AS WELL, IF YOU CAN DO THAT? THANK YOU.

OK, THOSE WERE, I GUESS, MY TWO QUESTIONS, I GUESS I'LL LET SOME OF THE OTHERS MAYBE JUMP IN NOW.

YES, SIR.

APPLICANT.

IT'S A STACKING VARIANCE ON THE TWO DRIVEWAYS, THE WITH THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, IT REQUIRES A SEVENTY FIVE FOOT DEPTH STACKING LENGTH FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE FIRST INTERSECTING LANE, AND THEY'RE AT ROUGHLY THIRTY FOUR FEET ON THE [INAUDIBLE] IT LOOKS LIKE BOTH DRIVEWAYS AND SO VARIANCES REQUESTED [INAUDIBLE] THAT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT ON THAT.

OK, PERFECT.

THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION, DENNIS.

JUST REPEAT FOR THE RECORD, IN CASE THE MICROPHONE WASN'T WORKING, THAT IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE NOTED IN OUR STAFF REPORT.

BUT THERE'S ALSO A STACKING VARIANCE REQUEST ON THIS APPLICATION MINIMUM 75 FEET AND REQUESTED, AS, I THINK, AT LEAST 34 FEET.

SO NOTED FOR THE RECORD, I GUESS.

OTHER QUESTIONS COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT FROM COMMISSIONERS HERE.

I'D LIKE A LITTLE CLARIFICATION ON YOUR STATEMENT WHERE YOU SAID IT'D BE BETTER FOR THE COMMUNITY TO HAVE FIFTY FOUR THOUSAND SQUARE FEET THAN THIRTY SIX THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.

WHY WOULD THAT BE? THE NUMBER OF BUILDINGS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT HAVING HERE, IF YOU WENT WITH--WE COULD DO UP TO THIRTY TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SQUARE FEET IF WE HAD JUST GONE STRICTLY WITH THE PARKING AND DIDN'T DECLARE ANY KIND OF VARIANCE.

BUT THAT WOULD ALSO ENTAIL TWO STOREY BUILDINGS, AND I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE AS WELL SUPPORTED BY THE NEIGHBORS.

AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO TRY TO PUSH.

I JUST WANTED A LITTLE BIT MORE.

THANKS.

I THINK WHAT WHAT I'M STRUGGLING THE MOST WITH IS WHAT YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER, JUST THE UNDERGROUND ATTENTION.

WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT THE CORRIDOR COMMITTEE MEETING, BUT OBVIOUSLY WE'VE HAD ONE THAT WE CAN ALL THINK OF, I THINK FAILURE OF IT, THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT ALTERNATIVES FOR.

BUT I JUST I'M WONDERING WHAT THE CONSTRUCTION QUALITY IS LIKE AND IF WE CAN HAVE SOME SORT OF COMPARISON THAT SHOWS, YOU KNOW, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, THIS IS CLASS A, B, C AND WE'RE CLASS A, TO GIVE US SOME SORT OF CONTEXT TO FRAME IT UP A LITTLE BIT, NUMBER ONE.

AND THEN NUMBER TWO, I'M CURIOUS WHAT THIS DOES.

I'M OBVIOUSLY NOT A CIVIL ENGINEER, BUT WHAT THIS DOES FOR THE [INAUDIBLE] AS IT RELATES TO THE DRAINAGE THAT'S GOING DOWN SOUTH AND HOW IN A 100 YEAR FLOODS, 500 YEAR FLOODS, HOW THAT IMPACTS THOSE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES THAT ARE THERE ACROSS THE DRAINAGE RIGHT NOW? SURE.

I'M GOING TO LET MY ENGINEER ADDRESS THAT MORE SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE HE CAN GET INTO MORE DETAILS AND PROBABLY SATISFY YOUR QUESTION A LITTLE BIT BETTER THAN I'M ACTUALLY ABLE TO.

I JUST KNOW THAT IN OUR CONVERSATIONS, THE CHARGE I'VE GIVEN HIM IS TO MAKE IT ABSOLUTELY FIRST CLASS.

MAKE SURE THAT IT IS FAILSAFE AND THAT IT IS IS WHATEVER NEEDS TO BE DONE TO SATISFY THE CITY ENGINEERS AND PUBLIC WORKS.

[01:20:02]

YEAH, AND THEN AFTER YOU GET THROUGH CLAYTON, IF WE COULD HAVE MICHAEL WRIGHT COME UP WITH MJW&A, HE HAS A FEW COMMENTS AS WELL.

MY NAME IS CLAYTON REDINGER WITH ICON CONSULTING AT 2840 SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD.

YOU'RE RIGHT.

NOT ALL UNDERGROUND DETENTION IS CREATED EQUAL, SO THE VOLUME REQUIREMENTS ON THIS ONE IS GOING TO REQUIRE THIS TO BE SEVEN FEET TALL UNDERGROUND.

SO THIS ISN'T--SOME UNDERGROUND DETENTION YOU'LL SEE IS LIKE A PLASTIC PIPE.

THAT'S WHAT I'M ENVISIONING.

IS IT CONCRETE? THIS IS THIS WOULD BE PRECAST, YOU KNOW, CONCRETE STRUCTURE UNDERGROUND, ALMOST LIKE, IMAGINE, LIKE AN UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I MEAN, THIS IS SORT OF UNDERGROUND BOXES KIND OF THING.

NOT THAT PLASTIC PIPE THAT YOU SEE FAILURES IN FAIRLY REGULARLY.

ALMOST LIKE LARGE CULVERTS THAT YOU SEE ON THE SIDE OF CONSTRUCTION SITES BEFORE THEY GO IN THE GROUND.

YEAH.

JUST A SUPER SPECIAL BOX CULVERT UNDERGROUND, BASICALLY, BUT A LOT OF THEM SIDE BY SIDE.

AND THEN AS FAR AS THE PURPOSE OF THE DETENTION, THE PURPOSE OF IT BEING THERE TO BEGIN WITH WAS TO LIMIT THE FLOW FROM THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT.

IT WAS DESIGNED THAT WAY, ASSUMING THIS LOT WAS DEVELOPED.

WHAT WE'RE SHOWING IS ESSENTIALLY JUST REPLACING WHAT'S THERE TODAY AND PUTTING IT UNDERGROUND FROM A VOLUME PERSPECTIVE.

AND THE WAY THAT THE WATERSHED IS DEVELOPED NORTH OF HERE, I MEAN, THERE'S PROBABLY ABOUT JUST UNDER 300 ACRES NORTH OF THIS AREA THAT DRAINS TO THIS POINT.

IT'S ALMOST ALL FULLY DEVELOPED TODAY.

SO KIND OF WHATEVER THE DRAINAGE IS TODAY IS KIND OF WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE.

IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE OVER TIME DUE TO ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT, AND SO WHAT WE'RE BASICALLY REPLICATING IS WHAT'S THERE TODAY.

SO YOU WOULDN'T REALLY SEE ANY CHANGE IN FLOWS OR OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT OVER WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

OK, SO THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE EXISTING LOT YOU DON'T THINK WILL ADD A WHOLE LOT TO WHAT'S ALREADY OCCURRING? NOT IN TERMS OF RATE.

I MEAN, THE DESIGN OF THE POND THAT'S THERE WAS ASSUMED THAT THIS WOULD BE DEVELOPED.

THAT'S WHY IT WAS BUILT THERE TO BEGIN WITH.

SO WHAT'S THE DEPTH OF THE POND TODAY? I THINK THE FROM THE STANDING WATER SURFACE AND STORAGE, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY, BUT IT'S ABOUT THREE AND A HALF FEET, THREE AND A HALF.

OH, WOW.

SO IT ACTUALLY DISCHARGES OVER TIME THAT CREEK HAS CHANGED, YOU KNOW, NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, BUT SO WE JUST HAVE MORE VERTICAL ROOM NOW THAN WE DID BACK WHEN I GUESS THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED.

AND YOU'RE SAYING THE HEIGHT OF THE PRECAST BOXES IS GOING TO BE SEVEN FEET? IT'LL BE IN THAT RANGE.

YEAH, I MEAN, WE HAVEN'T DESIGNED IT EXACTLY, BUT THAT'S HOW THE AREA, THAT'S WHY IT'S A SMALLER HORIZONTAL AREA BECAUSE WE JUST HAVE MORE VERTICAL SPACE, YOU KNOW.

OK, AND KIND OF A NOVICE QUESTION, BUT JUST SORT OF TYING THINGS TOGETHER.

BUT DOES THE FACT I THINK THE ANSWER IS NO, BUT I WANT TO AT LEAST FLUSH IT OUT.

DOES THE FACT THAT IT'S GOING FROM ABOVE GROUND TO BELOW GROUND WITHIN SORT OF TUBES, SO TO SPEAK, ANOTHER ROUTE OF TUBES COMING OUT OF THE DETENTION ANYWAY? DOES THAT INCREASE VOLUME AT ANY LEVEL AND WOULD THAT IMPACT THE RATE OR THE RISE IN THE DRAINAGE? I'M JUST WORRIED ABOUT THESE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES DOWN THE OTHER SIDE.

YEAH, AND IT'S A FAIR QUESTION, BUT THE ANSWER IS NO.

AND ESPECIALLY IN THIS AREA, THIS HAS A PECULIAR FACT THAT IT'S BECAUSE IT'S ADJACENT TO THE CREEK.

YOU KNOW, THE CREEK HAS ITS OWN SORT OF HYDRAULIC DYNAMIC, YOU KNOW, SO WHEN THE CREEK FILLS THIS, THIS FILLS.

IT'S SORT OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, DETENTION, IT'S ALMOST MORE LIKE A VALLEY STORAGE FOR A FLOODPLAIN THAN IT IS TRUE DETENTION THAT YOU WOULD SEE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT MATTHEWS COURT, THERE'S NO DETENTION BASE IN MATTHEWS COURT.

I MEAN, IT'S A NEW SUBDIVISION NEXT TO A CREEK.

THERE'S NO DETENTION THERE FOR A GOOD REASON BECAUSE YOU NORMALLY DON'T DO DETENTION NEXT TO A CREEK LIKE THIS.

AND FOR WHATEVER REASON, THIS WAS PUT IN WAY BACK WHEN IF I WAS TECHNICALLY PUSHED ON THE ARGUMENT, I WOULD PROBABLY MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT IT'S NOT NEEDED AT ALL.

BUT IT'S THERE TODAY.

AND SO WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF ABOUT WHAT IT IS WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE AND NOT PRESERVE.

SO, THE CREEK IS GOING TO RUN IN THE SAME DYNAMIC AND THIS IS BASICALLY JUST STORING WATER OFFLINE FROM THE CREEK MORE THAN THE RATE BEING CHANGED BY HOW DEEP THE WATER IS NEXT TO IT, IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE.

[01:25:01]

THAT'S VERY HELPFUL.

I DO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION ON THAT OR COMMENT ON A STATEMENT YOU JUST MADE.

ALL RIGHT.

IN MY EXPERIENCE IN AN HOA [INAUDIBLE] RESIDENT COMMUNITY, WHERE I LIVE RIGHT NOW IS THAT AS BUILDOUT OCCURRED, UPSTREAM DRAINAGE AND SHEET FLOW INCREASED BECAUSE OF CONCRETE.

IF IT'S BUILT OUT MOSTLY WHAT IS FEEDING INTO THIS AREA, I WOULDN'T EXPECT IT TO DECREASE BASED ON PERSONAL EXPERIENCE THAT'S CAUSED PROBLEMS WITH US HAVING TO DREDGE A LAKE AND CREEKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

EXPLAIN TO ME IF I MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT SUGGESTING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OR THE FACT THAT EVERYTHING UPSTREAM, IF YOU WILL, IS ALMOST DEVELOPED, THAT WILL REDUCE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE VOLUME THAT YOU WOULD HAVE IN A DETENTION POND.

THOSE WERE DISCONNECTED; THAT'S NOT THE POINT I WAS MAKING.

THE POINT I WAS MAKING ABOUT THE CREEK, THE WAY THE CREEK BEHAVES TODAY BECAUSE THE UPSTREAM WATERSHED IS DEVELOPED.

I JUST READ IN ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT IT WAS IN THE ONE OF THE OPPOSITION WAS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HOW DEVELOPMENT WOULD AFFECT OVER TIME THE DYNAMICS OF THE CREEK.

MY ONLY POINT ON THIS ONE IS THE WATERSHED IS ALREADY DEVELOPED.

THIS ROUGHLY 300 ACRES THAT DRAINS.TO THIS POINT, IT'S ALL ALMOST COMPLETELY DEVELOPED.

SO OVER TIME, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE INCREASED FLOW DUE TO INCREASE DEVELOPMENT OVER TIME AS OPPOSED TO WHAT YOU WERE SAYING WHEN YOU GET MORE DEVELOPED YOU GET MORE RUNOFF, THAT'S ACTUALLY TRUE.

BUT IN THIS CASE, IT'S NOT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY DEVELOPED.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE DIFFERENT TOMORROW THAN WHAT IT IS TODAY IS THE ONLY POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE ON THAT.

NOT THAT IT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH OUR DETENTION OR NOT.

OK, AND JUST JUST TO CONFIRM, I THINK QUESTION OVER HERE HAD TO DO WITH THE VOLUME AND HOW THREE AND A HALF FEET WITH AN EXISTING POND OR SEVEN FEET DEPTH WITH A SMALLER FOOTPRINT THAT THE VOLUME AND THE ABILITY TO HANDLE THE DRAINAGE, THE WATER, THE RUNOFF AND SO ON IS BASICALLY THE SAME.

THERE'S NO REDUCTION IN THE CAPACITY OR THE VOLUME OF WATER THAT YOU CAN HANDLE IN AN UNDERGROUND DETENTION POND.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

STORE.

I MEAN, THAT'S THE WHOLE INTENT OF THE DESIGN OF THAT UNDERGROUND BASIN IS TO MATCH WHAT'S BEING STORED TODAY IN THE POND THAT'S THERE TODAY.

SO, YES, EXACTLY THE SAME, THAT'D BE THE AIM OF THE DESIGN, ACTUALLY.

OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT.

I HAVE A QUESTION.

I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE FOR YOU, BUT SOME OF THE COMMENTS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TRASH RECEPTACLES, YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU STILL HAVE IT KIND OF ON THE EAST SIDE THERE.

CAN YOU MOVE THAT, MAYBE HAVE TWO OF THEM TOGETHER IN THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY? WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

AS I MENTIONED, THIS IS ALL NEW TO ME BECAUSE WE JUST RECEIVED THESE COMMENTS THIS AFTERNOON, AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MIKE IS GOING TO SHOW YOU IS THE AMOUNT OF VEGETATION, THE AMOUNT OF TREE CANOPY BETWEEN OUR PROJECTS AND MATTHEWS COURT.

LITERALLY, THEY WILL NOT EVEN KNOW WE'RE THERE, EXCEPT FOR, YOU KNOW, DRIVING BY, AND AGAIN, WE WANT TO BE A GREAT NEIGHBOR.

WE WANT TO BE SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE PROUD OF BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BUILD A BEAUTIFUL FACILITY.

BUT THERE IS SO MUCH TREE CANOPY AND COVERAGE, THEY WILL NOT SEE US MUCH LESS SEEING THE TRASH RECEPTACLE.

BUT I'M GOING TO LET THE ARCHITECT ADDRESS THAT.

I MEAN, I THINK EVEN JUST THE CONCERN OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE TRUCK WHEN IT COMES TO PICK UP THE GARBAGE, IF IT'S EARLY IN THE MORNING OR SOMETHING THAT CAN BE KIND OF LOUD TO THE HOME BACKING UP TO IT.

SO IF THERE'S ANY WAY TO MOVE IT AWAY FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD [INAUDIBLE] I'D LIKE TO SEE.

CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, I'M MICHAEL WRIGHT, M.J.

WRIGHT & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 8233 MID-CITY BOULEVARD NORTH RICHLAND HILLS AND THE RELATION TO THE DUMPSTER.

WE CAN DO AWAY WITH THE DUMPSTER.

ACTUALLY, YOU ONLY REALLY NEED ONE DUMPSTER, A MAXIMUM OF EIGHT SUITES IN THERE.

THAT BEING SAID, THAT DUMPSTER IS 70 FEET AWAY FROM THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE.

YOUR NORMAL BUILDING CODE IS 40 FOOT FOR RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY, SO A WELL OVER THAT.

BUT WE CAN DO AWAY WITH THE DUMPSTER ENTIRELY IF NEED BE; 'NOT A PROBLEM.

I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THE COMMENTS WE GOT LATE AFTERNOON FROM THE HOMEOWNERS.

AND AGAIN, JUST TALK ABOUT CLAYTON DISCUSSED THE DRAINAGE.

BUT I'VE TAKEN SOME PHOTOGRAPHS THIS AFTERNOON.

AGAIN..

GO AHEAD AND HOLD TIGHT HERE.

[01:30:04]

WE'VE GOT BRAINS OF THE ORGANIZATION COMING OUT TO...

COULD BE THE HARDEST PART OF THESE MEETINGS IS THE TECHNOLOGY, AT LEAST IT IS FOR ME.

HE'LL SWITCH IT IN A SECOND, SO DON'T WORRY.

[INAUDIBLE] THIS IS THE VIEW, AGAIN, DENNIS, SHOWED IT ON HIS PLAN TOO, BUT THIS IS A 40 FOOT LOT, WHICH IS FULL DRAINAGE EASEMENT SEPARATING OUR PROPERTY JUST TO THE RIGHT.

AS YOU LOOK AT THIS TO THE WEST.

VERSUS MATTHEWS COURT, TO THE LEFT, AND YOU CAN SEE THERE'S NO WAY THAT NEIGHBORS ARE EVER GOING TO SEE THIS PROPERTY LIKE KERRY SAID.

THIS HERE IS ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPH LOOKING FROM OUR PROPERTY TOWARDS THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT.

AGAIN, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THOSE RESIDENTIAL HOMES, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SEE US DUE TO THE 40 FEET OF HEAVY GROWTH IN THAT DRAINAGE AREA EASEMENT.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS JUST ANOTHER OVERHEAD SHOWING THAT 40 FOOT OF DRAINAGE, WHICH HEAVILY TREED AGAIN, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE IT MARITAL OR PROPERTY BEING TO THE RIGHT, WHICH IS THE WEST AND RESIDENTIAL LOT TO THE LEFT, THE EAST.

AND THE OTHER [INAUDIBLE] I WANT TO ADDRESS IS THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PARKING, I KNOW IT'S VERY COMMON FOR UP TO 10 PERCENT PARKING.

WE'RE DOING THAT TO PROVIDE SOME MEDICAL USE.

AND I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH THE [INAUDIBLE] PROPERTY HERE HAS A PARKING RATIO WAS GIVEN AT ONE POINT TWO HUNDRED AND THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF THAT TODAY.

THIS IS AN AREA JUST OUR PROPERTY'S DIRECTLY TO THE RIGHT TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY ACROSS THE ZENA RUCKER.

AND THOSE ARE 86 EMPTY SPACES TODAY, TAKEN AT 2:30 IN THE AFTERNOON.

THAT IS 100 PERCENT OCCUPIED.

EVERY BUILDING, EVERY SPACE YOU SEE THERE, YOU SEE, DEFINITELY THAT'S TWO HUNDRED ARE PARKING IS BASED ON THE PERCENTAGE ON THE CODE.

BUT IF WE LOOK AT IT, SQUARE FOOTAGE WITH THE EIGHT AND A HALF PERCENT VARIANCE WE'RE AT 197.

AGAIN, THIS IS JUST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE [INAUDIBLE] PROPERTY, THE SHOWS A LOT OF EMPTY PARKING SPACES THROUGHOUT ON THE [INAUDIBLE] TO THE NORTH, [INAUDIBLE] AGAIN.

YEAH, LET'S KIND OF DIRECT IT BACK TO THE APPLICATION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I THINK WE GET THE POINT.

EIGHT PERCENT IS NOT VERY MUCH PARKING THAT'S ALLOWED FOR MEDICAL USE AND IT COULD BE.

WE HAVE 70 PERCENT COMMERCIAL, WE DON'T KNOW, BUT WE WANT TO SUPPORT IT FOR MEDICAL USE IN ADDITION TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE.

ANY OTHER FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT HERE? YEAH, I DO HAVE ONE OTHER ONE.

I UNDERSTAND THE COMMENT ABOUT THE ECONOMICS DICTATE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IN TERMS OF UNDERGROUND DETENTION AND SO ON STILL LOOKS TO ME LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO FORCE FIT MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAN IS REALISTIC FOR THE SITE.

BUT ONE OF THE COMMENTS I WOULD HAVE HERE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S BEEN A CONSIDERATION, IS THE LAYOUT OF THIS PARTICULAR LOT.

AS YOU DRIVE ALONG ZENA RUCKER ROAD, YOU'RE LOOKING AT A CONCRETE JUNGLE.

WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO PULLING THAT HORIZONTAL EAST TO WEST, BUILDING FORWARD AND MOVING THE PARKING BACK BEHIND THAT SO THAT YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT IT REALLY A SEA OF PARKING PLACES? WE LOOKED AT SEVERAL DIFFERENT CONCEPTS, BUT THIS SEEMED TO BE THE MOST ECONOMICAL WAY TO DO THIS, TO GET THE BUILDINGS ON THE SITE FOR US.

AGAIN, IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO THE IT WAS SIMILAR TO WHAT THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ON THIS PROPERTY HERE THAT HAD THE EXISTING DETENTION POND.

THERE ARE THREE BUILDINGS RUNNING NORTH AND SOUTH, AND WE KEPT THE FIRST BUILDING NORTH OF SOUTH.

WE JUST HAD THE PARKING IN THE FRONT.

BUT I THINK IF THIS BUILDING WERE CENTERED MORE ON THE LOT, YOU COULD CUT DOWN THE NUMBER OF SPACES THAT WOULD BE VISIBLE AND IT WOULD BE MORE IN LINE WITH THE PREVIOUS CONCEPT PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED.

JUST, YOU KNOW, I'M THINKING OF DRIVING ALONG HERE AND ALL I'M SEEING IS PARKING, YOU KNOW, AND WHETHER IT'S OCCUPIED PARKING SPACES OR NOT, IT'S STILL PARKING.

SO THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION.

OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OK.

I THINK WE'RE GOOD FOR NOW, BUT I HAVE A FEELING WE'LL PROBABLY CALL YOU BACK UP.

OK WITH THAT.

ITEM NUMBER 14 ON OUR AGENDA DOES CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING.

AND I HAVE A FEELING I'M GOING TO HAVE SOME SPEAKERS THIS EVENING REALLY QUICKLY.

[01:35:04]

I GUESS, YOU KNOW, PLEASE COME FORWARD SIMILAR TO THE WAY APPLICANTS DID STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, FOR THE RECORD.

AND LIKE I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE TYPICALLY TRY TO GIVE YOU THREE MINUTES AND JUST ASK YOU TO PLEASE BE COGNIZANT OF THAT RELATIVE TO THE OTHER ITEMS WE HAVE ON THE AGENDA AFTER THIS AND THE SIGNBOARD MEETING WE HAVE AFTER THIS.

BUT WE'LL DEFINITELY HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND LET EVERYBODY COME FORWARD THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM BECAUSE WE DEFINITELY, AS STAFF REFERENCED, WE GOT YOUR YOUR COMMENT CARDS AND HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO READ THEM.

SO WE'LL ALSO HEAR FROM YOU VERBALLY AS WELL.

SO WITH THAT, I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER 14 AND INVITE, MA'AM, YOU LOOK VERY EXCITED TO COME FORWARD.

SO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT ANYBODY ELSE IN FRONT OF YOU.

AND LET YOU HAVE THE MICROPHONE FIRST HERE, NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, IF YOU DON'T MIND, PLEASE.

MY NAME IS KELLY ROBERTS, I LIVE AT 313 MATTHEWS COURT.

THE MAIN CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE SOME OF THE RESIDENTS, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT ALL MOVED IN YET OR OFFICIALLY THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

SO WE TALKED AMONG OURSELVES AND CAME UP WITH SEVERAL OF THE SAME IDEAS.

THE NUMBER ONE THING WE WANT TO DO IS PRESERVE THE PROPERTY VALUES, AND WE WANT TO DO THAT THROUGH BEAUTIFICATION AND KEEPING THE AREA LIKE IT WAS PRESENTED TO US WHEN WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY.

THE PROPERTY HERE BEING BUILT, WE'RE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE GREENBELT BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES AND THE CREEK.

AND THEN THE FLOODING IS VERY, VERY HIGH CONCERN AND I WOULD BE CONCERNED EVEN IF I WAS DOWNSTREAM, BECAUSE I THINK THAT COULD BE A HUGE ISSUE.

THE SOUND, EXCUSE ME, THE SOUND BARRIER.

HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE TREES BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES, IN THE SUMMERTIME, YES, IT'S NICE.

I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 14 MONTHS IN OUR HOME, AND SO I'VE SEEN IT THROUGHOUT ALL THE SEASONS.

AND WHEN THE TREES FALL, YOU CAN SEE THE SCHOOL AND YOU DO HEAR THE SOUNDS.

SO THAT IS NOT A YEAR-ROUND BARRIER.

AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO REALLY WORK ON THAT AND PRESERVE THAT.

THE DETENTION POND, IF THAT STAYS, WE'D LIKE TO SEE IT BEAUTIFIED WITH A FOUNTAIN.

I'M NOT SO SURE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER BY ANY MEANS, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IS NOT AN ISSUE, THAT THEY'RE JUST REMOVING IT TO GAIN LAND THAT BECOMES A PROBLEM.

I DO FEEL LIKE IT'S OVERBUILT, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S MY THREE MINUTES, BUT--WE'VE GOT LIGHTS THERE.

SO IT'S GREEN FOR TWO MINUTES.

YELLOW FOR THE TWO TO THREE MINUTES.

AND IT'LL START FLASHING RED AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY OFFICERS HERE THIS EVENING.

[CHUCKLING] DON'T WORRY, YOU DON'T LOOK TOO ROWDY.

OK, SO I THINK MOVING THE TRASH BIN IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE BACKUP BEEPERS AND IT WILL BE CARRIED THROUGH THE TREES THROUGH THERE AND THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY OF THE SURROUNDING LIGHTING IS NOT SO HIGH THAT IT COMES UP OVER THE TREES AND SHINES IN THE BACKYARDS OF THE OF THE HOUSES.

I JUST THINK IT NEEDS A LOT MORE WORK AND NEEDS TO BE.

I CAN TELL A LOT FROM THE DRAWING.

I THINK WE JUST NEED SOME MORE DETAIL AND SOME MORE INFORMATION.

OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE DO STILL HAVE AN OPEN PUBLIC HEARING, SIR.

YOU LOOK--GO AHEAD AND COME ON DOWN.

DON'T WORRY, WE'LL LEAVE IT OPEN SO EVERYBODY ELSE WILL GET THEIR SHOTS.

AND I GUESS I'D SAY SAME MESSAGE I SAID EARLIER, IF YOU DON'T MIND NAME AND NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

CHIP REED 715 GREYMOOR PLACE.

THAT STREET KIND OF THE VIEW THAT WE HAVE.

I'VE LIVED THERE TWENTY TWO YEARS.

THE ONE THING I WANT TO SAY ABOUT THE FLOW IN THE WATER THERE IS THE HOUSE AT THE END OF THE STREET HAS ALMOST GOTTEN WATER UP TO IT ONE TIME IN 22 YEARS, AND IT WAS A REALLY BAD FLOOD.

HEY, CRAIG, YOU'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOREVER.

THE NEXT THING I'D SAY IS WHEN THIS PROPERTY CHANGED FROM FARMLAND TO OFFICE LAND, WE CAME FROM OUR STREET AND ASK SPECIFICALLY THAT TO HAVE ONE STOREY BUILDINGS THERE.

MAYOR STACY READ THAT INTO THE MINUTES AT BOTH MEETINGS BEFORE THEY APPROVED THE CHANGE OF LAND USE.

SO YOU CAN GO BACK AND READ THAT.

OUR CONCERN IS JUST THE TREES, REALLY.

WE DON'T WANT TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE BUILDING FROM THE TREES AND A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT ANY BUILDINGS VIEWING INTO THE PLAYGROUND, THAT TYPE OF THING.

BUT AS FAR AS THE RETENTION POND THERE, THAT THING HAS JUST AN EYESORE FOR EVER AND

[01:40:03]

EVER AND EVER.

IT'S FILLED UP WITH DEBRIS.

IT'S NOT VERY NICE.

AND AS TO THE WALKWAY ON THE BACK SIDE OF IT, IT GOES TO NOWHERE.

AND HAVING BEEN A BOARD MEMBER OF TIMARRON FOR YEARS, MANY, MANY YEARS AGO, THEY HAD PLANNED AT SOME POINT TO HAVE A WALKWAY ALONG THAT CREEK, AND THE RESIDENTS RESOUNDINGLY DID NOT WANT IT TO BE ADDED ON.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE THING HAD THEY PUT IT ON THERE BEFORE THEY EVEN BUILT THE HOMES, BUT THEY DIDN'T WANT IT ADDED ON.

THEY DIDN'T WANT PEOPLE RIDING BIKES ON THAT SIDE OR PEOPLE ABLE TO WALK ON THAT SIDE.

SO IT'S KIND OF LIKE A SIDEWALK TO NOWHERE, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.

I WALK MY DOG BACK THERE SIXTEEN YEARS NOW, VERY OLD DOG.

WE'RE JUST WORRIED ABOUT THE SCREENING.

I MEAN, IT WAS ALWAYS GOING TO BE A COMMERCIAL BUILDING.

WE'VE KNOWN THAT FOREVER AND DON'T REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHAT THEY PROPOSE.

OUR CONCERN WAS THE DUMPSTER BECAUSE WHEN I FIRST MOVED TO MY HOUSE, IT WAS BEING BUILT AND I TOOK A PICTURE OF WHAT I THOUGHT WAS AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

AND MY WIFE SAID, ARE YOU BUYING A HOUSE, YOU CAN SEE A DUMPSTER FROM THE FRONT YARD? AND IT'S THE ROCKENBAUGH DUMPSTER.

AND THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY ABOUT THAT IS WE DO HAVE A NOISE ORDINANCE THAT DOESN'T ALLOW THEM TO BE DUMPED UNTIL A CERTAIN TIME.

AND EVERY NOW AND THEN THEY SNEAK IN AND SOMEBODY COMES IN AT FIVE IN THE MORNING AND DUMPS ONE AT ROCKENBAUGH.

WE TYPICALLY CALL THE COMPANY AND THEY STOP IT.

IT'S JUST AN OVERAGGRESSIVE ROUTE PERSON OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO I THINK THAT'S 16 SECONDS LEFT, IF ANYBODY'S GOT A QUESTION.

I THINK WE'RE GOOD NOW.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

APPRECIATE YOU COMING IN.

PUBLIC HEARING STILL REMAINS OPEN, SO SIR, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND COME ON UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

MY NAME IS TERRY HOLMES, THE PRESIDENT OF THE HOA FOR MATTHEWS COURT.

ALONG WITH ONE OF THOSE LETTERS THAT CAME, THERE WAS ACTUALLY TWO PEOPLE THAT SIGNED IT LOT SEVEN AND LOT FOUR OF THE ONE BLOCK.

SO I THINK ALL OF THE HOMEOWNERS ARE OPPOSED TO PARTS OF IT.

THE PART THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO NOTE IT'S NOT BEEN SAID IS THEY ALL PURCHASED HOMES WITH THE EXISTING PLAN IN MIND.

AND SO IF YOU KNOW, THEN WE MAY HAVE MISREPRESENTED WHAT'S ULTIMATELY GOING TO BE THERE.

WE DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT.

WE JUST THINK THAT THERE'S PROBABLY IT'S JUST TRYING TO BE TOO MUCH ON THE SITE AND YOU CAN GO UNDERGROUND WITH THE DETENTION.

AND OBVIOUSLY THE ENGINEERS CAN MAKE THAT WORK AND RELEASE AT THE RIGHT AMOUNT.

BUT I THINK THAT THERE'S A BEAUTIFICATION THAT HAS BEEN DONE IN MANY PLACES IN SOUTHLAKE THAT NEEDS TO BE CONTINUOUS.

MEANING IF WE'RE GOING TO DO RETENTION WITH THE DETENTION, THEN IT SHOULD BE PROBABLY DEEPENED TO WHERE THAT CAN BE, WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE SILT; IT'S GOING TO BE SOME SILTING AND THEN IT SHOULD BE MANAGED AND IT SHOULD HAVE A FOUNTAIN OR SOMETHING.

SO WE DON'T HAVE STAGNANT WATER AND HEALTH ISSUES WITH MOSQUITOES.

WE JUST THINK IT'S COMING TOO CLOSE TO WHAT WE BELIEVED WAS GOING TO BE THERE.

IT WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FOR ALL THE HOMEOWNERS AND THE ONES THAT BACK UP TO IT, IN LOTS TWO AND THREE, ONE, TWO AND THREE ARE BEING DRAMATICALLY AFFECTED.

ONE IS NOT SOLD YET, BUT TWO AND THREE ARE, ALTHOUGH TWO'S NOT BUILT, THREE IS BEING BUILT.

TWO IS BEING DESIGNED.

WE WOULD REQUEST THE BASIC SITE CLAIM WOULD BE EXISTING LEAVE THE EXISTING SITE PLAN AS WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.

I THINK THAT'S IT.

YEAH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, APPRECIATE IT.

PUBLIC HEARING DOES REMAIN OPEN.

GO AHEAD AND COME ON UP, SIR.

NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, IF YOU DON'T MIND, PLEASE.

DYLAN HOLMES AND I'M WITH THE HOLMES BUILDERS AT 225 EAST STATE HIGHWAY 120 COPPELL, TEXAS SO I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR MARKETING THE HOLMES BUILDERS LOT POSITIONS IN MATTHEWS COURT.

WE BOUGHT SIX LOTS.

WE STILL OWN THREE.

I MET WITH SOMEONE LAST THURSDAY TAKING A LOOK AT OUR REMAINING TWO THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A COMMITMENT FOR LOT ONE AND LOT EIGHT, BOTH ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ENTRANCE.

THEY, IN MY OPINION, I THINK ONE IS A BETTER LOT.

BACKS UP TO THE CREEK.

THERE'S MORE TREES.

LOT EIGHT LOOKS TOWARDS THE BAYLOR SCOTT AND WHITE MEDICAL BUILDING AND THE SHOPPING CENTERS BACK THERE.

SO AS FAR AS THE VIEWS, THE PEOPLE I MET WITH UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY

[01:45:05]

THOUGHT THE POND BACK THERE WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY WANTED TO BE NEAR, GIVEN THE MOSQUITOES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO THERE IS AN ISSUE THERE, BUT GIVEN THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING HERE, IF THAT POND IS BUILT ON TOP OF ONE, WOULD THINK THAT THE ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING WOULD BE MORE AT A GRADE WHERE THOSE HOMES ARE.

SO THE LIGHTING WOULD BE A, I THINK, A MAKE MY JOB A LITTLE BIT HARDER TO GET SOMEONE TO WANT TO INVEST IN THAT LOT.

SO I JUST WANT TO BRING THAT TO Y'ALL'S DETENTION AND THINKING THE INITIAL APPROVED DESIGN WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD ATTRACT MORE HOMEOWNERS FOR OUR REMAINING LOTS THERE.

WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER 14 REMAINS OPEN FOR ANYBODY ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND COMMENT.

SEEING NO ONE, I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS, SO WE'RE DONE WITH THE PUBLIC SIDE OF IT.

I THINK WE'LL GO AHEAD AND KIND OF START DELIBERATING NOW.

WE MAY CALL THE APPLICANT BACK UP.

DENNIS, I GUESS IF YOU DON'T MIND GOING TO THE SLIDE NEAR THE VERY BEGINNING THAT JUST SHOWS THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE O-1 DISTRICT AND THE [INAUDIBLE], I GUESS, BEING PROPOSED.

YEAH, I MEAN, I GUESS KIND OF MAYBE GOING BACK TO THE INITIAL COMMENTS I HAD, I'M CERTAINLY NOT OUR CITY ENGINEER IN TERMS OF TRYING TO DELIBERATE ABOUT UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE VERSUS SURFACE DRAINAGE.

I'M GOING TO TAKE IT ON FACE VALUE THAT OUR CITY ENGINEERING WILL WILL OBVIOUSLY DILIGENCE ANYTHING THAT'S PROPOSED AND ENSURE THAT IT WORKS, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT IT NEEDS TO, AND I GUESS IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'VE KIND OF HEARD MIXED OPINIONS ABOUT JUST THE NATURE OF WHAT THIS EXISTING DETENTION RETENTION POND LOOKS LIKE.

HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, I THINK IN TERMS OF [INAUDIBLE] THE SITE, YOU KNOW, FOR ME, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

IT'S NOT THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE'RE NOT HERE TO REVIEW PRO FORMA; THAT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM.

WE'RE HERE TO MAKE LONG TERM PLANNING DECISIONS AND THIS IS WHAT I STRUGGLE WITH.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS A LITTLE TOO DENSE.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AND I UNDERSTAND THE FEEDBACK ABOUT THE PATHWAYS MASTER PLAN.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT REALLY HERE TO DELIBERATE THAT TONIGHT.

I THINK IT'S ON THE EXISTING SITE PLAN TODAY THAT'S APPROVED.

I'D LIKE TO LEAVE IT THERE.

AND AT SOME POINT DOWN THE ROAD, IF IT'S DECIDED WHEN THE ZENA RUCKER TRACT GETS DEVELOPED THAT IT'S NOT NEEDED, THEN WE CAN GO DOWN THAT PATH OR WE'LL JUST THE NEXT TIME WE REVIEW THE PATHWAY PLAN IS PROBABLY IN SEVERAL YEARS, I ASSUME, AND I'D LIKE TO AT LEAST PRESERVE THAT FLEXIBILITY FOR IF WE DECIDE TO DO IT OR NOT DO IT.

IS IT FAIR? YES, SIR, WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING A PERIODIC UPDATE OF OUR MOBILITY PLAN HERE, PROBABLY IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS OR SO.

SO, WE WILL HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT ISSUE.

SO I MEAN, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, FOR ME PERSONALLY, WE'LL SEE WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE THINKS I'D LIKE TO SEE.

YOU KNOW, THE S-P-2 REGULATIONS HERE, CONSISTENT WITH THE OH1 DISTRICT TO BRING THE DENSITY AND INTENSITY OF THE SITE USE BACK DOWN.

I'D LIKE TO SEE MORE BUFFERING ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WITH WITH THE TRAIL WAY PUT BACK IN AND BUFFERING RELATIVE TO NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS AND MAYBE A BULKED UP LANDSCAPE PLAN ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE TRACT.

I APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT'S PRESERVING TREES ON THAT SIDE OF THE TRACK.

I'D LIKE TO EVALUATE THE STACKING VARIANCE, ADMITTEDLY.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE JUST DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THAT AHEAD OF.

YOU KNOW, MAYBE THERE IS A SITUATION WHERE I COULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF GRANTING A VARIANCE, BUT MAYBE NOT TO THIS EXTENT, IT'S BASICALLY CUT IN HALF.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S BEEN VARYING COMMENTS ABOUT THE TRASH RECEPTACLE LOCATION.

YOU KNOW, THE ORIENTATION OF THE BUILDING ON THE SITE PLAN IS ANOTHER GREAT COMMENT BY COMMISSIONER ROTHMEIER.

YOU KNOW, WE HEARD ABOUT LIGHTING.

I JUST FEEL LIKE, I GUESS FOR ME TO VOTE TO, I WOULD STRUGGLE TO APPROVE WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED THIS EVENING.

I APPRECIATE THAT THE APPLICANT ONLY RECEIVED THIS FEEDBACK VERY, VERY RECENTLY FROM NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS, BUT THAT'S A KEY COMPONENT OF THIS.

SO I GUESS I WOULD STRUGGLE TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PARTICULAR VERSION OF IT, AND I KIND OF OUTLINED MY CONCERNS.

BUT THAT'S JUST ME IN TERMS OF HITTING ON WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH, SO I'LL DEFER TO OTHERS.

COMMISSIONER DOUG, I AGREE WITH THE CHAIRMAN.

CAN WE GET THE SITE PLAN BACK UP WHILE HE'S TALKING?

[01:50:02]

DENNIS, DO YOU MIND PUTTING THE OLD SITE PLANS? I AGREE WITH THE CHAIRMAN.

I AM NOT BLESSED WITH THE GIFT OF DIPLOMACY THAT HE IS.

[CHUCKLING] I WILL NOT VOTE FOR THIS.

AND PART OF MY CONCERN IS TWOFOLD.

IT'S JUST TOO DENSE FOR THIS AREA.

AND SECONDLY, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A SITE PLAN BEING APPROVED IN 2016, HOMES BEING DEVELOPED AND PEOPLE BUYING THOSE HOMES BASED ON THAT SITE PLAN.

AND BEFORE THE HOMES ARE EVEN SOLD AND FINISHED, WE CHANGE THE SITE PLAN TO MAKE IT MUCH MORE DENSE AND ARGUABLY TO THE DETRIMENT OF THOSE HOMES.

SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS.

OTHER FEEDBACK? I SHARE THE SAME VIEWS IN TERMS OF THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGES.

I THINK YOU'RE TRYING TO CRAM TOO MUCH ON THIS.

I'VE GAINED A LITTLE BIT MORE COMFORT ON THE UNDERGROUND DETENTION, JUST WITH THE KNOWLEDGE, YOU KNOW AS PRECAST CONCRETE.

SO I THINK THAT'S POSITIVE.

BUT BECAUSE OF THE DENSITY, IT'S JUST HARD TO--AND I GUESS I'D ASK IS EVERYBODY GOES THROUGH IF YOU MAYBE JUST HIGHLIGHT, YOU KNOW, FOR THE BENEFIT OF BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE RESIDENTS SPECIFIC, LIKE WHAT YOU MAY OR MAY NOT BE AMENABLE TO JUST SO THERE'S A BETTER USE OF TIME HERE IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, IS IT JUST THIS SITE PLAN THAT WE SEE ON THE PAGE HERE? OR IS THERE LIKE MAYBE MORE LIKE WHAT I OUTLINED SOMETHING THAT IS JUST CUT DOWN IN DENSITY AND MORE BUFFERING ADDED OR JUST MAYBE JUST AS SPECIFIC AS YOU CAN GET JUST TO KIND OF HELP GIVE THE APPLICANT FEEDBACK? YEAH, LISTEN, I APPRECIATE--I CAME IN HERE WITH THE CONCERN FOR THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE, THE DENSITY ON THIS BECAUSE OF THAT AND SPECIFICALLY THE DETENTION POND REMOVAL AND GOING UNDERGROUND BECAUSE OF PREVIOUS EXPERIENCES, I'VE GOTTEN OVER THE UNDERGROUND DETENTION.

I FEEL LIKE I'M MORE COMFORTABLE THERE.

AND SO NOW I'M KIND OF LEFT WITH THE DENSITY I STILL THINK IS TOO GREAT AT THIS POINT.

OTHERS? I'LL JUST KIND OF PICK UP ON THAT COMMENT.

AND I PREVIOUSLY ALLUDED TO A COUPLE OF THE CONCERNS I'VE GOT.

I THINK AGAIN ACKNOWLEDGING THE ECONOMICS OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, BUT ALSO ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS THAT OUR RESPONSIBILITY ISN'T TO LOOK AT THE ECONOMICS AND THE PRO FORMA, IT IS, IN MY OPINION, SOMETHING IT IS WHEN YOU'RE INCREASING THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PUT ON A LOT BY ABOUT 50 PERCENT; I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER.

AND ONE WAY TO DO THAT IS TO PUT IT UNDERGROUND DETENTION.

I'M NOT 100 PERCENT CONVINCED, AND I'M NOT A CIVIL ENGINEER, SO I DON'T REALLY PROFESS TO UNDERSTAND IT.

I STILL AM CONCERNED ABOUT EXACTLY HOW THAT WILL HAPPEN AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHAT CONTINGENCIES ARE PUT IN PLACE TO ADDRESS THAT IN THE EVENT THERE WAS A FAILURE.

I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT THAT, SO I'D LIKE TO HEAR THAT THE OTHER CONCERN THAT I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE APPLICANT EXPLORE IS THE POSITIONING OF THAT EAST WEST BUILDING ON THE LOT TO ELIMINATE PART OF THAT WHAT I'VE REFERRED TO AS A CONCRETE JUNGLE.

OTHER FEEDBACK QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? I'M GENERALLY GOOD WITH, YOU KNOW, ACCEPTING CHANGES AND MAKING REVISIONS AS NEEDED.

BUT YOU KNOW THIS ONE IS SO RECENT THAT I THINK IN TERMS OF THIS ENTIRE AREA, NOT JUST THIS PARTICULAR LOT, BUT THE PLANNING THAT'S GOING INTO THAT ENTIRE AREA WITH THE DEVELOPMENT WE DID THERE ON THE CORNER, THE BAYLOR SCOTT AND WHITE PROPERTY, ALL OF THAT'S KIND OF BEEN ONE ONE BIG DEVELOPMENT, SO TO SPEAK.

I KNOW THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, PLATTED DIFFERENTLY, SEPARATED, BUT THAT'S ALL KIND OF BEEN IN A GROUP.

AND TO ME, THIS BEING SO RECENT IN JANUARY OF 16, I THINK WE'VE GOT TO STAY THE SAME WITH THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED.

OTHER FEEDBACK, COMMENTS? DR. SPRINGER.

WELL, I AM HAPPY TO SEE THE RETENTION POND GONE ACTUALLY, NO MATTER HOW IT WORKS OUT.

SO, YOU KNOW, IF THAT CAN GO AWAY BECAUSE THAT LOOKS LIKE NOTHING BUT A MOSQUITO MAGNET TO ME.

AND I THINK I AGREE WITH THE ENGINEER WHERE HE SAID THAT I DON'T THINK THAT HAVING THE UNDERGROUND IS GOING TO AFFECT THE TOTAL OUTFLOW GOING DOWN THE CREEK OR INCREASE THE FLOW THROUGH THERE, BUT IT IS TOO INTENSE.

I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER ROTHMEIER THAT I DON'T LIKE THAT.

THERE'S TOO MANY BUILDINGS ON THAT STREET ALREADY THAT HAVE JUST EXTENSIVE, EXTENSIVE PARKING LOT, SEAS A PARKING LOT OUT THERE THAT I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO ADD TO THAT.

SO, YOU KNOW, MOVING THAT BUILDING FORWARD, IF YOU KNOW WE'RE GOING TO STAY WITH THOSE TWO BUILDINGS, THAT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE TO ME.

[01:55:02]

FOR THE PEOPLE, THE HOMEOWNERS THAT WERE AND THE BUILDER BACK HERE THAT WAS COMPLAINED ABOUT THE LIGHTING, I MEAN, WE'VE GOT A REALLY STRICT LIGHTING CODE.

SO I DON'T THINK YOU'VE GOT ANY LIGHTING ENCROACHMENTS THAT'S GOING TO BE AN ISSUE FOR YOU.

THAT'S, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO DRIVE AROUND ANYWHERE IN TOWN AND SEE THAT BE A REAL PROBLEM FOR YOU.

COMMISSIONER PHALEN, I GUESS IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO ANY OF THAT, WELL, I MEAN, YEAH, PROBABLY MAYBE IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT VARIES FROM THAT, I GUESS, OR WHATEVER YOU'D LIKE TO SAY.

YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK I AGREE WITH MOST OF WHAT YOU'RE ALL SAYING.

I THINK IT'S TOO INTENSE FOR THIS PROPERTY.

I MEAN, THEY'VE GONE UP 50 PERCENT SQUARE FOOTAGE ON BUILDINGS.

I DON'T MIND, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE UNDERGROUND DETENTION, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE THE TRASH RECEPTACLE EITHER ELIMINATED OR MOVED, AND I'D LIKE TO SEE POTENTIALLY MOVING THE BUILDINGS OR I'D LIKE TO SEE IT MORE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE O-1 ZONING.

SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, IN A SECOND, I'LL CALL THE APPLICANT BACK UP, BUT YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF QUICK THINGS.

ONE, THESE MEETINGS ARE VIDEO RECORDED.

SO YOU KNOW, ANY OF THIS FEEDBACK YOU'VE JUST HEARD IN TERMS OF TRYING TO JOT IT DOWN OR UNDERSTAND IT, THIS ALL IS ON VIDEO SO YOU CAN ALWAYS GO BACK AND WATCH IT AND TAKE ANY NOTES.

GENERALLY, I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS A LITTLE BIT TOO MUCH DENSITY ON THE SITE RELATIVE TO, YOU KNOW, O-1 REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF SQUARE FOOTAGE AND PARKING.

THERE'S A LITTLE BIT ON BUILDING ORIENTATION.

SOUNDS LIKE LIKELY A GENERAL COMFORT WITH UNDERGROUND WATER DETENTION, BUT I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HELPED ME, FOR EXAMPLE, STAFF REMINDED ME, I'VE BEEN AROUND HERE 20 YEARS THAT, YOU KNOW, DEL FRISCO'S USED TO BE AN OPEN AREA AND IT HAS UNDERGROUND DETENTION NOW AND IT'S WORKED FINE, YOU KNOW, EVER SINCE THAT.

SO I MEAN, I THINK MAYBE GIVING EXAMPLES OF WHERE THAT'S SUCCESSFULLY WORK CAN MAYBE HELP PEOPLE GET COMFORTABLE, BUT IT'S NOT AN EXCUSE TO KIND OF GO OVER THE TOP IN TERMS OF INTENSITY ON THE SITE.

AND I THINK ALSO THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A FOCUS ON BUFFERING, PARTICULARLY TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE EAST AND THE PATHWAY.

SO HOPEFULLY YOU'RE SENSING SOME CONSISTENCY THERE.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY GETTING NEIGHBOR FEEDBACK WILL BE CRITICAL.

AND I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE CAVEAT THAT YOU DIDN'T QUITE HAVE THAT YET.

SO WE UNDERSTAND THAT.

SO I GUESS I'LL GO AHEAD AND INVITE YOU BACK UP IF YOU'D LIKE.

AND REALLY, THERE'S A COUPLE OF OPTIONS FOR YOU HERE.

YOU KNOW, YOU PRESENTED IT AND WE CAN VOTE ON IT AS PRESENTED THIS EVENING.

I THINK YOU HEAR THAT IT MIGHT BE A CHALLENGING RECEPTION, OR YOU CAN CHOOSE TO TABLE IT IF YOU'D LIKE AND TRY TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THIS, MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND BRING SOMETHING BACK IN THAT IS MODIFIED, MAYBE TRYING TO ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS.

OR AGAIN, WE CAN VOTE ON IT TONIGHT.

SO IT'S UP TO YOU.

I WAS SINCERE WHEN I SAID THAT I REALLY WANT TO PRESENT SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY AND HAVE COMMUNITY SUPPORT AND IS GOOD FOR THE NEIGHBORS, IN ADDITION TO US.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

I'VE OWNED THIS PROPERTY SINCE 2006.

I BUILT THE BUILDING AT 601 ZENA RUCKER ROAD, WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LITTLE SUNSHINE'S PLAYHOUSE, WHICH I ALSO OWN THAT LOT AND WORKED WITH HIM.

SO I HAVE SHOWN A REAL COMMITMENT TO QUALITY AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE WILL DELIVER ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.

THERE HAVE BEEN SOME CHANGES FOR THE REASON WHY WE CHANGED FROM THE 2016 PLAN, AND ONE OF THOSE IS I MENTIONED THE ECONOMICS AND I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU GUYS AREN'T IN THE PRO FORMA BUSINESS AND THAT REALLY DOESN'T CONCERN YOU ALL.

BUT THAT DETENTION POND HAS BEEN AN EYESORE SINCE I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN 2006, AND I THINK WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, THE BEAUTIFICATION AND THE COMMITMENT TO SAVE THE TREES, THIS IS GOING TO BE AN AWFULLY GOOD LOOKING PROJECT AND SOMETHING THAT NOT ONLY THE RESIDENTS OF MATTHEWS COURT WILL SUPPORT AND BE APPRECIATIVE OF, BUT I THINK THE ENTIRE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE WILL DRIVE BY AND BE VERY PROUD OF IT WHEN WE'RE ALL SAID AND DONE.

THAT SAID, I APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK BOTH FROM THE NEIGHBORS AS WELL AS FROM THE COMMISSION, AND I DO REQUEST THAT WE TABLE THE PROJECT AT THIS TIME SO WE CAN GO BACK AND RETOOL AND TAKE THE CONCERNS AND BRING FORWARD A PLAN THAT HOPEFULLY WILL BE MORE ACCEPTABLE NEXT TIME.

AND I GUESS LET ME TALK TO STAFF REAL QUICK, I GUESS IS IT BEST JUST TO TABLE IT TO A FUTURE MEETING OR? I WOULD TABLE IT TO THE TWENTY THIRD, AND IF FOR SOME REASON, THE APPLICANT CAN'T MAKE THE CHANGES, I ASSUME THERE'LL BE SOME COMMUNICATION WITH THE NEIGHBORS, SO HOPEFULLY THEY CAN STAY ON TRACK.

THANK YOU, SIR.

BUT IF YOU TABLE TO THE NEXT MEETING AND WE HAVE TO TABLE IT OUT FURTHER, WE CAN AT THAT MEETING, BUT IF THE APPLICANT WANTS THE TABLE OUT FURTHER.

AND WILL NEIGHBORS KIND OF GET AN UPDATE OR HEAR ABOUT THAT?

[02:00:03]

OR HOW DO THEY WHAT'S THE BEST WAY FOR THEM TO MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTAND IF IT'S GOING TO COME UP ON THE 23RD OR NOT? WELL, PROBABLY THE QUICKEST WAY IS THEY CAN ALWAYS JUST CALL THE DEPARTMENT, BUT WE HAVE, ON OUR WEBSITE, WE'LL POST SOME FRIDAY THE APPLICATION AT THE FRIDAY BEFORE THE SCHEDULED MEETING, THE APPLICATION, THE MATERIALS THAT WE RECEIVED SO THEY CAN ALWAYS CHECK THE WEBSITE AND THEN WE'LL POST THE AGENDAS ON THE CITY SECRETARY'S WEBSITE AND IN THE BUILDING.

BUT I WOULD PROBABLY THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY IS JUST TO CALL THE DEPARTMENT TO GET THE LATEST.

HOPEFULLY, THE RESIDENTS HAVE HEARD THAT AND ALWAYS REACH OUT TO CITY STAFF.

THEY'RE VERY FRIENDLY ON THAT REGARD TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND IF IT'S COMING TO THE MEETING OR NOT.

I'LL ALSO BE REACHING OUT TO THEM AS WELL AND SITTING DOWN WITH THEM.

AND ONE THING I FORGOT TO ADDRESS IS THE LIGHTING, WHICH MICHAEL MENTIONED THE IT'S GOING TO BE ON BUILDING LIGHTING.

THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE HUGE LIGHT POLES, AND IT WON'T BE ANYTHING THAT IS DEROGATORY OR ANYTHING THAT WILL CREATE ANY KIND OF LIGHT POLLUTION OR ANY INTERFERENCE WITH THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND AGAIN, I THINK, YOU KNOW, AS DR.

SPRINGER COVERED, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A LIGHTING ORDINANCE.

JUST MAKE SURE YOU FOLLOW IT.

NOISE ORDINANCE, OBVIOUSLY, I THINK THERE'S OPENNESS TO UNDERGROUND, YOU KNOW, WATER DETENTION.

I THINK JUST EXAMPLES AROUND TOWN WILL KIND OF HELP, BUT IT'S REALLY THE FOCUS ON THE DENSITY OF THE SITE AND THE BUFFERING LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT, AND MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORS.

AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY THERE'S SOMETHING THAT MAYBE YOU CAN'T WIN ALL THE HEARTS AND MINDS, BUT SOMETHING THAT MEANINGFULLY KIND OF PUSHES IT IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

SO.

GOOD LUCK.

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

OK, WITH THAT, I THINK WE'LL GO AHEAD AND LIKELY VOTE ON A MOTION TO TABLE HERE.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE APPLICANTS REQUEST TO TABLE ITEM NUMBER 14 ON OUR AGENDA TO THE SEPTEMBER 23RD PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.