[00:00:02] GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY. WELCOME TO THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE CITY HALL CHAMBERS. [1. Call to Order. ] MY NAME IS DAN KUBIAK, CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THANKS FOR COMING OUT THIS EVENING. SORRY WE GOT A LITTLE LATE START HERE RELATED TO OUR WORK SESSION, BUT HOPEFULLY WE CAN KIND OF HIT THE GROUND RUNNING FROM HERE. MAYBE A REALLY QUICK EXPLANATION OF THIS MEETING IN CASE YOU'VE NEVER BEEN AT ONE OF THESE BEFORE. GENERALLY WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL GO THROUGH OUR AGENDA IN THE ORDER THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN IT ON THE BACK TABLE THERE. WE'LL HAVE A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. THEN WE'LL HAVE THAT FOLLOWED BY AN EXCITING SIGN BOARD MEETING. RIGHT AFTER THAT WE'LL FOLLOW ALL THE AGENDA ITEMS IN ORDER. GENERALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS THE CITY STAFF WILL PRESENT ON EACH ITEM AND THEN THE COMMISSION WILL ASK ANY QUESTIONS. THEN WE'LL LIKELY HAVE THE APPLICANT COME UP AND JUST KIND OF ANSWER SOME Q&A ON, ON A PARTICULAR ITEM, OR MAYBE JUST GIVE A BRIEF INTRODUCTION OF IT. AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING WHERE EVERYBODY GETS A CHANCE TO COME TO THE PODIUM TO SAY SOMETHING. YOU KNOW, MOST HELPFUL COMMENTS OR SOMETHING ON THAT SPECIFIC APPLICATION THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HAS THE POWER TO WEIGH IN ON. AND YOU CAN COME UP TO THE PODIUM, JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. YOU GET UP TO 3 MINUTES. WE'LL START A LITTLE TIMER LIGHT HERE. IT'LL BE GREEN AND YOU'LL SEE KIND OF A FLASHING YELLOW AND RED, BUT APPRECIATE YOU STICKING TO THAT. AND, AND COGNIZANT OF OTHER PEOPLE AND OTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. THEN WE'LL DELIBERATE AS A COMMISSION AND WE'LL VOTE ON A RECOMMENDATION FOR CITY COUNCIL, WHICH TYPICALLY, AND DENNIS WILL KEEP ME HONEST HERE FOLLOWS ROUGHLY 2 TO 3 WEEKS FROM TODAY IN TERMS OF WHEN THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING WOULD BE FOR A PARTICULAR ITEM. SO THAT'S GENERALLY HOW IT WORKS, BUT I'LL KIND OF GO THROUGH IT AS WE GET INTO THE AGENDA HERE. WITH THAT I WILL SEE IF THERE'S ANY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS FOR THIS EVENING FROM STAFF. NO COMMENTS THIS THIS EVENING CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DIRECTOR. WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE INTO OUR CONSENT AGENDA. [CONSENT AGENDA ] WE'VE I GUESS MAYBE I'LL ASK THE DIRECTOR ON ALL THESE ITEMS. I GUESS MAYBE TAKE A VOTE FOR ALL OF THEM AT ONCE. OR MAYBE DO THE MINUTES SEPARATE? IF YOU WOULD JUST READ, YOU CAN JUST READ THE ITEM. ALL 3 OF THEM. DESCRIPTION OF EACH ONE. BUT YOU CAN TAKE A SINGLE VOTE ON ALL 3 FOR THE ACTION REQUESTED. THE 1ST ITEM IS YOUR MINUTES REQUEST APPROVE. AND THEN THE 2ND 2 ITEMS ARE REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THOSE ITEMS THAT ARE CONNECTED WITH ONE ANOTHER FROM CONSIDERATION. APPLICANT HAS WITHDRAWN THOSE. RIGHT. WE'LL WE'LL HEAR I'LL CRAFT THAT. AND THEN I GUESS WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON, ON ALL OF THEM. BUT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA THIS EVENING WE HAVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM OUR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 6TH. WE'VE ALL BEEN PROVIDED A COPY OF THOSE. IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, EDITS, PLEASE SPEAK NOW BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION. AND ALSO WITHIN THIS VOTE CAPTURE ITEM NUMBER 6, WHICH IS A WITHDRAWAL OF CP26-0004 AMENDMENT TO THE CITY SOUTHLAKE CONSOLIDATED FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, AS WELL AS ITEM NUMBER 7, WHICH IS A WITHDRAWAL OF A ZONING CHANGE AND SITE PLAN FOR THE 360 DEVELOPMENT. AND I'LL NOTE BOTH ITEM 6 AND 7 ARE BEING WITHDRAWN AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT. SO ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THOSE 3 ITEMS BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION? OKAY. I THINK ALL 3 AT ONCE. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE PAST P&Z MEETING AS PRESENTED, AND ALSO ASK FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM 6, WITHDRAWAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY, SOUTHLAKE CONSOLIDATED FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND ITEM NUMBER 7, WHICH IS CASE ZA25-0072. ZONING CHANGE AND SITE PLAN FOR 360 DEVELOPMENT. ALL RIGHT, SOUNDS LIKE YOU GOT A GOOD MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL RIGHT, LET'S VOTE. PLEASE. GIVE IT A SHOT HERE. PASSES 6 TO 0. THAT'S RIGHT. WE'RE SHORT 1 MEMBER TONIGHT, SO PASSES 6-0. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW WE'RE CRUISING INTO OUR REGULAR AGENDA HERE. [8. Consider: ZA26-0037, Specific Use Permit for a Mass Gathering Event for Pride Kel-So, on property described as Lot 1R, Block 1, St. Martin-in-the-Fields Addition and located at 223 S. Pearson Lane. Current Zoning: “S-P-2” Generalized Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #11. Applicant: April Dreyson, Dreyson Ventures, LLC. Property Owner: Alan Bentrup, St. Martin-in the-Fields Episcopal Church. PUBLIC HEARING] FIRST ITEM ON THE REGULAR AGENDA THIS EVENING IS CONSIDERATION OF ZA26-0037, A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A MASS GATHERING EVENT. GOOD EVENING. I AM HERE TO PRESENT ITEM ZA26-0037, WHICH IS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A MASS GATHERING EVENT FOR PRIDE KEL-SO. AND THIS IS AT SAINT MARTIN IN THE FIELDS CHURCH AT 223 SOUTH PEARSON LANE. THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW SHOWING THE CHURCH PROPERTY OFF OF PEARSON LANE. THE FUTURE LAND USE IS PUBLIC SEMIPUBLIC AND THE ZONING IS S-P-2. GENERALIZED SITE PLAN DISTRICT. THIS IS THEIR PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR THE EVENT. [00:05:04] THIS IS VERY CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. BUT YOU CAN SEE WHERE THEY'RE PLANNING TO SET UP FOR THEIR VENDORS. IN THE MIDDLE HERE IN THE PARKING LOT IS WHERE THEY'RE PROPOSING TO HAVE THE STAGE AND THEY ALSO HAVE FOOD TRUCKS. THEY ARE PLANNING TO HAVE A SHUTTLE. ALL THE PARKING WILL BE OFF SITE, SO THEY WILL BE SHUTTLING IN AND THE, THE DROP OFF POINT HERE WILL BE CLOSE TO SOUTH PEARSON. THIS IS PROPOSED TO BE A 1 DAY EVENT ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER 3RD. THEY WILL HAVE THE VENDOR TENTS, THE FOOD TRUCKS AND ALL THE EVENTS SET UP IN THE MORNING, APPROXIMATELY 8 A.M. TO 11 A.M. THE PROPOSED EVENT TIME FRAME IS 2 P.M. TO 6 P.M., AND THEY PLAN TO HAVE ALL THE CLEANUP COMPLETED BY 9 P.M. THEY'RE ESTIMATING AROUND 2500 ATTENDEES THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE EVENT. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE VENDORS, FOOD TRUCKS, YARD GAMES, AND PERFORMERS. AND THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THERE'S GOING TO BE NO ALCOHOL SALES. AND THEY ARE ASKING FOR A 1 YEAR APPROVAL. THIS IS JUST A VIEW FROM PEARSON LANE. THIS IS A VIEW OF THE PARKING LOT AGAIN, WHERE THEY'RE PLANNING TO HAVE THE FOOD TRUCKS AND THE STAGE SET UP. ANOTHER VIEW FROM PEARSON. ANOTHER VIEW FROM PEARSON SHOWING THEIR FIELDS. AND THIS IS A VIEW FROM CHESAPEAKE. ANOTHER VIEW FROM CHESAPEAKE. NOW FOR A MASS GATHERING EVENT CONSIDERATIONS ARE SAFE INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR PEDESTRIAN VEHICULAR TRAFFIC. TRAFFIC SAFETY IN THE VICINITY. THAT THERE'S SUFFICIENT SPACE FOR THE EVENT. THERE'S SUFFICIENT ILLUMINATION. AND THAT APPLIES TO EVENTS AT NIGHT THAT THERE'S ADEQUATE PARKING FOR THE EVENT AND THAT THERE'S ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR FOOD SUPPLY, MEDICAL ASSISTANCE, GARBAGE DISPOSAL, WATER SUPPLY, AGAIN, PARKING, SANITATION AND TOILET FACILITIES, VERMIN CONTROL AND SAFETY. AND OUR ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY SPELLS OUT THAT THESE ARE THE ITEMS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AND YOU, AS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, SHOULD CONSIDER WHEN CONSIDERING A MASS GATHERING EVENT SUCH AS THIS. IN ADDITION, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH AS PART OF THE MASS GATHERING ONCE IT'S APPROVED. A LOT OF IT IS KIND OF REDUNDANT WITH WHAT YOU SAW ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, BUT FOR ANY FOOD SUPPLY ITEMS, THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH COUNTY AND STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER SUPPLY. THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE WATER, DRINKABLE WATER FOR ATTENDEES. THERE HAS TO BE A PROVISION OF ADEQUATE TOILET FACILITIES. THEY HAVE TO HAVE READILY ACCESSIBLE GARBAGE AND RECYCLING COLLECTION. THEY HAVE TO HAVE PROPER SANITARY PRACTICES SO THAT THERE'S NO VERMIN ISSUES. IN TERMS OF SAFETY, THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS, THE GROUNDS AND FACILITIES. EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE KEPT IN IN A SAFE, NOT CREATE ANY SORT OF HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS. IT ALSO APPLIES TO TRAFFIC AND SECURITY COORDINATION WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ADEQUATE COMMUNICATION WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT. THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE MEDICAL SERVICES. THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY COMPLY WITH ANY, ANY NOISE REGULATIONS. I WILL NOTE THAT OUR NOISE ORDINANCE DOES STIPULATE THAT FOR EVENTS SUCH AS THIS, WHEN THERE IS MUSIC AND SUCH THERE IS AN EXEMPTION FROM THE NOISE FOR THOSE KINDS OF EVENTS, IF IT'S APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL, NUMBER 9 IS AREA AND SITE CONDITIONS. AND THAT REFERS TO PRESERVING ANY LANDSCAPING VEGETATION AND KEEPING THE AREA FREE FROM HEALTH OR SAFETY HAZARDS. AGAIN, LIGHTING THAT APPLIES TO EVENTS AT NIGHT. AND THEN THERE HAS TO BE ADEQUATE LIGHTING. IF IT'S A. IF IT'S DURING NIGHTTIME HOURS FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH AN A TABC REGULATIONS. AND IN THE CASE OF A TICKETED EVENT, ONCE THEY ARE AWARE IF IT'S GOING TO BE SOLD OUT, IT DOES REQUIRE ADVANCE NOTICE. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY. SO FAR WE HAVE RECEIVED 3 RESPONSES FROM OUR NOTIFICATION OF THIS EVENT TO WITHIN 200FT THAT ARE OPPOSED. AND WE HAD ONE WRITTEN RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OUTSIDE THE 300 FOOT BUFFER. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. MAYBE JUST ONE QUICK ONE FOR STAFF, I GUESS, POINT OF CLARIFICATION, BECAUSE I KNOW THIS EVENT WAS I THINK IT OCCURRED LAST FALL AS WELL. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THE REASON WE'RE SEEING AN APPLICATION THIS TIME IS THAT THE SCALE OF THE EVENT LAST FALL WAS SOMEWHAT SMALLER THAN THE ANTICIPATED AND REQUESTED SCALE OF THE EVENT WITHIN THIS APPLICATION. IS THAT, I GUESS. IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK BOTH THE SCALE AND IN TERMS OF THE REQUESTED SETBACKS AROUND THE SITE. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. AND IN THIS CASE IT'S PRIMARILY NUMBER OF ATTENDEES THAT THEY ARE PLANNING FOR. THEY WORKED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK TO KEEP THEIR ATTENDANCE UNDER THE 1000 ATTENDEES AT ANY GIVEN POINT DURING THE EVENT [00:10:06] LAST YEAR THAT ALLOWED THEM TO HAVE WHAT WHAT'S CLASSIFIED AS AN ACCESSORY MASS GATHERING EVENT ON THE THE THE PROPERTY. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE? I HAD A QUESTION. YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THE NOISE REQUIREMENTS ARE WAIVED OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IS THERE ANY RESTRICTIONS FROM A NOISE PERSPECTIVE FOR THESE TYPE OF GATHERINGS OR IS IT JUST IT'S WAIVED? I IT'S, IT'S, I MEAN, IT, IT IS EXEMPTED FROM THE NOISE ORDINANCE IF THERE'S THERE'S MUSIC AND LIVE PERFORMANCES, AND IF IT'S APPROVED THAT WAY BY CITY COUNCIL. AND THE THAT THAT IS A CONSIDERATION THAT IS MADE AND P&Z RECOMMENDATION ON THIS AND COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION OF THE EVENT ITSELF AS TO WHAT THEY THINK THE NOISE IMPACTS ARE. AND THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, CONSIDER TIMING OR EXTENT OF ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD HAVE THE IMPACT OF EXCESSIVE NOISE OR NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AS PART OF YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE EVENT. BUT THE THE NATURE OF THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, THEY GENERALLY, YOU KNOW, EITHER HAVE SOMETIMES OUTDOOR MUSIC RELATED TO THEM OR OTHER TYPES OF ACTIVITIES THAT THAT CAN GENERATE NOISE. AND IF THE EVENT IS APPROVED, THEN THE SCOPE AND ACTIVITIES WITH THE EVENT AS HOWEVER THEY ARE FRAMED UP ARE IN ESSENCE APPROVED AND ARE GRANTED WHATEVER EXEMPTION THOSE NOISE MEASUREMENTS MIGHT LEAD TO. OKAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY, GOOD. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE FOR THIS ITEM TONIGHT? DO YOU MIND JUST COMING UP STATING NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? ANDANYINTRO I GUESS YOU WANT TO DO FOR US? I AM APRIL JASON, AND I'M ONE OF THE CO-FOUNDERS OF PRIDE KEL-SO. OKAY. AND MAYBE JUST ANY CONTEXT BEHIND IT SOUNDS LIKE THE EVENT OCCURRED LAST YEAR AND IT WAS KIND OF A SCALE OF, I GUESS, A THOUSAND OR LESS, WHICH FELL BENEATH OUR SUP REQUIREMENT. I GUESS IT SOUNDS LIKE THE REQUEST THIS TIME IS FOR GREATER THAN THAT, I GUESS. CAN YOU MAYBE JUST COMMENT ON THE REQUEST FOR IT TO BE GREATER, AND I GUESS THE SETBACKS TO BE SMALLER. AND I GUESS JUST MAYBE MORE CONTEXT BEHIND THAT PART OF IT. WE WANTED TO AT LEAST PREPARE FOR UP TO 2500. WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO IDEA. LAST YEAR WAS THE 1ST YEAR, AND JUST WITH EVENTS LIKE THIS, THEY TEND TO GROW EVERY YEAR. SO IT WAS JUST SPEAKING WITH OTHER ORGANIZERS OF SIMILAR EVENTS. THIS IS THE NUMBER THAT WE CAME UP WITH THAT WE FELT WAS SAFE. OKAY. AND YOU, I GUESS, SELL TICKETS FOR THESE EVENTS. THEY'RE FREE. TRACK. PEOPLE CAN GIVE A DONATION FOR A TICKET, BUT IT'S MOSTLY JUST TO HAVE PEOPLE REGISTERED. SO WE HAVE A WAY TO TRACK HOW MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY SHOW UP. THE COUNT OF PEOPLE ON THE SITE AT ANY 1 TIME. OKAY, OKAY. ANY OTHER. AND I ALSO YEAH, SORRY. I DO WANT TO SAY WE DID MOVE THE STAGE TO THE PARKING LOT TO BE MORE RESPECTFUL OF THE RESIDENTS. WE HAD NEVER DONE ANYTHING LIKE THIS BEFORE LAST YEAR, SO WE LEARNED A LOT OF LESSONS AND THAT WAS 1 OF THEM. WE DID NOT WANT TO HAVE THAT SOUND THAT CLOSE TO THE RESIDENTS. SO WE ARE MOVING THE STAGE TO THE PARKING LOT FOR THAT REASON. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OKAY, MAYBE 1 QUICK 1, I GUESS. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU KNOW, WE'LL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, WE'LL KIND OF DELIBERATE UP HERE, BUT I GUESS IT SOUNDS LIKE AND WE CAN MAYBE ASK CHIEF CASEY LATER, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE I GUESS I THINK THE CITY WOULD WOULD PREFER, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE SCALE OF THE EVENT THAT THERE'S INTERACTION WITH THE, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, GIVEN THAT NOT NOT JUST FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT, BUT JUST FROM DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC, THINGS LIKE THAT. IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY WERE ON SITE LAST YEAR AND THAT WAS HELPFUL RELATIVE TO THE LOGISTICS. SO I GUESS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE OKAY? I AM DEFINITELY OPEN TO HAVING MEETINGS AND DISCUSSING WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. LAST YEAR AFTER OUR EVENT, THE MAYOR OF SOUTHLAKE PUT OUT A TWEET THAT SAID AND PUT IT ALL OVER FACEBOOK THAT SAID THAT THEY WERE NOT THERE FOR US. THEY WERE NOT THERE TO PROTECT US. THEY WERE JUST THERE FOR THE RESIDENTS NEARBY. AND THAT WAS VERY UPSETTING. I CAN ONLY COMMENT ON WHAT CHIEF CASEY HAS KIND OF TOLD US IN WORK SESSION, WHICH IS THERE. THEY ARE THERE TO PROVIDE SAFETY, TRAFFIC AND BOTTOM LINE, THIS IS PART OF THE CITY, SO THEY HAVE TO BE THERE IN ORDER TO JUST HELP. YES. AND I'M DEFINITELY I'M READY FOR MEETINGS WITH THE POLICE. [00:15:07] SPEAKERS] FOR EVERYONE'S BENEFIT. YES. AND I HAVE BEEN OUT OF TOWN. I KNOW THAT THEY SENT ME OVER THE NEW, LIKE A NEW LINK TO PAY THE INVOICE. SO THAT WILL BE PAID THIS WEEK FROM LAST YEAR. OKAY. SO. YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH. I HAD ONE MORE QUESTION. I KNOW THE APPLICANT, THEY SAID THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE NO ALCOHOL SALES. IS THAT STILL OKAY? YES. WE DECIDED TO GET RID OF THAT HEADACHE. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL CALL YOU BACK UP IF IF NEEDED. ITEM NUMBER 8 ON OUR AGENDA DOES CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS, SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THAT PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? AND SEEING NO ONE I GUESS I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MAYBE JUST, I GUESS. CHIEF CASEY, DO YOU MIND JUST I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S MOST HELPFUL IF YOUR DEPARTMENT IS KIND OF INVOLVED ON THE FRONT END, I GUESS. I'M ASSUMING THAT WOULD BE THE PREFERENCE FROM YOUR STANDPOINT, IS THAT THAT CORRECT? JUST. YES. IT'S, IT'S CUSTOMARY FOR ANY SPECIAL EVENTS FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY FOR US TO INTERACT WITH THE ORGANIZER. AND THAT'S WHAT WE PREFER BECAUSE THAT ALLOWS US TO PLAN AHEAD OF TIME AND REALLY WORK TO UNDERSTAND IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES TO SCALE, THE FOOTPRINT, HOW THAT WORKS, AND HOW WE CAN REALLY DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF PERSONNEL THAT WE MIGHT NEED FOR SCHEDULING PURPOSES AND STAFFING PURPOSES. AND AGAIN, IN THE SPIRIT OF NOT JUST PROVIDING PUBLIC SAFETY, BUT TRAFFIC, LOGISTICS, KIND OF ROADWAYS, ETC., PEDESTRIAN WAY. OKAY. OKAY. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE? I MEAN, I, I GUESS I WOULD JUST COMMENT THAT I GUESS IT SOUNDS LIKE THE EVENT OCCURRED LAST YEAR AND FROM STAFF'S COMMENTS AT THAT SCALE AT THIS LOCATION SOUNDS LIKE GENERALLY WAS FACILITATED. I GUESS THE REQUEST HERE IS FOR AN INCREASED SCALE OF ABOUT 2 AND A HALF TIMES PUSHING THE BUFFERS BACK. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, DENNIS, I GUESS JUST KIND OF RECALLING HERE SPECIAL USE PERMITS. I MEAN, GENERALLY IT SEEMS LIKE I'M TRYING TO THINK THROUGH THEM. WE'VE GENERALLY PROVIDED THEM IN AREAS THAT ARE KIND OF MORE COMMERCIAL IN NATURE AND OR ADJACENT TO KIND OF LARGE SCALE, YOU KNOW, 4 LANE OR 6 LANE ROADS. IS THAT FAIR? YES, THE, THE EVENTS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE PAST UNDER THE MASS GATHERING EVENT SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, I BELIEVE ALL HAVE BEEN BOUNDED BY ARTERIAL LEVEL STREETS AND LESS RESIDENTIAL AREAS. I MEAN LESS, LESS ADJACENCY TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREAS. OKAY, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THE APPLICANT HERE. I GUESS THEIR, THEIR CHOICES COULD BE LIKE THEY ARE APPLYING FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A GATHERING THAT'S OVER A 1000 AND PLANNING ACCORDINGLY, LIKE WHAT'S PRESENTED HERE, OR PLANNING FOR GATHERING LESS THAN A 1000 AND NOT NOT REQUESTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. GENERALLY SPEAKING, I KNOW THERE'S SOME BUFFER CONSIDERATIONS AS WELL. CORRECT. AND AND ONE OF THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES IS IF THE EVENT CAN BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE THE AREA OF THE PROPERTY WITH AT LEAST A 200 FOOT DESIGNATED BUFFER AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE, OF THE EVENT AREA. AND THAT'S GENERALLY WHAT HAPPENED LAST YEAR. CORRECT. GENERALLY. YES. AND LAST YEAR, HOWEVER THEY, THEY, YOU KNOW, PARTS OF WHERE THE EVENT WAS SET UP PROBABLY WAS NOT OUTSIDE OF THAT 200 FOOT BUFFER, BUT THE WAY THEY MANAGE THEIR REGISTRATION AND ENTRY INTO THE EVENT, THEY STAYED WITHIN THAT LESS THAN 1000 ATTENDEES THROUGHOUT THE TIME FRAME OF THE EVENT. OKAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ANY DELIBERATION, COMMENTS OR. I JUST WANT TO COMMENT. I MEAN, SINCE IT ISN'T MORE OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA, I DO LIKE THAT THEY'RE SHUTTLING PEOPLE IN RATHER THAN BRINGING ALL THE TRAFFIC IN THE CARS ON THIS ROAD. YEAH. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION? ALL RIGHT. CASE ZA26-0037. SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED AUGUST 20TH OF 2026 AND SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC USE REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER [00:20:07] 2 DATED AUGUST 14TH, 2026. OKAY. DENNIS, I THINK WE GOT A MOTION THERE. YES, SIR. OKAY. WE GOT A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY, LET'S VOTE PLEASE. PASSES 5-1. AND WHAT WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT IS THIS RECOMMENDATION WILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL AND I'M ASSUMING THAT MEETING WOULD BE ON. WOULD THAT BE ON SEPTEMBER 15TH OR WOULD THAT BE. ON SEPTEMBER 15TH YES. OKAY. SO IT WOULD BE THE KIND OF THE DELAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR COMING OUT TONIGHT. OKAY. NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 9 ON OUR AGENDA, WHICH IS A ZONING CHANGE AND SITE PLAN FOR MULINO RISTORANTE PROBABLY SAID THAT TERRIBLY. [9. Consider: ZA26-0044, Zoning Change and Site Plan for Mulino Ristorante, on property described as Lot 4, T. Thompson Addition No. 1502 and located at 1125 Davis Boulevard. Current Zoning: “S-P-1” Detailed Site Plan District. Requested Zoning: “S-P-1” Detailed Site Plan District. SPIN Neighborhood #10. Applicant: Jeff VanCuren, Halbach Dietz Architects. Property Owner: Marc Rhima, Rig Properties, LLC. PUBLIC HEARING] NOT ITALIAN, AS YOU CAN TELL. NO. ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING. I'LL BE PRESENTING ITEM NUMBER NINE9, WHICH IS ZONING CHANGE AND SITE PLAN FOR MULINO RISTORANTE. SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO SEEK APPROVAL OF A ZONING CHANGE AND SITE PLAN FOR A 522 SQUARE FOOT ENCLOSED PATIO. HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY. THE FUTURE LAND USE IS RETAIL COMMERCIAL. CURRENT ZONING IS S-P-1. HERE IS A STREET VIEW FROM THE PARKING LOT LOOKING EAST. HERE'S ANOTHER STREET VIEW FROM WEST CONTINENTAL BOULEVARD LOOKING NORTH. AND HERE IS THEIR CURRENTLY APPROVED SITE PLAN. HERE'S THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN SHOWING OUTLINE THERE IN RED. THE PROPOSED 522 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION WHERE THEY'RE JUST ENCLOSING THE EXISTING OUTDOOR PATIO. AND HERE IS A FLOOR PLAN. HERE IS THE SOUTHEAST ELEVATION AGAIN SHOWING THE EXISTING ON THE LEFT AND THE PROPOSED ON THE RIGHT. THE SOUTH ELEVATION AND THE SOUTHWEST ELEVATION. TO THIS DATE WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNER KNOW, RESPONSES AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE? ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT FOR THIS ITEM? IF YOU DON'T MIND NAME AND ADDRESS. GREAT. IT'S JEFF VANCUREN WITH HALBACH DIETZ ARCHITECTS AND THE PROPERTY OWNER, MARK RHIMA IS ALSO HERE. OKAY. IS THE. JUST CURIOUS, THE IF YOU GO TO THE EXTERIOR VIEW AGAIN, IF STAFF CAN KIND OF GO TO THAT ONE. ARE THOSE ARE THOSE MEANT TO BE KIND OF OPEN? SORRY. THE RENDERING. SORRY I'M SAYING THIS POORLY THERE. THANK YOU. ARE THOSE MEANT TO BE TEMPORARY TO WHERE LIKE IN GOOD WEATHER THEY OPEN UP OR. NO. OKAY. NO. THIS IS FULLY ENCLOSED. FOR THE BRICK MATCHES THE EXISTING BUILDING BRICK AND THE STOREFRONT WINDOWS THAT YOU SEE THERE MATCH THE EXISTING STOREFRONT WINDOWS. OPEN. CORRECT. FULLY CLIMATE CONTROLLED. OKAY. CORRECT. CONTRACT. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 9 ON OUR AGENDA DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. AND SEEING NO ONE, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 9 ON OUR AGENDA, CASE ZA26-0044, SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT DATED AUGUST 14TH OF 2026 AND SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY NUMBER TWO DATED AUGUST 14TH OF 2026. MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL RIGHT. I VOTE. PASSES 6-0. CONGRATULATIONS. GOOD LUCK. AND NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING. DENNIS SEPTEMBER 15TH. STILL ALL RIGHT. THERE YOU GO. OKAY. SAILING ALONG HERE. WE'RE ON THE LAST ITEM OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA NUMBER 10. [10. Consider: ZA26-0054, Zoning Change and Concept Plan for 4060 N. White Chapel Boulevard on property described as Tract 16, R.D. Price Survey Abstract No. 992A. Current Zoning: “AG” Agricultural District. Requested Zoning: “SF-30” Single Family Residential District. SPIN Neighborhood #1. Applicant and Property Owner: Amanda Hellman. PUBLIC HEARING] CONSIDERATION OF ZONING CHANGE CONCEPT PLAN FOR 4060 NORTH WHITECHAPEL BOULEVARD. GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSION. THIS IS ITEM 10 ZONING CHANGE AND CONCEPT PLAN FOR 4060 NORTH WHITECHAPEL BOULEVARD. THE REQUEST IS FOR ZONING CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO SF-30 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. THIS AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR RAINEY COURT AND OFF OF WEST BOB JONES AND NORTH WHITECHAPEL BOULEVARD. [00:25:02] THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY UNPLATTED. THE FUTURE LAND USE IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND THE REQUESTED ZONING WILL NOT INCREASE THE DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY OF THE PROPERTY AND IT WILL REMAIN A LOW INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL USE. CURRENT ZONING IS AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. THIS IS A PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN, NOTING THAT IT'S A LITTLE BIT UNDER ONE ACRE. SO IT'S FOR THE REQUESTED FOR THE 30,000 SQUARE FOOT ZONING. GENERALLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS. THIS IS A PROPOSED DRAINAGE PLAN. AND AS OF NOW, THERE ARE NO SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNER RESPONSES AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. SO JUST CONFIRMING AGAIN, I GUESS THIS THERE WILL BE ONE HOME ON THIS LOT. YES, SIR. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WELL SO DOES THIS GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY IF LATER ON THEY DECIDE THEY WANT TO TEAR THIS HOUSE DOWN AND TURN THE WHOLE THING INTO SF-30? IS THAT POSSIBLE OR IS IT MANDATED? THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE DWELLING UNIT THERE. YEAH. THE THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR FURTHER SUBDIVISION OF THIS UNDER THE SF-30 ZONING DESIGNATION. AND THE ONLY REASON WE'VE REQUIRED THEM TO STAY AS CLOSELY ALIGNED WITH THE LAND USE PLAN AS POSSIBLE THAT WE'VE REQUIRED THEM TO DO THE SF-30 IS BECAUSE BY THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPERTY, IT DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM AREA REQUIREMENTS OF THE SF-1A, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING. AND THAT'S THE SOLE REASON THEY'RE ASKING FOR THAT SF-30 THE THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS TO GO TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND ASK FOR SOME VARIANCES TO SOME OF THE REGULATIONS RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION AND AGRICULTURAL ZONING. THEY'VE CHOSEN TO TAKE THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS VERSUS A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE PROCESS. GREAT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO THEY MISSED IT BY 3 SQUARE FEET. IS THAT RIGHT? I MEAN THE SITE AS IT'S CURRENTLY. BASED ON THE GROSS AREA. AND ASSUMING THAT THE PLAT AND WHAT THEY'RE REFLECTING THERE IS. NET AREA OF WHAT HAS BEEN OR IS BEING DEDICATED FOR THE NORTH WHITE CHAPEL AND, AND WEST BOB JONES RIGHT OF WAY. BUT YES, NONETHELESS, IT IS NOT 43,560.0FT². YES. AND AS I SAID, THE SF-30 REQUIRES MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF AT LEAST 30,000FT² OR GREATER, AND THIS LOT COULD NOT BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED UNDER THAT ZONING DESIGNATION. IT WILL STILL RESULT IN ONLY 1 DWELLING UNIT AS THE TRACT CURRENTLY EXISTS. AND I WAS JUST GOING TO CLARIFY, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE ORIENTING TOWARDS RAINEY COURT SO THAT THE INGRESS AND EGRESS WILL BE ON RAINEY COURT, NOT ONTO WHITECHAPEL OR WEST. BOB JONES. THAT IS CORRECT. AND OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND DRIVEWAY ORDINANCE PROVIDES US THE ABILITY TO RESTRICT DRIVEWAY ACCESS ONTO COLLECTOR AND ARTERIAL ROADS WHERE THEY HAVE ACCESS TO A LOCAL STREET. AND SO ONE OF THE COMMENTS IN OUR REVIEW IS TO PLACE NOTATION ON THIS AS WELL AS THE, THE PLAT SINGLE LOT PLAT THAT THEY'VE SUBMITTED THAT NO DRIVEWAY ACCESS IS PERMITTED TO WEST BOB JONES OR NORTH WHITE CHAPEL BOULEVARD. ALL ACCESS WOULD BE REQUIRED UNDER RAINEY COURT. AND ARE THE BUILDING SETBACKS DIFFERENT FOR SF-30 THAN SF-1A. YES, THEY ARE ON FRONT YARD SETBACKS. SF-30 IS A 35 FOOT. IT IS THE SAME AS SF-1 ON BOTH THE REAR YARD AND THE. THE SIDE YARD REAR YARD IS 40FT SO THAT IN THIS CASE WOULD BE. NORTH. WHITECHAPEL WILL BE A 40 FOOT MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENT AND ON THE INTERIOR LOT WOULD BE 20 FOOT, WHICH IS SAME AS SF ONE RAINEY COURT AND BOB JONES, IF THEY SO CHOSE, CAN BE A MINIMUM 35 FOOT. WE'VE STATED IN OUR REVIEW COMMENT INFORMATION FOR THEM TO SHOW THOSE BUILDING [00:30:04] LINES AND THAT IF THEY SO CHOOSE, THEY COULD MAKE THEM 40 THIS PLAN, WHICH I'M NOT SURE THAT WE HAD WHEN THIS REVIEW WAS PREPARED, IS SHOWING A 20 FOOT SIDE YARD ON WEST BOB JONES AND THE MINIMUM IS 35FT. THE COMMISSION CAN RECOMMEND A REDUCTION UP TO THAT 20 FOOT, IF YOU SO CHOOSE TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL. AND COUNCIL WOULD HAVE THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY IF THEY SO WISH TO REDUCE IT TO THAT 20FT, BUT IT WILL REQUIRE COUNCIL ACTION TO DO THAT. WE'VE. WE'VE REQUIRED THAT THEY PROVIDE AT LEAST THE MINIMUM 35 FOOT AND OFFERED TO THEM IF THEY WANT TO MATCH WHAT THE ADJOINING ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL LOTS TO THEM HAVE IS BUILT AT THE 40 FOOT. OKAY, SO THERE'S TO ME THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE 35FT SETBACK FROM BOB JONES AND RAINEY COURT. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING HERE WOULD BE A VARIANCE TO THE SF-30, THE WEST? BOB JONES? YES. WOULD REQUIRE A APPROVAL OR RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMISSION AND APPROVAL BY THE COUNCIL TO REDUCE IT TO THAT 20 FOOT. SO ARE WE JUST APPROVING THE REZONING? ARE WE APPROVING THIS ACTUAL SITE PLAN IN FRONT OF US HERE? IF WE JUST THIS IS A ZONING CHANGE AND CONCEPT PLAN. SO YOU ARE TAKING ACTION ON BOTH POINT. POINT BEING, IF YOUR THOUGHT IS THE. I GUESS IS THAT SIDE SIDE LINE ON. YEAH, WE'LL SAY THAT BASED ON THE ZONING THEY'RE ASKING FOR, WE CANNOT REQUIRE OR MANDATE THAT THEY PROVIDE 40FT. THEY COULD AGREE TO DO THAT IF THEY JUST WANT TO MATCH THE ADJOINING RESIDENCE. BUT THAT IS NOT SOMETHING WE CAN REQUIRE. IF THE ZONING IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. OKAY. BUT THEY BASICALLY HAVE 2 FRONT LINES BECAUSE OF THE CORNER. SO BOB JONES AND RAINEY COURT WOULD REQUIRE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. THAT IS CORRECT. HOWEVER, THE SUBDIVISION OR EXCUSE ME, THE ZONING ORDINANCE UNDER YARD DEFINITIONS ALLOWS FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON FINAL PLATS THAT YOU ARE THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON TO GRANT A REDUCTION TO A SIDE YARD ADJACENT TO A STREET UP TO WHAT? THE MINIMUM DISTRICT SETBACK IS FOR A SIDE YARD. AND IN THE CASE THAT COUNCIL REQUIRES ACTION, THAT AUTHORITY IS DEFERRED TO THE COUNCIL AND IS TYPICALLY A RECOMMENDING BODY. PRIOR TO THAT, GOING FORWARD AND A REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL. SO, COMMISSIONER WE CAN ASK THE APPLICANT, BUT I GUESS ON THE SIDELINE WHAT WOULD YOU LEAN TOWARDS. IS 30FT 35 OR. I MEAN WHICH WHICH IT'S A GOOD IT'S A GOOD CATCH. YEAH. I MEAN I DON'T HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM WITH 20FT FROM BOB JONES. I WOULD THINK THAT WHOEVER BUILDS THAT HOUSE IS GOING TO WANT TO BE FURTHER FROM THAT ANYWAY. YEAH, THAT'S I WAS THINKING FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, BUT MAYBE WE CAN JUST TALK TO THE APPLICANT. I HAD A QUESTION. WHAT IS THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET? ACROSS RAINEY COURT. IS THAT A 40 FOOT SETBACK? WELL, DENNIS, YOU KNOW THESE THINGS ACROSS ACROSS RAINEY COURT OR ACROSS BOB JONES. ACROSS RAINEY COURT. YES. THOSE ARE 40 FOOT SETBACKS. SO AND I DO NOT I CAN LOOK VERY QUICKLY TO SEE IF THEY WERE GRANTED ANY REDUCTION ALONG BOB JONES. IT WOULD TAKE ME JUST A SECOND. DENNIS, MAYBE WHILE YOU DO THAT, MAYBE WE CAN CALL THE APPLICANT THAT DID NOT HAVE A REDUCTION ALONG BOB JONES ON RAINEY COURT, BOTH THEIR YARDS ADJACENT TO THE STREET ARE 40FT ON RAINEY COURT. OKAY. OKAY. [00:35:04] OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IS THE APPLICANT HERE THIS EVENING FOR THIS ITEM? IF YOU DON'T MIND. NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I'M VINCENT O'CONNOR WITH SHAMROCK CUSTOM HOMES. I LIVE AT 7802 ARTHUR DRIVE IN NORTH RICHLAND HILLS. THE APPLICANT OWNER IS ALSO HERE. AMANDA HELLMAN. OKAY. YOU HEARD THE CONVERSATION REGARDING THE, YOU KNOW, THE SIDELINE AND THE FRONT LINE, I GUESS ANYTHING I GUESS YOU WOULD YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO TO PLEDGE ON THAT. YEAH. SO WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN WORKING WITH ARCHITECTURES AND WE'VE HAD IT AT THE 35 FOOT LINE ANYWAYS. THAT'S WHAT WE THOUGHT THAT IT WAS AT. ON THE SIDE. WE JUST OVERLOOKED THIS 20 FOOT ON THIS APPLICATION. YEAH. SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM AT ALL MOVING THAT SIDE. BOB JONES BACK TO 35 FOOT. OKAY. 35 OKAY. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE TWEAKED IN A COUNCIL PRESENTATION. SO I THINK WE CAN NOTE THAT IN A MOTION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. SO BASICALLY FELL 3 SQUARE FOOT SHORT. YEAH. OKAY. WELL, WE'LL CALL YOU BACK UP IF WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 10 ON OUR AGENDA DOES CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THIS PUBLIC HEARING. AND I HAVE A COMMENT CARD FROM A DAVID THOMAS 4429 SADDLE RIDGE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM. FEEL FREE TO COME ON UP, SIR. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. AND I'M DAVID THOMAS 4429 SADDLE RIDGE. AND I'M I DON'T KNOW, ABOUT 400FT FROM THERE. BEEN THERE SINCE 95. GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD, GREAT AREA. AND WE'RE I'LL START OFF SAYING WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO GETTING ANOTHER NEIGHBOR. WE LOVE NEW NEIGHBORS. WE LOVE PEOPLE BUILDING THEIR DREAM HOME. IT'S A GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT WHAT'S KIND OF STIRRED THE LOCAL POPULACE IS THIS CHANGING FROM SF-1 TO SF-130. WE HAVE FOR, YOU KNOW, YEARS, WE'VE WATCHED THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVOLVE LOW DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL, 1 DEVELOPMENT THAT WANT TO CHANGE IT TO MID DENSITY. BUT, YOU KNOW, WITH THE CITY'S HELP AND LOTS OF EFFORT AND LOTS OF EXPENSE IS KEPT AT LOW DENSITY, I FEEL BAD FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER AND. HOWEVER, THIS DEAL HAPPENED TO GET 99% OF 1 ACRE. BUT I WOULD SAY IF THERE'S ANY WAY TO KEEP THIS SF-1, THE LOW DENSITY I DON'T THINK YOU'LL GET ANY OPPOSITION. I GOT PROBABLY 20 TEXTS FROM NEIGHBORS TODAY, AND SOMEHOW I'VE BEEN ELECTED THE AD HOC SPOKESPERSON FOR THE NORTH NEIGHBORHOOD. AND NO ONE'S OPPOSED TO THAT. BUT WHEN YOU CHANGE IT TO THIS NEW CLASSIFICATION, THAT'S MEDIUM LOW DENSITY. I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT CAME FROM. I THINK YOU'LL SEE A PRETTY VOCAL OPPOSITION AT THE NEXT MEETING. AND, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. WE WANT TO LIVE IN PEACE, BUT IT KEEPS ENCROACHING ON THE LOW DENSITY. AND NOW THE DEFINITION IS CHANGING A LITTLE BIT. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CARVE OFF ANOTHER 3 FEET AND YOU RE-ENGINEER IT, OR YOU DO THE THE VARIANCE THAT YOU SPOKE ABOUT. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD SOLUTION. I THINK THERE'S SEVERAL SOLUTIONS OTHER THAN SETTING A PRECEDENT OF CHANGING IT TO THIS MEDIUM LOW DENSITY. AND THEN I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A, YOU KNOW, TIME CONSUMING AND, YOU KNOW, ARDUOUS EFFORT. SO WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO DO THAT, WE WELCOME A NEW NEIGHBOR, BUT WE JUST, WE DON'T WANT TO KEEP SKATING BACK TO THE SLIPPERY SLOPE OF GOING AWAY FROM LOW DENSITY. YOU ALL HAVE WORKED WAY TOO HARD. AND THE CITY HAS TO PUT THIS, YOU KNOW, GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. AND NOW IT JUST KEEPS GETTING KIND OF POKED. SO WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO KEEP THAT, WE, YOU KNOW, WE WELCOME A NEW NEIGHBOR, BUT JUST WE DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS MEDIUM LOW DENSITY THAT CAME FROM LEFT FIELD. SO ANYWAYS, APPRECIATE YOUR HELP ON IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING OUT. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER 10 REMAINS OPEN TO ANYONE ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND COMMENT. AND SEEING NO ONE, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, I GUESS, DENNIS, YOU KIND OF TOUCHED ON THAT ALREADY, BUT I MEAN, I GUESS IN TERMS OF WHAT THE PUBLIC COMMENT WAS, I MEAN, AGAIN, I GUESS WE HAVE COMFORT THAT THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE HOME ON THIS LOT, EVEN IF THE CURRENT HOMES DESTROYED. AND THEN I GUESS THIS WON'T IF THIS GOES FORWARD, THIS WOULDN'T PLAY A ROLE IN ANY OTHER SUBSEQUENT POTENTIAL APPROVALS AROUND IT. [00:40:08] I MEAN, IS THAT FAIR OR. THAT IS FAIR. I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE PERCEPTION. AND IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, WE REACHED OUT TO OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO SEE, YOU KNOW, THEIR VIEW ON ASKING FOR A ZONING THAT THE REGULATION OF THE ZONING, THE PROPERTY DOES NOT MEET THE CHARACTERISTICS OF. AND THEY RECOMMENDED THAT SINCE WE HAVE A DISTRICT THAT IT FITS, THAT THEY SHOULD IF THEY WISH TO DEVELOP UNDER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING. ZONING DESIGNATION THAT THEY BRING FOR AN APPLICATION THAT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPERTY FIT ALL THE REGULATIONS OF THAT DISTRICT. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPERTY AND THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ZONING THEY'RE ASKING FOR DOES NOT AFFORD THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP IN A DENSITY THAT IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. THEY CANNOT GET MORE THAN 1 DWELLING UNIT BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF LAND AREA THAT THEY HAVE TO WORK WITH, WITHOUT GOING TO A MORE INTENSE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IN NEXT LINE WOULD BE SF-20. AND SO WITH THAT VIEW IN MIND. IT'S OUR OPINION AND HOPEFULLY, HOPEFULLY THE COMMISSION AND COUNCIL'S FINDINGS THAT THAT THE REQUEST SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS WITH THAT LOW DENSITY CLASSIFICATION. IT DOES NOT AFFORD THEM THE ABILITY TO HAVE ANY HIGHER DENSITY THAN ONE DWELLING UNIT ON THIS PROPERTY. YEAH. NO, I'M DEFINITELY SYMPATHETIC TO WHAT THE NEIGHBOR WAS REFERENCING AND JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS ISN'T INFLUENCING ANY FUTURE APPROVALS AND OR OPENING ANY KIND OF PANDORA'S BOX. WE'RE NOT INTENDING TO DO SO. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO. I WOULD JUST HOPE THAT THE MESSAGE WOULD GET OUT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 3 SQUARE FEET. AND IT'S A IT'S A DIFFERENCE WITH NO DISTINCTION. AND SO TO BELAY THAT AND HAVE PEOPLE COME UP HERE AND COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT IS DISAPPOINTING AT AT BEST. SO I HOPE THAT. BUT THEN AGAIN, CONFIRMING. IT'S NOT SETTING ANY PRECEDENTS. CORRECT. YEAH. OKAY. RIGHT. THERE'S NOT ANY WAY TO KIND OF SNEAK ANYTHING PAST AND. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION? I WANT TO BE CLEAR ON ONE THING. YES, SIR. WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE BOB JONES. WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE BOB JONES INCREASING TO 35FT, NOT THE THE I GUESS THAT WOULD BE THE THE OTHER SIDE SIDELINE. YEAH. THAT'S THE ONLY ONE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE, THE, THE WEST BOB JONES. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THAT. I THINK THAT'S FAIR. YEAH. AND OBVIOUSLY I THINK BY CALLING IT OUT ON THEIR CITY COUNCIL WILL BE FOCUSED ON IT TOO. AND IF THEY HAVE FURTHER THOUGHTS, THEY CAN MAKE THEM OKAY. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. IN THAT CASE, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 10 ON OUR AGENDA, CASE ZA-260054, SUBJECT TO STAFF REPORT DATED AUGUST 14TH OF 2026 AND SUBJECT TO CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 2 DATED AUGUST 14TH OF 2026. NOTING THE APPLICANT'S WILLINGNESS TO EXPAND THE 20 FOOT, THE PRESENTLY SHOWN 20 FOOT SIDE LINE ADJACENT TO WEST BOB JONES ROAD TO 35FT. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. GO AND VOTE, PLEASE. AND PASSES 6-0. CONGRATULATIONS. AND THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON THIS WILL BE THE SEPTEMBER 15TH DAY. SO PLEASE FEEL FREE. YOU KNOW, YOU'LL YOU'LL PROBABLY GET SOME OF THE SAME QUESTIONS. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COME UP TO THAT MEETING AS WELL AND VOCALIZE KIND OF THE BROADER INTENT OF, OF YOU KNOW, CONTINUING WHAT WE'VE PROBABLY BEEN DOING UP THERE. SO WITH THAT, THAT ADJOURNS OUR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AND. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.